Author: Duke1676

What if you were to go to your local Kiwanis or Rotary to hear your Congressional Representative speak on the issues of the day and he or she took the podium after dinner and began to explain how much better off our nation would be if all African Americans ( or Jews, or any other ethnic group)  were gone.

Then he or she went on to explain what a day in American would be like without them.  

“What would that day look like without any Blacks?
There would be no one to sell heroin, marijuana, cocaine, and methamphetamines that plague the United States, reducing the U.S. supply of meth that day by 80%. The lives of 12 U.S. citizens would be saved who otherwise die a violent death at the hands of murderous Blacks each day. Another 13 Americans would survive who are otherwise killed each day by drunk driving Blacks. Our hospital emergency rooms would not be flooded with everything from gunshot wounds, to imported diseases to hangnails, giving American citizens the day off from standing in line behind Blacks. Eight American children would not suffer the horror as a victim of a sex crime.”

and they would go on to “warn” the audience:

“They need to be stopped before it is too late…this scourge that threatens the very future of our nation … soon they’ll be coming here to kill you, and you, and me, and my grandchildren.”

Jaws agape, the audience would most likely at first be dumbfounded, and then as the words sunk in … appalled. Within seconds their silence would turn to hisses and boos until the Representatives handlers would quickly usher their charge out the back door, praying that the local press had failed to show up and discussing damage control in case they had.

But no amount of spin or damage control would save the Representatives career. After such a display of blatant racism and hate-speech they would be finished in public life forever ….  and rightfully so.  

Yet, were they to use the exact same language when discussing undocumented immigrants they would become the darlings of the anti-immigration movement. Such is the case with Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO) and Steve King (R-IA) to whom the above quotes can be attributed, albeit with the word Black changed to “illegal alien”.

From Rep.Steve King’s May 5th  “column” titled; “Biting the Hand That Feeds You” from his congressional website:

On May 1st, the activists who brought you thousands of Mexican flags flying in marches down the streets of our cities are now bringing you “Nothing Gringo Day”. With help from the Mexican government, Mexican unions, Mexican political groups, and through the Spanish language radio and newspapers, the call has gone out to make America experience a total boycott, both here and in Mexico. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

What would that May 1st look like without illegal immigration? There would be no one to smuggle across our southern border the heroin, marijuana, cocaine, and methamphetamines that plague the United States, reducing the U.S. supply of meth that day by 80%. The lives of 12 U.S. citizens would be saved who otherwise die a violent death at the hands of murderous illegal aliens each day. Another 13 Americans would survive who are otherwise killed each day by uninsured drunk driving illegals. Our hospital emergency rooms would not be flooded with everything from gunshot wounds, to anchor babies, to imported diseases to hangnails, giving American citizens the day off from standing in line behind illegals. Eight American children would not suffer the horror as a victim of a sex crime.

Link

The quote about “killing you, me and my grandchildren” … that one comes from Tom Tancredo discussing the “immigrant invasion”.

 

“They need to be found before it is too late, (they are) a scourge that threatens the very future of our nation (and) are entering the US to kill me, to kill you and our families”

Link, Link

How is it that most Americans when faced with this kind of hate speech can easily recognize it when it is directed at Blacks or Jews or any other of the myriad of ethnic, religious or racial groups that have traditionally been the victims of such bigotry, yet when this kind of vitriol is unleashed upon undocumented immigrants, many not only don’t see the inherent racism in it, but in fact nod along in agreement. People who would find it abhorrent to classify any other entire race or ethnic group as a murderous scourge of drug dealers and child molesters whose only wish is to kill Americans, find nothing wrong with an elected representative using this language to describe 12 million people, hardworking men and women and their children.

The debate over immigration and immigration reform is complex, and there is plenty of room for many differing and diverse opinions. But what there is not room for is demagoguery, fear-mongering, race-baiting and hate. This is an important issue, and one all Americans must address, but the inflammatory rhetoric of Messrs. Tancredo and King do nothing to move the debate forward.  

Unfortunately I fear that the tone set by these two men is quickly becoming the norm rather than the exception.

It is not a question of immigration or immigration reform.  Not of policy, laws or procedures. Not of “illegal” or legal immigrants. It is not a question of “amnesty”, “guest” workers or wall-building.

It is a question of language.  

It is a question of hate-speech.

And why we as a nation allow it to enter our public discourse.

Cross-posted from: Migra Matters – Progressive Immigration Reform

As some of you might be aware, I have a blog dedicated to the immigration issue and progressive immigration reform. It was started a little over six months ago as a place where a few others and I could write and discuss the issue and hopefully supply others with some information and insight. Since then it’s been growing nicely and apparently we have now appeared on the radar of some of our more racists neighbors.

I thought I would pass on an e-mail message I received today from someone who would only call himself “John Doe”  (although he was stupid enough to use a real e-mail address). I figured you would enjoy seeing what some of are fellow countrymen think about immigration reform and immigrants. Perhaps those of you who were thinking about going to a rally or march this coming Monday, but weren’t quite sure if you wanted to … reading this e-mail might help you make up your mind.

Hola,

I just wanted to say what the majority of our Rightful American Legal Citizenry thinks about your asinine, offensive, and illegal movement.

As all  of your traitors and seditionists march in our streets waving your toilet  papier-mache Mexican, oh pardon me: American flags, keep this in your pea-brained minds-

You must cease to exist.

You have no civil or legal rights in my country; no business to suck our social services, schools and hospitals dry, no honor in your methods,no courage in your cause, no intelligence in your leadership, and no more reasons to be here. We want you gone, and we want you to keep marching on May 1st right back to the sewage littered border you crawled out from, back to the open arms of your El Presidente, Mr. Fox.

If you can Habla Ingles, which I doubt; maybe you and all of yours can Strap those inner-tubes back together that you and your swine ancestors floated across the Rio Grande on and get out of here before we really get angry.

Hey, what’s ten miles long and has an IQ of 70? The immigration rally protestor parade.

Get out of our nation you traitors, anarchists, seditionists, and lowlife scum.

Viva La USA! Wetbacks.

Love,

Your Independent American Party Activist.

nice Huh?

( I won’t put up a link to that Independent American Party as I have no way of knowing if the author of this e-mail is actually a member or speaks for them …. but from the looks of the site, I bet he is )

From the anti-immigrants camp the message could not be clearer. Month after month we’ve heard Tom Tancredo and Jim Sensenbrenner try to convince the American people that their security, and perhaps their very existence, hinges on the closing of the nations borders and the removal of all those who have entered this country “illegally”. They do not equivocate. In their ideology there is no room for compassion, human dignity or even reason. Nightly their mouthpiece in the guise of Lou Dobbs rants about hordes of “illegal aliens” invading over the border to take jobs from an economically vulnerable middle and working class. Senators Kyl and Cornyn warn us that any form of compromise or kindness would be giving “criminals” a free pass, an “amnesty” that would only encourage more lawbreakers to enter our already crowded and economically suffering nation. Congressmen Hayworth and King claim that no compromise should be made with those who have broken the law and to do so would only be a slap in the face to those who have gone through the long and arduous process of gaining legal entry into the US. In the minds of the adherents of this philosophy there are no grays, only black and white. For them the whole issue of immigration and immigration reform comes down to “they broke the law to come here… they are criminals…and should be treated as such.”

But what if one of these “illegals”… these interlopers, these invaders, was one of their own? Not some poor, starving, worker with few skills and fewer prospects. Not one in whose veins runs the blood of conquistadores and the conquered. Not one who has left family and friends behind in abject poverty in hopes that he might be the one savior, provider and lifeline that might keep them from falling further and further into despair.

What if he was famous, and rich, and white, married to American royalty and the Governor of the nation’s most populous state.

What if he was Arnold Schwarzenegger?

Schwarzenegger entered the United States in 1968 on a B-1 visa, which allows a select group of visitors, such as training athletes, to come into the United States for brief periods of business. Under this rule, “a non-immigrant in B-1 status may not receive a salary from a U.S. source for services rendered in connection with his or her activities in the United States.” However, the rules do allow immigrants to receive “actual reasonable expenses,” such as money for food and hotel rooms.

In his 1977 autobiography, Schwarzenegger stated that he worked out an agreement with Joe Weider to come to America. Under this agreement, Schwarzenegger provided Weider information about how he trained, while Weider provided Schwarzenegger with an apartment, a car, and payment of a weekly salary.(of $200 a week)

Visalaw.com

Here we have the first of Arnold’s “illegal” immigration activities. He clearly was in violation of immigration law by working in the United States without a proper work visa, but this would not be the only time Arnold would violate immigration laws.

Schwarzenegger attorney Tom Hiltachk said Schwarzenegger received an H-2 visa, which allowed him to work in this country, in November 1969 ( on a sponsorship by Weider)– after more than a year in the United States…

… Schwarzenegger’s new ad campaign on a Spanish-language radio station announces his humble beginnings in America as a bricklayer. Several immigration attorneys also believe that he violated the terms of his H-2 work visa by launching this bricklaying business in 1971. According to further reports by the Mercury News, immigration attorneys across the country said Schwarzenegger would have been barred by visa restrictions from starting his own business.

Visalaw.com

So how did Arnold start on his road to fame and fortune … the all-American Republican way, he broke the law and took advantage of other peoples suffering.

After the 1971 Sylmar earthquake left 65 people dead and caused more than $500 million in damage, Schwarzenegger joined forces with one of his closest friends, fellow immigrant Franco Columbu, to launch European Brick Works in Santa Monica.

“I started up with a friend of mine a bricklaying business here, and we were successful in no time,” Schwarzenegger told Interview magazine in 1985. “We had 16 people working for us, and we were all over town, building chimneys after the earthquake.”

Mercury News 9/21/03

(Schwarzenegger’s lawyer) Hiltachk said it is unclear what type of visa Schwarzenegger had when he started the bricklaying business. But whether Schwarzenegger had an H-2 or another temporary visa, immigration attorneys said, the bodybuilder would have been barred from doing any work as a bricklayer or handyman.

“If they come into the United States to pick tomatoes, they can’t go out and work at McDonald’s,” said Nancy Alby, an assistant center director at the U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Naturalization Services, who spoke in general about H-2 visas and did not comment specifically on Schwarzenegger’s case. “They have to do exactly what they were let into the United States to do.”

Visalaw.com

In regards to the H-2 visa, the law is clear you can only work temporarily and in a specific field. You certainly cannot start your own business on this kind of temporary work visa.

H-2 visas were created to allow workers from other nations to come to the United States for short periods to take on temporary jobs such as picking seasonal crops, cooking at summer resorts or working as ski instructors.

The visas restrict holders from doing work beyond what is explicitly approved by the federal government

“Whether it’s one hour or 40 hours a week, it was considered employment,” said Don Ungar, a San Francisco attorney who has practiced immigration law since 1962. “That would be considered a violation of your status, and he would have been subject to deportation.”

Mercury News 9/21/2003

Arnold would have been “subject to deportation”, a violator of US immigration laws. But that’s not how Arnold now tells the story:

“People like myself waited for 15 years after I came to this country – legally – to get citizenship,” Schwarzenegger said recently on talk radio.

“So I find it unfair to push the whole thing of undocumented immigrants and to say, `Well, you know they should just get their citizenship because they’re coming in.'”

Mercury News 9/13/2003

Perhaps Mr. Sensenbrenner or Mr. Tancredo would like to explain how it is that the current Governor of California is not an “illegal alien” who has broken the laws of this country and skipped ahead of millions of “good immigrants” who have “played by the rules” to become legal residents and citizens of this country. Perhaps they could let us know why the rules they are so hell bent on applying to others should not be applied to Mr. Schwazenegger.

For Arnold, like 12 million others … according to the anti-immigrant Republicans, there can never be any amnesty.

From HR 4437 comes this definition of who is an “illegal alien” who would be guilty of “illegal presence” and therefore a felon.

SEC. 203. IMPROPER ENTRY BY, OR PRESENCE OF, ALIENS

(2) An alien described in this paragraph is an alien who–

(A) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers;

(B) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers;

(C) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact; or

(D) is otherwise present in the United States in violation of the immigration laws or the regulations prescribed there under.

Thomas.gov

additional sources

No matter how much those on both sides of the immigration issue wish it where not true, it is impossible to deny that race and hate are inexorably tied to the debate. From closeted white supremacists that hold the most extreme nativist views and support such groups as the National Alliance and Border Guardians, to those who marched as much against the underlying racism that permeates many sectors of society as they did for immigrant rights, race is the issue at hand and to ignore that fact is delusional and disingenuous at best and could prove to be downright dangerous and destructive unless we as a nation come to terms with it.

Brian James, a fill-in talk show host with Phoenix AM radio station KFYI, suggested on the air last month that a solution to the immigration problem in Arizona would be to kill illegal immigrants as they cross the border.

“What we’ll do is randomly pick one night every week where we will kill whoever crosses the border,” James said in the March 8 broadcast. “Step over there and you die. You get to decide whether it’s your lucky night or not. I think that would be more fun.”

He said he would be “happy to sit there with my high-powered rifle and my night scope” and kill people as the cross the border. He also suggested that the National Guard shoot illegal immigrants and receive “$100 a head.”

-snip-

James has been a talk show host in Tampa and Salt Lake City. He is a fill-in host at KFYI and has been on air there twice, said Laurie Cantillo, program manager at the radio station.

-snip-

Cantillo denied that James’s comments were dangerous or irresponsible.

Mohave Daily News

James’s rhetoric was picked up later by hate speech radio personality Hal Turner who posted this on his popular (2.5mil hits 2005) website.

“All of you who think there’s a peaceful solution to these invaders are wrong. We’re going to have to start killing these people,” neo-Nazi radio host Hal Turner posted to his website the day after 500,000 immigrant rights activists marched through downtown Los Angeles.

“I advocate using extreme violence against illegal aliens. Clean your guns. Have plenty of ammunition. Find out where the largest gathering of illegal aliens will be near you. Go to the area well in advance, scope out several places to position yourself and then do what has to be done.”

Turner linked the post to a website titled “Ka-Fucking-Boom!” that provides detailed instructions on constructing pipe bombs, ammonium nitrate “fertilizer bombs,” car bombs, chlorine gas bombs, and dozens of other homemade explosive devices.

Southern Poverty Law Center

Jim Gilchrist, co-founder of the Minutemen Project in an interview with The Orange County Register on March 30, 2006 threatened possible armed insurrection if Congress failed to pass the kind of restrictive immigration legislation he and his followers are looking for.

“I don’t want to sound paranoid, but when you see hundreds of thousands of people rallying around a foreign flag … it’s the next thing to foreign insurrection,” he said.

On the other hand, he says, Congress could spur an insurrection from the anti-illegal immigration side if it approves a plan that would legitimize those now in the country illegally. Such a move, he says, would undermine this country’s rule of law.

“I’m not going to promote insurrection, but if it happens, it will be on the conscience of the members of Congress who are doing this,” he said. “I will not promote violence in resolving this, but I will not stop others who might pursue that.”

Orange County Register

This kind of threatening language permeates the “citizen border patrol” movement.

The night of April 3, armed vigilantes camped along Border Road in a series of watch posts set-up for the Minuteman Project, a month-long action in which revolving casts of 150 to 200 anti-immigration militants wearing cheap plastic “Undocumented Border Patrol Agent” badges mobilized in southeastern Arizona. Their stated goal was to “do the job our government refuses to do” and “protect America” from the “tens of millions of invading illegal aliens who are devouring and plundering our nation.”

At Station Two, Minuteman volunteers grilled bratwursts and fantasized about murder.

“It should be legal to kill illegals,” said Carl, a 69-year old retired Special Forces veteran who fought in Vietnam and now lives out West. “Just shoot ’em on sight. That’s my immigration policy recommendation. You break into my country, you die.”

Carl was armed with a revolver chambered to fire shotgun shells. He wore this hand cannon in a holster below a shirt that howled “American bad asses” in red, white and blue. The other vigilantes assigned to Station Two included a pair of self-professed members of the National Alliance, a violent neo-Nazi organization. These men, who gave their names only as Johnny and Michael, were outfitted in full-body camouflage and strapped with semi-automatic pistols.

Earlier that day, Johnny and Michael had scouted sniper positions in the rolling, cactus-studded foothills north of Border Road, taking compass readings and drawing maps for future reference.

“I agree completely,” Michael said. “You get up there with a rifle and start shooting four or five of them a week, the other four or five thousand behind them are going to think twice about crossing that line.”

SPLC

For some the talk of violence has moved from rhetorical bravado to action.

Already, in an increasingly charged atmosphere along the U.S.-Mexican border, there has been violence. In the last year, the same period in which several Arizona ranchers made national news by “arresting” at gunpoint illegal aliens who crossed their lands,  three would-be border-crossers have been killed in apparent vigilante violence.

One of them was shot from behind after asking a Texas rancher for water; he was left to bleed to death in the scrub brush. Seven others are confirmed wounded, and the toll will almost certainly go higher.

To the north, in Bloomington, Minn., a Hispanic man was clubbed and critically injured for speaking Spanish at a job site. In Farmingville, N.Y., a pair of tattooed racists were accused of posing as contractors to lure two undocumented Mexican workers to a warehouse where they were beaten severely.

-snip-

In October, another anti-immigration delegation traveled to Arizona to lend its support to Roger Barnett, the controversial rancher who reportedly told a British newspaper that “tracking humans … is the biggest thrill.”…

One woman, the report says, was apparently fired on three times as she crossed a nearby ranch. Nine migrants say they were stopped by a local who fired half a dozen shots at them.

A group of 13 claims a rancher’s wife set a German Shepherd on one of them while her husband held the rest at gunpoint. Armed ranchers forced two cars off a public road and held the 16 migrants in them until the Border Patrol showed up.

In incident after incident, 28 in all, just in this small sector of the border over 17 months, angry white ranchers allegedly used weapons and threats, and sometimes violence, to “arrest” illegal aliens.

SPLC

Many would suggest that these views and actions are those of a fringe element that in no way represents any mainstream school of thought in the immigration debate, but they would be wrong. Minuteman co-founder Gilchrist has appeared as guest “expert” on the immigration issue on many national TV and radio shows including the favorite of the “closed borders crowd”,Lou Dobbs Tonight.

Probably more important to the overall debate about race, violence and immigration is the fact that the politician at the forefront of the of the immigration debate and the most vocal proponent of stricter border control, Tom Tancredo (R-CO) is a major a supporter of the Minutemen and their brand of violent rhetoric.

The keynote speaker at the Minuteman Project’s opening day rally was Tom Tancredo, the Republican Congressman from Colorado who chairs the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus.

Tancredo addressed a crowd of about 100 inside Schieffelin Hall, an auditorium not far from the ok Corral. Outside the hall, a phalanx of Arizona Rangers (a state police agency) stood between the hall’s entrance and about 40 anti-Minutemen protesters who banged on pots and pans and drums while the vibrantly outfitted performers of a traditional Aztec dance group leapt and whirled to the cacophonous rhythm.

In late March, President Bush had condemned the Minuteman Project at a joint press conference with Mexican President Vicente Fox. “I’m against vigilantes in the United States of America,” Bush said. “I’m for enforcing the law in a rational way.”

Tancredo said that Bush should be forced to write, “I’m sorry for calling you vigilantes,” on a blackboard one hundred times and then erase the chalk with his tongue.

“You are not vigilantes,” he roared. “You are heroes!”

Tancredo told the Minutemen that each of them stood for 100,000 likeminded Americans who couldn’t afford to make the trip. He applauded Gilchrist and Simcox as “two good men who understand we must never surrender our right as citizens to do our patriotic duty and defend our country … and stop this invasion ourselves.”

link

With this kind of vitriol coming from those in power in Washington and in the media is it any wonder why so many question the motivations of those who oppose any form of comprehensive immigration reform.  When thousands took to the streets over the last few weeks many were there just as much to voice their displeasure with the growing undercurrent of racism in the debate as they were to show their support for undocumented immigrants. Many fully understand, particularly those in the Latino, Xicano, Asian and South Asian communities, that the hatred spewed by those wishing to “hunt illegals” is directed just as much at them as it is the at undocumented.  

Back in May, when Antonio Villaraigosa was elected Mayor of LA, Gregory Rodriguez writing for Newsweek explained the problem that many in the Latino community face.

Villaraigosa’s political ascent is a metaphor for the maturation of Mexican-American politics–a process that is more evolutionary than revolutionary, and, at bottom, a classic American story of ethnic integration into the mainstream.

Throughout American history, countless other ethnic groups have been stripped of their foreignness and have achieved mainstream acceptance. Political and cultural icons are often the vehicles for this cultural shift. In 1939, Life magazine complimented Italian-American ballplayer Joe DiMaggio for not reeking of garlic or using grease in his hair. By his retirement in 1951, however, it called him an all-American hero.

Of course, while European immigrant experiences generally had a beginning and an end, Mexican immigration has been virtually continuous for the past century. This has made the process of Mexican integration a perpetual one. But this dynamic hasn’t so much retarded assimilation as it has sown confusion in the formulation of political and cultural identities. Though the self-definition of European-American groups gradually evolved from an immigrant to an ethnic American identity as time passed, Mexican-Americans have always had to contend with the presence of unassimilated newcomers as well as cyclical waves of anti-Mexican sentiment. Consequently, Mexican-Americans have had to battle against the presumption of foreignness longer than other ethnic groups.

What’s happening with Mexican-Americans is happening to some extent among other Latino groups as well.

link

For those in the Asian community the situation is similar, albeit to a lesser extent.

The inability of some in “white” America to differentiate between “immigrants” and “Mexicans”, South Americans from Central Americans, one Asian group from another, Arabs from Persians, Sikhs from Arabs, and worst of all – Arabs from terrorists, leaves many in minority ethnic groups finding much in common with those being targeted by the Tom Tancredos and Jim Sensenbrenners of the world.

They know that when the minutemen rile against the “invasion” of their country by those from foreign countries … it’s only a matter of time before their hatred will turn to all “foreigners”, no matter where they came from, how they got here, or how many generations their families might have been here.  

Over the past few weeks over two million people have taken to the streets in cities large and small across this country. On Monday perhaps another two million will join that number. Yet, despite this obviously growing movement, the Democratic Party, both the mainstream component in Washington , and that more “progressive” segment represented in the liberal blogosphere, have been blind to the seismic shift taking place right before their very eyes. It’s time to wake up and see the great opportunity that’s been presented to not only do the right thing morally and ethically – but also politically.

When millions of people take to the streets, organized only through a grassroots movement, to protest a Republican sponsored bill, passed by an overwhelming Republican majority in the House of Representatives, that was opposed by the majority of Democrats in both the House and Senate – and Democrats don’t see that as an opportunity – either they are totally out of touch, or just plain stupid.

What are these protests really about? The answer is simple; H.R. 4437 and its draconian provisions to make all undocumented immigrants and those who would help them into criminals. That’s it – nothing more, nothing less.

Over the past year or so I’ve had more than my fair share of debates about immigration reform, and quite frankly I’m done arguing. To those Democrats who support the enforcement only, wall building, “what part of illegal don’t you understand?” school of thought – I say fine, that’s your opinion and you’re welcome to it. Nothing I can ever say will ever change your mind, and I seriously doubt you could ever change mine, so we’ll have to agree to disagree and call it a day.

But … to all the rest who support some form of a comprehensive, humane and practical immigration policy I say … What the hell are you waiting for?

Why are you standing by idly while a potential political revolution is passing you by?

If 2 million people took to the streets tomorrow to protest against the war, the PATRIOT act, political corruption or any number of other Republican sponsored travesties, we as a party would be cheering. Yet when millions march through the streets with signs that say “Stop HR4436” we hem and haw.

Despite what Lou Dobbs might say, the marches are not about “illegal aliens” trying to demand “rights they’re not entitled to.” These marches are made up all kinds of people. Some are undocumented, some are the citizen children, wives, husbands and friends of the undocumented. Many others are second, third or forth generation Americans who feel the tone of this debate has turned nasty, and in many ways the attacks upon the undocumented immigrants reveals an underlying racism that has always laid just beneath the surface. Still others are humanitarians and people of faith who feel that the criminalization of the most vulnerable in society and those who serve them is morally wrong.

The one thing all these people have in common is their vehement opposition to a piece of REPUBLICAN LEGISLATION and their support for the comprehensive immigration reform that is overwhelmingly supported by Democrats in Washington. To me that sounds like democracy at work.

On Sunday 500,000 people marched in Dallas. That’s 500,000 out of a population of approximately 1.3 million. That’s more than 40%. Certainly even Mr. Dobbs can’t believe that over 40% of the population of Dallas is made up entirely of “illegal aliens”. Obviously this issue has touched a nerve with a large number of American voters…. Let’s say that together now: V…O…T…E…R…S.

There’s a reason why one of the slogans for this movement has been “today we march…tomorrow we vote” – because that’s exactly what’s going to happen.

Why are we as a party not embracing this movement? Why aren’t we actively out there trying to register new voters? Why can’t we see that these are the people who are fighting OUR battle … and we should be fighting it with them?

In a day when national elections are fought in “key battleground states” where both parties vie for favor from smaller and smaller groups, why are we ignoring millions upon millions of people?

For arguments sake, lets say that only one in four of those who’ve already marched is an eligible voter who is unregistered or apathetic (I would believe it’s much higher, but I’ll lowball just to be safe), that’s more than half a million potential new voters. What would 500,000 votes have meant in 2000 or 2004?  What will half a million or more mean this November?

This to me is a no-brainer.

The demonstrators want comprehensive immigration reform – most of the Democratic legislators and all its leadership want comprehensive immigration reform. The demonstrators oppose HR 4437, Republicans support HR4437. What more do we need to know.

The Republicans set up the immigration issue as a distraction and wedge to try to divide the American people and provide them with an imaginary enemy to demonize and blame for failing Republican policies. I say it’s jujitsu time, it’s time to turn this issue back in on them.

In order to truly understand all the nuances and complexities of the current immigration debate it would seem that one would need to have a working knowledge of the current immigration laws, the economic ramifications of immigration both legal and illegal, and be familiar with the foreign policy and trade agreements that effect the countries of origin of the current crop of undocumented immigrants.

Or maybe you would just have to understand how Republicans play political hardball, how the Rovian reptilian mind works and to what extremes they are willing go to stay in power.  

On November 3, 2004 , the day after eleven states had run referendums on their ballots to ban gay marriage, the right-wing powers that be must have felt pretty good about themselves. They had successfully taken what should have been a non-issue, and turned it into a referendum on “moral decay”, “family values” and the “destruction of the family”. They had fabricated an issue they could put before close to one fifth the electorate and be assured it would bring out an army of the faithful to pull the lever for a Republican candidate who would protect them from those pushing “the gay agenda” and ruining America with their “out of touch”, liberal, Hollywood ideology.

The pundits analyzed the election ad nauseam and for weeks all we heard about were “values voters” and how liberals just didn’t “get it”. It was a diabolically brilliant plan. For many there was no need to debate about war, a failing economy, deficits, Presidential lies or overreach, no reason to talk about missing WMDs, or insurgencies; instead, it was an election about whether two people of the same sex should be afforded the right to marry.

The plan did what it was supposed to do… it brought out the “base.” The Republicans had pulled off a cheap magician’s parlor trick and misdirected many from the important issues and instead had them concentrate on something that for the most part had no effect on their daily lives.  

Now though, the Republicans were faced with a problem. What could possibly be the follow-up to such a successful act, how could they craft a sequel to top it? They had already played the fear card with their “keeping you safe from terrorism” and “everything changed on 9-11” rhetoric, and now the “values” card had been played also. It looked like the Republican deck was getting slim. But, au contraire…when all else fails in the Republican playbook …the answer is to return to your roots and go back to the tried and true, the one thing that always works….Willie Horton….or in this case Juan Hortona.

The answer they came up with was the not so subtle mix of race, fear, xenophobic populism and the backlash to a bad economy and globalization that now constitutes “The immigration debate”. They would put together a coalition of old school racists, economically marginalized middle and working-class Americans who have been left behind in the new “flat world” economy of outsourcing and globalization, those most effected by the destruction of the US manufacturing base and those who have suffered most from the conservatives conscious effort to shift wealth from the middle to upper classes and then present them with a new enemy on which to channel their discontent.  In other words a classic wedge issue.  

Who’s behind the immigration issue

To understand the way this plan is now playing out one need only take a quick look at two recently released studies that show how this dynamic is playing out and just how those least effected by the “broken borders” and increased flow of undocumented immigrants are the very people leading the charge to close them.

A new analysis of Congressional voting patterns by The American Immigration Law Foundation shows that those representing districts least likely affected by the influx of undocumented immigrants are the first to champion restrictive immigration policies.

An analysis of the Congressional representatives who supported the draconian House enforcement only bill,HR 4437  reveals that those representing districts with the fewest number undocumented immigrants generally supported the restrictive immigration plan, while those with large numbers of undocumented immigrants in their districts were more apt to oppose it.

Representatives From Districts With Fewer Than 5,000 Undocumented Immigrants Were Most Likely To Support The Bill

There are 96 congressional districts that have fewer than 5,000 undocumented immigrants. Most of these districts are largely rural and located in sections of Appalachia, the Midwest, and the Mississippi Valley that are experiencing little economic growth and low levels of immigration in general. Constituents in many of these districts face tough economic times, but the cause is not immigration. Immigrants are attracted to regions of economic dynamism and job expansion. This is why greater numbers of undocumented immigrants are found in western states that have agricultural, livestock, fishing, and tourist economies that need the kinds of less-skilled labor that undocumented immigrants often provide.

Undocumented immigrants in the 96 lowest-immigration districts make up no more than 0.8 percent of the population (each of the 435 congressional districts has roughly the same total population: about 650,000 as of 20001). The votes on H.R. 4437 in these districts tell you something about immigration politics in the United States today. The supposed threat from undocumented immigration is enough to rally voters and move levers of power even in areas where the actual impact is miniscule. Among representatives from districts with the smallest populations of undocumented immigrants, 74 percent (71 out of 96) voted for the bill: 90 percent of Republicans (56 out of 62) and 44 percent of Democrats (15 out of 34)

Representatives From Districts With More Than 50,000 Undocumented Immigrants Were Most Likely To Oppose The Bill

The voting pattern of the representatives from the 61 congressional districts with 50,000 or more undocumented immigrants tells a different story. These districts for the most part are located in densely populated urban areas such as New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles, and are relatively small in geographic size compared to rural districts that include many counties. In these high-immigration districts, the undocumented alone can account for as much as one-fifth of the total population. As a result, representatives who hail from these areas are familiar with undocumented immigrants and their impact on local communities. Among representatives from districts with the largest populations of undocumented immigrants, a mere 5 percent (3 out of 61) supported the bill: none of the 53 Democrats and only 3 of the 8 Republicans.

The inverse relationship between support for H.R. 4437 and the actual presence of undocumented immigrants in a representative’s district represents a widespread voting pattern. Among all Democrats, those who voted in favor of the bill had roughly 10,000 undocumented immigrants in their districts. Democrats who opposed the bill, on the other hand, had about 37,400. Among all Republicans, the same pattern holds: those voting for H.R. 4437 had an average of 14,500 undocumented immigrants in their districts, while those who voted against the bill had an average of 30,800

Overall 67% of all those who supported the bill from both parties came from districts with fewer than 15,000 undocumented immigrants while 62% of those opposed came from districts with more than 15,000.

Voters proximity to immigrants effects perceptions and attitudes

A new report released last week by the Pew Research Center entitled “America’s Immigration Quandary”  reveals what common sense would lead us to assume: Those with the least contact with immigrants have the most negative opinions about them and feel they are a threat to the American way of life. The survey was taken during the period February 8 – March 7, 2006, prior to the current heating up of the issue due to increased media attention.

The survey finds a complex relationship between exposure to immigrants and opinions about them and the immigration problem, more generally. People who live in areas that have high concentrations of immigrants are less likely to see them as a burden to society and a threat to traditional American customs and values. However, they are more apt than others to see immigration as an important problem for their local community.

In sharp contrast, native-born Americans who live in areas with few immigrants understandably are less inclined to see immigration as a local problem. However, many more of those in areas with relatively low concentrations of foreign-born people see immigrants as a burden to the nation and as a threat to American customs. People living in areas with few immigrants have a considerably more negative opinion of Hispanics and a slightly more negative view of Asians.

-snip-

Moreover, native-born Americans who live in areas with the highest concentration of immigrants hold more positive opinions of them. Analysis of the survey indicates that their more favorable views do not merely reflect their demographics or political composition, but suggests that exposure to and experience with immigrants results in a better impression of them. However, Americans living in areas with more immigrants rank immigration as a bigger community problem.

And while there is concern about the impact of immigration on the availability of jobs, nearly two-thirds (65%) say that immigrants coming to the country mostly take jobs that Americans do not want, rather than take jobs away from Americans. In this regard, the recent influx of immigrants into such metropolitan areas as Phoenix, Las Vegas and Raleigh-Durham has not undermined the generally positive perceptions residents have of the local job market.

The most telling statistic was how important most Americans viewed the issue. While 21% said immigration had an effect on their community only 4% viewed it as a major problem facing the country.

In general, however, the issue of immigration is not a top-tier problem for most Americans. Just 4% volunteer it as the most important problem facing the country, far fewer than the number mentioning the war in Iraq, dissatisfaction with the government, terrorism, and several other issues

What we appear to have with the “immigration debate” is an issue that most Americans don’t find very important, being moved to the front of the political agenda by politicians from areas least effected by immigrants and representing a constituency that although they have little practical reason for concern feel that immigrants somehow threaten their way of life. Or as we like to say a classic Republican wedge issue of misdirection.

The BIG picture, we’re all being played

There are many who will offer up anecdotal evidence about their cousin who lost his job hanging drywall at $20 an hour because immigrants work far cheaper, or their brother who can’t find an IT job because the market is flooded with foreigners with H-1b visas. I would not argue that in some cases the failures of US immigration policy have had an adverse effect on some sectors of the native workforce, particularly those from the most vulnerable segments of the population, those with the lowest educational levels, from minority communities and from in areas of economic depression due to the loss of manufacturing jobs. Others will tell stories of how they waited in a hospital emergency room for hours when their child broke a finger at a softball game because the staff was overwhelmed with a mass of humanity looking for treatment of common illnesses. Again I won’t argue.. the healthcare system in this nation is a mess and yes undocumented immigrants only add to the 45 mil uninsured Americans who are forced to use our nations emergency rooms as their primary source of medical care.

But … I would put forward this test for all those who the favor the “tough” approach to immigration reform favored by Tom Tancredo and Jim Sensenbrenner …. If all the undocumented immigrants in the nation were to leave tomorrow, all 12 million of them, would this solve ANY of this nations most basic economic and social problems.

• Would it bring back the millions of good paying jobs that have been outsourced overseas?
• Would it mean that quintessential US companies like GM would not be laying off thousands of workers and closing plants?
• Would it balance a federal budget that now is so far into the red that we can’t even keep up with the interest payments on the debt?
• Would it reverse a  trade deficit that sends billions of dollars every year into foreign coffers?
• Would it change a tax code that has systematically moved the wealth of this nation out of the hands of the middle class and into the hands of the top 1% of the population?
• Would it fix an education system that is being under funded and dismantled piece by piece in order to set up a two tier system with public education for the poor and middle class and private education for the wealthy?
• Would it end an aggressive foreign policy that costs trillions of dollars and countless lives each year?
• Would it fix a healthcare system that leaves millions uninsured, that is underwritten by lobbyists from the big pharmaceutical and the insurance companies?
• Would it end a political system whereby our representatives no longer care about the needs of their constituents but rather spend their careers as spokesmen for business interests?

WOULD IT FIX ALL THE DAMAGED REPUBLICAN CONTROL HAS WROUGHT ON MIDDLE AND WORKING CLASS AMERICANS?…..of course not.

That in essence is the whole point of the immigration issue… to keep the American people fighting against imaginary adversaries in order that they don’t start to address the real problems that effect them …Literally the elephants in the room.

Say what you will about South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham … Lord knows over the years I have … but on Monday afternoon during the Senate Judiciary Committee’s deliberations on immigration reform he made a statement that most eloquently summed up the whole debate … What constitutes someone’s “home”.

“…Most of us here believe that the 11 million undocumented people are also workers.

We couldn’t get by as a nation without those workers and those people.  

And the question is … sending them `home’.

I would just throw this out for some consideration…

What do you mean by `home’?

There’s domicile, and there’s legal residence  …and for some …they’ve been here so long that they can’t imagine where they live is not home.

And that’s the real debate here.

Where is home ….and where would you want home to be?

…The President says he wants a guest worker program, but doesn’t want amnesty.

All the guest worker programs allow people to stay here a long period of time and work, some would have a group within the group to go back … home.

And I would argue that for someone who’s been here three or four generations … they don’t know where to go.  

Cause their home is where they’ve raised their children, their home is where they’ve lived their married lives.

And we have allowed, rightly or wrongly, for that home to be established.

And we as a nation have sat on the sidelines since at least the eighties and allowed this situation to build up.

…There are generations who’ve been in America …who came across undocumented …and they set up roots and… they’ve led very noble lives.

They have a home.

And if you told them to go home they’d go right back to where they’ve been for thirty four years…. Cause they don’t know any other place.

…for several generations people have made America home.

And we’ve accepted the benefit of their labor and we’ve accepted the benefit of their work … and I’m trying to come up with a solution within American values.

…The law is about justice … How do we render legal justice …I would argue that if your breaking up families, and your sending people to some place that they don’t know to be home after forty years.

That is not a just result.”

you can view the whole statement :
Afternoon session at 2hr 44min 25sec here

It’s finally happened. The issue that’s been simmering for years has at long last boiled over into the collective consciousness. Starting with 300,000 marching in Chicago two weeks ago, and now culminating in what seems to be a daily flood of images from around the country of thousands taking to the streets, the American people and media are just now waking up and examining an issue that has the potential to not only change the political landscape of the country, but the very makeup of the nation itself.  The legislation now being debated in the Senate would not only change the lives of millions of immigrants, legal and illegal, who live and work in this country – it could effect the lives of every American.

If done correctly immigration reform could bring millions of people out of the shadows, free from exploitation and fear. It could allow them to compete freely in the open market, demanding fair and just working condition and wages,  and give them the opportunity join the greater society on a whole in the quest for a better life.

On the other hand, if done incorrectly, immigration reform could further divide this nation. It could force millions of immigrants to go further underground, criminalizing them and limiting the few opportunities they have to make a better life.  It could further divide our nation along class and racial lines, and leave us with a permanent under-class of people with no hope of ever attaining legal status.

Before looking at the different legislative proposals that will be debated, and where we should be going, we need to look at where we are right now as far as immigration is concerned.  

The Current Law: How does it work  

All immigration is based upon the quota system. Each year the US Citizenship and Immigration Services issues Permanent Resident Cards (green cards) to four major categories of applicants:

• Immediate family members: spouses and minor children of US citizens, ( the number issued is unlimited and not effected by quotas)
• Family-based immigration: family members of permanent residents ,limit of 226,000 annually
• Employment-based immigrants: limit of 140,000 annually
• Diversity Lottery: 50,000 green cards distributed by lottery to those from nations with low rates of immigration to the US

Besides these major groups there are green cards issued for various other reasons such as those for refugees and those from specific counties such as Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua.

The Employment based green cards are further divided up by categories based upon skill and educational levels. Out of the 140,000 cards issued, only 5000 go to un-skilled workers annually.

In addition to these quotas that limit the number of people who can apply in any given year for a green card by category, there is a second quota system in place. This second quota limits the number of people who can migrate from any one country. The per-country quota states that no single country can send more than 7% of the total worldwide immigration in any given year. In effect this system favors those from small countries that traditionally send few immigrants. A large country like China or India with a billion people or one with close proximity like Mexico or Canada that have traditionally had close economic and social ties to the US, receive the same number of green cards as Lichtenstein or Nauru with a population of approximately 10,000 people.

In the end it becomes evident that the current quota system sets up substantial barriers to those wishing to immigrate legally. If someone does not have family already in the country, come from a small country that traditionally sends few immigrants, or has substantial skills and education, the chances of entering the immigration system legally are minute. This is why as many people enter the US illegally each year as do legally. They are essentially shut out of the system from the start. The idea that all immigrants who want to come to the U.S can “do it the right way” and apply for legal entry, and that those who don’t just want to “cheat the system” and move to the “front of the line” is simply untrue.

Undocumented Immigrants: Who Are They?

What follows is the information from the executive summary of the current Pew report, “Size and Characteristics of the Unauthorized Migrant Population in the U.S.” The entire report can be read here.

Analysis of the March 2005 Current Population Survey shows that there were 11.1 million unauthorized in the United States a year ago. Based on analysis of other data sources that offer indications of the pace of growth in the foreign-born population, the Center developed an estimate of 11.5 to 12 million for the unauthorized population as of March 2006.

Size and Characteristics of the Unauthorized Migrant Population
Estimates Based on the March 2005 Current Population Survey

• Since 2000, growth in the unauthorized population has averaged more than 500,000 per year. Based on evidence that this trend has persisted, the current unauthorized population can be estimated at between 11.5 and 12 million.
• In the March 2005 estimate two-thirds (66%) of the unauthorized population had been in the country for ten years or less, and the largest share, 40% of the total or 4.4 million people had been in the country five years or less.
• Unauthorized migrants accounted for 30% of the foreign-born population in 2005. Another 28% were legal permanent residents, and 31% were U.S. citizens by Naturalization
• Most of unauthorized migrants came from Mexico. There were an estimated 6.2 million unauthorized Mexican migrants in 2005, or 56% of the unauthorized population.
• About 2.5 million unauthorized migrants, or 22% of the total, have come from the rest of Latin America, primarily from Central America. Unauthorized migrants from Mexico and the rest of Latin America represented 78% of the unauthorized population in 2005.
• Between 2000 and 2005 the number of unauthorized migrants from Mexico increased by about 1.5 million. Other large increases occurred among unauthorized migrants from Central America (+465,000) and South and East Asia (+365,000).

Family Characteristics

• There were 5.4 million adult males in the unauthorized population in 2005, accounting for 49% of the total. There were 3.9 million adult females accounting for 35% of the population. In addition, there were 1.8 million children who were unauthorized, or 16% of the total.
• Among adults, males make up 58% of the unauthorized population while females make up 42%

.

• As of 2005, there were 6.6 million families in which either the head of the family or the spouse was unauthorized. These unauthorized families contained 14.6 million persons.
• Nearly two-thirds (64%) of the children living in unauthorized families are U.S. citizens by birth, an estimated 3.1 million children in 2005.

Labor Force Characteristics

• Unauthorized migrants accounted for about 4.9% of the civilian labor force in March 2005, or about 7.2 million workers out of a labor force of 148 million.
• Unauthorized workers are employed in a variety of occupations, although the distribution of the unauthorized workforce across occupations differs from that of native-born workers. For example, nearly a third (31%) of
  unauthorized workers were employed in service occupations compared to one-sixth (16%) of native workers in March 2005. Unauthorized migrants are underrepresented in white-collar occupations.
• About 19% of unauthorized workers were employed in construction and extractive occupations, 15% in production, installation and repair and 4% in farming.
• Unauthorized migrants make up a large share of all workers in a few more detailed occupational categories. They were 24% of all workers employed in farming occupations, 17% in cleaning, 14% in construction and 12% in food preparation industries. Within those categories, unauthorized workers were a very large share of all workers in certain specific occupations. For example,
  the unauthorized were 36% of all insulation workers and 29% of all roofers and drywall installers, 27% of all butchers and other food processing workers.
• The concentration of unauthorized workers in broad industries is not as marked as the concentration in broad occupation groups. Only in “leisure & hospitality” and in “construction” does the share of unauthorized workers greatly exceed the share of natives. About 1 in 5 unauthorized workers was in the construction industry (20%) and 1 in 6 was in the leisure & hospitality
  industry (17%). Only about 7%-8% of native workers was in each of these industries.
• There are fewer detailed industries with high concentrations and significant numbers of unauthorized workers than detailed occupations. Nonetheless, there are some industries with substantial concentration of unauthorized workers. The unauthorized were 21% of the workers in private household industries. They were between 12% and 14% of all the workers in food manufacturing, farming, furniture manufacturing, construction, textiles, and food services.

THE LEGISLATION

As of today it appears that there are two major schools of thought on immigration reform:

Those that favor “enforcement only” proposals that favor the stiffening of criminal penalties for both undocumented immigrants and those who hire them, and increasing security at the border to try to prevent the flow of illegal immigration. They believe that if the climate that fosters illegal immigration were changed it would stop and we need to try to stop the flow immigrants at the border by building barriers both physically and through law enforcement.

A second school of thought are those supporting “comprehensive immigration reform” who believe that in order to control immigration the system needs to changed and accommodations must be made to make the immigration process easier. They believe that if the system allowed for more “legal” immigration there would be far less need for those who wish to come here to make a better life to do so “illegally”. That if immigrants could live and work legally in the country many if not all of the problems caused by illegal immigration would be eliminated.

These two schools of thought can be seen in the competing legislation now being debated.

Enforcement Only Bills

The “enforcement only” advocates have lined up behind the bill passed in the House in December sponsored by Representatives Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and King (R-NY); the “Border Protection, Antiterrorism and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005”  (HR4437)  and it’s Senate equivalent the  “Securing America’s Borders Act”  ( S.2454) put forward by Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN).

Although Frist’s bill varies slightly from HR4437 both bills would:

• Increase security forces and surveillance along the border and the building of a 700 mile long wall along the southern border.
• Give the power to immigration officials within 100 miles of the border to expel without a hearing anyone believed to be a recently arrived illegal immigrant.
• Expand mandatory detention to apply to all non-citizens arriving at a port of entry or “along” the border.
• Limit the basic rights of immigrants to judicial review, even by the constitutionally guaranteed writ of habeas corpus.
• Criminalize all violations of immigration law, even if the violation was unintentional or the result of processing delays
• Give additional powers to detain non-citizens indefinitely without judicial review, potentially placing many non-citizens in a legal black hole that subjects them to a life sentence after having served a criminal sentence, or, in some cases, without ever having been convicted of a crime.

“Expedited Removal”: Deportation Without a Lawyer, Hearing, Or Court Review
Expedited removal under current immigration laws is applied to non-citizens arriving at airports with apparently improper documents, to un-documented non-citizens arriving by sea, and a few other narrow categories of non-citizens. Basically, if you show up at JFK without paperwork, you are put on the next plane back without having any sort of hearing or review.

H.R. 4312 will expand on the policy of “expedited removal,” and grant powers to even low-level immigration officers to remove individuals anywhere along the border. It would require the border patrol to pick up and deport, without any administrative hearing, anyone within 100 miles of the border that an agent thinks is an undocumented immigrant who has been present less than 14 days. How the officers are to determine the legal status of the deportees is not addressed in the legislation. The de facto result of this legislation is that anyone within 100 miles of the border (north or south) who is suspected of being here illegally could by deported without any sort of hearing or reviews.

Mandatory Detention
Under current law, individuals who arrive without documents, including asylum-seekers, are subject to mandatory detention. Again this applies mainy to those arriving at airports or by sea. 60% of detainees are held in local jails under contract to the federal government, where they are generally not segregated from the criminal population even if they are asylum-seekers and others with no criminal record.

Under this new bill, the mandatory detention policy would be extended to all non-citizens who are detained at any port of entry or anywhere “along” the border for any reason.

“Illegal Presence” and “Aggravated Felonies,”
Section 203 of HR 4437 calls for the creation of a new federal crime of “illegal presence”. As defined in the bill it includes any violation, even technical, of any immigration law or regulation. Even if the immigrant was to fall “out of status” unintentionally, or do to paperwork delays. In essence, the bill makes every immigration violation, however minor, into a federal crime. As drafted, the bill also makes the new crime of “illegal presence” an “aggravated felony” for immigration purposes. This classification would have the further effect of restricting ordinary undocumented immigrants (including those with pending applications) from many forms of administrative or judicial review. Those convicted of an “aggravated felony” would be subject to indefinite detention and/or expedited removal.

Indefinite Detention
Indefinite detention currently applies to non-citizens ordered removed from the United States whose countries refuse to accept them or who have no country because they are stateless. Most often they come from countries without good relations with the United States.

HR 4437 would permit indefinite detention of an increased broad class of non-citizens, including:

• those with a contagious disease
• any non-citizen convicted of an “aggravated felony,” (see above)
• non-citizens whose release would pose foreign policy problems
• non-citizens charged even with very minor immigration violations who, based on secret evidence, are deemed a national security risk.

The bill also includes provisions to “combat the hiring of illegal workers”
The bill calls for an employment eligibility verification system in which employers will check the Social Security numbers and alien identification numbers provided by employees against Social Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) records in order to weed out fraudulent numbers and ensure that their employees are not working in the U.S. illegally. The system is modified from a voluntary pilot program currently in use. The bill also increases civil and criminal penalties for knowingly hiring or employing an illegal worker.

Perhaps one of the most controversial aspects of the legislation is Sec. 202 of HR 4437 which in effect makes it a crime to “assist” in any way someone who is in the country illegally. It is this provision that has raised so much concern from humanitarian groups, doctors, lawyers and church officials. Although proponents of the bill assure that the measure would not be aimed at humanitarian workers, most remain skeptical. Sen. Frist’s version raises further concerns since he seemed to address the issue by making a provision for the church to allow for an  “alien who is present in the United States to perform the vocation of a minister or missionary for the denomination or organization in the United States” and decimalized the  giving of  “emergency humanitarian assistance, including emergency medical care and food, or to transport the alien to a location where such assistance can be rendered”.  While appearing to be a capitulation to humanitarian workers, Sec. 274 a 3, still furthers the restrictions that concern most of the groups involved by limiting it’s waver of criminality to “emergency assistance” only and to the recruitment of clergy.

One of the biggest criticisms of all the “enforcement only” legislation is that they make no provisions for the 12 million immigrants already in the country. These bills assume that if they make the penalties harsh enough, millions of immigrants will simple back up and go home. When asked about what would happen to the 12 million undocumented immigrants if new legislation was to pass, chief spokesmen for the enforcement only approach to immigration reform, Rep.Tom Tancredo (R- CO.) flippantly replied; “adios”. But as Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said yesterday in the Senate Judiciary deliberations,  “what is home, where is home for these people?”…for many undocumented immigrants the US is home … home is where they have lived and worked for ten or twenty years … where they have married and raised their children.  The enforcement only proponents simply make no account for that situation.

Comprehensive Immigration Bills

Essentially the bill that will go to the floor of the Senate today is the Senate Judiciary Committees “Chairman’s Mark” of the “Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006” which now contians many of the provisions of the bill originally put forward by Senators Kennedy (D-MA)  and McCain (R-AZ), the “Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act”  (S.1033). We do not yet know the specific language of the bill (It will be published within a day or two), we do know that it contains these major provisions:

• Increased border security and cooperation with Mexico and Canada
• Creates a “virtual wall” of unmanned vehicles, cameras and censors to monitor the U.S.-Mexico border.
• Doubles the border patrol over five years adding 12,000 agents
• Provides a path to legalization and citizenship for the 12 mil undocumented immigrants as long as they pass security clearance, pay all back taxes, pay a criminal fine for breaking immigration laws, remain employed, have no criminal record, acquire a level of English proficiency, and  eventually pass the civics section of the citizenship exam. Current illegal residents cannot begin to apply for legal status until all current immigration requests have been processed
• Creates a guest worker program that allows approximately 400,000 unskilled workers to come and work for up to six years. Additionally, after a certain amount of time the guest workers who qualify may apply for permanent residency.
• Doubles all current fines for employers who hire illegal workers
• Quotas will become adjustable according to a given formula
• The Department of Labor will maintain an updated Job Bank of willing employers looking for workers

The DREAM program will be continued allowing children of undocumented immigrants who have graduated from high school to be allowed to apply to Colleges without having their parents immigration status taken into consideration

• The inclusion of an agricultural provision that will allow 1.5 million agricultural workers to work in the US legally
• Redefines the “aggravated felony” language of HR4437 to exempt those already here from prosecution.

As previously noted, the exact wording of the bill will be available shortly so the specifics might change slightly.

The criticisms of this approach are many. Critics claim that providing a path to legalization is no more than an amnesty and that would be rewarding those who have broken the law. That guest workers provided business with a cheap source of labor while preventing US citizens access to valuable jobs. And that immigrants put undue stresses on our already taxed social services programs and unfairly compete for limited resources with those already at the bottom of the economic ladder.

What Happens Now

Whether this bill makes it to the floor and what happens after that is still to be seen.

…the plan was fiercely attacked by conservative Republicans who called it nothing more than an offer of amnesty for lawbreakers. It remained unclear Monday night whether Senator Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader, would allow the bill to go for a vote this week on the floor or would substitute his own bill, which focuses on border security. His aides have said that Mr. Frist, who has said he wants a vote on immigration this week, would be reluctant to move forward with legislation that did not have the backing of a majority of the Republicans on the committee.

Only 4 of the 10 Republicans on the committee supported the bill. They were the committee chairman, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, and Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Mike DeWine of Ohio and Sam Brownback of Kansas. All eight Democrats on the committee voted in favor of the legislation.

The rift among Republicans on the committee reflects the deep divisions in the party as business groups push to legalize their workers and conservatives battle to stem the tide of illegal immigration. Mr. Specter acknowledged the difficulties ahead, saying, “We are making the best of a difficult situation.” But he said he believed that the legislation would ultimately pass the Senate and would encourage the millions of illegal immigrants to come out of the shadows.

“We do not want to create a fugitive class in America,” Mr. Specter said after the vote. “We do not want to create an underclass in America.”

“I think this represents a reasonable accommodation,” he said, referring to the divergent views on the panel. “It’s not a majority of the majority, but it’s a good number.”

-snip-

Any legislation that passes the Senate will have to be reconciled with the tough border security bill passed in December by the Republican-controlled House…

NYT

Going forward the only thing that is known for sure is that the immigration reform battle has just begun. It will most likely become one of the defining issues in upcoming election cycles and could change the face of both the Republican and Democratic parties. But that’s a story for another diary…. This one was quite long enough already….

On Tuesday, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced that DHS would be opening detention facilities in the next few weeks to house thousands of Chinese immigrants who have been denied immigration to the United States, yet were refused readmission by the Chinese government. Currently there are an estimated 39,000 undocumented immigrants caught in this diplomatic limbo, but if the more punitive immigration legislation passed in the House back in December, and now being debated in the Senate, was to become law perhaps millions more would join them.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Chertoff said that China last year readmitted 800 people. But that made only a small dent in what he described as a backlog of thousands illegally in the U.S.

“The math is pretty easy — at that rate, we wind up with increasing numbers of migrants who, if we’re going to detain them, we’re going to have to house at enormous expense,” Chertoff said.

He added: “We can’t be in the position any longer where we are paying the burden and bearing the burden for countries that won’t cooperate with us and take their own citizens back.”

The Chinese Embassy in Washington did not immediately return a call for comment.

Currently, 687 Chinese are being held in federal detention facilities, at a daily rate of $95 each, while some 38,000 have been released on bond or under a monitoring program, such as wearing an electronic surveillance bracelet, the Homeland Security Department said later Tuesday.

-snip-

Chertoff also said Homeland Security would open detention facilities in the next few weeks to house entire families of illegal immigrants who hope to bring their children along in order to avoid jail time. “It’ll be humane, but we’re not going to let people get away with this,” he said.

Chertoff’s remarks comes as the Homeland Security Department aims to end its “catch and release” immigration policy by Oct. 1. After that date, all illegal immigrants will be held in U.S. detention centers until they can be returned to their nation of citizenry.

AP

Japanese-American internment camp during WWII

The Department of Homeland Security’s decision to end the “catch and release” immigration policy by Oct.1 comes on the heels of last month’s announcement by the Army Corps of Engineers that a $385 million contract had been awarded to Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Root and Brown to build “temporary immigration detention facilities”.

Halliburton Subsidiary Gets Contract to Add Temporary Immigration Detention Centers

New York Times

Feb. 3 – The Army Corps of Engineers has awarded a contract worth up to $385 million for building temporary immigration detention centers to Kellogg Brown & Root, the Halliburton subsidiary…

KBR would build the centers for the Homeland Security Department for an unexpected influx of immigrants, to house people in the event of a natural disaster or for new programs that require additional detention space…

A spokesman for the corps, Clayton Church, said that the centers could be at unused military sites or temporary structures and that each one would hold up to 5,000 people.

“When there’s a large influx of people into the United States, how are we going to feed, house and protect them?” Mr. Church asked. “That’s why these kinds of contracts are there.”

-snip-

In recent months, the Homeland Security Department has promised to increase bed space in its detention centers to hold thousands of illegal immigrants awaiting deportation. In the first quarter of the 2006 fiscal year, nearly 60 percent of the illegal immigrants apprehended from countries other than Mexico were released on their own recognizance.

Domestic security officials have promised to end the releases by increasing the number of detention beds. Last week, domestic security officials announced that they would expand detaining and swiftly deporting illegal immigrants to include those seized near the Canadian border

As the Senate Judiciary Committee takes up immigration reform this week they will be debating provisions that may increase the number of incarcerated undocumented immigrants into the millions. Both the current Senate proposal, “The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006”, sponsored by Sen. Arlen Spectrer, and it’s House equivalent, the “Border Protection, Antiterrorism and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005″(HR4437) would criminalize almost any immigration infraction and leave the entire undocumented population vulnerable to incarceration. Both bills, in theory, call for the arrest and possible detention of all undocumented immigrants.

Mandatory Detention

Under current law, individuals who arrive without documents, including asylum-seekers, are subject to mandatory detention. Again this applies mainy to those arriving at airports or by sea. 60% of detainees are held in local jails under contract to the federal government, where they are generally not segregated from the criminal population even if they are asylum-seekers and others with no criminal record.

Under this new bill, the mandatory detention policy would be extended to all non-citizens who are detained at any port of entry or anywhere “along” the border for any reason.

“Illegal Presence” and “Aggravated Felonies,”

Section 203 of HR 4437 calls for the creation of a new federal crime of “illegal presence”. As defined in the bill it includes any violation, even technical, of any immigration law or regulation. Even if the immigrant was to fall “out of status” unintentionally, or do to paperwork delays. In essence, the bill makes every immigration violation, however minor, into a federal crime. As drafted, the bill also makes the new crime of “illegal presence” an “aggravated felony” for immigration purposes. This classification would have the further effect of restricting ordinary undocumented immigrants (including those with pending applications) from many forms of administrative or judicial review. Those convicted of an “aggravated felony” would be subject to indefinite detention and/or expedited removal.

Indefinite Detention

Indefinite detention currently applies to non-citizens ordered removed from the United States whose countries refuse to accept them or who have no country because they are stateless. Most often they come from countries without good relations with the United States.

Section 602 of HR 4437 would permit indefinite detention of an increased broad class of non-citizens, including:

• those with a contagious disease
• any non-citizen convicted of an “aggravated felony,” (see above)
• non-citizens whose release would pose foreign policy problems
• non-citizens charged even with very minor immigration violations who, based on secret evidence, are deemed a national security risk.

MORE

With the internment of undocumented Chinese immigrants and their families becoming a very real possibility, we need to start to look at the real ramifications of some of this proposed legislation. Homeland Security has already announced its intent to greatly increase the incarceration of undocumented immigrants and Halliburton is ready to supply the facilities to hold them. With HR 4437’s provisions for indefinite detention and the reclassification of even minor offenses as aggravated felonies it is quite possible that all 12 million undocumented immigrants in this country could shortly end up in internment camps no different from the refugee camps we see throughout the rest of the world. We just never thought it could happen here.

cross posted from: Migra Matters

Dr. Jeffrey Passel, Senior Research Associate with the Pew Hispanic Center was interviewed on CSPAN’s Washington Journal on March 9th about the centers newest report on undocumented migrants; ” Size and Characteristics of the Unauthorized Migrant Population in the U.S.”

During the course of the over forty minute interview, Dr. Passel dispelled many of the popular misconceptions about undocumented migrants. Here are just a few:

• That 5.7 mil of the 11.1 mil undocumented migrants are women and children, disproving the popular belief that most migrants are single young men coming here to earn money to send home.
• That young working families make up the bulk of that population, including 3mil American born children who are citizens.
• That 6.7 mil have been here more than five years, and out of those, 3.8 mil have been here more than ten.
• That some 94% of adult men are working, the majority of them “legally” with Social Security numbers and paying taxes.

.

• That a large number of migrants have high school education  and ten percent are college graduates. Their children tend to do better, and most go on to attend college.
• When US unemployment is high, immigration goes down…it only increases when unemployment is low. Dispelling the belief that migrants take jobs from US workers and cause unemployment
• That immigrants represent only 5% of work force and have very little impact on wages.
• NAFTA has been a major contributor to increased migration from Mexico.
• Immigrants who are not citizens are not eligible for any government medical assistance such as medicare or medicaid. They generally don’t receive any medical insurance through their jobs which does cause some strain on the system equal to that of other uninsured populations.
• Without family members already legally in the country it is nearly impossible to enter the country legally
• Only American citizens can qualify for social services such as welfare or food stamps, no immigrants legal or illegal receive any government assistance
• Todays immigrants learn English today at the same pace as other immigrants groups in the past

To view the entire interview: Here

To read report: Here (PDF)

ACTION

Senate Judiciary Committee to Finish Work on Immigration Bill This Week

As you might know, the Senate Judiciary Committee is considering a bill that contains many of the more draconian aspects of the House bill (HR4437) passed last December.

Including:

• Up to five years in jail for people who assist an illegal to remain in the US, or transport them within the US, which could conceivably include aid from charities, churches, free medical clinics, etc.
• Possible deportation, without any hearing, of anyone picked up within 100 miles of the border who an immigration agent thinks is illegal.
• Creates a new federal “aggravated felony” crime of any “illegal presence,” even if the cause is not the fault of the immigrant, such as their legal paperwork being processed too slowly. They can then be detained indefinitely.
• Limit the basic rights of immigrants to judicial review, even by the constitutionally guaranteed writ of habeas corpus.
• Criminalize all violations of immigration law, even if the violation was unintentional or the result of processing delays
• Give additional powers to detain non-citizens indefinitely without judicial review, potentially placing many non-citizens in a legal black hole that subjects them to a life sentence after having served a criminal sentence, or, in some cases, without ever having been convicted of a crime

On Wednesday and Thursday, the committee will meet to consider the these provisions.

If you haven’t called Senators on the Judiciary Committee yet, please do so today. Let them know you don’t support the restrictive provissions of HR4437 that have been included in Senate legislation.

They are listed below.

Senate Judiciary Committee: Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) – 202-224-4254 Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT) – 202-224-5251 Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-IA) – 202-224-3744 Sen. Jon L. Kyl (R-AZ) – 202-224-4521 Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH) – 202-224-2315 Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) – 202-224-4124 Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-SC) – 202-224-5972 Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) – 202-224-2934 Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) – 202-224-6521 Sen. Thomas A. Coburn (R-OK) – 202-224-5754 Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT) – 202-224-4242 Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) – 202-224-4543 Sen. Joseph R. Biden (D-DE) – 202-224-5042 Sen. Herbert H. Kohl (D-WI) – 202-224-5653 Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) – 202-224-3841 Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) – 202-224-5323 Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) – 202-224-6542 Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-IL) – 202-224-2152

Cross posted from: Migra Matters