spencer hsu: Page 1
Even before it was signed, President Obama criticized the Arizona law, which requires police to question anyone who appears to be in the country illegally... Under Arizona's new law, to take effect in 90 days, it will be a state crime to be in the country illegally, and legal immigrants will be required to carry paperwork proving their status. Arizona police will generally be required to question anyone they "reasonably suspect" of being undocumented -- a provision that critics argue will lead to widespread racial profiling, but that supporters insist will give authorities the flexibility to enforce existing immigration laws.
1. Their lie in the first sentence is the same as the CNN lie: police can question people about their immigration status if they suspect that they're here illegally, but only as part of a detention for something else. They aren't going to be running around asking people willy-nilly as Kornblut and Hsu would have you believe. See the last link for all the details.
2. And, just like CNN, they failed to note that federal law already requires legal immigrants to carry their paperwork with them.
Just how closely their claims about the bill match those from CNN is certainly interesting; did they get those claims from CNN or from some other source?
ACLU-Mexico partnership calls for nearly open borders; "humanitarian crisis" they helped cause - 09/30/09
In April 2008, the San Diego chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union announced a collaboration with Mexico’s National Commission of Human Rights, a quasi-governmental agency. They've now released a report in which they - surprise - oppose border enforcement and call for what would amount to nearly open borders. The report is entitled "Humanitarian Crisis: Migrant Deaths at the U.S.-Mexico Border", but what they fail to note is the role that they and all others who oppose immigration enforcement have played in those deaths. If the ACLU and other far-left and racial power groups had supported our laws, there would have been many fewer deaths among those trying to cross our border; see the false compassion page for more. If anyone wants to do something about this issue, go to ACLU events and ask them these questions.
You can download their report (written by Maria Jimenez) from aclu.org/immigrants/gen/41186pub20091001.html These are their recommendations:
Action on Day One:
* Recognize border crossing deaths as an international humanitarian crisis.
Action within 100 days:
* Shift more U.S. Border Patrol resources to search and rescue.
* Direct government agencies to allow humanitarian organizations to do their work to save lives and recover remains.
* Establish a binational, one-stop resource for rescue and recovery calls.
* Convene all data collecting agencies to develop a uniform system.
* Commit to transparency.
* Elevate border deaths to a bilateral priority.
* Invite international involvement.
Action within One Year:
* Adopt sensible, humane immigration and border policies.
* Support nongovernmental humanitarian efforts at the border to do what governments are unable or unwilling to do.
Ultimately, effective border enforcement strategy requires acknowledging the necessity of good faith efforts to fix this problem, respect human rights, and preserve life. Most importantly, it necessitates exploring policy options that minimize forced migration and maximize choices for legal, safe avenues of migration. Only when both nations are seriously engaged in protecting the lives of their most vulnerable populations, will the right of state sovereignty be balanced with the fundamental rights inalienable to all people.
The ACLU solution basically consists of letting anyone who wants to come here cross the border in a safe legal orderly fashion, amounting if not to open borders then to something close to it.
And, if you know a lawyer in San Diego, let them know about this:
This report was funded in part by a Grant from the San Diego County Bar Foundation generously supported by a contribution from the San Diego County Bar Association Lawyer Referral and Information Service. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of the San Diego County Bar Foundation or the San Diego County Bar Association Lawyer Referral and Information Service.
UPDATE: Spencer Hsu of the Washington Post discusses the ACLU's report here. He, of course, fails to point out the role that the ACLU, the Mexican government, and the WaPo have played in encouraging people to try to cross the desert. Compare what Sarukhan says to what the ACLU says (and Bush said before):
Arturo Sarukhan, Mexican ambassador to the United States, called the deaths along the border "a matter of utmost concern," citing both countries' efforts to avoid fatalities and to "break the back" of human smuggling operations. However, he added in a written statement, "at the end of the day, a secure, orderly, legal and humane flow of migrants will be the only solution to this challenge."
David Hoffman, chief of the strategic planning, policy and analysis division of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, said Washington has taken many steps to reduce border deaths under a 1998 national border safety strategy, identifying dangerous areas with the Mexican government and adding rescue beacons in some areas.
"Every death is a tragedy," Hoffman said, adding that the Border Patrol has rescued nearly 11,000 illegal crossers in the past six years. "If there are shortfalls, if there are things we can do better, we are open to doing that," he said.
It's unfortunate that Hoffman didn't also take the opportunity to point to the partial culpability of those who work to prevent immigration enforcement.
UPDATE 2: There's a local news report at peekURL.com/v1iiqb5
Spencer Hsu of the Washington Post discusses a press conference Senate Democrats held earlier today to discuss their plans for comprehensive immigration reform (link). As previously discussed, Charles Schumer supports a national ID:
"I'm sure the civil libertarians will object to some kind of biometric card -- although . . . there'll be all kinds of protections -- but we're going to have to do it. It's the only way," Schumer said. "The American people will never accept immigration reform unless they truly believe their government is committed to ending future illegal immigration."
It's quite difficult to believe the government is committed to following their own laws since most political leaders support or enable illegal activity, with some even outright promoting it such as Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Schumer said legislation should secure control of the nation's borders within a year and require that an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants register with the government and "submit to a rigorous process to convert to legal status" or face immediate deportation. Rejecting the euphemism "undocumented workers," he said: "Illegal immigration is wrong -- plain and simple."
See secure the border and amnesty require. And, if he wants to immediately deport those who won't take part in the program, why can't he do that now? Regarding the last sentence, that's just posturing. However, if you get a chance, it would be a good thing to bring up when discussing this issue with him or other leaders.
DHS to check for criminal aliens at all local jails by 2012; possible 10x increase in such deportations; prelude to amnesty? - 05/19/09
Spencer Hsu of the Washington Post offers "U.S. to Expand Immigration Checks to All Local Jails/Obama Administration's Enforcement Push Could Lead to Sharp Increase in Deportation Cases" (link). The Department of Homeland Security's ICE currently checks state and federal inmates to determine whether they're illegal aliens (or perhaps legal immigrants) who are deportable. The Obama administration intends to extend that to all local jails by 2012:
Based on the pilot program, the agency estimates that if fingerprints from all 14 million bookings in local jails each year were screened, about 1.4 million "criminal aliens" would be found, Venturella said. That would be about 10 times the 117,000 criminal illegal immigrants ICE deported last year. There are more than 3,100 local jails nationwide, compared with about 1,200 federal and state prisons... [David J. Venturella, program director at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement] said ICE will give priority to deporting the most dangerous offenders: national security risks or those convicted of violent crimes. Based on initial projections, the agency estimates that 100,000 of these are "Level 1 offenders" and that deporting them would cost $1.1 billion over four years. Removing all criminal illegal immigrants would cost $3 billion, ICE estimated last year.
There are other caveats about the program itself. And, the program may be an attempt to show that the Obama administration is willing to do something about illegal immigration in order to make getting comprehensive immigration reform (aka amnesty) easier. "Deport the criminals first" sounds good, until you're forced to ask what comes afterwards. While this latest move is definitely very good news in and of itself, comprehensive "reform" requires a comprehensive opposition that takes into account the overall strategy of the "reformers". Those who don't have an overall opposition plan may find themselves useful idiots for those who do.
For instance, consider this:
"We mean this, we're serious about it, and we believe we need to put in an all-out effort to get this done," said Rep. David E. Price (D-N.C.), chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee for homeland security. He has led calls to remove illegal immigrants convicted of crimes after their sentences are served.
About a month ago, Janet Napolitano of the Department of Homeland Security - someone who was sold as tough on illegal immigration despite that not being true - went through the roof after an immigration raid was conducted that she hadn't been informed of. Now, there's partial confirmation that Napolitano has in fact ordered a halt to such workplace enforcement pending review. Spencer Hsu of the Washington Post offers "DHS Signals Policy Changes Ahead for Immigration Raids" (link):
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has delayed a series of proposed immigration raids and other enforcement actions at U.S. workplaces in recent weeks, asking agents in her department to apply more scrutiny to the selection and investigation of targets as well as the timing of raids, federal officials said.
A senior department official said the delays signal a pending change in whom agents at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement choose to prosecute -- increasing the focus on businesses and executives instead of ordinary workers.
Napolitano will apparently issue new rules this week. Hsu goes on to present the illegal immigration-supporting side of the raids, including mentioning Luis Gutierrez's recent tour and some of Nancy Pelosi's recent remarks. While he does include her statement that raids aren't "the American way", he doesn't mention that she also called them "un-American".
About the only hopeful thing in the article is this:
But Obama also faces pressure from conservative lawmakers and many centrist Democrats, who say that workplace enforcement is needed to reduce the supply of jobs that attract illegal immigrants, and that any retreat in defending American jobs in a recession could ignite a populist backlash.
Frankly, there isn't that much chance of such a backlash. Based on personal experience, the only people willing to do anything beyond making a few phone calls do things that are mostly ineffective, such as street protests. The most effective way to undercut both the Obama administration and the mainstream media is to ask politicians tough questions to their face on video, and two years of trying has resulted in no one else being able to figure that out or being willing to do anything.
Michael Hsu of the Washington Post offers the latest in that newspaper's attempt to undercut our laws: "Cleaning Firm Used Illegal Workers at Chertoff Home", link. The Maryland cleaning service used by Michael Chertoff of the Department of Homeland Security has been fined almost $23,000 for failing to check the IDs of its workers, some of whom were illegal aliens. The Secret Service checked the IDs of the workers who visited Chez Chertoff, but those didn't involve immigration checks. Which is pretty stupid, but unless I missed it there's no indication that any of those who cleaned Chertoff's house were illegal aliens (see the update), despite what the title might say. And, through Russ Knocke (more on him below), Chertoff says he was assured that all the workers were illegal and he "fired" (more properly cancelled the contract with) the company when their problems became known.
So, despite the fact that there really isn't much to this story, expect some of those who support illegal immigration and who are too stupid to have been following along for the past eight years to present this as an example of some sort of Bush administration hypocrisy, pretending that Bush and they aren't on the same side. Then, they'll segue into a push for "comprehensive immigration reform".
However, they'll be too late, since that's part of what the article is all about. Not only does the cleaning company owner come out in support of CIR, and not only is that the subtext of the article, but perennial DHS hack Russ Knocke says:
"This matter illustrates the need for comprehensive immigration reform and the importance of effective tools for companies to determine the lawful status of their workforce."
UPDATE: The article says the owner was fined $22,880 after U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement investigators said he failed to check identification and work documents and fill out required I-9 verification forms for employees, five of whom he said were part of crews sent to Chertoff's home and whom ICE told him to fire because they were undocumented, so I suppose that some of those working Chez Chertoff were illegal aliens.
And, right on cue come those who don't realize that Chertoff and Bush are on their side:
The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials.Since few people like the ACLU (quoted in the article) and there are few libertarians, one might hope that the WaPo could have found others to oppose things like this. For instance, what's the incoming Barack Obama administration's take on this scheme? I'm sure I know the answer to that, and it's different from "change".
The long-planned shift in the Defense Department's role in homeland security was recently backed with funding and troop commitments after years of prodding by Congress and outside experts, defense analysts said.
There are critics of the change, in the military and among civil liberties groups and libertarians who express concern that the new homeland emphasis threatens to strain the military and possibly undermine the Posse Comitatus Act, a 130-year-old federal law restricting the military's role in domestic law enforcement.
And, from this:
As Alex Jones exposed back in the late 1990’s, U.S. troops have been training for this eventuality for a considerable amount of time. During numerous urban warfare drills that Jones attended and reported on, troops were trained to raid, arrest and imprison U.S. citizens in detention camps as well as taking over public buildings and running checkpoints. During role playing exercises, actors playing prisoners would scream "I'm an American citizen, I have rights" as they were being dragged away by troops.There are videos of Marines conducting training exercises inside the U.S., in one case including in their training someone who identifies himself as being from a foreign force (the Dutch Marines). Some news articles about past training exercises are here, here, here, and here.
The contention that the troops will merely help "recovery efforts" after a major catastrophe is contradicted by the fact that Northcom itself, in a September 8 Army Times article, said the first wave of the deployment, which was put in place on October 1st at Fort Stewart and at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, would be aimed at tackling "civil unrest and crowd control".
After a controversy arose surrounding the admissions made in the Army Times article, Northcom retracted the claim but conceded that both lethal and non-lethal weaponry traditionally used in crowd control and riot situations would still be used in the field.
Also see September's Permanent U.S. Army brigade to help with "civil unrest and crowd control"... inside the U.S. (non-lethal weapons).
Less than 100 supervisors arrested on immigration charges in 2007 (+Spencer Hsu's pro-Dem spin) - 12/26/07
Spencer Hsu of the Washington Post offers "Immigrant Crackdown Falls Short/Despite Tough Rhetoric, Few Employers of Illegal Workers Face Criminal Charges". While we should be thankful for that news, he also offers some pro-Democratic Party spin.
Despite Bush administration blather (Michael Chertoff: "The days of treating employers who violate these laws by giving them the equivalent of a corporate parking ticket -- those days are gone. It's now felonies, jail time, fines and forfeitures."):
Fewer than 100 owners, supervisors or hiring officials were arrested in fiscal 2007, compared with nearly 4,900 arrests that involved illegal workers, providers of fake documents and others, the figures show... Late in the Clinton administration and early in the current administration, the number of illegal immigrants arrested in work-site cases fell -- from 2,849 in 1999 to a low of 445 in 2003 -- although there has since been a rebound. The number of criminal cases brought against employers during that period fell from 182 to four... ICE reported that the 92 criminal arrests made in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30 included 59 owners and 33 corporate officials, human resources workers, crew chiefs and others in the "supervisory chain."
Doris Meissner comes by to sideways promote "immigration reform" by refering to the "chronic failure of employer enforcement under current laws".
As for the spin, Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) is quoted throughout as a supporter of enforcement, which she might just be. However, Hsu fails to note that the Democratic Party takes various steps to block enforcement, as do groups to which they're linked:
The Bush administration has said it is trying to improve its Internet-based E-Verify program, through which less than 1 percent of U.S. employers now voluntarily check new hires' Social Security numbers. It is also fighting major business, farm and labor groups in federal court to use Social Security data generated when suspect numbers are submitted to the government as a sweeping nationwide enforcement tool.
What that fails to mention is that one of the lead parties to the suit is the ACLU, and many people might miss the "labor" part; another plaintiff is the AFL-CIO. Both have degrees of influence over the Democratic Party.
A federal judge barred the Bush administration today from launching a planned crackdown on U.S. firms that hire illegal immigrants, warning of the plan's potentially "staggering" impact on law-abiding workers and companies.It's not that "unusual": such groups have been allied in their support for illegal activity for a long time. Note of course that this is being portrayed as a defeat for Bush, when he, the WaPo, and those who brought the suit are on the same side.
Issuing a firm rebuke of the White House, U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer of San Francisco granted a preliminary injunction against the government's plan to pressure employers to fire up to 8.7 million workers with suspect Social Security numbers starting this fall.
...Breyer said the plaintiffs, an unusual coalition that included the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO and the American Civil Liberties Union, had raised such serious questions about the plan to mail Social Security "no-match" letters to 140,000 U.S. employers that it should be blocked from proceeding.
..."The government's proposal to disseminate no-match letters affecting more than eight million workers will, under the mandated time line, result in the termination of employment to lawfully employed workers," the judge wrote. "Moreover the threat of criminal prosecution . . . reflects a major change in DHS [Department of Homeland Security] policy."The previous "policy" was to refuse to enforce the laws on the books. When they make a half-hearted attempt at enforcing the laws, corrupt businesses and far-left "civil rights" groups - together with a Clinton-appointed judge (fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=2719) - can't even let that happen. This will apparently be appealed, but if you'd like to do something more effective in the meantime, I suggest discrediting those who support illegal immigration.
A federal judge yesterday barred the Bush administration from launching a crackdown Tuesday on U.S. employers who hire illegal immigrants while she considers a lawsuit by the AFL-CIO that charges that the plan will harm citizens and other legal workers.Another group involved in the TRO request was, naturally, the American Civil Liberties Union, a group indirectly linked to the Mexican government.
The ruling, issued by U.S. District Judge Maxine M. Chesney in San Francisco, prohibits the Department of Homeland Security from starting to mail notices to 140,000 employers about suspect Social Security numbers. The "no- match" letters warn of penalties employers face by having discrepancies in their paperwork.
As could be expected, the WaPo doesn't consider the possibility that the Bush administration might welcome this:
The ruling dealt at least a temporary political setback to President Bush, who announced the workplace initiative Aug. 9 as the centerpiece of a renewed enforcement push.