Quoted Text

Crackdown on illegal aliens’ employers part of the solution
Ruben Navarrette is a nationally syndicated columnist.
Ruben Navarrette

   The national dialogue over immigration reform is like a delicate negotiation — one that works only if both sides deal in good faith. Which explains why the debate stalled. Neither side has been honest about what they really want and don’t want.
   We already knew that those on the right were being deceitful. They insist that border security is all they care about, when much of what drives them is a nativist impulse to reverse what they see as the “Mexican-ization” of the United States, complete with taco trucks, Mexican flags and Spanish-language billboards.
   But last week, we learned that those on the left — including openborder advocates, immigrant activists and Latino groups — can be just as disingenuous. They insist that they support increased border enforcement as part of a comprehensive reform package, but when the enforcement comes a la carte, they cry foul.
   These are some of the same people who also say we focus too much on the illegal immigrants and not enough on those who hire them. That’s what I hear whenever I speak to Latino groups: that authorities should concentrate on the farms, restaurants, hotels and other businesses that depend on illegal immigrants to do the jobs that Americans pass up.
   They have a point. It’s just more sporting when government goes after people who have the resources to strike back. As it stands, most employers get a free pass. They have a long list of excuses, claiming that they didn’t know a worker was illegal, that subcontractors do the hiring, that the documents presented looked real, or that they can’t deny jobs to people they suspect are undocumented, lest they get sued for discrimination. And on it goes.
   Yet when people make the argument that we focus too much on immigrants and not enough on employers, the implication is that they support cracking down on those doing the hiring. Apparently not. Otherwise the left wouldn’t be so upset over a new initiative from the Department of Homeland Security that aims to go after employers who repeatedly hire illegal immigrants. It’s as if the left finally figured out that if the government cracks down on employers, the tactic could punish workers by putting them out of a job.
   That’s too bad. Neither the illegal worker nor the unscrupulous employer deserves much sympathy. Besides, if you don’t attack the problem at the root, you’ll never solve it.
   The left’s fury was aroused last week by the announcement that Homeland Security would target employers through “no-match” letters sent by the Social Security Administration. Those letters go to employers, informing them that the Social Security numbers of 10 or more workers don’t match those on government records, a good indication that the workers could be in the country illegally. Under the new guidelines, once employers are notified that they have illegal workers, they would have to prove that the problem had been corrected even it that means fi ring the workers who provided phony documents. Those employers who don’t comply with that requirement could face fines of up to $10,000 per violation.
   The National Council of La Raza blasted the new policy as “an assault on the civil rights of all Hispanic Americans,” according to a statement from NCLR President Janet Murguia. She said the new measures would result in “the racial profiling of all working Latinos” and “impose a substantial burden on a subset of our citizens which is based entirely on the color of their skin, their accent, or their name.”
   The pro-immigrant National Immigration Forum predicted the new strategy would fail, with “disastrous, economic, security and civil rights consequences.” A spokesman did say that such enforcement measures could make sense but only combined with “a functioning legal immigration system.”
   The New York Times editorial page called the crackdown on employers “infuriating and potentially dangerous” because of a 4 percent error rate with the database at the Social Security Administration, which produces the “no-match” letters. The newspaper also blasted the Bush administration for embracing an enforcement-only approach.
   It’s fine to oppose an enforcement-only approach as a wishful and ineffective strategy to curb illegal immigration. But that shouldn’t stop you from supporting those elements that are fair and reasonable, such as cracking down on employers who repeatedly break the law.
   Otherwise, folks might conclude that what you really want is an open border. That’s not a logical position, but at least it’s clear. And those who think we should go in that direction should just be honest and say so. Then maybe we can restart the negotiation.

Quoted Text

Census Bureau wants help counting illegal immigrants
Crackdowns could make 2010 event more difficult
BY STEPHEN OHLEMACHER The Associated Press

   A look at the states believed to have the most illegal immigrants, according to 2005 Pew Hispanic Center estimates. The center estimates the national total has since grown to about 12 million. The numbers are in thousands:

   WASHINGTON — Census workers know it will be diffi cult counting illegal immigrants for the 2010 population tally and even tougher if those immigrants are hiding from enforcement agents.
   “If you have federal officials going door to door trying to count people, and federal officials going door to door trying to deport people, it doesn’t work,” said Arturo Vargas, executive director of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials.
   To make it easier, the Census Bureau wants immigration agents to suspend enforcement raids during the population count, the Census Bureau’s second-ranking offi cial said in an Associated Press interview.
   Deputy Director Preston Jay Waite said immigration enforcement officials did not conduct raids for several months before and after the 2000 census. But today’s political climate is even more volatile on the issue of illegal immigration.
   Enforcement agents “have a job to do,” Waite said. “They may not be able to give us as much of a break” in 2010.
   An Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman declined to say whether immigration officials would halt raids. “If we were, we wouldn’t talk about it,” Pat Reilly said.
   “For us to suspend that enforcement would probably take a lot more than one meeting,” Reilly said. “We would have to discuss this at the highest levels of both agencies.”
   The issue arises as the U.S. struggles to resolve the fate of an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. After Congress failed to pass an immigration overhaul sought by the president, the Bush administration last week said it would step up efforts to enforce immigration laws.
   One lawmaker said she thinks “it’s nuts” for the Census Bureau to ask for a break in enforcement.
   “I don’t know what country the Census Bureau is living in,” Rep. Candice Miller, R-Mich., said in a telephone interview from her district. “I can tell them the American people have grown sick and tired of their immigration laws not being enforced. They are not going to tolerate enforcement being suspended for any amount of time.”
   The Constitution requires the Census Bureau to count everyone, including illegal immigrants. The once-a-decade population count is then used to apportion seats in Congress and to appropriate billions of dollars in federal spending each year.
   Miller has introduced a constitutional amendment that would apportion seats in Congress based only on the number of U.S. citizens in each state.
   The Census Bureau plans to approach all federal agencies for help in getting an accurate count, Waite said.
   Illegal immigrants are notoriously hard to count, although outside experts estimate that census workers count 85 percent to 90 percent of them.
   Census workers ask immigrants if they are citizens; they do not ask if they are in the country legally.
   “We’re supposed to count every resident. If you go out and ask, ‘Are you here illegally?’ they are going to run,” said Kenneth Prewitt, who directed the Census Bureau during the 2000 census.
   Prewitt said the public already is suspicious of government workers knocking on their doors and asking personal questions. Those suspicions are amplified among illegal immigrants, even though personal information collected by Census Bureau is private by law.
   Prewitt said immigration offi cials informally agreed to cooperate with the Census Bureau during the 2000 census by not conducting any large-scale raids.
   “If they had a reason to think it was important to carry out an action, they would have done so,” Prewitt said. “But they did offer to cooperate as much as possible so they didn’t create a climate of fear. They did not carry out any major raids.”
   Reilly, the immigration enforcement spokeswoman, said she could not confirm any informal agreements to scale back enforcement during the 2000 census.
   She said the agency “continued to perform its duty to enforce the nation’s immigration laws by continuing to investigate, pursue and arrest criminal and other egregious violators.”
   Vargas said the intense debate over immigration has made immigrants even more suspicious of the government today.
   “The Census Bureau has a job to do,” said Vargas, who belongs to a committee that advises the bureau on the 2010 census. “They need to convince people that they need to report themselves to the federal government and that it’s going to remain confidential. That’s a hard sell.”
   Supporters of stricter immigration laws said the whole discussion of suspending raids shows that the immigration system is broken.
   “If you don’t enforce your laws, this is what you are going to get, one agency asking another agency to subvert the law,” said Steven Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates stricter enforcement of immigration laws.

Quoted Text

Even immigrants must respect immigration law
Ruben Navarrette Jr.
Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a nationally syndicated columnist.

   When I heard that federal immigration agents had arrested and deported Elvira Arellano, a 32-year-old Mexican citizen who brazenly broke our laws and all but dared U.S. authorities to do anything about it, I wondered what the reaction would be from the National Council of La Raza.
   Days before, I had received an angry phone call from NCLR President Janet Murguia, accusing me of taking a “cheap shot” by implying in a column that the organization supported open borders because it opposed a plan by the Bush administration to target employers of illegal immigrants. Murguia insisted that the NCLR supports enforcement, and she pointed to its lobbying for the Senate compromise which, she reminded me, had an enforcement component.
   Yet I’ve never heard Murguia, or anyone at NCLR, say a positive word about a specific enforcement measure. I thought I’d give them the chance with the Arellano case. So I called and left a message.
   As the son of a cop, I’d call this case a slam-dunk. Arellano entered the country illegally a decade ago, was deported, reentered illegally, and then defied a second deportation order by holing up for months in a Chicago church. Then she took an ego trip by going on a national tour in support of illegal immigrants. Finally, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) nabbed her in Los Angeles. Now her tour is canceled, and she is in Tijuana.
   Good. It’s a shame that Arellano will be separated from her 8-year-old son, Saulito, who was born in the U.S. and is thus a citizen. But the pain is her doing. She knew the risks and yet she put her son’s welfare in jeopardy, not just by being an illegal immigrant but a conspicuous one at that.
   This sad tale illustrates the sense of entitlement among those who refuse to follow our rules and then make up their own. That’s ironic given that it is a different sort of entitlement that helps draw people here in the first place — the entitlement that some Americans feel they have to turn up their noses at jobs that wind up being done by illegal immigrants.
   My hard line may surprise some. A lot of people wrongly assume that I support illegal immigration. Half the reason comes from my positions — in favor of comprehensive immigration reform, or against Minutemen vigilantes. The other half comes from rank racism, the assumption by some that I want a fluid border because, as a Mexican-American, I’m leading a reconquista (reconquest) of the Southwest or trying to bring in my relatives.
   Don’t laugh. One reader wrote: “Your picture looks as if you are Hispanic. Your name sounds Hispanic. You think and act like a Hispanic. You write like a Hispanic. And you espouse Hispanic views over and above American views. Therefore, I can only assume that you are Hispanic and not American.”
   Actually, I’m both. Just like my Irish or Italian pals in Boston, I refuse to choose. And I’ll tell you what they’d tell you: Deal with it.
   My call to the NCLR was returned by Vice President Cecilia Munoz, the group’s point person on immigration and someone with whom I often agree. Munoz began by insisting again that NCLR isn’t opposed to enforcement. What concerns her, she said, is that there doesn’t seem to be any rhyme or reason to our immigration strategy and so this arrest smells of red meat for the anti-immigration mob.
   “We have questions about whether going after people one at a time ultimately has much of a payoff in terms of effectiveness,” she said. “What’s the strategy behind our immigration enforcement? Are we trying to round up everyone and send them out? Because if that is our policy, then we’re going to fail.”
   Then there is Saulito. According to Munoz, the boy makes this story emblematic of a larger problem — separating families.
   “We’re not just sort of levitating people out of the country with no impact,” she said. “We should be making deliberate judgments about what our immigration priorities are, and I’m not sure that going after workers who are also parents is our most effective strategy. It’s certainly not a cost-free strategy.”
   Or a humane one.
   “It is really very upsetting to see parents torn away from their children,” she said. “And you wonder: If this is our enforcement strategy, what kind of country are we becoming?”
   The same kind of country we’ve always aspired to be — one where parents respect their children enough to not put them in harm’s way, and where everyone is taught to respect the rule of law.  

Quoted Text

End Birthright Citizenship - Sign This Petition Today - Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007 (H.R. 1940)
By Digger


There is currently legislation to end the practice of what is known as Birthright Citizenship in the House of Representatives. I've already covered the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007 (H.R. 1940). It currently has 79 cosponsors (listed below).

Birthright Citizenship is when a baby is born on American soil, even to parents of illegal aliens, and is automatically given American citizenship. This baby is known as an "anchor baby" because it then gives the illegal alien parents a sympathy vote with the public to avoid deportation. This is not by mistake, literally millions of "anchor babies" are born in the US every year for the sole purpose of allowing the parents to stay here. This "citizen baby" then entitles these illegal alien parents to hundreds of thousands of taxpayer funds in the name of their baby over the years.

This is being done under a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution that was added to make slaves that were freed after the civil war US citizens. It has been twisted into a means for illegal aliens to rape the coffers of our social services. This is not the first time that the illegal alien movement in this country has hijacked the civil rights movement - and the fight of blacks who have fought for their rights as US citizens - and it certainly won't be the last time.

This practice needs to end and it needs to end now!

I ask that you visit this website now, http://www.birthrightpetition.com, and sign on to the petition to demand an end to Birthright Citizenship.

The site is being run by Brook Young of Immigration Watchdog.

If you don't see your representative on the list below call toll free at the congressional switchboard ( 1-866-340-9281 ) and urge them to sign on. If you do see your representatives name on there, call and thank them for standing up for America.

(McNulty's not a sponsor.)

Quoted Text

Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)

HR 1940 IH


110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1940
To amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify those classes of individuals born in the United States who are nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

April 19, 2007
Mr. DEAL of Georgia (for himself, Mr. BILBRAY, and Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify those classes of individuals born in the United States who are nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007'.

SEC. 2. CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH FOR CERTAIN PERSONS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES.

(a) In General- Section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401) is amended--

(1) by inserting `(a) IN GENERAL- ' before `The following';

(2) by redesignating paragraphs (a) through (h) as paragraphs (1) through (; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

`(b) Definition- Acknowledging the right of birthright citizenship established by section 1 of the 14th amendment to the Constitution, a person born in the United States shall be considered `subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States for purposes of subsection (a)(1) if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is--

`(1) a citizen or national of the United States;

`(2) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States whose residence is in the United States; or

`(3) an alien performing active service in the armed forces (as defined in section 101 of title 10, United States Code).'.

(b) Applicability- The amendment made by subsection (a)(3) shall not be construed to affect the citizenship or nationality status of any person born before the date of the enactment of this Act.

Quoted Text

AS OTHERS SAY IT
America needs guest workers

   Immigrant labor is a big part of America’s past, present and future. This fact often is lost in contentious debate, a battle that most recently has shifted to the federal government’s pending crackdown on businesses that employ illegal workers.
   Make no mistake. We support employer sanctions as an element of immigration reform. Half a solution isn’t a solution, however, only a recipe for unintended adverse consequences. The sooner Congress realizes this and approves comprehensive reform, the better.
   Right now, legal and illegal immigrants make up around 13 percent of the nation’s workers, the highest percentage since the 1930s.
   Congress’ decision could well lead to critical worker shortages at both ends of the wage and skills scales. Low-wage illegal immigrants probably will go deeper into the shadows, while the scarcity of certain high-tech skills will further encourage businesses to send that work overseas.
   --The Dallas Morning News  

Quoted Text

Funds to help settle immigrants in region
BY BOB CONNER Gazette Reporter
Reach Gazette reporter Bob Conner at 462-2499 or bconner@dailygazette.net.

   Two Albany-based organizations are among those sharing in a statewide $6 million program to “help eligible immigrants navigate the citizenship application process,” Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s press office announced.
   Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Albany will get $54,288, and the Albany office of the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants will get $50,000.
   Molly Short, local director of the U.S. Committee, said the group will use the money to help immigrants who are over the age of 65, or suffering from a disability, succeed in applying for citizenship. That could mean tutoring people in the English language and American civics, she said, or helping them fill out application forms.
   The Washington, D.C.-based U.S. Committee has had an Albany office since 2005, Short said, and is currently putting most of its efforts, using federal grants, into helping resettle refugees from Burma, who have been fleeing a military dictatorship that is persecuting ethnic groups. It’s helped 78 Burmese in the last three months, with most of them winding up in Albany or Rensselaer.
   Those particular Burmese, though, are not yet eligible to apply for citizenship. “You’ve got to wait five years if you’re a refugee,” Short said.
   Among those who are eligible and could benefit from the grant, she said, are Afghan immigrants in Schenectady, Hispanics in Amsterdam, Chinese in Saratoga County, and Russian Jews across the Capital Region, as well as Haitians and Jamaicans in Hudson.
   Sister Maureen Joyce, director of the local Catholic Charities, said it will use the money in the 14 counties of the Albany Diocese, primarily to pay a paralegal and provide legal services to help immigrants become citizens. Catholic Charities has been helping many immigrants from west African counties such as Ghana and Nigeria, she said, and most of them are probably not Roman Catholic.
   Joyce said Catholic Charities has been providing these services under a previous grant, which is now being renewed. She and Short said the state funding is available only to help those eligible to apply for citizenship, which would not include immigrants who are here illegally.
   The majority — $5.2 million — of the statewide funding is a threeyear grant administered by the Bureau of Refugee and Immigrant Assistance in the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance. Most of the money is going to 10 New York City organizations.
   Spitzer’s office quoted him as saying “This important funding will help the newest New Yorkers navigate the naturalization process, and put them on the path to greater opportunity and economic security.”
   It touted other pro-immigrant actions taken by the governor, including creating a Bureau of Immigrant Affairs in the Labor Department “to protect the rights of immigrant workers, specifically focusing on integrating immigrants into all state work force programs, [and] ensuring that there are no undue barriers to accessing benefits.”  

Quoted Text

France cracks down on illegal immigration
The Associated Press

   PARIS — A Russian boy suffers head injuries after falling from a window while trying to elude police. A North African man slips from a window ledge and fractures his leg while fleeing officers. A Chinese woman lies in a coma after plunging from a window during a police check.
   As France races to deport 25,000 illegal immigrants by the end of the year — a quota set by President Nicolas Sarkozy — tensions are mounting and the crackdown is taking a toll.
   Critics say the hunt threatens values in a nation that prides itself on being a cradle of human rights and a land of asylum.
   Protesters have gathered by the dozens in Paris to protect illegal aliens as police move in.
   But with three months left in the year, police have caught at least 11,800 immigrants, less than half the target, so Sarkozy has ordered officials to pick up the pace.
   “I want numbers,” Sarkozy reportedly told Brice Hortefeux, head of the Ministry of Immigration, Integration, National Identity and Co-Development, which Sarkozy set up after taking office in May. “This is a campaign commitment. The French expect (action) on this.”
   There are no solid estimates of the number of illegal aliens in France. The Immigration Ministry puts it at 200,000 to 400,000, many from former colonies in Africa. France has a population of some 63 million.
   The president, who cultivated a tough-on-crime image while serving as Interior Minister, says France needs a new kind of immigrant — one who is “selected, not endured.”
   His government is fast-tracking tighter immigration legislation.
   Parliament’s lower house on Thursday approved a bill that would allow consular officers to request DNA samples from immigrants trying to join relatives in France. Even some Cabinet ministers dislike the measure, which critics say betrays France’s humanitarian values.
   The DNA tests would be voluntary and proponents say such testing, which would get a trial run until 2010, would speed visa processing and give immigrants a way to bolster their applications.
   Immigration legislation under consideration also aims to ensure that immigrants joining family members here speak French and grasp French values — to be proven with tests.
   In a nationally televized interview Thursday, Sarkozy went further, saying he wants France to adopt immigration quotas by regions of the world and by occupation.
   European countries to the south, like Italy or Spain, face a greater challenge from illegal immigration than France — but neither has set themselves targets for throwing aliens out.  

Quoted Text

France cracks down on illegal immigration