The paragraph after this one is a letter sent by this blogger on July 31 to the editor of The Wall Street Journal. For a more extensive discussion regarding immigrant labor in agriculture see the blog of June 22 entitled "AgJOBS bill of Senator Feinstein." In the WSJ article cited below it was mentioned that a 100 dairy farmers flew to Washington to make a case for Congressional help in obtaining more immigrant laborers, i.e. they cannot attract enough immigrants, legal and illegal, at the current wage. Moreover, some are uneasy about having many illegal immigrant laborers among their workers. The farmers would probably like to see 1) an expanded guest worker program (which would allow a specified number of foreign workers to be hired for a specified time period) for the dairy industry and 2) an amnesty for their illegal employees that would require the employees to stay in agriculture for a certain number of years as a condition for receiving amnesty (this is contained in Feinstein's proposed AgJOBS bill discussed in the June 22 blog). The article goes on to say that one dairy industry study finds that 40% of today's dairy labor force consists of immigrants, a big change from 20 years ago when there were few immigrants doing this work. What follows is the letter the editor of the WSJ:
When dairy farmers hire low-wage illegal immigrants or foreign guest workers as described in “Got Workers? Dairy Farms Run Low on Labor” (July 30, 2009), the effect is the same as that of a direct subsidy of the dairy farmers whose profits are thereby higher than if they were forced to pay market wages and benefits. It is an insidious subsidy because its cost is not explicit in the federal budget. Rather its cost is spread across the country in terms of various free or low-cost public services that the low-income immigrant workers receive, including free education for their children and free health care through hospital emergency rooms. Because their incomes are low, these workers pay little in taxes and they reduce the availability of, and money for, various public services for our poor citizens. Furthermore, at some level of wages and benefits dairy farmers would be able to attract capable American citizens to do such work. This is proven by the large number of Americans who currently do such “dirty” jobs as coal mining and garbage collection in return for decent wages and benefits. In general, agriculture is a “sacred cow” whose government subsidies have yet to be reined in by Congress.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Thursday, July 30, 2009
U.S. Immigration Law Is Unenforced and Unenforceable – A Case in Point: Obama’s Kenyan Aunt Zeituni
Attending Obama’s Senate swearing-in ceremony in 2004 was a half-sister of his father, Zeituni Onyango, whom Obama had referred to in his memoir as “Auntie Zeituni.” Onyango had sought political asylum in the United States in 2002. In April 2003, an immigration judge turned down the asylum bid and ordered Onyango deported. After a series of appeals, Oyango was again ordered to leave the country in October, 2004. The order to leave was ignored by Onyango with no consequence. This is the usual case for those denied asylum – a 2003 study found that only 3 percent of those denied asylum left the country or were deported (footnote 1).
A spokesperson for the Housing Authority in Boston said that Onyango had been screened and approved for public housing as an “eligible non-citizen” in 2003. The spokesperson went on to say that the Housing Authority receives no notice of deportation orders. Furthermore, the spokesperson noted that although Onyango entered the system under federal guidelines in a federal development, she now lives in a state funded development. State law forbids the authority from asking about immigration status. Thus, the spokesperson said that the federal deportation order has no bearing on Onyango’s eligibility for the state funded project where she was living in 2008.
On April 1, 2009, the same immigration judge that heard her earlier cases gave Onyango 10 months (of living in the United States) to prepare another appeal against the outstanding deportation order. Onyango is one of many immigrants who seek to have their cases reopened, which can occur repeatedly, according to federal immigration officials.
On February 4, 2010 Zeituni Onyango was back before an immigration judge trying to make a case for asylum. She arrived in a wheelchair and her attorney indicated that medical conditions would be part of her case. Once again President Obama through his press secretary indicated he has no involvement in the case. The closed hearing ended without a decision by the judge who can make one in the coming months or continue the case on May 25.
In May 2010 the immigration judge ruled that asylum should be granted in Onyango's case based on his judgement that a return to Kenya might put her in danger. The danger results from the public disclosure of her identity in an unauthorized leak of confidential government information regarding her case three days before the November 2008 presidential election.
After the news of Zeituni Onyango's status surfaced shortly before the presidential election in the fall of 2008, the Obama campaign issued a statement at the time which said that "Senator Obama has no knowledge of her status but obviously believes that any and all appropriate laws be followed."
Other problems that commonly occur with immigrants who are under orders to leave the country are: many of those that voluntarily agree to leave the country never do; and of those that do voluntarily leave the United States or are deported, many subsequently return to the United States as illegal immigrants. Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca has testified that of those illegal immigrants in Los Angeles County jails, 70 percent had been previously deported but illegally returned to the United States and were then accused of or had committed a crime. For more on the problems surrounding deportation see Michelle Malkin, "The Deportation Abyss" (subtitled: "It Ain't Over 'til the Alien Wins), Center for Immigration Studies, Backgrounder, September 2002.
References:
Associated Press writers Eileen Sullivan, Elliot Spagat, Rodrique Ngowi, and Jay Lindsay, "Obama's Kenyan Aunt in US Ilegally," AOL News, November 1, 2008.
Judy Rakowski, “2010 Deportation Hearing Is Set for Obama’s Aunt,” Washington Post, April 2, 2009.
Devin Dwyer, "Obama's Kenyan Aunt Seeks Asylum Again, Awaits Ruling on Deportation," ABC News, February 4, 2010.
Associated Press, "Immigration judge blasts leak in Obama'a aunt's asylum case," August 18, 2010.
Footnotes
1 “The Immigration and Naturalization Service’s Removal of Aliens Issued Final Orders,” Report Number I-2003-004, Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice, February 2003.
A spokesperson for the Housing Authority in Boston said that Onyango had been screened and approved for public housing as an “eligible non-citizen” in 2003. The spokesperson went on to say that the Housing Authority receives no notice of deportation orders. Furthermore, the spokesperson noted that although Onyango entered the system under federal guidelines in a federal development, she now lives in a state funded development. State law forbids the authority from asking about immigration status. Thus, the spokesperson said that the federal deportation order has no bearing on Onyango’s eligibility for the state funded project where she was living in 2008.
On April 1, 2009, the same immigration judge that heard her earlier cases gave Onyango 10 months (of living in the United States) to prepare another appeal against the outstanding deportation order. Onyango is one of many immigrants who seek to have their cases reopened, which can occur repeatedly, according to federal immigration officials.
On February 4, 2010 Zeituni Onyango was back before an immigration judge trying to make a case for asylum. She arrived in a wheelchair and her attorney indicated that medical conditions would be part of her case. Once again President Obama through his press secretary indicated he has no involvement in the case. The closed hearing ended without a decision by the judge who can make one in the coming months or continue the case on May 25.
In May 2010 the immigration judge ruled that asylum should be granted in Onyango's case based on his judgement that a return to Kenya might put her in danger. The danger results from the public disclosure of her identity in an unauthorized leak of confidential government information regarding her case three days before the November 2008 presidential election.
After the news of Zeituni Onyango's status surfaced shortly before the presidential election in the fall of 2008, the Obama campaign issued a statement at the time which said that "Senator Obama has no knowledge of her status but obviously believes that any and all appropriate laws be followed."
Other problems that commonly occur with immigrants who are under orders to leave the country are: many of those that voluntarily agree to leave the country never do; and of those that do voluntarily leave the United States or are deported, many subsequently return to the United States as illegal immigrants. Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca has testified that of those illegal immigrants in Los Angeles County jails, 70 percent had been previously deported but illegally returned to the United States and were then accused of or had committed a crime. For more on the problems surrounding deportation see Michelle Malkin, "The Deportation Abyss" (subtitled: "It Ain't Over 'til the Alien Wins), Center for Immigration Studies, Backgrounder, September 2002.
References:
Associated Press writers Eileen Sullivan, Elliot Spagat, Rodrique Ngowi, and Jay Lindsay, "Obama's Kenyan Aunt in US Ilegally," AOL News, November 1, 2008.
Judy Rakowski, “2010 Deportation Hearing Is Set for Obama’s Aunt,” Washington Post, April 2, 2009.
Devin Dwyer, "Obama's Kenyan Aunt Seeks Asylum Again, Awaits Ruling on Deportation," ABC News, February 4, 2010.
Associated Press, "Immigration judge blasts leak in Obama'a aunt's asylum case," August 18, 2010.
Footnotes
1 “The Immigration and Naturalization Service’s Removal of Aliens Issued Final Orders,” Report Number I-2003-004, Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice, February 2003.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
A Democrat Sees the Light
The source of the following material is “Blame the Employers” from the Review and Outlook section of the July 16 issue of the Wall Street Journal which discusses E-Verify, a federal data base available for employers to verify the hirability of prospective and actual employees.
“A bigger [than rejecting qualified workers] problem with E-Verify is that it doesn’t catch identity fraud. An illegal alien using legitimate documents that don’t belong to him can go undetected…. Several government raids on businesses in recent years have resulted in the arrests of thousands of illegal workers whom E-Verify had approved.” Consequently, employers argue that it is unfair to punish them for unknowingly hiring unauthorized workers. To address these problems, some lawmakers are now calling for initiating a national system of biometrically based identity cards that would permit the government to identify the status of every worker, including Americans.
“New York Democrat Charles Schumer, who is leading immigration-overhaul efforts in the Senate, told an audience last month that biometric ID cards are ‘the only way’ to stop illegal border crossings. ‘I’m sure the civil libertarians will object to some kind of biometric card – although….there’ll be all kinds of protections – but we are going to have to do it,’ said Mr. Schumer. ‘The American people will never accept immigration reform unless they truly believe their government is committed to ending future illegal immigration.’”
Mr. Schumer’s comments are right on the mark in the opinion of this blogger, but it is hard to believe that any liberal democratic administration is really going to do what it takes to shut the door on illegal immigration, or ever do more than close the door a little. For the rest of President Obama's time in office, we will no doubt continue to allow existing and new poor and little skilled illegal immigrants to live and work in the U.S. while continuing to make it much more difficult for highly skilled and highly educated immigrants to join our country and use their talents for the benefit of all citizens. Even if they are eventually shut out of large employers by some biometric-related data base,the disadvantaged immigrants will continue to find work as independent contractors or off the books at small employers.
“A bigger [than rejecting qualified workers] problem with E-Verify is that it doesn’t catch identity fraud. An illegal alien using legitimate documents that don’t belong to him can go undetected…. Several government raids on businesses in recent years have resulted in the arrests of thousands of illegal workers whom E-Verify had approved.” Consequently, employers argue that it is unfair to punish them for unknowingly hiring unauthorized workers. To address these problems, some lawmakers are now calling for initiating a national system of biometrically based identity cards that would permit the government to identify the status of every worker, including Americans.
“New York Democrat Charles Schumer, who is leading immigration-overhaul efforts in the Senate, told an audience last month that biometric ID cards are ‘the only way’ to stop illegal border crossings. ‘I’m sure the civil libertarians will object to some kind of biometric card – although….there’ll be all kinds of protections – but we are going to have to do it,’ said Mr. Schumer. ‘The American people will never accept immigration reform unless they truly believe their government is committed to ending future illegal immigration.’”
Mr. Schumer’s comments are right on the mark in the opinion of this blogger, but it is hard to believe that any liberal democratic administration is really going to do what it takes to shut the door on illegal immigration, or ever do more than close the door a little. For the rest of President Obama's time in office, we will no doubt continue to allow existing and new poor and little skilled illegal immigrants to live and work in the U.S. while continuing to make it much more difficult for highly skilled and highly educated immigrants to join our country and use their talents for the benefit of all citizens. Even if they are eventually shut out of large employers by some biometric-related data base,the disadvantaged immigrants will continue to find work as independent contractors or off the books at small employers.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Some Recent Developments Which Expand Asylum Possibilities
A qualifying asylum seeker is “unable or unwilling to return to his/her country of origin due to persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution.” The processing of asylum requests takes time and involves some subjective judgment on the part of asylum officers or immigration judges.1 Beyond the many abusers of our asylum system, asylum applicants are a potential weakness of our present immigration system since we can only be the home for a small percentage of all people living under harsh regimes who can legitimately claim some form of persecution.
Only a small fraction of all asylum applicants end up being granted asylum.2 The asylum plea may help them avoid immediate deportation on arrival in the United States3 as well as deportation up to the point of time that a final ruling is made on their case for asylum which may be years later, especially if appeals are filed. Nearly all who are denied asylum cannot be located at the time of denial and officially become illegal immigrants at that point in time.4
Two examples of newly considered areas of persecution which foreign women can use as a basis for successful asylum claims relate to 1) being victims or potential victims of female genital mutilation (FGM) and 2) being victims of domestic violence.
Amnesty International estimates 130 million woman worldwide have had some form of FGM, with more than 2 million new cases occurring per year primarily in Africa.5 For the purpose of asylum claims, FGM is now classified as a form of persecution. Recent U.S. court decisions are pointing toward allowing women who have been victims of FGM as well as women who fear becoming victims of FGM to use FGM as a key part of a successful asylum claim.6
The Obama administration recently took steps to make it easier for battered women to gain asylum in the United States. The qualifying conditions include 1) treatment as inferiors, little better than property 2) living in a country where domestic abuse is common and tolerated 3) must be able to show that protection could not be obtained through resort to existing institutions in their country or by moving to another place in their country.7 There are many countries in the world where women are routinely treated poorly and abused. How many of such women will be able to reach the United States and make a plea for asylum remains to be seen.
1 Julia Preston, “Wide Disparities Found in Judging of Asylum Cases,” New York Times, May 31, 2007.
2 From Julia Preston, “Wide Disparities Found in Judging of Asylum Cases”: In 2005, 13 percent of those who appealed with lawyers won their cases. From Vernon M. Briggs, Jr., Mass Immigration and the National Interest, 3rd ed. (Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, 2003), 170: “The vast preponderance of the individuals who file asylee applications never show up for their scheduled interviews with INS officials. They simply fade into the local communities and become illegal immigrants.”
3 From Don Barnett, “The Coming Conflict Over Asylum,” Center for Immigration Studies, March 2002: “About a quarter of asylum petitions are made by those who arrive at a U.S. port of entry without valid documents.”
4 A 2003 study found that only 3 percent of those denied asylum were removed: “The Immigration and Naturalization Service’s Removal of Aliens Issued Final Orders,” Report Number I-2003-004, Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice, February 2003.
5 Wikipedia.
6 “A Victory for Women,” (editorial) New York Times, June 22, 2008.
7 Julia Preston, “New Policy Permits Asylum for Battered Women,” New York Times, July 15, 2009.
Only a small fraction of all asylum applicants end up being granted asylum.2 The asylum plea may help them avoid immediate deportation on arrival in the United States3 as well as deportation up to the point of time that a final ruling is made on their case for asylum which may be years later, especially if appeals are filed. Nearly all who are denied asylum cannot be located at the time of denial and officially become illegal immigrants at that point in time.4
Two examples of newly considered areas of persecution which foreign women can use as a basis for successful asylum claims relate to 1) being victims or potential victims of female genital mutilation (FGM) and 2) being victims of domestic violence.
Amnesty International estimates 130 million woman worldwide have had some form of FGM, with more than 2 million new cases occurring per year primarily in Africa.5 For the purpose of asylum claims, FGM is now classified as a form of persecution. Recent U.S. court decisions are pointing toward allowing women who have been victims of FGM as well as women who fear becoming victims of FGM to use FGM as a key part of a successful asylum claim.6
The Obama administration recently took steps to make it easier for battered women to gain asylum in the United States. The qualifying conditions include 1) treatment as inferiors, little better than property 2) living in a country where domestic abuse is common and tolerated 3) must be able to show that protection could not be obtained through resort to existing institutions in their country or by moving to another place in their country.7 There are many countries in the world where women are routinely treated poorly and abused. How many of such women will be able to reach the United States and make a plea for asylum remains to be seen.
1 Julia Preston, “Wide Disparities Found in Judging of Asylum Cases,” New York Times, May 31, 2007.
2 From Julia Preston, “Wide Disparities Found in Judging of Asylum Cases”: In 2005, 13 percent of those who appealed with lawyers won their cases. From Vernon M. Briggs, Jr., Mass Immigration and the National Interest, 3rd ed. (Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, 2003), 170: “The vast preponderance of the individuals who file asylee applications never show up for their scheduled interviews with INS officials. They simply fade into the local communities and become illegal immigrants.”
3 From Don Barnett, “The Coming Conflict Over Asylum,” Center for Immigration Studies, March 2002: “About a quarter of asylum petitions are made by those who arrive at a U.S. port of entry without valid documents.”
4 A 2003 study found that only 3 percent of those denied asylum were removed: “The Immigration and Naturalization Service’s Removal of Aliens Issued Final Orders,” Report Number I-2003-004, Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice, February 2003.
5 Wikipedia.
6 “A Victory for Women,” (editorial) New York Times, June 22, 2008.
7 Julia Preston, “New Policy Permits Asylum for Battered Women,” New York Times, July 15, 2009.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Letter to the editor -- Wall Street Journal
Below is a letter to the editor submitted to the Wall Street Journal on July 13. It is unlikely to be published since the Wall Street Journal's editorial staff is a bastion of pro-immigration sentiment.
Your Review and Outlook editorial entitled “Mandating Unemployment” (July 13, 2009) makes the point that the very high teenage unemployment in the U.S. will be made worse by a scheduled increase in the minimum wage. Totally ignored in this editorial is the devastating impact on teenage unemployment of the unofficial U.S. policy of allowing poor and little educated illegal immigrants to work and live in the U.S. as long as they do not commit serious crimes. These unskilled immigrants compete strongly for those types of jobs sought by citizen teenagers, especially those who are poor. The immigrants usually win in that competition by a willingness to work harder for lower compensation. The immigrants’ competition also keeps the wages and benefits down for those teenagers and others of our lesser educated citizens who can find employment. Furthermore, many immigrants’ ready willingness to work “off the books” at rates lower than the minimum wage both hurts the employment prospects of citizens and makes a mockery of our minimum wage system.
Your Review and Outlook editorial entitled “Mandating Unemployment” (July 13, 2009) makes the point that the very high teenage unemployment in the U.S. will be made worse by a scheduled increase in the minimum wage. Totally ignored in this editorial is the devastating impact on teenage unemployment of the unofficial U.S. policy of allowing poor and little educated illegal immigrants to work and live in the U.S. as long as they do not commit serious crimes. These unskilled immigrants compete strongly for those types of jobs sought by citizen teenagers, especially those who are poor. The immigrants usually win in that competition by a willingness to work harder for lower compensation. The immigrants’ competition also keeps the wages and benefits down for those teenagers and others of our lesser educated citizens who can find employment. Furthermore, many immigrants’ ready willingness to work “off the books” at rates lower than the minimum wage both hurts the employment prospects of citizens and makes a mockery of our minimum wage system.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Kinder, Gentler Obama Immigration Policy
Since his presidential campaign days, Obama has had a stated policy objective of amnesty for most illegal immigrants residing in the U.S., except he calls the objective anything but amnesty – at times he or his supporters will even say it is not amnesty. As part of the deception, the the amnesty proposal is referred to as the “pay a fine and go to the back of the line” policy. Since the fine is small and the illegals would not have to leave our country and could eventually qualify for citizenship, the effect is indeed the same as an amnesty. The reason the Obama administration will not call this an amnesty is that an amnesty for most illegals would not be popular among many voters making it more difficult to achieve the Obama goal of getting Congress to approve an amnesty bill. As a consequence, the Obama administration officials are making cynical attempts to mislead voters about their immigration policies and objectives, including talking tough on immigration from time to time, all the while going even easier than the Bush administration on illegal immigration in terms of actions. Amnesty would be especially unpopular in today’s period of high unemployment when it is crystal clear that the illegals take jobs that Americans would want, even at low wages.
Voters also understand that an amnesty does nothing to stop future illegal immigration, and in fact, an amnesty actually encourages future illegal immigration by new immigrants who hope to fraudulently qualify for the new amnesty using false documents (easily purchased on the street) to prove earlier residency which never happened, and by those who come anticipating still another future amnesty that they will likely qualify for since it is now the established policy of the U.S. to have periodic amnesties for illegal immigrants. In addition, new immigrants are encouraged by the long-standing U.S. policy, carried even further by the Obama administration, of generally limiting deportations of illegals to those convicted of violent crimes. The latter policy along with liberal issuance of visas to visit the U.S. and no follow-up on visa overstays as well as no deterrent to repeated attempts to illegally cross the border has led to large-scale illegal immigration into the U.S. without limit from all corners of the earth. The immigrants continue to come as they are greatly attracted by all of the advantages of living in the U.S. in contrast to life in their home countries.
The Obama administration is proving that it is, and no doubt will continue to be, unwilling to effectively enforce our laws against illegal immigration. However, as noted above, the Obama administration wants to conceal its pro-immigrant intentions behind the deception of seemingly tough public stances on immigration. Its latest publicized example of this deception is the administration's attack on the corporate employers of illegal immigrants.
American Apparel, Inc., a Los Angeles company involved in the manufacture and sale of clothes was recently singled out as an employer of more than 1,500 illegal immigrants. However, unlike the token “immigration raids” of previous administrations, the new Obama approach did not result in the detention or prosecution of a single illegal immigrant! In other words, worst case for an illegal immigrant working at American Apparel is that he or she would have to find other work in the U.S.
This kinder approach seems to be part of an Obama plan to scale back the detention apparatus of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement(ICE)and reserve the remanent for violent criminals only. By completely eliminating the recent very small possibility of any illegal immigrant being caught in a worksite raid, the Obama approach only reinforces the general impression among immigrants that our country regards illegal immigration itself as no crime at all, and that the only illegal immigrants required to leave the country are convicted criminals.
Indeed, this new Obama policy of giving "law-abiding" illegal immigrants a free pass while appearing tough on illegal immigration was recently confirmed in a New York Times article reporting on a speech of Janet Napolitano, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security which oversees immigration law enforcement through ICE. The last sentence of the New York Times article entitled "Napolitano Focuses on Immigration Enforcement," (August 12, 2009) states: "But Ms. Napolitano said she had shifted the emphasis away from arresting immigrants who have not broken other laws." Napolitano's deputy in charge of ICE, John Morton, echoed the new policy on August 17 when he said that ICE's fugitive operations teams would increasingly focus on finding immigrants with criminal backgrounds, as reported in Amy Taxin (Associated Press), "Feds drop deportation arrest quotas," Tribune (San Luis Obispo August 18, 2009).
Nearly all illegal immigrants who might lose a job through an employer crackdown would not return to their home countries. If they were able to obtain one of the scarce jobs in their native country, they would be paid far less and they would lose the benefits of living in the U.S. such as free quality health care and better free public education possibilities for their children. Thus to the extent that there is an effective crackdown on larger employers who are found to employ illegal immigrants on their books, illegal immigrants will migrate to smaller employers, independent contracting, and off the books work. These would be added to the estimated one-half of today’s illegal immigrants that are already working off the books at small employers or are working as independent contractors for purposes such as laborers, gardeners, nannies, or maids and therefore will not be reached by any employer crackdown. Both small-business employers and employees benefit from off the books work since various tax and other financial obligations can be avoided in this way by both employer and employee.
The government announced that it had sent notices to 652 U.S. companies, including American Apparel, Inc, which were suspected of employing illegal immigrants. It remains to be seen if there will be any follow through by the federal government involving the prosecution of employers of illegal immigrants and the forced firing of illegal immigrant employees. Even if there were an extensive follow through with employers, it would result in very few illegal immigrants actually leaving the country for the reasons cited above.
Going after employers would likely result in the prosecution of very few employers, as most illegal immigrants who are hired by larger employers present the employers with false documents or false information proving citizenship or the legal right to work in the United States. Even employers using today's federal E-Verify system may end up with large numbers of illegal immigrants on their books as noted in "Blame the Employers" from the Review and Outlook section of the July 16,2009 Wall Street Journal: "A bigger problem with the E-Verify system is that it doesn't catch identity fraud. An illegal alien using legitimate documents that don't belong to him can go undetected.... Several government raids on businesses in recent years (prior to the start of the Obama administration which has determined not to arrest any employees while pursuing employers of illegal immigrants) have resulted in the arrests of thousands of illegal workers whom E-Verify had approved." As part of its show of immigrant toughness, the Obama administration wants to make the use of E-Verify required for federal contractors, even though it is known that illegal immigrants can falsely qualify as hirable under today's E-Verify using the stolen identity and Social Security number of a citizen. Moreover, immigrants increasingly will know what they have to do in order to qualify under E-Verify.
While it is beneficial to deport criminal immigrants, it also must also be recognized that like the non-criminals turned back by the Border Patrol and ICE, with our porous borders many return to the United States and continue their criminal ways. Los Angeles County sheriff Lee Baca has testified before Congress that 70 percent of illegal immigrants in his county jails had been deported previously but returned to the United States are now accused of or have committed another crime.1
The scariest part of the kinder, gentler Obama immigration policy is that his "very wide open door for poor immigrants only" aspect2 is almost certain to continue as long as he is President whether or not an amnesty is passed by Congress. This despite the fact that there is no way a majority of our voters would agree to such a policy and the fact that such a policy would hinder the advancement of the poor in this country (see below the first blog entry of June 20 entitled Our Immigration Policies are Hurting Our Poor).
1 "House hearings on immigration provided insights," Daily Breeze (Torrance), July 13, 2006
2 In contrast to the poor, professionals in this country, such as computer programmers, have more political clout to use in order to help prevent the flooding of immigrant or guest worker competitors into our work force.
Voters also understand that an amnesty does nothing to stop future illegal immigration, and in fact, an amnesty actually encourages future illegal immigration by new immigrants who hope to fraudulently qualify for the new amnesty using false documents (easily purchased on the street) to prove earlier residency which never happened, and by those who come anticipating still another future amnesty that they will likely qualify for since it is now the established policy of the U.S. to have periodic amnesties for illegal immigrants. In addition, new immigrants are encouraged by the long-standing U.S. policy, carried even further by the Obama administration, of generally limiting deportations of illegals to those convicted of violent crimes. The latter policy along with liberal issuance of visas to visit the U.S. and no follow-up on visa overstays as well as no deterrent to repeated attempts to illegally cross the border has led to large-scale illegal immigration into the U.S. without limit from all corners of the earth. The immigrants continue to come as they are greatly attracted by all of the advantages of living in the U.S. in contrast to life in their home countries.
The Obama administration is proving that it is, and no doubt will continue to be, unwilling to effectively enforce our laws against illegal immigration. However, as noted above, the Obama administration wants to conceal its pro-immigrant intentions behind the deception of seemingly tough public stances on immigration. Its latest publicized example of this deception is the administration's attack on the corporate employers of illegal immigrants.
American Apparel, Inc., a Los Angeles company involved in the manufacture and sale of clothes was recently singled out as an employer of more than 1,500 illegal immigrants. However, unlike the token “immigration raids” of previous administrations, the new Obama approach did not result in the detention or prosecution of a single illegal immigrant! In other words, worst case for an illegal immigrant working at American Apparel is that he or she would have to find other work in the U.S.
This kinder approach seems to be part of an Obama plan to scale back the detention apparatus of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement(ICE)and reserve the remanent for violent criminals only. By completely eliminating the recent very small possibility of any illegal immigrant being caught in a worksite raid, the Obama approach only reinforces the general impression among immigrants that our country regards illegal immigration itself as no crime at all, and that the only illegal immigrants required to leave the country are convicted criminals.
Indeed, this new Obama policy of giving "law-abiding" illegal immigrants a free pass while appearing tough on illegal immigration was recently confirmed in a New York Times article reporting on a speech of Janet Napolitano, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security which oversees immigration law enforcement through ICE. The last sentence of the New York Times article entitled "Napolitano Focuses on Immigration Enforcement," (August 12, 2009) states: "But Ms. Napolitano said she had shifted the emphasis away from arresting immigrants who have not broken other laws." Napolitano's deputy in charge of ICE, John Morton, echoed the new policy on August 17 when he said that ICE's fugitive operations teams would increasingly focus on finding immigrants with criminal backgrounds, as reported in Amy Taxin (Associated Press), "Feds drop deportation arrest quotas," Tribune (San Luis Obispo August 18, 2009).
Nearly all illegal immigrants who might lose a job through an employer crackdown would not return to their home countries. If they were able to obtain one of the scarce jobs in their native country, they would be paid far less and they would lose the benefits of living in the U.S. such as free quality health care and better free public education possibilities for their children. Thus to the extent that there is an effective crackdown on larger employers who are found to employ illegal immigrants on their books, illegal immigrants will migrate to smaller employers, independent contracting, and off the books work. These would be added to the estimated one-half of today’s illegal immigrants that are already working off the books at small employers or are working as independent contractors for purposes such as laborers, gardeners, nannies, or maids and therefore will not be reached by any employer crackdown. Both small-business employers and employees benefit from off the books work since various tax and other financial obligations can be avoided in this way by both employer and employee.
The government announced that it had sent notices to 652 U.S. companies, including American Apparel, Inc, which were suspected of employing illegal immigrants. It remains to be seen if there will be any follow through by the federal government involving the prosecution of employers of illegal immigrants and the forced firing of illegal immigrant employees. Even if there were an extensive follow through with employers, it would result in very few illegal immigrants actually leaving the country for the reasons cited above.
Going after employers would likely result in the prosecution of very few employers, as most illegal immigrants who are hired by larger employers present the employers with false documents or false information proving citizenship or the legal right to work in the United States. Even employers using today's federal E-Verify system may end up with large numbers of illegal immigrants on their books as noted in "Blame the Employers" from the Review and Outlook section of the July 16,2009 Wall Street Journal: "A bigger problem with the E-Verify system is that it doesn't catch identity fraud. An illegal alien using legitimate documents that don't belong to him can go undetected.... Several government raids on businesses in recent years (prior to the start of the Obama administration which has determined not to arrest any employees while pursuing employers of illegal immigrants) have resulted in the arrests of thousands of illegal workers whom E-Verify had approved." As part of its show of immigrant toughness, the Obama administration wants to make the use of E-Verify required for federal contractors, even though it is known that illegal immigrants can falsely qualify as hirable under today's E-Verify using the stolen identity and Social Security number of a citizen. Moreover, immigrants increasingly will know what they have to do in order to qualify under E-Verify.
While it is beneficial to deport criminal immigrants, it also must also be recognized that like the non-criminals turned back by the Border Patrol and ICE, with our porous borders many return to the United States and continue their criminal ways. Los Angeles County sheriff Lee Baca has testified before Congress that 70 percent of illegal immigrants in his county jails had been deported previously but returned to the United States are now accused of or have committed another crime.1
The scariest part of the kinder, gentler Obama immigration policy is that his "very wide open door for poor immigrants only" aspect2 is almost certain to continue as long as he is President whether or not an amnesty is passed by Congress. This despite the fact that there is no way a majority of our voters would agree to such a policy and the fact that such a policy would hinder the advancement of the poor in this country (see below the first blog entry of June 20 entitled Our Immigration Policies are Hurting Our Poor).
1 "House hearings on immigration provided insights," Daily Breeze (Torrance), July 13, 2006
2 In contrast to the poor, professionals in this country, such as computer programmers, have more political clout to use in order to help prevent the flooding of immigrant or guest worker competitors into our work force.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Introduction and Conclusion to Illegal Immigration -- The Myths and the Reality
These revised chapters and the revised book in its entirety may be found at http://immigrationbook.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)