nc aizenman

nc aizenman: Page 1

Discussed in (click each link for the full post):

"Temporary" Protected Status for Haitian illegal aliens pushed by profiteers (Haiti earthquake) - 01/14/10

[TPS has been approved; see the update below]

Yesterday, Janet Napolitano of the Department of Homeland Security suspended repatriations of illegal aliens from Haiti; that makes some sense as long as it's actually temporary. What doesn't make sense are the calls from some to give "Temporary Protected Status" in the U.S. to Haitian illegal aliens. The word "temporary" is generally a misnomer as that status is renewed over and over.

TPS would be an infected band-aid that wouldn't fix Haiti's structural problems and in some cases would result in importing Haiti's problems into the U.S. It would also result in brain-draining that country of its more energetic citizens, making things easier for corrupt Haitian leaders. These pushing TPS are at root simply self-serving: they're interested in little more than obtaining political power. They're thinking only of themselves instead of trying to solve problems; they're only making the long-term situation worse.

First, Hillary Clinton of the State Department seems to be implying that the Obama administration will grant some form of TPS (link):

"Well, we have, as you know, many Haitian Americans. Most are here legally. Some are not documented. And the Obama administration is taking steps to make sure that people are given some temporary status so that we don’t compound the problem that we face in Haiti."

From Julia Preston of the New York Times (link):

Senators Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, both Democrats, and (Representatives Lincoln Diaz Balart and Mario Diaz Balart) of south Florida, both Republicans, as well as John C. Favalora, the Roman Catholic archbishop of Miami... "If this is not a slam-dunk case for temporary protected status, I don’t know what is," said Kevin Appleby, a spokesman for the bishops. He said the status would allow Haitian immigrants here to work here and send money back to relatives in Haiti trying to recover from the quake.

Appleby's proposal is at heart immoral: he would encourage Haiti to become even more dependent on the U.S. than they already are and he would embed that dependence in their society, instead of encouraging them to develop their own commerce.

The letter from Senators encouraging TPS is here; in addition to Gillibrand and Schumer, the signatories are: John Kerry, Paul Kirk, Jeff Bingaman, Bill Nelson, Dick Durbin, Frank Lautenberg, Chris Dodd, Bob Menendez, Pat Leahy, Dianne Feinstein, Tom Harkin, Bob Casey, and Bernie Sanders.

From NC Aizenman of the Washington Post (link):

(The Florida politicians including Ileana Ros Lehtinen) are among several leaders holding separate news conferences in Miami on Thursday to draw further attention to the issue. Others include the head of the Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center, who will be accompanied by Edwidge Danticat, a celebrated Haitian author and winner of a MacArthur Fellow "genius" grant. Twenty-six refugee agencies also sent a joint letter Thursday urging Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to consider TPS for Haitians, and the National Council of La Raza released a statement to the same effect.

That also contains Mark Krikorian seeming to support TPS in this case, as well as this:

"When somebody works here they can support up to 10 times that number back in Haiti. So we're talking about supporting hundreds of thousands of people in Haiti at no cost to U.S. taxpayers," (Steve Forester, a Miami-based advocate with the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti) said.

Obviously, he's either trying to mislead people or he can't think things through. Many or most of the jobs they'd be doing would be jobs that Americans who are drawing unemployment insurance could be doing, and much of the labor those Haitians would be doing in the U.S. would be heavily subsidized.

Per this:

"We are considering all alternatives available to us in extending a helping hand to Haiti," (Alejandro Mayorkas of the USCIS) said. He confirmed those considerations include temporary protected status for Haitians.

And, Reform Immigration for America is also promoting TPS with a petition drive: reformimmigrationforamerica.org/blog/blog/
hatians-need-your-help-and-temporary-protective-status

The Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society has joined with several other groups in calling for TPS:
hias.org/en/post/25/hias-urges-grant-temporary-protective-status-

Likewise with Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform:
faithandimmigration.org/blog/petitioning-haitian-relief

UPDATE: Richard Lugar, FAIR, Center for Immigration Studies, Casa de Maryland, and Frank Sharry's America's Voice all support TPS, with Dick Lugar saying:

"It is in the foreign policy interest of the United States and a humanitarian imperative of the highest order to have all people of Haitian descent in a position to contribute towards the recovery of this island nation."

See the comments above.

1/15/10 UPDATE: Janet Napolitano has now approved TPS, but only for those illegal aliens who were here on Tuesday. How they'll be able to tell isn't clear; some people will no doubt try to provide fake documentation showing they were here at that time.

WaPo admits: massive immigration has created a "troubling" situation (second generation Hispanics) - 12/07/09

Last month, the New York Times admitted some of the troubling aspects of the immigration policy they support. Now comes NC Aizenman of the Washington Post with "Struggles of the second generation" (link, via this) in which they likewise admit that the policies they support have created a "troubling" situation.

Almost all of it is a sketch of the child of Mexican immigrants who's trying to turn his life around. The rest includes:

Whether [the millions of children of Latino immigrants] succeed will have consequences far beyond immigrant circles. As a result of the arrival of more than 20 million mostly Mexican and Central American newcomers in a wave that swelled in the 1970s and soared during the 1990s, the offspring of Latino immigrants now account for one of every 10 children, both in the United States and the Washington region.

Largely because of the growth of this second generation, Latino immigrants and their U.S.-born children and grandchildren will represent almost a third of the nation's working-age adults by mid-century, according to projections from U.S. Census Bureau data by Jeffrey S. Passel, a demographer with the nonpartisan Pew Hispanic Center in Washington.

Not since the last great wave of immigration to the United States around 1900 has the country's economic future been so closely entwined with the generational progress of an immigrant group. And so far, on nearly every measure, the news is troubling.

Second-generation Latinos have the highest high school dropout rate -- one in seven -- of any U.S.-born racial or ethnic group and the highest teen pregnancy rate. These Latinos also receive far fewer college degrees and make significantly less money than non-Hispanic whites and other second-generation immigrants.

WaPo admits: Maryland driver's licenses are incredibly insecure, open to fraud (advocating two-tier system?) - 03/29/09

When even the Washington Post notices a problem relating to immigration, you know it's a real problem. Thus it is that NC Aizenman and Lisa Rein offer "Easy-to-Get Licenses Expose Md. to Fraud/Out-of-State Illegal Immigrants Exploit Rules" (link). The WaPo appears to be trying to get Maryland to pass a Real ID-compliant two-tier licensing scheme under which illegal aliens would get a license to drive but not to do much more. However, while there is some PC beating around the bush, there also isn't the outright advocacy we've come to expect from the WaPo:

Maryland ...has become a magnet for illegal immigrants from Georgia to Delaware seeking driving privileges... Along with New Mexico, Hawaii and Washington state, Maryland does not check the immigration status of drivers when they apply for a license. The policy has made the state vulnerable to widespread fraud by illegal immigrants living outside Maryland -- as well as to criminals seeking to create false identities -- according to court records and interviews with state officials... Security is the chief concern cited by Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) and lawmakers as the General Assembly debates whether to require license-seekers to verify their lawful presence in the country. It's a change the Democratic-controlled legislature has resisted out of sensitivity to immigrants... Immigrant rights advocates support a two-tiered system that would also comply with federal law by allowing newcomers without proof of legal status to get a limited license for driving -- but not to board airplanes, enter federal buildings or cross borders. O'Malley and other opponents say that wouldn't stop the fraud problem... If it doesn't pass its own law, Maryland would be forced to meet an early deadline to put into effect other costly provisions of the Real ID law... ...Maryland's license is considered so insecure that some states, including Colorado, Arizona and Oklahoma, no longer accept it as a proof of identity for relocating drivers...

The article also quotes Kim Propeack from Casa de Maryland:

[she] noted that bribery still goes on in states where illegal immigrants can't get licenses. And she said that whatever residency fraud Maryland might prevent by tightening its rules would be outweighed by a rise in internal corruption and document mills... "The more difficult it is to obtain [a license] legally, the harder people are going to struggle to obtain it fraudulently," Propeack said.

Obama transition met with CHIRLA (group allegedly linked to Mexican government) - 01/21/09

Earlier today, a mass therapy session for illegal immigration supporters was held in Washington DC, as hundreds of them marched to the headquarters of Immigration and Customs Enforcement whereupon they banged on drums, waved banners, and conducted mock ceremonies attempting to "cleanse" the building. No, really: "Immigrant Advocates Call for End to Raids" by NC Aizenman, link.

None of those named are major figures, and this was just a show. However, this part at the end is interesting:

Antonio Bernabe, an organizer with the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA) and one of several immigrant activists who met with Obama's transition team in recent weeks, said he was very optimistic based on its response. Still, he said, demonstrations remain necessary.

That's interesting because CHIRLA allegedly has worked with the Mexican government, although none of the MSM sources who've quoted them have seen fit to try to confirm that. See this for all the details.

UPDATE: There's more on the "cleansing" in news.newamericamedia.
org/news/view_article.html?article_id=5bec28f5341e22d85cca3d35c1f5097b

The main organizer was the Fair Immigration Reform Movement (FIRM). The article quotes Ali Noorani of the National Immigration Forum, but it's not clear whether he was there or not. And:

Across the country, advocates plan for more actions, coordinated through an increasingly sophisticated communications network, to build a groundswell in favor of reform. For example, on Jan. 22 on Long Island, a hotspot in the immigration wars, the ecumenical Council of Churches plans to release a major statement on the need for "immigration solutions."

Pew Hispanic poll: immigration far eclipsed by economy - 01/15/09

A new Pew Hispanic poll provides some evidence that immigration issues aren't as vital an issue to Latinos as hacks try to tell us. The summary and PDF with the full results is here. Here are the percentages for "extremely important":

57%: The economy
51%: Education
45%: Healthcare
43%: National security
33%: The environment
31%: Immigration
20%: Energy policy

Note that two surveys were conducted, and all adults Latinos were eligible. Thus, the persons answering that question could be Puerto Ricans, native born Mexican-Americans, legal immigrants, illegal aliens, or so on.

Further, voters (presumably citizens) were asked "What one issue mattered most to you in deciding how to vote for president?" They were not given a choice of responses. Only 6% named immigration, behind the economy/jobs (31%), "change" (13%), Iraq (7%), and "candidate attributes" (14%). No one appears to have named Sarah Palin as a reason one way or another. Only 2% named Bush, and only 1% named things related to the Republican party.

None of the above is very favorable to those who support massive/illegal immigration, so NC Aizenman of the Washington Post supplies the orthodoxy (link):
Still, Mark Hugo Lopez, co-author of the survey released today, cautioned that the current results may reflect Latinos' increasing concern with the economy more than mounting apathy over immigration. He noted that 75 percent of Hispanics reported that immigration should be at least a "very important" priority for President-elect Barack Obama, and 88 percent cited it as at least "important."

Lopez also said the current poll did not necessarily disprove the impression of many analysts that the Republican Party's opposition to the legalization plan contributed to Obama's two-to-one victory over Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) among Hispanics. Although previous polling indicated that registered Latino voters had more confidence in Democrats' ability to manage the economy, a September poll by the Pew Hispanic Center also found that 55 percent of Latino registered voters believed Democrats had more concern for Hispanics, compared to 6 percent who cited Republicans.

"We don't have any evidence to be able to tease out the independent effect of immigration [on the election's outcome]," said Lopez. "There are several possible scenarios there and I don't think our survey allows us to tease them out."
Hacks are funny.

Immigrant assimilation study: low scores for Mexicans; other results mixed (N.C. Aizenman/WaPo, Yglesias, Drezner, Atrios, Weigel) - 05/13/08

N.C. Aizenman of the Washington Post offers "Study Says Foreigners In U.S. Adapt Quickly", an article about a new Manhattan Institute report called "Measuring Immigrant Assimilation", authored by economist Jacob Vigdor of Duke University. He constructed an "assimilation index" based on economic, cultural, and civic assimilation. One of the issues with the index is that it probably doesn't include a question on whether those immigrants subscribe to our laws or whether they think they don't apply to them, and it probably doesn't cover irredentism-related issues. It's also a mixed bag; while the headline of the WaPo article spins it in the way we've come to expect from the WaPo, even N.C. Aizenman offers the following as the third sentence of his article:
The gap between today's foreign-born and native populations remains far wider than it was in the early 1900s and is particularly large in the case of Mexican immigrants, the report said.
And, Howard Husock, vice president for Policy Research at the Manhattan Institute, says:
It turns out there is plenty of assimilation going on. Cubans and Vietnamese, for instance, are economically indistinguishable from natives. Germans are indistinguishable both culturally and economically. Some cities are doing better than others at assimilating newcomers. Houston, where Mexican and Central Americans predominate, has an assimilation index of just 19. New York, where no one group predominates, has a score of 31.

But the most striking finding is much less positive. The current overall assimilation level for all immigrant groups combined, measured on a scale of zero to 100, is, at 28, lower now than it was during the great immigration wave of the early 20th century, when it never went below 32. What’s more, the immigrant group that is by far the largest is also the least assimilated. On the zero-to-100 scale, Mexicans — 11 million emigrated to America between 1980 and 2006 — score only 13.

Although Mexican assimilation does occur, it’s extremely slow. Mexicans who arrived in 1995 started out with Index scores around five — and increased only to around 10 by 2005. In other words, our largest immigrant group arrived with little education and even less knowledge of English, and they have stayed that way for an extended period.
On the same theme, Eunice Moscoso offers "Immigrants less integrated than before, study finds" (link).

Oddly enough, those hacks who support massive and/or illegal immigration only seem to have read the headline of the WaPo piece.

They include David Weigel of Reason Magazine ("The Washington Post reports on a new study revealing the quicker and quicker adaptation of immigrants to American norms."; reason.com/blog/show/126477.html). He's taken to task here.

Someone else weighing in is Duncan Black (aka Atrios) under the title "Paging Lou Dobbs" (eschatonblog.com/2008_05_11_archive.html#7247266138416718020):
Haven't looked at the study myself, so put this in the category of "confirms what I already thought," but as someone who lives in a city which still has plenty of white ethnic enclaves I've long been puzzled by the widespread belief that today's immigrants are somehow "different," aside from the skin color of some of them.
That's not only sleazy race-baiting, but it contains two logical fallacies: he's drawing a false conclusion based on a small sample size (i.e., his limited experiences) and based on past behavior despite the underlying conditions having changed.

Next up is Matt Yglesias, who links approvingly to both the WaPo and Atrios in "Assimilation Then and Now" (matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/assimilation_then_and_now.php).

Last and least at least as far as traffic is concerned, Daniel Drezner takes a content-free swipe at both Lou Dobbs and Mickey Kaus (http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/003815.html)

UPDATE: Looking at the study (manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_53.htm), here's what "cultural assimilation" means to the author the study:

* Ability to speak English
* Intermarriage (whether an individual’s spouse is native-born)
* Number of children
* Marital status

One will note a few things missing, such as whether they buy in to our laws (or think they don't apply to them) and whether they support our borders (or think they have a Blut und Boden-style right to move anywhere within the Americas).

An intellectually honest index would take those into account. The civic index has similar issues as well, one of which the author acknowledges (military service being a fast-track to citizenship).

Doug Feaver will make you "hate" the Washington Post all over again (N.C. Aizenman) - 03/28/08

Doug Feaver runs the Washington Post blog "dot.comments", which appears to consist of attacks against their readers who leave comments rather than attempts to engage those readers' concerns. Yesterday he offered "The Latino Emigration" (link), a passive-aggressive attempt to smear those who, unlike the WaPo, oppose illegal activity:

Deborah Howell, Washington Post ombudsman: WaPo immigration coverage mostly OK - 03/01/08

Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell offers "Immigration Coverage in the Crossfire" (link):
Readers who oppose illegal immigration often complain that The Post has too much sympathy for those living in the United States illegally and too little for those who oppose this...

...A review of immigration stories, mostly local, over the past year and several months, showed that the coverage was mostly straightforward and informative...

N.C. Aizenman/WaPo (hearts) El Salvador's consul general - 01/09/07

N.C. Aizenman of the Washington Post delivers a wet sloppy one on Ana Margarita Chavez, El Salvador's Washington DC consul general. With her "long black curls" and "bubbly laugh", she makes sure that the one-quarter of that country's population that lives in the U.S. keeps sending their money back home to the tune of $3 billion per year.

Immigration Rally's Low Turnout Disappoints Advocates - 10/07/06

subtitle: "Fear of Blacklash, Mixed Messages, Timing Are Cited"

Washington Post/Darryl Fears and [[N.C. Aizenman]]/[[September 8, 2006]]/ link

Why does the Washington Post support illegal immigration? - 07/08/06

The WaPo reports on the difficult journey of a Guatemalan who wants to enter the U.S. illegally ("Meeting Danger Well South of the Border" by N.C. Aizenman). Since the Washington Post has endorsed illegal immigration, isn't their article a bit in bad taste? Shouldn't they try to keep under wraps the nitty gritty details of what they in effect support?