migration policy institute
migration policy institute: Page 1
The establishment media isn't in the habit of offering tips on how American citizens can break the laws. But, when it comes to illegal immigration things change. For instance, MSNBC and Washington Post have offered tips articles on how to hire most-likely illegal day labor. The Los Angeles Times offered something similar to a hot-to guide for those wanting to escape immigration enforcement.
[UPDATE: see the questions for those using the study]
Nearly 1.8 million undocumented immigrants could have their deportations suspended for two years, and legally obtain jobs here, under President Obama’s recent policy to give them leniency.
Viveca Novak of FactCheck offers "Does Immigration Cost Jobs? /Economists say immigration, legal or illegal, doesn't hurt American workers" (factcheck.org/2010/05/does-immigration-cost-jobs). It's yet another misleading attempt to try to convince people that what they see happening with their own eyes is not happening.
1. It includes this highly misleading claim:
The online tool E-Verify, now used voluntarily by employers, wrongly clears illegal workers about 54 percent of the time, according to Westat, a research company that evaluated the system for the Homeland Security Department. E-Verify missed so many illegal workers mainly because it can't detect identity fraud, Westat said.
...E-Verify correctly identified legal workers 93 percent of the time, Westat said. However, previous studies have not quantified how many immigrants were fooling the E-Verify system. Much of the criticism of E-Verify has focused on whether U.S. citizens and legal immigrants with permission to work were falsely flagged as illegal workers.
Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, who is writing the Democrats' immigration bill and has fought expanding E-Verify because of its flaws, said Wednesday that the fact that E-Verify was inaccurate so often shows that it is not an adequate tool.
1. No doubt additional checks could be built into the system to increase its accuracy.
2. The MPI is only "non-partisan" in the New York Times sense.
3. The reasons why Schumer opposes expanding the system probably go a bit beyond just concerns about its flaws; he's never shown much interest in immigration enforcement.
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.
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:
Tim Gaynor /Reuters tries, fails to find economic benefits of amnesty; MPI: little effect - 04/27/09
Tim Gaynor of Reuters offers "Could legalizing immigrants improve U.S. economy?" (link) Just because the only booster he could find to say that granting amnesty to illegal aliens would have a major financial benefit was Scott Smith, mayor of Mesa, Arizona doesn't mean that there aren't others out there; we know there are. However, whenever even Marc Rosenblum of the Migration Policy Institute says the following perhaps massive immigration activists might want to give up:
"A lot of this conversation about economics has to do with the political optics... Immigrants are still a small proportion of the U.S. economy, and it's not going to make or break the U.S. economic recovery or the recession, whether or not we do legalization."
The article ends with this bit of deja vu:
"There are lots of people now who are living as renters who would love to be homeowners if they had a path," [Joan Dodd, a Phoenix real estate agent] said. "As long as they could qualify and had a job history, I think it would be helpful in many of our areas of town that are so depressed."
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.
Tyche Hendricks of the San Francisco Chronicle offers "Obama's labor secretary pick backs enforcement" (link); the title isn't as misleading as one might first think since Hendricks is referring to Hilda Solis's position on labor enforcement and not on immigration enforcement; Solis is especially weak on the latter. However, the goal of the article seems to be to try to sell us a new way for the Democrats to have their cake and eat it too:
President Obama's pick for secretary of labor, Rep. Hilda Solis, could help shape a new approach to immigration control that emphasizes the robust enforcement of labor laws... Immigrant advocates hope that strengthening compliance with workplace health and safety laws and wage and hour standards - which Solis promised in her hearing before the labor committee in January - will protect workers in general and could reduce the likelihood that some employers will seek to profit by hiring undocumented workers...
And, that probably wouldn't work. As I said over three years ago:
Of course, all the millions of illegal aliens who'd come here to take advantage of this would then either: reduce many more jobs to near minimum wage, or they'd end up unemployed and obtaining welfare benefits, or they'd end up working illegally. Or, all three at various stages.
The only way to reduce illegal immigration and its impacts is to actually enforce the immigration laws. Anything else is just a scam.
On the bright side, Randel Johnson of the US Chamber of Commerce is quoted opposing any scheme like this, and if it were pushed that might cause a rift in the sleazy alliance between far-left illegal immigration supporters and business interests. University of Illinois economics Professor Barry Chiswick says the scheme probably won't work to reduce illegal immigration, instead suggesting the use of eVerify.
"Hilda Solis understands these issues... Most complaints come from workers. If you want employers afraid to exploit workers, you don't want the kind of ICE enforcement that keeps workers scared to come forward. ... Labor law enforcement is the one (approach) that can make sure people aren't being pulled into this country by low wages."
With the lax control over immigration that Newman et al want, it's difficult to see how their plan wouldn't end in a disaster of most low-skill jobs falling to the minimum wage. Whose interests would such a plan serve?
DHS fugitive teams mostly picked up non-fugitives (why is Nina Bernstein telling us this? MPI, Wishnie) - 02/03/09
In a way, it's a two part story.
In the first part, there's the story itself, with the not-so-news news is that the targets of fugitive raids by the Department of Homeland Security shifted from dangerous criminals into whatever illegal aliens they found, including those who had not been convicted of crimes.
In the second part, the question becomes, why are Bernstein and all the other not-so-fine people mentioned telling us this, and why does it dovetail so neatly with something that Janet Napolitano is doing?
Regarding the first part, here's the scoop :
But in fact, beginning in 2006, the program was no longer what was being advertised. Federal immigration officials had repeatedly told Congress that among more than half a million immigrants with outstanding deportation orders, they would concentrate on rounding up the most threatening — criminals and terrorism suspects... Internal directives by immigration officials in 2006 raised arrest quotas for each team in the National Fugitive Operations Program, eliminated a requirement that 75 percent of those arrested be criminals, and then allowed the teams to include nonfugitives in their count... In the next year, fugitives with criminal records dropped to 9 percent of those arrested, and nonfugitives picked up by chance — without a deportation order — rose to 40 percent. Many were sent to detention centers far from their homes, and deported.
On the one hand, that's a not-so-shocking example of the Bush administration putting politics ahead of the safety of U.S. citizens: they were attempting to show they were doing something in order to get comprehensive immigration reform. On the other hand, they were able to deport a fair number of illegal aliens whatever their criminal histories, and that probably had a deterrent effect.
Now on to the second part of the story:
The increased public attention comes as the new secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, has ordered a review of the fugitive teams operation, which was set up in 2002 to find and deport noncitizens with outstanding orders of deportation, then rapidly expanded after 2003 with the mission of focusing on the most dangerous criminals.
That directive was released just four days ago, on January 31. Now, suddenly, something playing in to such a "review" appears in the NYT. And, the Migration Policy Institute will be releasing a report tomorrow critical of the program.  And, one of the authors of the MPI report is Michael Wishnie of Yale University; he was also involved in helping New Haven distribute ID cards to illegal aliens.
Why is all this happening now? Is it just something in the air, or something else? And, why isn't Nina Bernstein asking those questions? (Hint: because she's an agenda-driven hack).
 The figures and documentation were obtained via an FOIA request by Peter Markowitz and his students at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University.
 The NYT continues to maintain that the MPI is "nonpartisan"; nonpartisan groups don't get free ads in the NYT.
No fewer than seven federal and state agencies are coordinating on investigations of Agriprocessors.One of the dodges some on the left use to support illegal immigration is to demand that those who employ illegal aliens should be arrested. They want the illegal aliens themselves to stay in the U.S. for various reasons. What they fail to understand (or state) is that by blocking enforcement against illegal aliens that keeps a pool of illegal labor in the U.S., and they'll just go to work for someone else. But, hopefully if Agriprocessors' management is actually prosecuted they'll stop trying that dodge at least temporarily.
The Iowa Division of Labor Services, the U.S. Department of Labor, the U.S. Department of Justice, the Equal Employment and Opportunities Commission (EEOC), the Iowa Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Iowa Attorney General's Office are all either conducting or cooperating on investigations into the plant.
Doris Meissner, a former Commissioner of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute said, "From everything we hear about this, it sounds like the federal government is marshalling all of the authorities that it has in order to bring the broadest set of charges -- and that's what it should be doing. It's a positive sign that they seem to be working with the state attorney general...
...According to lawyers in the case and agency representatives, there are likely to be civil charges related to immigration, wage enforcement, safety and other labor issues which usually result in fines, however, criminal charges related to immigration, child labor and sexual harassment and assault are far more serious and potentially wide reaching. Anyone with "knowledge or intent" of child laborers for instance is subject to criminal prosecution -- in theory this could include management, human resources representatives and owners alike...
Jason DeParle of the New York Times gives a "big warm hug" to the Migration Policy Institute and their online journal Migration Information Source (migrationinformation.org) in "A Tiny Staff, Tracking People Across the Globe". It's essentially an ad not just for that group but also an ad in support of migration and globalism in general. It also falls into the "little 'nonpartisan' organization that could" category, in the same sense that the ACLU is "nonpartisan".
The MPI would have to pay tens of thousands of dollars for an ad of the same length, yet they apparently got this for free. The online version includes a link to their site, which is at least somewhat valuable.
It has an editorial staff of one and annual advertising revenues of less than $2,000. It charges its subscribers nothing and pays most contributors the same. Mapping the settlement of Latino poultry workers is its idea of a sexy piece... At the site's helm is an American-born editor, Kirin Kalia, 32, who describes herself as "half Dutch, half Indian, 100 percent American and total migration geek." Ms. Kalia thrives on hybridity — devouring Indian-American novels and Dutch-Moroccan films... [...she plays world music for the NYT "reporter", she a Citizen of the World, etc., etc...] ...With conflicts rising over immigration to the United States, interest in the Source has surged. Readership has doubled in the past three years, Ms. Kalia said, to about 140,000 unique visits each month. To stroll through the archives is to see the American debate freshly, as part of a global phenomenon.
The NYT is painting how great globalism is and trying to encourage Americans - the vast majority of their readers - to just lie back and think of immigration as a "global phenomenon". Only in the 14th paragraph do we get this:
The magazine is published by a Washington research group, the Migration Policy Institute, that was started six years ago (with assistance from the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Ford Foundation and the J. M. Kaplan Fund) to help fill the knowledge gap.
The little "nonpartisan" organization that could, chugging along as the caboose on the MPI's annual budget of just $3.5 million from two of the largest foundations in the U.S.
DeParle lists some of the MPI's staff, without mentioning that one of their helpers is former INS Commissioner Doris Meissner, someone who can always be counted on to provide quotes in support of massive immigration, even opposing groups that lawfully protest illegal immigration (as well as opposing the border fence). The MPI was also involved in the Independent Task Force on Immigration and America's Future, which included a Mexican citizen and Mexican government officials helping current U.S. lawmakers navigate policy. And, their recommendations were not in the national interest. And, per this, the MPI "seeks the dissolution of U.S. borders, and the legalization of illegal immigrants currently in America... Works closely with the National Council of La Raza and the American Civil Liberties Union".
Just a little nonpartisan group, chugging along and trying to make the world a better place.
I get over half their visitors, and I'm hobbled by not getting any money from the Ford Foundation. Where's my ad, NYT?
James Pinkerton, Mark Potok, Doris Meissner oppose citizen action against illegal immigration - 11/05/07
Far from the halls of Congress and the front lines of the Southwest border, the divisive immigration debate is being played out in local neighborhoods, including the Houston area. A number of groups have upped the ante by moving from debate to confrontation, attempting to take immigration duties into their own hands.The latter is somewhat of a questionable statement: if they were unlawfully trying to enforce the laws they probably still wouldn't be doing what they're doing.
Then, it's time to roll in Mark Potok from the Southern Poverty Law Center, a group indirectly linked to the Mexican government. His group "monitors such organizations."
[The head of USBW]... repeats claims that 25 Americans citizens are killed each day by undocumented immigrants. Islamic terrorists are slipping across the Southwest border, he says, camouflaged as illegal immigrants.First, the 25 per day claim would have illegal aliens committing more than half of all murders, so that's obviously too high. Rep. Steve King says it's 12 per day, however an article I put more faith in says it's somewhere between about 4 and 6 (humanevents.com/article.php?id=10663). See also this. As for the Mideast schools, I haven't heard anything about that, but I certainly have heard about terrorists - or at least those from "Special Interest" countries learning Spanish in order to masquerade as Latin Americans. And, there are several reports about those from such countries - including at least two Hezbollah members - coming across our borders on the immigration terrorism page. And, both Democratic and Republican House members have warned about terrorists infiltrating over the borders, including disguised as Mexicans and others from Latin America.
''There have been reports of Spanish-speaking schools popping up in the Middle East and teaching people in that part of the world to speak Spanish so they can blend in easily," Collier said.
Potok, with the poverty center, said those claims are common to this new breed of anti-illegal immigration activists. ''These are the paranoid fantasies of people with difficulty handling reality," he said.
Adding everything together, I'd have to say that the head of USBW - despite his incorrect figures - is more credible than Potok. Perhaps if Pinkerton wanted to do a better report he would have called both of them on their statements.
Then, we're treated to this:
Doris Meissner, who headed the Immigration and Naturalization Service during the Clinton era [and is now with the Migration Policy Institute when not attending secret NAU meetings], said groups such as Border Watch have proliferated due to frustration over the government's inability to control illegal immigration. And while Meissner characterized the groups as ''spot outbreaks," she considers them a threat.I'm not going to suggest reflexively considering what she considers to be a threat to be a blessing, but given her extremely poor history that's something to consider. See "Meissner's Gift to Criminal Aliens" (humanevents.com/article.php?id=323) and "Thwarting Homeland Security" (humanevents.com/article.php?id=238).
Then, Pinkerton tries to portray citizens doing their duty as a bad thing:
[After local religious leaders tried to start a day laborer hangout] Border Watch volunteers marched on the Chamber of Commerce, and scores of members dominated a September meeting on the proposed center.Oh, the horror of U.S. citizens - rather than citizens of other countries - protesting.
"All we wanted to do was get a place for day laborers to be safe, to get out of the sun and rain, to get a drink and go to the bathroom," [pastor Franklin Moore] said.Aww. Of course, he doesn't mention that most day laborers are illegal aliens, and the church is facilitating illegal activity.
Then, Pinkerton quotes one of the opponents; at least he mentions that he's worked with the "International Socialist Organization and the Progressive Workers Organizing Committee, among others".
MINOR UPDATE: According to this, what I refered to above about LBJ was actually an anti-LBJ satire from Paul Krassner.
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:
Believe it or not, Morton wants Bush to co-opt Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt and Laura Ingraham, so that those fine hosts can then turn around and explain the wisdom of Bush's plans to the great unwashed out there beyond the beltway. Unfortunately, Kondracke doesn't discuss what those hosts would do when their ratings started to plummet.
And, he can't even tell his amnesty schemes apart:
...Bush tilted right himself... declaring opposition to "amnesty" for illegals... ...but business and pro-immigrant groups are concerned that the bill will contain a provision sponsored by Sens. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and John Cornyn (R-Texas) that would require workers to return to their home countries after their six-year work visas expire... That would disrupt employment patterns and family life and discourage illegals from reporting for work permits in the first place.Actually, the Cornyn/Kyl scheme requires the workers to go back to their countries and then register. It's Bush's "temporary" worker scheme that says they have to leave after six years. Therefore, Morton just called into question Bush's scheme.
Immigration restrictionists denounce the McCain-Kennedy provision as "amnesty," but it's really a recognition of reality: There are 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S., and it would be far more efficient to concentrate law enforcement resources on finding and expelling criminals among them than trying to corral them all...Now, for the truth, see "GAO: ICE all but ignores workplace enforcement".
...It's up to Bush to avoid stalemate - and there are lots of good arguments he can use to pull his party together. On the merits, he can show that enforcement-only immigration policy simply doesn't work. According to the Migration Policy Institute, overall spending on immigration enforcement increased from $1 billion in 1985 to $4.9 billion in 2002. Appropriations for the border patrol went up tenfold, and the number of agents rose eightfold. Yet, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, the number of illegal immigrants entering the U.S. has averaged from 480,000 to 660,000 and a total of 9 million have entered since 1990.
Kondracke goes on to quote the National Immigration Forum and suggest that Bush should work with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. And, he plays the "Hispanic Vote" card.
But, wait, there's more work for me to do:
...Anti-immigrant campaigns don't win. In Southern California, Jim Gilchrist, co-founder of the much-publicized Minutemen Project, a civilian border-control group, got only 25 percent of the vote and finished third...The Kilgore race appears to have hinged on something else. As for Gilchrist, Mort completely distorts the significance of that 25%. For instance, on election day, Gilchrist seems to have gotten more votes than Campbell.
And former Virginia Attorney Gen. Jerry Kilgore (R) lost to Lt. Gov. Tim Kaine (D) despite ads that attacked Kaine's support for a day-labor site in suburban Herndon and education for immigrant children. The ad concluded, "What part of illegal doesn't Kaine understand?"
Then, he says:
Currently, the 2006 favorite [for prez of Mexico] is former Mexico City Mayor Andres Lopez Obrador of the left-wing PRD party - someone who's likely to get financial assistance from Venezuela's radical President Hugo Chavez and, if elected, could pursue economic policies that cause a surge in illegal immigration.Even more than Bush and Fox have managed to do? While I'm sure he would drive MX even further down, he might also shake things up a bit. And, he certainly wouldn't be as chummy with our "American" president as Fox has been. Plus, we'd probably see Mexico's plans a bit more clearly with someone else at the helm. I'm not in favor of Obrador, but if he won it would have some advantages that another Pepsi executive type would not have.
Then, Mort trots out the poll discussed in "FAIR Responds to Sham Immigration Poll" and Immigration "news" from the Wall Street Journal. And, he ends with this:
Doing the right thing is win-win for Republicans, if only Bush can convince Sean Hannity.Hannity might be an idiot, but I'm sure he isn't stupid. I'm sure he doesn't want to be reduced to being the night jock on a Fargo Oldies station. Perhaps Bush should learn from him, instead of the other way around? After all, Hannity actually knows what most of the public wants, unlike the Bush administration and Beltway hacks.