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.
****************************************************************************************



30 June, 2007

Fear This: Hillary Clinton on Immigration

Post lifted from Doug Ross. It was too good to leave anything out so I have lifted it whole. My apologies to Doug

While there's good news on the illegal immigration front today -- the shamnesty bill just went down in flames -- more battles remain. Consider if you will, Hillary Clinton's various attempts to sponsor amnesty and guest-worker programs (source: Numbers USA).

Sen. Clinton is a cosponsor of S. 2075, the DREAM Act of 2005: Need a reward for sneaking into the country and then evading the police for five years? Well, how does amnesty and in-state tuition sound? If my kids sneak out of the country and then back in, can they get the in-state tuition deal?

S. 2075 would grant in-state tuition and amnesty to illegal aliens under the age of 21 who had been physically present in the country for five years and are in 7th grade or above. Such a reward for illegal immigration serves as an incentive for more illegal immigration.

Sen. Clinton is a cosponsor of S. 2109, the National Innovation Act of 2005: Need to import cheap high-tech workers? Then have I get a law for you! Unfortunately for American workers, it's a raw deal. Furthermore, it's easy to prove that this program (H-1B) is being abused. Law firms like Cohen and Grigsby are openly counseling employers how to game the legal system to avoid hiring "qualified and interested U.S. worker[s]."

S. 2109 would continue the H-1B program that every year imports additional high-tech workers as part of "comprehensive immigration reform." The H-1B program has been shown to harm American workers by depressing wages and displacing workers. As well, S. 2109 suggests that comprehensive reform must include provisions to "eliminate delays in processing immigration proceedings, including employment-based visa applications." This provision would do nothing but encourage the rubberstamping of applications, which is already happening because of the existing "backlog elimination" program and would promote and encourage fraud and corruption.

Sen. Clinton is a of S. 340, the Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits, and Security Act of 2007: Running a farm and need, cheap -- but legal -- unskilled labor? Well, Hillary's got your back!

S. 340 is an amnesty for agricultural workers. Of the 1.2 million illegal aliens currently working in agriculture, an estimated 860,000 plus their spouses and children could qualify for this amnesty, so the total could reach three million or more. The potential recipients of the amnesty will be required to prove at least 863 hours or 150 work days of agricultural employment in two preceeding years. S. 340 would, subsequently, allow these “blue card” illegal aliens to apply for legal residency (i.e., amnesty), provided they demonstrate that they have worked in agriculture here: (1) 100 work days per year each of the first five years following enactment; (2) 150 work days per year each of the first three years following enactment; or (3) over the course of the first four years after enactment, 150 work days per year for three of those years and 100 work days for the other. The AgJOBS amnesty has also been introduced as S. 237. Read an analysis of the AgJOBS amnesty.

Sen. Clinton is a cosponsor of S. 237, the Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits, and Security Act of 2007: Need cheap, legal indentured servants? Hillary can do!

S. 237 is an amnesty for agricultural workers. Of the 1.2 million illegal aliens currently working in agriculture, an estimated 860,000 plus their spouses and children could qualify for this amnesty, so the total could reach three million or more. The potential recipients of the amnesty will be required to prove at least 863 hours or 150 work days of agricultural employment in two preceeding years.S. 237 would, subsequently, allow these “blue card” illegal aliens to apply for legal residency (i.e., amnesty), provided they demonstrate that they have worked in agriculture here: (1) 100 work days per year each of the first five years following enactment; (2) 150 work days per year each of the first three years following enactment; or (3) over the course of the first four years after enactment, 150 work days per year for three of those years and 100 work days for the other. Read an analysis of the AgJOBS amnesty.

Sen. Clinton was a cosponsor of S. 2381, the Safe, Orderly, Legal Visas and Enforcement Act of 2004: or, more properly, the Unsafe, Disorderly, Illegal Unenforcement Act of 2004.

Introduced by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA), S. 2381 included an amnesty that would have granted Legal Permanent Resident status to certain illegal aliens (and their spouses and minor children) who have lived in the U.S. for at least 5 years and worked for an aggregate of 2 years. Virtually all of the 10.3 million illegal aliens estimated to have been living in the U.S. in March 2004 could have qualified for this amnesty, along with their spouses and children. As well, S. 2381 would have significantly increased overall immigration numbers by increasing the number of family visas and exempting from the family-based visa ceiling all immediate relatives. See analysis of S. 2381 provisions.

Sen. Clinton cosponsored S. 2444, the Kennedy INS restructuring bill: if you're looking for a way to add hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants in short order, S. 2444 hits the mark!

This legislation contained both structural and policy problems that would encourage illegal immigration and potentially increase legal immigration. The most far reaching provision proposed in S. 2444 was the change in the definition of immigration law. S. 2444 would have redefined immigration law to include not only the Immigration and Nationality Act but also Executive Orders and international agreements. In so doing, the bill would have opened up massive possibilities for increased legal and illegal immigration. For example, the President could have agreed to amnesty all illegal aliens in a trade agreement or in an Executive Order. The President also could have created new categories of legal immigrants, increase refugee numbers, triple H-1B visas, etc. In addition, S. 2444 would have facilitated asylum fraud and add thousands of illegal aliens to the population each year by greatly reducing the detention of asylum applicants while their cases are pending, allowing them to disappear into the public. While the numeric impact of the Kennedy restructuring bill is almost impossible to determine, the policy changes outlined in S. 2444 would certainly have increased illegal immigration and very likely increased legal immigration, thus adding to the 8-9 million illegal migrants already residing in the U.S. as well as increasing legal immigration levels.

Hillary Clinton. Let the buyer beware.

AgJOBS:

AgJOBS: Legalizing Indentured Servitude: What Kind of America Will You Choose? Indentured Servant: An indentured servant is an unfree laborer under contract to work for a specified amount of time for another person – often for low or no wages – in exchange for accommodation, food, other essentials and/or free passage in a new country. Indentured Servitude Banned with Slavery: Indentured servitude was abolished along with slavery when the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1865. AgJOBS indentures illegal alien agricultural workers: • Section 101(a) of AgJOBS grants amnesty in the form of “temporary residence” (via a “blue card”) to illegal aliens who worked in agriculture between December 31, 2004, and December 31, 2006. • Section 103(a) permits these formerly illegal “temporary residents” to apply for adjustment to lawful permanent residence only if they perform at least: 2,587 hours of agricultural work during the first three years after enactment; 2,875 hours of agricultural work during the first five years after enactment; or during the first four years after enactment, 862.5 hours of agricultural work per year for three of those years and 575 hours of work for the other. • Section 103(c) says that, if temporary residents do not perform the requisite work and apply for permanent status within seven years of enactment, they are deportable. • AgJOBS permits employers of formerly illegal temporary residents to pay these workers as little as minimum wage. It also freezes the “adverse effect wage rate” for H?2A workers at its January 1, 2003, level for three years, after which the wage rate may be increased by no more than the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index from two years prior. Required Labor + Specified Duration of Labor + Substandard Wages + Free Passage in a New Country = Indentured Servitude

Mexican birthrate falling rapidly

The writer below seems to have forgotten the famous observation by Lord Keynes: "In the long term we are all dead". So while his data is interesting, his conclusions are flawed

As the debate over illegal immigration from Mexico rages in Washington and across the country, and as the administration's reform bill hangs by a thread, few Americans are aware that this problem will automatically decline and eventually become a vague memory.

There has been a stunning decline in the fertility rate in Mexico, which means that, in a few years there will not be many teenagers in Mexico looking for work in the United States or anywhere else. If this trend in the fertility rate continues, Mexico will resemble Japan and Italy - rapidly aging populations with too few young workers to support the economy.

According to the World Bank's 2007 Annual Development Indicators, in 1990 Mexico had a fertility rate of 3.3 children per female, but by 2005, that number had fallen by 36 percent to 2.1, which is the Zero Population Growth rate. That is an enormous decline in the number of Mexican infants per female. The large number of women currently in their reproductive years means that there are still quite a few babies, but as this group ages, the number of infants will decline sharply. If this trend toward fewer children per female continues, there being no apparent reason for it to cease, the number of young people in the Mexican population will decline significantly just when the number of elderly is rising. As labor markets in Mexico tighten and wage rates rise, far fewer Mexican youngsters will be interested in coming to the United States. Since our baby boomers will be retiring at the same time, we could face a severe labor shortage.

There have been significant declines in fertility rates across Latin America, but Mexico's has been unusually sharp. In El Salvador, another country from which immigrants come, a 3.7 rate in 1990 became 2.5 by 2005. Guatemala is now at 4.3, but that is far lower than it was in 1990. Jamaica, another source of illegal U. S. immigrants, has fallen from 2.9 to 2.4 over the same period. Chile and Costa Rica, at 2.0, are actually slightly below a replacement rate. Trinidad and Tobago, at 1.6, is well below ZPG. For all of Latin American and the Caribbean, a rate of 3.2 in 1990 fell to 2.4 in 2005, a decline of 25 percent. This means less pressure on the United States from illegal immigrants from the entire area, not just from Mexico. A powerful demographic transition is well underway, and soon many of these countries may be worried about there being too few babies rather than too many. We may miss this labor, and wonder how we will replace it.

What is going on in Latin America? Better education and improved job opportunities for women mean that it has become quite expensive for them to leave the labor force to have more children. The improved availability of birth control technology and liberalization of abortion rules in some countries mean that it is easier for women to avoid that outcome.

Fertility rates are declining across the globe, but the change is particular striking to our south. The world fertility rate fell from 3.1 to 2.6 over the 1990-2005 period. The population bomb is becoming a fire cracker.

Another reason for the particularly sharp decline in Mexico is the cultural influence of the United States. Our xenophobic nationalists fear that we are being 'Mexicanized.' In fact the opposite may be underway. NAFTA, our mass media, the more widespread use of English, and the large number of people going back and forth (legally or otherwise) mean that Mexicans are increasingly influenced by our culture, and that implies fewer babies. The United States also has a fertility rate of 2.1, but that is the same as it was in 1990. Mexico is becoming more similar to the United States, which must frustrate their nationalists.

The main point for the United States is that we have only a temporary problem with illegal immigration from Mexico. For another decade or a bit more we must attempt to limit such entry, but then the problem will fade like the smile on the Cheshire Cat. Lou Dobbs, Rep. Tancredo and their xenophobic friends can calm down and relax.

Source





29 June, 2007

The Great American Sellout Has Died A Second Death

Post lifted from STACLU. See the original for links

The much anticipated 3rd cloture vote on the Senate Immigration Reform Bill also know by readers of Gribbit's Word as "The Great American Sellout" has resulted in a 3rd no vote on cloture. Sen. Harry Reid has once again promised to pull the bill from the floor. One can only hope it stays in its grave this time.

I'm still waiting on the availability to post those who voted for and against cloture but the final tally was 53 - 46 against cloture. 60 votes are required to invoke cloture and limit debate. For the 3rd time this bill has failed miserably to achieve that number.

According to Sen. Jeff Sessions the Sgt at Arms of the Senate informed him that the volume of calls coming in to the Capital crashed the phone system. It seems that the Senators are finally listening to America. We do not want this or any other bill that grants amnesty.

Big surprise for me was the fact that Voinovich voted NO. Hallelujah George grew a brain.

The forces in favor of cloture on The Great American Sellout controlled 60 minutes of debate time prior to the beginning of the cloture vote. Of which, the time was evenly split between a Democratic Leader and a Republican Leader, both in favor of cloture. Of that 30 minutes each, they each allotted 5 minutes to the opposition. So those who oppose cloture got 10 minutes to make their case to block cloture. This is democracy? Not hardly Mr. Reid.



Recidivist





A wall along the Mexican border COULD cost peanuts

Maybe everyone knows this but I was astounded by the actual cost of Israel's wall when I watched a liberal documentary (Wall, 2004, directed by Simone Bitton) about all the problems caused by Israel's wall. In it, Israel's Minister of Defense described the wall and how much it cost. It included: a layer of razor wire, a trench to stop cars, the actual wall (including electronic sensors, radar, etc. so that the army could tell when it was breached), a dirt road that would evidence footprints of would-be crossers, an asphalt road for quick deployment to areas where crossing had been detected, and another layer of barbed wire. It was approximately 50 meters wide. The cost--roughly $2 million dollars (10 million shekels) per kilometer. According to Wikipedia, the US border is 1951 miles. This equal approximately 3140 km. At $2 million dollars each, this comes to $6,280,000,000. That's it!!! For all that!

Source





28 June, 2007

Discussion of the Senate bill severely limited

In a bid to complete work on a historic immigration-reform bill this week, Senate leaders agreed to limit debate to 26 amendments – and no more. But the dozens of amendments blocked from the Senate floor could yet play a role in the outcome of this momentous debate. That's because their omission may alter how Republicans in the other chamber of Congress – the House of Representatives – regard the bill when it's their turn to take up the issue. It may also affect how talk radio, bloggers, and the American public come to see it. The excluded amendments range from those that would revise mechanisms for enforcing immigration law to those that challenge the bill's essential fairness. "It's a rigged process," says Sen. Jim DeMint (R) of South Carolina. "It undermines minority rights in the Senate."

In a procedural standoff at time of writing, senators who have been refused the right to offer amendments threatened to derail the process. "We've been told by the master crafters of this bill that it's a delicate compromise that can't allow our amendments to be debated," says Sen. David Vitter (R) of Louisiana. "At the same time, these crafters of the compromise are changing their bill every half an hour.... That's unfair."

In response, majority leader Harry Reid said: "We've had 21 days of Senate debate since 2006. We've really worked this thing hard. This is a bill that people should fully understand." Despite such concerns, the Senate on Tuesday voted 64 to 35 to resume debate on immigration reform.

"It's a constricted and constrained procedure, which I don't like," Sen. Arlen Specter (R) of Pennsylvania said Wednesday as the Senate resumed work on the bill. Still, he says, the unusual move to limit senators' rights to offer amendments was needed to get to a vote. "It's going to be tough, but we're going to see the will of the Senate worked one way or another," he added. In a sharp response to the Senate move, the House Republican caucus on Tuesday voted 114 to 23 on a resolution to disapprove of the Senate bill.

Many amendments blocked from consideration deal with enhancing enforcement and with tougher standards for eligibility for "Z visas," which give a path to citizenship for many of the 12 million people currently in the United States illegally.

• Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R) of North Carolina wants an amendment making immigrants illegible for "Z visa" status if they have been convicted of drunken driving. The amendment is needed because of the number of fatal auto accidents involving illegal immigrants, she says.

• Sen. Charles Grassley (R) of Iowa proposes requiring "Z visa" holders to pass a naturalization exam and pay fines up front. Otherwise, he says, there is no requirement to learn English and American civics until 12 years after obtaining a "Z visa."

• Sen. John Cornyn (R) of Texas wants to bar undocumented criminals currently in detention or removal proceedings from applying for a "Z visa." .

• Sen. Wayne Allard (R) of California wants to require applicants for "Z visas" to disclose all names and Social Security numbers they have used in the past to obtain employment in the US. Such disclosure would be a condition of their legalization.

• Sen. John Ensign (R) of Nevada wants a provision that makes sure "Z visa" holders are not eligible for welfare benefits sooner than are immigrants who came to the US legally. The bill as currently written, he says, gives "Z visa" holders a three-year edge over other immigrants.

• Sen. Jeff Sessions (R) of Alabama would move the qualification date for "Z visa" applicants back to May 1, 2005, to make sure that those who are in the US illegally don't have an advantage over those who applied to come legally.

Democrats are unhappy, too. Some Democrats say they wanted a fuller debate on enforcement aspects of the bill. "Until you have the border secure, you cannot deal with the 12 million here without encouraging others to come across," says Sen. Ben Nelson (D) of Nebraska, who voted to proceed with the bill this week but warns that could be his last vote for the bill.

Adds Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) of Missouri: "Until our country gets serious about enforcement against employers, all the laws we pass won't make a difference." She says she'll vote against the bill for this reason. If the Justice Department would start handing out three-month jail sentences to employers who hire undocumented workers, "that will have more impact than this bill," she adds.

Source



Open borders and the welfare state.

By Robert Rector

A decade ago, Nobel prize-winning economist Milton Friedman admonished the Wall Street Journal for its id‚e fixe on open-border immigration policy. "It's just obvious you can't have free immigration and a welfare state," he warned. This remark adds insight to the current debate over immigration in the U.S. Senate.

To be fully understood, Friedman's comment should be viewed as applying not merely to means-tested welfare programs such as food stamps, Medicaid, and public housing, but to the entire redistributive transfer state. In the "transfer state," government taxes the upper middle class and shifts some $1.5 trillion in economic resources to lower-income groups through a vast variety benefits and subsidies. Across the globe, this sort of economic redistribution is the largest, if not the predominant, function of government in advanced societies.

The transfer state redistributes funds from those with high-skill and high-income levels to those with lower skill levels. Low-skill immigrants become natural recipients in this process. On average, low-skill immigrant families receive $30,160 per year in government benefits and services while paying $10,573 in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of $19,587 that has to be paid by higher-income taxpayers.

There is a rough one-to-one fiscal balance between low-skill immigrant families and upper-middle-class families. It takes the entire net tax payments (taxes paid minus benefits received) of one college-educated family to pay for the net benefits received by one low-skill immigrant family. Even Julian Simon, the godfather of open-border advocates, acknowledged that imposing such a burden on taxpayers was unreasonable, stating, "immigrants who would be a direct economic burden upon citizens through the public coffers should have no claim to be admitted" into the nation.

There is also a political dimension to the transfer state. Elections in modern societies are, to a considerable degree, referenda on the magnitude of future income redistribution. An immigration policy which grants citizenship to vast numbers of low-skill, low-income immigrants not only creates new beneficiaries for government transfers, but new voters likely to support even greater transfers in the future.

The grant of citizenship is a transfer of political power. Access to the U.S. ballot box also provides access to the American taxpayer's bank account. This is particularly problematic with regard to low-skill immigrants. Within an active redistributionist state, as Friedman understood, unlimited immigration can threaten limited government.

Many libertarians respond to this dilemma by asserting that the real problem is not open borders but the welfare state itself. The answer: dismantle the welfare state. The libertarian Cato Institute pursues a variant of this policy under the slogan, "build a wall around the welfare state, not around the nation." Borders should be open, but immigrants should be barred from accessing welfare and other benefits.

But in practice, pursuit of these dual libertarian goals of opening borders and ending the redistributionist welfare state often leads to contradictions. The current Senate "comprehensive" immigration-reform bill, supported by the Cato Institute, actively demolishes existing walls between illegal immigrants and government benefits, granting some 12 million illegal immigrants (60 percent of whom are high-school dropouts) access to Social Security, Medicare, and, over time, to 60 federal means-tested welfare programs.

It also substantially increases the future flow of low-skill immigrants and gives them access to welfare and transfer programs. Far from building a "wall around welfare," this legislation levels existing walls, builds a highway to Fort Knox, and shovels billions in taxpayer funds into the pockets of immigrants who entered this country illegally.

In a recent debate with Dan Griswold of the Cato Institute, I pointed out this paradox. Griswold replied that the key was to grant amnesty and open borders now and work on "building a wall around welfare" at some point in the future. The weakness of this response should concern all those interested in limiting the size of government.

While most open-border libertarians proclaim a desire to dismantle both borders and the welfare state, in practice what they offer is open borders today and a vague (and almost certainly illusory) promise to end the welfare state in the indefinite future. As Milton Friedman understood, open-border enthusiasts have the sequence wrong: Opening borders with the redistributionist state still intact will result in a larger and more confiscatory government. In response to libertarians who propose to open borders and dismantle the welfare state, practical conservatives should answer: "Go ahead. Dismantle the welfare state. As soon as you've got that finished, let us know, and then we'll talk about open borders."

Open-border enthusiasts sometimes claim that the 1996 welfare reform defanged the welfare system, eliminating the costs that low-skill immigrants impose on taxpayers. As one of the architects of that reform, I would warn that this view shows a serious lack of understanding of the limited scope of the 1996 welfare law, and, more importantly, a lack of appreciation of the magnitude of the redistributionist state.

Sen. Ted Kennedy understands that a steady stream of low-skill immigrants will help him build a much larger, tax-fueled government. It is a pity that so many foes of big government fail to appreciate this point.

Source





27 June, 2007

Security First: How to protect the borders while welcoming the immigrants America needs.

A moderate proposal from PETE DU PONT. It appeared in the "open borders" WSJ so is rather a wonder from that source

The immigration bill may be back on the Senate floor this week, and the policies that are adopted will have a significant impact on the sovereignty, security, economic growth and opportunity of America in the coming decades.

America's modern immigration trend began in 1986 when President Reagan's bill granted amnesty to some three million illegal immigrants yet failed to improve border security. That amnesty sent a message to people across the border: If you slip into America you will be able to work and live here, and nothing negative will happen to you. Almost 20 years went by before any serious effort was undertaken to secure our borders, so that three million 1986 illegal immigrants have turned into 12 million today. About eight million people have entered the U.S. during the current Bush administration, half or more illegally, and according to the Washington Post, undocumented workers now make up "about 5 percent of all employees nationally."

The Secure Fence Act of 2006 authorized 750 miles of fence to be built along our border with Mexico, where almost all of our illegal immigrants enter--over 80% of them come from Mexico and Latin American countries--but only about 150 miles of that border fence will have been built by the end of this year.

With this growing influx of illegal entrants into America, there are five essential actions the Senate should take next week: First, secure the Mexican border so that America is closed to illegal immigration. Controlling our borders is essential to our national security. The additional 600 miles of border fencing authorized by the 2006 law must immediately be built; and we must add surveillance technology and more border security agents to our entire southern border. President Bush has agreed to add an upfront $4.4 billion to the bill to strengthen border security, enforce our immigration law, and prosecute employers who hire illegal workers--a good first step to solve our illegal immigration problems.

Second, make sure the bill contains the provisions of the Isakson Rule (proposed by Sen. Johnny Isakson, R., Ga.) that no other immigration reform programs can be implemented until the border is secure.

Third, once the border has been secured, require tamper-proof ID cards of all immigrants. Today there are no such cards, and verifiable identification is essential to both immigration policy and national security. We must know who is entering our country and what their background is.

Fourth, identify the skills required for the jobs immigrants need to fill, so that immigration policy will reflect America's economic needs. The Senate bill contains a merit-based system for evaluating immigration applicants. It encourages higher education, those skilled in specialist occupations (including scientists, engineers and technicians) and people who have previously worked in America and speak English. Working skills should be the focus of our immigration policy, so we must move from the current "chain migration" policy which gives preference to extended families of current immigrants--like sisters, cousins, uncles, and grandparents, to one that admits the skilled working people we need. Sen. Barack Obama tried to sunset this merit program after five years, and fortunately his attempt was defeated.

Fifth, get rid of the existing "visa lottery" that randomly selects 50,000 immigrants from the application list each year. An effective immigration policy isn't based on gambling. These are the essential elements of any immigration policy, and all must must be enacted to have both a secure America and enough guest workers for a prosperous society. Passage of them would greatly improve our immigration system, our economy, and the quality of our workforce.

Then comes the difficult question of what to do about the aforementioned 12 million undocumented aliens who are in the country already. Sen. Ted Kennedy proposes allowing them to stay indefinitely and pursue citizenship. They would have to apply for a Z visa (temporary legal status) by admitting they have broken the law, pay an initial $1,000 fine, and submit to a background check. They would still not then eligible for welfare benefits or food stamps, and if they wanted a green card and permanent legal status, they would have to pay an additional $4,000 fine, learn English, and then return to their home countries to file for it. The Department of Homeland Security has estimated that some 15% to 20% of the 12 million illegal immigrants in America have criminal records and would be ineligible for Z visas or green cards.

Granting blanket amnesty to the 12 million illegal immigrants would be abandoning the rule of law, and deporting them would be difficult and chaotic. So a serious, enforceable visa plan makes sense.

America's illegal immigrant admission has accelerated over time. Congress and President Reagan granted amnesty to three million illegal aliens in 1986; and the current President Bush wants to legalize another 12 million now, which sends an arithmetic signal to other immigrants who want to slip into America that 20 years from now whoever is president will perhaps grant amnesty to 48 million illegal immigrants.

We do need to secure our borders, issue legal ID cards to immigrants, and admit people skilled in the jobs we need to fill. But experience shows that our government lacks the political will to enforce such an immigration policy. Georgia state employee Reagan W. Dean was recently quoted in the New York Times: "Maybe it is possible to secure the border. Maybe it is possible to establish an employee identification system. But I don't have any confidence it will be done." Many Americans agree with him, so a serious and substantive bill that would restore the people's confidence is the Senate's task this week.

Source



'Equal protection' amendment to the immigration bill

It occurred to me that there might be a very short and very simple amendment that would ensure the support of a majority of the citizens of the United States for the immigration bill. John McCain ought to be demanding space be found in the bill's 600+ pages for this single sentence:

"Every citizen of the United States shall be entitled to the same treatment for taxation liability as this bill provides for individuals who have entered the United States illegally."

This would mean that we will all be exempt from taxation for the same number of years (all) that illegal aliens would be exempt from taxation. Since illegal immigrants won't have to pay taxes for the years that they have worked in the United States, legal citizens should similarly be entitled to that benefit. Surely there breathes a Senator who will fight for the rights of citizens to be treated equally with individuals who have broken the law. Who could vote against this? I can't wait to get my refund.

Source



26 June, 2007

"A Vote For Cloture Is A Vote For Amnesty"

Post lifted from Ace. See the original for links

NRO's new editorial. Let the scumbags we've elected to defy us at every turn know we won't get fooled again.

The fate of the bipartisan immigration deal now rests with a handful of senators who say that they are against it, but are inclined to vote to let the Senate take it up again. Do not be fooled. Any senator who votes to bring this legislation back to the Senate floor tomorrow is supporting it, and any contrary vote he casts later will be a scam designed to fool gullible voters.

The bill is unpopular, but powerful forces — businesses, journalists, officials in both parties, and racial pressure groups — are determined to push it through. They do not mind if a few senators vote against the bill for the cameras while greasing the track for it when it counts.

Senators who claim to oppose the bill say that they want a new debate on it so that they can improve it. But the broad outlines of this bill are set in stone.... For senators who are professing to wait to see what the final bill looks like before taking a position, the wait is over. The final bill will represent the will of its drafters and defy the expressed will of their constituents. The only way to prevent that inevitable finale, is to bring the curtain down now.

Their scheme is triply deceptive. First, they are attempting to shut down debate -- that's what cloture is -- before there has been any genuine debate on this at all in the Senate. There's been plenty out in America, but the Senate has kept itself nicely insulated from such discord. The whole point of this cloture vote is to shut down debate before debate can tank an extraordinarily unpopular, and fatally flawed, bill.

Second, the cloture vote insures that a vote take place on the bill itself after a very short time, a very short list of amendments, and the possibility that, via Reid's "clay pidgeon strategy," no amendments at all will even be considered.

And third -- the Amnestia Coalition is intending to vote as a bloc against every single amendment that should happen to get by Reid's clay pidgeon strategy, no matter how reasonable (e.g., denying amnesty to gang-members, denying amnesty to those with multiple drunk driving convictions or serious sexual assault/molestation charges -- even this common-sense amendment is considered a poison pill by the Amnestia Coalition and will not be permitted to pass, or even, most likely, be permitted to be raised on the floor at all).

These bastards claim the American people want this bill. If that's the case, why do they fear a lengthy debate? A lengthy debate should only help them if indeed Americans support the bill.

And if the bill is popular -- why the imperative to pass it so long before the elections? Again, if those who seek to push this piece of shit on America truly believe they're acting in accord with the public's wishes, why not extend the debate through next fall and take the vote right before the primary elections? After all-- voting for such a popular bill can't help but improve their poll numbers, right?

This is the worst affront to democracy I have ever witnessed in my lifetime. Not only was the whole corrupt bargain cooked up in secret, not only have they repeatedly attempted to schedule quick votes so that their corrupt deal could be voted on before anyone knew what terms were contained therein and before the public was informed at all on the subject, not only do the proponents of the bill routinely and flagrantly lie about what the bargain is ("Amnestied illegals will be required to pay back taxes!"), not only are they disingenuous about their motives for passing this, not only are the determined to pass this in the face of strong opposition on the level between 50-69% of the public... but, in the end, it's a terrible bill which satisfies no one except corporate lobbyists and racial pressure groups and which they refuse, in order to preserve the fractuous coalition pushing the bill, to improve one iota in any direction.

This is debate? This is democracy? This is the wildly unpopular, ill-considered, poorly-drafted, loophole-ridden, corrupt-payoff bill that we have to pass in order to prove that democracy in America still works? Gee, I'd've imagined the opposite -- that we could only prove we still have democracy in America by defeating such an immensely unpopular and corruptly fashioned piece of sh*t.



What the pro-immigration politicians think of the voters





Kiss of death for the (A) bill?

Post lifted from Macsmind. See the original for links

If the Senate support for the (A) immigration bill was really tight with the 60 votes needed, there would be no need for Ted Kennedy and other supporters to flood the Sunday talk shows.

"Backers of US immigration reform vowed Sunday to hustle deeply divisive legislation through the Senate this week to document 12 million illegal aliens while beefing up border security. But virulent opponents stepped up attacks on what one critic called a foreign "invasion" of the United States, despite a new bid by President George W. Bush to cement support for the centerpiece of his domestic agenda.

After the immigration bill collapsed a fortnight ago, the Senate is set to vote Tuesday on whether to allow debate to proceed on revised legislation that emphasizes tighter borders and law enforcement. "I believe we will pass the bill, and I think we have good support among the Republican Party," Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy said on ABC television. "And the reason we're going to pass this bill is because it's tough, fair and practical," he said.

In his weekly radio address Saturday, Bush revealed that under the revised Senate bill, people slipping into the United States illegally will not only be deported, but never allowed to enter the country again."

Kennedy and his bravado simply shows that they in fact do not have the votes necessary. Senator Jeff Sessions whom Bush just did some fund raising for just last week doesn't see the votes being there either.

"Republican Senator Jeff Sessions took issue with Kennedy's confidence that the latest immigration bill would carry the 60 votes it needs in the 100-seat upper chamber to overcome blocking tactics by its critics.

Top Democrats in the House of Representatives have also warned that Bush must cajole up to 70 Republicans to back the deal in the lower house, as it is likely to be spurned by Democratic lawmakers from conservative districts.

Senate opponents are "going to use every effort to slow this process down and continue to hold up the bill," Sessions said on ABC. "It will not work. We will be on the verge of giving an amnesty for 12 million people, but not getting a legal system in the future that will work, and that's the difficulty there."

Most observers believe that if the bill fails to make it through Congress this year, it will be dead, as it will get caught up in the political maelstrom of next year's presidential election."

We'll see Tuesday, but Monday opponents of the bill are planning even more ramped up blitzing of Senator's phones and faxes and emails.



CIS roundup

1. Employment Down Among Natives in Georgia As Immigrant Workers Increased, Native Employment Declined in Georgia

EXCERPT: Some businesses in Georgia argue that they need large numbers of immigrants because there are not enough native-born Americans to fill jobs that require relatively little education. However, state employment data show that as the number of less-educated immigrant workers has grown dramatically, the share of less-educated natives holding a job in Georgia has declined significantly.

********

2. Limit relatives' rights: Decide what categories of people to admit, then let in all who qualify

EXCERPT: Rather than accelerating family immigration under the pretext of limiting it, Congress should simply eliminate all the extended-family categories. (One exception: Those who expect to get their visas within one year.) Special immigration rights for relatives should be limited to the spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens; they are -- and should always be -- admitted without any numerical caps. Other relatives should be allowed to move here only if they prove their value to the American people as a whole.

********

3. Misguided City ID Plan Undermines Security, Rewards Illegal Immigration

EXCERPT: Ostensibly issued by foreign governments to keep track of their citizens, these cards have been used by Mexican consuls in recent years to provide documents to undocumented (illegally present) Mexicans or anyone claiming to be Mexican. The Departments of Justice, Homeland Security and the FBI all have declared these cards worthless as identification. Steven McCraw, then assistant director of the FBI's intelligence office, told Congress in 2003, 'There are major criminal threats posed by the cards, and a potential terrorist threat.'

********

4. 2007 Eugene Katz Award for Excellence in the Coverage of Immigration

Panel discussion transcript, June 8, 2007

********

5. Amnesty, R.I.P.: A bad deal dies

EXCERPT: It seems that the overreaching of amnesty advocates has politicized a lot of people, and not just conservatives, over the non-enforcement of the immigration law. And that's a good thing too -- if the White House concludes that amnesty is unattainable, there will be a strong temptation to end the enforcement show that's been staged over the past six months or so, with workplace raids designed to bolster the administration's credibility on the issue. A vigilant citizenry will be required to ensure that doesn't happen -- that enforcement is not only not discontinued, but that it's expanded, so we can end the Bush administration's 'silent amnesty' and get to work implementing a real strategy of attrition through enforcement.

********

6. Senate Amnesty Could Strain Welfare System

EXCERPT: Of course, immigrants, including illegal aliens, also pay taxes. However, because of the education level and resulting incomes levels of Mexican and Latin American immigrants, their tax payments are much less than natives on average. The same is true for illegal aliens. In a 2004 study, the Center for Immigration Studies estimated that illegal alien households used about $2,700 more services than they paid in taxes at the federal level only. We also found that households headed by a legal Mexican immigrant created a net fiscal drain at the federal level of roughly $15,000, and for those with only a high school degree the drain was a little over $3,700. However, those with more education were a fiscal benefit. A new Heritage Foundation study estimated the net fiscal drain at all levels of government created by households headed by high school dropout immigrants at about $20,000 a year. A 1997 National Research Council study found the same pattern -- less-educated immigrants create a net fiscal drain and educated immigrants create a net fiscal benefit.

********

7. The Senate Immigration Bill: Good or Bad for America?

Moderator: Philip Terzian, The Weekly Standard

********

8. Legal, Good / Illegal, Bad? Let's call the whole thing off

EXCERPT: Not only are the flows of legal and illegal immigration related, but the impacts they have on the United States are similar. The effect that illegal immigration has in reducing wages for low-skilled American workers, for instance, is only partly caused by the illegality. The majority of illegal immigrants actually work on the books, having provided a fake or stolen Social Security number, but they command low wages regardless because most of them lack even a high-school education and thus are unequipped for advancement in a modern society. In other words, the chief problem that immigration creates for less-educated or young or minority American workers is that it floods the job market with competitors, illegal and legal.

********

9. Without Merit: Why have skills-based immigration at all?

EXCERPT: But to answer whether we should have a merit-based system, you need to clarify for yourself the purposes of having any immigration at all. Others may answer differently, but as I see it, immigration policy is not an employee-procurement system for American business, but rather a citizen-recruitment program for the American people. And while higher-skilled immigrants will be more likely to master the initial indicators of Americanization -- speaking English, keeping a job, paying your bills and taxes, and in general exhibiting behavior in lines with middle-class norms -- they may be less likely to develop the deeper, emotional connections that mark true Americanization. Higher-skilled immigrants are more likely to arrive here with a fully formed modern national consciousness and have both the means and the inclination to pursue transnational lives -- both through the formality of dual citizenship, and also emotionally, by living in two countries simultaneously without developing a genuine attachment to either.

********

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

EXCERPT: 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.

********

11. No Alien Left Behind: There's nothing as permanent as temporary immigration status

EXCERPT: Our experience with TPS leads to only one possible conclusion: Once an illegal alien gets legal status, no matter how 'temporary,' he's here for good. Sponsors of the Senate's amnesty bill know this full well.

********

12. Fort Dix Fix: Immigration policy in wartime

EXCERPT: The nation's 700,000 state and local law-enforcement officers encounter illegal aliens every day in the normal course of their duties, and police cooperation is essential to any successful federal effort at immigration control. The Senate bill, however, actually undermines security by ensuring, in Section 136(d), that 'Nothing in this section may be construed to provide additional authority to any State or local entity to enforce Federal immigration laws.'

This is especially pertinent regarding the Fort Dix plot. The three Duka brothers -- illegal aliens all -- were stopped by police on various New Jersey jurisdictions 75 times without any inquiry into their lack of immigration status.

*******

13. Proper enforcement is the only solution

EXCERPT: The overriding purpose of the Senate bill is to amnesty illegal immigrants -- everything else is window-dressing. Rather than go down this road, Congress would do well to put off further legislating on the issue and instead demand that the president do his job. Only when there's a demonstrated political commitment to enforce the law should Congress revisit the immigration issue. Until then, bipartisan inaction is the best policy.

********

14. Immigration Policy and Organized Labor: A Never-Ceasing Issue

EXCERPT: But the key point is that hitherto the labor movement had been the nation's most effective advocate for the economic advancement of all American workers eligible to legally work. With these position changes, the issue is open to question. Working people -- especially those on the lowest rungs of the economic ladder -- can no longer be assured that the most effective champion they have ever had is still there for them. The potential loss of public support for organized labor among the general populace may in the long run prove to be more costly than any short run tactical gains achieved by this shift in its advocacy position.

********

15. Be Our Guest: New immigration law? Enforce old ones first

EXCERPT: This insistence that the administration do its job isn't just whining. All these measures are part of an alternative to legalizing illegal immigrants -- a strategy sometimes called 'attrition through enforcement.' The goal is to enforce the law, across the board, to reduce the number of new illegal arrivals and increase the number of current illegals who give up and deport themselves.

The illegal population would then start shrinking from year to year, instead of constantly growing, gradually transforming what is now a crisis into a manageable nuisance. And we can get started without Congress passing a single new law.

********

16. Becoming American: U.S. Immigrant Integration

EXCERPT: What is America's central, core immigration issue? It is this: How is it possible to integrate the almost one million new legal immigrants who arrive here each year, on average, into the American national community? How do we help them to feel more at home here, while at the same time developing the emotional attachments that will truly help them think of themselves as more American than otherwise? Before the United States adds 12 million illegal immigrants and their families to our citizenship rolls, stimulates the inevitable yearly increase in illegal aliens who will wish to be strategically placed for the next 'status adjustment,' and adds them to the already record-breaking numbers of legal immigrants who arrive each year, it should seriously consider the 'attachment gap.'

********

17. Low Salaries for Low Skills: Wages and Skill Levels for H-1B Computer Workers, 2005

Panel discussion transcript, May 22, 2007

********

18. Faith-Based Approaches to Immigration Policy

EXCERPT: Leviticus 19 commands us to love the stranger. S.1348 is about greed, not love, and Leviticus 19 surely does not command us to exploit strangers as cheap labor or for partisan advantage. S.1348's reactionary, inhumane provision for 400,000-600,000 'guest workers' violates the Holiness Code of Leviticus that demands dignity for laborers, including the most humble. We are told to be 'holy because I the Lord am holy.' Our holiness is tested by how justly we treat laborers.

Cherry-picking the Bible to exploit poor immigrants at the expense of working-class and impoverished Americans -- African Americans especially -- to enrich wealthy employers is nothing less than sacrilege.





25 June, 2007

Labor group, Hispanics hit Senate bill

Labor and Hispanic groups yesterday told senators to scrap their immigration bill and go back to the drawing board, saying that the proposal now before the Senate has become too harsh on illegal aliens and a poor deal for U.S. workers. In separate press conferences, the Hispanic rights groups and labor leaders, including the AFL-CIO, joined a growing group of critics from both the left and the right who say current law is better than the immigration bill that President Bush and a small bipartisan group of senators are pushing. "This takes a problem we have and, instead of solving it, makes it worse," said Richard L. Trumka, secretary-treasurer of the AFL-CIO. He said the temporary-worker program that the bill sets up would hurt U.S. workers by providing a source of cheap labor that would depress Americans' wages.

Meanwhile from the immigrant-advocacy side, a handful of Hispanic groups yesterday said the Senate bill started off poorly, became worse after the first two weeks of amendments and is now unfixable. "Let's go back to the drawing board," said Lillian Rodriguez-Lopez, president of the Hispanic Federation.

That Senate bill collapsed two weeks ago when Republicans and Democrats demanded more time to try to pass amendments. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, moved last night to revive the bill, taking the first step to schedule a vote to force the bill back onto the floor.

The bill would combine legalization and a path to citizenship for illegal aliens with a guest-worker program for future foreign workers and a point system for future immigration that gives greater weight to people with needed skills or education. But opposition appears to have grown among voters, and a poll released earlier this week by Democratic strategists warned that Republicans can have success attacking Democrats on some parts of the immigration bill.

Source



La Raza's Lapdogs

Why the elite press won't report seriously on immigration

by Steve Sailer

Despite its tradition of editorializing in favor of openness and public participation, the prestige press offered virtually no complaints when the Senate recently voted to skip holding hearings on the convoluted "comprehensive immigration reform" package worked out behind closed doors by Sens. Ted Kennedy and John Kyl with Bush administration support. Nor did the mainstream media object when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced his intention to ram this vast concoction of highly debatable effect through the Senate in one week, a ploy that even Reid soon admitted was wrong.

You might think that our nation's elites would find immigration the single most fascinating domestic policy issue to explore. After all, besides ourselves, nothing is more interesting to us than other human beings. And few political questions would seem more compelling than which of the 6 billion foreigners we want to become our fellow citizens, neighbors, and, eventually, the ancestors of our descendents. Immigration policy directly affects nearly every other question of our day, from education and crime to economic inequality and healthcare costs.

Yet the national newspapers cover immigration with no more enthusiasm than they muster for local zoning board meetings. When they deign to discuss immigration at all, their approach is superficial and sentimental. Debate is routinely denounced as "divisive," as if democracy is the opposite of division. The palpable contempt the mainstream media radiates toward anyone well-informed about immigration contributes to the vapidity of its coverage.

An insightful economist, writing under the protection of anonymity, recently pointed out: "Power today very largely consists of being able to define what criticisms are off the wall, over the top, and out to lunch. . Those who wield it do not `run the world.' Rather they can block significant changes that reduce their power."

There may be no better example of this than how the powerful treat informed analysis of illegal immigration. For example, recall the Amnesty Baby Boom. What, you haven't heard of it? According to a 2002 study by demographers Laura E. Hill and Hans P. Johnson of the Public Policy Institute of California, due to the 1986 amnesty (another "comprehensive" compromise, combining legalization with enforcement provisions that were never enforced), "Between 1987 and 1991, total fertility rates for foreign-born Hispanics [in California] increased from 3.2 to 4.4" expected babies per woman over her lifetime. Why? "Many of those granted amnesty were joined later by spouses and relatives in the United States." This fertility explosion among former illegal aliens choked California's public schools, leading to the expenditure of over $20 billion for construction of new school buildings by the Los Angeles school district alone. It's not quite accurate to say that the PPIC study was tossed down the memory hole because it was never allowed out in the first place.

Why is respectable immigration reporting so one-sided, inane, and downright dull? Just as immigration is tied into every domestic issue, the failure to examine immigration intelligently illuminates much that is wrong with American intellectual discourse in general. Here are some reasons for this sorry state of affairs:

1. An aversion to working with numbers is common among intellectuals and media types. For instance, it's of some relevance to crafting immigration policy to know that 5 billion people live in countries with lower average per capita GDPs than Mexico. About a fifth of the 135 million people in the world of Mexican descent now reside in America, and another 40 million Mexicans tell pollsters they'd like to immigrate here. That suggests that if the Wall Street Journal editorial board had its way, and there were a constitutional amendment declaring, "There shall be open borders," at least a billion foreigners would try to move here. At a minimum, this quick estimate suggests that the WSJ's immigration views are mad. Yet these numbers are not at all well-known because few in public life have bothered to do the simple calculations required.

2. Views on illegal immigration may be the surest status symbol. A blithe attitude toward illegal immigration conveys your self-confidence that you don't have to worry about competition from Latin American peasants and that you can afford to insulate your children from their children. Moreover, your desire to keep down the wages of nannies, housekeepers, and pool boys by importing more cheap labor advertises that you are a member of the servant-employing upper-middle class.

3. While libertarians enjoy displaying their feelings of economic superiority- their Randian confidence that they can claw their way to the top of the heap no matter how overcrowded it gets-liberals feel that laxity on illegal immigration shows off their moral superiority. Celebrating diversity has been promoted for a generation now as the highest imaginable ethical value, so the ambitious compete to be seen espousing most fervently the reigning civic religion and damning most loudly any heretics who dare to speak up.

4. It is unfashionable to admit the existence of group statistical differences. The endless campaign in American society against stereotypes has reached the point that simple acts of pattern recognition demand reflexive debunking by citation of whatever contrary example is available. "Any exception disproves the tendency" appears to be the rule.

5. The media's dislike of reporting on averages is exacerbated by its love for man-bites-dog stories. The illegal immigrant who graduates from Cal Tech is news because it doesn't happen very often. In contrast, the consistently dismal performance of Latino students on average-by 12th grade, immigrants are five to six grade levels behind Anglo whites, while even American-born Hispanics trail by three to four grade levels -isn't news because it's boring and depressing.

6. Among the privileged, if a tree falls in the forest but it's not reported in the New York Times, it never happened. For example, the best estimate is that the Latino crime rate is roughly triple the Anglo white rate, which would not come as much of a surprise to anybody who doesn't live in a cave. Yet because the major media won't note differences in mean crime rates by ethnicity, this fact is considered outside the limits of acceptable discussion of immigration.

7. Another class marker of elite discourse is not letting the dreary realities of daily life sully discussions of affairs of state. Both average and elite Americans observe that the children and grandchildren of illegal immigrants are more likely to become disruptive students and to join street gangs, so they both try to find schools for their children far from them. While the typical citizen draws the additional lesson from this that our government should therefore work harder to enforce the laws against illegal immigration, inside the Beltway anyone noticing a connection between the personal and the political is looked down upon as a pathetic loser who needs help from his government.

8. For public consumption, you should act as if you believe that social construction is all powerful. We shouldn't worry about who or how many come to America because we can mold anybody into anything. Yet at the same time that elites propound the moral superiority of constructionism over selectionism, they compete furiously to get their children into the most selective colleges.

9. That the chief supporters of "comprehensive immigration reform"-the president, corporate America, Democratic Party chieftains, the Catholic Church, race racketeers, the educartel, and big media-represent more or less what a '60s radical would have decried as The Establishment does not raise doubts in the minds of contemporary wordsmiths. God may not always be on the side of the big battalions, but public intellectuals are these days.

10. Today, Republican vs. Democrat disputes use up most of the oxygen in the public square. The immigration debate doesn't follow partisan lines, so it doesn't attract much interest from the professional provocateurs in opinion journalism. In contrast, many reporters claim to deplore partisanship, so when those twin paragons of good judgment, Ted Kennedy and George W. Bush, team up to push a bipartisan "compromise," the bigfoots are naturally on board.

11. Ethnic nostalgia is common among Catholic and Jewish pundits. For example, Tamar Jacoby dedicated her book Reinventing the Melting Pot to "Aunt Bea, who was the last living link to my family's Ellis Island generation." Jacoby's support for mass immigration appears driven by resentment of those now long-dead "Anglo-Saxonists" who gave the fish eye to Aunt Bea back in Nineteen-Ought-Whatever. That American Jews today are in more danger from anti-Semitic immigrants than from WASPs is of little interest compared to re-fighting battles from the early 20th century.

12. Open borders enthusiasm often reflects covert hostility toward African-Americans. Hispanic illegal immigrants are slowly pushing African-Americans out of the most expensive cities, such as New York, which has been losing American-born blacks since 1979. And, let's be frank, many affluent whites are happy to see African-Americans go. The Latino influx can create a temporary dip in the crime rate. Illegal immigrants generally arrive at too mature an age to get involved in youth street gangs-but their sons, who grow up feeling territorial about their mean streets, flock to gangs.

In summary, the influential treat immigration as another topic on which they can exhibit their superiority by being oblivious to the obvious.

Source



A cut-rate college education for illegal aliens

It's no secret that the Senate immigration bill rewards 12-20 million illegal aliens with immediate amnesty. What is less well known is that the bill also allows illegal aliens to receive in-state tuition rates at public universities, discriminating against U.S. citizens from out of state and law-abiding foreign students. These provisions are buried deep in the Senate bill. They are part of the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act section.

The DREAM Act is a nightmare. It repeals a 1996 federal law that prohibits any state from offering in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens, unless the state also offers in-state tuition rates to all U.S. citizens. On top of that, the DREAM Act offers a fast track to U.S. citizenship for illegal aliens who attend college. On its own, the DREAM Act never stood a chance of passing - even in the Senate. Every scientific opinion poll on the subject has shown over 70 percent opposition to giving in-state tuition benefits to illegal aliens.

Not surprisingly, the DREAM Act languished in committee for five years - until the opportunity arose to hitch it to the Senate's "comprehensive" immigration bill of 2006. Now, Sen. Edward Kennedy and his allies have added it to this year's amnesty bill, too. They know that the only way to slip such bad legislation past the American people is to bury it in a comprehensive bill. To understand just what an insult to the rule of law the DREAM Act is, recall the events of the past 11 years.

In September 1996, in the landmark Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), Congress prohibited states from giving in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens. Members of Congress evidently never imagined that some states might simply disobey federal law. But that is precisely what happened. Beginning (predictably) with California and Texas, open-borders advocates in 10 states succeeded in passing legislation that openly violated federal law by offering in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens. The list includes some states right in the heart of America: California, Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and Washington. In most of these states, the law was passed under cover of darkness. The governors declined to hold signing ceremonies heralding the new law - because public opinion was overwhelmingly opposed to giving taxpayer-subsidized college education to illegal aliens.

Not surprisingly, when voters themselves decide the question, a very different result occurs. In November 2006 Arizona voters passed Proposition 300, which expressly barred Arizona universities from offering in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens. More than 71 percent voted in favor. The American people realize the injustice of giving illegal aliens a taxpayer-subsidized education when out-of-state U.S. citizens and law-abiding foreign students have to pay the full cost of their education. This gift to illegal aliens comes at a time when millions of U.S. citizens have had to mortgage their future to attend college. From 2002-07, college costs rose 35 percent after adjusting for inflation. Two-thirds of college students now graduate with debt, and the amount of debt averages $19,200. In a world of scarce education resources, U.S. citizens should be first in line to receive taxpayer subsidies - not aliens who violate federal law.

Worse, many of these 10 states are encouraging aliens to violate immigration laws. Their statutes actually require an alien to violate federal law before he can receive the tuition discount. Foreign students with valid visas need not apply. Talk about perverse incentives.

In July 2004, a group of U.S. citizen students from out of state filed suit in federal court in Kansas to enjoin the state from providing in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens. The case is currently before the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Meanwhile, in December 2005, another group of U.S.-citizen students filed a similar suit in California state court. That case is before the California Court of Appeals.

Now, just when it looks like U.S. citizens might finally bring the lawbreaking states into line, the DREAM Act provisions of the Senate immigration bill would change federal law and allow states to offer in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens currently in the country. On top of this, DREAM Act beneficiaries would enjoy a special fast track to green-card status and citizenship. Illegal aliens younger than 30 who entered the country before age 16 and subsequently enrolled in college would be eligible for green cards in only three years - even if they haven't completed their degrees. No such fast track exists for law-abiding foreign students. The illegal aliens would also be eligible for federal student loans and federal work-study programs - another benefit that law-abiding foreign students cannot receive. And all of it comes at taxpayer expense. A consistent theme emerges: Illegal aliens are treated much more favorably than aliens who follow the law. There is no penalty for illegal behavior.

The Senate bill applies the same distorted logic to the 10 states that have defied federal law simply because they don't like it. The DREAM Act would overlook their offense and invite other states to follow their lead. One thing we have learned in the struggle to enforce our nation's immigration laws is that states cannot be allowed to undermine the efforts of the federal government to enforce the law. Only if all levels of government are working in concert to uphold the rule of law can it be fully restored.

Source





24 June, 2007

Republican Support For Stalled Immigration Bill Waning

Senate Republicans are beginning to galvanize opposition to the immigration overhaul that President George Bush has made a domestic priority. Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, speaking to Bloomberg Television, said the way in which the White House and the bipartisan group brought the bill forward has posed some problems. "We're beginning to see some of the people that would have ordinarily voted to proceed with the bill to say, `hey, this process is not fair, it's not transparent,''' Senator Cornyn said. Among those Republicans who Senator Cornyn cited: Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas and Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson of Georgia

On June 26, to inch the bill forward, 60 senators will have to vote to resume debate on the thorny issue. The bill, which would give 12 million immigrants in the U.S. illegally a path to citizenship and create a guest worker program, has been criticized for not doing enough to protect the nation's borders.

One of the major sticking points is a provision that would allow illegal immigrants who entered the country before Jan. 1 to apply for Z visas, which would enable them to live and work in the United States legally. In addition to paying an initial $1,000 fine, they would have to pass criminal background checks and remain employed.

The previous vote on the legislation, on June 7, was 15 short of the total needed. To attract Republican votes, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada has suggested that the Democratic and Republican caucuses would each be able to put forth 12 amendments.

Source



Robots to replace illegals?



As if the debate over immigration and guest worker programs wasn't complicated enough, now a couple of robots are rolling into the middle of it. Vision Robotics, a San Diego company, is working on a pair of robots that would trundle through orchards plucking oranges, apples or other fruit from the trees. In a few years, troops of these machines could perform the tedious and labor-intensive task of fruit picking that currently employs thousands of migrant workers each season.

The robotic work has been funded entirely by agricultural associations, and pushed forward by the uncertainty surrounding the migrant labor force. Farmers are "very, very nervous about the availability and cost of labor in the near future," says Vision Robotics CEO Derek Morikawa. It's a surprising new market for Vision Robotics, which had been focused on developing consumer devices, including a robotic vacuum cleaner to compete with iRobot's Roomba.

When a member of the California Citrus Research Board approached the company in 2004, Morikawa was doubtful that an effective robotic picker was even feasible. A citrus grower brought the skeptical engineers to an orange farm in California's fertile Central Valley, where they walked down the neat rows of trees and stared at the oranges hanging in the branches.

Previous attempts at making a mechanical harvester were thwarted by inefficiency, explains Morikawa. In the past, experimental machines approached a tree as a human would, picking one piece of fruit and then looking for the next. In this slow process, the machine circled the tree repeatedly until it was sure it had picked all the fruit.

Morikawa says his engineers had their breakthrough idea right there in the orange grove. They realized that the task could be divided between two robots: One would locate all the oranges, and the second would pick them. "Once you know where all the fruit is, then it becomes an easy job to calculate the most efficient way to pick it all," says Morikawa.

But it wasn't just technological challenges that held back previous attempts at building a mechanical harvester -- politics got involved, too. Cesar Chavez, the legendary leader of the United Farm Workers, began a campaign against mechanization back in 1978. Chavez was outraged that the federal government was funding research and development on agricultural machines, but not spending any money to aid the farm workers who would be displaced. In the '80s, that simmering anger merged with a growing realization that the technology was nowhere near ready, and government funding dried up.

This time around, growers' associations are funding the research. By the end of this year, the orange growers will have invested almost $1 million in the project, says Ted Baskin, president of the California Citrus Research Board. He estimates that it will take about $5 million more to get to the finished product

Source



23 June, 2007

Fraudulent documents easy to obtain

We're on the streets of Juarez, a few feet from the bridge leading across the U.S. border. NBC News producers with hidden cameras came here this week to see how easy it is to get fraudulent documents to enter the U.S. The first offer came within 15 minutes. A man offered U.S. residency and Social Security cards for $1,000.

For about $500, we could rent what is known as a lookalike document — a real "green card" — with a photo of someone resembling our undercover producer. Because the document is authentic, it will pass inspection unless a customs officer notices the photo doesn't match the person. Another man wants $400 to rent us a lookalike passport long enough to cross the border, where his female partner would retrieve it so it can be used again.

"The investigative aggressiveness of our enforcement agencies, both American and Mexican down around the border, are obviously very weak, because these people are operating so out in the open," says Michael Sheehan, an NBC News terrorism analyst.

Experts say, since 9/11, U.S. border agents have gotten somewhat better at spotting fraudulent documents. Many of those documents end up at a forensics lab outside Washington to be analyzed for the latest ploys. U.S. officials say so far this year, some 15,000 bogus documents have been confiscated along the southern border. There are no numbers on how many people actually entered the U.S. using fraudulent documents.

"It's a cat and mouse game," says Michael Everitt, director of the Forensic Document Laboratory at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. "Every time we make an advance, the bad guys, you know, they try to figure out another way to exploit the system." There's also a problem on this side of the border. Near downtown Los Angeles, fake documents are sold openly.

Source



Update on What's Happening With The Senate Immigration Bill

Post lifted from John Hawkins. See the original for links

Yesterday, a GOP aide, who is one of my sources in the Senate, gave me the rundown on what's currently happening with the Senate immigration bill (You can see my two previous reports from this source here and here).

To begin with, the key thing to keep in mind about the upcoming vote on the Senate immigration bill is that the pro-amnesty forces have two key cloture votes that they have to win. The first is the vote on the so-called "clay pigeon" strategy. What this does is take the original bill and all of its amendments and reintroduce it on the Senate floor as a new bill. There are two reasons for doing this. The first is to prevent killer amendments that could upset the "grand compromise" from being voted on. The second reason is procedural, because it keeps conservative Senators who are opposed to the bill from being able to slow up the process.

However, in order for the bill and the previous amendments to be offered on the floor of the Senate as a new bill, it will take the cooperation of both Democratic and Republican leadership, along with 60 votes for cloture. The conventional wisdom has been that this first cloture vote is a done deal because the Senate leadership has been wheeling and dealing behind the scenes. The way it works is that they go to a Senator and offer to allow a vote on their Amendment IF -- and only if -- that Senator agrees to vote for cloture on the "clay pigeon" strategy.

My source tells me that this has left a sour taste in the mouth of a number of Republican Senators who are upset that Mitch McConnell is cooperating with Harry Reid to curtail the rights of Republican Senators. Moreover, there's a growing fear that a dangerous precedent is being set here that could be used against Republican Senators again and again as long as they're in the minority. After all, if the "clay pigeon" strategy is used against conservatives on the immigration issue, who's to say it won't also be used against them on any number of issues in the future? According to my source, this is causing a lot of nervousness amongst Republican Senators and it has Mitch McConnell acting very defensive behind closed doors about working with Harry Reid to roll members of his own caucus. Because of this issue, my source tells me that the vote for the "clay pigeon" strategy is no longer a slam dunk and it is possible that the "grand bargainers" may not be able to get 60 votes to put the bill on the floor as a new bill. If that turns out to be the case, the bill is dead.

Then, if the bill does make it to the floor, there will be 22 amendments offered. These amendments have been carefully selected by the combined Democratic/Republican leadership to try to make sure that no deal breakers can make it through. Still, my source tells me that every amendment has the potential to be problematic for the grand bargainers, because the vote count is very close. If certain amendments pass, it could cost votes. On the other hand, some Senators may very well decide not to vote for the bill if their amendments don't pass. But, once the votes on the amendments are through, there will be another key vote for cloture and whether it will get the 60 votes is anyone's guess at this point. Then, of course, if they do get the 60 votes for cloture, there will be a final vote for the bill, but since only 50 votes are needed, it will be almost guaranteed to pass.

Summary: My source tells me that he thought the amnesty proponents definitely had the upper hand last week, but now, he thinks the momentum may be swinging back the other way. He also said that he thinks the best chance to stop the bill will be on the initial cloture vote. He said that he's hoping that a coalition of conservatives who think this is a bad bill, liberals who think this bill is too tough, and Republican Senators worried about losing minority rights because of the "clay pigeon" strategy will get together and block the bill. If that doesn't happen, the pro-amnesty side won't have won, but the odds will shift a bit more in their favor.

PS #1: I pointed out that John Edwards and Claire McCaskill have made some extremely negative comments about the bill and asked my source if it's possible that Democratic opposition could increase enough to kill the bill. He said it was possible, but he thought Harry Reid was capable of strong arming the Democrats enough to keep them from losing many votes. Of course, he also added that he's not sure that Harry Reid really wants to see this bill pass, so he's not sure how hard he would fight for it. Either way, he said not to count on the Democrats to finish off the bill.

PS #2: I asked him about Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss announcing that they will vote against cloture. My source's take was that it wasn't a bill killer, but that it was significant since both of them were prominent early supporters of the bill. He added that he thought their switch was indicative of the pressure Republicans are feeling at the grass roots level and he said that he thought Isakson and Chambliss deserved credit for paying attention to it while a lot of pro-amnesty supporters have tuned it out or even shut off their answering machines because they're tired of hearing their constituents complain about this issue.

PS #3: Last but not least, I talked to my source about the shots Trent Lott and Lindsey Graham have taken at people opposed to the bill. My source replied that when this whole thing started, these guys were cocky and thought they'd get this bill through with 70 votes, no problem. But now, because of the blogs and talk radio, they've lost the public debate on the issue and they know it. So, at this point, they're way out on a limb supporting a wildly unpopular bill that may or may not pass, and they're lashing out in frustration. He added that a lot of Republican Senators have been offended and embarrassed by their comments and are worried that the voters will lump them in with Graham and Lott.





22 June, 2007

Easiest to enter Britain illegally

Sounds a lot like the USA

HOLIDAYMAKERS who only say they plan to sightsee during a visit to Britain could find their tourist visa applications being refused, a monitoring body said in a report. It is a standard reason given for not granting tourist visas, the Independent Monitor for Entry Clearance Refusals, Linda Costelloe Baker, found in her annual report. Would-be visitors who have never before travelled abroad could also find it difficult to holiday in Britain.

Costelloe Baker cited one case where an applicant had been told by an officer: "You have never previously undertaken any foreign travel before and I can see little reason for this trip." "This is a common reason for refusal," she added. "Entry clearance officers can use some ridiculous reasons when refusing a visa for tourist visits," Costelloe Baker said. She cited one case where an applicant who had previously travelled abroad was refused entry because the countries were "nowhere near the UK". In another case the applicant was told he or she did not have a "sufficient command of the language for the purposes of tourism".

Costelloe Baker said in her report: "Well, if knowledge of the language was a requirement for travel, that would certainly stop lots of British citizens going on their hols." Taking annual vacation in this country was not a good enough reason for one entry clearance officer, while wanting to visit friends near the seaside fell short for another applicant from St Petersburg because he had not said where he wanted to visit.

A would-be tourist who wanted to stay in a hotel in London while visiting friends in Surrey and Kent was turned down because the entry officer had misread it as Cirencester "far from his friends".

Despite such flaws there had been a "significant improvement in quality", she added. The department, UKvisas, formed in 2000 as a joint Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Home Office initiative, received 2.2 million applications between January 2006 and September 2006, of which it issued 1.8 million visas. Costelloe Baker found 86 percent of refusal notices overall were reasonable and provided correct information about the rights of appeal.

Source



As Immigrant Workers Increased, Native Employment Declined in Georgia

Some businesses in Georgia argue that they need large numbers of immigrants because there are not enough native-born Americans to fill jobs that require relatively little education. However, state employment data show that as the number of less-educated immigrant workers has grown dramatically, the share of less-educated natives holding a job in Georgia has declined significantly.

# Between 2000 and 2006 the share of less-educated native-born adults (ages 18 to 64) in Georgia holding a job declined from 71 percent to 66 percent. (Less-educated is defined as having no education beyond high school.)

# Had employment rates for natives been the same in 2006 as they were in 2000, then 186,000 more less-educated native-born adults and teenagers would have been working. The number of less-educated immigrants holding a job increased by 218,000.

# Less-educated blacks in Georgia have seen a somewhat larger decline in employment, from 66 percent holding a job in 2000 to just 60 percent in 2006.

# There are nearly 800,000 less-educated native-born adults in Georgia not working. There are likely between 250,000 and 350,000 less-educated illegal aliens holding jobs in the state.

# Wages and salary for less-educated adults in Georgia have stagnated. Over the entire six-year time period of the study, real annual wages for less-educated adults grew by just 1 percent. If there was a labor shortage, wages should be rising fast.

# Native-born teenagers (15 to 17 years of age) have also seen a dramatic decline in employment. Between 2000 and 2006 the share of native-born teenagers holding a job declined from 22 percent to 11 percent in the state.

# There are about 300,000 native-born teenagers not working in Georgia.

# Immigrants (legal and illegal) increased their share of all less-educated workers in Georgia, from 7 percent in 2000 to 19 percent by 2006. Other research indicates that at least half of this growth was from illegal immigrants.

Discussion: It would be a mistake to think that every job taken by an immigrant is a job lost by a native. However, it would also be a mistake to think that the kind of dramatic increase in immigrant workers that has taken place in Georgia does not have serious implications for the employment of less-educated natives there. The natives impacted by immigrant competition are already the poorest workers and have the lowest rates of employment. This raises important questions about the fairness of creating so much job competition at the bottom end of the labor market through our immigration policies.

There would seem to be a huge supply of less-educated native-born adults and teenagers in the state to meet the needs of businesses. Of course, a large share of persons who are not in the labor force do not wish to work. But it is also clear that many would be willing to do so if properly paid and treated by employers. This is especially true in light of the fact that so many less-educated natives who are not working were in fact working as recently as 2000.

If, for example, immigration laws were enforced and this resulted in say two-thirds of illegal immigrants leaving the state, it would mean that employers would have to find about 200,000 workers to replace them. Given the very large size of the non-working population in the Georgia, replacing illegal workers would seem to be very possible. Again, assuming they are properly paid and treated properly. It is worth noting that businesses in the state could attract natives from other parts of the country with weaker economies if the large existing pool of less-educated natives in the state was still found to be inadequate. There is also the option of utilizing labor-saving devices and techniques.

While the decline in employment among less-educated natives in Georgia is not in dispute, some may feel that immigrants have little to do with it because they work very different jobs than do natives. While there are some differences in the concentration of immigrants and natives across occupations, the fact remains that less-educated immigrants and less-educated natives very often do the same kinds of work. If we look at the top-five occupational categories done by less-educated immigrants we find that 44 percent of less-educated natives are employed in these same occupations. These include building cleaning and maintenance, construction, production, food preparation and service, and transportation and moving occupations.

Other Research: In a paper published last year by the Center for Immigration Studies, Andrew Sum and his colleagues at Northeastern University found that the arrival of new immigrants (legal and illegal) in a state results in a decline in employment among young native born workers in that state. Their findings indicate that young native born workers are being displaced in the labor market by the arrival of new immigrants. In another recent paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research (Working paper 12518), the authors found that immigration was responsible for 40 percent of the decline in black employment between 1980 and 2000.

Data Sources: The data for this analysis come from the Annual Social and Economic Supplement of the Current Population Survey (CPS) collected by the Census Bureau in March of each year. It includes legal immigrants and most illegal immigrants. The occupational data discussed above was based on a combined sample of March 2005 and 2006 CPS. We combined two years to get more statistically robust estimates by occupation for the state of Georgia.

Source





21 June, 2007

Federal judge halts Farmers Branch immigration law

A federal judge has blocked the Dallas suburb of Farmers Branch from enforcing a voter-approved law that prohibits landlords from renting apartments to illegal immigrants. The judge has issued a preliminary injunction until a legal challenge to the law is resolved.

The lead attorney for three apartment complexes suing Farmers Branch says they're preparing for a trial. They plan to seek millions in damages for the business they've lost since the ordinance was approved in May. An attorney for Farmers Branch says the city has the right to inquire of apartment renters whether they're legally entitled to live in the United States.

Source



The work open-border libertarians won't do

Open-border fundamentalists seldom address devastating arguments against their case. Maybe they can't. But they generally prefer to respond to philosophically limp positions. Immigration fetishists seem to like advancing positions not worth a straw.

The intellectually honest, however, will try to reply to a valid opposing argument, no matter who makes it. Unless he can't. Then he must concede defeat. Alas, among the open-border claque, intellectual honesty is as scarce as unskilled labor is abundant across the land. The scrappy Tibor Machan is one exception. A scholar and a friend, Machan possesses the intellectual energy and honesty to address the hitherto unchallenged arguments I've put forward in opposition to mass immigration.

First some background. While he is no Tamar Jacoby (for one, he's prettier), Tibor has expressed, in a column for the Orange County Register, doubts about the findings that, overall, immigrants cost taxpayers more than they contribute. Jacoby just denies facts such as those released by the National Academy of Sciences and relayed by the Heritage Foundation. Accordingly, "each immigrant without a high school degree will cost U.S. taxpayers, on average, $89,000 over the course of his or her lifetime." Having tallied the number of illegal and legal low-skill, uneducated immigrants, the NAS has estimated "in total, all immigrants without a high school education could impose a net cost on U.S. taxpayers of around 1 trillion dollars or more. If the cost of educating the immigrants' children is included, that figure could reach 2 trillion dollars."

It's not clear why clever people consider these facts counterintuitive. The immigration "reforms" of the 1960s launched an era of egalitarian policies which gave preference to Third World immigrants, who were then selected not for their skill or education, but for their family ties to a principal sponsor. Such a policy guaranteed the importation of masses of poor, less accomplished, dependent individuals. A finding to the contrary would be newsworthy.

Missing from the current debate about illegal immigration, argues Machan, is a recognition that "the welfare state is the underlying fundamental problem. Until that system is abolished, until a revolutionary change occurs and no Peter is looted for the sake of any Paul - whether poor, rich, legal or illegal - there will be no solution to the illegal immigration problem." In the column "Welfare State and Illegal Immigration," Tibor repeats an uncontested, standard libertarian stance: "The immorality begins not with putting illegal immigrants on the welfare rolls or transferring to them costly services at the expense of American citizens. The immorality lies in the welfare state itself, in the government's policy of coercive wealth redistribution."

The problem with so many libertarian formulations is that they do not respect reality. Rather, they hold up the libertarian ideal, lament its unattainablility, and refuse to debate the issue until the ideal is achieved. That's intellectually lazy. It's also an affront to reality, the rational man's anchor.

And the reality is the American welfare state is accreting, not shrinking. The reality is the more libertarians support the importation of impoverished minorities, with a tradition of aggressively manipulating the political apparatus to obtain property not theirs, the more intractable the welfare state will become. How better to diminish property rights and accelerate wealth distribution and, with it, the death of the republic, than to add to the "union" each year the equivalent of a New Jersey, fueled by identity-politics and consisting predominantly of tax consumers seeking to indenture taxpayers? Witness how, when thousands of non-voting illegal aliens poured into the streets recently to demand their positive, man-manufactured, bogus rights, their elected officials and El Presidente (Bush) came up with a bill that would grant the protesters their wishes.

To the meat of my argument: From the fact that taxpayer-funded welfare for nationals is morally wrong, as Machan rightly avers, why does it follow that extending it to millions of unviable non-nationals is economically and morally negligible? Or that it remotely comports with the libertarian goal of curtailing government growth? How is this stock-in-trade, truncated argument different from positing that because a bank has been robbed by one band of bandits (welfare-dependant nationals), repelling or arresting the next (welfare-dependent non-nationals) is unnecessary because the damage has already been done?

This craven indifference to property proponents of mass immigration extend to the lives snuffed out in crimes committed by illegal aliens. Bob Clark, director of one of the most delightful films ever made, "A Christmas Story," and his 24-year-old son were both killed by a drunk, unlicensed, allegedly illegal alien. Geraldo and Jacoby, the teletwits of amnesty, both asserted that the illegality of the perp is irrelevant to the crime. "It's not an illegal alien story; it's a drunk driving story," Geraldo noodled on "The Factor."

Geraldo was serious, although he should not be taken seriously. So here's my next question: For the Geraldo/Jacoby crushingly stupid claim to stick, they would have to demonstrate that had this drunk, allegedly illegal alien been stopped at the border or been deported, his victims would have nevertheless suffered the same fate. If you leave the door to your home intentionally open (as Bush has), and advertise your hippie habits around the hood (as Bush does), can you honestly claim that the robbery, abduction, rape or murder of your charges was unavoidable? (And that you are unimpeachable?) I'll let professor Machan do the work libertarians won't do.

Source



Illegals flooding little Malta

A migrant flood has overwhelmed the tiny sun-splashed island nation of Malta over the past five years, stirring charges of human-rights violations, taxing the nation's tiny navy and fueling xenophobia. The rocky archipelago, about 55 miles off the coast of Sicily, is best known as a tourist destination. But the start of summer brings mostly African migrants, crossing the Mediterranean in rickety overcrowded boats, on their way to seeking a better life in Europe. Boatloads appear almost daily. "All of a sudden we saw quite a phenomenon; hundreds and hundreds of migrants started appearing in our waters," said Lt. Col. Emmanuel Mallia, the officer in charge of Malta's air, land and sea operations.

Malta's embattled government made a fresh plea last week for EU assistance after the military detained another 28 illegal migrants and Interior Minister Tonio Borg warned that hundreds of others were dying trying to reach Europe. "The situation right now is a complete mess, it's a free for all," he told his EU counterparts, days after immigrants whose boat capsized were left clinging to a fishing net for three days while Mediterranean nations argued over who was responsible for them.

For those who reach this 122-square-mile outcropping of limestone and medieval fortifications, where more than 1,900 people reside per square-mile and jobs are scarce, the relief of survival is quickly followed by the realization that the journey is over. Upon arrival, migrants deemed to be from "safe" countries like Egypt or Morocco are immediately deported, but the rest spend up to a year and a half locked in detention centers while their cases are assessed. Once released, they are moved to open centers or tent cities. But, due to European Union regulations, even those who are granted asylum or humanitarian protection are barred from leaving the country.

Escape from the island is near impossible. "Malta's a stone in the sea," said Somali immigrant Mohammed Abdullahi Hassan, who has dreams of living elsewhere in Europe or even the United States. "There's no way to go back," said Warsame Ali Garare, who fled lawless Mogadishu nearly four years ago. There also is "no way to go to another European country, no way to integrate properly in this community. I don't see my future in general," he said.

Malta's annual intake of about 1,800 migrants is small when compared to the 37,000 "boat people" disgorged in southern Spain, mostly via the Canary Islands, and the 22,000 who washed up in Italy last year. But, given the country's population of 400,000, roughly the same as Omaha, Neb., "every migrant that lands in Malta is like 200 landing in Spain," Lt. Col. Mallia said. Meantime, the Maltese, a homogenous, Roman Catholic society that until recently saw few immigrants, feel under siege from the foreigners - at least half of whom are Muslim. "We have to give them help when they come here, but not for a long time," said Carmen Bongailas, who sells jewelry at a small market in Birkirkara, the country's largest city. "If they would continue to come to Malta . and Malta is a small place . they could overtake us," she said.

Further fueling tensions are worries that terrorists could use Malta as a jumping-off point for attacks in Europe. In April, it was reported that a Libyan terrorist arrested in Britain made it from Malta to the United Kingdom in 2002 after paying smugglers 2,000 British pounds ($3,977). The man, identified as "AS" is "an Islamic extremist who has engaged actively and as a senior member with a terrorist group clearly engaged in support work for jihadist activities," wrote Britain's Special Immigration Appeals Commission, adding that his cell was probably about to go into the operational stage of an attack in Europe.

Not unlike the pattern in other European nations, the tide of immigrants has strengthened far-right political parties. Immigrants "are heading for Europe because it's like the American dream; they're just taking advantage of us," said Martin Degiorgio, spokesperson for the Republican National Alliance, adding that even genuine refugees could have opted to go to other African countries. If migrants can't be repatriated, "we cannot allow them out of (closed) detention centers," said Degiorgio, whose license plate reads "DVX", which is Latin for "Duce," the title adopted by Italy's World War II fascist leader Benito Mussolini.

Not unexpectedly, the tension has triggered racist incidents and sentiments. "The buses are full of black people and they smell," said Manuel Attard, a taxi driver from Birzebbuga, a town near a large immigrant tent city. Meantime, attacks have been carried out on both immigrants and groups that work with them, including several arsons on homes and vehicles belonging to Jesuit Refugee Service workers.

More here





20 June, 2007

Some outrageous provisions in the Senate bill

Here is a 3-minute video explaining the Amnesty Bill that Congress is trying to pass. I think most people will be amazed. Click here



A Bipartisan Compromise or a Conservative Sellout?

It is the conventional wisdom in many quarters that the soon-to-be-revived immigration bill is a good thing, because it is the result of a grand bipartisan compromise. Leaving aside the implied notion that bipartisan compromises are somehow inherently good, the above is a completely inaccurate assessment of this piece of legislation. If the bill indeed represents a compromise what is there in it for conservatives? In the open borders and across-the-board amnesty liberals have been handed everything they have ever wanted in connection with immigration. Conservatives, on the other hand, have been given... er... er... er... Never mind. The bill is a great compromise anyway.

One should always become suspicious when the media and political establishment hail anything as a bipartisan compromise. What this usually means is that the Republicans have come out of the `negotiation' process laughably empty-handed. In return for their gullibility, they get a couple of favorable pieces in print and invitations on leftwing TV network talk shows where they are praised for their sound judgment and wisdom. The adoration invariably lasts until the next time they vote on conservative principle or run against a liberal opponent, whichever comes first.

We know that things are getting really bad when Republicans are targeted for praise by their sworn enemies for putting the good of the country above conservative allegiances. It is a truth not often spoken but plainly obvious that many liberals do not like their own country and consequently pursue policies which they hope will harm it. Nothing could illustrate this better than the current immigration bill, for how can the open borders and amnesty be good for America? Only a madman or a seriously deluded republican could ever think so.

Rather than letting themselves be played for suckers, Senate Republicans would do well to read the first page of the liberal playbook which is inscribed with Winston Churchill's famous dictum:

"Never give in, never give in, never; never; never; never - in nothing, great or small, large or petty - never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense."

The first part liberals heed with fanatical zeal as they would rather shout `bigot' and `racist' a thousand times than to give one inch to the other side. The latter part they also keep close to their hearts but in a perfectly inverted manner, ready as they are always to give in where honor and good sense are concerned. This is why they almost never tell the truth or advocate policies that actually work. Case in point: open borders and amnesties.

If anything, the Democrats must have been shocked by how easily they got everything they could ever dream of in that grand `compromise.' The Republican sellout was complete and, somewhat surprisingly, entirely voluntary. The Democrats received it all on a silver platter and they did not even have to dance for it.

To be fair, there was one issue where the Republicans were prepared to drive a hard bargain. On May 23, Senator John Cornyn introduced an amendment which would have made felons ineligible for the proposed amnesty. Needless to say, the Democrats - in the spirit of bipartisanship - categorically refused to give any ground and the Cornyn amendment went down to a stinging defeat. One can almost hear the celebrations in the illegal felon ranks.

The immigration bill travesty has brought home one truth which many conservatives have long tried to ignore - many among the Washington Republicans are for all practical purposes merely moderate liberals in disguise. Disquieting as it is, extravagant spending, burgeoning government bureaucracies, cynical earmarking, needless deficits and uncontrolled immigration are no longer exclusively Democrat priorities. Having essentially the same objectives as their more radical colleagues on the other side, the only real difference is the pace at which Republicans strive to bring these about.

The one clearly remaining difference is in the area of military and foreign policy where Democrats doggedly and unashamedly strive for America's defeat. But there are signs that some Republicans are at last coming around on this issue as well.

It is as telling as it is worrisome that Teddy Kennedy has become the favorite of many D.C. Republicans. George W. Bush, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Michael Chertoff and Jon Kyl are only some among many who have in recent months heaped praise and plaudits on the man whom USA Today calls the Lion of Massachusetts. It apparently does not bother them that during his four decades in the Senate this man has wrought incalculable damage on the United States much of which was effected through his support and sponsorship of bungled immigration legislation in the past.

The Republican love affair with Kennedy is difficult to understand given that even many Democrats - especially those seeking office - are loath to publicly taunt their ties with him. How often do we see Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or John Edwards these days boasting about their friendship with Teddy Kennedy as they traverse America in hunt for votes? They know better, aware as they are of just how despised he is by the majority of the American electorate.

The Washington Republicans, however, have for some reason failed to take note of this. One really wonders what kind of spell Kennedy has cast on those feckless ones to snooker them so. I am really starting to suspect that the Lion of Massachusetts is in possession of some dark powers of which we know nothing about.

If this is indeed so, we better quickly find what they are and come up with an antidote to his black magic as time is running out fast. A heightened sense of urgency should be the order of the day for all those who care for this country's continued well-being, because America may not survive another Kennedy-induced immigration disaster.

Source



Senate Proposal is Full of Holes

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) has been a stalwart proponent of curbing illegal immigration and reforming the legal immigration apparatus in a truly meaningful manner. To that end, on June 4, in the middle of the first round of floor debate on the so-called "grand bargain" immigration bill, Sen. Sessions issued a press release listing egregious loopholes in the proposal, including "flaws effecting border security, chain-migration and assimilation policies."

In prefacing the list, Sen. Sessions indicated that he is "deeply concerned about the numerous loopholes.found in this legislation," which he sees as "more than technical errors, but rather symptoms of a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation that stands no chance of actually fixing our broken immigration system." Furthermore, Sen. Sessions said, "Many of the loopholes are indicative of a desire not to have the system work."

Flaw No. 1: Sen. Sessions pointed to perhaps the biggest flaw by noting that the "'enforcement trigger' fails to require the U.S. VISIT system - the biometric border check-in/check-out system established by Congress in 1996, but never implemented - to be fully functioning before new worker or amnesty programs begin. Without the system in place, the U.S. has no method of ensuring that workers and their families do not overstay their visas."

Flaw No. 2: While most Americans tell pollsters they want less immigration, this bill dramatically increases overall immigration. It TRIPLES chain migration through the year 2016 - all the while sanctioning a mass importation of low-skill foreign workers and, by extension, a mass importation of poverty into this country.

Flaw No. 3: Illegal aliens get "legal status before enforcement" begins;

Flaw No. 4: The "triggers" require "no more agents, beds, or fencing than current law" mandates;

Flaw No. 5: The completion of background checks, including checks against criminal and terrorist databases, is "not required for" the granting of amnesty (in this bill, it is referred to as "probationary status").

Flaw No. 6: Criminals of all kinds - including gang members, some child molesters, and absconders (i.e., "aliens who have already had their day in court and who are now subject to.removal" [covering "more than 636,000 fugitives") are eligible for the bill's mass amnesty;

Flaw No. 7: "Illegal aliens with terrorism connections are not barred from getting amnesty. An illegal alien seeking most immigration benefits must merely show 'good moral character.'"

Flaw No. 8: Illegal aliens granted amnesty or guestworkers imported via the new "Y" "temporary worker" program can claim the Earned Income Tax Credit, which "will cost taxpayers billions in just 10 years";

Flaw No. 9: "Affidavits from friends" are acceptable as evidence of satisfying requirements for amnesty, thus "invit fraud and more illegal immigration";

Flaw No. 10: "In-state tuition and other higher education benefits.will be made available to current illegal aliens that are granted [amnesty>, even if the same instate tuition rates are not offered to all U.S . citizens," a violation of current Federal law, which "mandates that educational institutions give citizens the same postsecondary education benefits they offer to illegal aliens";

Flaw No. 11: New visas are created for individuals who are prone to overstaying their period of authorized admission - namely, the new "parent" visa, which allows parents of citizens, and the spouses and children of new temporary workers, to visit a worker in the United States. Not only is this term "a misnomer, but also an invitation for high rates of visa overstays" because it "specifically allows the spouse and children of new temporary workers who intend to abandon their residence in a foreign country, to qualify to come to the U.S. to 'visit.'" To obtain the visa, one must only post a $1,000 bond, "which will be forfeited when, not if, family members of new temporary workers decide to overstay their 30 day visit. Workers should travel to their home countries to visit their families, not the other way around";

Flaw No. 12: To be granted amnesty, illegal aliens need not pay back income taxes;

Flaw No. 13: Social Security credits for work done while in the United States illegally will be granted to "[aliens who came to the U.S. on legal visas, but overstayed their visas and have been working in the U.S . for years, as well as illegal aliens who apply for Z visa status but do not qualify"; and

Flaw No. 14: "The criminal fines an illegal alien is required to pay to receive amnesty are less than the bill's criminal fines for paperwork violations committed by U.S. citizens, and can be paid by installment," which means that "the fine for illegally entering, using false documents to work, one-tenth the fine for a paperwork violation committed by a government official."





19 June, 2007

A succinct comment from Mark Steyn

The illegal immigration question is an interesting test of government in action, at least when it comes to core responsibilities like defense of the nation. When critics of this "comprehensive" immigration bill demand enforcement of the borders, the administration says: Boy, you're right there! We're with you on that! We want enforcement, too. But we can't get it as long as you're holding up this "comprehensive reform."

Why not? There are immigration laws on the books right now, aren't there? Why not try enforcing them? The same people who say that government is a mighty power for good that can extinguish every cigarette butt and detoxify every cheeseburger and even change the very climate of the planet back to some Edenic state so that the water that falleth from heaven will land as ice and snow, and polar bears on distant continents will frolic as they did in days of yore, the very same people say: Building a border fence? Enforcing deportation orders? Can't be done, old boy. Pie-in-the-sky.

Source



Who is Illiberal on Immigration?

By V.D. Hanson

The collapse last week of a comprehensive immigration bill in Congress that called for a huge guest-worker program, fast-track visas and a sort of earned citizenship for illegal aliens has unleashed a backlash against those opponents of it who prefer to close the border first and legislate the details of illegal immigration later.

Washington pundits and Beltway politicians are furious at various critics of the bill, from radio talk show hosts and writers for conservative magazines to frontline congressional representatives and Republican presidential candidates like Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson.

These critics are dubbed cynical nativists - or racists - who have demagogued the issue and scapegoated hardworking illegal aliens. Even President Bush got into the fray when he alleged that conservative obstructionists were somehow not working in America's best interests.

But who's really being cynical when it comes to illegal immigration? The government? Of course. It has caved to pressure groups for over a quarter-century. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 ensured neither reform nor control. Instead, the law simply resulted in millions entering the United States through blanket amnesty and de facto open borders. In many cities, current municipal laws bar police officers from turning arrested illegal aliens over to immigration officials. So why should the public believe that the proposed new law, with hundreds of pages of rules and regulations, would trump local obstructionism or effect any real change?

Had the bill passed, could we really have expected that the first impoverished alien unable to pay the fee or fine under its provisions would have been sent summarily home? More likely, he would have appeared on the 6 o'clock news as a victim of American mean-spiritedness and racism - and thereby instead won a reprieve or an outright apology.

Congressional supporters of the present legislation are themselves often engaging in politics of the most cynical kind. Rare "bipartisan" cooperation on the bill, which brought Sen. Trent Lott from Mississippi to the side of Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy, is hardly statesmanship or a sudden outbreak of civic vi