Quoted Text

Bush created the immigration mess
Froma Harrop is a nationally syndicated columnist.
Froma Harrop

   Immigration reform was to be George W. Bush’s legacy. It’s now clear that he won’t have a legacy to stand on.
   The president’s visit to the Capitol was supposed to restart the immigration “grand bargain,” currently in a mid-air stall. As is his habit, he painted scary scenarios if things don’t go his way. (Note how he lists the dire consequences of pulling out of the mess he created in Iraq.) On immigration, he warns that “the status quo is unacceptable.”
   And we can thank him for that unacceptable status quo. As America’s chief executive, it was Bush’s duty to enforce the laws against hiring illegal immigrants.
   And for seven years, he did next to nothing. No, he did worse than nothing. In 2004, he publicly vowed to “match any willing worker with any willing employer,” thus ending the tradition that stressed the interests of American labor in making immigration policy. The message was heard as intended, setting off a new surge of illegal entrants.
   One recalls the famous line in the movie “Touch of Evil,” when Orson Welles, a corrupt U.S. cop, asks Marlene Dietrich, a fortune-telling madam in Tijuana, to read his future. “You haven’t got any,” she says ominously. “Your future is all used up.”
   The same can be said of Bush’s future as a leader on immigration reform. The president’s credibility is all used up by his conscious strategy to neglect immigration enforcement — part of a shameful drive to cheapen American labor for the advantage of business.
   Bush also pulled a bait-and-switch. He always spoke of amnesty as something that would be extended to illegal aliens who’ve been here a long time and paid their back taxes. But the bill he supports gives amnesty to people who crashed the border as recently as six months ago, and it drops the part about back taxes.
   So small wonder that Americans greet Bush’s views on the immigration bill with either hostility or utter indifference. They sense that the fix is in — that illegal-alien advocates and big business have combined with lawmakers to sell them out.
   And they don’t want to fall for a repeat of the 1986 grand bargain, which promised amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants in return for fines against employers who hire them. The amnesty came off, while the employer sanctions were sabotaged. The original proposal called for a computerized registry against which employers would have to verify the right of all job applicants to work in the United States. It was ditched and replaced with an “honor system” that let employers accept documents that looked OK to them. Thus, a new era of counterfeiting was born.
   Here’s a simple idea to build public support for an immigration compromise: Have Congress pass the part of the bill that would force employers to check all new hires’ eligibility to work in the United States with a database (and fine those who don’t). Once that’s being done to the public’s satisfaction, we can discuss what to do about the illegal immigrants living here and whether to increase the number of legal visas.
   The latest round of threats has it that if Congress doesn’t pass comprehensive immigration reform right away, the issue will get lost in the upcoming presidential campaigns. Wrong. On the contrary, the American people will have the opportunity to press the candidates on what they would do about a matter that affects their wages, health care, taxes and the environment.
   There are worse things than the status quo. Bush has shown time and again that he knows how to create them. Now, if he would only just go away.

Quoted Text

English courses overwhelmed by immigrant influx
BY MIRIAM JORDAN The Wall Street Journal

   Queens Community House in Jackson Heights, N.Y., doesn’t advertise its free English courses, but for many years its lotteries for places in the class drew hordes that required police presence. A new system has eliminated the crowds — and the need for cops — but competition for spaces remains fierce: Three out of four applicants are turned away.
   “People plead and cry on the day the names are posted,” says director K.C. Williams, an 18-year veteran of English-language programs. “You cannot imagine how much these immigrants want to learn English. Demand is off the charts.”
   And demand for English instruction is likely to explode in coming years. An immigration bill in the Senate would require 12 million illegal immigrants to show profi - ciency in English in order to qualify for legal permanent residency, or a green card.
   Yet, already, providers can’t keep up with demand because of a dearth of publicly funded classes. Across the United States, “the problem is not the unwillingness of immigrants to learn English,” says Chung-Wha Hong, executive director of the New Immigration Coalition, an advocacy group. “The problem is we don’t provide enough classes.” The cost of attending private language centers is out of reach for most new immigrants.
   Since the 1960s, programs that teach English-as-a-second-language (ESL) have been funded through the federal government’s adult-education program, as well as money from states and municipalities. Typically, immigrants attend classes at community centers, libraries and nonprofit organizations that compete for public funds each year.
   Immigrant resettlement organizations, such the United Jewish Appeal, offer ESL programs using private philanthropy and some public funds. Religious organizations sometimes offer English classes taught by volunteers. Immigrants normally attend for free or pay only a nominal fee.
EXPLODING DEMAND
   But amid a record influx of immigrants, there are not enough seats in these courses to meet exploding demand. For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2006, there were 1.1 million ESL students enrolled in programs backed by public funds. A survey conducted last year by the National Association of Latino Elected Officials Educational Fund of 184 ESL providers in 22 cities found that 57 percent maintained waiting lists.
   In Phoenix, the state’s largest provider had a waiting list of more than 1,000 people, with waiting times of up to 18 months for evening classes. In Boston, at least 16,725 adults were on waiting lists, some of them for three years. In Albuquerque, providers reported waiting times of up to 14 months. In New York City, most ESL programs no longer keep waiting lists due to huge demand.
   To close the gap, in recent years there has been a proliferation of private ESL programs, offered by colleges and language schools. However, private instruction, which can cost up to several thousand dollars per semester, is out of reach for most working-class newcomers.
   Some employers, including many hospitals, offer on-site English training for their foreign work force. However, by and large, U.S. companies don’t provide or finance English classes for their employees. Thus, programs administered with public funds are likely to represent the lion’s share of all ESL seats for the foreseeable future, experts say.
   “The government and private sector should work together to increase capacity,” says Elyse Rudolph, executive director of the Literacy Assistance Center, a hub of technical assistance and training for adult-education programs in New York state.
OPPONENTS OBJECT
   Opponents say the U.S. government shouldn’t be in the business of paying language instruction for immigrants.
   “We don’t agree with the idea that the government owes it to them to pay for their English proficiency,” says Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform. As FAIR sees it, he says, exploding demand for English classes is an indication that “the flow of immigration needs to slow down.”
   Some politicians, radio talkshow hosts and anti-immigrant groups express concern that the swelling ranks of Spanish speakers, whom they perceive as not wanting to learn English, are diluting U.S. culture. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 21.3 million residents (less than 10 percent) report speaking English “less than very well.” Since the 1990s, several states have passed “English-only” laws designed to assert the dominance of English.
   The primary federal source for ESL programs is through Title II of the Workforce Investment Act for adult education and literacy. Despite ballooning demand, the allocation hasn’t kept pace, having stagnated at $570 million for the last three years. In 2005, the Bush administration proposed scaling back funding to $207 million for the 2006 fiscal year. State education offi cials fought back, averting the cut. But they say the episode highlights the fragile nature of federal support.
   Although the general public sometimes assumes that newcomers can learn English by carrying out their daily activities, experts estimate that between 500 and 1,000 hours of instruction are needed to master basic English verbal and literacy skills. Typically, a student enrolls for one-year, taking three cycles of 150 hours each, with the average class being 12 hours per week.
POPULATION GROWTH
   Immigrants are expected to account for most of the growth in the U.S. work force over the next two decades and to be key to the country’s economic health. Research has indicated that knowledge of English is closely correlated with professional success and socioeconomic advancement.
   A 2005 study by the National Assessment of Adult Literacy found that median weekly earnings of proficient English speakers were 225 percent higher than those at a below basic level.
   Students at the Queens Community House, which occupies several rooms in an office building near henna tattoo shops, halal butchers and other ethnic businesses, hail from more than 30 countries. But about 70 percent of the 650 students are native Spanish speakers, reflecting the booming numbers of Latin American immigrants to New York.  

Quoted Text

US Latinos see 2008 vote as their 'moment'
by Marie Sanz
Sun Jun 17,

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US Hispanic community, galvanized by a drive to reform US immigration law and wooed by presidential candidates, has become a political player ahead of the 2008 vote.

Hispanics mobilized to pressure congressional passage of the most sweeping immigration overhaul in 20 years, hoping to bring some 12 million illegal immigrants, mostly Latin Americans, out of the shadows.

Latinos became key voters ahead of the Republican and Democratic parties' primary elections next year as several states with huge Hispanic populations have moved their primaries to earlier dates.

The rallying cry of Latino organizations has become "It is our moment, we have a voice."

Hispanics have surpassed African-Americans as the largest minority group in recent years, making up 14.8 percent of the 300 million people living in America.

Two-thirds of Hispanic residents live in nine states that will hold primary votes on February 5 or earlier, including California, Nevada, Florida and New York.

The primaries will be "historic" because of the Latino vote, which has become more important than it has ever been, said Adam Segal, director of the Hispanic Voter Project at Johns Hopkins University.

Hispanic groups and the widely watched, Spanish-language television channel Univision are urging Latinos to apply for US citizenship and then to register to vote.

White House hopefuls are well aware of the importance of Hispanic voters.

The campaign website of former senator        John Edwards, the 2004 Democratic vice presidential candidate, has a page in "Espanol" with the slogan "El Manana Comienza Hoy," or "Tomorrow Begins Today."

Democratic Senator Barack Obama is getting help from a Mexican-American who created the website "Amigos de Obama," or "Friends of Obama," which is unaffiliated with his campaign, aimed at reaching out to Hispanics.

The website even features a song in a popular Latino-flavored reggae beat called reggaeton, with the chorus: "Como se dice?/Como se llama? OBAMA! OBAMA!" ("How do you say it? What is his name? OBAMA!")

The leading Democratic candidate, Senator        Hillary Clinton, has already secured the key endorsement of Antonio Villaraigosa, the Latino mayor of Los Angeles, a city of four million -- nearly half of whom are Hispanic.

One Democrat could make history if he becomes the first Hispanic US president.

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, a former UN ambassador who was born to a Mexican mother, has said he was running as "an American, proud to be Hispanic."

One of the top Republican hopefuls, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, has hired Hispanic consultants in Florida, a key voting state where the largely Republican Cuban-American population has a powerful voice.

Although Hispanics tend to vote for Democrats,        President George W. Bush garnered 42 percent of their ballots in the 2004 election.

But 73 percent of Hispanics voted for Democratic candidates in November's legislative election, which gave Bush's foes control of Congress.

Republicans face an "enormous challenge" to gain Hispanic support, said Gabriel Escobar of Pew Hispanic Center, a research institution.

Although Hispanics represent just nine percent of the US electorate, their numbers are "already significant and growing" in some states, Escobar said.

Quoted Text

Popular but problematic

   Immigration reform is dead for now, and the “no amnesty” activists — who really mean “no path to citizenship ever for anyone who illegally crossed the border at any time” — are understandably gloating.
   We agree with opponents that enforcement got short shrift in the bill and that probationary visas would have been granted with indefensible haste.
   But many illegals have sunk deep roots and are assets to the economy. Most are not going home no matter how much anyone might wish. That’s why we believe it is neither rational nor humane to keep them in a twilight zone forever by equating any path to citizenship with an amnesty for undeserving criminals.
   The defeat of the immigration reform package no doubt represents a triumph of popular sentiment. But it is also safe to say that the public does not like the status quo. And yet it is hard to see how any meaningful immigration bill can pass Congress given the present balance of political power.
   --The Rocky Mountain News

Quoted Text

Immigration Bill Hides $1 Trillion Time Bomb
Dave Eberhart, NewsMax
Monday, June 18, 2007

WASHINGTON -- The immigration bill being debated by the Senate would allow more than 2 million illegal workers who received Social Security numbers prior to 2004 to receive more than $966 billion in Social Security benefits by 2040, warns the Senior Citizens League, a 1.2 million-member nonpartisan seniors' advocacy organization based in Alexandria, Va.

Despite a provision in the bill that would prevent individuals who performed illegal work and then obtained a Social Security number after 2007 from receiving credit for Social Security taxes paid in previous years, the legislation, according to the League, does nothing to prevent aliens who illegally obtained "non-work" Social Security numbers prior to 2004 from claiming benefits.

Between 1974 and 2003, the Social Security Administration issued more than seven million "non-work" Social Security numbers, which entitled some foreign nationals – some of whom were illegal aliens – to services such as Medicaid and food stamps, says Mary Johnson, Social Security and Medicare policy analyst for the League.

According to the League, the majority of non-work Social Security numbers were issued during an era of less restrictive immigration policy; in some cases, aliens didn't need proof of citizenship to receive a number.

Despite their "non-work" status, the League maintains that millions performed unlawful work, and under the Senate legislation currently being considered, this group would be eligible for Social Security benefits.

"The Senate is telling the American people that illegal aliens wouldn't be able to collect Social Security benefits under this immigration deal, and that is flat wrong," says Shannon Benton, executive director of TREA Senior Citizens League. "The truth is that illegal aliens would receive more than double in Social Security benefits what American taxpayers have spent so far on the war in Iraq."

According to the Social Security Administration, the Social Security Trust Fund will begin paying out more than it is taking in by 2017, and will be completely exhausted by 2041.

Phillips: The original Section 607 of the immigration bill would prevent individuals receiving a Social Security number after 2007 from receiving credit for Social Security taxes paid in previous years. But that doesn't preclude those who received a Social Security number PRIOR to 2007 -- including those who received these "non-work" Social Security numbers from 1974 through 2003, even if they were illegal workers -- from collecting on their illegally performed work.

Phillips: Yes, an amendment offered by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Tex., would re-write the provision to preclude Social Security credits for periods without work authorization, and reads: "Except as provided in paragraph (2), for purposes of subsections (a) and (b), no quarter of coverage shall be credited for any calendar year beginning on or after January 1, 2004, with respect to an individual who is not a natural-born United States citizen, unless the Commissioner of Social Security determines, on the basis of information provided to the Commissioner in accordance with an agreement entered into under subsection (d) or otherwise, that the individual was authorized to be employed in the United States during such quarter."

That's still problematic, because as you can see, it doesn't deal with any dates prior to 2004, which is the period which we are concerned with. The language would need to be amended to deal with either dates prior to 2004, or to deal with "non-work" Social Security numbers.

Phillips: The Hutchison amendment passed – but, unfortunately, in final form it covered only through 2004. It's still useless for the "non-work" people, since the "non-work" period was 1974-2003.

Perhaps an article in today's Houston Chronicle best explains what happened: "Hutchison sought to deny Social Security credit for all time worked under illegal status. But her amendment, accepted by the Senate during the earlier floor debate, was pared to deny work credits only to illegal immigrants who obtained legitimate Social Security numbers after January 2004. Otherwise, the amendment could have required changes in the 2004 Social Security Protection Act, triggering the opposition of powerful senators."

Phillips: Between 1974 and 2003, the Social Security Administration issued more than seven million "non-work" Social Security numbers. According to Government Accountability Office testimony, the non-work cards are for people not eligible to work in the United States. The SSA sends recipients of these SSNs a card that bears the inscription NOT VAID FOR EMPLOYMENT.

To be issued these cards, non-citizens who do not have DHS [Department of Homeland Security] permission to work must have been found eligible to receive a federally-funded benefit or are subject to a state or local law that requires them to have an SSN to get public benefits. Examples include SSI, Medicaid, and Food Stamps.

The SS numbers continue to be issued but SSA has greatly reduced the number it issues. In 2005 the number was fewer than 15,000.

NewsMax: Say, someone who worked illegally on a not valid for employment card files in the future for benefits. Why wouldn't the feds be free to simply say ‘nice try' but you weren't eligible to work in such-in-such a period, go away?

Phillips: That's the trillion dollar question. It would require a change in the Social Security Protection Act of 2004. Based on Senator Hutchison's comments, she faced stiff opposition from the other side when she tried to do so, so she had no other choice but to let it go. That's just my speculation, though.

At NewsMax's request, the League's Mary Johnson threw some more light on this nettlesome 2004 Social Security Protection Act.

She explained that according to the Congressional Research Service, the 2004 Social Security Protection Act restricts payment of Social Security benefits to certain immigrants who file an application for benefits based on a Social Security number assigned on or after January 1, 2004.

Specifically, a non-citizen who files an application for benefits based on an SSN assigned on or after January 1, 2004 is required to have work authorization at the time an SSN is assigned or at some later time, to gain insured status under Social Security.


If an individual gains work authorization at some point, Johnson adds, all of his or her earnings would count toward insured status and in figuring the initial retirement benefit, even earnings while working illegally.

"Moreover, the Congressional Research Service has opined that a non-citizen who files an application for benefits on an SSN assigned before January 1, 2004, is NOT subject to the work authorization requirement," Johnson says.

"Thus, all of the individual's Social Security covered earnings would count toward insured status REGARDLESS of his or her work authorization status. In other words, those immigrants may qualify for Social Security without ever having legally worked," Johnson concludes.

Johnson further explains that her League lobbies for the law to be changed to better protect Social Security from the costs of illegal work. "We do not know the specific reasons why members of Congress would resist Hutchinson's attempt to strengthen this aspect of law protecting Social Security and the benefits of their constituents."

Quoted from bumblethru

I agree...but it should be taken out like 401k's. Through our employers as opposed to the government taking it for us.

The downside...what about the people who don't work? Be it by choice or unfortunate circumstance. Who will support them? And where will their supportive money come from?

Quoted Text

Mr. Kevin March  
163 Princetown Road, Rotterdam, NY 12306
PH 518-847-6897  


President George Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20500



Dear President Bush:

We are absolutely disgusted with your support of S. 1348, a bill which would grant amnesty to millions of lawbreakers and hurt millions of Americans who find it difficult to find work. This is not the legacy you want.

Some people say that businesses need more workers. Others say that there are jobs that Americans just won't do. This is a load of codswallop. There are millions of Americans who are currently seeking jobs so that they may give their families a better life. Why are you seeking to destroy their chances?

S. 1348 includes a guestworker program. These provisions, along with many others, are farces. Guest worker programs will lead to more future illegal immigration, there is no exit system to stop future illegal aliens from overstaying their visas, the watered-down enforcement measures aren't paid for but the amnesty (legal residence and right to work) is guaranteed, and all of the enforcement "triggers" have been carefully worded so that they are all about procedures and not about results.

The public isn't as stupid as the architects of this bill would like to believe. We know to be suspicious when a bill touted as the largest overhaul of our immigration laws is written behind closed doors, we know what a loophole is, and we know that if we steal a car, we don't get to keep the car by paying a fine and passing a driving test.

By supporting this bill, you are placing yourself among the architects of this bill and, considering the public outcry over S. 1348, that is not the place I would want to be.  
Sincerely,

Mr. Kevin March  

Quoted Text

Mr. Kevin March  
163 Princetown Road, Rotterdam, NY 12306
PH 518-847-6897  


Senator Charles Schumer
SH-313, United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510



Dear Senator Schumer:

Your vote against the Coburn Amendment to S. 1348 was a vote against current immigration law.

SA 1311 would have added some teeth to the underlying measure's so-called enforcement "triggers" and would surely have delayed the granting of any amnesty to illegal aliens or the importation of any additional "temporary" non-immigrant workers. Specifically, the Coburn Amendment required DHS, in addition to the mechanisms needed to "trigger" implementation of the bill's amnesty and guestworker provisions, to certify the implementation of various border security and interior enforcement measures (e.g., all statutorily-required border fencing has been constructed, US-VISIT is fully operational, "sanctuary cities" are prohibited, denying aliens who are likely to become public charges admission into the United States, etc.). It also required the president to certify that all of these "triggering" mechanisms are fully implemented and operational and, subsequently, required Congress to approve the certification -- all of this prior to implementation of amnesty and guestworker provisions.

It would behoove you to remember that most of the voters who elected you decry amnesty.  
Sincerely,

Mr. Kevin March  

Quoted Text

Mr. Kevin March  
163 Princetown Road, Rotterdam, NY 12306
PH 518-847-6897  


Senator Hillary Clinton
SR - 476, United States Senate
Washington, DC 20515



Dear Senator Clinton:

I'm counting on you to resist pressure to revive the S. 1348 guestworker-amnesty zombie.


This idea to give massive rewards to illegal aliens and illegal employers just won't seem to die. The House killed the idea last year. Then, the Senate killed it again last week by voting against cloture on S. 1348.

But like a zombie, it has risen from the dead yet again and is haunting the halls of Congress this week.

This bill needs to stay dead. Not only would it give access to permanent legal residence and jobs to 12-20 million illegal aliens, but it includes giant loopholes in enforcement that will ensure that illegal immigration will continue at a rapid pace in the future. Plus, it would dramatically increase Chain Migration for the next 18 years.

Let this idea rest in peace. Please, finally do SOMETHING for the residents of New York State. I know that there's not much in consideration for people who live above the city line, but there are many of us and we are outraged at this type of thing.

If you are in the Senate to help the residents of New York State, then just think what voting for this bill means. Millions of additional constituents...for other senators across the United States, especially in the southwest. Where is the money that you would fight to get for New York State going to go? To pay for the medical bills and for the daily living of these residents instead of the New York State Taxpayers.  
Phone me if you would like to talk about this,

Mr. Kevin March  

Quoted Text

Mr. Kevin March  
163 Princetown Road, Rotterdam, NY 12306
PH 518-847-6897  


Representative Michael McNulty
2161 Rayburn House Office Building, U.S. House
Washington, DC 20515



Dear Representative McNulty:

Please become a member of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus.

A 2006 Zogby poll found that Americans want less, not more, immigration. Sixty-seven percent of respondents said immigration should be reduced so those already here are allowed to assimilate.

When given a neutral choice (avoiding terms like "amnesty" and "illegal alien"), Americans favor the enforcement-only approach of H.R. 4437, which was passed by the House in the 109th Congress over Senate proposals of last year to legalize illegal aliens and double annual immigration from one to two million – and they do so by a margin of more than two to one (64 percent to 30 percent).

In light of this, it seems to me that joining the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus, which is working for an enforcement-only approach, is one of the best things you can do to win favor with your constituents.

If you do decide that this is something that you would still like, please explain to me how you think it would benefit you. In fact, with this number of people becoming legal residents of this country, it would have a great impact on the House of Representatives. This, in fact, could go as far as causing redistricting to need to be done, sending additional seats to represent these new "Legal Residents." Well, since the House of Representatives stays at 435 seats, no matter what the population of the Unites States is, it seems that there would be more districts in the southwest, and therefore, fewer in New York State. Voting Yes on this bill could cost you your job in one of two ways. Either from an election standpoint (I will make it evident to everyone in your district your stance, or non-response on this) to vote you out of your office. Unless you would like the other option. Maybe your district will be broken up into parts of other districts, just like has been discussed with doing with Schenectady County at times in the past. Please stand up and let the people be heard that we do NOT want this bill passed.  
Phone me if you would like to talk about this,

Mr. Kevin March  

Quoted Text

Curiosity expressed over reaction to Schwarzenegger's 'learn English' comment
Chad Groening
OneNewsNow.com
June 20, 2007


An official English language advocate says he can't understand why recent comments by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger about the importance of immigrants learning English are being viewed by some as controversial.



Governor Schwarzenegger told the National Association of Hispanic Journalists that immigrants should avoid Spanish language media if they want to learn English quickly. He was responding to a question about how Hispanic students can improve academic performance. The California governor shared that when he emigrated from Austria to the United States, he rarely spoke German to anyone.
Jim Boulet, executive director of English First, says he cannot understand why some people are up in arms about his comments. "I just think that it's appalling for the governor to say, 'learn English,' and have that be considered a controversial statement in America," he observes.
Boulet believes those who have a problem with Schwarzenegger's stance are found only in a certain segment of the immigrant population. "The legal immigrants don't play that game," he says. "The illegal immigrants and the people who claim to represent them -- they're the ones who want to divide us all linguistically. And the people claim to represent them for one obvious reason; we've lost sight of the melting pot."
In addition, says Boulet, many Spanish-language media outlets do not relish the idea of immigrants learning English -- because then they would no longer be dependent on those outlets and the biases they project. "These publications are not disinterested purveyors of objective truth," he says. "Just like any other newspaper or radio program, they have a point of view."