As mentioned in this blog in an entry dated July 17, 2009 entitled "Some Recent Developments which Expand Asylum Possibilities," the Obama administration and liberal courts are opening asylum opportunities to hundreds of millions of women in poverty around the world, especially women from Africa. This movement to expand asylum options was recently pushed further along by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a court well-known for its liberal tendencies.
The Ninth, which is based in San Francisco, overturned the deportation orders of two immigration courts and ordered immigration judges to reconsider granting asylum to an illegal immigrant from Guatamala based on the high murder rate of women in Guatamala. "Most important, the court ordered the Board of Immigration to determine whether all Guatamalan woman can qualify -- a decision that could open the door to similar claims from other countries such as El Salvador, Honduras, and others with histories of widespread gender abuse."*
*Quote from NationRoundup, San Francisco, The Tribune (San Luis Obispo), July 13, 2010.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Friday, June 18, 2010
Some of President Obama's Ways and Means
(Promotion of Drags on Our Economy -- See item number 4 for points related legal and illegal immigration)
1) Do everything possible to promote labor unions and the compensation and number of jobs of union members.
The far left philosophical underpinning of the Obama strategy of gross preferential treatment for labor unions is likely the view that corporations are basically abusive and greedy and that workers need unions to protect their interests and to get their “fair” share in wages. Unionization may also be viewed as a vehicle for helping to level the distribution of income, a major objective of the “progressive” agenda.
More cynically, the Obama pro-union strategy is trying to create a growing a bloc of voters who will be indebted to the Democratic Party for their jobs and at the same time increasing the wealth of unions who will also feel indebted to the Democratic Party. The appreciative union members will vote for Democrats and the appreciative union officials will make generous money political contributions to the Democratic Party and its candidates – and thus a grand, self-perpetuating situation will be set in motion with the Democrats and the unions “scratching each other’s backs.” One source notes that "Unions gave $400 million to the Democrats in the 2008 campaign cycle...."
An early manifestation of the ultra pro-union strategy was the Obama-led, federal government supervised override of existing bankruptcy law which transferred billions of dollars from secured creditors’ interests in GM and Chrysler to the UAW, followed by White House intimidation of those creditors who tried to contest this miscarriage of justice. Beyond this bald-faced gift of money to the UAW, to preserve union jobs the federal government has poured many billions into General Motors (and GMAC) and Chrysler, thereby unfairly subsidizing them in their competition with the better-managed Ford, and the foreign car manufacturers who produce large numbers of non-subsidized autos at lower cost in non-union plants throughout our South.
More evidence of Obama’s game plan comes from the fact that Andrew Stern, a leader of the SEIU (Service Employees International Union, a union with many members who are government employees) was logged in as a White House visitor 22 times between January and July 2009, more entries than for any other visitor during this period. For many years the portion of the private sector that is unionized has been steadily contracting as it loses jobs to more efficient non-union private companies in the United States or overseas. Moreover, today workers do not need the union protections against abusive employers that they needed years ago when there were far fewer laws on the books to protect against different types of employer wrongdoing. Consequently, only about 7 percent of the private sector labor force is unionized today. That has left the government sector as the biggest union growth story and unionized government employees now account for more than one-half of all unionized employees in the United States.
Additionally, there has been a steady campaign by the Obama administration to change government labor rules and regulations to make it easier for unions to organize workers.
2) Do everything possible to expand the role of government and the number of government employees.
The far left philosophical underpinning of this objective is the belief that a large role for government is necessary to achieve the leveling of income distribution and to assure the “social contract” for all workers entitling them to cradle-to-grave social support in health, education, consumption, living accommodations, and retirement. Moreover, there is the implicit assumption that the government knows best what should and should not be encouraged or permitted, i.e. that the government should play a larger role in the lives of citizens than it has heretofore. This is clearly the case with ObamaCare.
Expanding the role of government and thereby growing the number of government employees is very consistent with the cynical side of objective 1) as the government sector is the easiest sector for unions to penetrate, i.e. there is no competition for doing the work most efficiently as there is in the private sector. Indeed, an excellent case can be made for forbidding the government sector to unionize as it then has a monopoly on the supply of workers and a stranglehold on the sector of government involved, especially for vital services such as police, fire, and public utilities. Some government entities have had or still have prohibitions on collective bargaining for their employees. For example, employees of the state of California were not permitted to enter into collective bargaining until Governor Jerry Brown signed the Dill Act in 1978.
Politicians have direct control over the number of public jobs and the compensation paid to public employees. This being the case, it makes no sense to have the system which prevails in the United States today: politicians at all levels are given a strong incentive to boost the number of public employees and their compensation, the incentive being increased political contributions from the unions (and to a lesser extent the votes of the union members). Such political contributions are nothing more than "kickbacks" from the unions, a return to the politicians of some of the taxpayer money that they directed to public employees and their unions. This kickback arrangement is yet another very good reason for prohibiting government employees from unionizing. By the same logic, politicians should not be allowed to require, as is sometimes the case today, that government contracts with the private sector contain clauses mandating that some or all of the work be completed by union workers in the private sector.
With the growth of public sector unions and their power to extract exhorbitant pay and benefits from politicians, the pay and benefits of unionized public sector employees now usually exceed those available to comparable private sector employees and in far too many cases the wages and benefits including retirement benefits are excessive relative to the public entities' ability to pay in the not too distant future. In this regard the Obama administration directed about one-third of the stimulus money to state and local governments in the belief that it would help to delay the day of reckoning resulting from the excessive pay and benefits of unionized public employees.
The Obama administration is expanding the role of government by having cabinet members issuing rules regarding health care and environmental policies which 1) would never be agreed to by Congress and 2) are very costly to certain sectors of the private economy.
3) Do everything possible to level the distribution of income in the country.
The far left philosophical underpinning of this objective is that we are all created equal and extra pay for some comes out of the mouths of the poor and downtrodden. In other words, inequality of income is an affront to fairness and implies an inherent form of discrimination exists in the system.
The cynical Obama view is that by using the tax system to equalize the distribution of income, the Democrats can further increase the number of Democratic client-voters and reward existing ones. Higher taxes on the upper income and middle-upper income population and more welfare-related spending on the lower-middle and lower income population will generate a no-lose voter result since the latter outnumber the former and the former are part of the Republican constituency anyway. The lower-middle and lower income beneficiaries of this redistribution of income policy will feel indebted to the Democratic Party and vote accordingly.
The ObamaCare legislation taken as a whole is a stealth massive redistribution of income program as pointed out in a Wall Street Journal Review & Outlook editorial entitled "Who Pays for ObamaCare?" from the July 12, 2010 issue. This editorial also provides documented support for the view that many Democrats very much liked the redistributional aspect of this legislation.
Our legal and illegal immigration of the poor skews the distribution of income statistics in the direction of showing greater inequalities in the distribution of income thereby providing further justification for "progressive" Democrats to take legislative action to equalize the distribution of income!
It is possible that tort and other trial attorneys who sue businesses (including medical practices)are viewed by Obama as both levelers of income and punishers of the greedy corporate sector, i.e. they take from the wealthy corporations who are basically evil and abusive and their wealthy shareholders and give to the beneficiaries of class action and individual law suits who tend to be middle and low income individuals (who might be either mistreated employees or product consumers) and disadvantaged groups such as minorities or women (who might be mistreated employees).
It appears that a symbiotic relationship between those attorneys who sue businesses and the Democrats has evolved to the point that Democrats are doing whatever they can to make things easier and more profitable to sue businesses and in return, the benefitting attorneys and their trade groups must be heavy contributors to the Democratic Party and its candidates. An example of attorney favoritism is that in all of the Democratic health care legislation process, there was never a serious attempt to limit medical malpractice lawsuits, although it has been shown that the threat of such lawsuits results in a very high dollar amount of defensive medicine which might otherwise be avoided.
4) Do everything possible to promote an increase in the legal and illegal immigration of the poor and little educated.
The far left underpinning here is that the United States is a wealthy nation and fairness and social justice requires that we make our bounty available to the world’s poor. Encouraging large amounts of legal and illegal immigration of the poor helps to achieve this objective in their view.
The cynical motivation is that importing the poor and little educated is very likely to increase the number of welfare recipients, future Democrats, and future union members. In general, Obama is much more interested in getting people on to welfare than off. Immigration of the poor plays directly into that strategy. In addition, it has the indirect result of making it more difficult for poor citizens (including blacks!) and earlier poor immigrants to get ahead and off welfare.
Our poor immigrants tend to take up residence in densely populated poor urban areas which are "monopolized by Democratic Party politics."1 Long before they can vote, their presence is advantageous to the Democratic Party since our census counters are instructed to count all living in the United States including illegal immigrants and legal permanent residents who have not been naturalized (there are no questions regarding citizenship status), thereby tending to give more representation to Democratic states (which are favored by immigrants as places to settle) in the U.S. House of Representatives than they would otherwise have, as well as more electoral votes in presidential elections than they would otherwise have. Within states, the same census count will result in increased representation in the state houses by Democrats. Even though there is likely some undercounting of illegal immigrants, many millions are included in the census with strong encouragement to participate by immigrant community groups. Additionally, census results will include large numbers of American born children of illegal immigrants who are legally U.S. citizens but who are too young to vote, as well as millions of legal permanent residents who have not yet achieved citizenship status (including the right to vote) as they must be legal residents of the U.S. for at least five years as part of the requirements to obtain citizenship.
Even though most of our impoverished legal and illegal immigrants are willing to work hard, they constitute a drag on our economy because they use substantial amounts of free public services, collect billions in welfare, pay very little in taxes, and ship many billions of dollars to relatives outside of the United States. To an increasing extent they are also bringing elderly relatives into the United States who constitute an even greater drag on our economy with their costly medical needs.
Pursuit of this objective puts the Democratic interests in alignment with immigration attorneys whose legal practices benefit from high levels of legal and illegal immigration. Consequently, today there is a natural partnership between immigration attorneys whose trade group is a strong pro-immigrant lobby and the Democratic Party. The immigration bar likely makes substantial dollar contributions to the Democratic Party and many of its candidates, and at the same time the Democratic Party pursues legislation and policies which would result in an increase in legal and illegal immigration and opposes measures which would result in decreases.
5) Increase or maintain government spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In theory, Obama and the left might favor high military expenditures as a means to foster high government employment and to expand the role of government generally.
The cynical side of Obama’s heavy military spending includes a) increased ability to reward Democratic politicians and labor unions with military contracts for their constituents, b) to serve as a counter to the common belief that Obama would be weak on national defense, and c) Obama’s personal inability to make the hard decision to wind down our military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The drag impact on the economy of high levels of defense spending is twofold. First it transfers money and resources from the private sector to the government sector and secondly such expenditures are unproductive compared to alternatives such as private investment or government investment in upgrading necessary infrastructure in the United States.
6) Summary -- President Obama is all about promoting drags on our economy:
A) Growth of government
B) Growth of labor unions
C) Facilitating the work of tort and other attorneys that sue businesses
D) Encouraging little-educated and unskilled illegal immigration
E) Establishing a debilitating tax system which promotes the redistribution of income and is discouraging to businesses, entrepreneurs, and anyone who wishes to work hard to improve their financial situation
F) Continuing and even increasing our military adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan
G) Increasing business costs by unilaterally imposing environmental restrictions such as expensive controls on the emissions of "greenhouse gases" which constitutes an economic drag for the U.S. in that it makes domestic energy production and manufacturing more expensive and makes the U.S. less competitive in world markets as most other countries of the world are less burdensome in this regard
H) Greatly increasing future healthcare costs through Obamacare which was forced through a Democratic Congress with little regard for the consequences
Footnote
1 James G. Gimpel, "Immigration, Political Realignment, and the Demise of Republican Party Prospects," Center for Immigration Studies, Backgrounder (February, 2010).
1) Do everything possible to promote labor unions and the compensation and number of jobs of union members.
The far left philosophical underpinning of the Obama strategy of gross preferential treatment for labor unions is likely the view that corporations are basically abusive and greedy and that workers need unions to protect their interests and to get their “fair” share in wages. Unionization may also be viewed as a vehicle for helping to level the distribution of income, a major objective of the “progressive” agenda.
More cynically, the Obama pro-union strategy is trying to create a growing a bloc of voters who will be indebted to the Democratic Party for their jobs and at the same time increasing the wealth of unions who will also feel indebted to the Democratic Party. The appreciative union members will vote for Democrats and the appreciative union officials will make generous money political contributions to the Democratic Party and its candidates – and thus a grand, self-perpetuating situation will be set in motion with the Democrats and the unions “scratching each other’s backs.” One source notes that "Unions gave $400 million to the Democrats in the 2008 campaign cycle...."
An early manifestation of the ultra pro-union strategy was the Obama-led, federal government supervised override of existing bankruptcy law which transferred billions of dollars from secured creditors’ interests in GM and Chrysler to the UAW, followed by White House intimidation of those creditors who tried to contest this miscarriage of justice. Beyond this bald-faced gift of money to the UAW, to preserve union jobs the federal government has poured many billions into General Motors (and GMAC) and Chrysler, thereby unfairly subsidizing them in their competition with the better-managed Ford, and the foreign car manufacturers who produce large numbers of non-subsidized autos at lower cost in non-union plants throughout our South.
More evidence of Obama’s game plan comes from the fact that Andrew Stern, a leader of the SEIU (Service Employees International Union, a union with many members who are government employees) was logged in as a White House visitor 22 times between January and July 2009, more entries than for any other visitor during this period. For many years the portion of the private sector that is unionized has been steadily contracting as it loses jobs to more efficient non-union private companies in the United States or overseas. Moreover, today workers do not need the union protections against abusive employers that they needed years ago when there were far fewer laws on the books to protect against different types of employer wrongdoing. Consequently, only about 7 percent of the private sector labor force is unionized today. That has left the government sector as the biggest union growth story and unionized government employees now account for more than one-half of all unionized employees in the United States.
Additionally, there has been a steady campaign by the Obama administration to change government labor rules and regulations to make it easier for unions to organize workers.
2) Do everything possible to expand the role of government and the number of government employees.
The far left philosophical underpinning of this objective is the belief that a large role for government is necessary to achieve the leveling of income distribution and to assure the “social contract” for all workers entitling them to cradle-to-grave social support in health, education, consumption, living accommodations, and retirement. Moreover, there is the implicit assumption that the government knows best what should and should not be encouraged or permitted, i.e. that the government should play a larger role in the lives of citizens than it has heretofore. This is clearly the case with ObamaCare.
Expanding the role of government and thereby growing the number of government employees is very consistent with the cynical side of objective 1) as the government sector is the easiest sector for unions to penetrate, i.e. there is no competition for doing the work most efficiently as there is in the private sector. Indeed, an excellent case can be made for forbidding the government sector to unionize as it then has a monopoly on the supply of workers and a stranglehold on the sector of government involved, especially for vital services such as police, fire, and public utilities. Some government entities have had or still have prohibitions on collective bargaining for their employees. For example, employees of the state of California were not permitted to enter into collective bargaining until Governor Jerry Brown signed the Dill Act in 1978.
Politicians have direct control over the number of public jobs and the compensation paid to public employees. This being the case, it makes no sense to have the system which prevails in the United States today: politicians at all levels are given a strong incentive to boost the number of public employees and their compensation, the incentive being increased political contributions from the unions (and to a lesser extent the votes of the union members). Such political contributions are nothing more than "kickbacks" from the unions, a return to the politicians of some of the taxpayer money that they directed to public employees and their unions. This kickback arrangement is yet another very good reason for prohibiting government employees from unionizing. By the same logic, politicians should not be allowed to require, as is sometimes the case today, that government contracts with the private sector contain clauses mandating that some or all of the work be completed by union workers in the private sector.
With the growth of public sector unions and their power to extract exhorbitant pay and benefits from politicians, the pay and benefits of unionized public sector employees now usually exceed those available to comparable private sector employees and in far too many cases the wages and benefits including retirement benefits are excessive relative to the public entities' ability to pay in the not too distant future. In this regard the Obama administration directed about one-third of the stimulus money to state and local governments in the belief that it would help to delay the day of reckoning resulting from the excessive pay and benefits of unionized public employees.
The Obama administration is expanding the role of government by having cabinet members issuing rules regarding health care and environmental policies which 1) would never be agreed to by Congress and 2) are very costly to certain sectors of the private economy.
3) Do everything possible to level the distribution of income in the country.
The far left philosophical underpinning of this objective is that we are all created equal and extra pay for some comes out of the mouths of the poor and downtrodden. In other words, inequality of income is an affront to fairness and implies an inherent form of discrimination exists in the system.
The cynical Obama view is that by using the tax system to equalize the distribution of income, the Democrats can further increase the number of Democratic client-voters and reward existing ones. Higher taxes on the upper income and middle-upper income population and more welfare-related spending on the lower-middle and lower income population will generate a no-lose voter result since the latter outnumber the former and the former are part of the Republican constituency anyway. The lower-middle and lower income beneficiaries of this redistribution of income policy will feel indebted to the Democratic Party and vote accordingly.
The ObamaCare legislation taken as a whole is a stealth massive redistribution of income program as pointed out in a Wall Street Journal Review & Outlook editorial entitled "Who Pays for ObamaCare?" from the July 12, 2010 issue. This editorial also provides documented support for the view that many Democrats very much liked the redistributional aspect of this legislation.
Our legal and illegal immigration of the poor skews the distribution of income statistics in the direction of showing greater inequalities in the distribution of income thereby providing further justification for "progressive" Democrats to take legislative action to equalize the distribution of income!
It is possible that tort and other trial attorneys who sue businesses (including medical practices)are viewed by Obama as both levelers of income and punishers of the greedy corporate sector, i.e. they take from the wealthy corporations who are basically evil and abusive and their wealthy shareholders and give to the beneficiaries of class action and individual law suits who tend to be middle and low income individuals (who might be either mistreated employees or product consumers) and disadvantaged groups such as minorities or women (who might be mistreated employees).
It appears that a symbiotic relationship between those attorneys who sue businesses and the Democrats has evolved to the point that Democrats are doing whatever they can to make things easier and more profitable to sue businesses and in return, the benefitting attorneys and their trade groups must be heavy contributors to the Democratic Party and its candidates. An example of attorney favoritism is that in all of the Democratic health care legislation process, there was never a serious attempt to limit medical malpractice lawsuits, although it has been shown that the threat of such lawsuits results in a very high dollar amount of defensive medicine which might otherwise be avoided.
4) Do everything possible to promote an increase in the legal and illegal immigration of the poor and little educated.
The far left underpinning here is that the United States is a wealthy nation and fairness and social justice requires that we make our bounty available to the world’s poor. Encouraging large amounts of legal and illegal immigration of the poor helps to achieve this objective in their view.
The cynical motivation is that importing the poor and little educated is very likely to increase the number of welfare recipients, future Democrats, and future union members. In general, Obama is much more interested in getting people on to welfare than off. Immigration of the poor plays directly into that strategy. In addition, it has the indirect result of making it more difficult for poor citizens (including blacks!) and earlier poor immigrants to get ahead and off welfare.
Our poor immigrants tend to take up residence in densely populated poor urban areas which are "monopolized by Democratic Party politics."1 Long before they can vote, their presence is advantageous to the Democratic Party since our census counters are instructed to count all living in the United States including illegal immigrants and legal permanent residents who have not been naturalized (there are no questions regarding citizenship status), thereby tending to give more representation to Democratic states (which are favored by immigrants as places to settle) in the U.S. House of Representatives than they would otherwise have, as well as more electoral votes in presidential elections than they would otherwise have. Within states, the same census count will result in increased representation in the state houses by Democrats. Even though there is likely some undercounting of illegal immigrants, many millions are included in the census with strong encouragement to participate by immigrant community groups. Additionally, census results will include large numbers of American born children of illegal immigrants who are legally U.S. citizens but who are too young to vote, as well as millions of legal permanent residents who have not yet achieved citizenship status (including the right to vote) as they must be legal residents of the U.S. for at least five years as part of the requirements to obtain citizenship.
Even though most of our impoverished legal and illegal immigrants are willing to work hard, they constitute a drag on our economy because they use substantial amounts of free public services, collect billions in welfare, pay very little in taxes, and ship many billions of dollars to relatives outside of the United States. To an increasing extent they are also bringing elderly relatives into the United States who constitute an even greater drag on our economy with their costly medical needs.
Pursuit of this objective puts the Democratic interests in alignment with immigration attorneys whose legal practices benefit from high levels of legal and illegal immigration. Consequently, today there is a natural partnership between immigration attorneys whose trade group is a strong pro-immigrant lobby and the Democratic Party. The immigration bar likely makes substantial dollar contributions to the Democratic Party and many of its candidates, and at the same time the Democratic Party pursues legislation and policies which would result in an increase in legal and illegal immigration and opposes measures which would result in decreases.
5) Increase or maintain government spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In theory, Obama and the left might favor high military expenditures as a means to foster high government employment and to expand the role of government generally.
The cynical side of Obama’s heavy military spending includes a) increased ability to reward Democratic politicians and labor unions with military contracts for their constituents, b) to serve as a counter to the common belief that Obama would be weak on national defense, and c) Obama’s personal inability to make the hard decision to wind down our military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The drag impact on the economy of high levels of defense spending is twofold. First it transfers money and resources from the private sector to the government sector and secondly such expenditures are unproductive compared to alternatives such as private investment or government investment in upgrading necessary infrastructure in the United States.
6) Summary -- President Obama is all about promoting drags on our economy:
A) Growth of government
B) Growth of labor unions
C) Facilitating the work of tort and other attorneys that sue businesses
D) Encouraging little-educated and unskilled illegal immigration
E) Establishing a debilitating tax system which promotes the redistribution of income and is discouraging to businesses, entrepreneurs, and anyone who wishes to work hard to improve their financial situation
F) Continuing and even increasing our military adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan
G) Increasing business costs by unilaterally imposing environmental restrictions such as expensive controls on the emissions of "greenhouse gases" which constitutes an economic drag for the U.S. in that it makes domestic energy production and manufacturing more expensive and makes the U.S. less competitive in world markets as most other countries of the world are less burdensome in this regard
H) Greatly increasing future healthcare costs through Obamacare which was forced through a Democratic Congress with little regard for the consequences
Footnote
1 James G. Gimpel, "Immigration, Political Realignment, and the Demise of Republican Party Prospects," Center for Immigration Studies, Backgrounder (February, 2010).
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Immigration Background on Times Square Bomber
Below are preliminary research findings from The Center for Immigration Studies:
WASHINGTON (May 13, 2010) – The Center for Immigration Studies has prepared a synopsis of the information that has been released on Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad’s immigration history, plus policy recommendations that would reduce the risks inherent in U.S. visa and immigration programs. The report, written by Jessica Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies for the Center for Immigration Studies, reveals a familiar pattern of a terrorist easily taking advantage of weak spots in America’s immigration system. Shahzad was admitted long before 9/11, but the openings he exploited are still in place today.
Contrary to what some news media have stated, it is not completely clear that Shahzad always maintained legal status. In addition, there are aspects of his immigration history that indicate his awareness of how to work our system and that he was planning to engage in terrorism for some time. Moreover, Shahzad was born in Pakistan, traveled there often and received his terrorist training there. Thus, it seems inaccurate to describe him a “home grown” terrorist as some reporters have done. Nor does it seem accurate to describe his terrorism as simply a case of “a legal immigrant’s failed American Dream”, as suggested by CBS news.
June 30, 1979 – Born in Pakistan.
December 22, 1998 – Issued student visa in Islamabad. It is difficult to justify the issuance of this student visa. Shahzad certainly failed to demonstrate that he had “sufficient academic preparation to pursue the intended course of study” at the University of Bridgeport, as the regulations required. He was applying as a transfer student, and his transcript from his correspondence course with Southeastern University, a now defunct fourth-rate academic program, showed a GPA of 2.78, including several D’s and an F (in statistics). Moreover, during the 1990s, the University of Bridgeport was financially and academically troubled, with its accreditation and reputation in serious jeopardy, and actively seeking foreign students to compensate for plummeting U.S. enrollment. Not only was the visa a mistake, but the visa officer appears to have erred in giving Shahzad a four-year visa when two would have sufficed to complete the program that Shahzad reportedly told officials he wanted to complete. Many news accounts have asserted that Shahzad underwent a “criminal background check” in order to qualify for the visa. Not exactly – in 1998 this would have been a check of CLASS, the consular database with information on prior refusals, ineligibilities, and derogatory information such as federal arrest warrants, and TIPOFF, which was a watchlist of known and suspected terrorists. Today’s watchlists and databases are far more comprehensive, but would not have provided grounds for refusal, as Shahzad apparently had no serious criminal history. But under the law the mere absence of a criminal or terrorist history is not enough by itself to qualify for a U.S. visa. For more on temporary visas, see Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounders 'Shortcuts to Immigration' and 'No Coyote Needed,' online at www.cis.org.
Fall 2000 – Graduates from University of Bridgeport, Conn. Several media reports have noted that Shahzad was flagged by border officials for carrying large sums of cash into the United States and for his repeated visits home to Pakistan. Even though foreign students are supposed to pay their own way, private papers uncovered by an intrepid local newspaper reporter revealed that Shahzad had been awarded a grant of $6,700 from the University of Bridgeport to help cover his tuition.
2001 – Begins working for a temporary staffing agency. Shahzad entered on a student visa, which does not include permission to work. It has been reported that he was granted Optional Practical Training status, which allows foreign students to stay and work after graduating (the “training” label is really a work permit). If so, there would be an application and a work permit on file with the school and with USCIS. The details are a little sketchy; it is not clear from the timing of his employment that this was feasible. The fact that any foreign student can get approval to remain here after graduating to work at a temporary staffing agency under the guise of “practical training” is an illustration of just how absurd our immigration system has become.
2002 – Issued H-1B visa. Shahzad was sponsored by Elizabeth Arden to work in a low level accounting job under the H-1B visa program. This would seem to support the argument that the visa program brings in primarily ordinary workers, not the best and the brightest as its defenders claim.
2004 – Obtains mortgage with Huma Anif Mian (U.S. citizen and future spouse).
2004 – Comes under scrutiny of the local Joint Terrorism Task Force. The JTTFs are local, multi-agency units that investigate cases related to national security. No information has been released as to why the JTTF was interested in Shahzad. Some media have reported suspicions that he had ties to Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical Muslim cleric who inspired several of the 9/11 hijackers, the Ft. Hood murderer, and the Christmas Day underwear bomber.
February 2005 – U.S. citizen wife files green card petition. Neighbors of Shahzad’s bride have told reporters that he had visited her in Colorado just once before she left to marry him.
January 2006 – Green card approved. USCIS was apparently unconcerned about either the suddenness of the marriage or the JTTF investigation. Immigration benefits adjudicators have little time or incentive to review cases closely. This case demonstrates the basic reality that the green card application process is firmly rigged in the alien’s favor, with few applications refused or challenged, especially those involving marriage to a U.S. citizen. Marriage to a U.S. citizen is one of the easiest and most popular ways for illegal aliens (and terrorists) to obtain a green card. See the Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder 'Hello, I Love You, Won’t You Tell Me Your Name: Inside the Green Card Marriage Phenomenon.'
October 2008 – Applies for citizenship. Shahzad wasted no time applying for U.S. citizenship, which can happen after three years of marriage to a U.S. citizen, compared with five years of residency for other legal immigrants. Shahzad’s alacrity in submitting his citizenship application is very unusual. The average immigrant waits six to ten years before applying, according to DHS statistics. For one thing, the process is expensive ($675) and includes a lot of paperwork and passing a test. His U.S. citizenship makes travel abroad much easier as U.S. citizens face less scrutiny than foreign nationals when coming and going from the country and, unlike green card-holders, citizens can stay overseas indefinitely without losing status. Becoming a U.S. citizen did not require Shahzad to give up his Pakistani passport, this can be useful in concealing long periods of travel to countries like Pakistan without drawing the attention of immigration inspectors at U.S. ports of entry upon return.
April 17, 2009 – Sworn in as a U.S. citizen. Again, it appears that USCIS was untroubled by or unaware of the previous JTTF investigation.
June 2, 2009 – Departs for Pakistan.
February 3, 2010 – Returns to the United States.
May 1, 2010 – Attempts to set off bomb in Times Square.
WASHINGTON (May 13, 2010) – The Center for Immigration Studies has prepared a synopsis of the information that has been released on Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad’s immigration history, plus policy recommendations that would reduce the risks inherent in U.S. visa and immigration programs. The report, written by Jessica Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies for the Center for Immigration Studies, reveals a familiar pattern of a terrorist easily taking advantage of weak spots in America’s immigration system. Shahzad was admitted long before 9/11, but the openings he exploited are still in place today.
Contrary to what some news media have stated, it is not completely clear that Shahzad always maintained legal status. In addition, there are aspects of his immigration history that indicate his awareness of how to work our system and that he was planning to engage in terrorism for some time. Moreover, Shahzad was born in Pakistan, traveled there often and received his terrorist training there. Thus, it seems inaccurate to describe him a “home grown” terrorist as some reporters have done. Nor does it seem accurate to describe his terrorism as simply a case of “a legal immigrant’s failed American Dream”, as suggested by CBS news.
June 30, 1979 – Born in Pakistan.
December 22, 1998 – Issued student visa in Islamabad. It is difficult to justify the issuance of this student visa. Shahzad certainly failed to demonstrate that he had “sufficient academic preparation to pursue the intended course of study” at the University of Bridgeport, as the regulations required. He was applying as a transfer student, and his transcript from his correspondence course with Southeastern University, a now defunct fourth-rate academic program, showed a GPA of 2.78, including several D’s and an F (in statistics). Moreover, during the 1990s, the University of Bridgeport was financially and academically troubled, with its accreditation and reputation in serious jeopardy, and actively seeking foreign students to compensate for plummeting U.S. enrollment. Not only was the visa a mistake, but the visa officer appears to have erred in giving Shahzad a four-year visa when two would have sufficed to complete the program that Shahzad reportedly told officials he wanted to complete. Many news accounts have asserted that Shahzad underwent a “criminal background check” in order to qualify for the visa. Not exactly – in 1998 this would have been a check of CLASS, the consular database with information on prior refusals, ineligibilities, and derogatory information such as federal arrest warrants, and TIPOFF, which was a watchlist of known and suspected terrorists. Today’s watchlists and databases are far more comprehensive, but would not have provided grounds for refusal, as Shahzad apparently had no serious criminal history. But under the law the mere absence of a criminal or terrorist history is not enough by itself to qualify for a U.S. visa. For more on temporary visas, see Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounders 'Shortcuts to Immigration' and 'No Coyote Needed,' online at www.cis.org.
Fall 2000 – Graduates from University of Bridgeport, Conn. Several media reports have noted that Shahzad was flagged by border officials for carrying large sums of cash into the United States and for his repeated visits home to Pakistan. Even though foreign students are supposed to pay their own way, private papers uncovered by an intrepid local newspaper reporter revealed that Shahzad had been awarded a grant of $6,700 from the University of Bridgeport to help cover his tuition.
2001 – Begins working for a temporary staffing agency. Shahzad entered on a student visa, which does not include permission to work. It has been reported that he was granted Optional Practical Training status, which allows foreign students to stay and work after graduating (the “training” label is really a work permit). If so, there would be an application and a work permit on file with the school and with USCIS. The details are a little sketchy; it is not clear from the timing of his employment that this was feasible. The fact that any foreign student can get approval to remain here after graduating to work at a temporary staffing agency under the guise of “practical training” is an illustration of just how absurd our immigration system has become.
2002 – Issued H-1B visa. Shahzad was sponsored by Elizabeth Arden to work in a low level accounting job under the H-1B visa program. This would seem to support the argument that the visa program brings in primarily ordinary workers, not the best and the brightest as its defenders claim.
2004 – Obtains mortgage with Huma Anif Mian (U.S. citizen and future spouse).
2004 – Comes under scrutiny of the local Joint Terrorism Task Force. The JTTFs are local, multi-agency units that investigate cases related to national security. No information has been released as to why the JTTF was interested in Shahzad. Some media have reported suspicions that he had ties to Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical Muslim cleric who inspired several of the 9/11 hijackers, the Ft. Hood murderer, and the Christmas Day underwear bomber.
February 2005 – U.S. citizen wife files green card petition. Neighbors of Shahzad’s bride have told reporters that he had visited her in Colorado just once before she left to marry him.
January 2006 – Green card approved. USCIS was apparently unconcerned about either the suddenness of the marriage or the JTTF investigation. Immigration benefits adjudicators have little time or incentive to review cases closely. This case demonstrates the basic reality that the green card application process is firmly rigged in the alien’s favor, with few applications refused or challenged, especially those involving marriage to a U.S. citizen. Marriage to a U.S. citizen is one of the easiest and most popular ways for illegal aliens (and terrorists) to obtain a green card. See the Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder 'Hello, I Love You, Won’t You Tell Me Your Name: Inside the Green Card Marriage Phenomenon.'
October 2008 – Applies for citizenship. Shahzad wasted no time applying for U.S. citizenship, which can happen after three years of marriage to a U.S. citizen, compared with five years of residency for other legal immigrants. Shahzad’s alacrity in submitting his citizenship application is very unusual. The average immigrant waits six to ten years before applying, according to DHS statistics. For one thing, the process is expensive ($675) and includes a lot of paperwork and passing a test. His U.S. citizenship makes travel abroad much easier as U.S. citizens face less scrutiny than foreign nationals when coming and going from the country and, unlike green card-holders, citizens can stay overseas indefinitely without losing status. Becoming a U.S. citizen did not require Shahzad to give up his Pakistani passport, this can be useful in concealing long periods of travel to countries like Pakistan without drawing the attention of immigration inspectors at U.S. ports of entry upon return.
April 17, 2009 – Sworn in as a U.S. citizen. Again, it appears that USCIS was untroubled by or unaware of the previous JTTF investigation.
June 2, 2009 – Departs for Pakistan.
February 3, 2010 – Returns to the United States.
May 1, 2010 – Attempts to set off bomb in Times Square.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Child Tax Credits for Illegal Immigrants
This blogger recently stumbled upon information related to illegal immigrant access to billions of dollars of federal welfare through the collection of tax refunds through the IRS and its system of ITIN numbers for filers who do not have Social Security numbers. This blogger believes that this information has been little disseminated because he has not read of it elsewhere.
Many illegal immigrants are regularly accessing welfare benefits in the United States in different ways.1 They may do so through those state and local governments that do not verify citizenship or that accept false proof of citizenship. In many cases, they access welfare benefits through their citizen children born in the United States. Additionally, and this is the focus of this report, there are ways illegal immigrants can obtain a form of federal welfare that is available to income tax filers. Since a significant percentage of illegal immigrants have low incomes, work “off the books,” or work with false names and Social Security numbers, it is likely that many report little or no income when applying for federal, state, or local benefits.
An illegal immigrant cannot qualify for a legitimate Social Security number to use to file income tax returns or for any other purposes. Thus, a major facilitator for illegal immigrant access to income tax-based welfare benefits is the nine-digit Individual Tax Identification Number (ITIN) established by the IRS in 1996. It was initially established for people like foreign investors, who are required to file U.S. income tax forms but can not legally obtain a Social Security number. However, the IRS has allowed illegal immigrants to apply for and use the ITIN for filing income tax returns related to income earned in the United States. Consequently, the ITIN quickly became a vehicle for illegal immigrants to obtain refunds of part or all of income taxes withheld (if any) from their pay and for obtaining refundable tax credits above and beyond any withholding. All but a small minority of people using ITINs today are illegal immigrants.2
Since Congress did not explicitly limit the Child Tax Credit (CTC) and the Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC) to holders of Social Security numbers, the IRS has allowed ITIN filers to obtain billions of dollars of refund checks related to these tax credits. If the CTC results in negative total tax due, it may be converted into an ACTC, which is the vehicle that the ITIN filer (or Social Security number filer) may use to collect the negative tax in the form of a check from the IRS. By IRS rules, the ACTC is a refundable credit available to individuals with no tax liability.
A Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report dated March 31, 2009, “Actions Are Needed to Ensure Proper Use of Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers and to Verify or Limit Refundable Credit Claims,” indicates that, for the 2007 tax year, Child Tax Credits (774,000 filings for $0.62 billion) and Additional Child Tax Credits (1,220,000 filings for $1.78 billion), together totaling $2.4 billion, were given to ITIN filers.3 By definition, none of the 1,220,000 filers who received the ACTC refunds had any tax liability, and as a group they received IRS checks totaling at least $1.78 billion. The report goes on to say: “ While the law also prohibits aliens residing without authorization from receiving most public benefits, IRS management’s view is that the law does not provide sufficient legal authority for the IRS to disallow the ACTC to ITIN filers. Nonetheless, as it now stands, the payment of Federal funds through this tax benefit appears to provide an additional incentive for aliens to enter, reside, and work in the United States without authorization, which contradicts Federal law and policy to remove such incentives.”4
A Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report dated December 8, 2009, “Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers Are Being Issued Without Sufficient Supporting Documentation” indicates that total refunds due for new ITINs issued in the January 1, 2008, through November 21, 2008 period were projected to amount to $1.929 billion, based on a statistical sampling.5 Without the CTC and ACTC, these ITIN filers were projected to have collected in the aggregate only $0.412 billion of refunds instead of the $1.929 billion, a difference of $1.517 billion.6 The December 8 report goes on to note that, based on a statistical sampling, 87 percent of ITIN applications submitted by Certified Acceptance Agents contained errors, primarily in supporting ID documents being missing or illegible and that “In addition, more than 55,000 ITINs were used multiple times on approximately 102,000 tax returns with refunds totalling more than $202 million."7
Any illegal immigrants who in some way obtained Social Security numbers that they could use to file tax returns and obtain refunds (by, for instance, having been legal temporary workers who didn’t depart when they were supposed to) are not included in the above numbers for ITINs. Moreover, such illegal immigrants may have also accessed the Earned Income Credit or the Making Work Pay Credit.
End Notes
1 “Senate Amnesty Could Strain Welfare System,” Center for Immigration Studies Announcement, June 2007, http://www.cis.org/node/502, shows in the table titled “Use Of Welfare Programs Based on Nativity of Household Head” that a little more than 50 percent of Mexican illegal immigrant households have at least one person who is using at least one major welfare program, not counting the income tax-based programs discussed in this Memorandum.
2 See “Giving Cover to Illegal Aliens: IRS Tax ID Numbers Subvert Immigration Law,” by Marti Dinerstein, Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder, October 2002, http://cis.org/IRSTaxID-ImmigrationLaw.
3 See p. 14 of Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report dated March 31, 2009 (Reference Number 2009-40-057), at http://www.treas.gov/tigta/auditreports/2009reports/200940057fr.pdf.
4 Ibid., Memorandum Synopsis p. 3.
5 See p.13 of Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report dated December 8, 2009 (Reference Number: 2010-40-005), at http://www.treas.gov/tigta/auditreports/2010reports/201040005fr.pdf.
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid., Memorandum Synopsis pp. 2-3.
Many illegal immigrants are regularly accessing welfare benefits in the United States in different ways.1 They may do so through those state and local governments that do not verify citizenship or that accept false proof of citizenship. In many cases, they access welfare benefits through their citizen children born in the United States. Additionally, and this is the focus of this report, there are ways illegal immigrants can obtain a form of federal welfare that is available to income tax filers. Since a significant percentage of illegal immigrants have low incomes, work “off the books,” or work with false names and Social Security numbers, it is likely that many report little or no income when applying for federal, state, or local benefits.
An illegal immigrant cannot qualify for a legitimate Social Security number to use to file income tax returns or for any other purposes. Thus, a major facilitator for illegal immigrant access to income tax-based welfare benefits is the nine-digit Individual Tax Identification Number (ITIN) established by the IRS in 1996. It was initially established for people like foreign investors, who are required to file U.S. income tax forms but can not legally obtain a Social Security number. However, the IRS has allowed illegal immigrants to apply for and use the ITIN for filing income tax returns related to income earned in the United States. Consequently, the ITIN quickly became a vehicle for illegal immigrants to obtain refunds of part or all of income taxes withheld (if any) from their pay and for obtaining refundable tax credits above and beyond any withholding. All but a small minority of people using ITINs today are illegal immigrants.2
Since Congress did not explicitly limit the Child Tax Credit (CTC) and the Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC) to holders of Social Security numbers, the IRS has allowed ITIN filers to obtain billions of dollars of refund checks related to these tax credits. If the CTC results in negative total tax due, it may be converted into an ACTC, which is the vehicle that the ITIN filer (or Social Security number filer) may use to collect the negative tax in the form of a check from the IRS. By IRS rules, the ACTC is a refundable credit available to individuals with no tax liability.
A Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report dated March 31, 2009, “Actions Are Needed to Ensure Proper Use of Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers and to Verify or Limit Refundable Credit Claims,” indicates that, for the 2007 tax year, Child Tax Credits (774,000 filings for $0.62 billion) and Additional Child Tax Credits (1,220,000 filings for $1.78 billion), together totaling $2.4 billion, were given to ITIN filers.3 By definition, none of the 1,220,000 filers who received the ACTC refunds had any tax liability, and as a group they received IRS checks totaling at least $1.78 billion. The report goes on to say: “ While the law also prohibits aliens residing without authorization from receiving most public benefits, IRS management’s view is that the law does not provide sufficient legal authority for the IRS to disallow the ACTC to ITIN filers. Nonetheless, as it now stands, the payment of Federal funds through this tax benefit appears to provide an additional incentive for aliens to enter, reside, and work in the United States without authorization, which contradicts Federal law and policy to remove such incentives.”4
A Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report dated December 8, 2009, “Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers Are Being Issued Without Sufficient Supporting Documentation” indicates that total refunds due for new ITINs issued in the January 1, 2008, through November 21, 2008 period were projected to amount to $1.929 billion, based on a statistical sampling.5 Without the CTC and ACTC, these ITIN filers were projected to have collected in the aggregate only $0.412 billion of refunds instead of the $1.929 billion, a difference of $1.517 billion.6 The December 8 report goes on to note that, based on a statistical sampling, 87 percent of ITIN applications submitted by Certified Acceptance Agents contained errors, primarily in supporting ID documents being missing or illegible and that “In addition, more than 55,000 ITINs were used multiple times on approximately 102,000 tax returns with refunds totalling more than $202 million."7
Any illegal immigrants who in some way obtained Social Security numbers that they could use to file tax returns and obtain refunds (by, for instance, having been legal temporary workers who didn’t depart when they were supposed to) are not included in the above numbers for ITINs. Moreover, such illegal immigrants may have also accessed the Earned Income Credit or the Making Work Pay Credit.
End Notes
1 “Senate Amnesty Could Strain Welfare System,” Center for Immigration Studies Announcement, June 2007, http://www.cis.org/node/502, shows in the table titled “Use Of Welfare Programs Based on Nativity of Household Head” that a little more than 50 percent of Mexican illegal immigrant households have at least one person who is using at least one major welfare program, not counting the income tax-based programs discussed in this Memorandum.
2 See “Giving Cover to Illegal Aliens: IRS Tax ID Numbers Subvert Immigration Law,” by Marti Dinerstein, Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder, October 2002, http://cis.org/IRSTaxID-ImmigrationLaw.
3 See p. 14 of Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report dated March 31, 2009 (Reference Number 2009-40-057), at http://www.treas.gov/tigta/auditreports/2009reports/200940057fr.pdf.
4 Ibid., Memorandum Synopsis p. 3.
5 See p.13 of Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report dated December 8, 2009 (Reference Number: 2010-40-005), at http://www.treas.gov/tigta/auditreports/2010reports/201040005fr.pdf.
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid., Memorandum Synopsis pp. 2-3.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Arizona Legislature Passes Immigration Bill on April 13, 2010
Despite the will of the majority of the nation's voters, for many years the federal government has chosen to avoid effective enforcement our immigration laws. The result has been a steadily increasing inflow of little-educated immigrants who compete with little-educated citizens for jobs and social benefits. This in turn has resulted in political battles at the state and local government level concerning proposed laws designed to counter illegal immigration and make it more difficult for illegal immigrants to work, live, or obtain public benefits in their jurisdictions. The types of restrictive laws which states and localities can pass is gradually being resolved by challenges in the courts.
To the extent that state immigration-related laws are allowed to take effect, states that are tough on immigration are going to cause a shift in the illegal immigrant population towards those states that are more lenient. Within states the same will be true of localities, as some cities and counties have passed or are considering laws which would negatively impact illegal immigrants.
On the other side of the political spectrum, states and localities may consider laws or administrative rules which would make it easier for illegal immigrants to obtain publicly controlled benefits such as welfare and driver’s licenses. Some localities have gone so far as to declare themselves “sanctuaries” for illegal immigrants and these have initiated local laws or policies which would afford some protection for illegal immigrants.
With its long Mexican border, Arizona is on the front lines of illegal immigration-related issues with more people and drugs crossing its border illegally than is the case for any other state. Beyond the problems associated with an influx of poor and poorly educated immigrants, Arizona has become a haven for for drug and immigrant smugglers and many citizens feel powerless to deal with these and other problems that stem from its proximity to Mexico.1a
On April 13, 2010 the Arizona legislature passed a bill (SB 1070) which would make it a violation of state law to be in Arizona without proper documentation to be in the United States. Police would be authorized to stop and verify the status of anyone suspected of being illegally in the United States and foreign nationals would be required to carry proof of legal residency as federal law requires. Some state legislators had misgivings about parts of the bill but voted for it anyway out of frustration at the absence of effective federal efforts to deal with the immigration problem.
The bill was signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer on April 23 hours after the bill was denounced by President Obama as "misguided" and threatening to "undermine the basic notion of fairness that we cherish as Americans." Governor Brewer commented that the Arizona law comes after "decades of inaction and misguided policy [on the federal level] have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation."1b It is a certainty that there will be court challenges to the new Arizona law.
The Arizona bill was also demonized by pro-immigrant groups and Cardinal Mahony, head of Los Angeles’ Catholic archdiocese and an outspoken supporter of immigrant rights. The cardinal likened the bill to “German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques” that compelled people to turn each other in.2a It is estimated his archdiocese is nearly 70% Latino.3a
On April 26, the results of a Rasmussen poll of likely voters conducted on April 22 and April 23 were released showing that 70% of Arizonans favored their new law, while 60% of a nationwide survey favor such a law for their own areas. According to a New York Times/CBS News poll conducted between April 28 and May 2, 51% of the resondents said the Arizona law was "about right" in its approach and 9% said that it did not go far enough.3b
On April 30 Governor Brewer signed a follow-on bill to SB 1070 that tried to clarify the original language to send a stronger message that racial profiling will not be tolerated. The revision bill states that immigration status questions by police must follow an officer's stopping, detaining, or arresting a person suspected of violating some other law. The bill also specifies that when police stop, detain, or arrest they cannot procede to the immigration status question using race, ethnicity, or national origin as a factor.3c
Pertinent Details of SB1070 as noted in a press release dated April 29, 2010 of the Center for Immigration Studies
• The new Arizona law mirrors federal law, which already requires aliens (non-citizens) to register and carry their documents with them (8 USC 1304(e) and 8 USC 1306(a)). The new Arizona law simply states that violating federal immigration law is now a state crime as well. Because illegal immigrants are by definition in violation of federal immigration laws, they can now be arrested by local law enforcement in Arizona.
• The law is designed to avoid the legal pitfall of “pre-emption,” which means a state can’t adopt laws that conflict with federal laws. By making what is a federal violation also a state violation, the Arizona law avoids this problem.
• The law only allows police to ask about immigration status in the normal course of “lawful contact” with a person, such as a traffic stop or if they have committed a crime.
• Estimates from the federal government indicate that more than 80 percent of illegal immigrants come from Latin America.12 Thus, there is concern that police may target only Hispanics for enforcement.
• Before asking a person about immigration status, law enforcement officials are required by the law to have “reasonable suspicion” that a person is an illegal immigrant. The concept of “reasonable suspicion” is well established by court rulings. Since Arizona does not issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, having a valid license creates a presumption of legal status. Examples of reasonable suspicion include:
o A driver stopped for a traffic violation has no license, or record of a driver's license or other form of federal or state identification.
o A police officer observes someone buying fraudulent identity documents or crossing the border illegally.
o A police officer recognizes a gang member back on the street who he knows has been previously deported by the federal government.
• The law specifically states that police, “may not solely consider race, color or national origin” when implementing SB 1070.
• When Arizona’s governor signed the new law, she also issued an executive order requiring the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board to provide local police with additional training on what does and what does not constitute “reasonable suspicion.”13
Additional Background on Illegal Immigration in Arizona from the Center for Immigration Studies press release
• The federal government estimated that Arizona had one of the fastest growing illegal immigrant populations in the country, increasing from 330,000 in 2000 to 560,000 by 2008.1
• Arizona has adopted other laws to deter the settlement of illegal immigrants in the state in recent years. The federal government estimates that the illegal immigrant population dropped by 18 percent in the state from 2008 to 2009, compared to a 7 percent drop for the nation as a whole.2 This may be evidence that the state enforcement efforts are having an impact.
• The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office has found that 22 percent of felonies in the county are committed by illegal immigrants.3 Illegal immigrants are estimated to be 10 percent of the county’s adult population.4
• Analysis of data from State Criminal Alien Assistance Program showed that illegal immigrants were 11 percent of the state’s prison population. Illegal immigrants were estimated to be 8 percent of state’s adult population at the time of the analysis.5
• Approximately 17 percent of those arrested by the Border Patrol in its Tucson Sector have criminal records in the United States.6
• The issue of illegal immigration and crime is very difficult to measure, and while in Arizona there is evidence that illegal immigrants are committing a disproportionate share of crime, it is not clear this is the case nationally.7
• In 2007, the Center for Immigration Studies estimated that 12 percent of workers in the Arizona are illegal immigrants.8
• In 2007, the Center estimated that illegal immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18) comprise one-fifth of those in the state living in poverty, one-third of those without health insurance, and one out of six students in the state’s schools.9
Blog continued
In general there has been increasing legislative activity at the state and local level with thousands of immigration bills being introduced in all 50 states. An immigration specialist of the National Conference of State Legislatures commented: “This is now a 50-state issue. There is a tremendous amount of frustration at the local level now that the federal government has abrogated its responsibility.”4a
Of the recent actions by state legislatures, Georgia’s is one of the tougher ones. Its law, which took effect on July 1, 2007, includes the following features: a) Georgia employers are required to use a federal data base to verify that their workers are legal, b) recipients of state benefits must prove that they are in the country legally, c) jailers must inform federal authorities if anyone incarcerated is in the country illegally, and d) a new criminal offense, human trafficking, was added to the books to prosecute those who bring in groups of illegal immigrants. In late 2007, another restrictive state law went into effect in Oklahoma. As of January 1, 2008 still another restrictive state law was to go into effect in Arizona which among other features would penalize employers of illegal immigrants.
Beyond the current activity in state legislatures, there have been two stand-out propositions that were voted on in state-wide balloting in recent years – Proposition 187 in California and Proposition 200 in Arizona. Both are noteworthy as being indicative of voter sentiment regarding illegal immigration.
Proposition 187 was on the California ballot in November 1994 as a result of a citizen initiated petition. It was supported by Republican Governor Pete Wilson who was reelected in the same election and who used its embrace to climb from an earlier 23 percentage point deficit in public opinion polls to a 15 percent point victory on election day.5a Exit polls showed that the number one reason people voted for Governor Wilson was that he would be tough on illegal immigration.6a A significant feature of Proposition 187 was the barring of the public education of children who were illegal immigrants, a challenge to the Plyler v. Doe U.S. Supreme Court ruling of 1982. It also denied other public benefits, excepting emergency medical treatment, unless the applicant could prove a legal right to reside in the United States. In addition it called on law enforcement agents who suspected a person arrested was in violation of immigration laws to check further and if evidence was found of immigration illegality they were to report that to the attorney general of California and to the INS. “Flawed as it was in design, Prop. 187 was increasingly seen by voters as the only option available to Californians to ‘send a signal’ that they were angry at open borders.…”7a Proposition 187 passed by a vote of 59 percent to 41 percent. Court challenges prevented its implementation and an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was not undertaken by the newly elected Democratic Governor Gray Davis in 1998 (Governor Wilson was barred from running for a third term in 1998) sealing the fate of most of the sections of the Proposition. “Most Hispanic voters favored the measure in early polling, though only 31 percent voted for it after a long campaign in which Hispanic political leaders branded it as ‘anti-Hispanic.’ ”8a
Proposition 200 appeared on the Arizona ballot in November 2004. It requires individuals to produce proof of citizenship before they may vote or apply for public benefits. Despite opposition from Republican U.S. Senators McCain and Kyle, and Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano and the Arizona Republican and Democratic parties, it was approved with 56 percent of the vote. Exit polls found that 47 per cent of Latino voters supported the measure.9a
Footnotes to the CIS press release followed by footnotes to this blog
1 See Table 4 “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2008,” http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2008.pdf.
2 See 'Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2009,” Table 4, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2009.pdf See also Table 4 “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2008,” http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2008.pdf.
3 The Maricopa County Attorney’s office report is at: http://www.mcaodocuments.com/press/20081002_a-whitepaper.pdf.
4 See Table 3 in “Immigration and Crime: Assessing a Conflicted Issue,” http://www.cis.org/ImmigrantCrime.
5 See Table 6 in “Immigration and Crime: Assessing a Conflicted Issue,” http://www.cis.org/ImmigrantCrime.
6 See “The Krentz Bonfire: Will the murder of a respected Cochise County rancher change anything on our border?” Tucson Weekly, April 29, 2010, http://www.tucsonweekly.com/tucson/the-krentz-bonfire/Content?oid=1945848.
7 The Center for Immigration Studies has conducted a detailed review of the literature and data available on crime. Nationally it is very difficult to come to a clear conclusion about crime rates among immigrants. The report, “Immigration and Crime: Assessing a Conflicted Issue,” is at: http://www.cis.org/ImmigrantCrime.
8 See Tables 21 in “Immigrants in the United States, 2007: A Profile of America's Foreign-Born Population,” http://www.cis.org/immigrants_profile_2007.
9 See Tables 23, 24, and 26 in “Immigrants in the United States, 2007: A Profile of America's Foreign-Born Population,” http://www.cis.org/immigrants_profile_2007.
1a A sidelight of the immigrant crime picture is contained in Jacques Billeaud (Associated Press), “Smuggler kidnappings sneak across the border,” Tribune (San Luis Obispo), January 12, 2008. This article states that on the American side of the border, drug and immigrant smugglers “and their family members are being kidnapped by fellow criminals and held for six-figure ransoms,” sometimes leading to killings. “Phoenix had more than 340 reported such kidnappings last year, but police said the real number is much higher because many cases go unreported. The San Diego area has also seen a rise in kidnappings. . . .” The article goes on to note that “kidnappings are common in Mexico. . . .”
1b The quotations from President Obama and Governor Brewer come from Luara Meckler and Miriam Jordan, "Clash on Immigration Law," Wall Street Journal, April 24, 2010.
2a Teresa Watanabe, “Cardinal Mahony criticizes Arizona immigration bill,” Los Angeles Times, April 20, 2010.
3a Ibid.
3b As reported in an article below the heading Los Angeles in the Tribune (San Luis Obispo), May 4, 2010.
3c Hugh Holub, "Arizona state legislature runs for cover on SB 1070," Tucson Independent Examiner, April 30, 2010. It appeared that this revision bill received little or no coverage in the mainstream media.
4a Walter F. Roche Jr. (Los Angeles Times), “States take lead on immigration law.”
5a Dan Walters, “Schwarzenegger, like Wilson, Could Play the Immigration Card,” Sacramento Bee, March 19, 2006.
6a Paul Vitello, “As Illegal Workers Hit the Suburbs, Politicians Scramble to Respond,” New York Times, October 6, 2005.
7a Otis L. Graham Jr., Unguarded Gates (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004), 155.
8a Ibid., 155.
9a Richard Marosi, “The Nation; Arizona Stirs up Immigration Stew,” Los Angeles Times, November 6, 2004.
To the extent that state immigration-related laws are allowed to take effect, states that are tough on immigration are going to cause a shift in the illegal immigrant population towards those states that are more lenient. Within states the same will be true of localities, as some cities and counties have passed or are considering laws which would negatively impact illegal immigrants.
On the other side of the political spectrum, states and localities may consider laws or administrative rules which would make it easier for illegal immigrants to obtain publicly controlled benefits such as welfare and driver’s licenses. Some localities have gone so far as to declare themselves “sanctuaries” for illegal immigrants and these have initiated local laws or policies which would afford some protection for illegal immigrants.
With its long Mexican border, Arizona is on the front lines of illegal immigration-related issues with more people and drugs crossing its border illegally than is the case for any other state. Beyond the problems associated with an influx of poor and poorly educated immigrants, Arizona has become a haven for for drug and immigrant smugglers and many citizens feel powerless to deal with these and other problems that stem from its proximity to Mexico.1a
On April 13, 2010 the Arizona legislature passed a bill (SB 1070) which would make it a violation of state law to be in Arizona without proper documentation to be in the United States. Police would be authorized to stop and verify the status of anyone suspected of being illegally in the United States and foreign nationals would be required to carry proof of legal residency as federal law requires. Some state legislators had misgivings about parts of the bill but voted for it anyway out of frustration at the absence of effective federal efforts to deal with the immigration problem.
The bill was signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer on April 23 hours after the bill was denounced by President Obama as "misguided" and threatening to "undermine the basic notion of fairness that we cherish as Americans." Governor Brewer commented that the Arizona law comes after "decades of inaction and misguided policy [on the federal level] have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation."1b It is a certainty that there will be court challenges to the new Arizona law.
The Arizona bill was also demonized by pro-immigrant groups and Cardinal Mahony, head of Los Angeles’ Catholic archdiocese and an outspoken supporter of immigrant rights. The cardinal likened the bill to “German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques” that compelled people to turn each other in.2a It is estimated his archdiocese is nearly 70% Latino.3a
On April 26, the results of a Rasmussen poll of likely voters conducted on April 22 and April 23 were released showing that 70% of Arizonans favored their new law, while 60% of a nationwide survey favor such a law for their own areas. According to a New York Times/CBS News poll conducted between April 28 and May 2, 51% of the resondents said the Arizona law was "about right" in its approach and 9% said that it did not go far enough.3b
On April 30 Governor Brewer signed a follow-on bill to SB 1070 that tried to clarify the original language to send a stronger message that racial profiling will not be tolerated. The revision bill states that immigration status questions by police must follow an officer's stopping, detaining, or arresting a person suspected of violating some other law. The bill also specifies that when police stop, detain, or arrest they cannot procede to the immigration status question using race, ethnicity, or national origin as a factor.3c
Pertinent Details of SB1070 as noted in a press release dated April 29, 2010 of the Center for Immigration Studies
• The new Arizona law mirrors federal law, which already requires aliens (non-citizens) to register and carry their documents with them (8 USC 1304(e) and 8 USC 1306(a)). The new Arizona law simply states that violating federal immigration law is now a state crime as well. Because illegal immigrants are by definition in violation of federal immigration laws, they can now be arrested by local law enforcement in Arizona.
• The law is designed to avoid the legal pitfall of “pre-emption,” which means a state can’t adopt laws that conflict with federal laws. By making what is a federal violation also a state violation, the Arizona law avoids this problem.
• The law only allows police to ask about immigration status in the normal course of “lawful contact” with a person, such as a traffic stop or if they have committed a crime.
• Estimates from the federal government indicate that more than 80 percent of illegal immigrants come from Latin America.12 Thus, there is concern that police may target only Hispanics for enforcement.
• Before asking a person about immigration status, law enforcement officials are required by the law to have “reasonable suspicion” that a person is an illegal immigrant. The concept of “reasonable suspicion” is well established by court rulings. Since Arizona does not issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, having a valid license creates a presumption of legal status. Examples of reasonable suspicion include:
o A driver stopped for a traffic violation has no license, or record of a driver's license or other form of federal or state identification.
o A police officer observes someone buying fraudulent identity documents or crossing the border illegally.
o A police officer recognizes a gang member back on the street who he knows has been previously deported by the federal government.
• The law specifically states that police, “may not solely consider race, color or national origin” when implementing SB 1070.
• When Arizona’s governor signed the new law, she also issued an executive order requiring the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board to provide local police with additional training on what does and what does not constitute “reasonable suspicion.”13
Additional Background on Illegal Immigration in Arizona from the Center for Immigration Studies press release
• The federal government estimated that Arizona had one of the fastest growing illegal immigrant populations in the country, increasing from 330,000 in 2000 to 560,000 by 2008.1
• Arizona has adopted other laws to deter the settlement of illegal immigrants in the state in recent years. The federal government estimates that the illegal immigrant population dropped by 18 percent in the state from 2008 to 2009, compared to a 7 percent drop for the nation as a whole.2 This may be evidence that the state enforcement efforts are having an impact.
• The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office has found that 22 percent of felonies in the county are committed by illegal immigrants.3 Illegal immigrants are estimated to be 10 percent of the county’s adult population.4
• Analysis of data from State Criminal Alien Assistance Program showed that illegal immigrants were 11 percent of the state’s prison population. Illegal immigrants were estimated to be 8 percent of state’s adult population at the time of the analysis.5
• Approximately 17 percent of those arrested by the Border Patrol in its Tucson Sector have criminal records in the United States.6
• The issue of illegal immigration and crime is very difficult to measure, and while in Arizona there is evidence that illegal immigrants are committing a disproportionate share of crime, it is not clear this is the case nationally.7
• In 2007, the Center for Immigration Studies estimated that 12 percent of workers in the Arizona are illegal immigrants.8
• In 2007, the Center estimated that illegal immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18) comprise one-fifth of those in the state living in poverty, one-third of those without health insurance, and one out of six students in the state’s schools.9
Blog continued
In general there has been increasing legislative activity at the state and local level with thousands of immigration bills being introduced in all 50 states. An immigration specialist of the National Conference of State Legislatures commented: “This is now a 50-state issue. There is a tremendous amount of frustration at the local level now that the federal government has abrogated its responsibility.”4a
Of the recent actions by state legislatures, Georgia’s is one of the tougher ones. Its law, which took effect on July 1, 2007, includes the following features: a) Georgia employers are required to use a federal data base to verify that their workers are legal, b) recipients of state benefits must prove that they are in the country legally, c) jailers must inform federal authorities if anyone incarcerated is in the country illegally, and d) a new criminal offense, human trafficking, was added to the books to prosecute those who bring in groups of illegal immigrants. In late 2007, another restrictive state law went into effect in Oklahoma. As of January 1, 2008 still another restrictive state law was to go into effect in Arizona which among other features would penalize employers of illegal immigrants.
Beyond the current activity in state legislatures, there have been two stand-out propositions that were voted on in state-wide balloting in recent years – Proposition 187 in California and Proposition 200 in Arizona. Both are noteworthy as being indicative of voter sentiment regarding illegal immigration.
Proposition 187 was on the California ballot in November 1994 as a result of a citizen initiated petition. It was supported by Republican Governor Pete Wilson who was reelected in the same election and who used its embrace to climb from an earlier 23 percentage point deficit in public opinion polls to a 15 percent point victory on election day.5a Exit polls showed that the number one reason people voted for Governor Wilson was that he would be tough on illegal immigration.6a A significant feature of Proposition 187 was the barring of the public education of children who were illegal immigrants, a challenge to the Plyler v. Doe U.S. Supreme Court ruling of 1982. It also denied other public benefits, excepting emergency medical treatment, unless the applicant could prove a legal right to reside in the United States. In addition it called on law enforcement agents who suspected a person arrested was in violation of immigration laws to check further and if evidence was found of immigration illegality they were to report that to the attorney general of California and to the INS. “Flawed as it was in design, Prop. 187 was increasingly seen by voters as the only option available to Californians to ‘send a signal’ that they were angry at open borders.…”7a Proposition 187 passed by a vote of 59 percent to 41 percent. Court challenges prevented its implementation and an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was not undertaken by the newly elected Democratic Governor Gray Davis in 1998 (Governor Wilson was barred from running for a third term in 1998) sealing the fate of most of the sections of the Proposition. “Most Hispanic voters favored the measure in early polling, though only 31 percent voted for it after a long campaign in which Hispanic political leaders branded it as ‘anti-Hispanic.’ ”8a
Proposition 200 appeared on the Arizona ballot in November 2004. It requires individuals to produce proof of citizenship before they may vote or apply for public benefits. Despite opposition from Republican U.S. Senators McCain and Kyle, and Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano and the Arizona Republican and Democratic parties, it was approved with 56 percent of the vote. Exit polls found that 47 per cent of Latino voters supported the measure.9a
Footnotes to the CIS press release followed by footnotes to this blog
1 See Table 4 “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2008,” http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2008.pdf.
2 See 'Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2009,” Table 4, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2009.pdf See also Table 4 “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2008,” http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2008.pdf.
3 The Maricopa County Attorney’s office report is at: http://www.mcaodocuments.com/press/20081002_a-whitepaper.pdf.
4 See Table 3 in “Immigration and Crime: Assessing a Conflicted Issue,” http://www.cis.org/ImmigrantCrime.
5 See Table 6 in “Immigration and Crime: Assessing a Conflicted Issue,” http://www.cis.org/ImmigrantCrime.
6 See “The Krentz Bonfire: Will the murder of a respected Cochise County rancher change anything on our border?” Tucson Weekly, April 29, 2010, http://www.tucsonweekly.com/tucson/the-krentz-bonfire/Content?oid=1945848.
7 The Center for Immigration Studies has conducted a detailed review of the literature and data available on crime. Nationally it is very difficult to come to a clear conclusion about crime rates among immigrants. The report, “Immigration and Crime: Assessing a Conflicted Issue,” is at: http://www.cis.org/ImmigrantCrime.
8 See Tables 21 in “Immigrants in the United States, 2007: A Profile of America's Foreign-Born Population,” http://www.cis.org/immigrants_profile_2007.
9 See Tables 23, 24, and 26 in “Immigrants in the United States, 2007: A Profile of America's Foreign-Born Population,” http://www.cis.org/immigrants_profile_2007.
1a A sidelight of the immigrant crime picture is contained in Jacques Billeaud (Associated Press), “Smuggler kidnappings sneak across the border,” Tribune (San Luis Obispo), January 12, 2008. This article states that on the American side of the border, drug and immigrant smugglers “and their family members are being kidnapped by fellow criminals and held for six-figure ransoms,” sometimes leading to killings. “Phoenix had more than 340 reported such kidnappings last year, but police said the real number is much higher because many cases go unreported. The San Diego area has also seen a rise in kidnappings. . . .” The article goes on to note that “kidnappings are common in Mexico. . . .”
1b The quotations from President Obama and Governor Brewer come from Luara Meckler and Miriam Jordan, "Clash on Immigration Law," Wall Street Journal, April 24, 2010.
2a Teresa Watanabe, “Cardinal Mahony criticizes Arizona immigration bill,” Los Angeles Times, April 20, 2010.
3a Ibid.
3b As reported in an article below the heading Los Angeles in the Tribune (San Luis Obispo), May 4, 2010.
3c Hugh Holub, "Arizona state legislature runs for cover on SB 1070," Tucson Independent Examiner, April 30, 2010. It appeared that this revision bill received little or no coverage in the mainstream media.
4a Walter F. Roche Jr. (Los Angeles Times), “States take lead on immigration law.”
5a Dan Walters, “Schwarzenegger, like Wilson, Could Play the Immigration Card,” Sacramento Bee, March 19, 2006.
6a Paul Vitello, “As Illegal Workers Hit the Suburbs, Politicians Scramble to Respond,” New York Times, October 6, 2005.
7a Otis L. Graham Jr., Unguarded Gates (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004), 155.
8a Ibid., 155.
9a Richard Marosi, “The Nation; Arizona Stirs up Immigration Stew,” Los Angeles Times, November 6, 2004.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Letter to the editor -- Wall Street Journal
Below is a letter to the editor of the Journal submitted on April 13, 2010. It was published in the April 20 Journal.
It is noteworthy that Mr. Reich in his editorial “The Jobs Picture Still Looks Bleak” (April 12) makes no mention of the effect of legal and illegal immigration on our unemployment numbers. Most of our legal and illegal immigrants are not well-educated and therefore end up competing for low-level jobs with our lower income citizens who also typically have limited education.
Our immigration is no doubt a contributing factor to the very high unemployment rate cited by Mr. Reich for those with only high school diplomas or less. But politically correct academics such as Mr. Reich rarely mention immigration’s impact on our nation’s unemployment picture.
It is noteworthy that Mr. Reich in his editorial “The Jobs Picture Still Looks Bleak” (April 12) makes no mention of the effect of legal and illegal immigration on our unemployment numbers. Most of our legal and illegal immigrants are not well-educated and therefore end up competing for low-level jobs with our lower income citizens who also typically have limited education.
Our immigration is no doubt a contributing factor to the very high unemployment rate cited by Mr. Reich for those with only high school diplomas or less. But politically correct academics such as Mr. Reich rarely mention immigration’s impact on our nation’s unemployment picture.
Federal Agents Make Arrests of Immigration Smugglers (Dubbed Operation In Plain Sight)
These raids, according to information released by the government about April 16, resulted in the arrest of 47 alleged leaders (mostly small operators) of a loosely connected human-smuggling chain dealing with only illegal immigrants from Mexico. In fact these human smugglers are like hydras and drug smugglers, you arrest some and others quickly fill the void. Like drug smuggling, the problem will continue unabated as long as there is a strong demand for the smuggler's services. Nevertheless, actions which lead to a reduction in immigrant smuggler activity, no matter how temporary, or which lead to an increase in the fee for smuggler services are of some benefit in the fight against illegal immigration.
At the same time, it should be noted that the Obama administration has done nothing to make it more difficult for illegal immigrants to work and live in the U.S. In fact, it has gone in the other direction and is actively encouraging illegal immigration by completely decriminalizing living and working in the U.S. as an illegal immigrant. Today, the only illegal immigrants living here who are deported are ones who have been convicted of significant crimes here. The message to illegal immigrants is clear: if you can somehow get past the border area, you can stay and enjoy all the benefits of living here as long as you do not become a major criminal. As it is, at least half of our illegal immigrants are entering the U.S. legally (mostly at airports) from all over the world as visitors with valid visas and passports whose visitation time limits are ignored. And while being informally permitted to live and work here illegally, many immigrant couples have children here who are automatically legal citizens of the U.S. under our current law, thereby making their families eligible for a variety of welfare programs for low income citizens.
Like the raids on employers of illegal immigrants (see blog dated July 9, 2009 entitled "Kinder, Gentler Obama Immigration Policy") these one-time raids on smugglers are in large part politically motivated, trying to make it appear that the Obama administration is trying to do something about illegal immigration when in fact the opposite is true, they are more in favor of unskilled and little-educated illegal immigration than even the misguided W. For some rationale for the Obama immigration policy, which hurts our own poor who must compete with illegal immigrants for jobs and social benefits, see blog of October 2, 2009 entitled "The Elephants in the Democrats Back Room." In addition, Obama would like to appear tough on immigration to improve his chances of getting Congress to pass immigration legislation this year which contains some form of amnesty for most illegal immigrants.
At the same time, it should be noted that the Obama administration has done nothing to make it more difficult for illegal immigrants to work and live in the U.S. In fact, it has gone in the other direction and is actively encouraging illegal immigration by completely decriminalizing living and working in the U.S. as an illegal immigrant. Today, the only illegal immigrants living here who are deported are ones who have been convicted of significant crimes here. The message to illegal immigrants is clear: if you can somehow get past the border area, you can stay and enjoy all the benefits of living here as long as you do not become a major criminal. As it is, at least half of our illegal immigrants are entering the U.S. legally (mostly at airports) from all over the world as visitors with valid visas and passports whose visitation time limits are ignored. And while being informally permitted to live and work here illegally, many immigrant couples have children here who are automatically legal citizens of the U.S. under our current law, thereby making their families eligible for a variety of welfare programs for low income citizens.
Like the raids on employers of illegal immigrants (see blog dated July 9, 2009 entitled "Kinder, Gentler Obama Immigration Policy") these one-time raids on smugglers are in large part politically motivated, trying to make it appear that the Obama administration is trying to do something about illegal immigration when in fact the opposite is true, they are more in favor of unskilled and little-educated illegal immigration than even the misguided W. For some rationale for the Obama immigration policy, which hurts our own poor who must compete with illegal immigrants for jobs and social benefits, see blog of October 2, 2009 entitled "The Elephants in the Democrats Back Room." In addition, Obama would like to appear tough on immigration to improve his chances of getting Congress to pass immigration legislation this year which contains some form of amnesty for most illegal immigrants.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Illegal Immigration Population "Drop"
On February 9 the Department of Homeland Security released an estimate which showed that the illegal immigrant population declined by about 1 million in the two years from January 2007 to January 2009. However, there is no direct government or other reliable survey of the number of illegal immigrants living in the United States, and any conclusion that DHS draws from other data is subject to misinterpretation.
It is no doubt true that the current rate of illegal immigration inflow is lower than it has been (but not negative!) because jobs are scarcer due to our severe economic downturn. However there is no logical reason to expect that the reduced availability of jobs will cause many illegal immigrants to give up all the advantages of living in the U.S. and return to their native countries where the job prospects are even worse than in the U.S., where corruption and crime are rampant, where public services are poor or are absent, where public welfare is very limited or unavailable, and where public education and the life prospects for their children are dismal.
If anything, the reduced availability of jobs is pressuring some illegal immigrants to move to those sections of our country where there are fewer competing illegal immigrants in order to obtain low-end jobs. For those immigrants who are temporarily out of work, there is also the possibility of doubling up in living space with their many friends and relatives also living here. In either case, more immigrants would be on the move but they would not be moving out of the country!
To quote from a March, 2009 publication of The Inter-American Development Bank entitled "Remittances in times of financial instability": "Evidence from focus groups and surveys commissioned by the MIF [multilateral Investment Fund] and the Inter-American Dialogue suggest that immigrants are extremely capable of coping with adversity. These coping strategies include reducing the amount of money they spend on themselves, working longer hours or multiple jobs in the face of decreasing wages, shifting sectors because of declines in sectors such as manufacturing and construction, moving to areas with higher labor demand.... migrants, especially the undocumented, move from one state to another in response to local enforcement measures. Despite the cumulative effects of the economic, housing, and credit crises, it is only as a last resort that immigrants will return to their home countries. They will first exhaust all other options." [blogger's emphasis added]
It should also be noted that there are some strong motivations for the Obama administration to underestimate the extent of the illegal immigration problem. Understating the extent of illegal immigration helps to convey the impression that the Administration is enforcing our immigrations laws when in fact the opposite is true (see November 21 blog entitled “Obama’s Immigration Law Enforcement Farce”). It also makes it seem that illegal immigrants will deprive fewer less educated Americans of low-end jobs if there are fewer illegal immigrants in the country. The administration would also like to further these deceptions in an effort to get Congress and the public go along with its major objective of getting Congress to approve an amnesty for nearly all of today’s illegal immigrants. As noted in the October 2 blog entitled “The Elephants in the Democrats’ Back Room” there are a number of unstated political reasons for the Democrats to favor amnesty and non enforcement of our immigration laws.
It is no doubt true that the current rate of illegal immigration inflow is lower than it has been (but not negative!) because jobs are scarcer due to our severe economic downturn. However there is no logical reason to expect that the reduced availability of jobs will cause many illegal immigrants to give up all the advantages of living in the U.S. and return to their native countries where the job prospects are even worse than in the U.S., where corruption and crime are rampant, where public services are poor or are absent, where public welfare is very limited or unavailable, and where public education and the life prospects for their children are dismal.
If anything, the reduced availability of jobs is pressuring some illegal immigrants to move to those sections of our country where there are fewer competing illegal immigrants in order to obtain low-end jobs. For those immigrants who are temporarily out of work, there is also the possibility of doubling up in living space with their many friends and relatives also living here. In either case, more immigrants would be on the move but they would not be moving out of the country!
To quote from a March, 2009 publication of The Inter-American Development Bank entitled "Remittances in times of financial instability": "Evidence from focus groups and surveys commissioned by the MIF [multilateral Investment Fund] and the Inter-American Dialogue suggest that immigrants are extremely capable of coping with adversity. These coping strategies include reducing the amount of money they spend on themselves, working longer hours or multiple jobs in the face of decreasing wages, shifting sectors because of declines in sectors such as manufacturing and construction, moving to areas with higher labor demand.... migrants, especially the undocumented, move from one state to another in response to local enforcement measures. Despite the cumulative effects of the economic, housing, and credit crises, it is only as a last resort that immigrants will return to their home countries. They will first exhaust all other options." [blogger's emphasis added]
It should also be noted that there are some strong motivations for the Obama administration to underestimate the extent of the illegal immigration problem. Understating the extent of illegal immigration helps to convey the impression that the Administration is enforcing our immigrations laws when in fact the opposite is true (see November 21 blog entitled “Obama’s Immigration Law Enforcement Farce”). It also makes it seem that illegal immigrants will deprive fewer less educated Americans of low-end jobs if there are fewer illegal immigrants in the country. The administration would also like to further these deceptions in an effort to get Congress and the public go along with its major objective of getting Congress to approve an amnesty for nearly all of today’s illegal immigrants. As noted in the October 2 blog entitled “The Elephants in the Democrats’ Back Room” there are a number of unstated political reasons for the Democrats to favor amnesty and non enforcement of our immigration laws.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Australian Immigration Policy
Following Great Britain’s 1983 legislation to eliminate birthright citizenship, in 1986 Australian significantly curtailed birthright citizenship by illegal immigrants. After 1986 to qualify for Australian citizenship at birth a newborn had to have at least one parent who was an Australian citizen. If neither were, a child born in Australia could still obtain citizenship on his 10th birthday if he spent the first 10 years of his life in Australia.
Ireland eliminated birthright citizenship in 2005 and New Zealand in 2006. Today few developed countries other than the United States automatically award birthright citizenship to children whose parents are both illegal immigrants.
On February 8th the Internet edition of the Wall Street Journal carried an article with an Associated Press byline entitled “Australia Tightens Immigration Rules.” The gist of the article is that the current administration in Australia is imposing new immigration rules to more favor immigrants whose skills are in short supply in Australia. The opening line of the article states: “Australia tightened its migration rules Monday in favor of English speakers and professionals [whose skills are needed], saying the country has been attracting too many hairdressers and cooks and too few doctors and engineers."
The present U.S. legal immigration system discourages the immigration of individuals with advanced educational backgrounds and skills that would benefit our country. Instead of giving preferences to the best and brightest immigrants whose talents are in short supply here, since 1965 our legal immigration system gives most preferences to the close relatives of citizens. Since it is the recently legalized citizens, including many millions of formerly illegal immigrants legalized by amnesties and other means, who have by far the largest number of close relatives living outside the United States, the typical characteristics of our legal immigrants are now mirroring that of our illegal immigrants – poor, low-skilled, and little educated. Moreover, the amount of permitted legal immigration, including the admission of refugees and asylum seekers who also tend to be poor and unskilled, has been trending up over time and is now running about twice the level it had been prior to the 1990s. The American born children of illegal immigrants, after they reach 21 years of age, also have the right to sponsor foreign relatives for legal immigration into the U.S.
When will the government of the U.S. wake up and largely restrict legal immigration to those having the skills we need, as well as shut off the illegal immigrant magnet of automatic birthright citizenship?
Ireland eliminated birthright citizenship in 2005 and New Zealand in 2006. Today few developed countries other than the United States automatically award birthright citizenship to children whose parents are both illegal immigrants.
On February 8th the Internet edition of the Wall Street Journal carried an article with an Associated Press byline entitled “Australia Tightens Immigration Rules.” The gist of the article is that the current administration in Australia is imposing new immigration rules to more favor immigrants whose skills are in short supply in Australia. The opening line of the article states: “Australia tightened its migration rules Monday in favor of English speakers and professionals [whose skills are needed], saying the country has been attracting too many hairdressers and cooks and too few doctors and engineers."
The present U.S. legal immigration system discourages the immigration of individuals with advanced educational backgrounds and skills that would benefit our country. Instead of giving preferences to the best and brightest immigrants whose talents are in short supply here, since 1965 our legal immigration system gives most preferences to the close relatives of citizens. Since it is the recently legalized citizens, including many millions of formerly illegal immigrants legalized by amnesties and other means, who have by far the largest number of close relatives living outside the United States, the typical characteristics of our legal immigrants are now mirroring that of our illegal immigrants – poor, low-skilled, and little educated. Moreover, the amount of permitted legal immigration, including the admission of refugees and asylum seekers who also tend to be poor and unskilled, has been trending up over time and is now running about twice the level it had been prior to the 1990s. The American born children of illegal immigrants, after they reach 21 years of age, also have the right to sponsor foreign relatives for legal immigration into the U.S.
When will the government of the U.S. wake up and largely restrict legal immigration to those having the skills we need, as well as shut off the illegal immigrant magnet of automatic birthright citizenship?
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Haitian Immigration
Without a vote of Congress, President Obama has unilaterally* extended special immigration status to all Haitians living illegally in the United States. Haitians receiving the status known as temporary protected status will be able to obtain documents allowing them to live and work here legally for a period of 18 months. According to the New York Times of January 15 at least 100,000 Haitians are believed to be living in the U.S. illegally in addition to 30,000 living here who have been ordered deported in the past (but who did not leave the U.S.). Those ordered deported (probably consisting primarily of Haitians denied asylum) will also be eligible for temporary protective status.
The temporary protective status may open up some new job opportunities for the Haitians who are granted the status. But most are little-educated, making it likely that they are seeking low-level jobs that can be obtained just as easily, or possibly more easily, as illegal immigrants.
The “temporary” part of the temporary protective status is misleading. All children born in the United States to those covered by temporary protective status will be granted automatic citizenship as usual and if the past is any guide, those covered by this temporary status will never be forced to leave the U.S. and will eventually be given extensions of their status and finally amnesty.
It is likely that the 130,000 estimate significantly understates the number eligible to take advantage of the temporary protective status (many of those eligible will just continue with their illegal immigrant status). Along with other goals like seeming to make a humanitarian gesture and getting one step closer to the objective of amnesty for all illegal immigrants, the Obama administration’s announcement is trying to perpetuate the fiction that it is enforcing our country’s immigration laws. In reality, early on the Obama administration established the de facto policy of not deporting illegal immigrants found living in the United States unless they were convicted of substantial criminal activity in the U.S. (see November 21 and October 2 blogs).
Part of creating the appearance of immigration enforcement were these statements in the Times article: "'To send Haitians back to that country right now would be nothing short of inhumane,' said Senator Charles E. Schumer." and "On Wednesday Ms. Napolitano [Secretary of Homeland Security] suspended deportations of Haitians." While the Obama administration and its devotees try to further the fiction of immigration enforcement, the truth is that prior to the earthquake in Haiti no Haitians or any other illegal immigrants found living in the U.S. were being sent back to their home countries except certain convicted criminals.
Ms. Napolitano, is quoted by the Times as saying that the status would only be extended to those Haitians already in the U.S. as of Tuesday January 12 – another piece of the immigration enforcement charade. It is likely that for some time all fleeing Haitians who make it to U.S. soil will be eligible for the temporary protective status since there will be no way of proving that they arrived here after January 12. In any event, as long as Obama is President, no illegal immigrants of any nationality will be forced to leave the U.S. unless convicted of a significant crime here.
* The Times notes that: "The administration's decision followed a rising chorus of calls for temporary status after the earthquake on Tuesday. On Friday, 80 representatives and 18 senators, including Democrats and Republicans, sent appeals to the administration to grant the status, as did the conference of Roman Catholic bishops."
The temporary protective status may open up some new job opportunities for the Haitians who are granted the status. But most are little-educated, making it likely that they are seeking low-level jobs that can be obtained just as easily, or possibly more easily, as illegal immigrants.
The “temporary” part of the temporary protective status is misleading. All children born in the United States to those covered by temporary protective status will be granted automatic citizenship as usual and if the past is any guide, those covered by this temporary status will never be forced to leave the U.S. and will eventually be given extensions of their status and finally amnesty.
It is likely that the 130,000 estimate significantly understates the number eligible to take advantage of the temporary protective status (many of those eligible will just continue with their illegal immigrant status). Along with other goals like seeming to make a humanitarian gesture and getting one step closer to the objective of amnesty for all illegal immigrants, the Obama administration’s announcement is trying to perpetuate the fiction that it is enforcing our country’s immigration laws. In reality, early on the Obama administration established the de facto policy of not deporting illegal immigrants found living in the United States unless they were convicted of substantial criminal activity in the U.S. (see November 21 and October 2 blogs).
Part of creating the appearance of immigration enforcement were these statements in the Times article: "'To send Haitians back to that country right now would be nothing short of inhumane,' said Senator Charles E. Schumer." and "On Wednesday Ms. Napolitano [Secretary of Homeland Security] suspended deportations of Haitians." While the Obama administration and its devotees try to further the fiction of immigration enforcement, the truth is that prior to the earthquake in Haiti no Haitians or any other illegal immigrants found living in the U.S. were being sent back to their home countries except certain convicted criminals.
Ms. Napolitano, is quoted by the Times as saying that the status would only be extended to those Haitians already in the U.S. as of Tuesday January 12 – another piece of the immigration enforcement charade. It is likely that for some time all fleeing Haitians who make it to U.S. soil will be eligible for the temporary protective status since there will be no way of proving that they arrived here after January 12. In any event, as long as Obama is President, no illegal immigrants of any nationality will be forced to leave the U.S. unless convicted of a significant crime here.
* The Times notes that: "The administration's decision followed a rising chorus of calls for temporary status after the earthquake on Tuesday. On Friday, 80 representatives and 18 senators, including Democrats and Republicans, sent appeals to the administration to grant the status, as did the conference of Roman Catholic bishops."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)