Recently in Immigration Category

I promised I'd write more on John Hawkins' pronouncement on John McCain and his shifting immigration stances. And I say "shifting" only because his stance has been perceived as shifting. Personally, I now believe it never did. While there may have been some confusion as to the scheduling of McCain's agenda , the priorities have remained the same.

I share John's (and other's) distaste with McCain on the subject of immigration. It's McCain's single worst position among the conservative base, and rightly so. Anyone who saw the interviews and and watched the debates last year where the Maverick gave his pained definitions of amnesty knew then that he too was aware of that fact, and carefully tiptoeing through his answers. McCain has carefully played word games in the media with great success. And regrettably, too many folks so wanted to make lemonade from lemons that he largely went unchallenged on what has from the beginning been about amnesty and never changed.

In this, I do fault Senator McCain. His semantic games have lacked the candor and bluntness that he likes to portray as his strengths. Here he is in September last year arguing that comprehensive immigration reform isn't amnesty (skip ahead to about 2:45):

I often wonder why McCain's definition of amnesty didn't sink his bid for the nomination as soon as he said it. It's a word that has multiple meanings, "forgiveness" is not even cited as a definition by most dictionaries. His willful misrepresentation of the context and definition of the word used by the citizens to whom he responded was a disturbing blast of arrogance and condescension that should have had more folks seeing flashing red lights and hearing klaxons. Sigh.

But back to the larger point - Senator McCain's position on immigration reform shifted little when he started proclaiming that he "got the message" from the border hawks. Indeed, all that changed was the schedule. Here he is on O'Reilly describing his vision of immigration reform:

Note how he combines the issues in his answer as "immigration reform". Other than the "security first" part, how is this different from his comprehensive immigration reform from last year?

Most of the punditry and the blogosphere (including yours truly) assumed that when McCain said "security first" he meant "separately". I'm going to suggest something to you all:

John McCain always intended to resurrect the previous bill in full, with the addition of some sort of timetable and milestone provisions regarding border security to pacify the border hawks.

Assuming that the suggestion above is correct, has John McCain lied about immigration? That's a toughie. Certainly he has through omission - his campaign speeches have been long on promise regarding immigration but short on the mechanics required to carry the promise out. In fairness, McCain may have originally assumed that everyone knew that his bill would come back with the addition of the security first provision. However, over time he surely should have been been aware that folks had the wrong interpretation, and he shouldn't have let let it go this far without clarifying his position.

But go back through everything he's said about immigration since last summer - can any of you find in his words something that refutes my suggestion above? I can't.

When a myth circulates that portrays a politician in a negative light, they're quick in the attempt to dispel it. But when a myth shows them in a positive light, there's a reluctance to do so. It's a quality not unique to John McCain. But this particular myth should have been exposed in the blogosphere, and it was not. Not to pick on John Hawkins, but he was taken in like the rest of us. From his commentary at Townhall.com:

Then there's immigration, where we know McCain is just dying to put the illegal immigrants in this country on a path to citizenship. However, he has pledged to secure the border before he does that. In all honesty, with the glacier-like speed that the federal government moves, there is zero chance that is going to be completed in the next four years. Yet, as security improves, more and more illegal aliens will leave the country on their own. So even though McCain's motives wouldn't be pure, enforcement by attrition would still occur during his first term and if conservatives hold McCain to his promise, it's very possible that he wouldn't be able to implement amnesty by 2012.

If you assumed that McCain would deal with amnesty in separate legislation only after the border is secured, this was a reasonable conclusion - the clock on McCain's presidency would run out long before he could enact amnesty. This was my hope as well. But McCain never said he would enact separate bills, he simply said the border would be secure first.

So based on recent statements, and reviewing past ones, what would immigration reform look like under John McCain?

It would be a comprehensive bill. Some sort of plan to secure the borders would likely be required to be accomplished first, followed by Z-visas and path to citizenship but only after certain metrics have been met. Even if the border takes more than four years to fix, we would be stuck with the enduring and destructive legacy of amnesty. No clock-watching will change it, and having already passed the larger bill, Congress will feel free to accelerate the more harmful parts without waiting for border certification. The danger here cannot be overstated. Once amnesty is the law, any pre-conditions can be altered quickly and easily.

Back to theme about McCain and whether his recent statements expose either lies or betrayals - have we been had? Yes, we have. But McCain doesn't deserve all the blame. The assumptions of how McCain's plan would manifest itself by the punditry and the blogosphere have been nearly universally flawed in spite of the fact that McCain himself never confirmed those assumptions. We hoped that he meant the issues would be dealt with separately, and didn't want to see that he could take other paths and still keep his promise.

Like it or don't, most of us on the right should be reserving some of the anger being displayed this week for ourselves.

One of my favorite bloggers has drawn the line - he ain't votin' for the Maverick. Why?:

He's a man without honor, without integrity, who could not have captured the Republican nomination had he run on making comprehensive immigration a top priority of his administration.

I think we'll be seeing more of this - I'll have much more later today.

Congratulations to our newest Americans, and thanks for doing it legally.

Unfortunately, it's the wrong one.

If you missed the O'Reilly interview of McCain last night, here's a clip where he promises virtually no help on increasing oil supply while waiting for the elusive next energy source to be developed in who knows how many years. No drilling in ANWR, and leaving production off shore up to the states - which is about the same as saying no drilling considering the constituencies involved.

I guess all we can hope for is that gas prices won't go up as much under McCain as they would under Obama. Big whoop.

Well, at least he'll give us border enforcement first, right? Um, no. Keep watching as he falls back on his comprehensive reform lines. I wouldn't be surprised if his poll numbers plummet ten points after this performance.

And folks are raising the specter of McCain losing his bearings. Shame it's not true, I think that might be preferable to his current lucidity.

Can't we get a mulligan on the primaries?

Update: While I'm loath to validate a trackback blackballing site, credit where credit is due - Allahpundit may be on to something here. Delaware, after all, is also a foregone conclusion.

That's the title of this press release which caught my eye earlier today:

LAS VEGAS, Dec. 8 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- "I came to the United States seven years ago because of religious discrimination in Switzerland," said Raelian Guide Thomas Kaenzig, who heads the Raelian religion in Nevada. "Now I'm standing up for religious freedom here -- for my right to omit all religious references in becoming a U.S. citizen. After lots of red tape, I was granted a God-free citizenship oath-taking ceremony on December 7 here in Las Vegas."

Kaenzig said he lost his job in Switzerland because of his beliefs.

"As a Raelian spokesperson, I bashed the Vatican in an interview with Switzerland's major newspaper, Blick. I wasn't wanted on company projects after that. I was jobless."

Well, so much for assimilation. But the story as he tells it doesn't sound like religious discrimination to me. He didn't have to "bash the Vatican" in a major paper as a condition of his own religion. No, he wasn't discriminated against because of his beliefs, he was shunned because he trashed the beliefs of others.

So he comes here and spends years trying to expurgate the subject of his hatred from the customary rituals of citizenship of our country. If this has a familiar, um, smell to it...

Kaenzig said because the Raelian Movement is an atheistic religion, Rael had made attorney Michael Newdow an Honorary Guide for his commitment to remove all mentions of God from U.S. public affairs. Newdow, who assisted Kaenzig in his naturalization case, pleaded an argument this week at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking to omit the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance and U.S. currency.

That would be the same Michael Newdow who has made it his life's work to assert his rights by taking away the rights of others. And Kaenzig appears to be a kindred spirit, as his goal wasn't just to have a "godless" ceremony for himself, it was to force it on everyone. And he wasn't completely happy with the judge's compromise, which gave him a private ceremony:

Was the citizenship oath compromise satisfactory to Kaenzig?

"For my own situation, yes," he replied. "But it doesn't prevent religious references in future public ceremonies. Still, it's a significant first step."

If you are curious about the Raelians, they don't believe in a God. They believe we were put here by aliens. I'm guessing that's where much of Dennis Kucinich's support is coming from.

Oh, and here's something from the "I learned something new" category. Did you know that new citizens can ask to have the references to defending their newly chosen country removed from the oath?

"As a Raelian, I objected to three things in the standard naturalization procedure," Kaenzig said. "I object to an oath saying I'll bear arms to defend the country; to an oath ending in 'so help me God,' and to a public ceremony violating separation of church and state. The judge, a public official, typically pronounces 'so help me God' at the end."

So to sum up, we now have a new American who hates God and expects to be treated with respect when he tramples on the rights of those who don't agree with him, and would never defend his chosen country.

Nice to know we have such a loyal citizen in Mr. Kaenzig, isn't it?

It's not just illegal immigration that needs work from Washington. When we allow folks in legally who not only despise what we as a nation stand for, but proudly declare their disloyalty to their new country, we have a real problem.

As both of my regular readers know, I scour though press releases in search of the interesting and newsworthy so that you don't have to. Normally, they're pretty dry and matter-of-fact - statements on policy, text of speeches, announcements of events, etc.

Sometimes, though, the writers of PRs get their literary juices flowing and serve up something, well, more. Case in point is a summary of a campaign stop by Dennis Kucinich yesterday, titled "Kucinich 'Connects' with Everyday Citizens at Massive Iowa Presidential Forum":

One especially poignant moment dramatically reflected the affinity between the coalition's populist agenda and Kucinich's deep involvement in those same issues. A community leader from Iowa recounted the events of Dec. 12, 2006, when federal immigration authorities raided a plant in search of undocumented immigrants. Among those detained and exiled to Mexico was the mother of five small children who lived in a modest home with her husband. It happened, the speaker said, her voice choked with emotion, on the hallowed feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe.

Kucinich walked across the stage and asked her to look at his watch. "What does it say?" he asked her. "It's Our Lady of Guadalupe," she responded. Kucinich said the watch was a gift from friends in El Paso, Texas four years ago "when I was standing up for the rights of immigrants." The crowd's reaction swelled from sighs and gasps to sustained applause and cheering.

Add some descriptive lines about flowing hair and heaving bodice, along with perhaps a touch of glistening perspiration, and this would rival the best in romantic fiction available at your local supermarket. You can almost see Dennis' bronzed muscles straining through his torn shirt as the audience swelled, can't you?

I'm not saying that the event wasn't as the writer described, but I would have thought a more natural response to "What does it say?" might be "Six-fifteen".

Also, please note the description of the ICE raid in the first paragraph - "Among those detained and exiled to Mexico". Deporting an illegal alien is now exile? I don't think that word means what the writer thinks it means. Deportation, to the best of my recollection, is sending 'em back home.

Here's a bonus passage from the same press release:

The final "connection" with the loudly kindred audience came with the final question from the event leaders. Would the Congressman agree to meet with representatives of today's sponsoring community action organizations within the first 100 days of taking office, if elected President?

"I'll do better than that," he said. "You can sleep in the Lincoln bedroom."

Nice to know that it isn't necessary to elect Hillary in order to return to the Clinton era. I wonder if Obama or Edwards will announce plans to rent the Lincoln bedroom in return for votes and donations as well. You know, just to keep up...

From a report released today by the GAO:

Thousands of "inadmissible aliens," which could include terrorists, spies and people with communicable diseases, went undetected by US border officers last year and slipped into the United States, a report said Monday.

"While the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency had some success in apprehending inadmissible aliens and other violators... several thousand entered the country at land and air ports of entry in 2006," the report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) said.

Yet, there are some who would give these "inadmissible aliens" drivers licenses and cheap tuition. Insane, huh?

Sunday, Ace posted on this article about how enforcing our nation's laws is allegedly hurting farmers. In a similar vein, there was a front page feature in my local paper, the Wilmington News Journal, about immigration policy harming Delaware's horse racing industry (emphasis added):

Trainer Klesaris, who has 65 horses at Delaware Park and Maryland's Fair Hill Training Center, said that because of the work force problems, he won't expand his business. "The industry will continue to shrink if Congress doesn't do something about the visas," he said.

Horse racing, Lake said, is a "dying industry."

Delaware Park depends on its H2B workers, Wayne said. So much so that in March a representative traveled to Mexico to meet with the government and to arrange employment for Mexicans to come work at the facility, he said.

Klesaris called the Hispanic workers his "main soldiers."

"If this industry is to survive, we need more immigrant workers," he said. "The unemployment office isn't sending people to the racetrack. Our country has quite a bit of unemployment, but those people aren't coming our way to work, and they won't."

The article details how employers are supposed to advertise for American workers before hiring non-citizens, but a quick search of the News-Journal shows this to be a light effort. The state's workforce job listing also comes up empty.

Perhaps they aren't trying hard enough. BTW, a groom at Delaware Park gets $650+ a week plus bonuses. So how are the folks replacing the H2B workers as their visas expire? The article gives us a hint:

One 40-year-old groom, who would not give his name because his visa expired, said it's much easier to live on park grounds instead of "afuera."

The illegal quoted above is referring to the fact that Delaware Park, much like the farm mentioned in the first article, has living quarters on-site where illegals are harbored. Anyone at ICE taking notes?

Here's another from the News-Journal with a similar theme:

HAZLETON, Pa. -- The city's highly publicized campaign of targeting illegal immigrants threatens to drive away business and industry and damage prospects for economic revitalization, a new report asserts.

That's a bold claim considering the policy was blocked by the courts and never started.

I expect this theme to intensify as the election approaches. Stay tuned.

Update: Link fixed.

I haven't written much about immigration, even though it's the hot topic. Maybe because it's so emotional for so many folks. Just because I've stayed away from the topic doesn't mean I'm not interested.

The President's speech Monday caused quite a storm in the blogosphere, much of it negative. Perhaps too much is negative. I'm going to be negative as well.

On enforcement and securing the borders, he was not as forceful as I would have liked. I see a distinct difference between "reducing" illegal imigration and stopping it. The former is too much like "a little bit pregnant" for my liking. Can the stream of illegals coming across the border be stopped? Maybe not - but if stopping it isn't your goal then you'll never know. "Reducing" implies that there's some acceptable level of illegals slipping through.

On the "virtual fence" stuff - sensors, cameras, etc. - all very effective stuff when used by our military to protect deployed assets (like a base). This effectiveness, however, is in large part due to having a large, well-armed, vigilant, and motivated group waiting to open fire in the direction of the sensor trip when needed. Defending life and limb takes priority over deterrence. And there's little reluctance to use deadly force when needed.

There will be no such vigilance backing up the virtual fence proposed for the border with Mexico. Even with the additional agents, the Border Patrol won't have enough people to back up the sensors. And since the goal is capture, not protection, agents will be engaged in time-consuming capture activity and unable to respond to breaches downrange, much as it is now. Sure, more will be caught, but the resources will still fall short of what's needed for stopping the flow.

No, more than detection, we need deterrence. As poor of an image as a wall projects to Americans, it has the benefit of projecting the same image to the potential illegal immigrants. An intimidating wall means fewer people will even try. Which puts the Border Patrol in better position to deal with them.

The amnesty issue disturbs me as well. I'm not so blind that I don't realize how difficult it would be to deport 12+ million illegals. And I'm sure that some of the GOP's reluctance to seriously discuss enforcement is born of the fact that it can't be done painlessly. As soon as the deportations start, the television screens and front pages would be full of tragedy. You'd see families split apart. You'd see mothers giving up their kids for adoption so they could continue to go to American schools. You'd see massive "refugee" camps growing along the border with all of the requisite suffering. Faces of homeless and hopeless waifs would haunt the airwaves and the pages of Time Magazine.

And there's a darker (albeit remote) possibility as well. The recent demonstrations, while largely peaceful, displayed graphically what we might see the same day the order was given to round 'em up and ship 'em out. Except the demonstrators will have nothing to lose. If some were to organize, well - lets just say that no one in DC has the stomach for urban warfare on our own soil.

Have no illusions, folks. President Bush and the GOP fear the backlash from such a move more than they fear anything else.

The toughest part of the immigration issue that there's little breathing room for compromise. You can't "sort of" secure the borders - either you do, or you don't. The natural opposite of mass deportation is amnesty - there's no middle ground. That's why so many conservatives are upset. But I'm a little more than surprised that they're so angry.

After all, Bush's leanings on this issue were no secret, even back in 2000. He mentioned it frequently during his campaign. And his stubborn devotion to principle was a major selling point during the 2004 elections. Remember when we were all saying "stay the course"? This was more than predictable - when immigration came to a head, we knew exactly what Bush was going to do.

Me, I don't personally like the way our government is approaching the issue. And I'm sorry, but I don't have an answer to the problem. But I do know what isn't constructive. I know what weakens our side of the argument. And I know what actually makes the situation worse. While I like a good rant as much as anyone, when your entire argument is couched in name-calling and shrieking the people you wish to convince hear nothing of your message - only the rage comes through. In the end, the only thing you accomplish is to feed the masterbatory fantasies of the small-minded.

Stamping your feet and taking your ball and bat home won't accomplish any more than it did when you were seven years old. And in this case, it actually has the opposite effect, as the other side wins while some of you sit at home and sulk instead of writing letters and casting votes.

It's entirely possible to support and persuade simultaneously - all it requires is a little growing up. If the Democrats win this fall, make sure it's in spite of your efforts - not because of them.

Related:

Carol Platt Liebau
All Things Beautiful

InstaPunk responded to my last post. Characteristic of his limp support for legitimatizing and increasing illegal immigration by inviting millions of unemployed foreign nationals to stream across our border joining the millions who plan to tell ICE "5 years, sir", regardless of how recently they came here so that they can get a fast track to citizenship ahead of those who've been waiting in line for years, he chose to forgo making a new post in favor of an update to the old one.

He does give me an idea for a new state motto, though:

Delaware - We're better educated and our family trees have branches.

To my friend from the wrong side of the river, don't go into the light - but if you do, it'll lead you to the Delaware Memorial Bridge.

A little town beat a WHOLE COUNTY!! And nothing but excuses from InstaPunk:

"I should have realized, probably, that Newark's status as a university town makes it a lot easier for them to hit the magic dozen mark when it comes to assembling protesters in a great cause like this one."

Eat yer heart out.

There were lots of immigration protest events yesterday, one was held in my hometown of Newark, Delaware. It was advertised quite heavily on local radio as a candlelight vigil to begin at 6 PM. I was there from 6:10 P.M. until 7:05 P.M., the following are pictures from the event.

Turnout was extremely light - I'm assuming that in addition to the fact that this isn't as big of an issue in northern Delaware as it is in the southwestern US, the day and time worked against the organizers as well - many of the target audience were just getting off work and more concerned with getting dinner than attending a march. And being a reasonable driving distance from DC and Philly, I suspect that many serious activists spent their day at other events.

ACORN was the organizer of the event. While their mission of registering voters dovetailed nicely with the event's theme of "today we march, tomorrow we vote", there was no active courting of voters yesterday. The folks in attendance I spoke with were entirely focused on the perception that HB4437 would turn priests and social workers into felons for assisting illegal aliens.

Noticably absent were flags of any kind except for those drawn on a couple of signs. Also, no sign of the communist/socialist element that attended other gatherings around the country, and there were no incendiary t-shirts. While I disagree wholeheartedly with their goal of amnesty, everyone I spoke with was friendly and polite, and were seemingly unconcerned about my views. Indeed, the tone and mood was less like a protest and more like a backyard BBQ.

On to the pictures - the thumbs are all heavily cropped, click on them to get the larger uncropped versions:

The vigil was held in a neighborhood park. In the popup, you'll see a cluster of people behind the sign. Yes, that's the protest. The organizers were disappointed but unsurprised at the turnout.

They certainly picked the right neighborhood - signs like this were posted in several places.

Here's the ACORN table. The fellow with the camera and microphone was from a local radio station, no other media attended.

Another angle showing the vigil.

No protest is complete without signs. All of theirs were taped to park fencing and signage, no sign waving here.

Ick.

No comment.

After I left, the crowd grew to well over a dozen, and they finally lit the candles. The reporter from WDEL filed a video report here. No, I'm not in the video.

In summary, this was a bust attendance-wise. But I'm still glad I went. This event stood out as a sharp contrast to the more spectacular protests elsewhere in the country. No yelling, chanting or megaphones, and the attendees with were all uniformly nice and well-behaved. Their message, however misguided I feel it to be, was free of the communist/socialist/Che/anarchist garbage seen at other events. Perhaps that makes this a unique and notable story.

Welcome InstaPundit Readers! Thanks for the link, Glenn. Feel free to look around while you're here!

Welcome to InstaPunk and Classical Values readers! Thanks for the links!