harry reid

harry reid: Page 1

Discussed in (click each link for the full post):

Democrats to oppose Koch brothers, just not where they agree with the Democrats - 03/05/14

The Democratic Party will be launching a major effort to make the Koch family a punching bag, starting a digital campaign with the childish slogan, "The G.O.P. is addicted to Koch".

Democratic Convention speakers list and immigration - 09/03/12

Summary

This post has a list of the speakers at the Democratic National Convention and links to more information on their immigration positions when known. There are also a preview of how the immigration issue will be presented at the convention, and some things you can do if you oppose illegal immigration.

Preview

Guy Benson, Ace Mu Nu can't figure things out (Harry Reid, Romney) - 08/05/12

One of the major problems the GOP has is people who can't figure out how to do things the right way. In some cases I wouldn't care, but in many cases the dumb things the GOP does have an impact on the U.S. as a whole.

Sens. Bill Nelson and Marco Rubio help deprive Third World of an honor student (also: Frederica Wilson, David Rivera, Ros Lehtinen, Napolitano, Reid) - 03/08/12

On the surface, the story of an illegal alien Florida honor student who was going to be deported but who now has a two year reprieve (link) sounds like a heartwarming tale; good luck finding anyone in the media not presenting it as such.

Dozens of pro-illegal immigration groups were invited to Obama's mini-amnesty rollout and you weren't - 08/25/11

On August 18, Barack Obama's Department of Homeland Security announced an administrative amnesty that could cover 300,000 or more illegal aliens.

Obama declares administrative mini-amnesty: will review all 300,000 facing deportation hearings (UPDATE: open the floodgates?) - 08/18/11

Barack Obama has repeatedly stated that he can't declare a blanket amnesty via executive order to cover all the 10-12+ million illegal aliens in the U.S. However, he's just come close by declaring a mini-amnesty that will cover up to 300,000 illegal aliens (link).

Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2011: new amnesty push from Leahy, Menendez, Durbin, Reid, Schumer, Kerry, Gillibrand - 06/23/11

Yesterday the U.S. Senators listed in the title introduced the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2011, this year's version of a major amnesty bill.

Newt Gingrich offers false choice, supports incremental amnesty, doesn't challenge CNN for misleading on immigration (GOP 6/13/11 debate) - 06/13/11

At tonight's GOP debate, both moderator John King and candidate Newt Gingrich offered a false choice on immigration. Instead of calling King on offering a misleading choice, Gingrich offered the same false choice.

NCLR letter for DREAM Act misleads (Richardson, Villaraigosa, Linda Chavez, Lionel Sosa) - 12/16/10

The National Council of La Raza has sent an open letter [1] to senators Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell urging them to pass the anti-American DREAM Act. That bill would let the illegal aliens covered by it take college resources from Americans: it would deprive some Americans of college educations. And, the NCLR's letter is misleading and signed by a small grab bag of very questionable people.

It starts:

As Latino leaders in government, business, entertainment, and sports, we urge members of Congress to support the "Development, Relief, and Education of Alien Minors (DREAM) Act." This modest and sensible piece of legislation would allow young people who were brought to the United States by their parents at a very young age to pursue higher education or serve in the military.

1. The DREAM Act ("DA") is a power grab by various forces: the Democratic leadership, religious leaders, the far-left, and so on. The NCLR letter makes clear that to a great extent it's a race-based power grab. Those signing on don't care about American citizens not being able to attend college; obtaining race-based power is a much higher priority.

2. The DA is hardly a "modest and sensible piece of legislation". It could cover one to two million illegal aliens, and those covered could eventually sponsor other family members. That would take many years, but it would happen. It would also encourage even more illegal immigration with others seeking to take part in a "DREAM Act 2". Passing one amnesty would give even more power to those who'd push for yet more amnesties in the future. So, it's hardly "modest".

3. There's no requirement that those covered would have had to have been brought here by their parents; some older children cross on their own. They have to have arrived here before they were sixteen, which is hardly "a very young age".

Then, the NCLR misleads about who'd be covered:

These students are success stories in their communities, serving as student body presidents, star athletes, and performers, graduating often with honors from schools in their hometowns.

Certainly, some are as described. However, the educational requirements in the bills are minimal; there are no requirements that those covered must have graduated with honors or anything similar.

They also reference a recent UCLA study (#9 here) and a CBO study; see those links for more information.

In addition to a few minor celebrities, those signing on include (see each link for more on them):

* Janet Murguia of the NCLR
* Antonio Villaraigosa (former leader of a racial separatist group)
* Linda Chavez (sits or sat on boards of two large companies that employ large numbers of low-wage workers)
* Carlos Gutierrez (George W Bush Commerce Secretary who promoted amnesty while in office; see his name's link for much more)
* Lionel Sosa (wanted to and may have taken money from the Mexican government to promote amnesty inside the U.S.)
* Henry Cisneros (see the other letter he signed on to at the link)
* Maria Contreras-Sweet (affiliated with Promerica Bank)
* America Ferrera
* Monica Lozano
* Federico Pena
* Bill Richardson
* Solomon D. Trujillo (U.S.-born business executive who led an Australian company but who left that country in disgrace)

[1] huffingtonpost.com/
janet-murguia/latino-leaders-urge-the-u_b_797766.html

Community college budgets cut across U.S. & many turned away even as some want to give college slots to illegal aliens - 11/27/10

The Washington Post offers "Workers seek new skills at community colleges, but classes are full" (link) about the budget cuts that community colleges are making across the U.S. and focusing on Nevada. Needless to say, Peter Whoriskey of the WaPo doesn't reveal that even as Americans are being turned away from community colleges, Harry Reid wants to give limited college resources to foreign citizens who are here illegally with the DREAM Act.

In fact, those who'll probably complain the loudest about this situation will likely be DREAM Act supporters; they live in a fantasy world where we have enough college resources for both citizens and for illegal aliens.

On the other hand, making cuts like those described in the article is right up the tea parties/fiscal conservative alley: saving money now no matter the costs down the line.

The pro-American solution would be to enforce our immigration laws and encourage illegal aliens who want to go to U.S. colleges to return home instead. That would have the impact of freeing up jobs and college resources for Americans at the same time as reducing social welfare spending. Don't expect either the Democrats or the teaparty types to support such a plan however in both cases because their leaders are corrupt.

All over the United States, community college enrollments have surged with unemployed and underemployed people seeking new skills.

But just as workers have turned to community colleges, states have cut their budgets, forcing the institutions to turn away legions of students and stymieing the efforts to retrain the workforce.

...The institutions are "a gateway for millions of Americans to good jobs and a better life," President Obama said at a community college summit in the fall.

...Even as community college enrollments have climbed during the recession, 35 states cut higher education budgets last year, and 31 will cut them for next, according to survey data from the National Association of State Budget Officers. Those shortages are expected to worsen next year when federal stimulus money that had plugged holes in state budgets is no longer available.

In California, with a budget cut of 8 percent across the board, the community colleges turned away 140,000 students last year. In Colorado, the waiting lists for nursing programs at some of the state's community colleges have grown to as long as 3.5 years. In May, New York's community colleges stopped accepting applications for the fall semester and added students instead to a wait list.

...Here in Las Vegas, with among some of the nation's highest unemployment, the College of Southern Nevada last fall turned away 5,000 students who sought classes that were filled.

For a single biology class, "BIO 189," a prerequisite for most of the degrees in the popular health-care fields, more than 2,450 students applied for 950 seats. The college now turns away students from every class in biology, the physical sciences and math, said Sally Johnston, dean of the School of Science and Mathematics at the College of Southern Nevada.

...In Virginia, a series of reductions since 2008 has dropped annual state funding for community colleges by $105 million, while enrollment has grown by 26,000 students. In Maryland, state funding per full-time student has dropped 12 percent over the last three years.

Here in Las Vegas, state funding for the College of Southern Nevada has dropped more than 17 percent while the number of students, on a full-time basis, has risen 12 percent. While a federal stimulus bill provided funding to community colleges, that money is about to run out, too.

"In Nevada, we have to accommodate state budget priorities such as Medicare, public safety, including corrections, and K-12 education," [CSN president Michael D. Richards] said. "Higher education comes in fourth or fifth in the list."

To combat the budget cuts, the College of Southern Nevada has increased the proportion of cheaper adjunct faculty, closed two of 11 learning centers in the community, and held classes at midnight to maximize the use of class space.

"Some of the time, we simply do not have enough physical space to accommodate everyone," Richards said.

Facts about anti-American DREAM Act and what you can do (Harry Reid, S.3827) - 11/18/10

Sen. Jeff Sessions has released "Ten Things You Need To Know About S.3827, The DREAM Act" (via this) about the anti-American bill that Harry Reid wants a vote on during the lame duck session. See the DREAM Act page for more, and three things you can do to block it follow Sessions' article:

BILL WOULD GIVE COLLEGE PREFERENCE TO ILLEGALS OVER CITIZENS

...In addition to immediately putting an estimated 2.1 million illegal aliens (including certain criminal aliens) on a path to citizenship, the DREAM Act will give them access to in-state tuition rates at public universities, federal student loans, and federal work-study programs.

Aliens granted amnesty by the DREAM Act will have the legal right to petition for entry of their family members, including their adult brothers and sisters and the parents who illegally brought or sent them to the United States, once they become naturalized U.S. citizens. In less than a decade, this reality could easily double or triple the more than 2.1 million green cards that will be immediately distributed as a result of the DREAM Act.

Ten Things You Need To Know About S.3827, The DREAM Act

1. The DREAM Act Is NOT Limited to Children, And It Will Be Funded On the Backs Of Hard Working, Law-Abiding Americans

Proponents of the DREAM Act frequently claim the bill offers relief only to illegal alien “kids.” Incredibly, previous versions of the DREAM Act had no age limit at all, so illegal aliens of any age who satisfied the Act’s requirements—not just children—could obtain lawful permanent resident (LPR) status. In response to this criticism, S.3827 includes a requirement that aliens be under the age of 35 on the date of enactment to be eligible for LPR status. Even with this cap, many aliens would be at least 41 years old before obtaining full LPR status under the Act—hardly the “kids” the Act’s advocates keep talking about.

The DREAM Act requires that DHS/USCIS process all DREAM Act applications (applications that would require complex, multi-step adjudication) without being able to increase fees to handle processing. This mandate would require either additional Congressional appropriations, or for USCIS, a primarily fee-funded agency, to raise fees on other types of immigration benefit applications. This would unfairly spread the cost of administering the DREAM Act legalization program among applicants and petitioners who have abided by U.S. laws and force taxpayers to pay for amnesty. Taxpayers would also be on the hook for all Federal benefits the DREAM Act seeks to offer illegal aliens, including student loans and grants.

2. The DREAM Act PROVIDES SAFE HARBOR FOR ANY ALIEN, Including Criminals, From Being Removed or Deported If They Simply Submit An Application

Although DREAM Act proponents claim it will benefit only those who meet certain age, presence, and educational requirements, amazingly the Act protects ANY alien who simply submits an application for status no matter how frivolous. The bill forbids the Secretary of Homeland Security from removing “any alien who has a pending application for conditional status” under the DREAM Act—regardless of age or criminal record—providing a safe harbor for all illegal aliens. This loophole will open the floodgates for applications that could stay pending for many years or be litigated as a delay tactic to prevent the illegal aliens’ removal from the United States. The provision will further erode any chances of ending the rampant illegality and fraud in the existing system.

3. Certain Criminal Aliens Will Be Eligible For Amnesty Under The DREAM Act

Certain categories of criminal aliens will be eligible for the DREAM Act amnesty, including alien gang members and aliens with misdemeanor convictions, even DUIs. The DREAM Act allows illegal aliens guilty of the following offenses to be eligible for amnesty: alien absconders (aliens who failed to attend their removal proceedings), aliens who have engaged in voter fraud or unlawfully voted, aliens who have falsely claimed U.S. citizenship, aliens who have abused their student visas, and aliens who have committed marriage fraud. Additionally, illegal aliens who pose a public health risk, aliens who have been permanently barred from obtaining U.S. citizenship, and aliens who are likely to become a public charge are also eligible.

4. Estimates Suggest That At Least 2.1 Million Illegal Aliens Will Be Eligible For the DREAM Act Amnesty. In Reality, We Have No Idea How Many Illegal Aliens Will Apply

Section 4(d) of the DREAM Act waives all numerical limitations on green cards, and prohibits any numerical limitation on the number of aliens eligible for amnesty under its provisions. The Migration Policy Institute estimates that the DREAM Act will make approximately 2.1 million illegal aliens eligible for amnesty. It is highly likely that the number of illegal aliens receiving amnesty under the DREAM Act will be much higher than the estimated 2.1 million due to fraud and our inherent inability to accurately estimate the illegal alien population. Clearly, the message sent by the DREAM Act will be that if any young person can enter the country illegally, within 5 years, they will be placed on a path to citizenship.

5. Illegal Aliens Will Get In-State Tuition Benefits

The DREAM Act will allow illegal aliens to qualify for in-state tuition, even when it is not being offered to U.S. citizens and legally present aliens living just across state lines. Section 3 of the DREAM Act repeals Section 505 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1623) which prohibits giving education benefits to an unlawfully present individual unless that same benefit is offered to all U.S. citizens.

6. The DREAM Act Does Not Require That An Illegal Alien Finish Any Type of Degree (Vocational, Two-Year, or Bachelor’s Degree) As A Condition of Amnesty

DREAM Act supporters would have you believe that the bill is intended to benefit illegal immigrants who have graduated from high school and are on their way to earning college degrees. However, the bill is careful to ensure that illegal alien high school drop-outs will also be put on a pathway to citizenship – they simply have to get a GED and be admitted to “an institution of higher education,” defined by the Higher Education Act of 1965.

Under the Higher Education Act, an “institution of higher education” includes institutions that provide 2-year programs (community colleges) and any “school that provides not less than a 1-year program of training to prepare students for gainful employment” (a vocational school). Within 8 years of the initial grant of status, the alien must prove only that they finished 2 years of a bachelor’s degree program, not that they completed any program or earned any degree.

If the alien is unable to complete 2 years of college but can demonstrate that their removal would result in hardship to themselves or their U.S. citizen or LPR spouse, child, or parent, the education requirement can be waived altogether.

7. The DREAM Act does not require that an illegal alien serve in the military as a condition for amnesty, and There is ALREADY A Legal Process In Place For Illegal Aliens to Obtain U.S. Citizenship Through Military Service

DREAM Act supporters would have you believe that illegal aliens who don’t go to college will earn their citizenship through service in the U.S. Armed Forces. However, the bill does not require aliens to join the U.S. Armed Forces (the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard); instead it requires enlistment in the “uniformed services.” This means that aliens need only go to work for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or Public Health Service for 2 years to get U.S. citizenship. If the alien is unable to complete 2 years in the “uniformed services,” and can demonstrate that their removal would result in hardship to themselves or their U.S. citizen or LPR spouse, child, or parent, the military service requirement can be waived altogether. Such claims will likely engender much litigation and place a huge burden on DHS.

Furthermore, under current law (10 USC § 504), the Secretary of Defense can authorize the enlistment of illegal aliens. Once enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces, under 8 USC § 1440, these illegal aliens can become naturalized citizens through expedited processing, often obtaining U.S. citizenship in six months.

8. Despite Their Current Illegal Status, DREAM Act Aliens Will Be Given All The Rights That Legal Immigrants Receive—Including The Legal Right To Sponsor Their Parents and Extended Family Members For Immigration

Under current federal law, U.S. citizens have the right to immigrate their “immediate relatives” to the U.S. without regard to numerical caps. Similarly, lawful permanent residents can immigrate their spouses and children to the U.S. as long as they retain their status. This means illegal aliens who receive amnesty under the DREAM Act will have the right to immigrate their family members—including the parents who sent for or brought them to the U.S. illegally in the first place—in unlimited numbers as soon as they become U.S. citizens (6 to 8 years after enactment) and are 21 years of age.

Additionally, amnestied aliens who become U.S. citizens will be able to petition for their adult siblings living abroad to immigrate to the U.S., further incentivizing chain migration and potentially illegal entry into the United States (for those who don’t want to wait for the petition process overseas). When an adult brother or sister receives a green card, the family (spouse and children) of the adult sibling receive green cards as well.

9. Current Illegal Aliens Will Get Federal Student Loans, Federal Work Study Programs, and Other Forms of Federal Financial Aid

Section 10 of the DREAM Act allows illegal aliens amnestied under the bill’s provisions to qualify for federal student assistance under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) in the form of federal student loans (Stafford Loans, Perkins Loans, Federal Direct Stafford/Ford Loans), federal work-study programs, and other federal education services such as tutoring and counseling.

10. DHS Is Prohibited From Using the Information Provided By Illegal Aliens Whose DREAM Act Amnesty Applications Are Denied To Initiate Their Removal Proceedings or Investigate or Prosecute Fraud in the Application Process

When an illegal alien’s DREAM Act amnesty application is denied, the bill states that the alien will revert to their “previous immigration status,” which is likely illegal or deportable. The bill, however, prohibits using any of the information contained in the amnesty application (name, address, length of illegal presence that the alien admits to, etc) to initiate a removal proceeding or investigate or prosecute fraud in the application process. Thus, it will be extremely hard for DHS to remove aliens who they now know are illegally present in the U.S., because illegal aliens will be able to claim that the legal action is a product of the amnesty application, and DHS will have the nearly impossible task of proving a negative.

There are many things you can do if you want to block the Reid's bill, but here are three:

1. Contact your representatives and tell them you oppose the bill. You can concentrate on the fence-sitters (per this): Olympia Snowe (202-224-5344; 207-874-0883), Susan Collins (202-224-2523; 207-945-0417), Lisa Murkowski (202-224-6665; 907-271-3735), Sam Brownback (202-224-6521; 785-233-2503), and, of course, John McCain (202-224-2235; 480-897-6289).

2. This one is seemingly impossible, but if people could recruit an experienced trial attorney to really press a politician on the question on the DREAM Act page and video of that were uploaded to Youtube, it would greatly reduce the chances that the bill would pass.

3. Find those who support the bill on Twitter and who have at least a few hundred followers and who are persuadable or at least could be embarrassed. Then, try to do one or both. For instance, here's one from me:

@BrookeJarvis: you've got 5 kids & 4 chairs; what happens when you stop the music? This: http://24ahead.com/n/10042 #DREAMAct #p2 #tlot #sgp

That tweet isn't the best, but enough better tweets than that might reduce the possibilities of "top liberals on twitter" from helping log-roll the bill.

No, Sharron Angle isn't calling Social Security "wicked" (Harry Reid is lying) - 10/28/10

[See the update: Harry Reid is lying about Angle's comments]

The Democratic Party's "Accountability Project" uploaded [1] the audio below, apparently trying to make people think that Sharron Angle is calling Social Security and similar programs "wicked". In fact, she's not calling those programs "wicked". What she considers wicked are those who turn their backs on the least among them, relying on government programs to take care of people they should be taking care of. On the audio she accepts social safety net programs as a reality, she just thinks that people should take care of those in their own communities more than they do.

Here's the relevant part of the audio:

We as a nation have been walking away from our constitutional freedom and relying on government instead to take care of the widow and the orphan. Isn't that what He says? True religion and [inaudible] for God is that you care for the widow and the orphan. Isn't that the poor and needy among us? And, yet, we're saying, let the government have all these programs now: AFDC, Medicare, Social Security, and that's fine. But, isn't it we that should be thinking about this? Isn't it us that should be caring in our community for those that the Lord has called us [inaudible, "to lead"?], saying you honor Him, you love Him, if you care for these the least among you.

Those trying to mislead about this include Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly [2]:

Also keep in mind, Angle has been trying to convince Nevadans that she actually wants to preserve Social Security, despite having already committed herself to trying to "phase out" the bedrock American safety-net program. What we have, then, is a borderline-deranged Senate hopeful telling reporters she supports Social Security, while quietly telling supporters she considers Social Security -- along with Medicare, abortion, divorce, and gay marriage -- to be "wicked."

She does in fact consider abortion to be "wicked" but, once again, the same isn't true of social welfare programs themselves. What she considers "wicked" is people turning their backs on the least among them.

As can be seen, I'm not in any way a fan of Sharron Angle or the Tea Parties. It's beyond pathetic that her opponents can't make a good case against someone out on the fringe but have to try to mislead instead.

UPDATE: Harry Reid has released a deceptive new ad entitled 'Sharron Angle Called Social Security and Medicare "Wicked"' and with the description "In Sharron Angle's Nevada, Social Security and Medicare would be eliminated because they are "wicked" and defy the laws of God as she sees them. While she won't talk to media or voteres, we've compiled her greatest hits." Watch it here: peekurl.com/vypitld

The ad takes her comments out of context for the reasons discussed above: Harry Reid is lying.

------------------
[1] accountabilityproject.com
[2] washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_10/026349.php (I strongly recommend against linking to the Washington Monthly, see that link for the details).

Here's the audio, also available at peekURL.com/vx5q4tm

Fact Check: Harry Reid, Sharron Angle, and the anti-American DREAM Act - 10/06/10

Harry Reid has responded to Sharron Angle's new immigration ad that includes a segment about the anti-American DREAM Act, and he's misleading about the features of that anti-American bill.

Andrea Nill not exactly honest about DREAM Act (Sharron Angle ad) - 10/06/10

Andrea Nill of ThinkProgress responds to the new Sharron Angle ad with a somewhat misleading post about the anti-American DREAM Act. The Angle ad is here; the Nill post is at [1].

Nill writes:

The ad appears to be vaguely referencing the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act which Reid attached to the defense reauthorization bill last month as an amendment. The DREAM Act wouldn’t give undocumented students special tuition rates, but it would eliminate a federal provision that penalizes states that provide in-state tuition without regard to immigration status. Angle’s ad doesn’t mention that it would also allow certain undocumented immigrant youth who were brought to the U.S. by their parents at a young age to eventually obtain legal permanent status by enlisting in the military or attending a university. A June 2010 national poll of 1,008 adults revealed that 70 percent of voters support the DREAM Act, across party lines.

1. As I stated at the Angle ad link, she should have run it by NumbersUSA or some other group first, because, unfortunately, Nill is correct in a technical sense: the DREAM Act itself wouldn't give "special tuition rates".

2. However, where Nill is misleading is with that same Orwellian sentence containing "special tuition rates". Federal law currently says that states can't give illegal aliens a rate that they don't give to citizens [2]. The DREAM Act would do away with that, letting states give illegal aliens a better rate than citizens. The bill itself wouldn't give illegal aliens a better rate, it would just allow states to do that with impunity. What she says above is like saying, "this bill wouldn't raise the speed limit, it would just eliminate the speed limit and let people go as fast as they want". Needless to say, giving illegal aliens a better rate than citizens is openly anti-American and shows how little loyalty those Americans who support the DREAM Act have to their fellow citizens.

3. Nill doesn't tell her readers that the "federal provision that penalizes states" has not ever as far as I know been enforced; see this, which references this. The reason for that is federal corruption: those running the Department of Homeland Security are too corrupt to enforce the laws they're required to enforce.

4. The "poll" she mentions (from First Focus) was more of an advocacy poll designed to obtain a skewed result, and the poll question misleads about the DREAM Act. No respectable polling organization would ever ask such a blatantly biased question; most would try to hide it better. Take a look at the incredibly biased question that was asked at [3]. That question includes, "To earn legal status, students must have come to the U.S. when they were very young." In fact, the DREAM Act that Harry Reid was pushing would be open to those who claimed they came here at 15 years or younger. Does anyone think 15 years of age is "very young"?

[1] wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/10/06/sharron-angle-immigration-ad

[2] Title 8, Chapter 14, Sec. 1623, link:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State (or a political subdivision) for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.

[3] firstfocus.net/library/polling-and-opinion-research/
public-support-for-the-dream-act

Sharron Angle finally attacks Reid over anti-American DREAM Act - 10/05/10

The video below is a new Sharron Angle ad attacking Harry Reid for pushing the anti-American DREAM Act, a bill that would let illegal aliens take college educations away from Americans.

Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2010: Robert Menendez' amnesty - 09/30/10

Senator Bob Menendez has introduced a new amnesty bill called the "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2010". It's almost 900 pages and, since it's probably not going anywhere, the following discussion will be brief. However, feel free to provide additional information in comments. You can download a copy from weareoneamerica.org/blog/sep-10/we-have-bill
At least one part of it appears to be lifted from Ted Kennedy's 2007 amnesty (#4 below). If anyone would like to compare the two, please leave a comment.

1. The section "Annual report on improving North American security information exchange" obviously has echoes of George W Bush's SPP, the North American Union, and other efforts to, if not join us, Mexico, and Canada into one country at least bring us closer than most residents of those countries would want.

2. The section "Cooperation with the Government of Mexico" is mostly as bad as you'd expect. It seeks to promote "circular migration", but why not support reducing immigration in the first place? And:

The Secretary of State, in cooperation with other appropriate Federal officials, shall work with appropriate officials of the Government of Mexico to educate citizens and nationals of Mexico regarding their eligibility for nonimmigrant status in the United States to ensure that such citizens and nationals are not exploited while working in the United States.

3. They want to study deaths among those illegally crossing into the U.S., giving it away with "an analysis of whether physical barriers, technology, and enforcement programs have contributed to the rate of migrant deaths". If they were truly concerned about that issue they'd move to reduce both illegal and legal immigration.

4. It would create the "United States-Mexico Border Enforcement Commission" which, of course, is as bad as it sounds; see this.

5. Reading the whole "Detention Reform" section is left as an exercise, but expect massive giveaways to immigration lawyers and overall an attempt to hobble detention.

6. It would create a "Standing Commission on Immigration, Labor Markets, and the National Interest" which would, among other things, "recommend to Congress and the President the numeric levels and characteristics of workers to be admitted in various employment based visa categories". The Commission would basically administer the new H-2C guest workers plan; that H-2C plan was also part of the earlier Harry Reid amnesty.

7. The H-2C guest workers program, of course, pretends that employers have to first offer jobs to citizens; most of those employers would do that in a bad faith fashion. Not only that, but "guests" could adjust their status to Lawful Permanent Resident either after four years (if they petition themselves) or presumably at any time if their employer petitions for them. They have to pay a fee (a whopping $100, plus any fees levied by the Department of Homeland Security which might increase that amount a bit), prove they're working, and prove they're learning English and civics. This is, needless to say, the kicker: foreign citizens would be brought in by corrupt employers in an attempt to undercut U.S. workers, would be put on the "path to citizenship", and would within a decade or so be voting mostly for the Democrats.

8. The giveaways in the entire "Family and Employment Visa Reforms" are left as an exercise.

9. The AgJOBS amnesty is included, as is the anti-American DREAM Act amnesty.

10. It includes a "Blue Card Status", which appears to be some kind of amnesty for farmworkers.

11. And, finally, the kicker of kickers, it has a general amnesty allowing illegal aliens to obtain "Lawful Prospective Immigrant" status. They can then convert that into LPR and get on the "path to citizenship". I was unable to find any restrictions on them proving they'd been in the U.S. for an extended time period, so this might cover almost all non-criminal illegal aliens. If anyone can find something requiring them to have to prove they've lived in the U.S. for, say, two years or more leave a comment.

Finally, imagine how this is going to work out:

[government agencies] shall broadly disseminate information regarding Lawful Prospective Immigrant status, the rights and benefits that flow from such status, and the requirements to be satisfied to obtain this status. Such information shall be disseminated in the top five principal languages, as determined by the Secretary in the Secretary’s discretion, spoken by aliens who would qualify for status under this section, including to television, radio, and print media to which such aliens would have access.

Sharron Angle is weak on amnesty: won't come out strong against anti-American DREAM Act - 09/18/10

Harry Reid recently announced he'd offer the anti-American DREAM Act amnesty as an amendment to the Defense bill. Now, four days later, the most his opponent Sharron Angle has done in opposition is to appear on Fox News and oppose that anti-American amnesty from procedural grounds.

Not only that, but she seems to be adopting an immigration stance that's weaker than her previous comments. She appears to now be taking a "secure the border first" posture which begs the question of what exactly she'd support after the borders are secured. If she won't oppose a smaller anti-American amnesty now, exactly what would she support if she makes it into the Senate?

Angle was interviewed about various topics yesterday by Bret Baier; a video is at peekURL.com/vxhfdig Comments after the transcript:

ANGLE: He's incentivizing amnesty, this is just one of those ways. But, he's politicized this, he's looking for votes, he's looking for votes in those places where he thinks he can find them. And to attach them to the defense bill is truly an outrageous act of political maneuvering...

BAIER: Some Republicans support [the DREAM Act]. You're obviously not one of those.

ANGLE: Well, obviously, the American people believe that we're a country of the rule of law and anytime that we start to go around that rule of law and make one segment of our society outside the rule of law we're in trouble. The answer to these problems is first of all, secure our borders and then enforce the laws that we have. Then we can deal with the internal problems that we have left. But, first we've got to get those borders secure. We're a sovereign nation. We have a northern border that is more porous than our southern border and of course our coastal borders are also porous so let's get the borders secured, enforce the laws, and then we can talk about these other things but don't incentivize illegal behavior.

Note that she can't answer a straight question. Anyone who truly opposes amnesty in any form would answer directly that they oppose the DREAM Act. Angle just dances around the question [1]. This is the same opposition to Reid's amendment that some GOP senators have offered, such as McCain: purely on political and procedural grounds and not based out of any real opposition to the DREAM Act.

A glimmer of a good argument does shine through in the "one segment of our society" part, but then she dashes all that with a stock GOP establishment response of securing the borders. Yes, obviously, the borders need to be secured. However, harping on secure the border - as discussed at the link - is frequently a dodge some use to mask how weak they are on illegal immigration and amnesty.

She then apparently realized she needed to fill space - instead of directly opposing the anti-American DREAM Act amnesty - and went off on a tear about our Canadian and coastal borders.

The final part is not in any way an unmitigated opposition to amnesty. In fact, she's leaving the door open to her supporting an amnesty after the borders are secure.

If you're an Angle supporter, read her comments or watch the video: nothing she says is something that John McCain or other politicians who are soft on amnesty couldn't have also said.

[1] That same dance is one I'm familiar with: in a Twitter conversation I had with her months ago she refused to come out against comprehensive immigration reform, and that's despite me suggesting she take the time to answer.

Harry Reid to put anti-American DREAM Act in defense bill; contact your representatives - 09/14/10

Senator Harry Reid says [1] he's going to attach the DREAM Act as an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill, which will apparently be voted on next week. The DREAM Act is openly anti-American: it lets illegal aliens take college educations away from U.S. citizens. See the link for more information.

Sam Stein misleads about Sharron Angle (unemployment insurance "really doesn't benefit anyone") - 09/03/10

Sam Stein of the Huffington Post offers "Sharron Angle Claims Unemployment Insurance 'Really Doesn't Benefit Anyone'" (link), a sleazy attack that shows once again that he's just a Democratic proxy and is willing to try to mislead.

In a radio interview on Wednesday, Angle said this:

"People don't want to be unemployed... They want to have real, full-time, permanent jobs with a future. That's what they want, and we need to create that climate in Washington, D.C. that encourages businesses to create those full-time, permanent jobs with a future, and all [Rep.] Shelley Berkeley and [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid want to do is put a band-aid on this by extending unemployment, which really doesn't benefit anyone. What happens is of course that your skills stagnate. You become demoralized yourself, you know, feeling that I can't ever get a job, and these are not the solutions to the problem. We have real solutions, but they won't look at the real solutions."

It should be obvious that she's right about full-time jobs, and it's difficult to imagine anyone disagreeing with her full remarks considered in context. We can disagree about the way she'd create jobs, but not about the fact that having a full-time job is preferable to collecting unemployment insurance. If she were wrong, then we should just extend unemployment benefits indefinitely and everyone in the country can go on them. Obviously, that wouldn't work.

Just as obviously, she doesn't mean that unemployment insurance can't help you survive and pay your bills, although that's the impression that Sam Stein is trying to give, writing:

Until this week, it doesn't appear that she's ever argued that UI doesn't "benefit anyone." -- a rather bold proclamation that even the most doctrinaire of Republicans probably wouldn't make. It's pretty easy, after all, to find people who benefit from unemployment insurance. They're called the unemployed.

Once again, she doesn't mean it in that way. Third graders should be able to figure out what she's talking about: unemployment insurance isn't a long-term option but should just be a temporary stop-gap for the reasons she mentions in the quote. Sam Stein is intentionally trying to start a smear.

Did Sharron Angle oppose Katrina aid? (+a Harry Reid surprise) - 08/30/10

The video below (with audio from 2005) has Sharron Angle opposing the Katrina relief bill, at least from the standpoint of requiring an accounting of where the proposed $62 billion was going to go. The video also has a surprise about Harry Reid at the end.

Ask Harry Reid about his strong immigration bill from 1993 - 08/13/10

The 1993 immigration bill introduced by Harry Reid - a bill that would make both me and Tom Tancredo proud - is in the news again due to its birthright citizenship provisions.

Calling "flip-flop" isn't as effective as discussing actual policies. So, if you want to do a public service, ask Reid about that bill at one of his public appearances and then upload video of his response to video sharing sites; see the question authority page for an action plan.

For instance, you can ask Reid a question like the following:

"Sen. Reid, your 1993 immigration bill - something you later apologized for - sought to, among many other things, reduce alien smuggling. If you'd pursued that bill instead of withdrawing it, wouldn't there be fewer alien smuggling cases than there have been?"

I can come up with better questions on request, but based on over three years' experience I'm not going to get my hopes up. However, if you're in Nevada and want to do a public service, ask him that question or leave your information in comments and I'll come up with something more iron-clad.

Harry Reid's strong 1993 immigration bill would have blocked "anchor babies" - 08/13/10

In 1993, Harry Reid introduced a strong anti-illegal immigration bill that would have also reduced legal immigration (also see). Then, in 2006, he offered an "unusual, rambling confession" apologizing for the bill. Just recently, he's criticized Sharron Angle for wanting to prevent illegal alien parents from taking advantage of birthright citizenship. As it turns out, his 1993 bill included the following (via this):

"TITLE X—CITIZENSHIP 4 SEC. 1001. BASIS OF CITIZENSHIP CLARIFIED. In the exercise of its powers under section of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress has determined and hereby declares that any person born after the date of enactment of this title to a mother who is neither a citizen of the United States nor admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident, and which person is a national or citizen of another country of which either of his or her natural parents is a national or citizen, or is entitled upon application to become a national or citizen of such country, shall be considered as born subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign country and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of section 1 of such Article and shall therefore not be a citizen of the United States or of any State solely by reason of physical presence within the United States at the moment of birth."

Saying this is a flip-flop is a childish way to deal with this issue. The correct way to deal with this issue is to point out that Reid is corrupt: what he supported in 1993 would have helped the U.S., but now he supports policies that hurt the U.S. and because he wants to obtain race-based power.

If you want to oppose Harry Reid and want to raise the level of debate in the U.S., go to one of his public appearances and ask Reid this question.

Harry Reid's skin tone fallacy; can't see how Hispanics could be Republicans - 08/11/10

It's a shame that Harry Reid's opponent is a tea parties type like Sharron Angle. A more mainstream opponent who's willing to highlight immigration issues might have something productive to say about these recent Reid remarks about how he can't find Republicans to support comprehensive immigration reform (link):

"I don't know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, OK," Reid said, speaking to Latino supporters whose votes he needs to win re-election in November. "Do I need to say more?"

Tibi Ellis, chairwoman of the Nevada Republican Hispanic Caucus, responds that both Ronald Reagan and George W Bush pushed amnesty and that Obama hasn't been able to follow through on his amnesty promises. She doesn't point out the downsides to such plans, nor obviously does she note that sentiments like Reid's put us on the road to ethnic conflicts such as to be found in other countries. Smarter, less corrupt GOP leaders might also realize that supporting massive immigration isn't good for their party as long as most coming here are likely Democrats and those who are receptive to such race-baiting.

Just be thankful Reid didn't go as far as extremist Dolores Huerta and her "Republicans Hate Latinos" chant.

Then:

"Immigration is nothing new," Reid added, speaking to more than 50 mostly activist Hispanics who applauded his anti-GOP remarks. "We are a nation of immigrants. So because the wave of immigrants we have now -- their skin's a tone darker than ours -- doesn't make it any different."

Yes, today's immigration is different; see the immigration tradition fallacy page.

UPDATE: From politico.com/news/stories/0810/40948.html

Angle's campaign seized on the comment, telling POLITICO in an e-mail that “Harry Reid cannot give any good reasons why people should vote for him, so now he is turning to race and ethnicity.”

“Reid is desperate to change the subject from the economy, which he knows is a losing issue for him,” said Angle spokesman Jarrod Agen.

But in a statement Wednesday morning, the Reid campaign doubled down on the line.

“Sen. Reid’s contention was simply that he doesn't understand how anyone, Hispanic or otherwise, would vote for Republican candidates because they oppose saving teachers’ jobs, oppose job-creating tax incentives for small businesses, oppose investments in job-creating clean energy projects, and oppose the help for struggling, unemployed Nevadans to put food on the table and stay in their homes,” read the statement.

As much as I don't like to say it, Allahpundit is right ( peekURL.com/z2wq6jf ):

He’s not doubling down, he’s actually trying to weasel out of it by downplaying the racial aspect of it... Completely inane and demagogic, sure — but race-neutral! Except, of course, that’s not what he meant at all: He’s terrified that Latinos won’t turn out for him in November after he broke his promise to get an amnesty bill through (Democratic betrayal on immigration is a very hot topic these days in Spanish-language media, apparently), so now he’s going to push ye olde authenticity pander. Lest you think there’s any ambiguity about it, follow the link to McCormack and note Reid’s line about modern-day immigrants having skin that’s “a tone darker than ours.” He knew exactly what he was saying, and now that he’s been called on it, he’s inching away.

Sharron Angle goes after Reid on issues outside his control, won't press hard on immigration - 07/23/10

The video at peekURL.com/vc2rep7 is a new campaign ad from Sharron Angle in which she says: "Harry Reid says he does more for Nevada... He's done more for unemployment... He's done more for the foreclosure rate...

Confronted, Harry Reid claims illegal aliens aren't working construction jobs (note: in Nevada, maybe on stimulus projects) - 07/13/10

The video at peekURL.com/vvjwb7a shows Harry Reid being confronted about not allowing a vote last year that would have required construction companies hiring in regards to the stimulus plan to use the eVerify system. Reid then seems to make the outrageous claim that no illegal aliens are working construction jobs in Nevada [1], and that's the way it's being presented by HotAir [2] and by the low-wattage "StandWithAZ" group (the video was uploaded by them).

Unfortunately, it's not clear whether Reid was referring to all construction jobs or just those funded by the stimulus. In the first case he's, of course, lying through his teeth: as the report points out, Pew Hispanic says that 17% of all construction workers are illegal aliens, and also per Pew, 12.2% of Nevada's labor force are illegal aliens, the highest in the U.S. In the second case, there's very little chance that he's right, but he might be less wrong than in the first case. And, because it's not clear what type of jobs they were talking about - stimulus or just in general - that gives him an out which he may use in the not-very-likely event that Sharron Angle brings it up.

UPDATE: As predicted, Reid has an explanation, even if it's different from the one I suggested above. From politico.com/news/stories/0710/39716.html:

When a reporter from KLAS-TV in Las Vegas told Reid a 2009 Pew Hispanic Center report found 17 percent of the nation’s construction workers were undocumented, the Nevada Democrat replied: “That may be some place, but it’s not here in Nevada.”

Political opponents have tried to twist Reid’s words, saying he believes there are no illegal workers in Nevada. But Reid spokesman Jim Manley clarified his boss’ comments on Wednesday, saying the majority leader was simply disputing the reporter’s statistic and did not say the state has zero illegal workers.

More proof Justin Elliott isn't credible (Sharron Angle, public health concerns over fluoride) - 06/09/10

[SEE THE UPDATES TOO]

Sharron Angle [1] won the Republican primary against Harry Reid yesterday, and as could be expected Democratic Party proxies are already beginning their attack. One of those is Justin Elliot of TalkingPointsMemo, who offers "FLASHBACK: GOPer Angle Spoke Out Against Fluoride In Water Supply" [2].

It's a low-grade attempt to provoke a conditioned response that most people have: when someone says something against fluoridation, you're supposed to think that person must be nuts. As it turns out, the science of fluoridation isn't anywhere near as settled as some would have you believe, and the original program of fluoridation was sold using a smear campaign without having the benefit of rigorous studies.

For an overview, see this:

The reality is that anyone making any confident statement on fluoride speaks way beyond the evidence. In 1999 the [UK] Department of Health commissioned the centre for reviews and dissemination at York University to do a systematic review of fluoridation and its effects on dental health. Little new work has been done since. In the review, 3,200 research papers, mostly of very poor quality, were unearthed. The ones that met the minimum quality threshold suggested there was vaguely, possibly, around a 15% increase in the number of children without dental caries in areas with fluoridated water, but the studies generally couldn't exclude other explanations for the variance. Of course, the big idea with fluoride in water is that it can reduce social inequalities in dental health since everyone drinks it. But there isn't much evidence on that either... A study from Taiwan found a high incidence of bladder cancer in women from areas where the natural fluoride content in water was high. It might have been a chance finding; but it could be real...

For more, see the following links, presented roughly in order of value and credibility. Please think for yourself and once again don't trust what Justin Elliot tells you:

lewrockwell.com/miller/miller17.html
amazon.com/Crime-Punishment-I-G-Farben/dp/0029046300
garynull.com/documents/Dental/Fluoride/fluoride2.htm
fluoridealert.org/
fluoridealert.org/iq.studies.html
abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread422784/pg1
theinfovault.net/vault/politics/fluoridenazis.html
infonews.co.nz/news.cfm?l=1&t=0&id=17791
boards.history.com/thread.jspa?threadID=800000240&messageID=800007763

UPDATE: In case it wasn't clear, I'm not saying that fluoridation is good or bad; I don't know since I'm not a scientist. Like it says below, this post is designed to encourage critical thinking rather than simply believing what one's been taught to think.

There are links about various European cities and countries deciding against fluoridation here.

Also see this study done by researchers at the University of Michigan:

In 1983/1984, a study of bone mass and fractures was begun in 827 women aged 20-80 years in three rural Iowa communities selected for the fluoride and calcium content of their community water supplies. The control community's water had a calcium content of 67 mg/liter and a fluoride content of 1 mg/liter. The higher-calcium community had water with a calcium content of 375 mg/liter and a fluoride content of 1 mg/liter. The higher-fluoride community's water had 15 mg/liter of calcium and 4 mg/liter of fluoride naturally occurring. In 1988/1989, a follow-up study characterized the 684 women still living and available for study. Residence in the higher-fluoride community was associated with a significantly lower radial bone mass in premenopausal and postmenopausal women, an increased rate of radial bone mass loss in premenopausal women, and significantly more fractures among postmenopausal women. There was no difference in the 5-year relative risk of any fracture in the higher-calcium community versus the control community; however, the relative risk was 2.1 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.0-4.4) in women in the higher-fluoride community compared with women in the control community. There was no difference in the 5-year risk of wrist, spine, or hip fracture in the higher-calcium community versus the control community; however, the 5-year relative risk for women in the higher-fluoride community, compared with women in the control community, was 2.2 (95% CI 1.1-4.7). Estimates of risk were adjusted for age and body size.

And, see "The Fluoride Deception" (Amazon link):

Concerns over fluoridated drinking water have long been derided as the obsession of McCarthyite cranks. But this muckraking j’accuse asserts that fluoride is indeed a dire threat to public health, one foisted upon the nation by a vast conspiracy—not of Communist agents, but of our very own military-industrial complex. Investigative reporter Bryson revisits the decades-long controversy, drawing on mountains of scientific studies, some unearthed from secret archives of government and corporate laboratories, to question the effects of fluoride and the motives of its leading advocates. The efficacy of fluoridated drinking water in preventing tooth decay, he contends, is dubious. Fluoride in its many forms may be one of the most toxic of industrial pollutants, and Bryson cites scientific analyses linking fluoridated drinking water to bone deformities, hyperactivity and a host of other complaints. The post-war campaign to fluoridate drinking water, he claims, was less a public health innovation than a public relations ploy sponsored by industrial users of fluoride—including the government’s nuclear weapons program. Legendary spin doctors like Edward Bernays exploited the tenuous link between dental hygiene and fluoridation to create markets to stimulate fluoride production and to prove the innocuousness of fluoride compounds, thereby heading off lawsuits by factory workers and others poisoned by industrial fluoride pollution. Bryson marshals an impressive amount of research to demonstrate fluoride’s harmfulness, the ties between leading fluoride researchers and the corporations who funded and benefited from their research, and what he says is the duplicity with which fluoridation was sold to the people. The result is a compelling challenge to the reigning dental orthodoxy, which should provoke renewed scientific scrutiny and public debate.

UPDATE 2: From the Sierra Club (sierraclub.org/policy/conservation/water_fluoridation.aspx):

The Sierra Club recommends lowering the maximum contaminant level of fluoride in drinking water from the present 4mg/L to a level shown not to harm aquatic ecosystems or human health. [National Research Council, Fluoride in Drinking Water: a Scientific Review of EPA's Standards, March 2006] ...The Sierra Club understands the historic reason that fluoridation of public water supplies has been promoted and that it may have been historically justifiable (162 million people get fluoride added to their municipal water supply at the recommended level of 0.7-1.2 mg/L). There are now, however, valid concerns regarding the potential adverse impact of fluoridation on the environment, wildlife, and human health.

Alex Pareene - now of Salon - has a post similar to Elliott's, and at least some of the comments point out how he's wrong (letters.salon.com/politics/war_room/2010/06/09/
sharron_angle_cavity_creep/view):

Has the editorial staff at Salon ever come across a technocrat-endorsed initiative they didn't like? ...She's wary of state medicated water. Ha ha. Probably GMO and rBGH too. Salon's hipster with-it young writers strike again. ...Maybe Salon should have a rule that authors must consult a science writer before posting political hit pieces (no matter how well deserved!) which have a leg in science. Otherwise, Salon is being just as ignorant as the admittedly ignorant targets of Salon's partisan attacks.

See also this:

Among the more significant health conditions evaluated in relation to fluoride intake are cancer, dental fluorosis, and bone fractures. Other conditions are evaluated in the full report.

1/7/11 UPDATE: The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is lowering the recommended level of fluoride in water for the first time since 1962 (link). Partly that's due to fluorosis leading to spotty teeth but also presumably due to things like this:

In March, 2006, the National Academy of Sciences released a report recommending that the EPA lower its maximum standard for fluoride in drinking water to below 4 milligrams. The report warned severe fluorosis could occur at 2 milligrams. Also, a majority of the report's authors said a lifetime of drinking water with fluoride at 4 milligrams or higher could raise the risk of broken bones.

[1] This is a pro-critical thinking post, not a pro-Angle post. She's the tea parties candidate (or at least the candidate for the Tea Party Express), and she didn't give me a straight answer when I asked whether she supported comprehensive immigration reform on Twitter.
[2] tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/flashback-goper-angle-spoke-out-against-fluoride-in-water-supply.php

How D.C. Douglas helps Freedomworks and Teaparty - 05/18/10

One of the reasons why there's still a tea parties movement is because their loudest opposition is a match for them when it comes to incompetence. The latest example of that opposition's incompetence comes from D.C. Douglas ("DCD"), the voiceover actor who was fired by GEICO Insurance after he left a voicemail for FreedomWorks ("FW").

Millions unemployed, Harry Reid wants several million new legal workers to compete against Americans (fairly) - 05/11/10

Harry Reid offers "Our immigration system is broken, and only bipartisan work will fix it" (link). If you've already read a few editorials in support of comprehensive immigration reform, everything he says will be very familiar, right down to his use of trite talking points like system is broken, secure the border, immigration line, and the (more rare) immigration wage floor.

However, American workers - especially voters in Nevada - might want to take a closer look at this paragraph:

Fixing our broken immigration system is also important to strengthen America’s economy. We need to protect American workers. Workers in Nevada and across America are often squeezed by unscrupulous employers who exploit immigrant workers here illegally and use them to undercut American wages. Immigrant workers know that complaining about illegally low wages or harsh working conditions could lead to deportation. Once these workers get right with the law, they will no longer serve as a cheap labor force that competes unfairly with American workers.

In other words, he doesn't mind that those millions of newly-legalized workers compete with Americans, he just wants the competition to be "fair". He's not putting the interests of American workers first and working to enforce our immigration laws in order to minimize competition and raise wages.

Instead, Harry Reid wants millions of newly-legalized workers to compete with Americans on a level playing field. Note that those newly-legalized workers will be able to apply for any job that they're qualified for, and not just those that illegal aliens can get. This would increase competition for already-scarce jobs in many jobs classifications, but Harry Reid doesn't care: he wants the competition, he just wants it to be "fair".

Harry Reid: "We're going to do immigration reform just like we did health care reform"; vile Durbin confused about citizenship - 04/11/10

Yesterday, yet more marches in support of massive illegal immigration were held across the U.S., with U.S. Sens. Harry Reid appearing at the event in Las Vegas and Dick Durbin at the one in Chicago.

At the one in Vegas, Reid said (link):

"We're going to do immigration reform just like we did health care reform."

One of the things I worry about is that he just might be right. The possible opposition is largely incompetent and is led by those with a loose borders agenda. It isn't difficult to imagine several paper tigers who would initially oppose amnesty caving to a compromise and trying to bring others along with them. One thing you can do is at least try to separate tea parties from their loose borders leaders such as the Koch family, FreedomWorks, and libertarians. Another thing you can do is help discredit incompetent conservative/Republican leaders (broadly defined).

Meanwhile, in Chicago, Durbin said among other things (link, link):

"It is time to say to our government -- stop dividing our families... It is time to say to the voices of hate -- stop dividing America... ...In the name of all who fight for social justice, in the name of the families who go to bed with tears in their eyes facing deportation and separation, in their name, we cannot fail. We must pass immigration reform. We must pass it this year..."

Even if he's just discussing mixed-status families - where some will have the U.S. as "our" government and others will have Mexico or other non-U.S. countries as "our" government - that's more than a bit problematic since the dividing will in most cases be due to people coming here illegally and then having U.S. children. All along that way, they knew exactly what they were doing. They put themselves - and their children - in a precarious position, and now Dick Durbin is trying to pretend that it's "hate" to enforce our perfectly reasonable and necessary immigration laws. If anyone is a "voice of hate" it's Durbin: he's smearing those who simply want to enforce our laws. He also has a curious definition of "social justice", where foreign citizens could come here contrary to our laws and then have some sort of right to citizenship.

Note also that the Chicago event was sponsored by the Mexican government-linked Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights.

March for America: illegal immigration rally, March 21, 2010 Washington DC - 02/12/10

On March 21, 2010, yet another pro-illegal immigration march will be held in Washington DC, this sponsored ultimately by the far-left National Council of Churches [1]. The next day they'll apparently be conducting a lobbying effort, sending attendees to speak to their representatives (presumably illegal aliens will take a pass on that event).

The march is associated with Ecumenical Advocacy Days, a mini-convention focusing this year on the topic of "Migration". One of the speakers will be Frank Sharry. More on EAD at advocacydays.org/about, and more on the march as it develops.

Other groups involved include:

* the Mexican government-linked Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights [2]
* the Border Action Network (link)
* the US Conference of Catholic Bishops' "Justice for Immigrants" campaign (justiceforimmigrants.org/whats-new.html)
* breakingbreadwithfamilies.org / changetakesfaith.org
If anyone can find other questionable groups involved please leave a comment.

3/16/10 UPDATE: From this:

Organized by the Center for Community Change (CCC), the March 21 event will be the largest protest march since President Barack Obama took office. It will include activist groups from nearly every state, and revives the labor-religious-community coalition that built the mass marches of 2006.

According to lead CCC March organizer Gabe Gonzalez, SEIU, UNITE HERE, LIUNA and the UFCW have all committed to mobilize for the march. Gonzalez also told me "the churches are totally on board," with evangelical churches--- which have seen a steady rise in Latinos---playing a larger role than in 2006. Such faith-based activist networks as Gamaliel, PICO and the IAF are also involved, which means that a large cadre of very experienced organizers is involved in ensuring the event's success.

...Following the march, activists plan to turn out in large numbers to the Town Hall meetings that congress members will hold during the two week recess starting March 29. The traditional media gave massive coverage to Tea Party members attending town halls last August, and should be under pressure to provide something close to that coverage for the immigrant rights activism at these upcoming events.

On April 10, there will be an immigrant rights rally in Las Vegas with Senator Reid. Reid knows his re-election depends on massive Latino turnout in November, and immigrant rights advocates are sending a message that they will mobilize for him provided he provides leadership on legalization.

[1] ncccusa.org/news/100212immigrationrally.html
[2] progressillinois.com/posts/content/2010/02/02/
dc-immigration-march-being-planned-we-wont-be-taken-granted

"Death panels" in health care bill can't be repealed; ACORN and others can get funding - 12/22/09

The latest news on the Obama healthcare front is that the "death panels" part of the legislation - the part that doesn't exist even though it does exist - cannot be repealed per language inserted by Harry Reid (link). The subsection about the "Independent Medicare Advisory Board" says:

it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.

According to an update however, it could be effectively repealed by refusing to fund it.

In related news, Roland Burris inserted language in an amendment that could be used to fund ACORN, the National Council of La Raza, and a whole host of other groups (weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/12/exclusive_acorn_qualifies_for_1.asp). From the amendment:

In carrying out this subsection, the Secretary, acting through the Deputy Assistant Secretary, shall award grants, contracts, enter into memoranda of understanding, cooperative, interagency, intra-agency and other agreements with public and nonprofit private entities, agencies, as well as Departmental and Cabinet agencies and organizations, and with organizations that are indigenous human resource providers in communities of color to assure improved health status of racial and ethnic minorities, and shall develop measures to evaluate the effectiveness of activities aimed at reducing health disparities and supporting the local community. Such measures shall evaluate community outreach activities, language services, workforce cultural competence, and other areas as determined by the Secretary.’’

If you don't like this turn of events, here's how to block or modify the healthcare reform bill.

Harry Reid doesn't want illegal immigration, ACORN provisions in unemployment extension bill - 10/26/09

The Senate is deliberating passage of a 14-week extension of unemployment benefits. Mitch McConnell wants to include provisions about illegal immigration and ACORN, but Harry Reid - not surprisingly - does not (link):

McConnell is insisting on consideration of an amendment to prevent ACORN from receiving federal funds, and another designed to filter illegal immigrants out of the workforce. The Kentucky Republican said the eight amendments Republicans are offering won’t take much longer to consider than the six provisions Reid has proposed on behalf of Democrats.

..."I see no reason that we have to do immigration on this bill - that's what E-Verify is all about," Reid said. "I don’t know how many more times we have to pound on ACORN — we’ve voted on that many times already."

UPDATE: There's more on the amendments here.

Harry Reid says there are enough Senate votes for immigration "reform"; offers deportation false choice - 06/15/09

Maria Pena of EFE - the Spanish news agency behind a 2006 smear - offers "Senate Leader Says Immigration Reform Possible This Year" [1]:

He added that although (comprehensive immigration reform) does not have the backing of all Democrats, the bill will overcome the obstacles that stymied the failed 2007 reform.

The majority leader said he has "no doubt" he could find as many as a dozen Republicans who support the measure to make up for defections in Democratic ranks.

"We can't deport 11 million undocumented people, we can't do it physically and financially, as some would want," Reid said. "Immigration is the strength of our country, we bring waves of people to our country who excel in education and the workforce, and that's good."

"We should bring them out of the shadows so that when someone goes to buy milk for their child they're not subject to arrest. Let's clean the slate, let's have a new immigration program that protects our northern and southern borders, a program that brings (these) people out of shadows and makes them more productive," the senator said.

He said people with criminal records would be excluded and that undocumented migrants benefiting from the initiative would have to pay fines, learn English and be up to date in their tax payments.

It's important to note that he might just be thinking "politically": he realizes how difficult amnesty would be, he just wants some Republicans to alienate their base at the same time as, after failing to get all the votes he needs, he's able to alienate the Republican Party from Hispanics who support amnesty.

And, for a discussion of how he's being misleading, see the "comprehensive" link above as well as secure the border and deportations false choice.

[1] hispanicbusiness.com/politics/2009/6/11/
senate_leader_says_immigration_reform_possible.htm

Sonia Sotomayor was member of National Council of La Raza from 1998 to 2004 (+Raul Yzaguirre) - 06/05/09

As first discussed here over a week ago, Sonia Sotomayor was member of the far-left, illegal activity-supporting, extemist-funding, racist-awarding National Council of La Raza. Now we know that she was a member from 1998 to 2004 (link).

Harry Reid says want immigration "reform" this year; NCLR, MALDEF; business-friendly guest worker plan; promotes unrealistic chain migration - 06/04/09

Earlier today, Harry Reid met with MALDEF and the National Council of La Raza, presumably to discuss comprehensive immigration reform. Before or after, speaking to reporters, he said this:

"As far as I’m concerned, we have three major issues we have to do this year, if at all possible: No. 1 is healthcare; No 2 is energy, global warming; No. 3 is immigration reform... It’s going to happen this session, but I want it this year, if at all possible... ...We need (a guest workers plan not just in agriculture but) in the food industry; we need it in the tourism [business]

Aside from a massive guest worker plan, the rest of what the article says he outlined was the standard compehensive immigration reform. Whether they'll have the time to make Reid's wishes come true remains to be seen.

He also spoke at an event celebrating Asian-American Pacific Islander Heritage Month (link), where he also promoted reform and made various misleading statements:

"Finally, we will again pursue comprehensive immigration reform that respects both our nation’s laws and the people from all nations who want to live in America, work hard and pay their fair share of taxes. And it is critical that we bring families together by cutting down on the long waits for prospective immigrants trying to join their immediate family members in the United States. I am committed to reforming our system in a way that is tough, fair and practical."

He's not only promoting chain migration, he's doing so in a completely unrealistic fashion. Any form of legalization would either have a very delitirious impact on those "prospective immigrants" or would result in thousands of criminals and even some terrorists being legalized. See the immigration line summary for the details.

Dream Act re-introduced: you need to organize local efforts to block it - 03/27/09

The anti-American DREAM Act was re-introduced yesterday in the House and the Senate. The bill is an amnesty for a potentially large number of younger illegal aliens, and it would allow those covered under the bill to take college discounts from U.S. citizens. In other words, because of this bill, some U.S. citizens will have their college educations taken away from them by former illegal aliens.

Considering that, it's incredibly easy to block the bill and discredit those who support it. The way to do that is to ask a politician who supports the bill the question at the link above, and then upload video of their response to video sharing sites. What I need you to do is to organize local efforts to go out and do that as described here. Even if you can't start a local group, you can still urge others to form such a group in your area.

The text of the bills isn't at thomas.loc.gov yet, but there's a probably accurate stock description here; those meeting the following qualifications would be temporarily legalized:

* They arrived in the United States before age 16.
* They have been otherwise law-abiding citizens for at least five consecutive years since the date of arrival and have registered for the Selective Service in case the military needs them.
* They must be older than 12 years old but younger than 30 when the bill becomes law.
* They have either graduated from a U.S. high school or obtained a general equivalency diploma.
* They have "good moral character."

...those immigrants who satisfy these criteria would get conditional legalization and would have to either complete study at a community college, complete at least two years toward a bachelor’s degree or serve two years in the U.S. military to get their permanent residency.

The House version is H.R.1751 from Howard Berman, currently co-sponsored by Lincoln Diaz Balart, Mario Diaz Balart, Zoe Lofgren, Joseph Cao, John Conyers, Devin Nunes, Jared Polis, Ileana Ros Lehtinen, and Lucille Roybal Allard.

The Senate version is S.729 from Dick Durbin, currently co-sponsored by Richard Lugar, Russ Feingold, Ted Kennedy, Pat Leahy, Joe Lieberman, Mel Martinez, and Harry Reid.

Those quoted at the description link above in support of the bill include Harry Reid, the Fair Immigration Reform Movement, the National Council of La Raza, and the National Immigration Forum.

Illegal aliens can get cash payments under stimulus package (ITIN numbers) UPDATE: maybe not - 01/29/09

An unnamed "top Republican congressional official" says that the economic stimulus bill could result in illegal aliens receiving checks from the government (link):
The legislation, which would send tax credits of $500 per worker and $1,000 per couple, expressly disqualifies nonresident aliens, but it would allow people who don't have Social Security numbers to be eligible for the checks.

Undocumented immigrants who are not eligible for a Social Security number can file tax returns with an alternative number. A House-passed version of the economic recovery bill and one making its way through the Senate would allow anyone with such a number, called an individual taxpayer identification number, to qualify for the tax credits.
As pointed out later in the article, the rules for the 2008 stimulus scheme were tightened up to require an SSN. ITIN numbers are, among other things, a way for the government to collect taxes from illegal aliens, and they've been used by banks to give home loans to illegal aliens.

UPDATE: The Associated Press report above is from Julie Hirschfeld Davis, and she's now updated the report to say the opposite: that illegal aliens won't be able to get those payments without a Social Security Number (link), quoting Harry Reid as saying:
"This legislation is directed toward people who are legal in our country. It is about time the Republicans got a different piece of reading material and get off this illegal immigrant stuff... This bill has nothing to do with anything illegal as far as immigration. It creates jobs for people who are lawfully in this country."
However, I'll leave this in the "unsure" category pending seeing the actual language being referred to. Illegal aliens can indeed file taxes using ITIN numbers, so unless there's language saying that only those who file using an SSN can get the payouts or some other restriction, then the original report would be the accurate one.

UPDATE 2: Media Matters for America cites chapter and verse, and it doesn't look like - at least under the House Engrossed version of HR 1 - those without Social Security Numbers can get those payments, which would exclude illegal aliens: mediamatters.org/items/200901300010

"Comprensive immigration reform" returns: S.9, the "Stronger Economy, Stronger Borders Act of 2009" - 01/07/09

Comprehensive immigration reform - aka an amnesty for illegal aliens - is back. Yesterday, Harry Reid introduced S.9, the "Stronger Economy, Stronger Borders Act of 2009" ("SESBA"). What's there now is just a placeholder (link), however the remarks made by Patrick Leahy at introduction show exactly what it is. Those remarks and the list of co-sponsors are below. Note that this is a repeat of how it started in 2007, right down to the bill number.

If you want to cut this bill off at the knees, write to your representatives and let them know your opinion. However, for those who want something that would be dramatically more effective, ask politicians tough questions about this issue on videotape and then upload their responses to video sharing sites. Discrediting one national politician over this issue would send a very loud and clear message to the rest.

Note that allowing illegal aliens to become citizens is left open, perhaps as a bargaining chip:
I am confident that our country and our economy will be far more secure when those who are currently living in the shadows of our society are recognized and provided the means to become lawful residents, if not a path to citizenship.
Note also that the remarks oppose immigration enforcement, at the same time as SESBA presumably will include ramped-up enforcement as an inducement to those who support our laws:
Those who oppose a realistic solution to address the estimated millions of people currently living and working in the United States without proper documentation have offered no alternative solution other than harsh penalties and more enforcement.
So? That would work, and it would restore the natural order of things where people stay in their own countries until we decide we want to admit them. Apparently Leahy et al are afraid that it would work. But, don't worry: he's thinking of you:
We must protect the rights and opportunities of American workers and, at the same time, ensure that our Nation's farmers and employers have the help they need.
OK, the American worker isn't at the top of Leahy's list. Rather, he's more concerned with the riding on the coattails of racial power and helping cheap labor employers have a ready workforce.

The remarks also support "family reunification", aka chain migration rather than our historical policies which encouraged people to make a clean break. They also oppose the "wall" on the southern border.

As for this, I'm not sure what exactly it's referring to:
We cannot continue to deny asylum seekers because they have been forced at the point of a gun to provide assistance to those engaged in terrorist acts. We cannot continue to label as terrorist organizations those who have stood by the United States in armed conflict.
UPDATE: Brown was added as a co-sponsor.

Pages