sanctuary cities: Page 1
In Isaac Asimov's Foundation series, an ambassador visited an outpost for a few days, schmoozing with the locals. After he'd left, an official went to the leader of the outpost and said (paraphrasing), "we analyzed the ambassador's remarks, and he said absolutely nothing all the time he was here."
A few days ago, a coalition of tea party and conservative groups came out against an anti-illegal immigration bill. Now, for fair and balanced coverage, there's this (link):
Tea Party activists are promising to hold Rick Perry's feet to the fire over illegal immigration.
Mitch Daniels is weak on Indiana immigration bill, apparently only supports least effective parts - 04/13/11
Indiana state Senator Mike Delph is trying to pass an Arizona-style immigration bill in that state . In an interview , Indiana governor Mitch Daniels opposes the part of the bill that would allow police to ask about someone's immigration status during a "lawful stop, detention, or arrest".
While it's not exactly clear what specific parts of the bill Daniels opposes and supports , he appears to oppose the other law enforcement-related parts of the bill. Those would allow police who have someone in custody to check their immigration status with the Department of Homeland Security. And, all of this takes place as Daniels is pondering running for president (link), even being urged to do so by Joe Klein (someone who explicitly supports illegal immigration).
The only part of the bill that he supports in the interview is that dealing with sanctions on those who knowingly hire illegal aliens. Yet, getting a conviction for that is a very high bar to clear and happens only rarely. Companies know how to play games: claim that the documents they were presented looked valid, or use subcontractors, or simply litigate the matter endlessly. Through August of 2006, there were just 177 convictions in the entire U.S. for knowingly hiring illegal aliens . Whatever the current number is, it can't be that high. Obviously, it should be higher and the Department of Homeland Security should be aggressively conducting sting operations and trying to catch big employers. But, neither the Obama administration nor Daniels would support that.
Daniels uses two excuses to oppose the law enforcement parts of the bill: it wouldn't make sense to turn illegal aliens over to the feds if "the feds were going to turn [illegal aliens picked up by local law enforcement] loose anyway" and his claim that he was told only a few local law enforcement officers have the necessary training to deal with immigration issues.
Both of those concerns are bogus: if the feds won't accept illegal aliens then Daniels can publicly call them out, urge Indiana's Congressional delegation to get more funding, and perhaps even see about charging the feds for detaining illegal aliens.
And, as of 2006, the feds were only charging $520 for a five-week 287g training program. As of 2007, that training program was only receiving funding of $5 million (Lou Dobbs report: peekURL.com/vnNVAuC ). If Daniels were serious and weren't simply trying to placate pro-illegal immigration groups and corrupt businesses, he'd call to raise that limit. Further, it doesn't take much training to send the personal information of someone in custody to the feds to be checked for immigration violations; see Secure Communities.
 A summary of the bill from the author is here. Note that it also has provisions relating to eVerify, sanctuary cities, Matricula Consular cards, and conducting meetings in English. Whether Daniels supports or opposes those isn't clear, but it's likely he opposes them because they wouldn't be "good for business" if you know what I mean.
 The interview is here:
"I think that legislation will be changed," Daniels said in a wide-ranging interview with The Indianapolis Star Editorial Board. "I support this, to drop the law enforcement provisions that have been the ones that have bothered most people."
Surviving in the bill, he said, would be provisions aimed at employers who knowingly hire people who have come to the United States illegally.
"The idea I like is to deny them the tax deduction if they're caught doing it," Daniels said. "It's a fairly clean way to get at it, and really employment is the magnet that leads to the illegality."
Sen. Mike Delph, the Carmel Republican who authored Senate Bill 590, said, though, that some law enforcement provisions will remain under the proposed amendments. Police could arrest someone based on their immigration status, he said, if there is probable cause to think the person already has been ordered to be removed or detained by federal officials, has been indicted or convicted of an aggravated felony or willfully failed to register with the federal government as required.
That, he said, would focus the bill "on the ones we consider to be the really bad actors."
...The problem with the bill's initial provisions, which allowed police to check someone's immigration status if they had reasonable suspicion that they were here illegally, is that "it wouldn't work," Daniels said.
"We don't tend to believe in things that are policies that are emotionally satisfying to somebody but don't have any practical effect."
Daniels said Indiana State Police and others in law enforcement told him that because of training requirements, only a handful of Indiana police would be able to deal with immigration issues.
"If they accidentally caught somebody who was breaking the immigration law, the feds were going to turn them loose anyway," he said.
Focusing on employment instead of law enforcement eliminates the concerns -- "valid or not" -- that the bill would lead to racial profiling and people being targeted because of how they look and sound...
 The author of the linked article, Mary Beth Schneider of the Indianapolis Star, didn't respond to the three tweets and one voicemail I sent her seeking specific information on what Daniels supports.
 See the table here. I was unable to locate more up to date statistics, but if anyone has them please leave a comment.
Meg Whitman highlights how much she agrees with Jerry Brown, still misleads about immigration - 07/16/10
Meg Whitman offers "Americans must come together to address the problem of illegal immigration" (meg4.me/hvud, ), which is basically a rewrite of the previous misleading Whitman editorial about immigration. Since the new editorial and the old one repeat the same lines, see that link for part of why she's misleading, and the below for additional reasons.
But, first, here's this admission that should be more than a bit shocking to many of the Republicans who chose her over Steve Poizner (bolding added):
In this race, my Democratic opponent, Jerry Brown, has said very little about most issues, including immigration. However, from what he has said, former Governor Brown appears to share many of my positions on immigration. He, too, is against Proposition 187 and opposes Arizona's new immigration law. Former Governor Brown joins with me to oppose (drivers licenses) for illegal immigrants. He has endorsed tougher sanctions against employers who hire illegal immigrants and spoken out against sanctuary cities, and he opposes blanket amnesty that would grant full-citizenship rights without first requiring illegal immigrants to pay a fine and learn English... Clearly, when examining our positions on immigration, there is very little over which Jerry Brown and I disagree.
In other words, she's the same as a Democrat on immigration. If you're a Republican who supports our immigration laws and who opposes amnesty, and you helped nominate Whitman, how does that make you feel?
She then goes on to make the misleading statement that neither she nor Brown support amnesty; she's playing words games as discussed on the reform not amnesty page.
She also supports massive immigration:
If the next great inventor lives in India, China or Mexico today, we should welcome that inventor coming to America legally to create jobs and prosperity here.
Why exactly? Why should we braindrain the world? Isn't it - in the long run - better for us not to braindrain the world? What if, in order to get one inventor we have to allow 100,000 non-inventors to come here; is that worth it? What if those coming here have "baggage" of some kind, such as continuing to be loyal to their countries of origin? Whitman's breezy, blanket policy shows that she hasn't thought about this in depth.
If a segment of our economy has a shortage of American workers, then we should look across our borders for guest workers who can help American businesses succeed by working here legally, but without full U.S. citizenship.
Obviously, with about five workers for every available job, the last thing we have is a shortage of workers. What position would we be in if we had a Whitman-style program now? Would we be able to deport our "guests", or wouldn't the far-left and the Democrats work to keep them here? Considering that's what they're doing regarding illegal aliens, the answer to that is clear. And, what she supports would lead to building up a class of "legalized illegal aliens"; the Democrats and the far-left would try to build them into a power base and their status would cause social problems. And, of course, many of them would have U.S. citizen children making it difficult to ever deport them. See guest workers for more.
Then, this highly misleading statement:
Finally, our doors should always be open to honest and well-intentioned people facing the terror of political oppression in their homelands. Closing our doors to legal immigration would be counter to everything our nation stands for.
The most any political leader wants is a moratorium, and even under a moratorium we'd still allow refugees. Whitman is just trying to mislead people; hopefully no one should be surprised at that by now.
 Full URL:
68% of U.S. voters oppose the creation of sanctuary cities. Only 13% favor the creation of cities that give safe haven to illegal immigrants. Nineteen percent (19%) are not sure.
Forty-nine percent (49%) say federal and state government funds should be cut off to cities that provide sanctuary to illegal immigrants. Thirty-three percent (33%) disagree and oppose any funding cutoff. Eighteen percent (18%) aren’t sure.
Fifty percent (50%) of voters say sanctuary policies that protect illegal immigrants lead to an increase in crime. Just 20% do not believe this to be true, while 30% are undecided.
Former eBay CEO Meg Whitman is apparently like a talking doll you might find on that site, except in this case she says pro-business, pro-massive/illegal immigration talking points. Speaking at the border (link):
[She said] it is “simply not practical” to deport the estimated 12.5 million illegal immigrants living and working in the United States. (note: see deportations false choice)
The candidate, 53, said the solution is to find a mechanism that allows them to live here legally. "Can we get a fair program where people stand at the back of the line (note: see immigration line), they pay a fine, they do some things that would ultimately allow a path to legalization?" she asked. (note: see comprehensive immigration reform for some of the many downsides)
Whitman also urged tougher measures against those who hire undocumented workers, and said that as governor "I would be an advocate . . . for the people of California to make sure we really do secure this border." (note: see secure the border)
San Francisco supervisors overturn juvenile immigration reporting rule, complicate Newsom run - 10/21/09
The San Francisco board of supervisors voted Tuesday to overturn a city policy that has been at the center of a national debate over offering illegal immigrants sanctuary.
The policy, ordered by Mayor Gavin Newsom last summer, requires the police to contact Immigration and Customs Enforcement whenever they arrest a juvenile on felony charges who they suspect is in the United States illegally. Since the policy took effect last summer, more than 100 undocumented minors have been turned over to federal immigration authorities.
Mr. Newsom has said the ordinance is necessary to prevent young criminals from using the city’s so-called sanctuary policy, which prevents the use of city money for immigration enforcement.
Newsom is running for governor, and I'll leave it to others to decide whether this will help him or hurt him. It might make him look tougher on enforcement since he intends to try to veto the resolution. However, it will also draw more attention to his very strong support for illegal immigration; he only pushed for the now-rescinded rule after a high-profile multiple murder and after arrested juveniles who'd been sent to care homes simply walked away.
The only thing Russert did was press them to answer the question; he didn't call them on any of the ensuing misleading statements nor did he point out the downsides of their support. He is simply a hack and isn't willing to call the candidates on their BS.
Please go to campaign appearances and ask the candidates tough questions - the type that hacks like Russert won't ask - and then upload the responses to Youtube. Everything will change if people start doing that: the candidates will realize they have to start dealing with issues, and the MSM will be damaged by being revealed for the hacks they are.
UPDATE: A purported transcript is here. This part does not comport with my recollection of events:
[Allison King of New England Cable News]: So, Senator Biden, yes or no, would you allow the cities to ignore the federal law [via sanctuary laws for illegal aliens]?My recollection is that he would allow sanctuary cities, but I'll wait for excerpts to verify that. Also, King was introduced as having "has been sift[ed] through thousands of questions from across the country". That's one heck of a sifter she's got there, since the question on sanctuary cities was the only one on immigration, and there were no doubt several more worthy questions, including the ones I submitted via their online form.
In his "answer", Biden also said:
Pick up the New York Times today. There is a city not far across the river from my state that imposed similar sanctions... And what they found out is, as a consequence of that, their city went in the dumps -- in the dumpsters. Stores started closing, everything started to happen and they changed the policy.So, either a U.S. Senator bought the NYT's propaganda, or was trying to retail it.
Then, Chris Dodd says:
The Immigration Service came in an raided basically homes in [New Haven, Connecticut], causing a great deal of disruption, disrupting the relationship that was being developed with community leaders...One would hope that a U.S. Senator wouldn't support a potentially corrupt mayor and "community leaders" that are collaborating with a foreign government, but he's a Democrat so what do you expect. Then, after endorsing Bill Richardson's stock "reform" speech, he says:
If it means temporarily engaging in a sanctuary protection here, then so be it if that protects our country.Sanctuary policies would allow illegal aliens who are terrorists to remain here to plot and carry out attacks; see the remarks from September 11 Commission member John Lehman.
Then, after Kucinich reads what's on the Statue of Liberty and after Hillary and Obama try to evade the question but both end up answering in the affirmative after issuing standard talking points, we come to Mr. Incoherent, aka former Senator Mike Gravel:
What's going on? Again, we're in fantasy land. We're talking about a problem -- we're scapegoating the Latinos of our society because we as a society are failing in education, we're failing in health care, we're failing in our crumbling infrastructure, and we're failing by invading countries and spending our treasure.These answers are indicative of journalistic incompetence of the worst degree. All of those candidates should have been torn to shreds if Russert and King weren't simply paid hacks.
UPDATE 2: Video of most of the sanctuary cities question is here. While Biden does say "No" just like is in the transcript, Russert did ask all of the to speak up if they thought the federal government should do something against the cities with those policies. All of them stood there with their hands down until Kucinich started in with his blather. So, Biden got confused somewhere along the line.
Like Los Angeles, New York, (reportedly) Denver, and several other major cities (and terrorist targets) Houston has a sanctuary policy that prevents their cops from asking about someone's immigration status.
HPD Captain Bruce Williams explains how this works:
"If the citizen can come to us and know that we're going to take the information that they give us without looking into their status as an immigrant, then they're more free to come to us and talk about crime issues."
Councilman Mark Ellis is trying to change the policy:
"I am in favor of supporting what the Bush administration has asked local government entities to do, and that is to assist in enforcing the criminal illegal immigration laws."
However, Houston Police Chief Harold Hurtt says:
"That is our policy. At this time we do not have any intention of changing it."
Now, see "'Sanctuary' practice in Houston draws fire". Last year 9/11 Commission member John Lehman said:
"The terrorists know" which cities have such policies
Minneapolis (AP) Gov. Tim Pawlenty has asked the city councils of Minneapolis and St. Paul to reconsider laws that limit situations in which police officers can ask about a person's immigration status...
Pawlenty asks each city to amend or repeal "an ordinance which effectively prohibits police officers from inquiring about immigration status if such an inquiry is the sole basis for questioning or detaining an individual."