border

Rubio raises the possibility of jumping off immigration reform push

In a video to constituents, Sen. Marco Rubio has raised the possibility that he could abandon the immigration reform bill he’s been pushing if political “horse trading” waters down his priorities in the bill.

Though he defended the idea of comprehensive immigration reform, Rubio warned that if the individual components (such as E-Verify and border security) aren’t treated “as separate issues even though they are dealt with in one bill, then I won’t be able to support that anymore.”

Read more: http://conservativebyte.com/2013/06/rubio-raises-the-possibility-of-jumping-off-immigration-reform-push/#ixzz2VCYt1tiy
 

The Mother of All Legislative Train Wrecks:

(Washington, D.C. May 29, 2013) The Gang of Eight immigration bill, S.744, is on its way to the Senate floor for a vote, possibly as early as the week of June 10.

The bill was drafted in secret by eight senators and a group of Washington lobbyists. After its introduction on April 17, it received minimal scrutiny at a handful of hearings stacked with supporters of amnesty for illegal aliens and cheap labor for business interests, followed by a hasty Judiciary Committee mark-up in which virtually no substantive amendments were adopted.

“The product of this rigged and secretive effort to hijack American immigration policy under the guise of reform is a bill that can best be described as the mother of all legislative train wrecks,” declared Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). “S.744 includes a massive amnesty for millions of illegal aliens, a massive infusion of foreign labor to compete with skilled and low-skilled American workers, trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities, and unprecedented discretionary authority for the Obama administration to ignore immigration laws. What the Gang of Eight bill does not include are mandates for border enforcement, or meaningful protections for American workers.”

In anticipation of the bill heading to the Senate floor for debate, FAIR has compiled a list of the Top 40 Reasons to Oppose the Senate Amnesty Bill, including:

The bill would not secure our borders or improve immigration enforcement:

  • No border security requirements. The bill merely requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit a plan to secure the border.
  • A rollback of existing border fencing requirements.
  • No biometric exit system at all land, air and sea ports of entry to track aliens who enter and leave the U.S., which is already required under current law.

The bill would not enhance homeland security, or prevent legalization of criminals and terrorists:

  • Illegal aliens would be protected from detention or removal merely by filing an application for Registered Provisional Immigrant (RPI) status.
  • Would allow illegal aliens with multiple misdemeanor convictions to gain RPI status.
  • Allows the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to waive a broad array of unlawful behavior for the purpose of determining whether illegal aliens are admissible, including gang membership, drunken driving offenses, domestic violence and others.

The bill would not protect U.S. workers or taxpayers:

  • E-Verify won’t go into effect for all employers until four years after DHS issues regulations implementing the mandatory program, meaning these protections would not be in place for a decade or more after enactment.
  • Doubles the admission of new permanent immigrants to compete with U.S. workers.
  • Increases the number of guest workers by 50 percent during the first decade of enactment, including as many as 200,000 new low-skilled guest workers.
  • Reduces protections for skilled U.S. workers against losing jobs and opportunities to H-1B guest workers.
  • Does not require legalized aliens to pay back taxes.

The bill poses an enormous unfunded liability for U.S. taxpayers:

  • Future costs of government services and benefits to amnesty recipients could run as high as $6.3 trillion.
  • Requires that DHS waive the public charge law when determining which aliens are eligible for amnesty.
  • Would allow people with as little as 125 percent of poverty level income to qualify for green cards after ten years AND sponsor relatives to immigrate legally.
  • Creates a slush fund for advocacy groups to recruit and assist amnesty applicants.
  • Allows illegal aliens, and even broad classes of illegal aliens, to litigate unfavorable amnesty decisions, with taxpayers picking up the legal costs.

The full list of the Top 40 Reasons to Oppose the Gang of Eight Amnesty Bill can be found on FAIR’s website, www.fairus.org.
 

Bruce Broussard and U-Choose Education Forum present: Illegal Immigration

Alert date: 
May 31, 2013
Alert body: 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Monday June 3, 2013

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:

Debra Mervyn: debrauchoose@gmail.com

 

Sunday, June 16th, 4:00 PM, Channel 11

Bruce Broussard and U-Choose Education Forum present:

Illegal Immigration

Are the new state laws good for Oregon and its citizens?

Should illegal immigrants be given Oregon Drivers Licenses?

How do illegal immigrants impact jobs in Oregon?

Is in-state tuition for illegal immigrants fiscally sound policy when budget short-falls in our higher education system are cutting deeply?

We can do something to counter this new legislation.

Referendum to Voters- Protect Oregon Driver Licenses- www.protectoregondl.org

Bruce Broussard has been a leading and provocative conservative voice in Oregon for over thirty five years. His TV show, Oregon Voters’ Digest focuses on the social and political issues that are important to all the people living in the Pacific Northwest. Bruce will interview two experts on the impact of illegal workers on the nation and on Oregon.

 

  • Jim Ludwick, founder of Oregonians for Immigration Reform(OFIR) , and
  • Cynthia Kendoll, OFIR current president,

They will discuss instate tuition (House Bill 2787), drivers licenses for illegal immigrants (Senate Bill 833), and a referendum being launched by OFIR to enable Oregonians to vote on these very important issues.

Oregon Voters Digest shows are repeated on Tuesdays at 12:00 Noon on Channel 23, and Fridays at 8:00 on Channel 22. Later they will be posted on Oregon Voters Digest’s U-Tube site.

Cartel towns pose challenge for immigration reform

Just across the Rio Grande from Brownsville, Texas, stands a dormitory-style shelter filled with people recently deported from the U.S. and other migrants waiting to cross the border.

The long rows of bunk beds offer immigrants a place to rest on their long journey. But the shelter is no safe haven in a town controlled by the Gulf cartel. Armed men once showed up and took away 15 men, who were probably put to work as gunmen, lookouts or human mules hauling bales of marijuana into the United States.

As Congress takes up immigration reform, lawmakers may have to confront the reality of this place and others like it, where people say the current system of immigration enforcement and deportation produces a constant flow of people north and south that provides the cartel with a vulnerable labor pool and steady source of revenue.

"This vicious circle favors organized crime because the migrant is going to pay" for safe passage, said the Rev. Francisco Gallardo, who oversees immigrant-assistance efforts for the Matamoros Catholic diocese.

If Congress sends more resources to the border, the government will also need to account for shifting patterns in immigrant arrests.

The cartel controls who crosses the border and profits from each immigrant by taxing human smugglers. At the shelter, the cartel threat was so alarming that shelter administrators began encouraging immigrants to go into the streets during the day, thinking they would be harder to round up than at the shelter.

There have been record numbers of deportations in recent years and tens of thousands landed in Tamaulipas already this year, the state that borders Texas from Matamoros to Nuevo Laredo. Arizona is often singled out as the busiest border crossing for immigrants entering the U.S., but more and more migrants are being caught in the southernmost tip of Texas, in the Border Patrol's Rio Grande Valley sector.

Apprehension statistics are imperfect measures because they only capture a fraction of the real flow, but the arrest numbers are definitely shifting.

Arrests in the Tucson, Ariz., sector dropped 3 percent last year, while Rio Grande Valley arrests rose 65 percent. In March alone, the Border Patrol made more than 16,000 immigrant arrests in the Rio Grande Valley sector, a 67 percent increase from the same month last year, according to the agency.

Immigrant deaths are also up. The sector reported last month that about 70 bodies were found in the first six months of the fiscal year, more than twice as many as the previous year.

The makeup of the immigrants apprehended here is changing, too, driven by people flowing out of Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador. The Border Patrol made 94,532 arrests of non-Mexican immigrants along the Southwest border last year, more than double the year before. And nearly half of those came in the Rio Grande Valley sector.

The Border Patrol is responding by redirecting personnel, including sending most new graduates from its academy to the Rio Grande Valley, according to senior Border Patrol officials.

When immigrants from Central America and Mexico arrive in Matamoros ahead of their trip to America, they are met by smugglers who have to pay the cartel tax for every person they take across the border.

Attempts to cross alone are met with violence. Some immigrants are kidnapped and their families extorted by the organization.

Reported murders in Tamaulipas, the state that borders Texas from Matamoros to Nuevo Laredo, increased more than 250 percent in the past four years, according to the Mexican government. Official statistics are generally thought to undercount the real toll. Soldiers recently killed six gunmen in a clash in Matamoros.

And yet, even with the high-degree of danger for immigrants crossing this part of the border, they keep coming.

Central American migrants continue to use the route up the Gulf Coast side of Mexico and through Tamaulipas because it's the shortest to the U.S., said Rodolfo Casillas Ramirez, a professor at Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales in Mexico City. The smugglers choose the route, and even if immigrants have heard about the violence in Tamaulipas, "they trust that the premium they've paid includes the right of passage," he said.

They continue to leave their home countries for economic reasons. Although the U.S. economy has provided fewer jobs for immigrants during the Great Recession and a long, slow recovery, opportunities south of the border have been even more limited, Casillas said.

That's why the Rev. Alejandro Solalinde, a Roman Catholic priest who founded a shelter for immigrants in the southern Mexican state of Oaxaca, said the answer is in regional development, not increased border security.

"This situation has grown because ultimately the migrants are merchandise and organized crime profits in volume," he said during a recent visit to Matamoros.

Rep. Filemon Vela, a member of the House Homeland Security Committee whose district includes Brownsville, said the immigration-reform debate has so far left out discussion of the security and economic development in Mexico.

"The incentive for people to cross over illegally from Mexico will never subside until these individuals feel safe and until they are able to feed themselves and their families," Vela said.

At the 150-bed shelter, more than half of the immigrants have just been deported from the U.S., Gallardo said. The others are immigrants preparing to cross. He said shelter workers constantly chase out infiltrators who are paid by smugglers to recruit inside.

At Solalinde's shelter in southern Mexico, threats from organized crime forced them to bring in four state police officers and four federal ones, who have lived at his shelter for the past year as protection. Solalinde now travels with bodyguards after having fled Mexico for a couple of months last year following threats.

One immigrant at the Matamoros shelter was a 48-year-old man who would only give his name as "Gordo" because he feared for his safety. He said he had arrived two days earlier after traveling from Copan, Honduras. Gordo said he had lived in Los Angeles for 10 years but had been in Honduras for the past four. He was trying to make it back to California, where he has a 15-year-old daughter.

Asked about his prospects for successfully crossing the river, he said: "It's difficult, not so much for the Border Patrol" but for the cartels.
___

Associated Press Writer Elliot Spagat in San Diego contributed to this report.

National Press Day Opposing Comprehensive Amnesty Bill

On Tuesday, May 21st, state and local groups around the country will hold a series of press conferences to highlight their opposition to S. 744, the Senate’s comprehensive amnesty bill. The goal is to call attention to the bill’s many failings and to promote an immigration-enforcement approach to reform.

An Arizona-based coalition called Remember 1986 took the lead in coordinating the press conferences. The coalition’s press conference web site page contains a list of planned events. In many instances, participants will be delivering to Senators NumbersUSA petitions that have been signed by a state's citizens.

The events will especially spotlight three key factors about the Gang of Eight immigration bill:

  • It won't stop the next amnesty: Its format of amnesty first and enforcement later is the same as the 1986 amnesty in which "later" never came and enforcement promises were all broken.
  • It is an attack on the 20 million Americans who can't find a full-time job: The bill doubles legal immigration to meet the desires of a gang of corporate lobbyists to continue to hold down wages. All-told, the bill offers 33 million lifetime work permits to 11 million illegal aliens and 22 million new immigrants in the first decade alone.
  • It adds a massive unfunded mandate to government spending and debt: The Heritage Foundation studied the costs of the bill only for the 11 million illegal aliens who would get the amnesty. It projected $9.4 trillion in government services over their lifetime, but only $3.1 trillion in taxes, leaving a net cost of $6.3 trillion.


 

Judge lets Ariz. immigrant license policy stand

A judge on Thursday refused to halt Gov. Jan Brewer's order that denies driver's licenses for young immigrants in Arizona who have gotten work permits and avoided deportation under an Obama administration policy.

U.S. District Judge David Campbell denied a request from immigrant rights advocates for a preliminary injunction and threw out one of their arguments, but their lawsuit remains alive as they pursue arguments that the young immigrants are suffering from unequal treatment.

Arizona's refusal to view those in President Barack Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program as legal residents has become the most visible challenge to his announcement in June that some young immigrants would be protected from deportation. The Department of Homeland Security has said immigrants with work permits issued under the policy are lawfully present in the U.S.

Campbell rejected the argument by immigrant rights advocates who said Brewer's policy was unconstitutional because it's trumped by federal law.

"This portion of the ruling is not only a victory for the state of Arizona _ it is a victory for states' rights, the rule of law and the bedrock principles that guide our nation's legislative process and the division of power between the federal government and states," Brewer said in a statement.

But the judge said the immigrant rights advocates are likely to succeed in arguing that the state lets some immigrants with work permits get driver's licenses but won't let immigrants protected under Obama's program have the same benefit.

Cecillia Wang, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, one of the groups representing the immigrants, said those who challenged Brewer's policy will examine their options in court for protecting the young immigrants.

"It's keeping people out on a limb," Wang said of the ruling.

Last summer, the Obama administration took administrative steps to shield thousands of immigrants from deportation. Applicants for the deferment program must have come to the U.S. before they turned 16, be younger than 30, have been in the country for at least five continuous years, be in school or have graduated from high school or GED program, or have served in the military. They also were allowed to apply for a two-year renewable work permit.

Arizona's policy allows anyone with lawful immigration status to get a driver's license, and more than 500 immigrants with work permits have obtained Arizona driver's licenses in recent years. But Arizona officials have said they don't want to extend driver's licenses to those in the new program because they don't believe the youths will be able to stay in the country legally.

Brewer's lawyers argued that Obama's policy isn't federal law and the state has the authority to distinguish between immigrants with work permits who are on the path toward permanent residency and those benefiting from Obama's policy. The state's lawyers argued Arizona isn't violating its own policy by refusing to grant licenses to the immigrants in the program, because the youths haven't been granted legal protections by Congress.

Immigrant rights advocates filed their lawsuit in November on behalf of five young-adult immigrants who were brought to the U.S. from Mexico as children. They were granted deferred-deportation protections under the Obama administration's policy but were denied driver's licenses in Arizona.

The lawsuit said Brewer's policy makes it difficult or impossible for such young immigrants to do essential things in their everyday life, such as going to school, going to the grocery store, and finding and holding down a job.

A similar lawsuit was filed in Michigan after officials there initially decided to deny young immigrants licenses, but the case was dropped when the state changed its policy last month. At least 38 states have agreed to give driver's licenses to immigrants benefiting from the Obama policy, but Nebraska and Ohio officials have also balked.

Brewer has clashed with the Obama administration in the past over illegal immigration, most notably in the challenge that the federal government filed in a bid to invalidate Arizona's 2010 immigration law. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the law's most contentious section, but threw out other sections.

DHS confirms cheaper to deport every illegal alien than allowing them to stay

On December 3, Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs, Nelson Peacock, responding to request from several U.S. Senators, including Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), wrote: “Our conservative estimate suggests that ICE would require a budget of more than $135 billion to apprehend, detain and remove the nation’s entire illegal immigrant population.”

In July 2010, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) released the results of a study which examined the costs of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local levels. The study found that U.S. state and local governments shell out $84.2 billion annually in various services (law enforcement, schools, social services, etc.), with California taxpayers alone, spending $21 billion on illegal aliens every year.

The same study found that $29 billion is spent every year in federal funds on illegal aliens.

So, while it would cost a one-time fee of about $135 billion to deport every single illegal alien in the country, it is actually a bargain considering the fact that it already costs us $113 billion annually to keep them here.

In other words, the mass deportation would pay for itself in a little over a year. Incidentally, in 2007, the DHS estimated the cost of deporting all illegal aliens to be approximately $94 billion.

Victory: federal Judge Upholds Arizona Governor Brewer's Order Denying Licenses to Illegal Aliens

A Federal judge on Thursday refused to halt Gov. Jan Brewer’s order that denies driver’s licenses for illegal aliens in Arizona who have gotten work permits and avoided deportation under Barack Obama’s “DACA” virtual amnesty.

The decision by U.S. District Judge David Campbell rejects the argument by immigrant rights advocates who said Brewer’s policy was unconstitutional because it’s trumped by federal law – an enormous victory for Arizona and defeat for Obama, which should immediately rally other states to deny licenses as well.

Arizona’s refusal to view those in President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals amnesty program as legal residents has become the most visible challenge to his announcement in June that some young immigrants would be protected from deportation. The Department of Homeland Security has said illegal aliens with work permits issued under the policy are lawfully present in the U.S.

Brewer’s lawyers argued that Obama’s policy isn’t federal law and the state has the authority to distinguish between illegals with work permits who are on the path toward permanent residency and those benefiting from Obama’s policy. The state’s lawyers argued Arizona isn’t violating its own policy by refusing to grant licenses to the immigrants in the program, because the youths haven’t been granted legal protections by Congress.

This is the same argument being made by ICE agent leader Chris Crane, who is suing Obama and DHS to halt this unlawful decree.

Obama, in July 2012, said people younger than 30 brought to the U.S. before they turned 16 could apply for “deferred action”. They will be granted work permits and Social Security numbers. As SWA detailed at the time, Obama’s amnesty order is ripe for abuse, as it has almost no safeguards against fraud.

Currently, Arizona, Iowa, and Nebraska prohibit driver’s licenses to DACA recipients, while California, Texas and Florida grant the licenses. Michigan initially denied licenses – until the DHS memo was released, whereupon they reversed course and will now grant them. North Carolina is currently waffling over whether or not to do so.

Each state must decide the issue for itself, according to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, which said, “At the end of the day, it’s a state-issued document, and the state has the authority to determine who is eligible for that document.”

We salute Gov. Brewer for standing tall for the rule of law – and directly against Obama – on this critical issue, where others have sadly floundered. We call on citizens to contact their governors to deny all illegal aliens drivers licenses, and cite this critical Federal judicial ruling to back it up.

Gov. Brewer issued a statement regarding the court’s order tonight…

Earlier tonight, a federal court UPHELD my Executive Order and Arizona’s law denying driver’s licenses to illegal aliens who President Obama has allowed to remain in our country under his outrageous deferred action program. The court ruled that Obama’s program DOES NOT preempt Arizona’s ability to determine who can re…ceive a driver’s license. This is a great victory for state’s rights and the rule of law! As Governor, I have taken an oath to uphold the laws of Arizona and I will continue to vigorously defend the citizens of Arizona and the duly-enacted laws of our State.

WTG Governor!

Do you wonder what others think about illegal immigration? Check out OFIR'S letter to the editor link

Everyone has an opinion and one way to put it to good use is to write a letter to the editor of your local paper.

Be brief, be specific and be respectful.  A good idea is to ask someone else you know to read it before you submit it, to be certain there are no errors and that your intent is clear.

You can go to your newspaper's website and check out their policy for LTE's (letter's to the editor) regarding the word count limit, the best way and how often you can submit a letter, too. 

If you have a letter published, please share it with OFIR and we will post it on our website.

Don't know how to get started?  Check out some of these great letters!

New immigration bill has more waivers and exceptions per page than Obamacare

“The revised [Gang of Eight] 867-page bill contains multiple changes from the first 844-page version, released April 18, but Democrats have not announced any delay to the committee review of the complex bill that begins next week. The bill includes roughly 1.14 waivers or exemptions per page. By comparison, the 2,409-page Obamacare law includes 0.78 waivers and exemptions per page… NumbersUSA has estimated that 33 million extra people would be able to apply to live in the United States because of the immigration bill, under the terms of the original draft.”

The Senate’s “Gang of Eight” has released a new version of the immigration bill that contains 999 references to waivers, exemptions and political discretion.

The revised 867-page bill contains multiple changes from the first 844-page version, released April 18, but Democrats have not announced any delay to the committee review of the complex bill that begins next week.

The bill includes roughly 1.14 waivers or exemptions per page. By comparison, the 2,409-page Obamacare law includes 0.78 waivers and exemptions per page.

The Obamacare law contains 1,882 mentions of “unless,” “notwithstanding,” “except,” “exempt,” “waivers,” “discretion” and “may.” “Waiver” is mention 209 times in the law.

The new draft of the immigration bill — which will allow officials much control over the supply and cost of labor needed by American companies — has 85 mentions of “unless,” 150 uses of “except,” 18 inclusions of “exempt,” 92 mentions of “waiver,” 42 offers of “discretion,” 47 use of “notwithstanding” and 618 uses of “may” in the 876-page bill.

The Daily Caller subtracted mentions of “may not” from both bills’ final tally of exemptions and options.

President Barack Obama backs the bill, and told reporters Tuesday that it “is going to be a historic achievement.”

The bill has been crafted by eight senators, led by New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, the third-ranked Democrat in the Senate.

Alex Conant, a spokesman for Sen. Marco Rubio, the leading GOP supporter of the pending immigration bill, did not respond when asked by email if Rubio will ask for a delay to let his fellow GOP senators and their staffers read and understand the new version.

Since January, Rubio has declared that senators and outside opponents of the bill will have plenty of time to review the bill’s contents and to urge changes.

“Senator Rubio has said from the outset that we will not rush this process, and that begins at the committee level,” Conant told The Washington Post April 12.

“The Judiciary Committee must have plenty of time to debate and improve the bipartisan group’s proposal. … We believe that the more public scrutiny this legislation receives, the better it will become,” Conant said.

“We don’t see anything really coming to the [Senate] floor before, at the earliest, sometime in May,” McCain told Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren April 11.

“We want to give it plenty of time.”

Jessica Brady, a spokeswoman for the Judiciary Committee, declined Wednesday to say if the Democratic-run committee would delay the bill’s review.

Instead, she forwarded April 25 remarks by committee chairman Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy.

“When we next meet, the bill will have been publicly available for three weeks. So before we vote on any aspect of it we and the public will have had the bill for some time,” he said.  The bill is extremely complex.

For example, there are 47 mentions of the term “notwithstanding,” each of which creates an exemption to the bill or to existing law. On page 339 of the new bill, a paragraph requires the amnesty be extended to illegals who voluntarily left the United States or were deported.

“Notwithstanding section 212(a)(9) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)), an alien’s application for an immigrant visa shall be considered if the alien was excluded, deported, removed, or departed voluntarily before the date of the enactment of this Act,” says the paragraph.

Another section allows the families of deported illegals, including family members who never visited the United States, to apply for the amnesty.

The limited-immigration group NumbersUSA has estimated that 33 million extra people would be able to apply to live in the United States because of the immigration bill, under the terms of the original draft.

The group — which wants to reduce the current annual immigration rate of 1 million — has not released an estimate of how many people could arrive under the new draft.

Advocates for the bill have highlighted at least one change in the new version, which is the addition of language that is said to plug a gap created by the bill’s immediate elimination of the current E-Verify system and its projected creation of a new E-Verify system. E-verify is used by employers to gauge whether a job applicant has the right to work in the United States.

 

 

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - border