national immigration law center
national immigration law center: Page 1
1. The Indiana law apparently seeks to criminalize cards similar to the Matricula Consular card. I haven't read Indiana's law, but if what the ACLU implies is correct, then Indiana made a mistake. Instead of criminalizing in one way or another the use of the card, they should have just prevented it from being used as official identification. Of course, the ACLU lies: MC cards are basically only of use by illegal aliens. They refer to "a visiting professor [using one of the cards to open] a bank account", when that's not what they're designed for. MC cards - an old Mexican card that had been rarely used before - were revived by the Mexican government to provide IDs for illegal aliens. (Now, perhaps the Indiana law is too broad and doesn't just cover bogus IDs designed for illegal aliens; in that case the authors of the law are to blame).
2. As always, the way to defeat the ACLU is to find a smart, experienced trial lawyer to engage them in debate on video with the goal of discrediting the ACLU to their likely supporters. The ACLU is serving the interests of foreign governments and crooked businesses, not of middle- or lower-class Americans. Driving that point home to their likely supporters would go a long way towards making them toxic and reducing their ability to file lawsuits against states trying to deal with illegal immigration.
3. In the above, don't expect the tea parties to be much of any help. None of them are capable of engaging even the least capable ACLU lawyer, in their two year history they've largely ignored the immigration issue, and their (real) leaders are on the wrong side. In fact, David Koch - a main stringpuller on the teaparties even if they don't know it - even joined with George Soros to give the ACLU millions of dollars. The money he gave them freed up resources that they now use to sue those who want to do something about illegal immigration.
4. Those involved with the case include many of those involved with the ACLU's suit against Utah: Omar Jadwat, Andre Segura, Cecillia Wang, Katherine Desormeau of the ACLU and Linton Joaquin, Karen Tumlin, and Shiu Ming Cheer of the NILC. Others are Lee Gelernt of the ACLU and Angela Adams of Lewis & Kappes, P.C. (Lewis Kappes).
 From aclu.org/immigrants-rights/
The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, the ACLU, the National Immigration Law Center (NILC) and the law firm of Lewis & Kappes, P.C. filed a class action lawsuit today challenging a discriminatory Indiana law inspired by Arizona’s notorious SB 1070. The lawsuit charges the law authorizes police to make warrantless arrests of individuals based on assumed immigration status and criminalizes the mere use or acceptance of the commonly used consular ID card. The groups charge that the law will lead to racial profiling and trample upon the rights of all Indiana residents.
“Indiana has created a law that not only tramples on the constitutional rights of Hoosiers, but also improperly involves Indiana in areas that are clearly of federal, not state, concerns,” said Ken Falk, legal director of the ACLU of Indiana.
Some state lawmakers oppose the extreme law, saying it will increase law enforcement costs and deter both employers and employees from coming to the state. Indiana University has also expressed concerns that the law will discourage enrollment and academic participation, noting that the institution hosts thousands of foreign national students, faculty members and visitors each school year.
“Indiana has unwisely chosen to follow down Arizona’s unconstitutional path,” said Andre Segura, staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project. “This law marginalizes entire communities by criminalizing commonly accepted forms of identification. The law also undermines our most cherished constitutional safeguards by putting Indiana residents at risk of unlawful warrantless arrests without any suspicion of wrongdoing, much less criminal activity.”
Immigration bills inspired by Arizona’s SB 1070 have been introduced across the country this legislative season, but Indiana is only the third state to pass the controversial legislation this year. The state becomes one of only four, along with Arizona, Utah and Georgia, to enact draconian state-based immigration laws. The ACLU, NILC and a coalition of civil rights groups filed lawsuits in Arizona and Utah. The most troubling provisions of SB 1070 have been blocked by a federal appellate court, and the Utah law has been blocked by the U.S. district court for the District of Utah, pending further review of the Utah district court.
The lawsuit charges that the Indiana law is unconstitutional in that it unlawfully interferes with federal power and authority over immigration matters in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution and authorizes unreasonable seizures and arrests in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
“By cutting off the use of secure foreign photo identification, the law has effectively denied foreign visitors, scholars and immigrants in general the ability to engage in important commercial activity,” said Linton Joaquin, general counsel of the National Immigration Law Center. “These secure forms of official identification, which can be used by a visiting professor to open a bank account or by a foreign national to provide proof of identification in a wide variety of settings, are vital to both immigrants and society. This provision, like the rest of the law, is misguided and will undoubtedly have unintended social and economic consequences.”
The lawsuit was filed today in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on behalf of three individual plaintiffs who would be subject to harassment or arrest under the law.
Attorneys on the case include Falk, Jan P. Mensz and Gavin M. Rose of ACLU of Indiana; Segura, Lee Gelernt, Omar C. Jadwat, Cecillia D. Wang and Katherine Desormeau of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project; Joaquin, Karen C. Tumlin and Shiu-Ming Cheer of NILC; and Angela D. Adams of Lewis & Kappes, P.C.
Additional information is available online at: www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/urtiz-et-al-v-city-indianapolis
The complaint can be found at: www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/urtiz-et-al-v-city-indianapolis-complaint
The American Civil Liberties Union and the National Immigration Law Center today filed a suit against Utah over that state's new Arizona-style immigration law House Bill 497. Utah governor Gary Herbert signed that bill at the same time as he signed their guest workers bill.
Excerpts from an April 21 article in which ACLU attorney Cecillia Wang telegraphed the suit are at .
As for what you can do about this:
* Recall that David Koch of the Koch family joined with George Soros to give the ACLU $10 million to fight the Patriot Act. Without Koch's money, the ACLU might not have the resources to get involved in as many immigration lawsuits. Remind the many right wing commentators who are linked to the Kochs of that fact, and perhaps try to shame them into forcefully opposing the ACLU's suit.
* To their credit, the tea parties group in Utah led by David Kirkham did oppose the guest workers bill. However, their signs and banners simply aren't a match for the ACLU's and NILC's smart lawyers. Therefore:
* The most effective thing anyone can do or support in this case is to find a smart, experienced trial lawyer and have him or her "cross-examine" ACLU representatives on video with the intent of completely discrediting them to their supporters. See the question authority page for an action plan, and here are some questions for the ACLU. The goal is to make them toxic, so that they won't get popular support or support from any mainstream figures. If they do get support from mainstream figures (politicians, religious leaders, commentators, etc.), then work to discredit those people too. The ACLU depends on a certain base of mainstream support; cut them off from it. For example, if a religious leader supports the ACLU suit, and you can find or engender that leader engaging in false compassion, use the points on that page to discredit them to their congregation.
ADDED: Here's the press release. Note that another major group involved is the Service Employees International Union, and a smaller group is the Utah Coalition of La Raza. The latter is an affiliate of the National Council of La Raza . One thing you can do is point out that they have "The Race" in their name and highlight their ethnocentrism. However, that has to be done the right way; see the note at the end of the last link.
Another group involved is the Coalition of Utah Progressives, which appears to be as small as you'd think. Their co-founder is Mike Picardi (owns an upholstery business: linkedin.com/pub/mike-picardi/11/5b0/528) and a quote source is Peggy Wilson.
They also provide a good opportunity to help discredit those involved. Their mission statement is the highly ironic "To Protect The Unprotected" (thecoalitionofutahprogressives.org).
It's highly ironic because the people CUP is attacking include those American workers who are negatively impacted by massive and illegal immigration. Meanwhile, the people CUP seeks to protect (illegal aliens) are a very protected class. And, CUP is siding with the corrupt establishment - including major banks and businesses - against the great majority of Americans.
Make the points on illegal aliens powerless to CUP with the goal of discrediting them *to their potential supporters* and with the goal of making those potential supporters see them as frauds.
 From this:
Seeking support from a community forum at Grace Episcopal Church, [Cecillia Wang] said House Bill 497 - which requires law enforcement to verify the immigration status of anyone suspected of a felony and gross misdemeanor - is unconstitutional and would undoubtedly result in racial profiling.
"It creates a dangerous situation for all of us, regardless of race," she said. "It creates a society where police can demand to see your papers."
Since the law stipulates officers look into immigration status of suspects based on reasonable suspicion, Wang said the inevitable result would be racial profiling. If the suspect fails to provide identification, or if police believe the identification is fraudulent, Wang said they could be detained.
"The law is requiring good-intentioned police officers and not-so-good-intentioned police officers to equally go out and profile people based on the way they look," she said.
Wang added she's already filed lawsuits in Arizona in response to a similar bill and was looking for Utahns who have experienced forms of discrimination.
"We need brave people to step forward as plaintiffs," she said. "Speaking out can make a difference."
# In 2009 (based on data collected in 2010), 57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 18) used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children.
# Immigrant households’ use of welfare tends to be much higher than natives for food assistance programs and Medicaid. Their use of cash and housing programs tends to be similar to native households.
# A large share of the welfare used by immigrant households with children is received on behalf of their U.S.-born children, who are American citizens. But even households with children comprised entirely of immigrants (no U.S.-born children) still had a welfare use rate of 56 percent in 2009.
# Immigrant households with children used welfare programs at consistently higher rates than natives, even before the current recession. In 2001, 50 percent of all immigrant households with children used at least one welfare program, compared to 32 percent for natives.
# Households with children with the highest welfare use rates are those headed by immigrants from the Dominican Republic (82 percent), Mexico and Guatemala (75 percent), and Ecuador (70 percent). Those with the lowest use rates are from the United Kingdom (7 percent), India (19 percent), Canada (23 percent), and Korea (25 percent).
# The states where immigrant households with children have the highest welfare use rates are Arizona (62 percent); Texas, California, and New York (61 percent); Pennsylvania (59 percent); Minnesota and Oregon (56 percent); and Colorado (55 percent).
Some immigrant-advocacy groups criticized the report, saying it was engineered to inflame anti-immigrant sentiment by making an unequal comparison between immigrant households, which tend to be low-income, and all native households, including low-income and high-income households.
Immigrant households use welfare programs at about the same rate when compared with the low-income native households, said Jonathan Blazer, an attorney at the National Immigration Law Center an immigrant-advocacy group in Washington, D.C.
Since that appears to be the best argument that opponents can offer, CIS's report must be solid. Why are we allowing millions of poor people to immigrate here when we already have more poor Americans than our social welfare programs can apparently handle? Especially since the future for those poor immigrants and their children doesn't look very promising, as even Obama admits? What's going to happen to our social welfare programs as the children of those poor immigrants and their children retire?
Alessandra Soler Meetze lies about Arizona immigration law (ACLU of Arizona, +Dolores Huerta) - 04/29/10
Earlier today, the American Civil Liberties Union (national and Arizona branch), MALDEF, the National Immigration Law Center, Dolores Huerta, Richard Chavez (brother of Cesar Chavez), and Linda Ronstadt (?) held a news conference in Phoenix to protest the new Arizona immigration law and to announce that they'll be mounting a legal challenge (full press release here).
At the event, Alessandra Soler Meetze, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arizona lied about the law:
"This law will only make the rampant racial profiling of Latinos that is already going on in Arizona much worse... If this law were implemented, citizens would effectively have to carry 'their papers' at all times to avoid arrest. It is a low point in modern America when a state law requires police to demand documents from people on the street."
One would think that if there were such profiling that the Department of Justice would have been able to catch it. Yet, after their fishing expedition, they choose to go after Joe Arpaio for something unrelated to profiling. And, one wouldn't expect the assistant secretary for ICE to have defended Arpaio against claims that he profiles.
Further, citizens wouldn't have to carry their "papers" (a not-so-subtle breaking of Godwin's Law) all the time; native-born citizens won't raise "reasonable suspicion", and those who've gone through a long naturalization process will be able to describe that process and, even without "papers", prove that they're citizens. And, almost all of those will have some reasonable form of ID on them, such as a driver's license. And, in order to be asked they've have to have "lawful contact" and then raise "reasonable suspicion" and even after that the cop still has leeway: they don't have to ask if it's "[im]practicable" or would impede an investigation.
The last line is just as deceptive as the rest: the state law does not "require police to demand documents from people on the street." As stated above, you first need "lawful contact" and then "reasonable suspicion", and after all that the cop has leeway.
If Alessandra Soler Meetze has to lie about that, can you trust the lawsuit she wants to bring or her other statements?
Note also the short video from the event (peekURL.com/vz3vdr2) where Huerta says, referring to MALDEF and others fighting Proposition 187, "after they filed that lawsuit [against 187], a million Latinos became citizens". The audience cheers, and those in the audience raise their fists. Needless to say, that's just the latest in a barely-concealed desire by many Hispanic leaders not to do what's best for the U.S. but simply to amass race-based power.
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.
The California Immigrant Policy Center (see who they are below) has released a new and highly misleading immigration booster study purporting to claim that immigrants in California pay their way and that they're employed at a greater rate than non-immigrants. The second might be true, and in that case that's an argument against massive immigration since some or many are taking jobs that Americans could be doing. You can get the PDF at caimmigrant.org/contributions.html and an MSM report is here.
Regarding the first, their report is unreliable from the beginning, saying that "43% of California’s immigrants are citizens", despite the fact that immigrant who were naturalized are no longer immigrants, they're citizens and citizens alone. Not only does their definition of "immigrants" include those who are no longer immigrants, but they make no distinction as to status, lumping illegal aliens together with legal immigrants and naturalized citizens. For instance, they lump in a very large number of low-skilled, low-education illegal aliens together with a small number of highly-skilled legal immigrants:
Immigrants stand out as some of California’s most notable entrepreneurs - technology giants Google, Sun Microsystems, eBay and Yahoo! are all companies founded or co-founded by immigrants.
What their study does is akin to averaging the net worth of all top executives of high-tech firms based in Redmond and claiming that every such executive is a billionaire, without noting that Bill Gates' net worth might skew the results just a little bit.
And, the study is truly a Bowl Moment. California is temporarily on the rocks, and a good part of the reason is due to massive immigration. One would have to be willfully ignorant not to see the highly deleterious impact that massive immigration has had on California's schools, highways, and general quality of life.
The author of the study is Manuel Pastor, director of the University of Southern California Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration. The four organizations that make up the CIPC are CHIRLA, the National Immigration Law Center, the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, and the Services Immigrant Rights Education Network.
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:
The National Immigration Law Center offers a misleading report called "Basic Facts about In-State Tuition for Undocumented Immigrant Students", last revised February 2009: nilc.org/immlawpolicy/DREAM/instate-tuition-basicfacts-2009-02-23.pdf
1. They say:
Rights Working Group wants immigration enforcement moratorium and much more (ACLU, NCLR, 248 others) - 01/09/09
The Asian American Justice Center runs the Rights Working Group, a coalition of over 250 leftwing groups, and they have a petition calling on Barack Obama to in effect not do immigration enforcement. They want a "moratorium" while the subject of raids and the like is "studied", but everyone knows what that means.
Jorge Bustamante/U.N./Notre Dame wants pro-illegal immigration boycott (earlier: dual citizenship to support Mexico's agenda in U.S.) - 12/16/07
Jorge Bustamante, the United Nations' Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants and a sociology professor at the University of Notre Dame, this week called Republican Party policies on immigration "immoral." Writing in the Mexico City daily Reforma, Bustamante said the Republican candidates share a in immigration stance that "lacks even the most minimum recognition of the demand for the Mexican migrant labor."He didn't suggest any specific companies, only suggesting an internet search. The second link describes how he met with Peter Schey of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, the National Immigration Law Center, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the California Rural Legal Assistance program in May.
He called on Mexicans to harness "the real power we have as consumers" to boycott big companies that do business in Mexico and fund Republican candidacies...
But, in 1995 he went even further. In response to a possible presidential run by California governor Pete Wilson, he said:
I'm proposing to introduce an initiative that will facilitate permanent Mexican residents in the United States to become citizens of that country, so their increasing number will translate in a real possibility of more votes against Wilson in the next elections... ...This way if a Mexican by birth acquires U.S. citizenship, that fact would allow him to vote in the United States, without loosing his Mexican nationality... ...anyone who wants to defend the interests of Mexico in whichever country they reside, augment their political power in order to make it within that country's rules...
...a lawsuit filed against the Department of Homeland Security this week contends that the new rules are discriminatory and will lead to mass firings of legal workers. Even United States citizens will face discrimination if they look or sound foreign, according to the suit.And, from this:
Filed in a San Francisco federal court this week, the 17-page complaint [link] also names the Social Security Administration as a defendant because it says letters informing businesses of discrepancies between employee records and the agency's database would violate worker’s rights and impose burdensome obligations on employers.
But leaders of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a coalition of trade groups representing the politically influential construction, lodging, farming, meatpacking, restaurant, retail and service industries appealed on Monday to the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration to postpone the plan's implementation for six months.DHS spokeshole Russ Knocke says they'll fight the lawsuit "vigorously", something I tend to doubt since Chertoff and Bush are on the same side as EWIC, the ACLU, and the AFL-CIO in supporting illegal immigration.
Raising the possibility of plant closings, autumn-harvest interruptions and other destabilizing consequences for the U.S. economy, 50 business organization members of the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition signed a letter warning of "uncertainties, disruptions, and dislocations throughout broad swaths of the workforce," as well as discrimination against Hispanic and immigrant workers.
From this, we receive word that Laura Reiff of the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition tried to block funding for the recently announced supposed push by the DHS to enforce the Social Security number no-match regulations. They apparently didn't find anyone willing to help them out, so, together with attorney Monica Guizar from the National Immigration Law Center, they're trying a new tack:
Among the ideas under consideration are seeking approval of a resolution under the Congressional Review Act, a rarely used tool that allows Congress to review and overrule regulations, or raising the question of whether the rules violate the Regulatory Flexibility Act, which require agencies to consider the impact of their regulatory actions on small businesses.
Anything to "help" "immigrants".
In the first broad international scrutiny of U.S. treatment of migrants, a United Nations human rights expert [Jorge A. Bustamante, U.N. "special rapporteur on the human rights of migrants"] took testimony about worker abuse, government raids, family separations and other issues as he wrapped up a two-day visit to Los Angeles on Thursday... [it was] undertaken at the invitation of the U.S. government.Watanabe forgot to mention that Schey has at least three links to the Mexican government, including collaborating with them on a project related to those visas.
"There is concern in the United Nations human rights community about rising anti-immigrant sentiment in the United States," said Bustamante, who will present his report to the world body in the next year.
..."The way the local police physically abused marchers [at the MacArthur Park riot] represents right there a violation of human rights," he said... Bustamante, a University of Notre Dame sociology professor who splits his time between his native Mexico and the United States... ...But Bustamante said he was concerned that the U.S. was not in actual compliance with some of its laws...
...At the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, immigration attorney Peter A. Schey told Bustamante that new migrant protections passed by the Republican-controlled Congress in 2000 still have not been implemented because of bureaucratic delays. Those protections would offer visas for migrant crime victims who cooperate with law enforcement in the investigation.
Bustamante also met with the National Immigration Law Center and the American Civil Liberties Union, who took the U.S. to task for detention centers. He also met with Jeffrey Ponting, "an attorney with the California Rural Legal Assistance program", as well as histrionic community activists.
Senators and lobbyists are putting the final touches on a comprehensive immigration-reform bill that includes an easier citizenship path for illegal aliens and weaker enforcement provisions than were in the highly criticized legislation that the Senate approved last year.Those lobbyists include the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition (EWIC) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat who ardently supports citizenship rights for illegals, will introduce the bill as early as next week, according to Senate sources knowledgeable about the negotiations. If the Senate Judiciary Committee can make quick work of the bill, it could be ready for floor action in April.
Mr. Kennedy drafted this year's bill with help from Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, and outside lobbyists...
In particular, EWIC and the chamber have taken a leading role in drafting the section of the bill dealing with work-site enforcement, Senate staffers say. Lobbyists in both organizations have shuttled around Capitol Hill drafts of those provisions, which are supposed to impose sanctions on businesses that hire illegal aliens, according to internal e-mails obtained by The Washington Times.The ACLU is indirectly linked to the Mexican government. The NCLR funded one or more MEChA chapters (link,link) and funds a racial separatist charter school in Los Angeles. The SEIU paid one Artemio Arreola to organize immigration marches, and he also serves on an advisory council to Mexico's president. The SEIU, their locals, and various members have extensive links to last year's immigration marches.
"That's putting the fox in charge of the henhouse," one Senate lawyer said about the pro-business chamber's involvement in drafting the punishment of employers.
One of those e-mails obtained by The Times invited Democratic immigration staffers to a briefing in early January with "key stakeholders" to discuss workplace-enforcement provisions. The invitation listed six such "stakeholders," including the chamber and EWIC. The other groups attending the meeting, according to the e-mail, were the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Immigration Law Center, the National Council of La Raza and the Service Employees International Union.
Sens. Brownback and Specter were apparently shut out of helping to write this year's monstrosity, and they together with Lindsey Graham, Chuck Hagel, and Mel Martinez only were invited to a meeting after the bill had almost been completed.