new york times
The New York Times
"America's Paper of Record", which is now owned in part by Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim. Their immigration stories cannot be trusted because they're always incredibly slanted in support of illegal activity and are frequently little more than editorials disguised as news stories. For examples, see the Nina Bernstein entry and the other posts linked below. A February 2008 post linked to some prime examples of the NYT's reporting on immigration.
See also the evisceration of various NYT editorials.
Ian Urbina of the New York Times offers "Using Jailed Migrants as a Pool of Cheap Labor" (link). At the best, it's agenda-driven journalism, and if you respond in the way Urbina and the NYT want you to, you'll help make the situation even worse.
Another misleading Public Religion Research Institute immigration poll (Saperstein, Preston, CNN) - 11/25/13
The Public Religion Research Institute describes itself in the highest terms possible :
Julia Preston promotes Dayton looking the other way on illegal immigration (Ohio, headscarves) - 10/07/13
In the New York Times, immigration reporter Julia Preston offers a cookie-cutter article that follows the Crooked Town Story model. In those types of stories, a town that's supposedly in bad shape decides to look the other way on our immigration laws and - presto chango! - the town becomes a bustling hub of commerce.
Foreign citizens who are here illegally are aggressively agitating to change our laws to suit them, even though those changes will harm U.S. citizens. And, Julia Preston of the New York Times is doing her best to help those foreign citizens.
Kim Severson of NYT, John Ross of Reason, Matt Yglesias scaremonger Georgia professional licensing to enable illegal immigration - 10/09/12
For decades, the media has printed "crops rotting in the fields" articles which scaremonger non-existent food shortages in order to help growers get as much cheap, illegal labor as they want.
One of the major downsides of skilled immigration to the U.S. is that it also represents skilled emigration from other countries, many of which are struggling Third World countries that need all the smart people they can keep.
Obama voting push: relaxes Green Card wait time for illegal alien family members (Luis Gutierrez) - 01/06/12
Obama administration officials announced on Friday that they will propose a fix to a notorious snag in immigration law that will spare hundreds of thousands of American citizens from prolonged separations from immigrant spouses and children.
One tactic Mitt Romney's opponents have used and will continue to use is to portray him as a little weird for belonging to a weird religion. Ashley Parker and Michael Barbaro of the New York Times are taking a different tack to get to the same point: highlighting some of Romney's small talk that - were it said by anyone the NYT supports - would be presented as charmingly avuncular (or just ignored entirely).
Freedomworks uses Teaparty-approved Alinsky tactics... against Teaparty (not a learning experience) - 06/29/11
As discussed on the tea parties page, the teapartiers could have pushed their same aberrant ideology using much more effective and much more civil tactics. Instead, they chose to act like a childish caricature of the far-left: throwing tantrums at public meetings, standing on street corners waving loopy signs, engaging in cheap stunts, playing dress-up games, smearing and lying, and on and on.
Teaparty's growing unpopularity is now a liability for the GOP (the chart Tea Party doesn't want to see) - 03/31/11
The tea parties movement is now so unpopular that they're a liability for the Republican Party. For a clear example, see the chart below  showing how more and more Americans have developed an unfavorable opinion of them over time. Support for the Teaparties has topped out: they've been stuck around 30% since they began. However, all the while opposition to them has been rising.
Tea Party used to push corporate agenda (Institute for Liberty, Monsanto, Asian paper company) - 03/31/11
If you've been following our extensive tea parties coverage, you'll know where this is going (and if you're a teapartier, you'll have no clue):
Last fall, [Institute for Liberty's] president, Andrew Langer, had himself videotaped [ peekURL.com/vM87wLC ] on Long Wharf in Boston holding a copy of the Declaration of Independence as he compared Washington’s proposed tariff on paper from Indonesia and China to Britain's colonial trade policies in 1776.
That's from "Odd Alliance: Business Lobby and Tea Party" by Mike McIntyre of the New York Times (link) about how the Institute for Liberty and similar groups piggyback on the Teaparties in order to push a corporate agenda. It's not clear how successful they've been; the video has just about 150 views. However, if they haven't been as successful as Dick Armey has been it's not because the teaparties have seen through him: in my two years' of experience with them I've never known anyone in the teaparties to be able to see through anything.
In the article, McIntyre states that the Tea Party is "as deeply skeptical of big business as it is of big government", but the former does not appear to be true (see also this). The teapartiers are hand-made to be used to push a corporate agenda, usually by using a cleaned-up variant of something like "Nancy Pelosi hates your guts, so be a Patriot and help this corporation I'm being paid by ease pollution restrictions".
In the case above, Langer was serving (unpaid per him) the interests of a paper company from Indonesia that had concurrently - and no doubt completely coincidentally - mounted a PR campaign against tariffs on their products. And:
Mr. Langer had arrived the previous year from the National Federation of Independent Business, a small-business lobbying group. An enthusiastic, talkative man of 40 who dabbles in Republican politics in Maryland, he quickly saw potential in the Tea Party phenomenon. Working with FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity, the institute co-sponsored early Tea Party events in Washington and published a guide called “How to Brew a Tea Party.”
Mr. Langer can seem disarmingly candid when discussing his work. In a recent interview, he explained how the institute pitched its services to opponents of the Obama health care plan, resulting in a $1 million advertising blitz.
Both Freedomworks and AFP are part of the general Kochtopus (groups funded by or linked to the Koch family) and both have been very deeply involved in organizing the teaparties. And:
He said he had sometimes chosen issues suggested by colleagues from an earlier job, at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market group heavily financed by business interests. The two institutes are involved in a campaign advocating a realignment of NASA’s budget that would benefit commercial spaceflight entrepreneurs. The Institute of Liberty’s contribution was a Web page called “No Space Pork!”
Last year, the two groups also supported the effort by the agribusiness giant Monsanto to ease federal restrictions on its pesticide-resistant alfalfa. (In February, regulators agreed to do so.) Mr. Langer said he decided “to try out our grass-roots method on that, and frame it as a dairy issue and access to affordable food.”
CEI is also part of the Kochtopus, and that page embeds the video at peekURL.com/vKTxvzK from blogging stalwart Bill Whittle. Any links between him and the Institute for Liberty aren't known.
John Hinderaker presents: "David Koch, Friend to Mankind" (formaldehyde, ineffectiveness) - 03/05/11
'Hi! My name is John Hinderaker from Powerline. You might remember me from such filmstrips as "Asbestos: America's Ever-Vigilant Fireman" and "Ladybugs: America's Least-Recognized Pest". Well, today I'm here to present "A Philanthropist Advances the Cause of Science, the New York Times Doesn't" (link) about David Koch of the Koch family. But, first I want to tell you about a wonderful substance called formaldehyde...'
1. At the link, John Hinderaker says, "David Koch is one of the world's great philanthropists". That's almost as funny as Hinderaker's 2005 Bush quote . While Koch has certainly spent a large amount of money on various forms of giving, but on balance the picture becomes a bit more murky. Koch Industries provides valuable products and services to millions of people and keeps large numbers of people gainfully employed. At the same time, they also contribute to the pollution problem in the U.S. and the "free market principles" those linked to them advocate make things worse in the U.S. Whether what he does is on balance better for society than, for instance, George Soros isn't clear.
2. In an article criticizing a New York Times article by Michael Cooper ("Cancer Research Before Activism, Billionaire Conservative Donor Says", link), Hinderaker only mentions the reporter's name twice. Compare what I concentrate on. And, in a hidden way that I won't specify, Hinderaker also helps the NYT in a way that I don't. And, that follows Hinderaker having some slight success by concentrating on the reporter (see the "principles" link above). Critiquing individual reporters is a good way to encourage better coverage. It's mostly a good thing that Hinderaker isn't willing to do that for the most part, because whether we want a liberal bias to be replaced by a doctrinaire GOP bias isn't clear.
3. Hinderaker says:
A commenter on one of my posts said he was disappointed to see me spending my time rebutting the uninformed kids at Think Progress. I was sympathetic to his point, and it isn't something we usually do.
Compare that to how I do things: I've got 58 posts about ThinkProgress going back to 2006. I've got 19 posts about Andrea Nill alone, and 78 posts about the Center for American Progress stretching back to 2005. And, there might be even more posts about them that haven't been tagged yet. As much as Hinderaker would like to pretend that they're beneath such an elevated personage as he, they have far more influence than he does. And, he might not need to stoop to criticizing them if he had retailed my past discussions of them in an attempt to force them to provide better coverage.
4. Hinderaker discusses the debate over whether formaldehyde is a carcinogen and comes out in favor of making decisions based on real science. However, even that discussion is slanted towards what's good for corporations rather than for society as a whole and he also says this:
If the EPA over-regulates any chemical based on faulty science, with the effect that the cost of products that include that substance increases, those increased costs are not borne primarily by companies like Georgia-Pacific. Rather, they are passed on to consumers.
Of course, what Hinderaker misses is the fact that many corporations greatly enjoy to "socialize the costs and privatize the profits". In this case, that would consist of profiting from a chemical and at the same time as passing the costs of that chemical - such as later remediation or the costs of cancer treatment - on to others or on to the U.S. as a whole. As with the question of whether Koch is a "great philanthropist", Hinderaker isn't factoring everything involved into the equation.
 From powerlineblog.com/archives/2005/07/011024.php
It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can't get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile.
Hyperbolic? Well, maybe. But consider Bush's latest master stroke: the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate...
What Koch defenders aren't telling you (Reddit, Reason, Glenn Reynolds, Powerline, Weigel) - 02/24/11
It used to be that only a small number of people had heard about the billionaire Koch family and the "Kochtopus" (those persons and groups funded by or otherwise linked to them). Now, because of the standoff between Wisconsin governor Scott Walker and public employee unions in that state, that's all changed and the Kochs are fast assuming the role that George W Bush played for the Left (and George Soros plays for the right).
Sure as night follows day, various sources are rushing to defend the Kochs. But, oddly enough, all those defenses fail to point out two key items on the Koch's agenda:
1. In the 90s, the Kochs were one of the major forces behind NAFTA (link), and today the Kochtopus advocates for other free trade agreements and for free trade in general. The base of the tea parties might not take too kindly to knowing about that.
2. If the Kochs supporting NAFTA wouldn't make the teaparty base happy, then make sure they never find out that various members of the Kochtopus support loose and even open borders. See the entries on the Cato Institute, Reason Magazine, and Dan Griswold (from CATO) pages for starters. In fact, Griswold was the "inspiration" (per Margaret Spellings) for George W Bush's anti- and un-American guest worker scheme.
Bush wanted to open the U.S. labor market to the world in a massive H1B-style scheme that would have sent formerly middle-class wages closer to world levels, and Spellings specifically named teachers and nurses as those who would have to compete against low-wage workers brought in from abroad.
Nowadays, the Kochtopus' support for loose/open borders no doubt plays a major role in why the teaparties have largely ignored the immigration issue despite how it's more vital and more fundamental than spending and most other issues.
Immigration is also the issue where the leaders of the Democratic Party, the far-left, and union leaders are weakest and could easiest be discredited. In fact, the Service Employees International Union even paid someone linked to the Mexican government to agitate illegal aliens inside the U.S. Yet, no doubt because of the Kochs and those like FreedomWorks (also part of the Kochtopus), the whole wider issue of immigration is off the table.
Here are some of the Koch defenders who've ignored those two issues:
1. Someone using the name "epistemicfail" posted "STOP THE KOCH BROTHERS. They are trying to end the War on Drugs and increase civil liberties" at Reddit (redd . it/frrth). Whether the author is a pothead or someone linked into the "Kochtopus" isn't clear, but I suspect the latter. It's a cute attempt at a bribe, like a lawyer trying to engender support for a criminal by highlighting how they like cats. It's probably just a coincidence, but a former Reason Magazine employee named Julian Sanchez used the phrase "epistemic closure" to refer to closed-minded rightwingers.
2. The Reddit post linked approvingly by Nick Gillespie of Reason Magazine who says, "I don't know who epistemicfail is, but the whole thing is totally worth reading".
3. Doug Mataconis of Outside the Beltway links to both of the above, adding little:
For more on Doug Mataconis, see the link (vulgar language warning).
4. Glenn Reynolds links to Gillespie:
5. John Hinderaker of Powerline hasn't linked to the Reddit piece yet (there's still time). However, he offers several pro-Koch posts in his stock pompous-but-empty style:
A day doesn't go by--hardly an hour goes by--without some new attack being launched against these two lonely libertarians... Why? Simply because they are rich--their company is one of the best-run and most successful in the world--and conservative. The Left is trying to drive them out of politics and, more important, to deter any other people of means from daring to support conservative politicians or causes.
He does have a point about the Left only liking the rich donating to political causes when they're on the liberal side, and he does have a point that people shouldn't be dissuaded from donating to political causes. However, he doesn't point out why everything isn't gravy and why some of his readers shouldn't be so fond of the Koch agenda.
6. Dave Weigel offers his own fan post to the Koch brothers:
He fails to note that he used to work for the Kochtopus' own Reason Magazine, he pretends that concerns about Koch influence only started recently (rather than having existed for decades and involving both the brothers and their father), and, of course, he highlights only the liberal-friendly aspects of the Koch agenda:
They have, for decades, bankrolled libertarian think tanks and programs, and they help put on conferences where conservative ideas are spread. Among the ideas they end up spreading are drug legalization and opposition to the Patriot Act. The Tea Party was the first movement funded in part by the Kochs that really took off.
UPDATE: Powerline gets a reply from the New York Times' Eric Lipton: powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/02/028470.php It boils down to how you define "showdown"; wouldn't trying to restrict union power necessarily involve a confrontation of some kind?
And, others defending the Kochs include:
* Mark Steyn: steynonline.com/content/view/3767
What's happening in Wisconsin is all about money: budgets, shortfalls, obligations, perks, pensions, privileges - and the burdens of the beleaguered productive class that pays for it. In a story awash with money, the Koch brothers are the least of it. They're certainly billionaires, and that's a lot of dough. Of it, what they inject into the political process is little more than a rounding error.
I don't know whether Steyn is part of the Kochtopus, but that "rounding error" certainly seems to have bought the Kochs a lot of friends.
* Sean Parnell (not the Alaska governor) from the Center for Competitive Politics offers a fan post at Washington Examiner (owned by billionaire Philip Anschutz):
Parnell's blub "Sean Parnell is the president of the Center for Competitive Politics, a nonpartisan, nonprofit group dedicated to protecting First Amendment political rights") fails to note that he used to work for the Heartland Institute which is part of, you guessed it, the Kochtopus. There's that rounding error again.
* David Harsanyi offers his own version of the "rounding error" (denverpost.com/opinion/ci_17476151):
The libertarian Kochs are super rich and gave less than $2 million to Republicans in the last election cycle, which mathematically speaking amounts to nothing.
Earlier today, The Nation released an article that's been taken by most to claim that Lou Dobbs hired illegal aliens, when in fact that claim is unsupported (see the link for the details). The illegal immigration-supporting establishment has been on the warpath, making false claims in order to push their agenda.
The 9500 Liberty pro-illegal immigration documentary will be shown on MTV on September 26; see the link for the details on that film. Two years ago, Youtube started promoting them and that was followed by the Washington Post and other sources, and that's not because it's a balanced treatment of the immigration issue but rather because they're on the pro-illegal immigration side.
Timothy Egan of the New York Times offers "Building a Nation of Know-Nothings" (link) in which he takes the right wing - and Rush Limbaugh specifically - to task for encouraging false beliefs. To a certain extent he's got a point, but you might expect a self-appointed arbiter of what is and what isn't true such as Egan to be able to get his facts straight. Instead, he's a more polished, much more subtle version of that which he decries.
Here's an example of Egan's sloppy thinking:
Take a look at Tuesday night's box score in the baseball game between New York and Toronto. The Yankees won, 11-5. Now look at the weather summary, showing a high of 71 for New York. The score and temperature are not subject to debate... "Tomorrow is Obama’s birthday - not that we've seen any proof of that," he said on Aug. 3. "They tell us Aug. 4 is the birthday; we haven't seen any proof of that." Of course, there is proof as clear as that baseball box score. Look here, www.factcheck.org, for starters, one of many places posting Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate.
1. Egan can't even get the name of the document right, probably by design. The picture on FactCheck's site and the related photo on Obama's site is of a certification, not a "certificate" as Egan states.
2. As discussed at the FactCheck link, they aren't a credible source on this and other matters. And, the two people who they claim reviewed the document are not document experts.
3. The score of a baseball game is verifiable from multiple independent sources and from personal observation. The same isn't true of the picture. The correct analogy would be if someone posted on their site a photo of a box score from an old, out-of-print newspaper that has no archives and asked you to trust them that the photo hadn't been altered. You have no way to verify that the photo is an accurate representation, and you'd be forced to trust the site operator. While there's very little chance that Obama altered the certificate shown on his site, he - like FactCheck - hasn't proved to be very credible (see Obama misleads). Egan believes Obama and FactCheck; if they changed their tunes he'd simply fall into line. Egan isn't being skeptical in the true sense: he isn't an impartial observer but simply a hack.
Egan also claims as a fact that Obama is a Christian. In a loose sense he certainly is. However, it's false to claim that we know for a fact that Obama is not a Muslim. It's also false to claim that we know for a fact that Obama is a Muslim. If you claim to know what religion someone actually *is*, let me know how you bugged that person's conversations with their God, Gods, or lack thereof. It's correct to claim that Obama is a professed and a practicing Christian, because that's an actual fact. Egan isn't making that distinction because his goal isn't rigorous thinking but simply defending Obama.
The Obama administration, while deporting a record number of immigrants convicted of crimes, is sparing one group of illegal immigrants from expulsion: students who came to the United States without papers when they were children.
In case after case where immigrant students were identified by federal agents as being in the country illegally, the students were released from detention and their deportations were suspended or canceled, lawyers and immigrant advocates said. Officials have even declined to deport students who openly declared their illegal status in public protests...
"In a world of limited resources, our time is better spent on someone who is here unlawfully and is committing crimes in the neighborhood," John Morton, the head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said in an interview. "As opposed to someone who came to this country as a juvenile and spent the vast majority of their life here."
The article also claims that there are 700,000 illegal aliens who'd be covered by the DREAM Act, an amnesty that would allow current or former illegal aliens to take college educations away from needy American citizens. And, it shouldn't be necessary to point out that by refusing to deport illegal alien college students DHS is sending a very strong welcoming message to those in foreign countries who might otherwise think twice about bringing their children here illegally.
Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard is running for governor of that state, and he recently conducted a fundraising tour in New York City ("New York City?"). Erik Eckholm of the New York Times says (nytimes.com/2010/06/13/us/politics/13immig.html):
"Please give us help in trying to defend what really matters," Mr. Goddard told the lunch group. He accused Republicans of diverting attention from the state's dire economic condition and the true border problem: crime and violence associated with drug cartels.
Goddard's definition of "what really matters" differs from most Americans; a clear majority support Arizona's new immigration law. And, the economic conditions in Arizona and other states are brought about in part by massive illegal immigration. The Arizona law would also disincentivize illegal immigration into Arizona, taking away a major source of income for criminals. Massive illegal immigration allows those who engage in human trafficking to "blend into the crowd" and the way to deal with that is to reduce the size of the crowd not to make things worse as Goddard would do.
Mr. Goddard said the immigration law and others passed by the conservative State Legislature not only endangered Arizona's economy by provoking boycotts but had also tarnished the image of a state with a tradition of ethnic cooperation. "I pledge to keep Arizona off of Comedy Central for the next four years," he said, drawing laughs.
Those conducting boycotts and those possibly affected by them have been able to make a lot of noise because they and the mainstream media are on the same side. However, any costs to Arizona's tourism industry would be outweighed by reduced costs as illegal aliens leave the state. As for the "cooperation", what exactly would that consist of in Goddard's view? Letting those like Isabel Garcia set the immigration agenda?
And, the last bit is telling despite it being a supposed joke. Goddard is revealing that he's a coward who'd bow to pressure bought by third-rate, establishment-sycophant comedians like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. Goddard isn't a fighter who'd stand up to establishment pressure; he'd capitulate.
Further on, Goddard pretends that he'd defend the Arizona law against legal challenges, when his defense would be like that offered by Gray Davis to Proposition 187. Jan Brewer has made a series of smart, gutsy decisions and one of those was trying to make sure that her lawyers - and not Goddard - defend attempts by illegal immigration supporters to strike down Arizona's new law.
Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times offers "Democrats Skip Town Halls to Avoid Voter Rage" (nytimes.com/2010/06/07/us/politics/07townhall.html): the tantrums that those in the tea parties threw at last summer's public meetings have caused many Democrats to avoid open meetings this time around: Of the 255 Democrats who make up the majority in the
Paul Krugman exposes "jobs Americans won't do", has "uncomfortable facts about the economics of modern immigration" - 05/28/10
I posted a paragraph of this back in March 2006 when it first appeared, but it's worth revisiting the Paul Krugman column here [see UPDATE] where he exposes the "jobs Americans wont do" talking point for what it is and raises issues with massive illegal immigration, particularly of low-wage workers.
On May 20, Carl Hulse and Adam Nagourney of the New York Times offered "Tea Party Pick Causes Uproar on Civil Rights" (nytimes.com/2010/05/21/us/politics/21paul.html), containing this completely false (and still uncorrected) statement about Rand Paul's appearance on the Rachel Maddow show:
Asked by Ms. Maddow if a private business had the right to refuse to serve black people, Mr. Paul replied, “Yes.”
He didn't say "yes", but "yeah", and only in the sense of "now that you're finished speaking let me get a chance" or similar. The "yeah" wasn't a response to Maddow's question, it was just throat-clearing, and it was followed by "I‘m not in favor of any discrimination of any form." Please watch the video yourself; scroll ahead to the 8 minute mark: peekURL.com/vqcalnm
If you spot someone giving the inaccurate Paul quote, please send them a link to this post or to the video and help discredit those who make outrageous charges without bothering to verify those charges.
Damien Cave of the New York Times offers "A Generation Gap Over Immigration" (nytimes.com/2010/05/18/us/18divide.html), a dishonest attempt by the NYT to portray forced demographic change and massive illegal activity as hip and cool. It ends with the following, which summarizes the point that Cave is trying to make:
I haven't discussed a Frank Rich column here before, so let's start by showing several ways he's wrong in yesterday's "If Only Arizona Were the Real Problem" (nytimes.com/2010/05/02/opinion/02rich.html). It's centered around that state's new immigration law, but it's a wide-ranging rant. Here are just some of the ways he's wrong):
One of the cute tricks that mainstream media reporters use is to have others make a point they want to make, without having to make it themselves. Usually, when someone makes a false statement that others might consider to be true, the job of a reporter is to provide contrary information.
[UPDATE: The NYT prints a correction, see below.]
Will Dalia Sussman & Marina Stefan of NYT correct their false statement about Hawaiian officials? - 04/22/10
When making a bold statement of fact it's generally a good idea to get all your facts right. Dalia Sussman and Marina Stefan of the New York Times have definitely done the first, but they failed at the second. From "Obama and the ‘Birthers’ in the Latest Poll" :
President Obama was born in Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961. A scanned image of his birth certificate released during the 2008 presidential campaign says he was, and Hawaii’s health director and its registrar of vital statistics have confirmed it.
Note the near-religious certainty of the first sentence, which is fitting: Dalia Sussman and Marina Stefan are going on faith and not the facts, since they've gotten a major fact wrong.
Please humor me and read the only two official statements from the Hawaiian government; the first is from 10/31/08 and the second is from 7/27/09. Only the first references the Registrar, the second does not. And, only the second says he was born there, the first only says that he has a valid certificate on file. The facts contradict the claim made by Dalia Sussman and Marina Stefan, but to them it doesn't matter: they're going on faith and not on the facts.
Obviously, some people don't "get it" (or pretend not to get it). Others realize that if someone is going to make bold claims they better have the underlying facts right, otherwise we can't trust those bold claims.
And, once again, none of the above means that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii. It just means that those who claim it's been proven have not in fact made their case. They're simply attempting to bully others into accepting the official line and not ask any questions.
The Justice Department filed a lawsuit on Friday against John Jay College of Criminal Justice, alleging that the school engaged in a pattern of job discrimination against noncitizens who were authorized to work.
The lawsuit, considered the department’s first in years to crack down on immigration-related discrimination against noncitizens, says the college violated provisions of immigration law by demanding extra work authorization from at least 103 individuals since 2007, rather than accepting the work-eligibility documents required of citizens, like a Social Security card and a driver’s license...
(Thomas Perez), assistant attorney general for the department’s Civil Rights Division, said in a statement: “Every individual who is authorized to work in this country has the right to know they will be free from discrimination as they look for a job, and that they will be on the same playing field as every other applicant or worker.”
The college is working out a settlement agreement with the DOJ and with the woman from Korea who kicked off the DOJ's investigation. She had presented the college with a driver's license and a Social Security card but couldn't provide them with a green card since that was in the process of being issued.
The law's the law and if someone thinks that the documentation standards aren't strict enough, work to change the law. However, this helps illustrate the DOJ's priorities. The chances of them going after much bigger fish - employers of illegal aliens, banks that knowingly profit from money that was earned illegally by illegal aliens, and so on - are rather slim.
State and local police officers who enforce federal immigration laws are not adequately screened, trained or supervised, and the civil rights of the immigrants they deal with are not consistently protected, according to a report released Friday by the Department of Homeland Security inspector general.
The report by the department’s internal watchdog was a sweeping review of a program run by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Through agreements signed with about 60 county and state police forces, the program allows local officers to question immigrants about their legal status and detain them for deportation.
The inspector general’s report describes the program as haphazardly administered, with local agencies detaining and prosecuting immigrants with little oversight from federal agents and significant inconsistencies from place to place.
You can read the report - and the entirely predictable responses from the American Civil Liberties Union, the Immigration Policy Center, and the National Immigration Law Center - at blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/04/dhs-report-slams-287g-program.html
Since taking office, the Obama administration has consistently undermined immigration enforcement. An DHS inspector general report focused on 287(g) is the latest attempt to provide critics of 287(g) with ammunition to halt or eliminate the program. Among the report recommendations include more "civil-right" data recording and changing "performance measures that do not focus on aliens who pose a threat to public safety or are a danger to the community." In essence, the IG report is critical of ICE for not moving fast enough to implement the revised 287(g) guidelines that put "catch-and-release" back in place for non-violent criminal aliens. The legislative history and original intent of the 287(g) program is clear - it was meant to encompass all illegal aliens, and that was how the program was run until the Obama administration. Since then, the administration has attempted to remake the program into a watered-down jail screening program and to reduce its effectiveness at finding and deporting illegal aliens regardless of the severity of their crimes.
Two days ago I posted a notice that Michael Steele of the RNC was going to meet with extremist and Mexico-linked illegal immigration supporters and urged others to contact him suggesting that he handle the meeting in the correct way . Not surprisingly, Steele handled the meeting in the completely incorrect way (link):
According to a news release put out by the activists , he said he would try and recruit Republican support for comprehensive immigration legislation.
The RNC says he made no such commitment. The immigration activist who led the meeting said he did, but then [Steele] backpedaled after being signaled by a staffer that he may have gone too far...
...Pramila Jayapal, executive director of OneAmerica, the largest immigrant rights coalition in Washington state, said that Steele committed himself to a “holistic bipartisan consensus on immigration reform” and said he believes the Republican party should be “reaching out.” She said he said he would call Graham and work with the party leadership to “determine where things are in immigration reform.” But she said he stopped short of promising to recruit other Republicans.
But the second activist said he did in fact make that offer. (Josh Hoyt), executive director of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, said Steele went through a list of possible Republicans in the Senate who might sign on to the effort, said he would try to recruit another sponsor and agreed with the activists on their goal of getting legislation introduced by April 30.
But Hoyt said that midway through the meeting, an RNC staffer signaled to Steele that he should “walk back what he had said.” After that, Hoyt said, Steele said he emphasized that he could not “get ahead” of Republican Senate leaders.
Mr. Steele stressed that border security was the primary goal for Republicans in the immigration debate, several participants said. He seemed unfamiliar with the details of the proposal by Mr. Graham and Mr. Schumer, they said... But he “committed to looking at the Schumer-Graham bill to see how they can move forward with this bill,” said Tony Asion, executive director of (El Pueblo North Carolina), an immigrant organization in North Carolina, who is a Republican.
That underlines how in some cases those who harp on secure the border are just using it to mask how weak they are on amnesty.
 I posted that to FreeRepublic (and got the expected unhelpful responses: freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2483320/posts), Reddit (+2, -2), and a couple blogs. Needless to say, this is yet another example of how it's difficult to get people to do things that are effective. If I'd suggested waving loopy signs and throwing tantrums my postings would have probably received wide acclaim and maybe a link from Glenn Reynolds.