Obama on track to add 200,000+ new legal workers to a weak job market (immigration, amnesty, DREAM Act, Janet Napolitano, DHS, DACA) - 10/26/12
According to Janet Napolitano of the Department of Homeland Security , over 200,000 illegal aliens have applied to Obama's "Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals" amnesty.
The Barack Obama administration has bypassed Congress and passed what amounts to the DREAM Act by executive fiat (link).
As you can see by the next link, nothing says "Permanent" quite like Temporary Protected Status. That government program allows foreign citizens to stay in the U.S. on a "temporary" basis due to disasters or strife in their homelands. It's important to note that those covered by it are here legally: they aren't illegal aliens. The issue is that TPS keeps getting extended year after year.
Obama voting push: relaxes Green Card wait time for illegal alien family members (Luis Gutierrez) - 01/06/12
Obama administration officials announced on Friday that they will propose a fix to a notorious snag in immigration law that will spare hundreds of thousands of American citizens from prolonged separations from immigrant spouses and children.
Elizabeth Warren is a minor leftwing idol who's vying for Scott Brown's Massachusetts senate seat. She's presented by her supporters (in and out of the media) as the great protector of the middle class.
If so, why is she taking a corrupt position that would harm the middle class while helping the rich?
Due to lax policies on the part of the Department of Homeland Security, an illegal alien who had been convicted of drunk driving and had a series of other run-ins with police was not deported immediately. Instead, he was put into DHS' "Alternatives to Detention" program and in August 2010 he drove drunk and killed a nun and seriously injured two other nuns.
Read about it here, including the following from a report that the DHS appears to have tried to keep secret:
On May 7, 2009, after Montano served the portion of his sentence that had not been suspended, ICE took him into custody. Based on Montano's compliance during his prior participation in the ATD program, ICE officers released Montano on the prior order of supervision (dating back to 2008) with the condition that he report to ICE on a regular basis.
Note also that this happened in Prince William County, home of the pro-illegal immigration, anti-white racists at 9500 Liberty whose documentary was promoted by Youtube corporate. Discrediting 9500 Liberty wouldn't have prevented this tragedy, but it might have increased the likelihood of stronger enforcement in that county. Unfortunately, few are willing and able to discredit those like 9500 Liberty, and some - like teaparty "patriot" Dan Riehl - actively try to block those whose coverage could be used to discredit far-left, anti-white, and pro-illegal immigration groups.
Border Patrol agents shot beanbags at a group of suspected bandits before the men returned fire during a confrontation in a remote canyon, killing agent Brian Terry with a single gunshot, records show...
...The (FBI) documents say the group of illegal border entrants refused commands to drop their weapons after agents confronted them at about 11:15 p.m. Two agents fired beanbags at the migrants, who responded with gunfire. Two agents returned fire, one with a long gun and one with a pistol, but Terry was mortally wounded in the gunfight...
Terry's brother, Kent Terry, said the other agents who were there that night told him that they were instructed to use the non-lethal beanbags first. It's a policy that doesn't make sense to Kent Terry.
"You go up against a bandit crew that is carrying AKs, and you walk out there with guns loaded with beanbags - I don't get it," Terry said in a phone interview from Michigan. "It's like going to the Iraqi war with one knife. It boggles my mind. ... These guys (Border Patrol agents) are professionals; they should be able to use their judgment call on their own."
It's worth recalling the 2004 controversy surrounding the Border Patrol's use of non-lethal weapons. George P Bush - nephew of George W Bush - spoke out against those weapons and later somewhat backtracked. But, not before the Mexican government threatened to sue. No doubt there's a combination of reasons why the DHS would use beanbags: they're worried about unarmed people being shot, they don't really want to stop the flow of people and (perhaps less likely) drugs, and they're worried about suits from the Mexican government and their little helpers in the U.S. such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and MALDEF.
If you don't like the current situation, it's possible to somewhat neuter those last groups by helping discredit them. Unfortunately, and while I'm grateful for any help I've received, after years of not getting much help I'm not too hopeful. The loudest opposition to Barack Obama - the tea parties - concern themselves with not much more than trying to help the Koch family make more money. Discrediting groups that support illegal immigration is beyond their abilities, but so too is helping those who are able to discredit such groups.
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told a congressional panel Wednesday that U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and his fellow agents were not under orders to refrain from using lethal force in a December gunbattle near the Mexican border that resulted in Mr. Terry´s death.
Testifying to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Miss Napolitano said agents are allowed to use lethal force “if you are under threat of serious injury or death.” She said she herself had asked whether the four agents involved in the Dec. 14 shootout with bandits on the border in Arizona had their hands tied by orders, and she said the answer is “absolutely not.”
“Our lethal force policy is the same as virtually every law enforcement agency in the country - that is, if you are under threat of serious injury or death, you may use lethal force,” Miss Napolitano said.
I believe that's what we already knew. The issue is that the agents might have been too scared - due to law suits and the like - to initially confront the smugglers with real guns.
Unpresidential: Whitehouse.gov promotes, misleads about anti-American DREAM Act (Stephanie Valencia) - 12/03/10
The White House blog has a completely unpresidential post called "10 Reasons We Need The DREAM Act"  in which staffer Stephanie Valencia  promotes - and misleads about - the anti-American DREAM Act. That bill would let the illegal aliens covered by it take college educations away from U.S. citizens and, depending on the version, would allow states to give some illegal aliens a better college tuition rate than some U.S.
A group of senators  recently sent a letter to Janet Napolitano of the Department of Homeland Security pointing out that her version of immigration enforcement is selective and also noting that the DHS hasn't asked for more resources to do their job.
Here's part of the letter (link):
Recently, media reports have revealed that pending removal proceedings are being dismissed in record numbers. That sharp increase in dismissals is the result of a directive from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director (John Morton) to all ICE attorneys to review pending cases and seek dismissal if the cases do not involve [serious] offenders...
Though the reports focused only on cases pending before Houston immigration judges, our understanding is that the ICE directive applies nationwide. Numerous criminal aliens are being released into society and are having proceedings terminated simply because ICE has decided that such cases do not fit within the Department’s chosen enforcement priorities...
...The ICE directive, along with other recently announced detention and removal policies, raises serious questions about your Department’s commitment to enforce the immigration laws. It appears that your Department is enforcing the law based on criteria it arbitrarily chose, with complete disregard for the enforcement laws created by Congress. The repercussions of this decision extend beyond removal proceedings, because it discourages officers from even initiating new removal proceedings if they believe the case ultimately will be dismissed based on the new directive.
Even more disturbing is the fact that your Department has chosen to dismiss cases against criminal aliens, including aliens who have committed crimes involving moral turpitude, crimes of violence, assault, theft, fraud, drug offenses, driving under the influence, and illegal entry.
To be sure, ICE has cited a lack of resources as one of the reasons for its prioritization of cases and for its selective enforcement. But to date, we have not seen any efforts by ICE, your Department, or the Administration to request an increase in ICE funding sufficient to address staffing shortages, detention capacity, and coordination of enforcement efforts nationwide to achieve a streamlined and robust immigration removal system...
They want a list of the cases that the DHS has dismissed, and they also want to know how much the DHS is going to need to do their job.
A DHS spokesman responds (link):
"The idea that DHS is engaged in 'selective enforcement' couldn't be further from the truth," [spokesman Matt Chandler] said. "In fact, this administration has fundamentally changed the way the federal government approaches immigration enforcement, doing more to keep criminal aliens who are threats to public safety - including murderers, rapists and child molesters - off our streets than ever before."
That's a good thing, but at the same time DHS is sending the message that illegal aliens are more or less home free as long as they avoid committing serious crimes.
The Department of Homeland Security's Secure Communities program collects the fingerprints of those charged with crimes by localities and checks them for immigration violations. Now, a few illegal immigration-supporting communities are finding out that, despite a previous statement from DHS implying otherwise, there's no opt-out. Localities already send such fingerprints to the FBI and the DHS gets them from the latter source and not from the former.
A senior ICE official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk about the involuntary nature of the program, said: "Secure Communities is not based on state or local cooperation in federal law enforcement. The program's foundation is information sharing between FBI and ICE. State and local law enforcement agencies are going to continue to fingerprint people and those fingerprints are forwarded to FBI for criminal checks. ICE will take immigration action appropriately."
The only way a local jurisdiction could opt out of the program is if a state refused to send fingerprints to the FBI. Since police and prosecutors need to know the criminal histories of people they arrest, it is not realistic for states to withhold fingerprints from the FBI - which means it is impossible to withhold them from ICE.
Those who wanted to opt-out are: Santa Clara County, Arlington County, Washington DC, and, of course, San Francisco. The article also quotes Walter Tejada of Arlington County as being upset, which is a good thing. And, this will one of the few positive steps Janet Napolitano has taken, just as long as it is actually mandatory in practice.
Obama wants $500 million to send National Guard to secure the border (prelude to amnesty) - 05/25/10
"[The troops will] provide intelligence; surveillance and reconnaissance support; intelligence analysis; immediate support to counternarcotics enforcement; and training capacity until Customs and Border Patrol can recruit and train additional officers and agents to serve on the border... [the funding will be used to] enhance technology at the border, share information and support with state, local, and tribal law enforcement, and increase DoJ and DHS presence and law enforcement activities at the border, to include increased agents, investigators, and prosecutors, as part of a multi-layered effort to target illicit networks trafficking in people, drugs, illegal weapons, and money."
It's very important to bear the context in mind. Securing the border is vitally important, and this is great news from that standpoint. However, it's also important not to be snookered: the Obama administration might declare the border secure after a few months and then use that to push comprehensive immigration reform, aka amnesty. And, since most political leaders that discuss immigration matters from the "tough" standpoint harp only on securing the border, this might be seen as Obama playing a political game in order to "give them what they want", in order to get what he wants.
And, it's important to bear in mind that this follows Obama welcoming Mexico's president to the White House with open arms, with the Democrats in Congress going as far as giving Calderon a standing ovation for opposing a law supported by 60% to 70% of Americans.
And, it's important to keep recent history in mind. Recall that just over four years ago, Karl Rove supported putting the National Guard on the border, just as then-Arizona governor Janet Napolitano had requested. That "Operation Jump Start" made for a wonderful photo op with George W Bush, but the goal was clear: look like they were doing something in order to get amnesty.
Then as now this is a good move, although it's very important to make sure it's not a prelude to something else.
UPDATE: In case all of the above wasn't clear, the Mexican government has now weighed in (portal.sre.gob.mx/usa/
Regarding the Administration’s decision to send 1,200 National Guard servicemen to the US Southern border, the Government of Mexico trusts that this decision will help to channel additional US resources to enhance efforts to prevent the illegal flows of weapons and bulk cash into Mexico, which provide organized crime with its firepower and its ability to corrupt.
Additionally, the Government of Mexico expects that National Guard personnel will strengthen US operations in the fight against transnational organized crime that operates on both sides of our common border and that it will not, in accordance to its legal obligations, conduct activities directly linked to the enforcement of immigration laws.
It'd be interesting to know exactly what "legal obligations" they're referring to; obviously they have no right to tell us how or where we do immigration enforcement inside the U.S. That said, there's a good chance that Obama has already agreed to the Mexico's demands and this current move is one result of an agreement made on Calderon's recent visit.
President Barack Obama on Tuesday authorized the deployment of up to 1,200 additional troops to border areas but State Department spokesman Philip Crowley told reporters, "It's not about immigration."
He said the move was "fully consistent with our efforts to do our part to stem, you know, violence, to interdict the flow of dangerous people and dangerous goods -- drugs, guns, people."
..."We have explained the president's announcement to the government of Mexico, and they fully understand the rationale behind it," Crowley said.
Crowley was formerly with the Center for American Progress.
And, from this:
President Barack Obama's Democratic allies in the Senate have repelled a move by presidential rival John McCain to send an additional 6,000 National Guard troops to the U.S-Mexico border... The Arizona Republican says the security situation along the order has deteriorated so badly that 3,000 guard troops are needed just to help protect his state. But McCain failed to muster the required 60 votes for his plan as the Senate continued debate on an a war funding bill.
The "Secure Communities" program from the Department of Homeland Security is Janet Napolitano's kinder, gentler alternative to the 287g program. That's not good enough for the far-left (link). Yesterday they released the following:
[T]he National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON), the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and the Immigration Justice Clinic of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law (of Yeshiva University) filed a lawsuit demanding records related to the little-known United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) "Secure Communities" program that further involves local and state police in federal immigration enforcement. The filing also marks the launch of "Uncovering the Truth," a weeklong national campaign of coordinated actions and advocacy in more than ten cities to end ICE-police collaboration.
"The passage of S.B. 1070 in Arizona should be proof enough of the dangerous and disastrous nature of ICE-police collaboration programs like the so-called Secure Communities program," said Pablo Alvarado, NDLON Executive Director. "The President should heed his own advice and act responsibly by reclaiming the federal government's exclusive authority over the nation's immigration laws. By terminating all police and ICE partnerships, the President can help restore community safety and protect civil rights and due process for all."
At the same time as the far-left opposes almost any form of immigration enforcement, they also push comprehensive immigration reform. The latter is sold as having... increased enforcement, and the far-left promotes it in completely bad faith: if it passes, they'll oppose its enforcement provisions just as they oppose enforcement now.
[At a meeting on Monday], Obama and members of his Domestic Policy Council outlined ways to resuscitate the (comprehensive immigration reform aka amnesty) effort in a White House meeting with two senators -- Democrat (Charles Schumer) of New York and Republican Lindsey Graham of South Carolina -- who have spent months trying to craft a bill.
According to a person familiar with the meeting, the White House may ask Schumer and Graham to at least produce a blueprint that could be turned into legislative language.
The basis of a bill would include a path toward citizenship for the 10.8 million people living in the U.S. illegally. Citizenship would not be granted lightly, the White House said. Undocumented workers would need to register, pay taxes and pay a penalty for violating the law. Failure to comply might result in deportation.
Nick Shapiro, a White House spokesman, said the president's support for an immigration bill, which would also include improved border security, was "unwavering."
Participants in the White House gathering also pointed to an immigration rally set for March 21 in Washington as a way to spotlight the issue and build needed momentum.
1. The "lightly" part is bogus; "register, pay taxes and pay a penalty for violating the law" is stock boilerplate and doesn't represent anything tougher than all the other bogus plans put forth in the past. Note also that those who didn't step easily through their big hoop "might" be deported. They might as well just come right out and say this is a sham that would encourage more illegal immigration and with little intent of enforcement.
2. This could be (and probably is) just an attempt by the Obama admin to placate Hispanic leaders.
3. Schumer says he has trouble finding Republicans to support him other than Graham; he met with Janet Napolitano yesterday to seek her help and afterwards in a statement said, "We just need a second Republican."
4. There are probably a good number more illegal aliens in the U.S. than the figure given as a fact by Nicholas.
5. The March 21 event will feature foreign citizens who are here illegally marching through our streets in a show of force, demanding that we change our laws to suit them. And, all those referenced above are supporting that.
"Temporary" Protected Status for Haitian illegal aliens pushed by profiteers (Haiti earthquake) - 01/14/10
[TPS has been approved; see the update below]
Yesterday, Janet Napolitano of the Department of Homeland Security suspended repatriations of illegal aliens from Haiti; that makes some sense as long as it's actually temporary. What doesn't make sense are the calls from some to give "Temporary Protected Status" in the U.S. to Haitian illegal aliens. The word "temporary" is generally a misnomer as that status is renewed over and over.
TPS would be an infected band-aid that wouldn't fix Haiti's structural problems and in some cases would result in importing Haiti's problems into the U.S. It would also result in brain-draining that country of its more energetic citizens, making things easier for corrupt Haitian leaders. These pushing TPS are at root simply self-serving: they're interested in little more than obtaining political power. They're thinking only of themselves instead of trying to solve problems; they're only making the long-term situation worse.
"Well, we have, as you know, many Haitian Americans. Most are here legally. Some are not documented. And the Obama administration is taking steps to make sure that people are given some temporary status so that we don’t compound the problem that we face in Haiti."
Senators Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, both Democrats, and (Representatives Lincoln Diaz Balart and Mario Diaz Balart) of south Florida, both Republicans, as well as John C. Favalora, the Roman Catholic archbishop of Miami... "If this is not a slam-dunk case for temporary protected status, I don’t know what is," said Kevin Appleby, a spokesman for the bishops. He said the status would allow Haitian immigrants here to work here and send money back to relatives in Haiti trying to recover from the quake.
Appleby's proposal is at heart immoral: he would encourage Haiti to become even more dependent on the U.S. than they already are and he would embed that dependence in their society, instead of encouraging them to develop their own commerce.
The letter from Senators encouraging TPS is here; in addition to Gillibrand and Schumer, the signatories are: John Kerry, Paul Kirk, Jeff Bingaman, Bill Nelson, Dick Durbin, Frank Lautenberg, Chris Dodd, Bob Menendez, Pat Leahy, Dianne Feinstein, Tom Harkin, Bob Casey, and Bernie Sanders.
(The Florida politicians including Ileana Ros Lehtinen) are among several leaders holding separate news conferences in Miami on Thursday to draw further attention to the issue. Others include the head of the Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center, who will be accompanied by Edwidge Danticat, a celebrated Haitian author and winner of a MacArthur Fellow "genius" grant. Twenty-six refugee agencies also sent a joint letter Thursday urging Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to consider TPS for Haitians, and the National Council of La Raza released a statement to the same effect.
That also contains Mark Krikorian seeming to support TPS in this case, as well as this:
"When somebody works here they can support up to 10 times that number back in Haiti. So we're talking about supporting hundreds of thousands of people in Haiti at no cost to U.S. taxpayers," (Steve Forester, a Miami-based advocate with the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti) said.
Obviously, he's either trying to mislead people or he can't think things through. Many or most of the jobs they'd be doing would be jobs that Americans who are drawing unemployment insurance could be doing, and much of the labor those Haitians would be doing in the U.S. would be heavily subsidized.
"We are considering all alternatives available to us in extending a helping hand to Haiti," (Alejandro Mayorkas of the USCIS) said. He confirmed those considerations include temporary protected status for Haitians.
And, Reform Immigration for America is also promoting TPS with a petition drive: reformimmigrationforamerica.org/blog/blog/
The Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society has joined with several other groups in calling for TPS:
Likewise with Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform:
"It is in the foreign policy interest of the United States and a humanitarian imperative of the highest order to have all people of Haitian descent in a position to contribute towards the recovery of this island nation."
See the comments above.
1/15/10 UPDATE: Janet Napolitano has now approved TPS, but only for those illegal aliens who were here on Tuesday. How they'll be able to tell isn't clear; some people will no doubt try to provide fake documentation showing they were here at that time.
Three days before the failed terrorist attack over Detroit, the Obama administration was briefed about the possibility of terror attacks over the holidays (link). This is of course similar to the infamous "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US" report that George W Bush received shortly before 911:
President Obama received a high-level briefing only three days before Christmas about possible holiday-period terrorist threats against the U.S., NEWSWEEK has learned. The briefing was centered on a written report, produced by U.S. intelligence agencies, titled "Key Homeland Threats," a senior U.S. official says... According to the [unnamed administration official], the holiday threat briefing—one in a series of regularly scheduled sessions with top counterterrorism officials—was held in the White House Situation Room on Dec. 22...
The senior official says that beginning in early December, based on reports coming in from intelligence agencies, policymakers had begun tracking a stream of information that alluded to a possible holiday-period plot against the U.S. orchestrated from somewhere in Pakistan. However, the official says, this reporting later turned out to be "garbled," and it was determined that the threat was probably a washout. The official denies that the White House received any report, representing the consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies, warning that a holiday-period plot originating in Yemen and targeting the U.S. homeland could be in the works.
In a background briefing for reporters on Dec. 29, also attributed in an official White House transcript to a "senior administration official," that official asserted that in the wake of the attempted underpants attack, it had become clear to the president and top advisers that before Christmas the U.S. government was in possession of "bits and pieces" of information, which, if they had been properly knitted together, "could have ... allowed us to disrupt the attack or certainly to know much more about the alleged attacker in such a way as to ensure that he was on, as the president suggested in his statement, a no-fly list." In the briefing, the official identified three rough categories of information that the government had which could have been relevant to foiling the attack: information about Abdulmutallab and his plans, about Al Qaeda and its plans, and about "potential attacks during the holiday period."
Of this, Gateway Pundit says the expected: "Obama was warned about the threats to the homeland in a Christmas briefing before he flew off to his golfing and snorkling Hawaii holiday vacation." (link). Meanwhile, Spencer Ackerman spins it the administration's way here, even while admitting that this is "Not Nothing".
Speaking to Candy Crowley of CNN earlier today, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was asked about the failed terror attack that occurred on Christmas Day aboard a jet bound from Amsterdam to Detroit.
Per Napolitano, "the system worked" (see the video, also at peekURL.com/vcmnigh ).
Obviously, the system didn't work; the only things that averted tragedy were a failed detonator (link) and an alert passenger who subdued the terrorist. The DHS clearly failed, but so too did the State Department and perhaps other agencies.
Rep. Peter King responds to Napolitano, saying (link) "The fact is the system did not work, and we have to find a bipartisan way to fix it. He made it on the plane with explosives and detonated the explosive." Rep. Pete Hoekstra says: "It's important for the president or the secretary to be more out there and reminding people just how real this threat was and how deadly it is... For the first three months of this administration, they refused to use the word terrorism."
UPDATE: This is titled "Flight 253 passenger: Sharp-dressed man aided terror suspect Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab onto plane without passport". According to the passenger, Mutallab's alleged accomplice used (or just tried to use) social engineering to get Mutallab on the plane. If true, Mutallab might not have appeared in the passenger manifest, and how DHS could prevent people from coming here if they aren't on the manifest isn't entirely clear.
12/28/09 UPDATE: Napolitano has re-spun her earlier remarks. And, a chorus of administration defenders appear to be helping the Obama administration throw her under the Obama bus, although whether she'll resign remains to be seen. When even Matt Lauer asks her tough questions, you know she's not in great shape (link):
In an interview Monday on NBC’s Today Show, Napolitano said her words in Sunday’s CNN interview had been “taken out of context.” She said the comment referred to the reaction in the 60-90 minutes after the suspect attempted to blow up the plane. Up until that point, did the system fail miserably, Matt Lauer asked. “It did,” she responded... Lauer pressed: How does a guy who’s on this general terror list, who buys a one-way transtlantic ticket with cash, who checks no luggage, and who’s own father has flagged him to authorities, get on the plane? Napolitano said that “our system did not work in this instance” and no one “is happy or satisfied with that.” She maintained “air travel is safe.”
And, from this:
CBS News has learned the State Department system designed to keep track of active U.S. visas twice failed to reveal Nigerian terror suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab had been issued an active visa allowing him multiple entries into the United States.
12/28/09 UPDATE 2: Per this, Mutallab was added to a general list of those with possible links to terrorism based on his father's visit to the U.S. embassy in Nigeria. However, he wasn't added to more selective lists because there wasn't enough proof.
12/29/09 UPDATE: There's more on which agencies had access to what information here.
Criminal arrests, administrative arrests, indictments and convictions of illegal immigrants at work sites all fell by more than 50 percent from fiscal 2008 to fiscal 2009... Fiscal 2008 ran from Oct. 1, 2007, through Sept. 30, 2008. Fiscal 2009 began Oct. 1, 2008, and ran through Sept. 30 of this year.
The exact figures are:
* Criminal arrests: down 60%
* Criminal indictments: down 58%
* Convictions: down 63%
* Administrative arrests: down 68%
The DHS is a bit defensive:
Janet Napolitano falsely says she needs immigration "reform" to do her job; says border more secure; sounds like Chertoff - 11/13/09
Speaking at the Center for American Progress earlier today (prepared remarks: www.dhs.gov/ynews/speeches/sp_1258123461050.shtm NYT article: link full video: americanprogress.org/events/2009/11/Napolitano.html), Department of Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano said that she needs comprehensive immigration reform (downsides at the link) to do her job and that such "reform" (aka amnesty) is more attainable due both to supposed increased border security and due to fewer people trying to cross because of the economic downturn. In her speech, she sounded almost exactly like Michael Chertoff and used several of the stock talking points such as secure the border and living in the shadows. She also gave a shout-out to John Podesta of CAP and specifically mentioned the National Association of Evangelicals as one of the groups supporting "reform"; most of that group's member organizations are actually neutral or opposed to "reform".
It's extremely unfortunate that I was unable to get anyone else that I know of to help with my plan to ask her a question at today's event. People are willing to stand on street corners and wave loopy signs, but getting them to do things that could be devastatingly effective is incredibly difficult. Because of the flaws in her comments, someone who's familiar with this issue and who's familiar with "cross-examining" people could have undercut her argument and made her look very bad. That would help reduce the chances of "reform". If people aren't willing to confront politicians, they'll just keep on doing the bad things they're doing.
One of her remarks was this Chertoff-like bit:
When it comes to immigration, I took an oath as Secretary of Homeland Security to secure the nation by enforcing the law and managing legal flows across the border. Let me be clear: to do this job as effectively as possible, DHS needs immigration reform.
She is, of course, lying. Doing her job would involve enforcing the laws and trying to reduce the number of illegal aliens in the U.S. As a recent enforcement action shows, she is not interested in doing that. Every illegal alien who stays in the U.S. is a potential Democratic voter if she can get the amnesty that she and Obama want.
She said that "immigration reform will be a boon to American workers" which is completely false; see the immigration wage floor page.
She also supported chain migration, saying that "Community and faith leaders have also emphasized to me that we need reform because of how difficult the current laws can be on families, especially families of mixed legal status. Our immigration system is outdated where families are concerned, and we need to modernize and streamline the laws governing this process."
And, she supported increasing high-tech visa limits (aka the H1B program). That was after she "held a forum where [she] heard from technology executives in Silicon Valley". Obviously, Napolitano is great at only hearing one side of the story: she also referenced meetings she's held across the U.S. with "stakeholders", saying that "all [at the meetings] reach[ed] the same conclusion: we need reform". Napolitano, someone supposedly working for all of us, is ignoring the input of a majority of Americans and viewpoints that disagree with her.
Some of her remarks follow:
Napolitano of DHS: "al-Qaeda-type" terrorists inside U.S.; difficult to track visa exits; supposed border enforcement will lead to "reform" - 10/12/09
"It is fair to say there are individuals in the United States who ascribe to al-Qaeda-type beliefs... And so it makes information-sharing, it makes effective law enforcement and it makes the shared responsibility of law enforcement ever so important."
If she's telling the truth and has accurate information, very few of those she's discussing will probably be native-born Americans; most or all will have come here legally or illegally due in part to intentionally lax standards and enforcement.