Julia Preston of the New York Times
Julia Preston is an immigration reporter for the New York Times (Twitter: @JuliaPrestonNYT). See the entries below for several examples of how her reporting isn't credible.
Another misleading Public Religion Research Institute immigration poll (Saperstein, Preston, CNN) - 11/25/13
The Public Religion Research Institute describes itself in the highest terms possible :
Julia Preston promotes Dayton looking the other way on illegal immigration (Ohio, headscarves) - 10/07/13
In the New York Times, immigration reporter Julia Preston offers a cookie-cutter article that follows the Crooked Town Story model. In those types of stories, a town that's supposedly in bad shape decides to look the other way on our immigration laws and - presto chango! - the town becomes a bustling hub of commerce.
Foreign citizens who are here illegally are aggressively agitating to change our laws to suit them, even though those changes will harm U.S. citizens. And, Julia Preston of the New York Times is doing her best to help those foreign citizens.
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.
The Obama administration, while deporting a record number of immigrants convicted of crimes, is sparing one group of illegal immigrants from expulsion: students who came to the United States without papers when they were children.
In case after case where immigrant students were identified by federal agents as being in the country illegally, the students were released from detention and their deportations were suspended or canceled, lawyers and immigrant advocates said. Officials have even declined to deport students who openly declared their illegal status in public protests...
"In a world of limited resources, our time is better spent on someone who is here unlawfully and is committing crimes in the neighborhood," John Morton, the head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said in an interview. "As opposed to someone who came to this country as a juvenile and spent the vast majority of their life here."
The article also claims that there are 700,000 illegal aliens who'd be covered by the DREAM Act, an amnesty that would allow current or former illegal aliens to take college educations away from needy American citizens. And, it shouldn't be necessary to point out that by refusing to deport illegal alien college students DHS is sending a very strong welcoming message to those in foreign countries who might otherwise think twice about bringing their children here illegally.
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.
Two days ago I posted a notice that Michael Steele of the RNC was going to meet with extremist and Mexico-linked illegal immigration supporters and urged others to contact him suggesting that he handle the meeting in the correct way . Not surprisingly, Steele handled the meeting in the completely incorrect way (link):
According to a news release put out by the activists , he said he would try and recruit Republican support for comprehensive immigration legislation.
The RNC says he made no such commitment. The immigration activist who led the meeting said he did, but then [Steele] backpedaled after being signaled by a staffer that he may have gone too far...
...Pramila Jayapal, executive director of OneAmerica, the largest immigrant rights coalition in Washington state, said that Steele committed himself to a “holistic bipartisan consensus on immigration reform” and said he believes the Republican party should be “reaching out.” She said he said he would call Graham and work with the party leadership to “determine where things are in immigration reform.” But she said he stopped short of promising to recruit other Republicans.
But the second activist said he did in fact make that offer. (Josh Hoyt), executive director of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, said Steele went through a list of possible Republicans in the Senate who might sign on to the effort, said he would try to recruit another sponsor and agreed with the activists on their goal of getting legislation introduced by April 30.
But Hoyt said that midway through the meeting, an RNC staffer signaled to Steele that he should “walk back what he had said.” After that, Hoyt said, Steele said he emphasized that he could not “get ahead” of Republican Senate leaders.
Mr. Steele stressed that border security was the primary goal for Republicans in the immigration debate, several participants said. He seemed unfamiliar with the details of the proposal by Mr. Graham and Mr. Schumer, they said... But he “committed to looking at the Schumer-Graham bill to see how they can move forward with this bill,” said Tony Asion, executive director of (El Pueblo North Carolina), an immigrant organization in North Carolina, who is a Republican.
That underlines how in some cases those who harp on secure the border are just using it to mask how weak they are on amnesty.
 I posted that to FreeRepublic (and got the expected unhelpful responses: freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2483320/posts), Reddit (+2, -2), and a couple blogs. Needless to say, this is yet another example of how it's difficult to get people to do things that are effective. If I'd suggested waving loopy signs and throwing tantrums my postings would have probably received wide acclaim and maybe a link from Glenn Reynolds.
"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.
Julia Preston of NYT hides fact that some states will lose House seats if all Hispanics counted in Census - 12/23/09
Julia Preston of the New York Times offers "Latino Leaders Use Churches in Census Bid" (link) which discusses the possibly sacreligous poster used by the Mexico-linked NALEO to promote participation in the Census by Latinos, specifically illegal aliens.
While that part of the story is fairly rote, she also discusses how some states will gain House seats if all Hispanics are counted. What she fails to tell her readers is that some states will lose House seats at the same time. It can't be assumed that all or most of her readers will know that, and it's more than a bit curious why she only presented one side of the story and not the other. Compare what she says in the following to the discussion of the same study at the link above:
One study suggests that Congressional delegations in eight states with large Hispanic populations could grow if all Latinos - the nation’s largest minority at some 47 million - are counted... ...An analysis by NDN and America’s Voice, an immigrant advocacy group, projected that a full count of Hispanics would lead to a significant redrawing of the Congressional map, with six states picking up one Congressional seat (Florida, Georgia, Nevada, Oregon, South Carolina and Utah), while Arizona would add two and Texas as many as four.
Good for them, but if you're in Ohio, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, or Missouri, not so good for you since the same study shows that those states would lose House seats.
Please send the link to this post to public *at* nytimes.com and ask Clark Hoyt why they aren't telling their readers the whole truth.
Julia Preston of the New York Times has a roundup of the current state of Obamacare as it relates to coverage of legal immigrants and illegal aliens here. While near the beginning she does try to pretend that the Democrats wants to prevent illegal aliens from receiving benefits, she also includes quotes from those working to stiffen the identification requirements and correctly pointing out what the Democrats are trying to do. Per her, the battle now is over whether legal immigrants will be covered immediately or whether they'll have a waiting period. She also includes this:
"You can either keep those immigrants healthy now, or exclude them and wait until they get really sick, then pay for it down the line," said Prof. Steven P. Wallace, associate director of the U.C.L.A. research center. "If you don’t pay now, you’re going to pay for them later."
That's a false choice: legal immigrants are supposed to have sponsors who'll ensure that they don't become public charges.
Obama admin preparing USCIS for amnesty (millions of visas, comprehensive immigration reform) - 10/03/09
Currently, the citizenship agency can handle applications from about six million immigrants a year, (USCIS head Alejandro Mayorkas) said, including the time-consuming collection of fingerprints and other biometric identity information. Under some plans for legalization, the agency might receive that many applications in a few weeks.
An example of the planning, Mr. Mayorkas said, is an effort to improve the agency’s ability to receive applications via postal mail at secure reception points known as lockboxes. The agency currently receives about 65 percent of applications through lockboxes, which is more efficient than receiving them through local offices. The agency is trying to move quickly to receive all applications through lockboxes.
One idea calls for illegal immigrants to start the legalization process by verifying their presence in the United States through a simple registration form mailed to a lockbox, according to officials familiar with the planning.
Needless to say, the possibility of millions of applications in a few weeks would lead to massive fraud and possibly terrorists getting on the path to citizenship.
And, article author Julia Preston of the New York Times says that the preparations being made now "contrast" with those made by the Bush administration. I don't know what she's talking about, and she probably doesn't either. See 2006's "Bush Admin Hiring For Guest Workers Program as if Done Deal" for some of the preparations they were making, and see also Burdened DHS: 10s of thousands get green cards before background checks for a calculation that - if FBI background checks were done of each applicant - it would take five to ten years to process 10 million current illegal aliens. The questions Preston should be asking involve just what corners USCIS intends to cut, but obviously she's not too interested in pointing out what would go wrong.
See all the entries at the last link for more information on this topic.
For what it's worth, Mexican government data shows that 226,000 fewer people - a 25% drop - left Mexico to work in other countries in the year ending in August 2008 ("Mexican Data Say Migration to U.S. Has Plummeted" by Julia Preston of the New York Times, link):
The trend emerged clearly with the onset of the recession and, demographers say, provides new evidence that illegal immigrants from Mexico, by far the biggest source of unauthorized migration to the United States, are drawn by jobs and respond to a sinking labor market by staying away... "If jobs are available, people come," said Jeffrey S. Passel, senior demographer at the Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research group in Washington. "If jobs are not available, people don’t come." ...The net outflow of migrants from Mexico - those who left minus those who returned - fell by about half in the year that ended in August 2008 from the preceding year.
Unfortunately, many illegal aliens are not returning home, apparently expecting things to improve. Now that the NYT admits that the jobs magnet attracts people to come here illegally, it's just a minor jump to them calling for an increase in workplace enforcement in order to discourage illegal crossing even more and in order to encourage the many illegal aliens who remain in the U.S. to return home. Obviously, the NYT has no interest in that but instead has suggested subsidizing illegal aliens until the economy improves and has supported giving them stimulus jobs.
Preston brings on Steven Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies to say that enforcement works: "The latest evidence suggests that you can reverse the flow... It is not set in stone, so with some mix of enforcement and the economy, fewer will come and more will go home."
Obama will bring back amnesty this fall (immigration "reform"). What you can do about it. - 04/08/09
Julia Preston of the New York Times offers (link, with help from Jeff Zeleny) the not-incredibly-surprising news that Barack Obama will try to push comprehensive immigration reform (aka amnesty) this year. See the last link for the massive problems with that scheme.
The legislation might be introduced in the fall; in May Obama will speak about this and then during the summer they'll lobby the DC establishment to get behind the plan.
According to Cecilia Munoz - a former National Council of La Raza hack now with the administration - it will be framed as "policy reform that controls immigration and makes it an orderly system"; see safe legal orderly for others saying something similar. Preston also misleads about the immigration system being "widely acknowledged to be broken"; see system is broken for other examples of that being used. The answer to both of those stock talking points is the same: amnesty won't fix the problems, which boil down to politicians being too corrupt to simply enforce our current, highly-enforceable laws.
And, consider this incredibly lame talking point:
Administration officials said that Mr. Obama's plan would not add new workers to the American work force... ...there is no evidence of any wholesale exodus of illegal immigrant workers, independent studies of census data show...
By saying that, they're acknowledging that if they took away illegal workers they could help low-wage American workers. And, it's well within their grasp to take away illegal workers: simply enforce our current laws, ramping up immigration raids over time. Instead, look at what the supposed law enforcers have done: giving illegal aliens work permits and releasing them.
Obama's plan will increase competition for low-wage jobs by converting jobs that relied on an illegal and thereby compliant labor force into one that won't be so easily pushed around, and that increased competition will lead to a lowering of wages for some already low-wage jobs. The better solution isn't to keep those workers illegal, the better solution is to encourage them to return home and reduce the competition that low-skilled Americans face. Obama clearly has little concern for them, he's trying to sell them on his claim that they won't be hurt any more than they have been already. If Obama truly cared about low-skilled American workers, he'd enforce the laws we already have.
Roy Beck makes that point a bit more eloquently:
"It just doesn’t seem rational that any political leader would say, let’s give millions of foreign workers permanent access to U.S. jobs when we have millions of Americans looking for jobs... [the reaction is] going to be, 'You're letting them keep that job, when I could have that job.'"
And, that's how you can fight this: by making a point similar to that a public appearances by those that the White House sends out to push their plan. Get their response on video and upload it to video sharing sites. Even just one administration official who's really pressed on that issue - in the form of questions rather than rants - will send a very loud message that can be heard all the way back in DC.
As the issue moves forward, we'll be providing specific questions relating to the legislation, so subscribe to our feed to be updated. In the meantime, a basic action plan for forming local groups to ask tough questions is here. Our guide to coming up with tough questions is here. If you want to do something now, go ask about another amnesty that's current legislation, the DREAM Act.