The primary version of this blog is HERE. The Blogroll. My Home Page. Email John Ray here. Other mirror sites: Political Correctness Watch, Dissecting Leftism, Greenie Watch, Australian Politics, Socialized Medicine, Tongue Tied, Food & Health Skeptic, Education Watch and Gun Watch. For a list of backups viewable in China, see here. (Click "Refresh" on your browser if background colour is missing). The archive for this mirror site is here or here.
****************************************************************************************



31 May, 2007

Robbing Rector: Does the WSJ read before they editorialize?

Last week, a Wall Street Journal editorial set out to debunk a certain "myth that has become a key talking point among restrictionists on the right," namely, that low-skilled immigrant households impose a huge net-cost on American taxpayers. The major study on this issue is by the Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector, and it is that study that the editorial purports to refute.

The editorial, however, failed in its aim. In fact, the editorial willfully ignored differences among different immigrant populations and displayed little understanding of the administration of government benefits and services. The Wall Street Journal's analysis was so unresponsive to Rector's report that it would seem the editorial's author was simply unfamiliar with Rector's detailed findings.

The editorial noted that Rector's study, "The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Immigrants to the U.S. Taxpayer," found that "`the average lifetime costs to the taxpayer will be $1.1 million' for each low-skilled immigrant household." Not to bicker over details, but Rector's paper actually puts the lifetime cost per low-skilled household at "nearly $1.2 million." That figure is based on the calculation that, in fiscal year 2004, low-skilled immigrant households received on average $30,160 in benefits and services (including means-tested aid, education, and population-based services like police and fire protection) and paid only $10,573 in taxes (including property and excise taxes and even lottery-ticket purchases). So the fiscal "deficit" of each low-skilled household is $19,588. About 60 percent of adult illegal immigrants lack a high-school degree and so are considered "low-skilled" in Rector's analysis.

The editorial attempts to reveal "one basic flaw" of Rector's study, not by examining his analysis of the extensive government data that support his conclusions, but rather by making reference to research from the Immigration Policy Center, the policy arm of the trade association of immigration lawyers.

It is true that Rector does not account for certain contingencies entertained in the IPC's research - for instance, the fact that among the population of high-school dropouts in American are included self-made billionaires Ray Kroc and Dave Thomas (the founders of McDonald's and Wendy's), and that such persons just might be lurking among the 4.5 million low-skilled immigrant households.

Yet it is not for this that the Wall Street Journal refers to the IPC research. Rather, it is because the IPC points out, rightly, that recent immigrants are not eligible for many federal welfare benefits. Of course, Rector's report acknowledges as much, which the writer of the editorial would have noticed if he had made it through page 9 of Rector's 70-page report.

Rector details the government benefits typically received by the pertinent households, fully accounting for the welfare ineligibility of recent immigrants - the result, we might add, of a provision in the 1996 welfare reform legislation that Rector is largely responsible for. As Rector explains, "Most of the tax and benefits estimates in this paper are unaffected by a low-skill immigrant household's legal status. . . this analysis adjusts for the lower use of government and benefits by illegal [and legal] immigrants."

The Wall Street Journal apparently doesn't understand that, while recent immigrants are ineligible for certain welfare benefits, their citizen children qualify for means-tested government aid. And Rector's calculations rely on the receipt of government benefits these households self-report to the Census Bureau.

After failing to make a careful accounting of benefits received and taxes paid by low-skilled immigrant households, the editorial then ignores the specific characteristics of these households by citing the incomes and contributions of immigrants in general, including college graduates. The editorial irrelevantly states that "immigrants who have just arrived have median household earnings of $31,930." Workers in the low-skilled households - i.e., the subject of the report ostensibly being debunked - have annual incomes of $18,490.

Robert Rector's careful analysis demonstrates that low-skilled immigrant households consume far more in government benefits than they pay in taxes. The Wall Street Journal's careless editorial demonstrates that his critics are unable to credibly disagree

Source



"Temporary Means Temporary"? No it doesn't. And it shouldn't.

By Mark Krikorian

One of the achievements touted by Republican negotiators of the odious Senate amnesty bill was the inclusion of a program to import up to 600,000 additional foreign workers a year, with no path to citizenship. Sen. Jon Kyl marked it as a win that Ted Kennedy had acceded to the principle that "temporary means temporary."

We can't survive too many more wins like that. Guestworker programs suffer from two problems - they never work, and their very premise is morally wrong. As to the first, economist Philip Martin, one of the world's top scholars in this field, draws these three lessons from our experience with guestworker programs:

1. "There is nothing more permanent than temporary workers."
2. "The availability of foreign workers distorts the economy."
3. "Employers invest in lobbying to maintain the program, not in labor-saving or back-saving alternatives."

The first point is especially pertinent. Didn't it occur to anyone why Ted Kennedy was agreeing to something that the labor movement has been fighting against since it won passage of the Alien Contract Labor Act in 1885? He knows perfectly well that guestworker programs always lead to increased immigration, both from "temporary" workers who don't leave and from parallel flows of legal and illegal immigration sparked by the program. Our most recent experience was the "Bracero" program, which imported Mexican farm workers until it was abolished in 1964. During the 22 years the program lasted, annual Mexican immigration - permanent immigration, leading to citizenship - grew from little more than 2,000 to as high as 61,000, for total permanent settlement of more than a half-million Mexicans. This compares with a total of only a million or so Mexican men who actually took part in the Bracero program. During that same period, arrests of Mexican illegal aliens totaled 5.3 million, more than the 4.6 million admissions of guestworkers (some representing the same men multiple times).

Germany had the same experience with its postwar "gastarbeiter" program for Turkish and other workers. When it was discontinued after the 1973 oil embargo, the government expected the "temporary" workers would complete their contracts and go home, because of the supposedly "circular" movement of such people, going back and forth between Germany and Turkey (the same story that today's guestworker boosters are telling about Mexicans). Instead, the "temporary" workers not only stayed, they brought their families, too, causing Germany's foreign population to nearly double over the next 25 years.

Sen. Kennedy knows this full well - one more indication that Ted Kennedy negotiating with Republicans over immigration is like Gary Kasparov playing an elementary-school chess team. In fact, a congressional source tells me that last year Rep. Howard Berman (career grade of F from Americans for Better Immigration) was privately trying to persuade skeptical Democrats to agree to a guestworker program with the promise that, after all, they'd never really have to go back.

But what if we lived in some alternate universe where "temporary" really did mean temporary? Where the Senate bill's promise of a "two years here, one year home" foreign-worker program was something other than a trick? We would still be wise to answer, "get thee behind me, Satan."

The temptation to delegate certain categories of work to menials is as old as civilization. It was the basis of the Hindu caste system, the Spartan economy, antebellum southern society, and daily life today in the oil states of the Persian Gulf. It is based on the premise that other men are labor inputs destined for those jobs that Americans (or Brahmans or Spartans or white southerners or Saudis) won't do. It is subversive of republican virtue, moving us back toward the kind of master-servant society America was founded to transcend.

Unfortunately, most of the opposition to guestworker programs has come from the Left. The AFL-CIO has fought the guestworker provisions of the bill (though they're fine with amnesty and increased permanent immigration), most senators voting to kill the guestworker provisions were Democrats, and the Southern Poverty Law Center, of all places, recently published a report on the exploitative nature of existing guestworker programs (they found, for instance, that guestworkers yearned to be illegal aliens, since they could make a lot more money that way).

Of course, there are conservatives who get all this. Phyllis Schlafly has written that "Inviting foreigners to come to America as guest workers is equivalent to sending the message: You people are only fit to do menial jobs that Americans think they are too good to do," and has approvingly cited Theodore Roosevelt's warning that "Never under any condition should this nation look at an immigrant as primarily a labor unit." Likewise, Senators Vitter and Coburn voted last week to kill the guestworker provisions of the Senate bill.

But they were the only Republicans voting to kill the program, demonstrating that too many Republicans have bowed to the demands of cheap-labor employers (or been taken in by their false arguments about the "need" for such labor) and are prepared to fight to retain this immoral program. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said recently that the Bush administration would fight to overturn a Senate amendment that cut the size of the program to "only" 200,000 foreign workers per year. And Sen. Kyl said the whole deal would be off if he couldn't add back an escalator clause that would increase the number of visas if businesses wanted more than the available 200,000 captive foreign workers.

When a contemptible racket like the Southern Poverty Law Center has a better understanding of a public-policy issue than Republican senators, we're in trouble. The Left might actually end up saving Republicans from themselves, especially if the guestworker programs provide enough Democratic senators a liberal rationale to oppose the bill. We'd better hope so.

Source



"You don't want to do what's right for America"

Post lifted from Dinocrat . See the original for links

We were told today that if you oppose the Senate immigration bill, "you don't want to do what's right for America". Well, then, it appears that most Americans of most demographic groups "don't want to do what's right for America". In an interesting slip of the tongue, President Bush admitted that "most Americans" are concerned first with border security, in his speech today on the Senate immigration bill, not that he let that fact interfere with his relentless pushing of this fantasy of "comprehensive" reform:

"the fundamental question is, will elected officials have the courage necessary to put a comprehensive immigration plan in place that makes it more likely we can enforce our border and, at the same time, uphold the great traditions of - immigrant traditions of the United States of America.

we're expanding the number of Border Patrol agents from about 9,000 to 13,000, and by the end of - we have expanded it - and by the end of 2008, we're going to have 18,000 agents. We will have more than doubled the Border Patrol in a relatively quick period of time.In this immigration debate, oftentimes people say, well, they're not doing anything to protect the border. Well, that's not - those folks just simply don't know what's going on. You do. Men and women who wear the uniform understand what's going on. There's a focused, concerted effort to enforce our border.Arrests have gone down by 27 percent over the past year on the southern border. That's a sign of progress.

Most Americans - many Americans say their primary concern is border security and ensuring that those who violate our laws face consequences. That's what you're hearing out there when you're listening to the debate.

Others say their chief concern is keeping this economy strong. There's a - a lot of employers need a legal way to fill jobs that Americans simply aren't doing.I remember the peach grower, Saxby, that you sent over to the White House. He's there saying to me, you've got to understand something, Mr. President, my business won't go forward unless I have some of these good people that are willing to work long hours in my peach orchard helping me harvest the crop. So a lot of people in this debate are concerned about getting a bill in place that will help keep the economy growing. Others say their main concern is to bring hardworking, decent people out of the shadows of our society.

A lot of Americans are skeptical about immigration reform primarily because they don't think the government can fix the problems. And my answer to the skeptics is, give us a chance to fix the problems in a comprehensive way that enforces our border and treats people with decency and respect.Amnesty.many of the authors of this bill oppose it. This bill is not an amnesty bill. If you want to scare the American people, what you say is, the bill is an amnesty bill. It's not an amnesty bill. That's empty political rhetoric, trying to frighten our fellow citizens.

Those determined to find fault with this bill will always be able to look at a narrow slice of it and find something they don't like. If you want to kill the bill, if you don't want to do what's right for America, you can pick one little aspect out of it, you can use it to frighten people.

We observe, among other things, that the Bush administration has notably failed to follow through on its previous commitments to expand border enforcement personnal. Pardon our skepticism and not wanting to be fooled twice.

UPDATE

When we look at the convoluted and soon to be weakened implementation plan, we can only think that the author of the President's speech was naive or stupid or perhaps a college professor. The real world does not work this way, as we have explained at some length. Here's the administration's take:

Under the bill, those who want to stay in our country who have been here can apply for a Z visa. At some point in time, those who are coming to work will get temporary work visas. Those who have been here already can apply for a Z visa. To receive the visa, illegal workers must admit they violated the law and pay a meaningful penalty, pass a strict background check, hold a job, maintain a clean record, and eventually earn English - learn English.

The hurdles to citizenship are going to be even higher. In other words, if somebody says, fine, I'll take my Z visa, I'm out of the shadows now, I've got an opportunity to not hide in America. I'll continue doing the work I'm doing, I'm going to keep my record clean. I'll pay the penalties necessary so I can stay here - that's what it says - but if you want to be a citizen, there's more hurdles. It says, the Z visa worker would first have to pay an additional fine. In other words, you have broken the law and there's a consequence for breaking the law. That's what the bill says.

Secondly, you've got to return home to file an application for your green card. If you want to be a citizen, you pay a fine, you touch base home to apply for a green card, and then you take your place behind those who have played by the rules and have been waiting in line, patiently, to become a citizen.

As Hugh Hewitt has ably demonstrated, no illegal immigrant is going anywhere after the bill is signed. And the notion that immigrants will leave the country to get back in and get in line is just cockamamie. We quote the NYT's editorial today on the Senate bill's "cruel path" to citizenship: "that path is strewn with cruel conditions, including a fine - $5,000 - that's too steep and hurdles that are needlessly high, including a `touchback' requirement for immigrants to make pilgrimages to their home countries to cleanse themselves of illegality." How long do you think the $5000 fee and the "touchback" provisions will survive after a bill is signed? We prefer our amnesty bills honest at least.





30 May, 2007

DeMint says immigration bill could be a disaster for GOP

If a compromise bill on immigration passes, it "could be a disaster for the Republican Party," U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint said. DeMint is leading Republican efforts in the Senate against the legislation that his South Carolina colleague U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham helped write. "It's definitely been a strain at this point -- strain in relationships," DeMint said Tuesday in a phone interview after meeting with Spartanburg-area residents to talk about the legislation.

But passing a bill that doesn't give people confidence in the country's immigration laws will help unite Democrats, DeMint said. "The Republicans are not going to get any gains from this," he said. "Politically, it could be a disaster for the Republican Party."

Graham's spokesman said he was not available to talk to a reporter. But Furman University political scientist Danielle Vinson said with President Bush and Graham and other Republican senators pushing to get the bill through the Senate, it doesn't make sense that Democrats would get all the credit.

Also on Tuesday, Gov. Mark Sanford -- a longtime Graham ally -- called on South Carolina legislators to act quickly on statewide legislation as he sidestepped questions about the federal illegal immigration proposal. The state proposal would make it a felony to harbor or transport illegal immigrants and bars government contractors from hiring illegal immigrants. It also forces businesses to pay state payroll taxes on illegal immigrants. There's not much time for the proposal to pass, though. South Carolina lawmakers are scheduled to adjourn next week.

The Graham-DeMint differences on the immigration bill played out two weeks ago at the state GOP convention. when Republicans booed and shouted "No" at Graham's explanations of the bill. But the crowd cheered DeMint, who said he'd work to defeat it if it appears to give illegal immigrants amnesty. By the end of the day, the state GOP had adopted a resolution saying it "adamantly opposes blanket amnesty for anyone who has not gone through the appropriate legal channels to enter our country."

After Tuesday's news conference, Sanford said he'll leave it up to Graham and DeMint to mend their differences. "The nature of any political battle is it's there for a day and gone the next day, so I'm sure they'll do just fine," he said.

Meanwhile, Democrats are enjoying the rare split within the GOP, which controls the state House, state Senate and eight of nine statewide offices. "It gives me no greater pleasure than to watch them fight each other over whose idea is worse," said state Rep. Todd Rutherford, D-Columbia.

Source



American IT industry against Senate immigration Bill

It truly is absurd that unskilled people can flock in while the highly skilled cannot

The US high-tech industry has opposed the immigration Bill being debated in the Senate aimed at dealing with an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, saying the measures as currently drafted would harm the American technology industry.

The Information Technology Association of America (ITAA), a lobbying group representing high-tech companies, says the Bill won't do enough to compensate for a shortage of skilled workers and will make it more difficult to hire qualified people from overseas.

In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, ITAA President and CEO, Phillip J Bond, said America's economy is strong and vibrant, but the country's future competitiveness rests on the ability of firms to recruit globally.

"As you know, the H-1B cap for fiscal year 2008 was reached in April, shutting out US employers from recruiting highly skilled foreign nationals, who are graduating from US institutions with degrees in computer science, engineering, mathematics and other scientific and technical fields," Bond said.

He added that vacancies were going unfilled and highly valued workers are forced to leave the country.

Source



Large-scale deportation of illegals IS possible

Operation Wetback was a 1954 project of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to remove about 1.2 million illegal immigrants from the southwestern United States, with a focus on Mexican nationals.

Burgeoning numbers of illegal aliens prompted President Dwight D. Eisenhower to appoint his longtime friend, General Joseph Swing, as INS Commissioner. According to Attorney General Herbert Brownell Jr., Eisenhower had a sense of urgency about illegal immigration immediately upon taking office. In a letter to Sen. William Fulbright, Eisenhower quoted a report in The New York Times that said: "The rise in illegal border-crossing by Mexican 'wetbacks' to a current rate of more than 1,000,000 cases a year has been accompanied by a curious relaxation in ethical standards extending all the way from the farmer-exploiters of this contraband labor to the highest levels of the Federal Government."

Eisenhower became increasingly concerned that profits from illegal labor led to corruption. An on-and-off guest-worker program for Mexicans was operating at the time, and farmers and ranchers in the Southwest were becoming dependent on additional low-cost labor. The operation was modeled after the deportation program that invited American citizens of Mexican ancestry to go back to Mexico during the Great Depression because of the bad economy north of the border. See Mexican Repatriation.

The operation began in California and Arizona and coordinated 1,075 Border Patrol agents along with state and local police agencies to mount an aggressive crackdown, going as far as police sweeps of Mexican-American neighborhoods and random stops and ID checks of "Mexican-looking" people in a region with many Native Americans and native Hispanics[citation needed]. Some 750 agents targeted agricultural areas with a goal of 1000 apprehensions a day. By the end of July, over 50,000 aliens were caught in the two states. Around 488,000 people fled the country for fear of being apprehended. By September, 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas, and the INS estimates that 500,000-700,000 illegals had left Texas voluntarily. To discourage re-entry, buses and trains took many illegals deep within Mexico before being set free. Tens of thousands more were put aboard two hired ships, the Emancipation and the Mercurio. The ships ferried the aliens from Port Isabel, Texas, to Veracruz, Mexico, more than 500 miles (900 kilometers) south.

Operation Wetback deported approximately 80,000 Mexican nationals in the space of almost a year, although local INS officials claimed that an additional 500,000-700,000 had fled to Mexico before the campaign began. The INS estimates rested on the claim that most undocumented people, fearing apprehension by the government, had voluntarily repatriated themselves before and during the operation.

Source



29 May, 2007

Latest from the Center for Immigration Studies

1. Mass Immigration vs. Black America

Statement of T. Willard Fair, President and CEO, Urban League of Greater Miami; Center for Immigration Studies Board Member before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, May 9, 2007

EXCERPT: "Of course, none of that means that individual immigrants -- or particular immigrant groups -- can be blamed for the difficulties facing black men. Being pro-Me should never make me anti-You. Nor can we use immigration as a crutch, blaming it for all our problems. The reality is that less-educated black men in America today have a variety of problems -- high rates of crime and drug use, for example, and poor performance at work and school -- that are caused by factors unrelated to level of immigration.

"But if cutting immigration and enforcing the law wouldn't be a cure-all, it sure would make my job easier. Take employment -- immigration isn't the whole reason for the drop in employment of black men; it's not even half the reason. But it is the largest single reason, and it's something we can fix relatively easily."

********
********

2. Low Salaries for Low Skills: Wages and Skill Levels for H-1B Computer Workers, 2005 By John Miano, Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder, April 2007

EXCERPT: "Technology sector employers, who represent the largest share of H-1B visa users, tell the public that the H-1B program is vital to their ability to find the highly skilled workers they need. Yet Department of Labor data tell a different story. Previous studies have found that the H-1B program is primarily used to import low-wage workers. This report examines the most recently available wage data on the H-1B program and finds that the trend of low prevailing wage claims and low wages continues. In addition, while industry spokesmen say these workers bring needed skills to our economy, on the H-1B Labor Condition Applications (LCAs) filed with the Department of Labor, employers classify most of their H-1B workers as being relatively low-skilled for the jobs they are filling."

********
********

3. Illegitimate Nation: An Examination of Out-of-Wedlock Births Among Immigrants and Natives by Steven A. Camarota, Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder, May 2007

EXCERPT: "The argument is often made that immigrants have a stronger commitment to traditional family values than do native-born Americans. However, birth records show that about one-third of births to both groups are now to unmarried parents. Moreover, unmarried immigrants are significantly more likely than unmarried natives to give birth. Illegitimacy may be especially problematic for children of immigrants because they need strong families to adjust to life in America."

********
********

4. Illegitimacy and Immigration Panel discussion transcript, April 24, 2007

Speakers:

Mark Krikorian, Executive Director, Center for Immigration Studies

Steven A. Camarota, Director of Research, Center for Immigration Studies

Nicholas Eberstadt, American Enterprise Institute

Robert Rector, Heritage Foundation

********
********

5. Immigration's Impact On American Workers

Statement of Steven A. Camarota before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, May 9, 2007

EXCERPT: "As discussed above, the impact of immigration on the overall economy is almost certainly very small. Its short- and long-term impact demographically on the share of the population that is of working age is also very small. It probably makes more sense for policymakers to focus on the winners and losers from immigration. The big losers are natives working in low-skilled, low-wage jobs. Of course, technological change and increased trade also have reduced the labor market opportunities for low-wage workers in the Untied States. But immigration is different because it is a discretionary policy that can be altered. On the other hand, immigrants are the big winners, as are owners of capital and skilled workers, but their gains are tiny relative to their income.

"In the end, arguments for or against immigration are as much political and moral as they are economic. The latest research indicates that we can reduce immigration secure in the knowledge that it will not harm the economy. Doing so makes sense if we are very concerned about low-wage and less-skilled workers in the United States. On the other hand, if one places a high priority on helping unskilled workers in other countries, then allowing in a large number of such workers should continue. Of course, only an infinitesimal proportion of the world's poor could ever come to this country even under the most open immigration policy one might imagine. Those who support the current high level of unskilled legal and illegal immigration should at least do so with an understanding that those American workers harmed by the policies they favor are already the poorest and most vulnerable."

********
********

6. Real Immigration Reform: The Path to Credibility

Statement of Vernon M. Briggs, Jr., Cornell University; Center for Immigration Studies Board Member before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, May 3, 2007

EXCERPT: "In its final report to Congress in 1997, the Commission on Immigration Reform defined what `a simple yardstick' for `a credible immigration policy' is: `people who should get in do get in, people who should not get in are kept out; and people who are judged deportable are required to leave.'

"The standard cannot be clearer. Congress and the Administration at that time did not listen and, sure enough, things have gotten far worse.

"It time to put aside the selfish pleas of special interest groups and to enact real immigration reform.

"Although some of my recommendations address issues not mentioned by CIR, all are consistent with those about which it did speak. All are intended to assure that our immigration policies are fair but firm and that they are congruent with the welfare of the nation's most valuable resource: it labor force."

********
********

7. Proposals to Improve the Electronic Employment Verification and Worksite Enforcement System

Statement of Jessica M. Vaughan before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, April 26, 2007

EXCERPT: "If the program were to be made mandatory tomorrow, most businesses would be able to comply. Even most small businesses already use the Internet and can access the system. Companies who don't want to do it themselves can pay their own accountant or lawyer or hire one of the many private-sector 'designated agents' to verify their workers."

********
********

8. Shortfalls of the 1996 Immigration Reform Legislation

Statement of Mark Krikorian before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, April 20, 2007

EXCERPT: "But there was one very large mistake made by Congress in the 1996 law, and that was rejecting the late Barbara Jordan's recommendations to cut overall legal immigration. The U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, headed by Jordan during most of its existence, spent years examining all aspects of the immigration issue and delivered reports on illegal immigration, legal immigration, refugees, and Americanization policy. .

"With regard to legal immigration, the Jordan Commission recommended a reduction of about one-third in total immigration, in particular focusing the family portion of the immigration flow more tightly and eliminating categories outside the nuclear family of husband, wife, and young children. Jordan's recommendations would also have eliminated the small but unjustifiable unskilled worker category (the Commission noted that `Unless there is another compelling interest, such as in the entry of nuclear families and refugees, it is not in the national interest to admit unskilled workers') and the egregious visa lottery."

********
********

9. Cease Citing Bible to Defend Bush's Immigration Bill By Steven Steinlight, Forward, April 29, 2007

EXCERPT: "Leviticus 19 commands us to love the stranger. Bush's cynical, reactionary bill, you can be certain, is not about love, and Leviticus 19 surely does not command us to exploit strangers as cheap labor or for political gain. Cherry-picking the Bible to support a shameful scheme to exploit poor immigrants at the expense of impoverished Americans to engorge the wealth of rich employers is a sacrilege. Why not just cite the Wall Street Journal?"

********
********

10. Speaking Out on Immigration By Steven Steinlight, The Jewish Advocate, April 23, 2007

EXCERPT: "Only Muslims are more anti-Semitic than foreign-born Hispanics according to solid survey research. Latino anti-Semitism hovers in the upper 40th percentile. Latinos loathe us less, but they'll have infinitely more power. If the Bush bill passes, Hispanics will soon control the American political system. Better to be hated by 2-3 million Muslims than strongly disliked by 100 million Latinos, a third of the population, who will outnumber us 50-1."

********
********

11. Immigrants Are People, Too. Moral decay doesn't stop at the Rio Grande By Mark Krikorian, National Review Online, May 2, 2007

EXCERPT: "The point is not that immigrants are worse than we are, any more than the open-borders crowd's claims that immigrants are better than we are. Instead, they're just like we are, subject to the same temptations of modernity, polluted by the same filth of popular culture, making the same bad choices with the freedom we can enjoy here.

"This may not be an argument for reducing immigration (there are plenty of those). But it certainly explodes any rational basis for arguing in favor of mass immigration based on a special immigrant commitment to traditional morality. There is no "family values gap," and the sooner policymakers understand that, the sooner we're likely to get an immigration policy consistent with our nation's interests rather than one marinated in myths and nostalgia."

********
********

12. Not a Dime's Worth of Difference: What kind of people does the White House think we are? By Mark Krikorian, National Review Online, April 10, 2007

EXCERPT: "The administration's calculation that it can make amnesty and increased immigration palatable if only they are packaged with enough anti-immigrant measures is an insult to immigration hawks. Our response must be unequivocal: No Amnesty. No Guestworkers. Period."



How immigration bill could make things worse

An interesting article below by far-Leftist economist Paul Krugman. He draws on economic history to confirm that a high level of unskilled immigration depresses wages for working class Americans but seems untroubled by that. He makes clear that the only change he wants to see is one that will increase the number of Democrat voters and thinks that the current bill does not go far enough in that direction. That the "guest workers" won't get to vote is his objection. What he says is fair warning.

A piece of advice for progressives trying to figure out where they stand on immigration reform: It's the political economy, stupid. Analyzing the direct economic gains and losses from proposed reform isn't enough. You also have to think about how the reform would affect the future political environment. To see what I mean - and why the proposed immigration bill, despite good intentions, could well make things worse - let's take a look back at America's last era of mass immigration.

My own grandparents came to this country during that era, which ended with the imposition of severe immigration restrictions in the 1920s. Needless to say, I'm very glad they made it in before Congress slammed the door. As supporters of immigrant rights rightly remind us, everything today's immigrant-bashers say - that immigrants are insufficiently skilled, that they're too culturally alien and, implied though rarely stated explicitly, that they're not white enough - was said a century ago about Italians, Poles and Jews.

Today, there's a highly technical controversy going on among economists about the effects of recent immigration on wages. No matter how that dispute turns out, it's clear that the earlier wave of immigration increased inequality and depressed the wages of the less skilled. For example, a recent study by Jeffrey Williamson, a Harvard economic historian, suggests that in 1913 the real wages of unskilled U.S. workers were around 10 percent lower than they would have been without mass immigration. But the straight economics was the least of it. Much more important was the way immigration diluted democracy.

In 1910, almost 14 percent of voting-age males in the United States were non-naturalized immigrants. (Women didn't get the vote until 1920.) Add in the disenfranchised blacks of the Jim Crow South, and what you had in America was a sort of minor-key apartheid system, with about a quarter of the population denied any political voice. That dilution of democracy helped prevent any effective response to the excesses and injustices of the Gilded Age, because those who might have demanded that politicians support labor rights, progressive taxation and a basic social safety net didn't have the right to vote.

Conversely, the restrictions on immigration imposed in the 1920s had the unintended effect of paving the way for the New Deal and sustaining its achievements, by creating a fully enfranchised working class.

But now we're living in the second Gilded Age. And one of the things making anti-worker, unequalizing policies politically possible is the fact that millions of the worst-paid workers in this country can't vote. What progressives should care about, above all, is that immigration reform stop our drift into a new system of de facto apartheid. Progressive supporters of the proposed bill defend the guest worker program as a necessary evil, the price that must be paid for business support. Right now, however, the price looks too high and the reward too small.

Source



Truly insane British immigration rules

Here's a quiz. Not a very good quiz because you will know the answer before you've finished reading the question. Whether you can comprehend it is another matter. An awful lot of immigrants are allowed into Britain these days and very few deported because they are undesirable. However, as a nation we must draw the line somewhere. So, using your understanding of How Britain Is, estimate which of the following four aspirant British citizens has been told to get out and stay out. And which three can stay?

1) Mouloud Sihali, Algerian. Lived at Finsbury Park mosque, breeding ground of Islamic terrorism. Described in court as "unprincipled and dishonest". Illegal immigrant.

2) Yonis Dirie, Somalian. Drug addict, armed robber and burglar. Convicted of raping a young woman in London. Illegal immigrant.

3) Tul Bahadur Pun VC, Nepalese. Won the Victoria Cross for taking out a Japanese machinegun post in 1944 in Burma single-handedly. Now 84, of unblemished conduct, suffering from heart problems and diabetes and would like treatment here. Legal applicant.

4) "AS", Libyan. Islamic extremist involved with Milan terrorist group. Court accepts that he is likely to try to kill us all again quite soon. Illegal immigrant.

You got it, didn't you? Old Pun's application was rejected because - and here's another punchline, in case the first wasn't funny enough - he "failed to demonstrate" that he had "strong ties with Britain". How much stronger do you want? There can be hardly a soul who wouldn't be happy to have Pun here. And not one who could make a case for allowing Dirie, the robber-rapist, say, to get preferential treatment. Some of us would have happily dispatched him back to Mogadishu strapped to a missile.

There is no great objection to immigration in this country; the objection is to how it is done and who benefits, exemplified by the cases I quote above. I suspect the public feels there are people who should be allowed in - people to whom we owe a profound debt of gratitude (like Pun), or those whose countries we have let down in one way or another (such as the Hong Kong Chinese or the black Zimbabweans). And yet it seems we do precisely the opposite.

Libyan and Algerian extremists who feel the regimes in their home countries are not sufficiently rigorous are allowed to stay because we worry they might be bumped off at home - regardless of what threat they pose to us. I would vote for any party that pledged to extricate us from the international legislation that insists on such absurdities. By then, however, it will most likely be too late for Tul Bahadur Pun VC. The Japs couldn't kill him - but we're not making a bad job of it.

Source



28 May, 2007

The Coming Collapse of the "Compromise"

Senator Menendez drove a nail into the compromise's coffin today when he blasted the "hateful rhetoric" in the country directed at McCain-Kennedy 2.0. I have spent a week interviewed guests and talking to experts and the callers, and there hasn't been any hateful rhetoric, nor have I heard it on other shows. What I do hear is profound suspicion of the Congress and perfectly reasonable objections to the obvious problems in the bill.

Blasting away at opponents --especially those who might have been won over by responsive amendments-- is a sign of desperation, as is the increasingly cement-handed massaging of the bill. Senators have a few hours left to make some dramatic changes in 2.0 that will give them some arguments for when they meet their constituents next week. Thus far zero big changes have been made, and cutting the number of guest workers to 200,000 doesn't qualify.

To keep their hope alive, the proponents of the compromise should not leave D.C. without mandating that the entire fence will be built before any Z visa issues, that the Border Patrol will be dramatically expanded and pay and training improved before any Z visa issues, by detailing the expanision in the staffs of the DHS and FBI charged with processing and investigating the Z visa applicants and by declining to extend to any illegal alien from "countries of special interest" any status whatsoever. The national security arguments against the bill are the most powerful, and the Senate is simply not responding in a serious way to those arguments and thus losing the opportunity to salvage the bill.

When I heard Todd Bensman was to appear on Laura Ingraham's show this morning I knew that his crucial set of articles had broken through decisively, even though not many senators seem to have read them. The point of his series --that many terrorist sand terrorist sympathizers have certainly entered the country illegally across our borders-- is an issue ignored by the bill's proponents, and when confronted with it, they attempt to argue that it would be better to get their fingerprints and legalize their work and travel around the country --and back and forth from abroad to the U.S.-- than to keep them in the position of a lawbreaker. This is not credible, and thus the bill is not credible. The four areas bolded above are each part of dealing with this threat, and the refusal to do so dooms the bill.

Source



The Rube Goldberg immigration bill

It makes it virtually impossible to DENY admission to immigrant workers. Post lifted from Dinocrat. See the original for links

In our piece, A law that mocks itself, we explained that the new immigration bill is dishonest in the sense that it creates a reasonable expectation on the part of illegal immigrants that they will be able to line up to have their tickets punched to be here legally, but creates no practical implementation mechanisms for actually dealing with the implications of that gargantuan task. (Consider this: the number of people who need to be processed is at least 25x the size of the US Army, and think of all the bureaucracy required to deal with them.) Hugh Hewitt and his law professor guests say that the courts will wind up making many of the rules; here they discuss but one tiny matter among many, how a Z-visa might be revoked:

"[JE] When I give a property interest, or something that looks like a property interest, an entitlement, and I define the scope of this entitlement by a statute that includes certain limited due process protections, not the full set of protections that we would give to traditional property before I take it away from you, the Court said, severed the property interest that was granted by the statute from the procedures that went along with it, and now created a property interest standing alone, and said all of the due process protections of the 5th Amendment or the 14th Amendment apply. And that means that once you gave an interest to these people, the limited Z visa or what have you, the Court would determine what process was due, not the statute..

[HH] What happens the day after the bill passes? And gentlemen, the triggers are in the bill, but section 601, treatment of applicants, reads this way. I want to make sure you hear it. "An alien who files application for Z non-immigrant status shall upon submission of any evidence required under paragraphs F and G, and after the Secretary has conducted appropriate background checks to include name and fingerprint checks, that have not by the end of the next business day produced information rendering the applicant ineligible, shall be A) granted probationary benefits in the form of employment authorization pending final adjudication of the alien's application, B) may, in the Secretary's discretion receive advance permission to reenter the United States, C) may not be detained for immigration purposes determined inadmissible or deportable, or removed pending final adjudication of the alien's application, unless the alien is determined to be ineligible for Z non-immigration status." Erwin, what rights does that endow upon, give to the Z applicant?.

[EC] I think it would require some form of due process before taking that status away..the leading Supreme Court case, Matthews V. Eldridge, says that in deciding what procedures are requires, a court's to balance the importance of the interest of the individual, the ability of hearings to lead to more accurate decisions, and also the government's interest, including administrative efficiency. I think courts would approve some form of deportation hearing that is relatively minimal in terms of procedure, but there has to be some procedure, and I think that's a good thing, not a bad thing.

[JE] the scope of the hearing would not need to be a full-fledged trial that we have for other kind of loss of interest under the Constitution. But it would not be defined by what the statute sets out with minimal things. It will be defined by the courts, and it will be balanced, as Erwin has said, by the relative weight to be given to the interest, and the government's need in efficiency. And the courts have opened the door for things like well, immigration law and eligibility is a very complicated thing. Will the courts require that in order for there to be fair due process, then in fact every one of these Z visa holders be afforded an attorney paid for by taxpayers before they can be deported? That's certainly within the realm of possibility. Will there be a right to an appeal? And a stay of the lower court's judgment before the appeal, or the hearing officer's judgment before the appeal runs, given how significant the weight is if they're going to be returned to a home country that is poor, and may be lots of claims of political persecution for having come here in the first place, or what have you. All of these things will now be decided by the courts for everyone, and it will be decided the day after this legislation takes effect.

[HH] I just think as expecting good lawyers, as the community of lawyers are on behalf of people not in the country legally over the years have become, they will seize on 601H, subparagraphs 1C, and say they have to be determined to be ineligible for Z non-immigrant status. We can't even make that conclusion until the regulations for Z non-immigrant status are produced and ratified by a court. And so I think the entire illegal population becomes non-deportable the day after the law passes for a long period of time.

This is an unwise, unsustainable, dragged-out, unfair and chaotic way to deal with 12 or 20 million people; therefore, we believe that the situation will devolve into a blanket amnesty pretty quickly, as these unwieldy procedures swamp the courts and render incoherent many provisions of the legislation. If Congress wants amnesty, it should pass amnesty. It should not hide amnesty in a Rube Goldberg machine that clearly will not function in the real world. We find ourselves having lost respect for all those who back the intellectually dishonest mess that is the Senate bill.



Arizona Senate OKs penalties for hiring illegal workers

Arizona employers who knowingly hire illegal workers would get one chance to correct the problem before losing their business license under a bill passed by the state Senate on Wednesday. On a 23-4 vote, senators revamped an employer-sanctions bill passed earlier this year by the House. The Senate bill also is similar to a ballot initiative under way. The sanctions would be the most important immigration measure of the current legislative session.

But the Senate bill may not be enough. The driving force behind the ballot drive, who also is the sponsor of the House bill, said the Senate version smacks of amnesty for employers. "There are some things that need to be cleaned up," said Rep. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, sponsor of House Bill 2779. His opposition means the bill will be negotiated between House and Senate members instead of proceeding to a full vote of the House.

Most business groups continue to oppose any state action, arguing that employer sanctions must be meted out by the federal government. State sanctions could put Arizona at a competitive disadvantage with other states, they say.

Still, with passage of the Legal Arizona Workers Act, senators said they would be shutting down the magnet of illegal employment that fuels much of the state's illegal immigration. "We are doing something Congress has failed to do, and that is to act," said Sen. Chuck Gray, R-Mesa, adding that he was "thrilled" to cast his vote in favor of the sanctions bill.

The vote comes days after the U.S. Senate opened debate on a wide-ranging illegal-immigration bill that includes its own set of penalties for employers who knowingly hire illegal workers.

The Arizona version would give employers found to have hired illegal workers three business days to file an affidavit swearing they had fired the illegal workers and would not hire such workers again. If the business owner failed to do so, his or her business license would be suspended. A second offense would bring about permanent revocation of the employer's business license.

Employers can defend themselves against such actions by using a federal computer-based program that verifies an individual's Social Security number and immigration status. Mandatory use of the Basic Pilot Program would be required as of March. The Basic Pilot Program is required of employers in Colorado and Georgia. Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry earlier this month signed a similar requirement into law.

Missing from the Arizona legislation is the key provision of the employer-sanctions bill that won approval in the House two months ago: a requirement that all Arizona employers sign an affidavit asserting that they have not made any illegal hires. That approach was criticized as cumbersome to administer as well as striking a presumed-guilty tone. Senators jettisoned it as they worked to turn the bill into a close copy of the ballot measure that Pearce and former gubernatorial candidate Don Goldwaterlaunched earlier this spring, said Sen. Bob Burns, R-Peoria, who led many of the lengthy work sessions on the bill.

Sen. Ken Cheuvront, D-Phoenix, cast a reluctant "yes" vote, noting that federal immigration reform could make the Arizona effort moot. The threat of losing a business license should make business owners sit up and take notice, he said. "This bill, as an employer, is pretty significant," said Cheuvront, who runs a contracting business as well as a wine-and-cheese bar. "I hold two business licenses. I know, by not fulfilling this, I put my livelihood in jeopardy."

Disappointed business groups watched the action from the Senate gallery but stuck to their stance that curbing illegal hires is the federal government's duty. "We continue to be opposed," said Jessica Pacheco, lobbyist for the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The statewide chamber group on Wednesday also came out in support of the bipartisan plan that the U.S. Senate started debating this week. "We feel this compromise has a strong foundation," Glenn Hamer, the chamber's president and chief executive officer, said in a prepared statement. "It begins to address the issues necessary for enacting comprehensive immigration reform."

Although most business groups have argued that the state should stay out of the immigration-law business, lawmakers feel they cannot wait. GOP leaders in the Legislature have made employer sanctions one of their key goals, and the votes this year have drawn support from Democrats, as well. Wednesday's Senate vote drew the support of six Democrats, while four voted against it. Three were absent.

But state legislation must get through Pearce before it can move forward. Specifically, he does not like the "two-strikes" nature of the Senate bill. "I'm not going to send up anything that is amnesty," he said, adding that he feels the temporary business-license suspension, with conditions to get it revoked, could be construed as giving employers a free pass. "I'm not sure I'm going to allow a two-strikes system," he said. Pearce also said he does not like the March effective date, feeling it should have full force of law 90 days after the end of the legislative session. That would be sometime late this summer. Still, Pearce said, he is open to negotiations with his Senate counterparts and characterized the bill as needing "tweaks" more than an overhaul. He has been noncommittal about whether he would abandon the ballot drive if the Legislature enacted a sanctions bill and Gov. Janet Napolitano signed it. Last year, Napolitano vetoed a wide-ranging immigration bill. She called the employer-sanctions provisions in the bill "amnesty."

Senate Majority Whip John Huppenthal, R-Chandler, said lawmakers believe they've crafted something that the Democratic governor can embrace. "If she were to veto this, she would own the initiative," he sai

Source



27 May, 2007

2000 words





Border control is the big doubt in the new bill

I really like the WSJ's editorial page - I don't know what we'd do without them. But they have a nasty, condescending streak when they get on their high horse, as they do with their signature position on immigration. I'm glad they find this issue so easy. For me, it's excruciating.

How can as smart a guy as Paul Gigot say something as stupid as that we wing-nuts at NR want to "harass" businesses as part of our "enforcement first agenda"? The WSJ cares a lot more about business than I do. I'd like to see the law followed by everyone, but I don't have an agenda related to business other than, I suppose, that I'd like to see some honesty from the pro-business lobby - I'd like to hear them acknowledge that they want illegal workers because it is a way around paying the prohibitive wages they'd have to pay Americans to do the same jobs (even as business rolls over and plays dead while another economically irrational raising of the minimum wage is enacted).

But here's what really fries me. I don't want to kick the illegals out of the country. I'm not a restrictionist; I believe, if thoughtfully regulated, immigration is good for the United States. I prefer legal immigration, but you'd have to be an idiot not to concede that a substantial portion of the illegal population is comprised of good, hard-working people - the kind we'd love to have here legitimately.

I also happen to think DHS Sec'y Mike Chertoff is one of the brightest, ablest guys I've ever met; he's as committed as anyone to fighting terrorists and other bad guys. I have the same feeling about Senator Kyl. These are died in the wool national security guys. If they say they think we need legalization because we need to know who is in the country and that that can only realistically be done with some kind of legalization process, that, to me, is a serious argument for legalization. (Although, I must say, it's long been important to know who is in the country, so I'd love to know why the illegal population has been allowed to explode, rather than being scrutinized and reduced, since 9/11.)

As a human being, I want to support legalization, even though everything in my experience tells me it is always a mistake to reward illegal behavior, and the equities tell me that (a) the illegals have chosen to be illegal so it's not unfair to make them live with that choice, and (b) legalization would be a slap in the face to the people who have respected our laws and tried to immigrate lawfully.

Despite those two weighty considerations, I think I could swallow hard and go along. Except for one thing: I don't believe the government is serious about enforcement. I've been in government, so I don't doubt their good faith - I don't doubt that they really hope and intend to do a better job. I just won't believe they'll follow through for any sustained amount of time until they actually do.

After decades of laxity, you don't get to tell me you're now serious based on what seems like 10 minutes of stepped up enforcement, with promises of a few hundred miles of fence and some additional border agents thrown in for good measure. You gotta prove it to me, and that's going to take time. And remember, the people making the promises are going to be gone soon. What assurance do I have that there will be follow through on enforcement if the Democrats win in 2008? After all, they are only going along with the enforcement terms now as the necessary political price of getting the bill passed - what they want are the carrots, not the sticks, so why should I believe they'll honor the sticks if and when enforcement becomes their responsibility?

If I thought the proposed legalization was really one time only, and that we had figured out a good way to separate the good, decent people from the terrorists, gang-bangers and assorted felons, I'd get beyond my hesitation (and probably my better judgment) to make accommodations for those millions to continue to work hard and enjoy a better life with their families - like my immigrant ancestors got to do. I'd rationalize that it was the humane thing to do even if it might not be the smartest thing to do. But I need, up front, to be confident it is not a ruinous thing to do.

That, Mr. Gigot, is why I want enforcement first. It's not about business. It's about being responsible when you are considering a big risk. The current 12 to 20+ million illegal alien population could easily swell to two or more times that amount if this isn't done right. You're then talking about a population of non-Americans the size of England or France. That's not acceptable. If the government can prove it is serious about managing this problem - by actually managing this problem - I could go along. But I need proof, not promises.

Source



The Coleman defeat reveals that law enforcement is not seriously contemplated

Minnesota's Senator Norm Coleman offered a very good amendment to the immigration bill --one which ought to have enjoyed unanimous and instant support given the bill's proclaimed status as a comprehensive overhaul of the immigration law: The amendment would have ended the "sanctuary city" movement which purports to put local governments in opposition to federal mandates on immigration. If the new law is the solution, that solution should surely include insistence that the federal government's policies would be enforced and obeyed by the state and local authorities. This is not a federalism issue as the Constitution clearly commits this area of the law to the national government.

Coleman's amendment failed by one vote. Seven Republicans voted against it. Really, how the proponents of this bill expect to survive when it cannot even deliver the obvious coherence it promises is a mystery, as are the votes of these seven. Powerline's John Hinderaker has the names. You won't be surprised.

Congrats to Coleman for a sound proposal. Perhaps it will be resurrected further along in the debate as a sign of seriousness on the part of the law's sponsors.

Source



Thompson criticizes immigration measures

Says secure the border first

Fred Thompson, a potential Republican presidential candidate, suggested that the 1986 immigration law signed by President Reagan is to blame for the country`s illegal immigrants and he bemoaned a nation beset by "suicidal maniacs." He made the comments Thursday night as he discussed the 1986 immigration reform bill and the Senate`s current legislation to overhaul the immigration system during a speech to people attending the annual Prescott Bush Awards Dinner in Stamford, Conn.

Thompson, the actor on NBC`s popular drama "Law & Order," is widely expected to enter the GOP presidential race this summer. His backers bill him as a conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan who can beat the Democratic nominee in November 2008. "Future generations of Americans will be thankful for our efforts to humanely regain control of our borders and thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred possessions of our people: American citizenship," Reagan said in a statement on Nov. 6, 1986, as the bill became law with his signature.

Thompson, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani all oppose the measure to varying degrees, even though all three have made statements in the past in which they appeared to support a similar measure the Senate previously considered. "We should scrap this bill and the whole debate until we can convince the American people that we have secured the borders or at least have made great headway," Thompson said last week.

"I travel around the country extensively and that`s certainly not the impression I have," McCain said. "I have not detected a nation full of suicidal maniacs."

"He was probably referring to the risk we now run that if we have borders that can be easily penetrated, well then, even though it`s a small group, terrorists can come in that way, drug dealers, other criminals," Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, said in a telephone interview.

Source



26 May, 2007

An amazing double victory for immigration critic

Remember the liberal, pro-amnesty for illegal aliens mantra following the 2006 elections? The one that had it that politicians in any way critical of illegal immigration lost because of that stance?

Despite the best efforts of the mainstream media to get that message out, it wasn't true then; it's not true now, and it's unlikely to be true in the future. Consider the fate of Lou Barletta, the Republican Mayor of Hazleton, Pennsylvania. Barletta, a former businessman faces with saving his town from rampant violence and crime by illegal aliens, personally and heavily promoted local legislation that would punish landlords who rent to and businesses that hire illegals.

Well, Mayor Barletta just won the Republican primary nomination for his third term - getting an almost unheard of 94 percent of the vote, according to the Associated Press. Oh, and by the way, Mayor Barletta also won the Democratic nomination - with a write-in campaign that he began only several weeks ago. Our congratulations to Mayor Barletta, Republican, Democrat, Hero of Hazleton and a political symbol of those who fight for what is right. His stunning victory should send a strong signal to politicians both local and national whose courage in the face of mobs has thus far been significantly less noticeable.

Source



Something for everyone to dislike

Post lifted from Dinocrat. See the original for links



It is interesting that virtually all significant demographic groups of United States citizens oppose the Senate Immigration bill, according to the details of this Rasmussen poll. For example, black Americans are against the bill by a whopping 62% to 19% margin. Captain Ed put it this way:

Not a single demographic in the study favors this proposal, except under Race:Other. Democrats oppose it 51-28. Republicans oppose it 47-25. Men and women both clearly oppose it. Only people ages 30-39 come close to overcoming opposition, 34-32 in opposition. But when the subject turns to border security, the numbers turn even more dramatic. Every single demographic - race, gender, age, and political orientation - has majorities that show border security as "very important".almost all.score in the 70s or higher.

Maggie's Farm has a very good update on this bill which is apparently offensive to the common sense of most citizens. By the way, speaking of polls, the latest CBS/NYT poll, which says that the majority really like Democrats and dislike Republicans, sampled 39% D to 26% R, the highest ratio of D to R that we recall seeing in a poll. That doesn't necessarily make the result wrong, but it does make it rather tautological.



France to Pay Immigrants to Return Home

New French President Nicolas Sarkozy made immigration a central issue of his campaign. Now, his new minister for immigration and national identity says its time to start paying immigrants to leave the country. France is home to over 5 million immigrants -- and the new conservative-led government doesn't plan on making things any more comfortable for them. While the new regime in Paris is determined to curb illegal immigration, it is also looking to encourage legal migrants to reconsider their decision to stay in France -- by paying them to go back home.

New immigration minister, Brice Hortefeux, confirmed on Wednesday that the government is planning to offer incentives to more immigrants to return home voluntarily. "We must increase this measure to help voluntary return. I am very clearly committed to doing that," Hortefeux said in an interview with RFI radio. Under the scheme, Paris will provide each family with a nest egg of _6,000 ($8,000) for when they go back to their country of origin. A similar scheme, which was introduced in 2005 and 2006, was taken up by around 3,000 families.

Hortefeux, who heads up the new "super-ministery" of immigration, integration, national identity and co-development, said he wants to pursue a "firm but humane" immigration policy. The new ministry was a central pledge in Nicolas Sarkozy's election campaign, who had warned that France was exasperated by "uncontrolled immigration." He was accused by the left of playing on public fears of immigration during his campaign, in an attempt to appeal to the supporters of the far-right National Front. In the end, Sarkozy won comfortably with 53 percent, and Hortefeux says this shows that the French people have clearly decided on what immigration policy they want. He also pointed to an opinon poll in the Le Figaro newspaper, which found that three in four people in France approved of the ministry.

Since he was appointed by the new president last Friday, Hortefeux has insisted that "co-development" will be an important plank of French immigration policy. He argued that the system of voluntary return can be seen as a means for investment in developing countries. He said that the method of transferring funds via returning immigrants to their country of origin was a better policy than providing aid for development.

Hortefeux is also talking tough when it comes to dealing with illegal immigration, insisting that there are no plans for a mass legalization of the estimated 200,000 to 400,000 illegals in France.

The new minister voiced concern that the majority of legal immigration into France was that of existing immigrants bringing in relatives, while only a small proportion were granted visas due to their professional skills. "To be integrated, you need language skills and a professional activity," he told RFI, and said he is considering introducing a language test to prospective immigrants.

France is home to an estimated 1.5 million immigrants from mostly Muslim North Africa and 500,000 from sub-Saharan Africa, according to the 2004 census. Asked on RFI about how the notion "national identity," fits into the new ministry -- the term has been fiercely criticized by the French left -- Hortefeux said: "This should not be understood as something menacing, but on the contrary, it is initiative with the aim of bringing coherence."

Source



25 May, 2007

'Gang of 12' Mulls Over Immigration Bill

Just off the Senate floor, a dozen Democratic and Republican senators huddle twice a day to decide whether proposed changes to a bipartisan immigration compromise are acceptable tweaks or fatal blows to their fragile agreement.

Survival of the deal that would allow 12 million unlawful immigrants to stay in the U.S. legally - regarded as the best chance to overhaul immigration this year - depends in large part on how effective this ``Gang of 12'' is in insulating the plan from major changes.

The team grows or shrinks according to what the issues are. At its core are the unlikely partners who cut the deal, led by liberal Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and conservative Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. Assistance comes from GOP centrist Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Mel Martinez of Florida and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

They sit in overstuffed crimson leather chairs; Senate aides and senior White House officials look on. The team pores over lists of proposed amendments from both parties. Some are deemed acceptable, while others are deal-breakers that must be killed or modified to avoid alienating a key bloc. ``There is a real commitment to absolutely do our best to see that the agreement is not unraveled,'' Kyl said. ``We're trying to avoid killing the deal.'' Added Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo.: ``We need to stay true to the principles'' underlying the bipartisan deal.

It is a risky strategy on an issue as contentious as immigration. Lawmakers in both parties are eager to express themselves and bristle at accepting a measure developed by a small group of senators in private with the White House.

The measure would toughen border security and institute an employment verification system to bar undocumented workers from getting jobs. It would create a merit-based point system that would evaluate future immigrants and prioritize employment criteria over family ties.

The bill unites conservatives and liberals who regard enactment of an immigration measure this year as an imperative that can deliver political benefits and long-standing policy objectives to their respective parties.

Many lawmakers are suspicious of the group. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., derisively refers to them as ``the masters of the universe.'' Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., is seeking far-reaching changes to the immigration measure and wants to remove the legalization program for unlawful immigrants. ``A lot of us don't feel like they're speaking for us, that this idea that we can't offer an amendment or it's going to blow up the deal is a bunch of nonsense,'' DeMint said. ``This is something that every member of the Senate should be participating in - not a small group,'' DeMint said. ``There's never been a more emotional issue for people back home. They feel betrayed and violated. They don't trust our Congress.''

The approach, however, may be the only way to ensure the bill makes it through the Senate and has a chance of being signed by President Bush. It is not uncommon for informal bipartisan groups to band together to navigate complicated and controversial measures through the Senate. It takes only one senator to block action and most major bills essentially require the assent of 60 members. A group comprising Democratic and Republican centrists came up with the Medicare prescription drug bill in 2003 and hung together to keep it intact during a heated debate. A similar team - branded the ``Gang of 14'' - worked out a deal in 2005 to avert a filibuster showdown over Bush's judicial nominations.

Still, the immigration group is unusual for the diversity of its members, who represent two dramatically different views on immigration. They united to oppose a liberal, organized labor-backed attempt by Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota to scrap the bill's guest worker program. It failed on Tuesday.

Not considered a deal-breaker was a proposal by Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., to slash the guest worker program from up to 600,000 visas annually to just 200,000. It passed the Senate overwhelmingly Wednesday. Still, the group of lawmakers agreed to seek to make that cap adjustable as market conditions demanded.

They were negotiating with Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, in efforts to revise his proposal to deprive foreigners whose visas were revoked of court review before being deported. ``Once somebody's identified as wanting to make the bill better, we sit down and tell them how the amendment would affect the overall bill and see if we can accommodate them,'' Graham said.

The group is not all-powerful, though. The lawmakers failed to fend off a proposal by Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., to toughen the border security and workplace enforcement triggers. They would have to be in place before the temporary worker program or the legalization of unlawful immigrants could go into effect. It passed Wednesday without a recorded vote - a tacit acknowledgment by the group it lacked the support to stop it.

Source



Some illegals are terrorists

But the latest bill treats then just the same as poor Mexicans

Though most who cross America's borders are economic migrants, the government has labeled some terrorists. Their ranks include:

Mahmoud Kourani, convicted in Detroit as a leader of the terrorist group Hezbollah. Using a visa obtained by bribing a Mexican official in Beirut, the Lebanese national sneaked over the Mexican border in 2001 in the trunk of a car.

Nabel Al-Marahb, a reputed al-Qaida operative who was No. 27 on the FBI's most wanted terrorist list in the months after 9-11, crossed the Canadian border in the sleeper cab of a long-haul truck.

Farida Goolam Mahammed, a South African woman captured in 2004 as she carried into the McAllen airport cash and clothes still wet from the Rio Grande. Though the government characterized her merely as a border jumper, U.S. sources now say she was a smuggler who ferried people with terrorist connections. One report credits her arrest with spurring a major international terror investigation that stopped an al-Qaida attack on New York.

The government has accused other border jumpers of connections to outlawed terrorist organizations, some that help al-Qaida, including reputed members of the deadly Tamil Tigers caught in California after crossing the Mexican border in 2005 on their way to Canada. One U.S.-bound Pakistani apparently captured in Mexico drew such suspicion that he ended up in front of a military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay.

"They are not all economic migrants," said attorney Janice Kephart, who served as legal counsel for the 9-11 Commission and co-wrote its final staff report. "I do get frustrated when people who live in Washington or Illinois say we don't have any evidence that terrorists are coming across. But there is evidence."

According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection apprehension numbers, agents along both borders have caught more than 5,700 special-interest immigrants since 2001. But as many as 20,000 to 60,000 others are presumed to have slipped through, based on rule-of-thumb estimates typically used by homeland security agencies. "You'd like to think at least you're catching one out of 10," McCraw said. "But that's not good in baseball and it's certainly not good in counterterrorism."

Source



24 May, 2007

The "Amnesty" Bill

Comment by Jonah Goldberg

Okay, so I've been reading up. I recently spoke with someone in the administration about the bill. I debated it in part this morning with Peter Beinart for a forthcoming installment of "What's Your Problem?" So I'm beginning to form an opinion about a still moving target. Here's what I think, so far, in no particular order:

1. The White House has an enormous political tin ear and was caught very much off-guard about how immigration plays with the base of the party. It is simply amazing how the Rovian approach wants things both ways. On the one hand, they want to govern by pleasing the base in a 50-50 country (which isn't fifty-fifty anymore) while at the same time they're stunned when the base gets miffed when the White House betrays the base in the name of bipartisanship, and then proceeds to mock the base as a bunch of yahoos (see #8).

2. The chief cause of misunderstanding is the issue of trust. The White House thought that that if they had all sorts of conservative mechanisms in the bill that conservatives would be placated. What they didn't understand is that the anti-"amnesty" wing of the Republican party simply doesn't believe any of these enforcement measures will implemented until they in fact are implemented. "Trust but verify" has simply become "verify." And until there is real enforcement - both in terms of current law and new laws - the base simply doesn't care about any other bells and whistles. "Been there done that" is the de facto official policy of the base when it comes to promises of enforcement, i.e. "No more promises, just enforcement. Then we'll talk" (This basic reality is why I came out in favor of a wall on the border).

3. I think this is a fair, legitimate or, at minimum, understandable position for a very frustrated constituency to take.

4. That said, I think much of the bill is actually very good. The end to unlimited family unification, the fines, the language requirement, the point system, ID requirements and all of the rest sound good or at least defensible and I think a serious, passable, immigration bill should have many of them.

5. But, again, the issue comes back to trust. The base of the party doesn't really care about the details because they've been promised nice-sounding details before only to see them evaporate in the sausage-making process, remain unenforced restrictions in name only or prove to be smokescreens. Sign a deal with Ted Kennedy and you'll end up with cider in your ear.

6. Hence we're at a stalemate. No law that can pass will receive the support from the anti-"amnesty" crowd, and no law that this crowd wants will pass without some kind of "amnesty" attached to it.

7. I used quotation marks around "amnesty" because I don't think that's really what it is and that conservative opponents have succeeded in calling anything short of victory (variously defined) as "amnesty." How smart this tactic proves to be in hindsight remains to be seen.

8. My guess: the law doesn't pass. The status quo endures. Bush suffers even more erosion of his support (in part because many of his most loyal supporters relish the opportunity to vent their more generalized anger at him on a non-Iraq issue). And David Frum is proved correct on points 1-7, particularly 6 and 7. I'm not sure about 8.

Source



The Immigration Bill Sells Out the Poor

The immigration debate so far has focused on trying to make legal that which is illegal, in the name of being fair to the very people who care little of legality. We are told that someone needs to pick our food from the farm fields and do jobs that American's won't. But automation has been steadily decreasing the need for agricultural labor for over a century and a half, and the trend continues.

So do we need 12 million illegal immigrants to pick our crops? How many people actually do pick our crops? I had to check. The best I can figure is around 300,000 people, based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics for non managerial positions. Click "Occupational Employment Statistics" and then choose "occupation for multiple geographical areas"

We have more than enough unemployed people to fill the need for agricultural labor several times over. It is true that unemployment is still hovering around only 4.5%. But most people don't consider that with the ever expanding population (due in no small part to immigration legal and illegal), the 4.5% of 10 years ago represents fewer people than today. The ranks of the unemployed are in fact growing, evcen as the unemployment rate stays comparatively low.

Currently there are approximately 6.8 million people actively looking for work. From the data, it is clear that blacks (8.2%) and teenagers (15.3%) need jobs and are disproportionately affected by unemployment. If you'll remember what happened at Swift & Company, 950 employees were found to be illegals. Swift & Company have replaced all of those illegals with those who are entitled to earn a living here in the US. It may have been necessary to raise wages a bit in order to fill all of the jobs, but that is what market clearing of supply and demand are all about. If packing plant workers are able to make a better living, is this something that we want to bemoan? Higher wages, after all, provide an incentive for greater automation, and are an engine for economic growth and a rising standard of living.

The fact that all of those 950 jobs were filled with legal employees discredits the notion that illegals only fill those jobs Americans won't do. Flooding the market with low skilled people from other countries is bad social policy which hurts the poor and unskilled by both depriving them of jobs and driving down wages.

In 1990, the US had approximately 250 million people; today we have just over 300 million people. These 50 million more people represent a 20% increase in population over 15 years. It should be obvious to all that a 20% increase in population will cause a significant increase in energy consumption, and increase demand for housing, transportation and schools in some proportionate manner. Those who worry about energy consumption should realize that by moving to the United States from a poor country like Mexico, a person's energy consumption and "carbon footprint" automatically increase dramatically.

In the last few years we have experienced price hikes in gasoline directly as a result of refinery capacity limits when it came to hurricanes, formulation changes and now cold winters. Why cold winters? Refiners are forced to choose between cracking oil for gasoline versus home heating fuel in the run up to the winter season. Now let's add to this equation that by 2025 (less than 20 years away) there will be approximately another 50 million people living in the US, bringing the total population to 350 million or a further 20% increase in population. So, how will we supply gasoline given the difficulty of building new refineries?

It is clear that Congress and those who advocate continuing unrestrained immigration are dealing with yesteryear's notions of America and its needs. This is the Twenty-first Century, a new century, a new set of sensibilities. The silence of Al Gore and other environmentalists on the impact of a rising population through immigration is deafening.

Do we feel empathy with those who want to come to America and find their fortune? I can safely say yes. However, the responsibility does not rest upon the US government or the taxpayer for the welfare of every resident of the planet. The responsibility for any national belongs first with the country of birth or citizenship. By allowing illegal immigration and other misguided immigration policies that don't serve the interests of US citizens, we enable and in fact encourage incompetence in other governments, giving them the use of the US as a safety valve to compensate for their economic failures.

In light of limited resources and the above figures on population, how can anyone say it is mean spirited to limit immigration? How is it fair to our poor and young people? How is it responsible to encourage corrupt and incompetent governments to continue with business as usual when by their own failed policies only increase the misery of their own people?

Source



Texas Judge halts enforcement of rent regulations

"A federal judge on Monday halted enforcement of a voter-endorsed ordinance preventing apartment rentals to most illegal immigrants, a day before the ban was to take effect in this Dallas suburb [Farmers Branch, TX]. U.S. District Judge Sam A. Lindsay wrote in granting a temporary restraining order that only the federal government can determine whether a person is in the United States legally. ... Opponents of the ordinance filed three requests in federal court for an order to stop its enforcement. Two of those succeeded in getting the temporary restraining order on Monday. The ordinance requires managers to verify that renters are U.S. citizens or legal immigrants before leasing to them, with some exceptions. Violators face fines of up to $500, and each day would be considered a separate violation. Also Monday, a federal lawsuit and a state district court suit were filed in Dallas against Farmers Branch."

More here





23 May, 2007

Bill seems doomed

Fewer than 20 senators are publicly committed to supporting the immigration deal that hits the Senate floor today while nearly 40 are already opposed or have serious concerns, underscoring how difficult it will be for President Bush and his allies to craft a coalition that can pass the bill. A Washington Times survey of Senate offices and public comments after the deal was announced Thursday found an additional 32 senators who said they cannot even take a position yet -- a result of the fact that the deal was written in secret by a dozen senators and the Bush administration, wasn't even finalized until yesterday and still hasn't reached many Senate offices. "I did not agree to any immigration deal and was not part of the negotiations," said Sen. Jim Bunning, Kentucky Republican and a likely opponent. "From what I have heard about the bill, it gives amnesty to the estimated 12.5 million illegal immigrants in this country."

Senators will be asked to make their first vote on the measure today, on whether to begin debating the bill. It will require 60 votes to pass, and leaders of both parties are urging their members to vote for it, so the debate can at least begin.

Opposition comes from the left and the right -- and both sides are vowing to offer amendments to try to move the bill. What is not clear is whether the two sides will be willing to team up to scuttle the bill. The Times survey found 17 senators supporting the current bill and another two who lean toward supporting it; 17 who oppose it; 22 who have concerns; and 32 senators who are still reviewing it. Nine senators' positions couldn't be determined, and Sen. Tim Johnson, South Dakota Democrat, has been absent all year because of a medical situation.

Those involved in the negotiations are urging fellow senators to take a close look at the bill, arguing that it strikes the right balance between enforcement, realism and humanitarian concerns. They also said they think it will pass. Sen. Arlen Specter, one of the Republicans who helped craft the deal, said it's the best they could do. "It will treat the 12 million undocumented immigrants in a constructive way. It is not amnesty. They'll have to pay a fine. They'll have to earn their way to citizenship," he said on CBS' "Face the Nation." "It's better than what we have now."

Those on the left want to preserve current family immigration preferences and scale back the guest-worker program, which would allow 400,000 new temporary workers a year. Under the current bill, they could work for two years, then have to return home for a year, and could renew for three work periods. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid this weekend said he will insist that the bill's guest-worker provision be slashed from 400,000 per year down to 100,000 per year.

Source



Response to White House Myth/Fact on Immigration Bill

The White House released a "Myth/Fact" document about the immigration bill last week. But instead of setting the record straight, it perpetuated more myths. What follows are 10 myths the White House is telling us about the amnesty agreement.

1. MYTH: This is not amnesty.

FACT: This is amnesty. Title VI of this bill is amnesty, plain and simple. According to an op-ed by former Attorney General Ed Meese that appeared in the New York Times last year discussing the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, "the difference is that President Reagan called this what it was: amnesty. Indeed, look up the term `amnesty' in Black's Law Dictionary, and you'll find it says, `the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act provided amnesty for undocumented aliens already in the country.'" It was amnesty then, and it's amnesty now.

FACT: The proposal forces illegal aliens to acknowledge that they broke the law, pay a $1,000 fee, and undergo a criminal background check to obtain a Z visa granting temporary worker status. The acknowledgment, fee and background check does not mitigate the fact that this is forgiveness for illegal aliens breaking numerous immigration laws. The bill waives numerous provisions of current law that would require deportation. Read the other nine myths ...

2. MYTH: This proposal does not repeat the mistakes of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act.

FACT: This proposal is substantially similar to the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act and does repeat the mistakes of the 1986 law. The 1986 law failed, despite the fact that, according to Meese's op-ed, it provided amnesty for 3 million immigrants for the price of "border security and enforcement of immigration laws" being "greatly strengthened."

FACT: The 1986 law also allowed "most illegal immigrants who could establish that they had resided in America continuously for five years would be granted temporary resident status, which could be upgraded to permanent residency after 18 moths and, after another five years, to citizenship." The current compromise allows a Z-visa holder to adjust to Lawful Permanent Resident status after satisfying a points system, files the application for adjustment in the applicant's home country and pays a fee of $4,000. A Z-visa holder has the discretion to choose to stay indefinitely in the United States if the Z-visa holder chooses not pursue a "pathway to citizenship." Meese stated in his op-ed about the 1986 law that "this pathway to citizenship was not automatic. Indeed, the legislation stipulated several conditions: immigrants had to pay application fees, learn to speak English, understand American civics, pass a medical exam and register for military selective service. Those with convictions for a felony or three misdemeanors were ineligible. Sound familiar?" Yes, it does.

3. MYTH: The government will crack down on the hiring of illegal workers.

FACT: The government will not crack down on the hiring of illegal workers. The government will be granting amnesty to illegal workers under the new Z-visa category. Thus, it will have fewer illegal workers to punish. There will be a handful of illegal workers that will not qualify for the new program that allows amnesty for illegal aliens in the country by Jan. 1, 2007. Therefore, by granting amnesty, there will be no pool of illegal workers to punish and/or deport.

FACT: A Z-visa holder merely has to provide two documents to prove eligibility. First, "sworn affidavits from nonrelatives" that the illegal alien qualifies, plus one other non-secure document. (Source: page 271 of the draft bill.) This is a huge loophole in the verification provision of who is present in the country illegally after Jan. 1, 2007.

FACT: Another loophole contains a waiver for humanitarian reasons. The deportation requirements of current law can be waived for "humanitarian circumstances." (Source: page 1 of the draft bill.) This is yet another loophole that will prevent a crackdown on the hiring of illegal workers.

4. MYTH: This proposal would not cut in half the amount of fence built by the Secure Fence Act of 2006.

FACT: This proposal cuts in half the amount of fencing to be built as mandated by the Secure Fence Act of 2006. Only one half of the additional fencing authorize by the Secure Fence Act of 2006 must be built before the temporary worker program and Z visa could go into effect.

FACT: The Secure Fence Act authorized the building of 700 miles of new fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border. This bill provides that a trigger that the federal government has to have "installed at least 200 miles of vehicle barriers, 370 miles of fencing, and 70 ground-based radar and camera towers along the southern land border of the United States, and have deployed Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and supporting systems." (Source: page 1 of the draft bill.) This bill allows for less than half the amount of fencing mandated by the Secure Fence Act before the Z and Y visas are issued.

5. MYTH: The trigger period will not cause a rush to the border.

FACT: Although to be eligible for a Z visa illegal aliens must prove they were in the country prior to Jan. 1, 2007, it is expected that it will not be difficult to produce fraudulent documentation to prove illegal continuous presence in the United States and employment offers or employment. This legislation creates the perverse incentive for illegal aliens to prove that they were illegally present and working in the United States as of Jan. 1, 2007. As previously stated, a Z-visa holder merely has to provide two documents. First, "sworn affidavits from nonrelatives" that the illegal alien qualifies, plus one other non-secure document. (Source: page 271 of the draft bill.) This is a huge loophole in the verification provision of who is present in the country illegally after Jan. 1, 2007.

FACT: An exception of the "Grounds of Ineligibility" for Z-visa applicants states "nothing in this paragraph shall require the Secretary to commence removal proceedings against an alien." Therefore, even if a Z-visa holder is deemed ineligible for Z-visa status, nothing requires the federal government to deport the ineligible illegal alien. (Source: page 261 of the draft bill.) This is yet another loophole in the bill.

6. MYTH: By providing an opportunity for citizenship to illegal immigrants already here, the bill will not exponentially increase extended-family chain migration.

FACT: The bill will dramatically accelerate family chain migration. The bill will dramatically accelerate family chain migration over the next six years. After that time, family chain migration by low-skill immigrants will allegedly be replaced by skill-based immigration. The promised change to skill-based immigration in the distant future is unlikely to ever occur.

FACT: The bill contains a brand-new category of visas for family members. The bill contains a waiver for "family members in hardship cases." Although this category is capped at the number of 5,000 per year, this is an exception that will allow limited chain migration. (Source: page 251 of draft bill.)

FACT: Allows visitor visas for family members of the Y visa, temporary workers that would allow the spouses of Y-visa holders to come to the country and have children who will be U.S citizens entitled to welfare benefits, also known as "anchor babies." (Source: page 254 of draft bill.)

FACT: This bill does nothing to preclude illegal aliens coming across the border and having children that will be granted citizenship. The "anchor baby" problem is not addressed by this legislation. The Heritage Foundation has provided as study that asserts that a statutory change in law would be a constitutional means to disallow the common practice of automatically granting citizenship to the children of illegal aliens.

7. MYTH: The temporary worker program is good for American workers.

FACT: Under the guest-worker program, guest workers will be able to bring spouses and children into the United States. Children of guest workers will be entitled to free education in public schools, with an average cost of $9,600 per child imposed on U.S. taxpayers. If the spouse of a guest worker has a child in the U.S. that child will become a U.S. citizen with a guaranteed lifetime entitlement to more than 60 different federal welfare programs.

FACT: There will be two new programs for workers. The Z visa will be for illegal workers to adjust their status to legal workers and the Y visa for future temporary workers. A Y-visa program without the Z-visa program may help the U.S. economy, but taken together, the American worker may be harmed by a flood of new workers coming from illegal status and new future flow workers from foreign nations flooding the economy and depressing American wages.

8. MYTH: Illegal immigrants will not come onto the welfare rolls.

FACT: Illegal immigrants will come onto the welfare rolls. Amnesty will give illegal immigrants entitlement to welfare benefits for most of their lives. Illegal aliens will become Z-visa holders. While they are in Z-visa status, amnesty recipients will have access the free medical care under the Medicaid program, but would not be eligible for other welfare programs. After five years in Lawful Permanent Resident status, the amnesty recipients will be eligible for nearly all 60 federal welfare programs including food stamps, public housing, and Temporary Assistance to Needy families, and will remain eligible for the rest of their lives.

FACT: After a Z-visa holder completes the "pathway to citizenship" they will be availed of the same access to welfare benefits as all American citizens. Children born to Z-card holders will be immediately eligible for welfare. After a few years, Z-card holders will be given Lawful Permanent Resident status. Given that 50% to 60% of amnesty recipients will be high school dropouts, welfare use will be quite high; the average amnesty recipient will probably receive about $4,000 per year in welfare benefits every year for the rest of his life.

9. MYTH: Government agencies will be able to share information to pursue immigration violators.

FACT: This is both true and false. The government will have far fewer immigration violators, because the Z-visa grants amnesty to an estimated 12 million pool of illegal aliens who, a large percentage of which, are working in the United States. The government will not be allowed to pursue some visa holders, because once a Z applicant applies, there is a one-year time period that precludes deportation pursuant to the draft bill. The process starts when the Z-visa holder applies for a visa, then fills out paperwork. If a background check is not done by the end of the next day, the Z visa is automatically issued. Even if background check is not completed the applicant has a statutory right to get a Z visa.

FACT: This bill grants the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to issue a national ID card to citizens. This immigration bill states that the "Secretary in consultation with the Commissioner of Social Security may modify by Notice published in the Federal Register the documents that must be presented to the employer, the information that must be provided to EEVS (Employee Eligibility Verification System) by the employer, and the procedures that must be followed by employers with respect to any aspect of the EEVS if the Secretary in his discretion concludes that the modification is necessary to ensure that EEVS accurately and reliably determines the work authorization of employees while providing protection against fraud and identity theft." (Source: page 105 of draft bill.) This grants the authority to the federal government the authority to force national ID cards on all American citizens.

10. MYTH: Senators are asked to vote Monday on a lengthy bill that they will have time to read.

FACT: Senators will not have time to read and understand this bill before Monday's cloture vote. Working behind closed doors for months, a handful of Democrat and Republican staffers, along with a few senators and principals from the Administration, have been drafting a "comprehensive immigration reform package." Until Saturday morning, May 19, 2007, the legislation was unavailable to any other senators or staff, let alone the media, policy analysts, or the general public. This legislation would be the most significant reform of immigration policy in 40 years, affecting not only our national security and homeland defense but the fiscal, economic, and social future of the United States for several generations. A document marked "DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY," is being relied upon by senators and staff as the final language to be debated beginning on Monday, May 21, with the expectation of a vote on final passage -- without congressional hearings, committee mark-up, fiscal analysis, expert testimony, or public comment -- before the Memorial Day recess. This is not a good way to deliberate over such an important piece of legislation and tosses aside years of the U.S. Senate tradition as being the most deliberative body in the world.

Source



America is importing trouble

Since 2000, Barone tells us, New York City has seen "a domestic outflow of 8% and an immigrant inflow of 6%". Boston, LA, Washington, and San Diego show similar turnovers. The total outflow of native-born Americans from these cities amounts to 650,000 a year. At the same time, cities such as Orlando, Charlotte, Phoenix, and Tampa have had dramatic leaps in native-born population, in all cases exceeding 10%, and in that of Las Vegas approaching 20%. So while the coastal cities remain static in population numbers despite the turnover, interior cities are booming.

What does this mean for our political culture? Barone touches on the question, noting that "The economic divide in New York and Los Angeles is starting to look like the economic divide in Mexico City and Sao Paulo", but doesn't go much further. But if the process continues, the implications will be profound.

If Barone is correct - and there's no reason to believe he isn't - then we're headed for an even more serious social schism between the heartland and the coastal metropolises. The heartland (along with smaller cities and towns on the coasts) will be comprised of melting-pot Americans, the coastal cities a bewildering melange of immigrants from all points of the compass, topped with an exceedingly thin layer of ultra-wealthy natives.

Miami, as it has been for the past thirty years, can serve as an example, with these differences: the Cubans represented a single homogeneous group; they had very good reasons - hatred of Fidelista communism above all - to appreciate American society; and they already understood American culture. This will not necessarily be the case with the new arrivals. Above all, PC and multiculturalism have removed all reason for immigrants to adapt to their new country.

With no particular pressure to fit in, the new immigrants will cling to their traditions, worldviews, and customs, many conflicting with ours and with those of other immigrant groups. NYC's asinine decision to establish a madrassah in Brooklyn is only the opening wedge - now all hundred-odd ethnicities residing in New York will demand the same treatment, and they will get it. The result will be Babel.

So thank the Archangels you're not living in NYC. But there are implications that may affect us all. Many of these people will have emigrated from failed polities of one type or another. Too many of the countries of Africa and Asia and Latin America, are operating in something resembling free fall, to put it kindly. Government is whoever has the most guns; civil society goes its own way with little reference to governmental activity; whatever political entanglements that can't be avoided are dealt with in the most primitive manner conceivable, through processes characterized by kinship and tribal relations, bribery, and paternalism. It's those conditions many people were fleeing when they came to the United States.

But it's those same conditions that, even with the best will in the world, they are going to bring with them. People cannot shed elements of their culture the same way they may change the dishdash for slacks and shirt. They are going to look for the Big Man. They are going to wonder whom to bribe, and how much. They are going to gravitate toward whoever operates in the manner closest to their country, region, or tribe. They will, without the least intending to, recreate in the U.S. the same situation they were fleeing from back home. With the added complication that dozens of other ethnicities will also be trying to grab the political levers to ensure that things are done their way, all at once.

It's difficult to see how this is particularly congruent with American democracy as we understand it today. Nor that there is any way to make it compatible with any form of democratic practice. So something will have to give. And it seems likely that what will give will be the members of America's sole native criminal class, the politicians.

What politician could resist such an opportunity? Masses of helpless, ignorant, and needy people requiring guidance, requiring a protector, requiring a leader. We've seen this before. Consider how the black vote has been manipulated by Democratic politicians since the days of the New Deal. Multiply that by a few dozen ethnicities, and the magnitude of the problem becomes manifest. (What's that? New immigrants can't vote? Do you really think so?)

But let's not be unfair to Democrats. If you think the GOP would hesitate a minute to leap into the same role, your introduction to practical politics remains before you. All the same, the Democrats are the prime suspects here, seeing how they control the surviving political machines in cities up and down the Eastern seaboard. Many of these machines have been in operation since the last big immigration wave early in the 20th century. Adapting them to the new conditions will simply be a matter of integrating the new arrivals into the places once held by Italians and Irishmen.

But there's another factor at work as well - even as the pols are gathering in the new flock, the new flock will be exerting pressure on them to conform more to the style that they're used to. How are they going to resist becoming something along the lines of a tribal chieftain? Many of them think of themselves in similar terms in any case. And with that shift will come a level of corruption that will make New Jersey or Louisiana look like the Palace of the Just. If you think that New York resembles a third-world country now... you ain't seen nothing yet.

At the same time, we'll have a native-born American population that has reconnected with its roots, and very likely, after years of dealing with terrorism, undergone a resurgence of patriotism, much as Great Britain did in the course of the lengthy Napoleonic Wars. (And, as Barone points out, will have grown more Republican, too.) This will represent quite a contrast to the teeming multilingual coasts, and create inevitable and unavoidable grounds for conflict.

We can dismiss any thoughts of civil war. Conflicts in advanced societies aren't settled that way, and a situation in which isolated urban areas are opposed to the country at large doesn't lend itself to such an outcome. But there are plenty of other ugly possibilities. (And some benefits as well - the coastal cities, which wield far too much influence today, will find their sway over the rest of the country dwindling, no doubt a good thing.) Most of the downside factors will involve native politicians released from any responsibility to the population of the country as a whole, a nightmare in and of itself. Corruption will grow to proportions not easy to imagine today, particularly as it takes on an international dimension.

Mayors, representatives, possibly even governors and senators, will be running their own sub rosa foreign policies in order to fulfill the wishes of their foreign-born constituencies. Foreign groups and organizations of all types -- religious, political, social, and criminal -- having no current connection to American society will establish strong beachheads by manipulating and playing off native politicians. This will create new challenges for law enforcement, particularly as it shades into foreign intelligence. Questions of national security will begin to take in the policies of the administration the next town over.

Potential solutions are less than obvious. Education of new immigrants as to what the American system is and how it works would appear to be the key, but who would handle that? With the educational system as it exists, enraptured with the doctrines of multiculturalism, the cure would be worse than the disease.

It may in the end merely be a matter of muddling through, of using law enforcement and social pressure to hold the fort while the new immigrant masses ever so slowly adapt themselves to this country (or, rather, their children and grandchildren do). It doesn't seem like much, but it may be the best we can hope for. Of course, we could always return to a sane immigration policy. I have yet to hear what would be wrong with that.

Source



22 May, 2007

Even existing immigration policy makes the elite better off and the workers worse off

I am not sure that the facts bear out the assertions about the American working class in the excerpt below. Inequality has certainly increased in the USA in recent decades but that is surely what one would expect from inserting a large pool of unskilled people into the country

Whatever the economic effect of moderate amounts of skilled immigrant labor, almost certainly positive, the economic effect of large amounts of unskilled immigrant labor is very clear: it drives wage rates down to rock bottom levels, particularly in personal service sectors where training is minimal and employment informal. That’s why a haircut costs less in real terms now than it did 30 years ago, it’s why even modest middle class households now have a cleaner and a gardener, which they usually didn’t 30 years ago and it’s why enormous numbers of dubiously constructed houses appeared when finance became available in 2002-06.

For the elite, the eloi of the HG Wells future we appear to be entering, this is all very attractive. The servant problem, butt of jokes ever since equality began to increase after World War I, has suddenly gone away – the rich can and do have as many servants as they want, provided they speak Spanish. Chicken processors, construction firms, retailers, hotels and meat packers who employ low skill labor no longer need make any pretence of paying union wage rates; they can simply hire illegal immigrants to fill any gaps that may appear. Corporate profits are at record high levels and service sector inflation, a bane in the 1970s and 1980s, has more or less disappeared.

The claim by eloi pro-immigration forces that the US economy has a massive new “need” for unskilled labor is of course pure bunkum. If there are 12 million illegal immigrant workers in the economy, about 8% of the working population, then since we know the value of output, productivity is in reality about 8% lower than we thought it was. That means that productivity growth, far from accelerating in the mid 1990s as Wall Street fatuously claimed, in fact slowed, as more and more bodies were required to achieve the same output. GDP may have continued to increase, but GDP per capita is also 8% less than we thought, and hence has shown little growth. It is this that has caused the curious phenomenon of an apparent rapid increase in GDP that in practice makes nobody any better off.

However attractive illegal immigration is to the eloi, it is hell for the morlocks [workers]. Instead of the well paid factory jobs their fathers had, making physical products in which they could take pride, they are now reduced to competing with infinite numbers of illegal immigrants for personal service, retail and construction jobs that have not been mechanized or outsourced. Theoretically, they could get more education and turn themselves into brain surgeons or computer-aided designers; in practice, these possibilities merely make them mourn that they hadn’t paid more attention in math class. Thus the social gulf grows ever wider.

The inability of the morlock element to achieve the modest comfort of their fathers brings other social pathologies. Since the morlocks are unable to “settle down” to marital bliss and a decent standard of living, illegitimacy and crime increase – only partly from the immigrants, legal or illegal, but also from the impoverished population as a whole. Political activity no longer offers hope of assistance, so they cease to vote or participate in politics, either directly or indirectly through unions and fraternal organizations. There is little point in saving, so they run up gigantic credit card debts, choosing to gamble away any windfalls they may receive. The eloi in turn withdraw themselves to gated communities, and Wells’s dystopia grows ever closer.

The new immigration bill, with its ineffectual enforcement provisions and its enthusiastically inserted loopholes through which even more immigrants can arrive, is perhaps the most socially divisive policy since the taille of the French ancien regime, a tax that was exacted from the poor and the middle class but not from the nobility. It stems from the same cause as the taille, a desire by the political class and its financial backers to entrench their superiority over the common herd.

More here



Capitulation, from A------ to Z



By MARK STEYN

Are you a fine upstanding member of the Undocumented-American community? That's to say, are you (if you'll forgive the expression) an illegal immigrant? Great news! Being illegal is now perfectly legal! Just for being one of the circa 12 million people who shouldn't be here, you can now be here indefinitely! If you were living and working in America illegally before Jan. 1, 2007, you're now entitled to one of the new Z-1 "probationary" visas. And your parents and spouses are entitled to one of the new Z-2 visas, and your children to the new Z-3 visas.

Don't worry: It's not an "amnesty." Every politician in America is opposed to amnesty -- if not the concept, then at least the word. That's why the visa starts with the letter that's furthest away from the one "amnesty" begins with. "Z" stands for zellout . . . no, hang on, zurrender or Zapatista, or some other word way up the other end of the alphabet from "amnesty." But the point is, at a stroke there will be no more illegal immigrants. Because being illegal means you're now legal.

Unless, of course, you came to America after Jan. 1, 2007, and thus aren't covered by the zamnesty. But in that case why not apply for the Z-1 anyway? After all, you're here illegally so how would U.S. Immigration know when you arrived? Especially with 12-15-20 million urgent applications tossed in on top of what's already a multi-year backlog. They're not exactly going to be doing a lot of in-depth background checks, especially not for a visa category whose only entry requirement under U.S. law is that you've broken U.S. law when you entered.

By the way, when I said "came to America," if you're visiting Toronto for a weekend break from Yemen or Belarus, don't be deterred by the fact that Canada is not technically in America. Why not just head down to Buffalo and apply for the old Z-1, too? After all, it's not such a stretch to regard every single person on the planet as a Z-1-in-waiting. This being America, pretty soon -- a court decision here, a court decision there -- the presumption of every school district and hospital and welfare administrator will be that they're obliged to treat everyone who walks in through the door as if they were a Z-1. You zee one, you've zeen 'em all.

As for the notion that dumping a population the size of four mid-size European Union nations into the lap of America's arthritic "legal immigration" (please, no tittering; apparently, there is still such a thing) bureaucracy will lead to tougher enforcement and rigorous scrutiny and lots of other butch-sounding stuff, well, if that were the case, there wouldn't be a problem in the first place. You can declare that "illegal" now mean "legal" very easily; to mandate that "incompetent" now means "competent" is a tougher proposition.

But, as John McCain declared, "This is what the legislative process is all about" -- and in the sense that it's a sloppily drafted bottomless pit of unintended consequences on a potentially cosmic scale whose sweeping "reforms" will inevitably require even more sweeping reforms of the reforms in a year or two's time, he's quite right. Also, as Senator McCain says, "This is what bipartisanship is all about."

I'm not a fan of "bipartisanship" for its own sake. This is a very divided political culture in which bipartisans