Speaker Pelosi

Greg Siskind reports that Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has promised the American people that she and her Democrat colleagues will vigorously pursue legislation that would reform the nation’s current immigration policy:

This is certainly an indication that if President McCain or Obama decide to push immigration reform in their 100 day agenda, they’ll find a willing Congress. While some in the hard core pro-immigrant community will no doubt push to kill any bill that does not include a path to citizenship, hopefully they will realize after two prior failures that the only way we will improve the immigration system is to accept compromise. The perfect is the enemy of the good, folks.

Bookmark & Share:

The federal statute in question can be found at 18 U.S.C. §1028A(a)(1).

From the Times:

Four years ago, Congress added a two-year mandatory prison term for anyone who “knowingly transfers, possesses or uses . . . identification of another person.” This law clearly applies to the classic cases of identity theft, such as an individual who uses another person’s private information to empty a bank account or to charge items to a credit card.

But judges have divided over whether immigrants can be punished for “knowingly” stealing the identity of another person whenever they are caught using a Social Security number that is not their own. Often, the immigrants say they thought they had bought phony ID cards, not numbers assigned to real people.

The Appeals courts have been split on the issue. The 9th Circuit ruled last year that the government must prove that an immigrant knew he was using a real person’s number to win a conviction. Three other Circuits – St. Louis, Atlanta and Richmond – ruled that prosecutors must only show that the illegal immigrant was using a fake ID card.

The [Supreme Court] agreed to hear the case of Ignacio Flores-Figueroa, a Mexican who was here illegally and had worked at a steel plant in East Moline, Ill. Two years ago, he pleaded guilty to using a false document and entering the country illegally, and he pleaded not guilty to an extra charge of aggravated identity theft. At his trial, he testified about purchasing identity cards, but he said he did not know the Social Security numbers were those of real people. But the judge convicted Flores-Figueroa of identity theft as well and sentenced him to more than six years in prison.

Read Also:

Court to hear identity theft case -Scotus Blog 

Supremes to Resolve Circuit Split in Identity Fraud Cases -ImmigrationProf Blog

Supreme Court takes on identity theft case – Associated Press (Mark Sherman)

Bookmark & Share:

Like many workers at the meatpacking plant here, Raul Garcia, a Mexican-American, has watched with some discomfort as hundreds of Somali immigrants have moved to town in the past couple of years, many of them to fill jobs once held by Latino workers taken away in immigration raids.

Garcia has been particularly troubled by the Somalis’ demand that they be allowed special breaks for prayers that are obligatory for devout Muslims. The breaks, he said, would inconvenience everyone else.

“The Latino is very humble,” said Garcia, 73, who has worked at the plant, owned by JBS U.S.A. Inc., since 1994. “But they are arrogant,” he said of the Somali workers. “They act like the United States owes them.”

As a result of ICE workplace enforcement activities many Hispanic illegal immigrants have been removed from the country or have otherwise returned home. The plants who employed these workers have been importing Somalis to fill the vacancies in their workforce and this has caused resentment among many Mexican immigrants.

The great majority of Somalis have been permitted legal entry into the United States as asylees or political refugees and, therefore, are not targetted by ICE.

In some of these places, including Grand Island, this newest wave of immigrant workers has had the effect of unifying the other ethnic populations against the Somalis and has also diverted some of the longstanding hostility toward Latino immigrants among some native-born residents.

Some questions to ponder:

1. Is this anti-Somali bigotry (i.e. are brown-skinned Hispanics racist for opposing the dark-skinned Somalis)?
2. Do you find it interesting that those same Bush administration officials who have been serially accused of racism against brown-skinned Latinos seem to have no problem at all with black-skinned Somalis?
3. Is it possible that the Bush administration’s immigration enforcement policies are focused not on skin-color or national origin, but on immigration status?

And, finally, ponder these sentiments from Jonah Goldberg of the L.A. Times,

But Latino groups, the Democratic Party and others who favor something like amnesty for illegal immigrants have an interest in promoting the racism charge. They lump illegal immigrants with blacks and women as civil rights victims. They argue that a wall with Mexico is racist because it keeps Mexicans out of the U.S., that opposition to bilingual education is anti-Latino because it’s aimed at Spanish speakers and that complaints about illegal immigration generally are anti-immigrant and anti-Mexican because it just so happens that the majority of illegal immigrants are from Mexico.

And the really infuriating part is that so many people buy this nonsense. The reason immigration restrictions are aimed at Mexicans and Latinos is quite simple: that’s where the problem is. Whether you agree with them or not, most “anti-immigration” conservatives actually think that there is an important distinction between legal and illegal immigration. Want a hint as to why? One is legal and the other isn’t.

Bookmark & Share:

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service designation, known as the EB-5 immigrant investor program, allows foreign buyers to eventually become permanent United States residents by investing at least $1 million in properties. The EB-5 program, created by Congress as part of the Immigration Act of 1990, grants foreign buyers U.S. residency in exchange for investing $1 million in a project that creates at least 10 jobs.

Sam Sutton, managing member of the Lake Buena Vista Resort, currently has 500 condo-hotel units and wants to build another 1,300. To finance that, he wants to sell 70 existing condo-hotel units and then attract more investors through the EB-5 Program to finance the construction of a new 152-unit building at the resort.

There are 21 other designated EB-5 programs nationwide. Lake Buena Vista Resort is planned for 1,875 furnished resort condo units ranging from 1,080-2,170 square feet, along with dining, a fitness center, spa-salon and aquatic center.

For more on the EB-5 Visa see our main website article titled Basics of Immigration – EB-5 Immigrant Investors.

Bookmark & Share:

He and his state are in the news again. The Providence Journal reports that a group of 500 attended a Dominican-American Roundtable that was mainly dedicated to criticizing Governor Carcieri’s policies:

“The other side is louder … but the law is on our side,” said John Amaya, an attorney with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund. He said that 63 non-federal entities, such as local sheriffs and police departments, have moved to crack down on illegal immigration recently. His group has sued to block some of them.

The City of Farmer Branch, Texas, for example, last year passed a law requiring prospective apartment renters to prove citizenship. A judge has temporarily blocked the requirement, pending the outcome of a lawsuit filed by Amaya’s organization and the American Civil Liberties Union.

And, of course, there was the obligatory race card:

“State and local authorities aren’t fit to enforce immigration laws,” Amaya said. “They’re targeting people who look and sound brown.”

The Governor’s office responded through its spokeswoman, Amy Kempe:

The governor implemented an executive order in March largely because national lawmakers failed to deal with the issue. Rhodes Island is one of a growing number of states that are cracking down on illegal immigration. Absent a national policy on immigration, the governor’s executive order was created to follow the existing immigration laws.

This, I suppose, makes Mr. Carcieri a bigot, a racist and a xenophobe.

Once again, it baffles me that the pro-amnesty/pro-open border/pro-path-to-citizenship crowd believes it will gain converts this way. Then again, maybe they have a different agenda: Frighten legal Hispanic immigrants (i.e. “they don’t oppose illegals because they are illegal, they just hate brown-skinned people”) into supporting their cause.

Lest I, too, get labeled a vile, hate-mongering bigot, I will reiterate my position here:

• I favor legal immigration. We need to quadruple the H-1B cap to allow more skilled workers to enter and stay in the country, for instance.
• Emigration by the best and the brightest from every region of the world is what has made America great and will make it even greater in the future.
• Skin color, ethnicity, religion are irrelevant. Ambition, intelligence and moral character (demonstrated in part by a respect for the rule of law) should be our standards of entry.

And here is my pledge:

I will continue as I have for the past sixteen years to represent those foreign born individuals who wish to legally enter the United States. If they are currently here illegally and the law provides for a mechanism by which they can turn that illegal status into a legal status, I will proudly take their case and vigorously represent them to the full extent (and benefit) of the law.

Sadly, for some people, that’s simply not enough.

Bookmark & Share:

Kevin Johnson, Professor of Law

Johnson, Professor of Law and Chicana/o Studies, and Mabie-Apallas Public Interest Law Chair at the Univ. of California, Davis, School of Law, published this blog post today:

Race and Immigration: Behind the Debate

The Accidental American has posted an intersting [sic] video showing a panel of scholars, political analysts, and immigrant rights leaders discussing how race shapes US immigration policy.  You might be surprised by what you see.

Please watch the short video then answer the following questions:

1. Do you think that the people who oppose illegal immigration and favor strict enforcement of our current immigration laws do so because they are frightened white people?
2. Do you think it’s racist to believe that America’s current laws should be enforced even if those laws happen to effect more brown-skinned people than they do white-skinned people?
3. Do you think that accusing those with whom you disagree of being racist, bigoted and xenophobic is a good way to gain converts to your cause?

Bookmark & Share:

United Press International reported Saturday that San Francisco ’s sanctuary policy is under federal investigation:

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said Friday he will cooperate with a federal investigation into his city’s sanctuary policy on undocumented aliens. City Attorney Dennis Herrera told the San Francisco Chronicle he has hired lawyers to represent city workers who may be called to testify before a grand jury or provide documents. He said a federal grand jury subpoenaed city documents several weeks ago. San Francisco adopted a sanctuary policy about 20 years ago, banning the use of city funds to catch illegal aliens. The law was originally intended to protect refugees from civil war in Central America.

You might recall that over the summer it was discovered that under Newsom, San Francisco had been actually flying illegal immigrants back to their home countries at the city’s expense. This, of course, went way beyond what a typical sanctuary policy purports to be (i.e. the refusal to allow municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce federal immigration laws, usually by not allowing police or municipal employees to inquire about one’s immigration status.)

For more on Gavin Newsom and San Francisco’s sanctuary policy see the Washington Post’s San Francisco to Halt Sanctuary Policy.

I wonder whether or not San Francisco’s sanctuary policy (and other’s like it) violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution which states,

This constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

You legal scholars out there, any ideas?

Bookmark & Share:

After years of growth, illegal immigration to the U.S. from Mexico and Central America has slowed sharply. At the same time, say demographers and immigrant advocates, more Latin American immigrants like Mr. Carrillo are apparently returning home.

That’s from a a column titled Latest Immigration Wave: Retreat  that appeared in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal.

The column, written by Miriam Jordan, points out that in addition to self-removal by some illegal aliens, fewer Mexicans are choosing to cross the border without papers:

[A] new study by the Pew Hispanic Center, an independent think tank in Washington, D.C., estimates that annual undocumented arrivals from Mexico are down about 25% this year from 2005, to about 350,000. Undocumented arrivals from Central America have been halved since then, to about 120,000, according to the study, which is due to be released Thursday.

Jordan cites several reasons for the retreat and slowdown:

In part, the slowdown is a product of a Bush administration crackdown on illegal immigration, with factory raids that led to deportations and even criminal charges for thousands of undocumented workers. Meanwhile, the weakened economy has dealt a blow to these workers, many of them employed in the slumping construction sector.

Bookmark & Share:

Can we please fix this?

Technorati Profile

Bookmark & Share:

We don’t analyze any other crime this way. Everyone would agree that it would be absurd to say, for instance, that the bank robber who robs a bank and gives half of the money he stole to a charity that helps sick children should be allowed to rob banks.

Having said that, it is equally silly to oppose illegal immigration on the grounds that some illegal immigrants commit additional crimes after coming or staying here illegally. For those holding this point of view the fact that these people have broken the law in the first place and have no intention to cease breaking it should be reason enough. Yet everyday advocates of strict immigration enforcement scour the newswires and online feeds for stories of illegal immigrants harming American citizens.

Any thinking person will see this for what it is: An attempt to paint 12 million people as dangerous and barbaric because of the actions of an isolated few.

It’s a sophmoric argument anyway for I am sure I could find an instance where a person who is opposed to immigration amnesty had committed a vile crime against a woman or a child. If I were then to employ the “logic” of some anti-amnesty folks, I could say that those who are opposed to illegal immigration are dangerous, barbaric and a net detriment to American society.

These tactics, like those of the pro-amnesty crowd that call for the demonization of anyone in favor of strict border control and ICE workplace enforcement, will never create new converts to the cause. In fact, the converse is true. They will alienate those who are on the fence and cause those who are firmly entrenched on the other side of it to dig in harder.

People who are opposed to amnesty and who believe that we should enforce our current laws do so not because they harbor any personal animosity toward illegal immigrants (it is not mutually exclusive to empathize with people who have come here for a better life and at the same time believe that the law should be enforced and these same people should be made to return to their countries of origin), but, rather, because they believe that if you don’t enforce current law you encourage disregard for the rule of law in general.

Those who favor vigorous border control and immigration enforcement should not allow themselves to be baited into demonizing illegal aliens, the vast majority of whom are good and decent people. It’s a trap. Many proponents of amnesty and open borders are looking for every opportunity to paint pro-enforcement advocates as xenophobes, bigots and racists who have a particular aversion to brown-skinned people.

Bookmark & Share: