massachusetts: Page 1
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?
Sean Bielat is the tea parties favorite who's challenging Barney Frank for Congress from Massachusetts. His immigration position follows , followed by some questions for him. In the following, each number in parens indicates a question below. I'll invite him via Twitter  to answer these questions, and the reader is invited to do the same: @SeanBielat.
I believe in an America that protects our citizens' civil liberties (see #1) and our borders. The federal government's negligence on immigration and border security makes everyone less safe and more vulnerable.
Workers deserve the protections granted under law and employers need to rely on a ready workforce to keep their businesses and our economy strong. Thoughtful immigration reform (see #2) must do the following:
* Secure our borders to seal out terrorists, drug gangs and human traffickers (see #3)
* Recognize and address the special burden on border states
* Welcome documented workers who keep our economy strong and contribute to our social fabric (see #4, #5, & #6)
* Investigate immigration status only if someone is stopped for other violations; Americans, regardless of their ethnicity, must never feel as though their country does not welcome them. (see #1)
And, here are my questions based on the above:
#1: That seems to be generally supportive of the Arizona law (as it's been amended). Is that correct? On a sidenote, how have the Border Patrol and similar agencies in other countries been able to successfully determine whether someone is likely a citizen or not in literally millions of cases for decades, all without violating someone's rights? When will you be asking opponents of the Arizona law that question?
#2: From that can we assume that you support comprehensive immigration reform? Note that I'm not asking whether you support "amnesty" (see reform not amnesty), just whether you'd support some form of CIR.
#3: And, how exactly would you do that? For instance, under CIR it would take 5 to 10 years to do FBI-level background checks on the 10 million or so who could be covered by CIR. How could you weed out terrorists if only light background checks are done that only rely on information provided by the Mexican government and similar entities?
#4: Do you agree that some "documented workers" who aren't criminals or terrorists can still have a negative impact on our "social fabric"? For instance, many Mexicans have ideas that aren't exactly conducive to assimilation. They also form a power base within our country for the far-left, the Democrats, and the Mexican government. What exactly would you do about that?
#5: Can we assume that you support some form of guest workers program? What general form would that take? What would you do about the fact that to a good extent such programs are shams? That is, employers could find Americans if they really wanted but they don't for various reasons. Would you give in to them, or stand up to them? Would you discuss $50/hour lettuce picking jobs, or would you call corrupt growers on crops rotting in the fields?
#6: Finally, how would you deal with the fact that "guest" workers will have U.S. citizen children? The far-left strongly opposes most immigration enforcement, and they do so even more strongly when it involves mixed-status families. What do you intend to do about the fact that it will be hard to deport "guests" who have U.S. citizen children?
 From seanbielat.org/time-new-voice#Immigration
 I tweeted him a few days ago asking him the question in #6 above, and he replied that answering such questions in just a 140 character tweet is difficult. Thus, this opportunity for him to clarify his position.
The latest tea parties genious on the block is Mike Stopa, who's running as a Republican for the third district in Massachusetts. He has a plan to stop illegal immigration (stopaforusrep.com/Illegal_immigrants/Illegal_immigrants.html) that's unworkable, most likely leading to the opposite of what he claims to want in the unlikely event that it could ever be enacted. If others proposed this plan I'd suspect that they were just trying to put on a show of doing something, but in his case I somewhat suspect he might be for real. He also has no real plan as to how to push his idea forward despite the massive resistance that it would encounter. He also thinks the INS still exists; it was disbanded going on seven years ago.
Here's the plan:
Upon entering Congress I will press immediately for a bill which gradually, and with due humanity toward those affected, works to re-patriate illegal aliens currently in our country. I will work with fellow members of the House majority on a bill on temporary amnesty, which independently extends temporary working rights to foreign nationals illegally in our coutnry and simultaneously and independently extends freedom from future prosecution to employers, both in exchange for registration, within a fixed period of time, with the federal government. I propose that illegal aliens be required to register with the Immigration and Naturalization Service within three months of the bill going into effect and that upon registration they be given the right to work in the United States for one year before returning to their home country. Failure to do so would subject them to immediate deportation. Similarly, the bill will give employers three months to inspect their payrolls and report any violations of immigration law in exchange for freedom from future prosecution.
1. The illegal immigration problem goes much deeper than any legislation can address; it's a "mind" issue that can't be solved with brawn alone. There's no longer child labor in the U.S. partly because of the laws against it but also because those in the establishment who could be enlisted to support it realize that such support would end their careers. We need to get to the same spot with illegal immigration, "training" those in the establishment that supporting or ignoring illegal immigration will have an impact on their careers. The tactics to get there are described here.
2. Stopa's plan isn't like that. His plan would be met with massive resistance from the far-left, the Democrats, business, labor, many top Republicans, the media: the entire establishment would be arrayed against him. His plan would deprive them of money and of power, and they aren't going to let that happen. There's nothing on his page even hinting at how much resistance his plan would meet or what he would do about it.
3. In the unlikely event that his plan passed, the aforementioned groups would work night and day to make permanent what his plan thinks would just be temporary. Newly-legalized illegal aliens who were supposed to leave wouldn't leave, and it would be very difficult to enforce his mandatory deportations provision. The American Civil Liberties Union would clog the courts with case after case. And, within that one-year period hundreds of thousands of those who were supposed to leave would have had U.S. citizen children, making deporting them even more difficult.
4. Note also that Stopa is promoted by Glenn Reynolds at pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/94517
5. Please see #1 for how to actually resolve this issue.
The audio at verumserum.com/?p=11595 has a radio interview with Martha Coakley about immigration. She doesn't appear to be a raving loose/open borders loon, but her position is bad, she admits that she wasn't fully doing her job, and part of her position is quite "business-friendly". See  for a discussion of the not-fully-correct video and the headline at the page, but the more important thing is her position:
Former Cosmopolitan centerfold Scott Brown is trying to become the new Senator from Massachusetts to replace Ted Kennedy. He doesn't appear to be in the Tom Tancredo mold when it comes to immigration, but there isn't enough information to tell whether he's just a little weak or whether he's very weak and would support some form of comprehensive immigration reform. He's the GOP establishment favorite, even if the national GOP - in a rare show of sanity - isn't throwing their full weight behind him due to his slim chances of victory. While he's gotten some tea parties support, they have their own, fringe candidate (Joe Kennedy, see this).
This is the entirety of Brown's immigration position from his site (brownforussenate.com/issues):
I recognize that our strength as a nation is built on the immigrant experience in America. I welcome legal immigration to this country. However, we are also a nation of laws and government should not adopt policies that encourage illegal immigration. Providing driver’s licenses and in-state tuition to illegal immigrant families will act as a magnet in drawing more people here in violation of the law and it will impose new costs on taxpayers. I oppose amnesty, and I believe we ought to strengthen our border enforcement and institute an employment verification system with penalties for companies that hire illegal immigrants.
The above is mostly stock boilerplate. While the drivers licenses and DREAM Act portions are both clear and welcome, some of the rest is open to interpretation. Every politician opposes amnesty; the question is whether they'd agree to "comprehensive immigration reform", and under what conditions. Every politician wants to also secure the border, and even the latest Luis Gutierrez amnesty supports some form of employment verification system. And, instead of simply stating that he welcomes legal immigration, he needs to state how much, of what kind, from what countries, and so on. Would he support limited legal immigration, or would he support even more than we have now? Would he seek to limit chain migration? Would he support some form of massive H1B program? None of that is clear.
In September of last year he said (link):
the national Democratic Party wants a rubber stamp in Washington. There are some important votes coming up in the U.S. Senate on issues like healthcare reform, cap and trade and immigration reform... ...They want a “yes” vote on immigration reform, even if it means amnesty for illegal aliens.
That's somewhat hopeful, although once again he could be playing word games and would support "reform" under some conditions.
This recount of an appearance is also mixed (link):
The discussion on Afghanistan led to a related issued that Brown believes is equally tied to national security and that is immigration. He said that our immigration laws need to be reformed. However, programs that give preference in granting citizenship to illegal over legal immigrants are problematic for him. He commented on the negative impact illegal immigration is having on the country and particularly on Massachusetts. Brown charged that illegal immigration was responsible for draining the state’s “free care” pool, which was set up to provide medical service to our indigent residents. He noted that our public education resources are also being drained by the demands caused by illegal immigration.
It's good to see that he's tying immigration to national security and some of the rest is also good. But it's a bad sign that he wants to reform immigration laws. While minor tweaks might be needed here and there, the problem isn't so much with the laws but with the fact that politicians are corrupt and don't support enforcement of those laws.
And, this says the following although their summary of his position might not be correct:
Immigration: Coakley supports a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants now in the country. Brown believes they should apply for citizenship, return to their native land, and wait their turn.
Once again, more information is needed. Is he suggesting a "symbolic rebooting" where illegal aliens would only return home for a few hours (the "touchback" provisions in previous bills)? What would he say about immigration line?
There are a lot of questions about his stance, and if you're in Massachusetts I urge you to go ask him questions designed to reveal where he actually stands. Here are some questions for Doug Hoffman; #1, #4, and #5 apply to him as well (and perhaps the AgJOBS question too). See also the questions here. After asking him one of those questions, upload his response to video sharing sites.
Ohio, Illinois, NY, NJ, Penn to lose political power due to massive immigration (House seats; also: IA, LA, MA, MI, MN, MO) - 11/19/09
According to a new study (americasvoiceonline.org/pages/the_new_constituents), due to massive immigration particularly by Latinos, the results of the 2010 Census - used to apportion congressional districts - will result in the following changes (chart from the HuffPost article discussed here):
States losing House seats: Ohio (-2), Illinois (-1), Iowa (-1), Louisiana (-1), Massachusetts (-1), Michigan (-1), Minnesota (-1), Missouri (-1), New Jersey (-1), New York (-1), and Pennsylvania (-1).
If you're located in one of the states in the latter group, that means you're going to lose power. In that case, organize a local effort to take smart action to reduce immigration.
1. Over the weekend, there were apparently just three "parties": Buffalo; Stamford, Connecticut; and Essex County, Massachusetts.
2. The aftermath of the one in Essex County is promoted by Glenn Reynolds at pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/75093 and pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/75109. About a hundred people showed up. The Congressman for that area appears to be John Tierney, a Democrat. In 2004, he got 213,000 votes and his GOP opponent got 91,000. That means that the 100 people represent 0.05% of the votes he got, and 0.1% of the votes his opponent got. I'm sure he's scared out of his wits.
3. The tea partiers' tantrum is revealing a bit of a persecution complex, as Insty (pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/74907), Eric Odom (taxdayteaparty.com/2009/03/florida-gov-shuts-down-tea-party), and some others try to make a big deal about Cape Coral, Florida cancelling a planned event. Many of them link to this which they apparently didn't read:
WINK News spoke to the director of parks for Cape Coral. He says that even now if [the original organizer] is willing to get insurance for the event he'll likely re-authorize it.
Since that time, FreedomWorks (freedomworks.org/blog/bstein80/cape-coral-tea-party-is-on) apparently bought insurance and filled out the forms or similar. Requiring permits for marches and the like is a very standard practice; cities can abuse those rules and if they do they should be sued. However, that's apparently not the case here: the city had reasonable demands that the original organizers didn't want to abide by. The fact that it's back on should indicate that there really was nothing to this story to begin with.
It also illustrates that those promoting the protests have to resort to drama queen actions or are completely unaware of how things like protests work.
UPDATE: Here's the "Special Event Permit Process" for groups of over 500 people on public property right on Cape Coral's city site.
The massive March 25 demonstration in Los Angeles of well over one million undocumented workers, legal residents and their supporters-along with protests and walkouts throughout the United States-is irrefutable evidence that a new Civil Rights and workers' rights movement is on the rise.
From march25coalition . org/organize
May 1st, 2007 we will be out in the streets, not shopping or selling, if possible not working; but Marching.
On February 3rd & 4th, 2007, a Conference hosted by the March 25th Coalition culminated in a call for a national day of actions for workers and Immigrant's Rights. The day, May 1st, 2007.
Deval Patrick knew about New Bedford immigration raid in February ("humanitarian crisis") - 03/14/07
Now, a different picture is emerging. Namely, the Patrick administration had months of foreknowledge of the raids and seemingly every chance in the world to try to prevent the "crisis". From this:
"We had an open and frequent exchange of information to make sure that (the state Department of Social Services) were getting information on child-care issues," said Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesman Marc Raimondi. "We're going above and beyond the role of a law-enforcement agency to address humanitarian concerns."This has caused even Boston Globe columnist Eileen McNamara to turn (via this) on Deval Patrick:
Mr. Raimondi said ICE met with state officials regarding the raid as early as August 2006, and met with Deval Patrick's administration in late December as well as Harry Spence, director of the DSS.
...He said ICE officials made every effort to determine if those illegal immigrants arrested were the sole caregivers for children. Of the 361 people arrested at the scene March 6, 60 were released within 24 hours, he said. Since then, at the urging of DSS, ICE has released 20 Salvadorean immigrants being held in Massachusetts jails and 10 people of various nationalities being held in Texas...
...Mr. Raimondi said some immigrants arrested at the factory were not telling the truth about their children, making it difficult to assess their situation after the raid...
...Patrick himself was told in February [about] the raid...Their handling of this is strangely similar to Tom Vilsack possibly misleading about the Swift raid in Iowa. Wouldn't it just be easier on corrupt Democrats like Patrick and Vilsack if they decided to tell the truth and support our laws from the start?
...As late as yesterday afternoon Nancy Fernandez Mills, communications director for the Patrick administration, was insisting that "the governor was not told and did not know the raid was happening until it was going on" and that "DSS did not know about this raid until it was in progress."
Told that, in fact, members of Patrick's Cabinet had briefed him about the operation weeks ago and that Spence had participated in a conference call with ICE the day before the raid -- a fact the commissioner himself acknowledged in yesterday's newspapers -- she reconsidered: "I'd like to retract that statement until I talk to someone who actually knows something about this timeline."
It is going to be a long four years.
A group convened by the Migration Policy Institute in partnership with Manhattan Institute and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars which published "Immigration and America's Future:A New Chapter" ( link) in [[September, 2006]]. Supports a "new, secure Social Security card" (possibly a national ID card) and "path to legal status for unauthorized immigrants" (a massive amnesty for illegal aliens).
As of creation time, this is the list of those involved:
Massachusetts' new governor, Deval Patrick, has shown himself to be a true Democrat by rescinding an agreement arranged by Mitt Romney with the feds that allowed state troopers to arrest illegal aliens.
His alternate plan is to allow officials at two state prisons to determine the immigration status of prisoners and then somehow recommend them for deportation. They would probably need to do that through ICE or similar.
It's surprising because in a rare move for the AZ Republic it comes close to reporting the actual truth. They come close to implying that Western Union and their parent company First Data are profiting off illegal immigration, are encouraging illegal immigration, and are corrupting our political system.
...In recent years, Denver-based First Data has openly campaigned for immigration reform, which could legalize millions of undocumented workers, and has created a $10 million "Empowerment Fund" for the same purpose.In brief: First Data not only profits off illegal immigration, they encourage massive immigration. I'll leave it to the reader to determine whether what they do qualifies as encouraging illegal immigration. However, note that Proposition 200 was designed to fight illegal immigration, and First Data opposed it.
It has held seminars on migration law, published how-to guides for migrants, sponsored English classes, given money to a charity that helps Mexican women whose husbands are in the United States, and showered immigrant-sending communities with aid.
First Data has stepped up its political donations in recent years. It also "directly, actively" fought against Arizona's Proposition 200, a First Data official told the Mexican Senate in 2004.
...Those migrants send a torrent of money to their families. Mexicans in the United States alone sent home some $20 billion in 2005, up from $6.6 billion just five years ago.
The increase has been a windfall for wire-transfer companies. Western Union, which also owns the Vigo and Orlandi Valuta chains, saw its revenue nearly double from $2.3 billion in 2000 to $4.2 billion in 2005. It made $1.3 billion in profit last year.
"Their real key to success is the immigration from Third World to Second World and First World countries. That is the ultimate secret sauce," said Kartik Mehta, an analyst with FTN Midwest Securities.
...The company also sponsored the printing of 300,000 guides telling Salvadorans how to apply for the U.S. Temporary Protected Status program. The program gave legal residency to 248,000 migrants following two earthquakes in El Salvador in 2001.
In 2000 the company formed the First Data Western Union Foundation, which is funded by First Data, its employees and its agents in other countries.
The foundation has given out more than $16 million, funding everything from seminars on home buying for migrants in Broward County, Fla. to English classes at the Chicago and San Antonio campuses of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.
It gives money to a legal aid groups and organizations like the Massachusetts-based Immigrant Learning Center, which along with running English classes, produces studies "promoting immigrants as assets to America," according to one of its reports.
...Furthermore, some of the foundation's programs almost seem to reward migration, say some border-control advocates.
In the Mexican state of Oaxaca, the foundation gave $250,000 "to provide assistance to women living alone because their husbands are working in the United States," according to a foundation news release...
It also has pledged $1.25 million to the Mexican government's 4x1 Program in Zacatecas state. The program provides matching funds for each peso that migrants invest in small businesses in their hometowns...
Another foundation-funded program helps Mexican migrants go to U.S. universities "because they don't have the documents necessary to go to a college and pay tuition as international students," First Data's public relations director Mario Hernandez said during a forum in the Mexican Senate on Nov. 10, 2004.
The foundation made headlines by funding a 56-page booklet for migrants called "A Survival Guide for Newcomers to Colorado."
..."They're promoting whatever is going to enhance their bottom line, and if that means encouraging mass immigration, that's what they're going to do," said Mike McGarry, acting director of the Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform, which has opposed First Data's advocacy efforts in its home state.
...During a panel discussion organized by the company at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., First Data's then-chief executive, Charlie Fote, announced the creation of a $10 million "Empowerment Fund" to push for an overhaul of U.S. immigration laws, though he gave few details of how the money would be used.
...Since then, First Data has held panel discussions around the country to campaign for immigration reform. The company also said it used its money to fight Arizona's Proposition 200, a measure passed in 2004 that bars illegal immigrants from receiving some state services.
"Our company directly, actively and with financial support, supported the business, political and community groups that opposed this proposition," Hernandez, the public relations director, told lawmakers during the 2004 forum at the Mexican Senate.
First Data also has stepped up its campaign donations. The company has spent $247,000 on federal elections since 2001, compared to $145,000 in the five years before that, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
A political action committee, First Data Employees for Responsible Government, has donated $128,000 since it was formed in 2000. And that's not counting hefty donations by individual executives. Fote and his wife, for example, gave $46,800 to 32 federal candidates between the beginning of 2000 and Fote's retirement in November.
Most of First Data's beneficiaries are members of the Senate and House committees on banking and financial services. Much of the money also has gone directly to the Republican and Democratic parties in the form of "soft money" donations.
Left out of the largesse: Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo, one of the most vocal immigration-control activists, who also happens to be First Data's hometown congressman. First Data, its PAC and many of its executives gave money to Joanna Conti, his Democratic opponent, in the 2004 election.
It is unclear if the $10 million Empowerment Fund has gone into campaign donations. First Data would not give The Republic details on how that money is being spent...
And, they then donate part of the money they've obtained from those engaging in illegal activity to politicians, including Democrats like Conti.
You've probably never heard of the Springfield (Mass.) Republican newspaper, but the article "Hispanics get call to political action" from Natalia Munoz seems of interest:
...A far-reaching campaign to stir political action by [Western Mass.] immigrants with and without legal papers was ignited yesterday with a talk by representatives from the Cambridge-based Centro Presente, which works with the Central American community in the state.
"There is an anti-immigrant environment here," said executive director María Elena Letona. "The hypocrisy of this country is that it denies immigrants rights and at the same time exploits their labor in below-minimum wage jobs."
More than a dozen people from Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Honduras and El Salvador attended the talk, given in Spanish. It also addressed concerns over La migra, as Latinos call the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service...
Thanks for the translation. Perhaps when they start getting bigger crowds you could give us some background information on Centro Presente. From Mark Krikorian's "Strange Bedfellows: Left and right on immigration":
And then there's the National Immigration Forum, the umbrella organization for high-immigration political advocacy, which works closely with sympathetic Republicans. But NIF is not like the conventional lobbying coalitions that exist on numerous issues. It was cofounded by the National Lawyers Guild in the 1980s, back when the Guild was a Soviet front group. The group's first head was Rick Swartz, a leftist attorney who cut his teeth advocating for Haitian illegal aliens and who, during a 1981 Senate hearing, likened the United States to Nazi Germany.
Like many lobbying coalitions, the NIF board includes representatives of Republican stalwarts like the National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the National Restaurant Association, and used to include Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute, now head of the Club for Growth. Whatever his libertarian views on immigration, I imagine Steve hightailed it out of there after he realized what he'd gotten into, because the people sitting around the conference table at NIF board meetings include some decidedly unsavory characters. In addition to the usual leftist suspects — the ACLU, the Service Employees Union, Jim Zogby of the Arab American Institute — the NIF board includes the head of the immigration lawyers' association, one Jeanne Butterfield, who used to be executive director of the Palestine Solidarity Committee, identified by the Anti-Defamation League as an alliance between members of the Popular Front for Liberation of Palestine and the Workers World party (the Trotskyites behind the Iraq War protests). As David Horowitz observed in National Review in 1991, Butterfield's organization was "one of the few groups in the world supporting Saddam's rape of Kuwait." Butterfield was later litigation director for Centro Presente, a Cambridge, Mass., outfit which provided aid to Central American illegals and was headed at the time by Frank Sharry, who is now, not coincidentally, head of NIF.
Also on the NIF board is the head of the L.A. branch of CARECEN, which backed the Communists in El Salvador's civil war and which helped pioneer the "sanctuary" movement to subvert U.S. immigration law. And, like the rest of the high-immigration Left that Chris Cannon has embraced, NIF's biggest funders include the Ford Foundation and George Soros's Open Society Institute...
The Springfield Republican's Executive Editor is Wayne E. Phaneuf. Please send him an email suggesting that his paper lays off the anti-Americanism and provides background information on the groups they discuss: wphaneuf *at* repub.com