dan griswold: Page 1
Sam Stein of HuffPost, lacking information, lets speculation run wild (Rand Paul, border fence) - 06/25/10
Sam Stein of Huffington Post offers "Rand Paul's Underground Electric Border Fence Baffles Cornyn, Libertarians" (huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/24/rand-pauls-underground-el_n_624535.html). It's one small step up from something you'd see on "Rock Bottom" (peekURL.com/vt2fh5z).
On his site, Rand Paul says:
Viveca Novak of FactCheck offers "Does Immigration Cost Jobs? /Economists say immigration, legal or illegal, doesn't hurt American workers" (factcheck.org/2010/05/does-immigration-cost-jobs). It's yet another misleading attempt to try to convince people that what they see happening with their own eyes is not happening.
1. It includes this highly misleading claim:
UCLA CAP IPC deceptive study: immigration reform would increase GDP by $1.5 trillion over 10 years - 01/07/10
Earlier today, the Center for American Progress, the Immigration Policy Center, and professor Raul Hinojosa Ojeda of the University of California at Los Angeles released a study making the deceptive and fantastical claim that legalizing all illegal aliens would increase Gross Domestic Product by $1.5 trillion over 10
Napolitano immigration meeting: you weren't represented (vast # of loose borders groups, Obama/Janet anti-287g) - 08/20/09
Earlier today, Janet Napolitano of the Department of Homeland Security held a closed-door meeting with a group of what she calls "stakeholders" (dhs.gov/ynews/releases/pr_1250792978709.shtm) but was actually a vast pantheon (see below) of far-left, racial power, corrupt business, and in general loose borders groups all of which want some form of comprehensive immigration reform, aka amnesty. There were at least 98 participants in the meeting, and none of them represent your interests or the interests of the great majority of American citizens. Why exactly they'd hold the meeting isn't clear; aside from guest workers and minor details they're all pretty much on the same page. Perhaps it was a strategy session to see how they could fool as many people as possible whenever they decide to push for amnesty.
The President said specifically that when it comes to the local police charged with enforcing federal immigration law under 287(g) agreements that he wants these local law enforcement agencies held accountable.
Noorani’s other question concerned the 287g program, which gives local law enforcement the authority to enforce immigration law. Noorani asked Napolitano to revoke the authority of agencies who have clearly violated the spirit of the agreement, and that the immigration reform community looked forward to seeing that happen. Napolitano responded, “Me, too.”
Other statements from those attending the meeting are here. Here's the intro to the DHS's press release:
"Today’s meeting on comprehensive immigration reform was an important opportunity to hear from stakeholders and build on the significant time I’ve spent on the Hill meeting with members of Congress on this critical subject. I look forward to working with President Obama, my colleagues in Congress and representatives from law enforcement, business, labor organizations, the interfaith community, advocacy groups and others as we work on this important issue.”
UPDATE: Griswold of CATO weighs in with a slab of Policy-As-Highschool (cato-at-liberty.org/2009/08/21/the-president-drops-by-to-tout-immigration-reform). After Napolitano gave her "opening remarks we broke up into smaller roundtable discussions of about 15 people each moderated by DHS officials". They then reconvened and Napolitano discussed what they'd learned. Then, Obama entered the building and made his speech "about 20 feet from where I was sitting". Griswold also refers to himself as a "small fish"; he's much too modest since he was some kind of inspiration for Bush's 2004 anti- and un-American guest workers plan.
And, there are so many groups that I've split the list into two parts. The religious, union, city/police, and miscellaneous groups are here. The following has the major groups, the business groups, and the single libertarian:
I already posted this inside another post, but this May 9, 2002 column deserves its own post:
...Near the end of the NRO article Griswold [of the Cato Institute] insists that he is not for "open borders," but his record suggests otherwise. A story in the Christian Science Monitor (August 30, 2000) by Scott Baldauf is particularly revealing. Baldauf describes a new project of the Immigration and Naturalization Service's Border Patrol that specifically targets highly sophisticated criminal smuggling rings that employ infrared scopes, two-way radios, and computer databases. The project goes after smugglers associated with organized crime rather than simply individuals who cross the border illegally.
These criminal gangs have done enormous damage. One gang, headed by Mexican criminal Nick Diaz smuggled about 12,000 foreigners, most of them from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, and India, into the United States. These illegal immigrants paid $20,000 a piece to be placed in safe houses in 38 different states. Senator Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.) praised the new INS/Border Patrol initiative. So too, did Judy Marks, a spokeswoman for the National Immigration Forum, a left-wing advocacy group, that nearly always opposes any form of border control.
But not Dan Griswold of the Cato Institute. Instead, Griswold specifically attacked the new Border Patrol initiative that targets organized crime. Scott Baldauf records Griswold's response as follows: "Noting the INS's new strategy, he sighs, 'It's just another example of government trying to stop people from doing something that is natural, to better their conditions.'" In addition, Baldauf quotes Griswold as declaring: "The problem with illegal immigration is not the immigration; it's that it's illegal..."
Previous coverage in:
More Kato-Aid, senor?
The Cato Institute's Daniel Griswold has a column in Reason Magazine supporting Bush's "guest" worker plan (reason . com/hod/dg120304.shtml) "Beyond the Barbed Wire: Bush won a mandate for immigration reform".
In their Hit & Run post (reason . com/hitandrun/2004/12/new_at_reason_298.shtml) about this article, I left the following comment:
If you have the time, I'd very strongly suggest you watch this video (cato . org/events/040116pf.html). It's 80 Megs, but you can download it first using something like Offline Explorer Pro.
The video features the author of this piece, together with an administration representative discussing Bush's plan.
Of particular note are the statements from the administration rep that Bush's plan:
"...would be open to any type of employee and any type of employer, such as nurses, teachers, high-tech workers, low-skilled workers. This is a concept that can apply broadly"
In other words, they want to invite the world to come to the U.S. to take American jobs. A wet dream for libertarians, a nightmare for everyone else.
On the video, you'll also see Griswold asked whether those "guest" workers will want to vote. He says something similar to: "they'll be too tired working for a few years to think about voting."
At what point in time do other people finally realize that "immigration reformers" just don't seem to get this "American" thing? Or, perhaps their concept of "America" is rooted a couple centuries in the past.
From the article:
Immigration reform is popular with Hispanics
Indeed it is. 47% of Arizona Hispanics voted for Prop. 200. On the other hand, the Open Borders Lobby strongly opposed 200.
Simply throwing more money and manpower at the problem hasn't worked. Since the early 1990s, we've quintupled spending and tripled personnel at the Mexican border. We've built three-tiered walls for 60 miles into the desert. We've imposed sanctions on employers for the first time in U.S. history.
We have? The numbers show that employer sanctions are lower under Bush than even under Clinton. Could those publicly available numbers be lying?
Our existing immigration system is out of step with the realities of American life. Our economy continues to produce opportunities for low-skilled workers in important sectors of our economy such as retail, services, construction, and tourism.
Yes, indeed. Powerful people seem to want to build something akin to manoralism.
Opponents of immigration demand more of the same failed policies: more walls and barbed wire, entire divisions of troops at the border, the massive deportation of undocumented workers at great economic and human cost.
Two - I repeat two - strawmen for the price of one! Someone who wants to restrict legal immigration and/or sharply reduce illegal immigration is not an "opponent of immigration." And, as pointed out by Steven Camarota of CIS at the video referenced above, mass deportations are not necessary: simply follow the existing laws and many illegal immigrants will self-deport and those who intend to come here won't.
The response then was to dramatically increase temporary worker visas under the Bracero program; the result was an equally dramatic decline in illegal immigration.
Illegal immigration rose during and after the Bracero program. That program created an infrastructure and those who couldn't get into the program came anyway.
Legalization would not equal "amnesty." Under the president's plan, legalized workers would not get automatic citizenship or even permanent residency.
Please. As pointed out in the Big Show on the Border, those "guest" workers will have U.S.-citizen children. They'll be here to stay and eventually they'll have to be given rights. Nanci Pelosi and Teddy Kennedy and other "liberals" will see to that.
They would have to pay a fine for having lived here illegally that would not be chump change for low-skilled workers.
That's a relief. Meanwhile, all those thousands of companies that have made billions employing illegal workers will have gotten off scot-free.
Legalization would also enhance our national security.
"Legalization" would give a foreign government even more power over our immigration system than they have now. That's the opposite of "national security." And, as pointed out in Chapter 3 of the 9/11 Commission Staff Report, at least one WTC 1 terrorist tried to take advantage of an earlier amnesty program.
Also see my comments on this other Reason thread (reason . com/hitandrun/2004/11/immigration_in.shtml).
However, with his latest discussion of illegal immigration he's reverted to the usual LAT set of canards and "experts". From "Handouts? Go Beyond the Usual Scapegoats" (link):