pennsylvania

pennsylvania: Page 1

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

Tea Party Congress isn't extreme enough for Club for Growth (Allen West, David McKinley, Lou Barletta) - 05/17/12

The Club for Growth has released their "Freshman Vote Study" of how the new GOP congressmembers have been living up to Tea Parties ideals (clubforgrowth . org/freshmanvotestudy).

As it turns out, dragging the U.S. where most people really don't want to go is very difficult: 36 out of 87 Republicans who were elected in 2010's landslide sided with the Club 2/3 of the time or less.

CIS: Immigrants use welfare at higher rate than natives - 04/06/11

Some of the findings of a new study from the Center for Immigration Studies ("Welfare Use by Immigrant Households with Children: A Look at Cash, Medicaid, Housing, and Food Programs", link) include:

# 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).

Per this:

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?

Michigan, eight other states file brief in support of Arizona immigration law - 07/15/10

From this:

States have the authority to enforce immigration laws and protect their borders, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox said Wednesday in a legal brief on behalf of nine states supporting Arizona's immigration law.

Cox, one of five Republicans running for Michigan governor, said Michigan is the lead state backing Arizona in federal court and is joined by Alabama, Florida, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia, as well as the Northern Mariana Islands...

"By lawsuit, rather than by legislation, the federal government seeks to negate this preexisting power of the states to verify a person's immigration status and similarly seeks to reject the assistance that the states can lawfully provide to the Federal government," the brief states.

Ohio, Illinois, NY, NJ, Penn to lose political power due to massive immigration (House seats; also: IA, LA, MA, MI, MN, MO) - 11/19/09

According to a new study (americasvoiceonline.org/pages/the_new_constituents), due to massive immigration particularly by Latinos, the results of the 2010 Census - used to apportion congressional districts - will result in the following changes (chart from the HuffPost article discussed here):

States gaining House seats: Texas (+4), Arizona (+2), Florida (+1), Georgia (+1), Nevada (+1), Oregon (+1), South Carolina (+1), and Utah (+1).

States losing House seats: Ohio (-2), Illinois (-1), Iowa (-1), Louisiana (-1), Massachusetts (-1), Michigan (-1), Minnesota (-1), Missouri (-1), New Jersey (-1), New York (-1), and Pennsylvania (-1).

If you're located in one of the states in the latter group, that means you're going to lose power. In that case, organize a local effort to take smart action to reduce immigration.

Samuel Brooks, Marissa Harris scaremonger PA bill against benefits for illegal aliens - 05/18/09

Pennsylvania state senator Joe Scarnati is the author of state Senate Bill 9, about which he writes (link):

Illegal aliens who live in Pennsylvania would be unable to obtain public benefits, including Medicaid, welfare and in-state college tuition, under legislation sponsored by Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati that was approved [April 1] by the Senate with a bi-partisan vote of 41 to 9... Scarnati's bill would require anyone requesting public benefits in the Commonwealth to provide identification proving they are legal residents. Additionally, they would be required to sign an affidavit stating they are a U.S. citizen or an alien lawfully present in the United States...

Sounds good so far. Of course, some aren't entirely happy, and those include Samuel Brooks (staff attorney at Community Legal Services of Philadelphia) and Marissa Harris of the Lutheran Advocacy Ministry of Pennsylvania who offer "Anti-immigrant myths foster costly ID bill in Pennsylvania" (link). Their article is highly similar to one written by Michael Froehlich of Brooks' organization (clsphila.org/NewsItem.aspx?id=148), with the exception that the first starts with an edge case designed to scaremonger this issue. If they're really concerned about U.S. citizens who don't have government-issued ID (of which they say there are around 800,000 in PA), then their better course of action would be to suggest a change to the bill in order to make solving problems with the identification process easier. And, if there are such problems, then they can rest assured that the mainstream media will be eager to take the side of those citizens negatively affected.

So, why aren't they doing that? Why are they only concentrating on unemployment benefits and not mentioning all the other forms of benefits involved, including those that involve a zero sum game such as the fact that any college discount given to an illegal alien is one taken from a U.S. citizen? Why do they complain about the bill supposedly making it difficult to get unemployment benefits at the same time as they complain about "requir[ing] the state to hire hundreds of new workers to check identification and store records"? Why, when claiming that the bill won't save Pennsylvanians any money, don't they mention things like all the costs associated with providing in-state tuition? Why don't they acknowledge the fact that the bill would discourage illegal aliens from moving to their state? Why don't they acknowledge the fact that the U.S. citizen children of illegal aliens might be eligible for various welfare programs to which their parents aren't entitled? Why their argument is internally inconsistent and why they didn't mention everything involved is all a big mystery, a great big mystifying mystery.

CNN Democratic Candidates Compassion Forum: no immigration questions - 04/14/08

Last night's CNN Democratic Candidates Compassion Forum at Messiah College in Pennsylvania (transcript link) contained no questions relating to immigration.

Barack Obama misleads, smears Middle America - 04/11/08

Speaking in San Francisco at a fundraiser for the wealthy (and in Marin County no less; pictures of his tour here), Barack Obama smeared Pennsylvanians and others by saying:

Barack Obama's "honest conversation" about immigration included dishonesty, false choice, support for illegal activity - 04/03/08

On the first of the month, Senator Barack Obama spoke in Scranton, Pennsylvania and was asked about the 12 million (or so) illegal aliens in the U.S.:

Robert Nix tries nixing Judge Correale Stevens' thoughts on immigration - 11/08/07

From this:
A state appeals judge has been accused of violating judicial conduct rules for advocating changes in immigration law.

Superior Court Judge Correale Stevens "deliberately insinuated himself into the very middle of a high-profile, emotionally charged and highly divisive political debate on the issue of immigration reform," according to a complaint to the state Judicial Conduct Board...

Latinos speak out against Cherokee County ordinance - 12/01/06

[[Atlanta Latino]]/[[Eugenia Miranda]]/[[November 30, 2006]]/ link

Hispanic and non-Hispanic Cherokee County residents, Latino community leaders, lawyers, religious groups and corporate representatives showed up to voice their opinions about an ordinance that would keep undocumented residents from renting apartments or homes in Cherokee County.

ACLU claims U.S. violating human rights obligations (OAS) - 11/02/06

The American Civil Liberties Association - which has at least one indirect link to the Mexican government - together with the National Employment Law Project and the Transnational Legal Clinic at the University of Pennsylvania School of Law [1] (run by Sarah Paoletti [2]) have filed [3] a petition with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (part of the Organization of American States):
...to find the United States in violation of its universal human rights obligations by failing to protect millions of undocumented workers from exploitation and discrimination in the workplace.

The petition [4] was submitted to the commission on behalf of the United Mine Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Interfaith Justice Network and six immigrant workers who are representative of the six million undocumented workers in the United States labor force...

...The petitioners are requesting that the Inter-American Commission find the United States government in violation of its obligations under the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man [5], which was adopted by the United States in 1948, as well as universal human rights principles...
They're complaining about not just the U.S. itself, but these individual states: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Kansas, New York, and New Jersey.

Some of the legal background is described here:
The petition, filed by the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and the other groups, is an unusual appeal to an international body to push American courts and lawmakers away from a 2002 Supreme Court ruling known as Hoffman v. National Labor Relations Board. The petitioners say the ruling has had a snowball effect, limiting or denying the basic protection of labor laws to millions of illegal immigrant workers in violation of principles like equal protection before the law and freedom of association under the nation's international treaty obligations.
Now, let's take a look at some of the other Articles of the "American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man":
Article XXXIII. It is the duty of every person to obey the law and other legitimate commands of the authorities of his country and those of the country in which he may be.
Obviously, all of the illegal aliens named in the complaint did not abide by that Article. And, this one:
Article XXXVIII. It is the duty of every person to refrain from taking part in political activities that, according to law, are reserved exclusively to the citizens of the state in which he is an alien.
Obviously, all those Mexican consuls that consistently try to meddle in our internal politics have repeatedly broken that Article, and that might also apply to those illegal aliens who marched through our streets demanding rights to which they aren't entitled. It might also apply to unions that accept dues from illegal aliens and then lobby on their behalf.

UPDATE: There's more on the ACLU's efforts here.



-------------------
[1] law.upenn.edu/clinic/transnational.html Run by Sarah Paoletti, whose name is on the complaint.

[2] From December 20, 2004 (link): The American Friends Service Committee, an internationally recognized social justice organization [which also has indirect links to the Mexican government --LW], joined more than 20 labor, civil rights and immigrants’ rights organizations in filing a formal request for a hearing before the Organization of American State’s (OAS) Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The request, co-signed by students in the International Human Rights Law Clinic at American University Washington College of Law (WCL), highlights the United States’ discriminatory treatment of millions of undocumented workers within its borders... "Undocumented workers are the hidden and highly exploitable staple of the American economy who provide us with food, clothing, manicured golf courses and lawns while at the same time contributing billions of dollars to the U.S. economy through the payment of Social Security, taxes and other expenditures," said Sarah Paoletti, an immigrants rights expert and a practitioner in residence in the International Human Rights Clinic at WCL. "Without these workers, many areas of our economy would be in trouble."

And, from March 1, 2005 (link): Students in the International Human Rights Law Clinic at American University Washington College of Law and workers will testify before the Organization of American States Inter-American Commission on Human Rights about U.S. human rights abuses against undocumented workers. The hearing will be held on Thursday, March 3... "Undocumented immigrant workers not only provide the backbone of our service industry, they have helped build the Nation’s Capital," said Sarah Paoletti, an immigrant rights expert and practitioner-in-residence in the International Human Rights Law Clinic at WCL. "The Inter-American Commission plays a vital role in educating Congress and the American public, employers and employees alike, about human rights law and its role in protecting vulnerable immigrant workers. We are asking that the Commission exercise its oversight and educational role to help extend fundamental human rights protections to all those who work in the United States, regardless of when or how they came to this country."

[3] aclu.org/immigrants/discrim/27235prs20061101.html Others mentioned in the press release are Claudia Flores (ACLU Women's Rights Project) and Chandra Bhatnagar, (ACLU Human Rights Program), both attorneys.

[4] aclu.org/images/asset_upload_file946_27232.pdf

[5] cidh.org/Basicos/basic2.htm

About 300 rally against Hazleton crackdown on illegal immigrants - 10/07/06

http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/politics/15434454.htm

Associated Press / "Information from: Standard-Speaker, http://www.standardspeaker.com"

About 300 people, many of them from Philadelphia and other parts of the state, rallied Sunday in opposition to the city's crackdown on illegal immigrants.