Below is a clip of Obama responding in Wednesday’s presser to a hispanic reporter’s questions about the ATF gunrunner scandal and whether he would make universal E-verify the law of the land.
Reading closely, it seems he would not sign either the Smith or Grassley version of mandatory E-verify into law unless it was part of a large amnesty package. Plus he continued the myth that E-verify is “riddled with errors” to denigrate a highly accurate program.
Q Thank you very much, Mr. President. First, if you receive a mandatory E-verify bill only without legalization, are you planning to veto that deal?
And second, on Fast and Furious, members of Congress and the government of Mexico are still waiting for answers. Are you planning to replace ATF leadership? And when can we expect the results of the current investigation?
THE PRESIDENT: On the second question, as you know, my attorney general has made clear that he certainly would not have ordered gun running to be able to pass through into Mexico. The investigation is still pending. I’m not going to comment on a current investigation. I’ve made very clear my views that that would not be an appropriate step by the ATF, and we got to find out how that happened. As soon as the investigation is completed, I think appropriate actions will be taken.
With respect to E-verify, we need comprehensive immigration reform. I’ve said it before. I will say it again. I will say it next week. And I’ll say it six months from now. We’ve got to have a system that makes sure that we uphold our tradition as a nation of laws and that we also uphold our tradition as a nation of immigrants. And that means tough border security, going after employers that are illegally hiring and exploiting workers, making sure that we also have a pathway for legal status for those who are living in the shadows right now.
We may not be able to get everything that I would like to see in a package, but we have to have a balanced package. E-verify can be an important enforcement tool if it’s not riddled with errors, if U.S. citizens are protected — because what I don’t want is a situation in which employers are forced to set up a system that they can’t be certain works. And we don’t want to expose employers to the risk where they end up rejecting a qualified candidate for a job because the list says that that person is an illegal immigrant, and it turns out that the person isn’t an illegal immigrant. That wouldn’t be fair for the employee and would probably get the employer in trouble as well.
So I think the goal right now is to let’s continue to see if we can perfect the E-verify system. Let’s make sure that we have safeguards in place to prevent the kind of scenarios that I talked about. But let’s also not lose sight of some of the other components to immigration reform. For example, making sure that DREAM Act kids — kids who have grown up here in the United States, think of themselves as Americans, who are not legal through no fault of their own, and who are ready to invest and give back to our country and go to school and fight in our military and start businesses here — let’s make sure that those kids can stay.
We need to have a more balanced approach than just a verification system.
THE PRESIDENT: I don’t have an answer as to whether the investigation is completed yet, and it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to comment on the investigation if I don’t — if it’s not yet completed.
Kobach also detailed his concerns with the Smith E-verify bill (HR 2164) that specifically pre-empts state jurisdiction, which would be “a stab in the back to the states right after Arizona wins this big victory in the Supreme Court paves the way for other states like Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, you name it, then all of a sudden there’s this bill proposed by Lamar Smith which gives us e-verify nationally which is a good thing — it mandates all businesses use it — but the price is too high; you push the states off the field, they’re the only ones actually aggressively enforcing the law. And that why the Chamber of Commerce, which is a pro-amnesty organization, that’s why they support the Smith bill, because it’s not going to be enforced and it’s going to force the real enforcers off the field.”
On Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, chaired by Dick Durbin, held a hearing to promote the DREAM Act. See written witness statements here. Senator Durbin cooed that perhaps an illegal alien would become President someday, which tells you where he is coming from.
However, Senator Cornyn’s suggestion that every foreign graduate of a US university get a work visa is wrong-headed to say the least. Public policy should encourage the education of American young people, not aliens. Education analysts wonder why US students pursue law and business degrees while avoiding technical fields, but they are behaving rationally within a system that imports thousands of H-1b visa holders annually in science, engineering and IT. Cornyn is also naive for not understanding the espionage threat posed by foreign students, some sent from Red China et al for long-term burrowing.
BTW, the DREAM Act has a snowball’s chance in this Congress, but the open borders gang wants to be stroked periodically by their Democratic pals to show the love in hopes of eventual reward.
That said, I’m not convinced that a future Republican President won’t embrace the DREAM Act as a “reasonable” compromise to pick up some imaginary hispanic support. Well paid political advisors hector candidates on the advisability of diverse outreach (aka hispandering), but such amnesties rewarding lawbreakersare futile attempt to hold off the demographic tsunami that is unfriendly to values of law and borders.
Below, DREAMers dressed as graduates marched around Hollywood last year.
There’s been a lack of interest in the media about what Darrell Issa found out when he visited Mexico on Friday as part of his continuing investigation of the ATF gunrunner scandal. So it was interesting to hear a brief report from him on Tuesday.
I remember my first visit to the Abercrombie & Fitch store in downtown San Francisco some years back. The large stuffed leather rhinoceros just inside the doorway made the impression of entering a safari kind of place, where one could purchase proper equipment for a great adventure in the African bush. My shopping was limited to comfy Clark’s desert boots however.
Since then, the Abercrombie image has changed considerably to a more youthful look, shall we say. Advertising shows hunky young men and desirable young women, separately and together, some wearing clothes. The company encourages sales staff to wear outfits that epitomize the lifestyle it wants to sell. They are models; it’s part of the job.
Below, Abercrombie jeans.
Now a Muslim woman hired to work in the stockroom is suing the company because superiors told her to ditch the hijab (the headscarf which shows an Islamo-female’s submission to Allah and her husband or father).
Anyway, why would a properly docile Muslima want to work in a store where selling sex is part of the business plan? Did she mean finagle herself into a lawsuit situation to make some easy money? Or did she hope hasten the devolution of American via hijabification? (One thinks of the Muslim woman who sued for not being hired by a trendy London haircut salon where pink hair and assorted tattoos were the look: “How I nearly lost my business after refusing to hire a Muslim hair stylist who wouldn’t show her hair”).
When I see a hijabbed human working in a business, my reaction is to leave. A woman in the Islam-identification uniform is voicing a rejection of women’s struggle for equality in America, which insults everyone from Susan B. Anthony to Michele Bachman. If the Muslima wants the full sharia non-equality lifestyle, then she should live somewhere among the like-minded ummah, e.g. Saudi Arabia. The United States has a different idea.
Muslim immigration has been a disastrous policy for all Americans, but women citizens who love freedom have the most to lose.
A former stockroom worker for Abercrombie & Fitch Co. sued the clothing retailer in federal court Monday, saying she was illegally fired after refusing to remove her Muslim headscarf while on the job.
Hani Khan said a manager at the company’s Hollister Co. store at the Hillsdale Mall in San Mateo hired her while she was wearing her hijab. The manager said it was OK to wear it as long as it was in company colors, Khan said.
Four months later, the 20-year-old says a district manager and human resources manager asked if she could remove the hijab while working, and she was suspended and then fired for refusing to do so.
It’s the latest employment discrimination charge against the company’s so-called “look policy,” which critics say means images of mostly white, young, athletic-looking people. The New Albany, Ohio-based company has said it does not tolerate discrimination. Continue reading this article
Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce is a leader in the movement for the states to do more of the immigration enforcement, since the federal government has shown little enthusiasm for the heavy lifting. He reports that Arizona is improving after instituting its state laws (modeled on federal statutes): jobs are up and crime is down. The prison population is declining for the first time..
Furthermore, he notes, “States have inherent authority to enforce the laws; they’ve never been pre-empted. They can enforce federal law. We arrest bank robbers every day on federal law. Nobody protests that.”
Officials at the Department of Homeland Security lied to Congress and the media to cover up a secret amnesty program that dismissed the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S., including those with criminal convictions.
The scandalous story of how the government agency charged with keeping America safe systematically cancels pending deportations was first reported by Texas’s largest newspaper last year. The remarkable program stunned the legal profession and baffled immigration attorneys who say the government bounced their clients’ deportation even when expulsion was virtually guaranteed. [. . .]
If illegal aliens are picked up by police and not deported or prosecuted, then they are released back onto American streets. One recent report from Pennsylvania shows the kind of undesirable characters that are routinely let go. A carful of illegals was speeding dangerously and the driver was unlicensed and the car unregistered. The men had a collection of fake IDs. America’s roads are made far more hazardous by the presence of such persons. Illegal alien drivers kill many Americans every year and it is wrong for traffic violations to be considered minor.
It makes a joke of our legal system when there is no punishment for repeated lawbreaking.
Four illegal immigrants caught in Beaver Meadows since Wednesday were ordered to be released by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, the borough police chief said.
On Thursday afternoon, police stopped a blue Honda Accord that was traveling 57 mph in a 35 mph zone on Route 93, Beaver Meadows Police Chief Michael Morresi said.
The driver, Robert Isaac Rivera-Campos, 22, of El Salvador, could not produce proof of insurance for the car, which had an expired registration and Maryland plates, Morresi said. One of the three passengers had a valid Maryland driver’s license but the other two were from Honduras and had fake identifications, he said. ICE was notified and discovered the driver and the two men from Honduras – 33-year-old Carlos Cordona and 24-year-old Walter Borgas – were in this country illegally for six years. All four men were most recently living in Baltimore.
Rivera-Campos was cited for speeding and having no license; Cordona and Borgas were cited for having false identifications. ICE refused to pick them up, according to Morresi, because they had no criminal records; however, Morresi discovered one of the men was charged with assault. Since it was a recent incident, the charge did not appear in the system, he said.
About 5:30 p.m. Morresi said three of the men went to the impound lot and asked an attendant if they could retrieve something out of the vehicle. Morresi said the three illegals jumped in the car and drove off toward Hazleton.
On Wednesday, Morresi stopped 24-year-old Cezar Ramirez-Cortes for speeding on Route 93. An investigation revealed that Ramirez-Cortes, who did not have a criminal record, was originally from Mexico and had been stopped for speeding six times in the past four years he has been in the U.S. illegally. Beaver Meadows police cited him for speeding, driving without a license and driving with a suspended license. His vehicle was impounded because he is a habitual offender, Morresi said.
Ramirez-Cortes can re-claim his car but must show proof of ownership and have a valid driver’s license and insurance. ICE was notified but since he had no criminal record Morresi had to drive him to the Carbon County line and release him on foot.
A similar incident occurred in May when a speeding illegal immigrant produced a Mexican registration card as identification, two public benefit Access cards bearing different names and $3,000 in cash. At the time, an ICE official said he was not detained because “the subject was not arrested and charged with a crime by the local department, did not have a criminal record and is not a fugitive from ICE, the subject was not a priority case and a detainer was not placed.”
It’s not exactly news that when the American national soccer team plays against Mexico in Lost Angeles, hardly anyone is cheering the home team. Pat Buchanan reported some years ago that the national anthem was booed at a 1998 soccer game played in LA. And a lot more Mexicans live in southern California now than then.
Your humble correspondent has been observing for several years that the USA-Mexico soccer rivalry has become low-intensity warfare. It certainly keeps the police busy: at least 26 fans were arrested around the Rose Bowl after the Mexico team won, 4-2. (Boo!)
Another disturbing indicator of cultural decline: all of the post-game ceremony was conducted in Spanish.
On Sunday, the San Francisco Chronicle presented a photo essay about Guatemalans being deported home from Mesa, Arizona. The one paragraph of accompanying text did not portray the event positively, particularly regarding the Secure Communities program which it deems “controversial.” The liberal press has apparently decided that open borders are more important than public safety.
A plane leaving from Arizona to Guatemala returns undocumented Guatemalans caught by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, through the controversial federal “Secure Communities,” a data-sharing program which puts local police on the frontlines of national immigration enforcement. ICE recently announced a set of adjustments to the program after many local communities and some states, including New York, insisted on opting out, saying immigrants were being deported for minor offenses such as traffic violations.
When Barack Obama appeared for a Spanish-speaking town hall event on Univision in March (where he said he wanted illegal alien students to succeed), he was asked why he couldn’t use his big Presidential powers to stop deportations. “With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case,” Obama said.
His way of answering “no” seemed definite up to a point, but also had an undercurrent that suggested he would finagle an executive amnesty if he thought he could get away with it.
One strategy might be to get an obedient underling to issue a memo dialing back on who gets chosen for a free trip home. So we see ICE Director John Morton’s June 17 memo instructing agency leaders to use “discretion” in deciding whom to deport. In other words, ease off of anyone who isn’t a mass murderer.
At one point, Morton specifies “positive factors should prompt particular care and consideration”; it’s a list which includes every possibly sympathetic category except owners of fluffy kittens.
veterans and members of the U.S. armed forces;
long-time lawful permanent residents;
minors and elderly individuals;
individuals present in the United States since childhood;
pregnant or nursing women;
victims of domestic violence; trafficking, or other serious crimes;
individuals who suffer from a serious mental or physical disability;
Below, young illegal aliens dressed in student graduation outfits demand more free education beyond K-12.
Interestingly, the list protects illegal aliens who are the most expensive users of taxpayer-funded medical services: those who “suffer from a serious mental or physical disability; and individuals with serious health condition.” Let no opportunity for excessive spending go unused — that’s the Washington way! The medical moocher Ana Puente who cost California taxpayers over $1 million for three liver transplants comes to mind, and she’s just one example of a person brought to this country specifically for free-to-them healthcare. An honest Colorado report noted that hundreds of illegal aliens came to that state to obtain medical care for their expensive conditions.
Now ICE agents are told to avoid deporting foreign welfare abusers. When word gets around, freebie no-deport medical care will be another alien magnet.
Rep. Lamar Smith has written up a bill to fight the Morton-Obama Amnesty, however it’s doubtful the legislation could get through the Democrat Senate, much less the President’s handy autopen. But it’s better to do something than do nothing.
House Republicans are targeting an Obama administration effort to give immigration officials more leeway when it comes to deciding who to deport from the U.S.
Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, plans to introduce legislation next month that would suspend the Obama administration’s ability to exercise executive discretion in immigration cases.
Smith’s bill, called the HALT Act, would strip the administration’s power to defer deportation of immigration violators, grant work authorization or grant temporary protected status to immigrants who are fleeing a disaster.
The bill is aimed only at the Obama administration: In the proposed legislation, the executive powers would be restored at the end of this presidential term.
“Because of the Obama administration’s record, it cannot be trusted with these powers,” said Smith in a letter dated June 23 encouraging other House members to sponsor the bill with him. Continue reading this article
Like many who care deeply about America’s borders and sovereignty, I had great hopes for a universal e-verify bill from the Republican House and was happy to hear that Rep. Lamar Smith had authored one.
But now the concerns are mounting that the legislation is fatally flawed and will do more harm than good. It should be an immediate red flag that the evil Chamber of Commerce supports HR2164 as do the National Association of Home Builders and the National Restaurant Association. These groups have been vicious and entrenched enemies of workplace enforcement, so one has to wonder whether the change of heart is sincere.
The 1986 amnesty was supposed to trade forgiveness toward millions of lawbreakers for border and workplace enforcement. Somehow Washington forgot to do the enforcement part, and the Reagan Amnesty ended up being all carrot and no stick. We don’t want a replay of that stab in the back. In fact, we citizens are still owed enforcement from the 1986 deal, which contained no statute of limitations.
A big problem is how the Smith bill (aka the Legal Workforce Act) undercuts states’ ability to enforce immigration laws, as was recently affirmed by the Supreme Court. By contrast, Senator Grassley’s E-verify bill allows the immigration laws of states and localities to remain in force. The states, particularly Arizona, have led the way, showing hidebound Washington what can be done by aroused citizens and a responsible legislature.
The feds have been negligent for decades in enforcing borders and immigration laws. The recent decree that deportations will be scaled back indicates that public safety will be sacrificed by Washington to pursue elites’ cheap-labor open-borders agenda.
Kris Kobach has written persuasively on the legislation, e.g. Throwing the States off the Field, making the point that “The states are actually enforcing these laws, in sharp contrast to the federal government’s lax enforcement approach under President Obama.”
Rep. Lou Barletta was interviewed on the Steve Gill radio show June 17 where he discussed the Smith legislation, which he called “a good bill gone bad.”
1. It stabs Arizona in the back immediately after Arizona won its victory in the U.S. Supreme Court. The law that Arizona passed in 2007 (which suspends business licenses of employers who knowingly hire unauthorized aliens and, which has been enforced vigorously), would be preempted under the Legal Workforce Act (sec. (6), p. 50).
2. It is an affront to states’ rights. The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of cooperative enforcement, with the states and the federal government working together to restore the rule of law in immigration. Yet this bill snatches defeat from the jaws of victory and tells the states that they can no longer take meaningful actions to go after employers who knowingly hire unauthorized aliens. Alabama adopted Arizona’s approach just two weeks after the Supreme Court victory. Dozens of other states are likely to follow in 2012 when the state legislatures go back into session. If the Legal Workforce Act passes, Congress will tie the states’ hands, forcing them to continue paying about $80 billion a year in fiscal costs caused by illegal immigration.
3. The Legal Workforce Act will be another federal law that goes unenforced. The federal government has been unwilling to aggressively enforce immigration laws in the workplace, and this law will be no exception. There is zero likelihood that the current administration will go after employers who fail to use E-Verify or who knowingly help their employees circumvent the system (which is very easy to do by using a U.S. citizen’s stolen name and Social Security number). In contrast, states like Arizona have been very effective in enforcing their own laws. In Arizona, dozens of worksite raids have occurred. That is why the number of illegal aliens in Arizona dropped 16 percent between 2008 and 2010 — more than double the national average (of 7 percent).
4. The Legal Workforce Act gives a “workplace amnesty” to virtually all of the illegal aliens who are already employed in the United States. Illegal aliens already working in the United States cannot be subjected to E-Verify unless they work for state or local governments (sec. (b)(3)(A), p. 26). The Legal Workforce Act is clearly designed to keep the current population of illegal aliens employed and working in the United States in the country, so they would still be here if amnesty is granted in the future.
5. The Legal Workforce Act allows agricultural workers to skip E-Verify entirely. All an employer has to do is assert that the alien worked for him at some point in the past (sec. (b)(1)(D), p. 18).
6. Special Interest Groups want to take the immigration issue off the table in the 2012 elections. Knowing the huge popular support for these state laws, Special Interest Groups want to eliminate them, and at the same time (falsely) claim that the issue of illegal immigration in the workplace is now resolved. Illegal immigration is an issue that voters consistently rank in their Top 5 issues of importance, and it needs to be used, not buried, in the 2012 elections.
The anti-borders media and bloggers have been in a tizzy over an illegal alien journalist, Jose Antonio Vargas, who recently outed himself with details on enabling editors in the New York Times Magazine (My Life as an Undocumented Immigrant).
His NYT piece was the usual formulaic sob story of the American Dream thwarted by the mean government and its annoying laws. The various reactions have had the interesting aspect of media honchos tippy-toeing over the obvious ramifications regarding immigration law. Vargas’ big tear-jerker was refused by the Washington Post, which seemed fearful of being being prosecuted, as reported by Politico: Why did Post kill Jose Vargas story?
The article could be problematic for the Post, because it not only reveals that the paper broke the law by employing an illegal immigrant, but that Vargas told a mentor, Post assistant managing editor Peter Perl, about his immigration status. It is not clear whether Perl told anyone else at the paper.
Of course, scooting the article off to another newspaper won’t get the Post off the legal hook. Names were named, which was surely a strategy of Vargas to rope in the editors who hired him and force them to get on board like the good liberals they are. Vargas mentioned another newspaper that employed him, the San Francisco Chronicle, and Editor Phil Bronstein explained at length how he had been “duped” — probably as instructed by company lawyers.
Bronstein tried to play the aggrieved party in a rambling essay on his Chronicle blog, while still sounding sympathetic to his illegal alien scribbler. He worried about the “millions of people out there floating in terrifying limbo” but did not mention the citizens displaced by liars like Vargas in college slots and employment. The Chronicle is famously left-wing on border and immigration issues.
How many unemployed journalists, let go by newsroom downsizing over the past decade, are upset by this flouting of the law? Unlike most illegal alien articles created by the liberal press, this one affects the people who crank out the tiresome sob stories. But we are unlikely to hear any changes of heart about law and borders at least in public, since job-seeking reporters wouldn’t want to hurt their chances in one of the most liberal professions. Still, it would be interesting to hear some bar talk among journalists on this one.
Plus, someone should ask Bronstein whether he would support a new visa category for journalists to increase the diversity of the newsroom. How would that go over with reporters? It might make the media debate of immigration more interesting if practitioners had some skin in the game.
I was duped. I once hired an illegal immigrant to be a reporter for the Chronicle.
“I don’t think I’m a criminal,” Jose Antonio Vargas told me when we met last week, right before he announced his status to the world. “Don’t make me seem guiltier than I am.”
Jose lied to me and everyone else he worked for, and that’s not kosher, especially in a profession where facts and, more elusively, the truth are considered valuable commodities. In 2003 he wrote a story for us about illegals getting fake drivers’ licenses in the Mission when he’d used phony documents to get his own. He told me last week that he decided then that was a serious conflict of interest and wouldn’t cover immigration any more. But he later wrote on the topic for the Post.
Even though I didn’t know he was a lawbreaker when he worked for me, and he left the paper in 2004, his story lands me a little more directly in the atrociously rudderless but vicious debate on immigration reform.
After Jose’s essay was published on the New York Times website yesterday, detailing his deception in getting heady jobs here, at the Washington Post and the Huffington Post – and snagging exclusive access to Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg for a New Yorker profile – I have to wonder:
Am I a dupe? A felon – at least according to a tough new Alabama law that might find me guilty of “harboring” Jose when he was in my office the other day (I also bought him coffee)? Or have I unwittingly supported a potentially powerful new movement in the push for immigration reform?
There’s no way to tell for sure when immigration laws themselves are a hopeless jumble of unenforced, unenforceable or just plain unaddressed issues covering 11 million people. The most visible are Latino day laborers, but the Vargas confession may also open those gnarly closet doors for high-achieving white collar professionals.
“This is going to come off as a vanity act, but it’s not,” Jose told me last Tuesday, just before he left San Francisco for New York on what might be his last allowable U.S. domestic flight with his doctored-up I.D. “I tell stories for a living and this is the one I’ve been afraid to tell. I’m one of many like me. There have got to be undocumented workers out there even more successful than I am.”
Jose’s narrative of arriving in the Bay Area at age 12, discovering his illegal status at 16 and driving himself thereafter to somehow earn citizenship with the help of friends and family, has created a cat-in-a-blender bloodstorm, particularly among his fellow journalists. The Times has gloated on its blogs about bagging the story while the Post, which rejected it, is a little dour. Continue reading this article
Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues related to culture and mass immigration. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html. In order to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.