On Immigration, the President Speaks Softly

Feature Article:

cato.org/Immigration Reform Bulletin/ July 2010

On Immigration, the President Speaks Softly
By Stuart Anderson, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and executive director, National Foundation for American Policy.

Barack Obama's July 1, 2010, speech at American University revealed the president's current thinking on immigration and the prospects for comprehensive immigration reform. With the controversy over Arizona's new immigration law as a backdrop, much of the president's language could be described as forceful and realistic. However, the elements left out of the speech were perhaps as important as the words he spoke.

PRO-IMMIGRATION PRESIDENTS

Even during backlashes against immigrants, U.S. presidents throughout history have tended to be moderating influences, even vetoing restrictive legislation in the early 1900s, such as President William Howard Taft's veto of legislation to impose a literacy test on new immigrants. Given the country's diversity today, we do not know whether a presidential candidate espousing anti-immigrant views could win a general election or how such an individual would govern once in office. In 1995, in the wake of Prop 187 in California, President Bill Clinton at first endorsed the recommendations of the Jordan Commission to reduce legal immigration, yet later he backed off that endorsement.

American presidents in contemporary times have used proimmigration rhetoric in speeches and the July 1 speech by President Obama was no exception. In the speech, the president declared, "Of course, the tensions around immigration are not new ... we've always defined ourselves as a nation of immigrants— a nation that welcomes those willing to embrace America's precepts. Indeed, it is this constant flow of immigrants that helped to make America what it is."¹

The president placed current fears about immigration in historical context: "Now, we can't forget that this process of immigration and eventual inclusion has often been painful. Each new wave of immigrants has generated fear and resentments towards newcomers, particularly in times of economic upheaval. Our founding was rooted in the notion that America was unique as a place of refuge and freedom for, in Thomas Jefferson's words, ‘oppressed humanity.' But the ink on our Constitution was barely dry when, amidst conflict, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which placed harsh restrictions on those suspected of having foreign allegiances. A century ago, immigrants from Ireland, Italy, Poland, other European countries were routinely subjected to rank discrimination and ugly stereotypes ... So the politics of who is and who is not allowed to enter this country, and on what terms, has always been contentious."

THE ECONOMIC CASE FOR IMMIGRATION

President Obama tied America's prosperity to immigration. He stated, "The scientific breakthroughs of Albert Einstein, the inventions of Nikola Tesla, the great ventures of Andrew Carnegie's U.S. Steel and Sergey Brin's Google, Inc.—all this was possible because of immigrants." And he cited the broader benefits of immigration to the U.S. economy. "So this steady stream of hardworking and talented people has made America the engine of the global economy and a beacon of hope around the world. And it's allowed us to adapt and thrive in the face of technological and societal change."

He cited the case of an immigrant entrepreneur to connect, at least indirectly, immigration to job creation, rather than job displacement. "Just a few weeks ago, we had an event of small business owners at the White House. And one business owner was a woman named Prachee Devadas who came to this country, became a citizen, and opened up a successful technology services company. When she started, she had just one employee. Today, she employs more than a hundred people."

ELEMENTS OF IMMIGRATION REFORM

Despite its pro-immigration stance, the Obama administration has not been specific on what elements should (or should not) be part of a broad immigration bill. Nor has it suggested what should be in a scaled-down package, should Congress seek to move a smaller bill. The president responded to this criticism, in part, by stating what he viewed as the "essential elements of comprehensive immigration reform." The elements include:

• granting legal status to those in the country illegally after such individuals "register, pay their taxes, pay a fine, and learn English";
• providing "farms a legal way to hire the workers they rely on, and a path for those workers to earn legal status"; and
• passing the DREAM Act, which would provide legal status for illegal immigrants who came here as minors and completed high school.

WHERE ARE THE VISAS?

While President Obama made a case for comprehensive immigration reform, he stopped short of endorsing the wider use of temporary visas for lower skilled foreign workers. This is unfortunate because research has shown that opening legal avenues to work would be the most effective way to reduce illegal immigration, eliminate migrant border deaths, and prevent criminal gangs from engaging in human smuggling.

Support for visas in agriculture is considered to be on safe political grounds, since growers and the farm worker's union both support legislation called AgJobs. That bill would streamline the temporary visa process for agricultural workers while also granting legal status to those who have been working in U.S. agriculture unlawfully. The DREAM Act has gained a degree of bipartisan support as well.

The president appeared to allude to the need for more legal avenues to work without making any specific recommendation. At one point in the speech he said, "But our borders are just too vast for us to be able to solve the problem only with fences and border patrols. It won't work. Our borders will not be secure as long as our limited resources are devoted to not only stopping gangs and potential terrorists, but also the hundreds of thousands who attempt to cross each year simply to find work." However, rather than using this correct observation to argue for temporary visas, he then asserted the need for more sanctions against employers: "That's why businesses must be held accountable if they break the law by deliberately hiring and exploiting undocumented workers. We've already begun to step up enforcement against the worst workplace offenders."

The opposition to wider use of temporary visas comes primarily from the AFL-CIO and a number of Democrats on Capitol Hill. (Republican opposition to immigration reform has focused on providing legal status to those illegally in the United States.) In this regard, the president missed an opportunity to make the case that comprehensive immigration reform must include a wide use of temporary visas. That not only would be good policy but is the type of signal that Republicans like Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) have sought from the president.

REACTION TO THE SPEECH

Rep. Flake attended President Obama's speech on the same day the Congressman spoke at a Cato event on Capitol Hill to argue for the use of temporary visas to "control" the border through market-based mechanisms. In a press release, Rep. Flake said, "The President needs to understand that states like Arizona are moving ahead with immigration reform measures of their own because the federal government has failed to act. The best thing he can do to head off state laws he disapproves of is to push Congress to act on comprehensive reform. Yet, the President's speech today seemed more like a nod to his base rather than a genuine effort to move comprehensive immigration reform."²

In the Miami Herald, columnist Andres Oppenheimer wrote, "My opinion: Obama's speech was an effort to maintain the support of U.S. Hispanics, who are increasingly frustrated by the president's failure to take action on immigration reform despite his campaign promises to do so. The Hispanic vote will be crucial for Obama's Democratic Party to avoid a defeat in November's congressional elections. But Obama did not offer any carrots to Republicans, nor any new ideas to sway public opinion toward much-needed immigration reform."³

To date, no effort has been made to endorse or advocate for smaller elements of an immigration reform agenda that might gain political support, even though the president's speech identified measures that had already gained some degree of bipartisan support, such as AgJobs. The Economist opined, "Good speech. Good plan. So why the cynicism? Because making a speech, and having a plan, are not the same as doing something. And Mr. Obama does not intend to do anything right now. He is not proposing a particular piece of legislation."⁴

The president ended his July 1 speech on a high note, reading from the Emma Lazarus poem that appears at the base of the Statue of Liberty. "Give me your tired, and your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to be free ... Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" These are fine words. Both supporters and critics will continue to look for concrete actions and serious proposals to accompany the words.

¹ Quotations and excerpts of the speech are taken from "Remarks by the President on Comprehensive Immigration Reform," American University School of International Service, Washington, D.C., July 1, 2010, as appeared on the website of the Wall Street Journal.
² Statement of Rep. Jeff Flake, July 1, 2010.
³ Andres Oppenheimer, "Immigration speech all words, no action," The Miami Herald, July 4, 2010.
⁴ Lexington, "Not good enough," The Economist, July 10, 2010, p. 33.

Click here to download the July 2010 Immigration Reform Bulletin (PDF).

The Cato Institute
1000 Massachusetts Ave NW
Washington, DC 20001

Bank of America Credit Cards For Illegal Aliens

Bank of Illegal Aliens in America
By Michelle Malkin • February 13, 2007 09:21 AM

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/02/13/bank-of-illegal-aliens-in-america/
Higher standards…except for illegal aliens

Bank of America has introduced a new credit especially and exclusively for law-breaking immigrants. Really. The story is on the front page of the Wall Street Journal today. It’s subscription-only. Here are the details:

Bank of America defends the program, saying it complies with U.S. banking and antiterrorism laws. Company executives say that the initiative isn’t about politics, but rather about meeting the needs of an untapped group of potential customers.

“These people are coming here for quality of life, and they deserve somebody to give them a chance to achieve that quality of life,” says Brian Tuite, the bank’s director of Latin America card operations and one of the architects of the program.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/bankofamerica.asp

Look at Missouri's Illegal Immigrants

SO WHY IS EVERYBODY SO UPSET ABOUT ARIZONA ???
AND
WHY ISN'T CALIFORNIA BOYCOTTING MISSOURI ?????

Simple solutions to not so complex problems!

The "Show Me" state has once again showed us how it should be done. They
need more publication and exposure on this. Let's pass it around.

In 2007, Missouri placed on the ballot a proposed constitutional amendment
designating English as the Official language of Missouri . Nearly 90% voting
in favor!

English became the official language for ALL governmental proceeding in
Missouri . It also means no individual has the right to demand government
services in a language OTHER than English.

In 2008 a measure was passed that requires the Missouri Highway Patrol and
other law
enforcement officials to verify the immigration status of any person
arrested, and inform federal authorities if the person is found to be here
illegally.

It allows Missouri law enforcement offices to receive training to enforce
federal immigration laws . The bill makes it clear that illegal immigrants
will NOT have access to taxpayers benefits such as food stamps and health
care through Missouri HealthNET.

In 2009 a measure was passed that ensures Missouri 's public institutions of
higher
education do NOT award financial aid to individuals who are here illegally.

The law also requires all post-secondary institutions of higher education to
annually certify to the Missouri Dept. of Higher Education that they have
NOT knowingly awarded financial aid to students who are unlawfully present
in the United States .

So while Arizona has made national news for its new law, it is important to
remember
Missouri has been proactive in addressing this growing problem.

Missouri has sent a clear message that illegal immigrants are NOT welcome in
our state and they are certainly NOT welcome to receive public benefits at
the cost of Missouri taxpayers!

Article in "The Ozarks Sentinel" Editorial Opinion - Nita Jane Ayre s, May
13, 2010.

Missouri Ahead of the Game in Dealing with Illegal Immigrants

Editor's Note: The following appeared in our May 13 issue and is written by State Representative Nita Jane Ayres.

Nita Jane Ayres has agreed to write a follow-up editorial which will appear in our print edition on June 24. The follow-up will take a close look at the state's legislation and how it deals with illegal immigrants.

We’re down to one week to go in the legislative session and bills are moving through the process at a remarkable pace. My goal is to keep you updated on all the pieces of legislation that may be of interest to you and your family. In the coming weeks, I hope to do that. However, this week I want to talk about an issue that Missouri has already addressed in a variety of ways – the issue of illegal immigration. I’m sure you’ve seen the headlines about Arizona’s new law aimed at dealing with those who enter our country illegally. It has been called the strictest immigration law in generations. While Missouri hasn’t gone to the same lengths as Arizona, our state has made significant policy changes that effectively deal with illegal immigrants who enter our state. Because of those changes, Missouri is ahead of the game when compared to many other states that are now dealing with this issue.

In 2007, the Missouri General Assembly approved HJR 7 to place on the ballot a proposed constitutional amendment designating English as the official language of Missouri. Voters then went to the polls and approved the measure with nearly 90 percent voting in favor. With that, English became the official language for all governmental proceedings in Missouri. It also means no individual has the right to demand government services in a language other than English. A common language is the cornerstone of a cohesive and united state and country. Ensuring that English is our official language is simply common sense.

Another measure that directly addresses the issue of illegal immigration was passed in 2008. HB 1549 requires our Highway Patrol and other law enforcement officials to verify the immigration status of any person arrested, and inform federal authorities if the person is found to be here illegally. It also allows Missouri law enforcement officers to receive training to enforce federal immigration laws. Furthermore, the bill makes it clear that illegal immigrants will not have access to taxpayer benefits such as food stamps and health care through MO HealthNet. With the passage of this legislation, Missouri sent a clear message that illegal immigrants are not welcome in our state, and that they are certainly not welcome to receive public benefits at the cost of Missouri taxpayers.

2009 saw another significant piece of legislation passed dealing with illegal immigration. HB 390 ensures Missouri’s public institutions of higher education do not award financial aid to individuals who are here illegally. The law also requires all postsecondary institutions of higher education to annually certify to the Missouri Department of Higher Education that they have not knowingly awarded financial aid to students who are unlawfully present in the United States. The bill represents another common sense approach to the issue as it ensures taxpayer dollars are not used to subsidize the education of someone who is in our country illegally.

So while Arizona has made national news for its new law, it’s important to remember Missouri has been proactive in addressing this growing problem. The laws we have on the books help ensure the rights and benefits of Missourians are preserved for actual Missouri citizens. It’s also important to remember that this country has always opened its arms to immigrants, which is why our nation is often referred to as the great melting pot. Immigrants from all parts of the world have helped make our country what it is today. However, our doors are not open to those who try to live in our country illegally. I believe Missouri’s laws make that very clear and give our law enforcement officials the authority they need to deal with the problem.

Thanks again for allowing me to represent you in the state capitol. Feel free to contact me with your concerns, suggestions and ideas. My office phone is 573-751-2492. Email address: nitajane.ayres@house.mo.gov Or write to: State Representative Nita Jane Ayres, House Post Office, State Capitol, Room 233-A, Jefferson City, MO 65101.

Which Country Do You Live In? Sanctuary, or Safe Zone?

Published on 07/14/10 By Scott W. Winchell,

SUA National Editor-in-Chief

Sanctuaries make us all less safe! How ironic!Sanctuary is a term for cities, counties, or states that are defying a federal law relative to the various government agencies being required to assist the federal government with their illegal immigrants. In 1996 a federal law was passed called the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIR) that requires local governments to cooperate with Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Contrary to this law, many of these governments are officially or unofficially defying the law and have passed various local policies to ignore the federal law and not question the status of suspected illegal immigrants. Those in defiance of the law prefer to call them undocumented workers and help protect the illegal immigrants from being deported.

IIRIA 1996 – On September 30, 1996, President Clinton signed the Illegal Immigrant Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA 96”). The new law represents the completion of a legislative process which began shortly after the Republican Party assumed majority party status in the House and Senate after the 1994 mid-term elections.

Okay, so we now know the law. (Does not matter apparently to some) So, what part of the law do these sanctuary cities and states not understand:

...requires local governments to cooperate with Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Also then, why is the current administration, through the DOJ, not enforcing the laws, and why are they suing Arizona? Because it does not fit their individual liberal policies so they just ignore it. Then when a state decides to enforce it and cooperate with the DHS through ICE, why are they being pilloried and embargoed? Laws are made to keep honest people honest as the old saying goes. It must be nice to only obey the laws they like. Congresses pass laws, and they get to pick and choose which ones they like and dislike. That is diametrically opposed to our foundations as a society based on representative republicanism.

Up is down, black is white, in is out…etc. Why are the law breakers the “good guys” and the law abiding citizens are the “bad guys?” Aren’t we a “rule-of-law” nation? The Obama administration, instead of enforcing the laws, seeks to battle a sovereign state. Then he blames Congress for not “fixing” or creating “comprehensive reform” of the immigration laws. Because they do not like the law, and are finding excuses to ignore it, blaming others, and patronizing us with lofty speeches.

The number of arrests made by Border Patrol agents is one of the few reliable measurements of the rising influx. That number dropped right after 9/11, but it has since been climbing. In fact, the cost of protecting the nation’s borders has increased 58 percent since 9/11, but in three of the four years since the attacks, the number of people nabbed by the Border Patrol still increased. In the fiscal year that ended in September, the Border Patrol reported 1.19 million arrests, compared with 932,000 in fiscal year 2003. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that the number of illegal immigrants in the United States has grown from 8.4 million in 2000 to 15 million today.

The political ferment over ‘illegals’ has never been greater. 78 percent of Americans think and know that the government is not doing enough to control our borders talk shows bristle with demands for action. Additionally, Global jihad and jihadis are a major threat as they eye the southern border as a path of least resistance to strike inside the United States. Announced last week was a specific intelligent report of Iran proxy, Hezbollah, is now setting up bases of operation in Mexico near the border and are now crossing our Southern Border.

So which country do you live in?

The one that ignores laws, follows all the politically correct rhetoric? Or the one that defends the State of Arizona? Of course we know that the sanctuaries are largely the major population centers, even in Arizona, but there are huge areas where you are safer, or are you? There is a map you can look at that interactively shows you which areas are sanctuaries for the illegals, and by omission where you are safer?

We have to remember one great fact: once they have entered the USA illegally, they can go anywhere. Is your backyard safe? Are your children safe? Did your neighbor get his head chopped off by a drug cartel hitman? Are islamo-facists planning your demise in your own community? The question is actually moot, because we are all unsafe when these sanctuaryists rule, where the “rule-of-law” does not matter anymore.

Now that Arizona has acted, the illegals are fleeing to a location likely near you.

Obama Blows Smoke While People Die Near Border

By Bobby Eberle July 2, 2010 7:13 AM

Dr. Robert (Bobby) Eberle is President and CEO of Endeavor Media Group, LLC, the parent company of GOPUSA, a web site dedicated to promoting the grassroots ...
www.gopusa.com/company/bobby.

What a contrast! On the same day that Barack Obama decided to speak on "immigration reform," twenty-one people were killed near the Arizona border as a result of a gun battle involving rival Mexican drug and illegal alien trafficking gangs. Obama talks about a need to reform the system, while ignoring the immediate problem at hand: violence on the America border. States like Arizona are being forced to take matters into their own hands because the federal government won't do it's job. And what's the response of Obama's government? Law suits. Obama is serious... just not serious about protecting the American people.

Obama's speech on Thursday was so outrageous... I don't even know where to start. First, there is the whole notion of "immigration reform." People are dying in Arizona and other border states. Parts of Arizona, as I've written recently, are being occupied by Mexican drug gangs. Our borders are not secure, and American citizens are fearful for their safety. But rather than step forward and say, "The federal government has been lacking, and the states should not have to step forward and do our job," Obama instead uses the border security crisis to push for an overall plan that will grant citizenship to illegal aliens. Geez! Focus on the problem at hand! The fact that people dying because of drug violence or illegal alien trafficking is beyond politics! Protecting the American people should be Obama's number one priority.

Next, there were paragraphs and paragraphs in his speech about the value of immigrants... how immigrants like Albert Einstein helped build this country. So what?!?! All of that is feel-good filler. It's completely irrelevant. No one disagrees that this is a country filled with immigrants. We all know immigrants built America, and as long as America is the shining example of freedom and opportunity, immigrants will want to come. However, that is not the point at all. The point is that we have a federal system of laws that get ignored. We have a system that no longer encourages people to BE American. What ever happened to being proud to be an American? Now, the liberals put more emphasis on being proud to be something else. Immigration is good... if the goal is to be an American and embrace the American way.

Also, in his speech Obama again uses the ridiculous notion that we have to grant people amnesty because we surely can't round up and deport all the illegal aliens already in the country. Basically he's saying that since we've ignored our laws for so long, we need to give everyone a pass. Don't fall for this argument! If we have secure borders and if we enforce our immigration laws, there will be no need for mass deportation. Obama talks about the costs of such a measure, but that's just so he can get people to support his amnesty plan. If illegal aliens know that companies will not hire them because of fines and penalties, they will go home! Not a single one would need to be "rounded up" and deported if they knew we were serious about the issue. They would leave on their own.

The pressing issue is border security. As FoxNews.com reports, on Thursday a "massive gun battle between rival drug and migrant trafficking gangs near the U.S. border Thursday left 21 people dead and at least six others wounded, prosecutors said."

Gangs often fight for control of trafficking routes and sometimes steal "shipments" of undocumented migrants from each other, but seldom have they staged such mass gun battles.

Gang violence near the Arizona border has led to calls from officials in the U.S. state for greater control of the border and is one reason given for a controversial law passed in April requiring Arizona police to ask people about their immigration status in certain situations.

Also this week, while Obama talks politics, the City Hall building in El Paso, Texas took gun fire from across the border. The gunfire was the result of more gang violence that is getting closer and closer to American soil.

Several gunshots apparently fired from Juarez hit El Paso City Hall on Tuesday afternoon.

No one was hurt, but nerves were rattled at City Hall in what is thought to be the first cross-border gunfire during a drug war that has engulfed Juarez since 2008.

El Paso police spokesman Darrel Petry said investigators do not think City Hall was intentionally targeted but rather was struck by stray shots.

"It does appear the rounds may have come from an incident in Juarez," Petry said.

Oh, in another bit of ridiculous news, since we are doing a round-up of all things insane with Obama, border security, and illegal immigration, a federal judge has rulled that "Mexico gets a say in one of the lawsuits challenging Arizona's immigration enforcement law." FoxNews.com reports that Mexico's request was granted "to be allowed to file a legal brief supporting the challenge."

Mexico says it wants to defend its citizens' rights and that the law would lead to racial profiling and hinder trade and tourism. It also says the law would hinder work against drug trafficking and related violence.

Unbelievable! The law would hinder work against the gang violence? The gang violence is out of control and the law hasn't even gone into effect yet! Mexico is protesting the law because it's bad for business. Period.

All in all, it's been a crazy week for the border security issue. People are killed near Arizona. Shots are fired in El Paso. And Obama talks about a nation of immigrants and how we can't deport people. Get a clue! Secure the borders and protect the American people!

Read more: http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/2010/07/obama-blows-smoke-while-people-die-near-border.php#ixzz0sYDfCu4H

A Good Analogy on Immigration

This was written by a Mexican who is now a naturalized US Citizen, and I think it's a great explanation of the illegal immigration issue.

Here is the quote:

"If you had tickets to a sports event, concert, Disneyland, or for an airline flight, and when you got to your assigned seat you found someone else was in that seat, what would you do? You would call for a person in charge of ticket checking and have the person in your seat removed. You would properly be asked to show your ticket, and you would gladly and proudly do so, for you have bought and paid for that seat. The person in your seat would also be asked for a ticket, which they would not be able to produce. They would be called "gate crashers" and they would properly be removed.

Now in this huge stadium called the USA we have had millions of gate crashers. We have been asking security to check for tickets and remove the gate crashers. We have been asking security to have better controls in checking at the door. We have asked security to lock the back doors. Security has failed us. They are still looking the other way. They are afraid to ask to see the tickets. Many people say there is unlimited seating, and whether there is or not, no one should be allowed in for free while the rest of us pay full price!

In "section AZ", of "Stadium USA", we have had enough of the failures of Security. We have decided to do our own ticket checking, and properly remove those who do not have tickets. Now it seems very strange to me that so many people in the other 49 "sections", and even many in our own "section" do not want tickets checked, or even to be asked to show their ticket! Even the head of Security is chastising us, while not doing his own job which he has sworn to do.

My own ticket has been bought and paid for, so I am proudly going to show it when asked to do so. I have a right to my seat, and I want the gate crashers to be asked to show their tickets too. The only reason that I can imagine anyone objecting to being asked for their ticket is that they are in favor of gate crashing, and all of the illegal activities that go with it, such as drug smuggling, gang wars, murder, human smuggling for profit, and many more illegal and inhumane acts that we are trying to prevent with our new legislation. Is that what I am hearing from all of the protestors such as Phoenix Mayor Gordon, US Rep. Grijalva, even President Obama? If you are not in favor of showing tickets, (proof of citizenship, passport, green card, or other legal document) when asked, as I would do proudly, then you must be condoning those illegal activities."

Written by a US Citizen, Globe, Arizona.

This makes perfect sense to me. What do you think?