immigration policy center
immigration policy center: Page 1
Democrats, far-left praise Marco Rubio's immigration moves (NCLR; Sharry; IPC; Obama and Gutierrez spox) - 01/20/13
In a January 18, 2013 press release, Marco Rubio lists some of the supposed conservatives who support his immigration amnesty plan ( peekURL.com/zycdzeU ).
To be balanced, here are some positive mentions of his plan (or at least support for his actions on comprehensive immigration reform) from those Rubio should be opposing on immigration: the Democrats and the far-left.
State and local police officers who enforce federal immigration laws are not adequately screened, trained or supervised, and the civil rights of the immigrants they deal with are not consistently protected, according to a report released Friday by the Department of Homeland Security inspector general.
The report by the department’s internal watchdog was a sweeping review of a program run by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Through agreements signed with about 60 county and state police forces, the program allows local officers to question immigrants about their legal status and detain them for deportation.
The inspector general’s report describes the program as haphazardly administered, with local agencies detaining and prosecuting immigrants with little oversight from federal agents and significant inconsistencies from place to place.
You can read the report - and the entirely predictable responses from the American Civil Liberties Union, the Immigration Policy Center, and the National Immigration Law Center - at blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/04/dhs-report-slams-287g-program.html
Since taking office, the Obama administration has consistently undermined immigration enforcement. An DHS inspector general report focused on 287(g) is the latest attempt to provide critics of 287(g) with ammunition to halt or eliminate the program. Among the report recommendations include more "civil-right" data recording and changing "performance measures that do not focus on aliens who pose a threat to public safety or are a danger to the community." In essence, the IG report is critical of ICE for not moving fast enough to implement the revised 287(g) guidelines that put "catch-and-release" back in place for non-violent criminal aliens. The legislative history and original intent of the 287(g) program is clear - it was meant to encompass all illegal aliens, and that was how the program was run until the Obama administration. Since then, the administration has attempted to remake the program into a watered-down jail screening program and to reduce its effectiveness at finding and deporting illegal aliens regardless of the severity of their crimes.
John Morton of the Department of Homeland Security spoke at the Migration Policy Institute yesterday about reforms he's making concerning immigration detention. The Immigration Policy Center has a report here, and their summary of his upcoming reforms includes:
* [...centralizing] facilities [which] would be managed at the top by federal employees subject to clear, transparent, and fully implemented detention standards (though Morton told the crowd at MPI that they must be "patient" on revised detention standards, as ICE is trying to find something that works for both advocates and contractors, and is cost-effective).
* Reducing the number of detention facilities. ICE detains 32,000 people per day and around 380,000 per year. Morton stressed the importance of keeping the system compact and organized (ICE has already eliminated 50 facilities under Morton’s watch).
...* Finally, Morton talked about ICE’s preference to detain only criminal immigrants. He detailed ICE’s desire for smart, cost-effective alternatives to detention in order to ensure court appearances for non-criminal immigrants who pose a flight risk. Morton revealed that the Executive Office for Immigration Review is conducting a pilot program for alternatives to detention, and that after testing is complete there could be 16,000-17,000 slots available for immigrants to be placed in these programs.
Considering that - just like the Bush administration - the Obama administration has little use for immigration enforcement aside from as a way to get amnesty, and considering that a very large percentage of those released with a promise to appear never follow through, the last is more than a bit worrisome. While something like electronic monitoring makes sense as an alternative to detention in many cases, the question is whether they'd design the program to fail or whether they'd actually intend for it to work.
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
The Immigration Policy Center has released a report called "Economic Progress via Legalization: Lessons from the Last Legalization Program"  which points out that the 1986 amnesty helped those amnestied improve their situations. However, there's little in their report that's remarkable and they don't take into account the balance between the benefits and costs of the amnesty; everything's always great when it comes to amnesty. On the one hand, those amnestied may have led to increased economic activity and that might have helped others. On the other hand, the cost to those others of competition for their jobs led to reduced wages. And, of course, all the other costs; see below.
Theirs is yet another in the long line of bogus economic studies designed to encourage comprehensive immigration reform. They don't take into account what would have happened if those amnestied had instead been encouraged to return home: the Mexican government and far-left racial power groups would have less power inside the U.S. than they do now, we'd have less illegal immigration (it's increased in part due to the network effect; Mexicans arriving here illegally know they have a support structure in place), and our own low-wage workers' wages would be higher. In fact, they as much as acknowledge the last (note that their report concentrates on what they call "IRCA immigrants", which they define as "Mexican immigrants of different age groups who came to the United States during the 1975 - 1981 period"):
But the fact remains that the data indicate that the IRCA population improved its status both as a group and compared to natives.
Good for them, not so good for the rest of us; we know which side the IPC is on.
The most "dramatic" change they offer is: "By 2006, only half as many IRCA immigrants were below the poverty line as in 1990." Meanwhile: "Use of public assistance among IRCA immigrants remained largely unchanged overall" We're also informed that the "home ownership rates [of IRCA immigrants] improved tremendously". Perhaps considering the mortgage meltdown the IPC should have kept that to themselves. In fact, little in the report presents amnesties as that beneficial to the U.S., and there are all those costs the IPC will never mention. If you want to throw the IPC for a loop, ask them to do similar reports on those from other countries, or ask them to give a full accounting of all the costs and benefits of amnesty.
Immigration Policy Ctr: U.S. lost Olympic Games bid due to "anti-visitor policy", "broken immigration system" - 10/02/09
Today's "Tie Every Current Event to Your Agenda No Matter How Tenuously" award goes to the Immigration Policy Center, which blames the failure of the U.S. to bring the Olympics home to Chicago on our immigration policies (link). Per a press release:
"A litany of voices have been warning for years that the U.S. is slowly adopting an anti-visitor policy that is harming business, higher education and families... Stories in the press and report after report have all highlighted how our broken immigration system is hampering our nation's ability to attract the best and the brightest and stay competitive with other nations around the world."
1. There indeed has been some sort of tightening of visa requirements in order to reduce the possibility of terrorists jetting in, however, any idea that Obama wouldn't have made sure that as many people as possible could travel to Chicago is absurd.
2. The system is broken canard and the rest aren't usually used for issues relating to tourism but for actual immigrants (and illegal aliens); the IPC is repurposing it for their argument (such as it is) or just has it as a macro.
UPDATE: This story has also spread to other supporters of massive/illegal immigration, and it appears to have started at least in the MSM with Michelle Higgins of the New York Times with this oft-quoted passage (link):
Syed Shahid Ali, an I.O.C. member from Pakistan, in the question-and-answer session following Chicago’s official presentation, pointed out that entering the United States can be "a rather harrowing experience."
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:
Walter Ewing /IPC: massive immigration is great! (note: assumes we're a completely different country and more like Europe) - 06/02/09
The Immigration Policy Center offers a mini-study (written by Walter Ewing) called "Fuzzy Math: The Anti-Immigration Arguments of NumbersUSA Don’t Add Up" (http://immigrationpolicy.org/index.php?content=fc060209):
According to the anti-immigration group NumbersUSA, immigration to the United States is all about arithmetic: immigration increases the U.S. population, and more people presumably means more pollution, more urban sprawl, more competition for jobs, and higher taxes for Americans who must shoulder the costs of “over-population.”1 At first glance, this argument is attractive in its simplicity: less immigration, fewer people, a better environment, more jobs, lower taxes. However, as with so many simple arguments about complex topics, it is fundamentally flawed and misses the point. “Over-population” is not the primary cause of the environmental or economic woes facing the United States, so arbitrary restrictions on immigration will not create a cleaner environment or a healthier economy.
Ewing goes on to describe all the ways that massive immigration wouldn't impact the environment. To summarize, we'd have to transform ourselves into Sweden in order to reduce or minimize the impact. Ewing doesn't even slightly acknowledge that, no, we aren't Western Europe. According to him, "[t]he problem is less about how many people are in the United States, and more about how the United States produces and consumes". Yet, he and the IPC aren't requiring a coupling between massive immigration and different building and environmental policies; they aren't saying that massive immigration should be possible once we're all green. Their position is irresponsible, encouraging massive immigration into a society that's at most very lightly green. They're basically acknowledging NumbersUSA's point and providing a fantastical way in which NumbersUSA's concerns would be mitigated.
Corporation for Public Broadcasting screens pro-illegal immigration film on Capitol Hill ("Made in L.A.") - 04/24/09
Earlier today, the pro-illegal immigration movie "Made in L.A." was screened on Capitol Hill for various politicians and others; a list is at . Not only were those who are public servants wasting time watching movies on the U.S.'s dime, but the further involvement of PBS cranks it up a notch:
Senior Vice President of Television Content at the Corporation For Public Broadcasting Ted Garcia highlighted the story and mission of Made in L.A. and acknowledged the many partners that came together to make the film possible: "Made in L.A. highlights some of the reasons why public service media is so crucial... I'm so pleased that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting through our support of ITVS, P.O.V. and Latino Public Broadcasting has played a role in ensuring that this story would be told."
Has the CPB ever spent money on a documentary made by those who support the enforcement of our laws or the screening at the Capitol of such a film? The filmmakers are engaged in a "May Day Community Screening Campaign" and this screening is clearly part of that campaign, putting PBS/CPB on the side of advocating against enforcement of our immigration laws.
A few days ago, Janet Napolitano of the Department of Homeland Security said "crossing the border is not a crime per se. It is civil." See the link for an excerpt from the U.S.
College Board comes out for anti-American DREAM Act, depriving U.S. citizens of college educations (Gaston Caperton, Thomas Rudin, Roberto Gonzales) - 04/21/09
The College Board - the group of over 5600 educational institutions that administers the SAT - has released a report advocating for the anti-American DREAM Act; that would let the illegal aliens covered under the bill take college educations away from U.S. citizens. See that link for the details and a question you're urged to ask those politicians who support the bill in order to discredit them. No matter how they want to evade the truth, the bottom line is that what the College Board supports would cause some U.S. citizens to not be able to go to college.
The report was authored by Roberto Gonzales of the University of Washington; his blurb is at . An Associated Press article on them by Hope Yen is here. The PDF can be downloaded from professionals.collegeboard.com/policy-advocacy/diversity/undocumented
The president of the Board is former West Virginia governor Gaston Caperton, and the AP article quotes Thomas Rudin, their "Senior Vice President for Advocacy, Government Relations, and Development". If anyone can find direct contact information for either, please leave a comment; until such time, please contact them via collegeboard.com/about/contact.html?region=NYO
A quick scan of the report shows this misleading paragraph:
Such legislation has not precipitated a large influx of new immigrant students, displaced native-born students or been a financial drain on the education system. In fact, these measures tend to increase school revenues by bringing in tuition from students who otherwise would not be in college.50
The footnote is to NILC's Basic "Facts" about In-State Tuition for Undocumented Immigrant Students. If one assumes based on the paragraph that that footnote shows how those "undocumented" students don't displace the "native-born", one would be wrong since it just handwaves that impact away.
Please go to public appearances by supporters of the bill and get video of you asking them the question on the DREAM Act page. Really pressing even just one nationally-known supporter on this issue would have an impact on their political career and send a message to the rest.
Immigration Policy Center needs help understand stimulus jobs going to illegal aliens (Walter Ewing) - 03/09/09
Over a month ago I discussed the Heritage Foundation article about how around 300,000 illegal aliens could get stimulus jobs. I raised a few issues, but in general they're right. Now, due to a recent USA Today article, the issue is finally in the news. Thus it is that Walter Ewing of the Immigration Policy Center has to rush to defend illegal aliens taking stimulus jobs from U.S. citizens in the blog post "CIS' Dubious Data Deflects Rational Immigration Debate" (immigrationimpact.com/2009/03/09/cis-data-immigration-myth-stimulus-bill). That references the claims from the Center for Immigration Studies, which are similar to those from Heritage.
However, Ewing's fingers got ahead of his brain:
CIS relies upon estimates from the 2005 Current Population Survey suggesting that approximately 15% of the construction workforce was undocumented in that year—before the U.S. economy and the construction industry took a nosedive and were hit by mass layoffs. As the Pew Hispanic Center notes in a recent report, Latino immigrants have been particularly hard hit by the current recession. As a result, it is doubtful that 15% of today’s decimated construction workforce consists of undocumented immigrants, most of whom are Latino. Yet CIS takes 15% of 2 million to come up with its estimate of 300,000 new construction jobs being filled by undocumented immigrants.
Just because some of that 15% might be unemployed doesn't mean they vanished into thin air. Most of them are still around and would be available to take stimulus jobs. In other words, they're part of the "potential workforce", even if some of them aren't part of the actual workforce. Certainly, some of them might have returned home, but that's not what Ewing is saying.
Better supporters of illegal immigration please.
A government report questions the effectiveness of a federal program, long criticized by immigrant advocacy groups, that deputizes police officers as immigration agents.As he later says, who exactly they're supposed to go after isn't spelled out in the law, although the internal Department of Homeland Security policies are to go after smugglers, violent criminals, and so on. The GAO says the DHS didn't make that policy clear, and their report includes a reply from DHS saying that they're making changes. Archibold's report also references Joe Arpaio's efforts and the report from Justice Strategies; he calls the latter George Soros-linked group "a nonpartisan research foundation".
The report, to be released Wednesday by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, says the government has failed to determine how many of the thousands of people deported under the program were the kind of violent felons it was devised to root out...
Rep. Bennie Thompson will be holding a hearing today. More as it becomes available.
UPDATE: The report is available here; if anyone reads it leave notes in comments. Stock comments from Ali Noorani of the National Immigration Forum and Angela Kelley of the Immigration Policy Center are at: lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2009/03/congressional-h.html
* The drop in support among Latinos for Republicans between 2004 and 2008 was part of a broad-based electoral movement away from the GOP, and was hardly specific to that demographic group. McCain received only 57 percent of the white male vote, compared with 62 percent for Bush in 2004, and McCain’s 55 percent of regular churchgoers was significantly lower than Bush's 61 percent.
* Credible surveys indicate that the major policy concerns of Latinos were no different than the concerns of non-Latinos: The economy and jobs topped the list.
* There is little evidence that immigration policy was an influential factor in Latinos' choice between the two candidates once basic party predispositions are taken into account.
* McCain's consistent history of advocating a legalization program for illegal immigrants made no impression on Latino voters.
UPDATE: From the other side, the Immigration Policy Center has responded with some polling data linked from here:
The surveys they point to were performed by Frank Sharry's America's Voice, the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, and others and may have been designed to show what those groups wanted them to show. The IPC fact sheet also doesn't address general election trends.
UPDATE 2: The CIS author responds to his critics here.
Andres Oppenheimer of the Miami Herald - previously featured here for warning about a "Latino Intifada" unless we give millions of illegal aliens an amnesty - now offers "Five myths of anti-immigration talk", such as:
Myth No. 1: ''We are only against illegal immigration. Undocumented immigrants should get in line for visas.'' That's deceptive because you can't demand that people get into line when, for the most part, there is no line to get into... While the U.S. labor market is demanding 1.5 million mostly low-skilled immigrants a year -- and will demand many more in coming years, as the U.S. population becomes increasingly educated -- the current immigration system allows into the U.S. an average of one million legal immigrants a year, and most of them are already here... ''There is a huge mismatch between what the U.S. labor market needs and the supply of immigration visas,'' says Frank Sharry, head of the National Immigration Forum, which advocates both secure borders and a path to legal residence for many of the 12 million undocumented immigrants in the United States.
Perhaps there's a reason why there isn't a line for massive numbers of low-skilled workers and/or massive immigration from Mexico, yet AO doesn't go into that. And the "market" demands are based on a crooked market, where employers have been able to obtain labor thanks to corrupt politicians who refuse to enforce our laws or try to subvert them. Perhaps it's bad public policy to import massive amounts of low-skilled workers while the rest of us sit on our verandas watching them toil in the fields. And, Sharry isn't exactly as moderate a voice as AO tries to portray him. In another "myth", AO references "studies" from the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center. Both "studies" are riddled with holes and the second group has an indirect link to the Mexican government.
He also quotes Michelle Waslin, previously with the National Council of La Raza and now with the Immigration Policy Center.
"Anybody who is Hispanic-looking or has an Hispanic last name is being treated as an undocumented immigrant."
To the extent that that's true, those groups and pundits who support illegal immigration are partially responsible. They've helped to racialize illegal immigration, turning it from an issue of law into an issue of ethnic identity. And, they've continally tried to blur the lines between legal and illegal immigration.
The other "myths" could be taken apart, but it's not really worth it.