« July 2004 | Main | September 2004 »

Alleged Iraqi sleeper agent/naturalized citizen arrested

From the WaPo:

An Iraqi-born man was arrested yesterday for allegedly lying on his application to become a naturalized U.S. citizen and failing to disclose that he was a member of the former Iraqi intelligence service.

Sami Khoshaba Latchin, 57, pleaded not guilty in U.S. District Court in Chicago to making false statements to immigration officials in July 1999.

The charges relate to his application for citizenship, on which he failed to include Saddam Hussein's Baath Party when asked to list organizations to which he belonged, according to the indictment.

He also did not disclose that he had been a member of the Iraqi intelligence service, the Mukhabarat, for five years before July 22, 1999, and he told immigration authorities that three overseas trips he made between 1994 and 1997 were vacations. The indictment alleges that he took the trips abroad to meet his handler and receive payment for his services.

Posted to Immigration2004 at 09:36 PM | Comments (0)

"GOP Immigration Idiocy In Illinois"

As you may recall, before choosing Alan Keyes to run against Barack Obama, the IL GOP held a ludicrous search for a candidate. About the only person they didn't consider was Chitown's own Bozo the Clown. Eventually they settled on Alan Keyes, who now trails Obama by a whopping 41 points.

At the time, the story that failed to gain any traction was that there was a perfectly good challenger available and he even lived in the state in question: Jim Oberweis. He finished second in the primary behind Jack Ryan.

So, why wasn't Oberweis picked? Because he made the mistake of opposing illegal immigration and criticizing Bush's amnesty plan. Imagine that! A legislator who wanted to uphold our laws? Imagine the scandal.

The article "GOP Immigration Idiocy In Illinois" has the scoop, and it includes this bit that I didn't know before:

Hastert didn’t attend Keyes’ announcement because he was busy lying during his appearance on NBC’s "Meet the Press." Hastert said that he personally worked for five weeks to find homegrown replacement for Ryan but "couldn’t find any takers."

See also "Illinois’ Oberweis: “Bush Runs Tight Ship On Immigration.” But It’s Sinking", which includes an interview with Oberweis:

No other conclusion can be drawn: George W. Bush’s Republican Party is more willing to take a licking in crucial November Senate elections than to allow its candidates to discuss illegal immigration.

Nationwide, there are at least three such cases—New York, California and Illinois. In all three, the Republican challenge is so feeble that the incumbents are essentially running unopposed...

[Oberweis says:] "Individuals interested in the Senate job were told to submit a paragraph to the Central Committee outlining their credentials. Those credentials would be reviewed and those candidates considered qualified would be invited to make a presentation to the Committee.

"I submitted a paragraph and never heard a word. Keyes never submitted anything and he’s running for Senate."

Posted to Immigration2004 at 09:28 PM | Comments (0)

"If 250,000 New York Driver's Licenses Do Not Match Social Security Data, How Many Voters are Illegally Registered?"

That's what FAIR wants to know:

In light of recent revelations that New York Department of Motor Vehicles has issued as many as 250,000 driver's licenses to individuals who provided Social Security numbers that do not match information in the Social Security Administration's database, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) is calling upon the state's Board of Elections to conduct a county by county review of voter rolls. Under the Motor Voter law, it is reasonable to "assume that large numbers of individuals have also been unlawfully registered to vote," state FAIR in a formal demand letter to Board of Elections Chair Carole Berman...

Posted to Immigration_dls at 08:49 PM | Comments (0)

Bootius to the Maximus!

Irony? Trying to pull the readers? #4, you're the dickens!

There are Serena Williams galleries here and here. Here's a picture with her legs slightly spread. Wider! And, who can forget this classic booty shot?

Posted to WackyHumor at 06:13 PM | Comments (0)

"Immigration issue yanked off GOP agenda"

Newsday has a report similar to, but not as good as, the one in the previous post:

Even as Michael Bloomberg heralded New York's diversity Monday, President George W. Bush's controversial plan to put in place a temporary worker program is getting no major billing at the Republican National Convention.

The party's platform that was formally adopted by delegates at the Republican National Convention Monday briefly mentions Bush's call for granting temporary legal status to millions of undocumented workers. The proposal, viewed by many as a bid to woo growing ranks of Hispanic voters, met fierce opposition from party conservatives almost immediately.

"It seems very clear to us that the White House got the message. There just does not seem to be very much of an appetite there to pursue this," said John Kelley, a spokesman for the Center for Immigration Studies, a non-partisan think tank on immigration issues. "Is any single speaker going to mention the "I" word? I don't think so."

...In unveiling his proposal on Jan. 7 to kick off the election year, Bush gave no details and urged Congress to come up with specific legislation. The White House has since done little to advance the issue.

Apparently Newsday hasn't been watching the news. The Bush administration has made its generally Open Borders positions quite clear, even if it hasn't stressed the amnesty plan.

UPDATE: See also the Denver Post's "Unbowed, Tancredo keeps pushing immigration issue". It includes this double helping of Kool-Aid flavored doublespeak:

"The Republican Party is our nation's majority party and represents individuals with many different ideologies," said Danny Lopez Diaz, Bush campaign spokesman for the Southwest region. "The president's ... balanced approach to reform will help create a safe, humane, orderly and legal program that meets homeland security needs and that of our 21st-century economy."

It's also opposed by the great majority of American citizens, but who are they to complain?

Posted to Immigration2004 at 05:43 PM | Comments (0)

The Topic that can't be mentioned

TNR has the scoop on Tom Tancredo's failed attempt to get something about immigration into the GOP platform:

You would think that as a member of Congress, Colorado Representative Tom Tancredo would enjoy special privileges at this convention. And, for the most part, you'd be right: Tancredo has invitations to lots of parties; he has access to the convention floor. But, in one very important respect, Tancredo is just like the rest of us: He's totally in the dark as to who served on the Republican platform committee. And there's no privilege Tancredo would like more than that one...

Not surprisingly, Tancredo had hoped that this year's Republican platform would include some of his immigration reform proposals. And when the platform committee met last week to craft the document--to be ratified by delegates at the convention--Tancredo put forth three immigration-related amendments: one calling on states to refuse to grant drivers' licenses to illegal immigrants; the second opposing amnesty for illegal aliens already in the United States; and the third opposing an agreement with Mexico granting Mexicans in the United States, including those here illegally, access to the U.S. Social Security system. Just as quickly as Tancredo proposed them, the platform committee voted down all three amendments.

This essentially spelled the end to Tancredo's hopes of having a strong immigration reform plank in the GOP platform, but he did have one last hope: a floor fight at the convention...

...This latter route seemed doable to Tancredo, save for one problem: The congressman couldn't find out who, exactly, was on the platform committee. Running the platform process with all the discipline and secrecy that's come to be expected from the Bush White House, the RNC, citing security concerns, refused to divulge the identities of the handpicked delegates who served on the platform committee--even, in some cases, to other members of the platform committee...

Posted to Immigration2004 at 05:39 PM | Comments (1)

It wouldn't be a protest without Susan "Medea" Benjamin getting arrested

Yep, she did it again.

Since there are no permalinks at this site, let's try this play-by-play account:

Tuesday 31 August 2004

4:10PM: Medea Benjamin has just been arrested, and the crowd is turning very ugly...

4:20PM: Medea Benjamin has been taken away, and the crowd is swelling. The buzz of violence seems to have dissipated for the moment...

4:50PM: Medea Benjamin has been released, is shaken up, but is OK.

Whew! As a special bonus, they have a video interview with Medea.

Previous Medea coverage starts here.

(Via TalkLeft)

Posted to ThePeaceMovement at 05:18 PM | Comments (1)

Arnold will veto the illegal alien driver's license bill

So says Dan Weintraub:

The latest rumor racing around the talk radio circuit is that Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, acting governor while Schwarzenegger is in New York, will sign SB 1160, the bill giving drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. It's not going to happen, folks...

[Schwarzenegger's] Communications Director Rob Stutzman, speaking on KTKZ radio this morning, says his boss fully intends to veto the bill and won't let anyone else get their hands on it before he does so.

Posted to Immigration_dls at 11:56 AM | Comments (1)

Fanboys and fangirls at the [other] convention

Earlier I said the blogger coverage of the DNC sucked. Then, I said it again, only that time I tried unsuccessfully to solicit a large mass of questions the bloggers could ask of delegates, politicians, and street people.

Look, it's not that I'm disinterested in Miss Americas, but I - and hopefully many other people - would be interested in bloggers who attempt to ask a few slightly uncomfortable questions, gently ruffle a few feathers, get a scoop, make some news, represent the average voter, that kinda thing.

UPDATE: Salon weighs in. Although their commentary might seem similar to mine, the difference is I'm not a humorless liberal prat.

Posted to Bloggage at 10:26 PM | Comments (0)

TalkLeft, deep end; deep end, TalkLeft

Sure there have been warning signs, but TalkLeft seems to have officially gone off the deep end:

Guiliani: Could You Just Gag?

If anyone is the personnificaton of the opposite of freedom, it's former federal prosecutor and Mayor Rudy Guiliani. Herr Guiliani is a more apt name for him...

Posted to Bloggage at 10:18 PM | Comments (1)

Spawn of Rall

8/30/04 NYT:

Outside a hotel in Times Square, delegates to the Republican National Convention were swarmed by protesters dressed in black and swearing at them. Blocks away, delegates engaged in shoving matches with protesters seeking to spoil their night at the theater. And outside "The Lion King" on 42nd Street, a delegate was punched by a protester who ran by.

Although the organized protests yesterday and Sunday have been largely peaceful, there has been a starkly different tone to smaller incidents in Midtown and elsewhere: angry encounters and planned harassment of convention delegates as they go out on the town.

When marchers approached the Garden, a police detective was knocked off his scooter. He was then repeatedly kicked and punched in the head by at least one male demonstrator, the police said.

The detective, William Sample, was listed in serious condition...

As delegate buses arrived at the Garden yesterday afternoon, protesters who had gathered for a demonstration screamed obscenities and gestured rudely at them...

Outside "Bombay Dreams" demonstrators shouted at and videotaped people standing outside for intermission.

At "Aida," a group of protesters unfurled a banner and hurled invective at delegates leaving the show. Some looked nervous, but a few shouted back, "You're sick, sick."

8/19/04 Ted Rall, at "Common Dreams":

Tourists are pleasantly surprised when New Yorkers act as friendly and polite as the people back home in Mayberry. However, delegates to this month's Republican National Convention shouldn't expect to be treated to our standard out-of-towner treatment. The Republican delegates here to coronate George W. Bush are unwelcome members of a hostile invading army. Like the hapless saps whose blood they sent to be spilled into Middle Eastern sands, they will be given intentionally incorrect directions to nonexistent places. Objects will be thrown in their direction. Children will call them obscene names. They will not be greeted as liberators...

Indeed.

Posted to Politics at 09:29 PM | Comments (0)

Everything the NYT thinks is wrong

The NYT editorial "A Platform for Immigrants" supports the "original" Bush plan for immigration "reform." In so doing, they get so many things wrong it's hard to know where to begin. As a first start, let's examine this paragraph:

Anybody who has watched the Republicans wrestling with this explosive issue this year knew it would be difficult to please both the Republican moderates who realize that the system is "broken" - as Mr. Bush put it in January - and ideologues like Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado, who has not only opposed easing rules for undocumented workers but has even favored a "time out'' on legal immigration. Mr. Bush will gain more support in that wider middle ground if he sticks with his original proposal to mend the immigration system and begins supporting bipartisan proposals in Congress.

The system is "broken" only in so far as we've become unable and unwilling to enforce our own laws. The so-called "fix" will just make the problem worse. We need to return to first principles and enforce the law before talking about any "reforms."

Also, the "wider middle ground" is a lot narrower and farther off to either side than the NYT's myopic Manhattan vision could understand:

[Tancredo] added: “I am astounded that my position on an issue that commands somewhere near 75 percent support from the general public is perceived as being problematic for the party. Most Americans want secure borders. Most Americans want an end to illegal immigration. These have to be addressed — even when people call you names.”

As an example of that name-calling, the NYT editorial - which was probably reviewed by several people - uses the phrase "anti-immigrant."

I'm considering sending a letter to the editor, and if you want to do so go here or try their forums.

Posted to Immigration2004 at 01:40 PM | Comments (1)

"Businesses take pledge not to hire illegal immigrants"

The North County Times reports on a website that lists companies in the Temecula, CA area who pledge not to hire illegal workers. So far, there are only 22 companies on the list, but if the coverage area was broadened there might be many more.

The NC Times report includes this bit:

[Seymour & Son Landscaping owner] Mark Seymour said Friday that the rampant employment of illegal immigrants for yard and landscape work represents a significant threat to his business. He said that contractors who hire illegal immigrants have an unfair competitive advantage.

"They drive down the price of labor," he said. "I think that all (business owners) should play on the same playing field and follow the law."

...UC Riverside Professor Armando Navarro... said that he is not surprised that someone has started up an illegal-immigrant-free business registry, especially in the Temecula area.

"It seems like Temecula and the surrounding areas have become the bastion of the anti-immigrant movement," he said.

He added that he believes that people who sign up for the listing service are using their emotions, not their brains. "It's anger and frustration; in reality it's not going to have much of an effect," he said. The profit motive is too strong for many business owners to resist, he said.

"Businesses are driven by profit and most business people want to get the biggest bang for their buck; consumers look for the cheapest price, that's the nature of the market," said Navarro...

I hate to rain on Navarro's free market parade, but one of the fundamental ideas behind a free market is that people are using legal business practices. If they aren't, then that could be unfair business competition as defined by various state codes and the U.S. code.

See "FAIR: RICO Laws Becoming the Last Resort of American Workers Facing Onslaught of Illegal Aliens in the Work Place", "RICO Lawsuit Against Employer of Illegal Aliens Succeeds!", and 2001's "Psst! Wanna Join A Class Action Suit Against Employers of Illegal Immigrants?". I don't want lawyers to enforce our immigration laws, but as a last resort I'll take it. There are probably billions to be made by those lawyers, and it's cleaner and more patriotic money than many other Private Attorney's General-style suits.

Also, there used to be a sticker in the window of the Yoshinoya at San Fernando and Los Feliz in Glendale/Atwater saying that Yoshinoya only employed legal workers. I don't think it's still there. I might be wrong, but I got the impression it was part of a larger Buy American-style campaign. Researching...

Posted to Immigration2004 at 01:19 PM | Comments (3)

"Bush nephew backs off on INS"

I think at this point we can assume he's representing the administration's viewpoint:

Presidential nephew George P. Bush, campaigning in Tucson Thursday, backed off his weekend charge [that would be 8/21/04 --LW] that the U.S. Border Patrol's use of pepper-ball guns is "reprehensible" and "kind of barbarous."

In Mexico City Saturday, the youngest George Bush blamed the policy on "some local INS guy who's trying to be tough, act macho."

Bush did not apologize Thursday for his remarks [Thu. 8/26/04 --LW] but acknowledged that he misspoke in Mexico City, because there is a formal policy and agreement between the United States and Mexico covering the use of these less-than-lethal weapons. He said he didn't fully understand the U.S. policy when he attributed it to some local tough guy in the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

"I made an error and I accept it, but I think the larger issue is that it is something that shouldn't be happening, there shouldn't be this use of arms..."

"There needs to be substantive reform so that folks can move back and forth, work and pay taxes and achieve the American dream. The amount of violence on the border is terrible and we just need more focus on the issue."

Posted to Immigration2004 at 12:46 PM | Comments (0)

"Rights Groups Take On Deportation Program"

A new joint program from the U.S. and Mexico flies some deported illegal aliens back into central Mexico, rather than dropping them off at a border city. The L.A. Times reports that so-called "rights groups" are up in arms about this new program. To get the plane ride, the alien has to waive his rights to a hearing. And, no coincidence at all, no hearing means no immigration lawyer to pay. As previously discussed this is basically subsidized vacation pay for their employers, as many of those deported say they'll just try again. Note that the LAT itself reported that many of those on the maiden flight said they're try again.

If you're like me, your first thought on seeing this in the LAT would be to take a look at the so-called "rights groups":

"If there's no opposition, they always have the option of taking it to Texas and to California and expanding it inland," said Angela Sambrano, a representative for the Los Angeles Committee Against the Raids and for Rights of Immigrants. "We don't want them to get any idea that we would welcome an extension of [it]. That's why we want to stop it right now."

Sambrano recently joined delegations of other pro-immigration activists to deliver letters to Mexican consulates across the country — including seven in California — urging President Vicente Fox's administration to abandon support for the program. The protesters say that if their quest for dialogue fails, they may stage vigils and demonstrations.

So, who exactly is the LACATRAFROI? A google search reveals nothing. However, the google search for Angela Sambrano brings up this at its first hit:

The Militant reported that, "The Forum took note of the growing immigration from Latin American to the United States and a recent rise in the struggles for immigrant rights in that country. Angela Sambrano, representing CISPES, gave a special presentation at the Forum on the subject." CISPES favored the cause of the communist guerrillas in El Salvador.

That took less than a minute, and you'd think the LAT could have done likewise. Maybe they did, and just didn't report it.

Nevertheless, the "pro-immigration" groups in the article do raise a couple of good points hidden in their forest of bad ideas:

Immigrant rights groups in California say such tragedies underscore why U.S. and Mexican authorities should channel resources into combating the job shortage in Mexico, one of the prime reasons migrants cross the border.

"It's nothing more than a shell game," said Jennifer Allen, executive director of Border Action Network, a Tucson-based immigration advocacy group. "It's just shifting migrants from place to place."

If you'd like to suggest that the L.A. Times teaches its reporters how to use google, refers to "pro-immigration" groups as "pro-illegal-immigration" groups, and reports on the background of "liberal" groups with the same zeal with which they report on the background of centrist or rightwing groups, please send a polite email to Readers.Rep@latimes.com

Posted to Immigration2004 at 11:22 AM | Comments (0)

"Tancredo to fight over immigration"

Thankfully someone has some sense:

Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) plans to start a nasty floor fight at the Republican National Convention in New York this week unless the GOP convention platform includes elements of his immigration proposals. He calls the current platform “weak” and “Clintonesque.”

The third-term former nonprofit-organization executive said he has already enlisted a groundswell of support from sympathetic delegates from border states such as California and Arizona...

Tancredo recalls vividly a conversation he had with President Bush’s top political adviser, Karl Rove, two years ago. Tancredo had given an interview to The Washington Times regarding his hard-line stance on immigration that upset Rove.

“[Rove] called me the next morning,” Tancredo recalled. “I was on my way to work. We had a spirited discussion. He told me never to darken the doorstep of the White House.” To which the congressman replied, “’I don’t remember a welcome mat ever being out, and second, it’s not your house.’”

He added: “I am astounded that my position on an issue that commands somewhere near 75 percent support from the general public is perceived as being problematic for the party. Most Americans want secure borders. Most Americans want an end to illegal immigration. These have to be addressed — even when people call you names.”

Posted to Immigration2004 at 09:39 AM | Comments (0)

I know how Verity feels

The samizdata thread "Multiculturalism versus Security" has a large number of comments, and some are interesting. On the one side is "Verity" and a few others, and on the other are the dhimmis-in-training named Julius and a_t. Here are a few comments from Verity:

Now Robin Cook, a shining example of his ilk and too dim to hide his light under a bushel, makes it even clearer. We are now dependent on Muslim immigrants to make our society - a success by any measure for around, oh, a thousand and more years - a "successful" multiculti mess? A great Gramscian stroke...

In addition, incompetent as it is at governance, this government has a vast army of allied leftists willing to help force its agenda through. The universities, the vast teachers' union, a large number of young students, all the lefties in local government, the lefties at the head of the police service, the lefties at the head of the prisons service, and not least the BBC and all the socialist journalists - numbering, my guess, well over a million soldiers active in the cause of forcing multiculti claptrap on people who never had a chance to vote for it...

What is so attractive to Julian about this? Many lefties cleave to immigrants from less developed cultures because they are able to position themselves as broad-minded saviours. I don't want to accuse Julian because I don't know him, but he certainly fits the pattern...

However, as I said before, there is a vast army of Gramscians more than willing to do their work for them, forcing the British to accept a primitive culture which is anathema in the enlightened west. There are librarians removing books from the shelves that mention pigs; there are teachers training children to respect Eidl Fitri or whatever it's called because 'the Muslim culture has so much to teach us', intense coverage on the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation any time a self-appointed Muslim spokesman for a self-styled 'Muslim Council of Whatever' has something he wants to get off his chest...

So, A_t, no, the Muslims cannot, on their own talent, force Islam on anyone. But they have at least a million helpers in the public sector intent on doing it for them...

Dear old A_t, No, the public sector isn't sitting around thinking up ways to advance the notion of jihad in Britain. It is their woolly left mindset that is the Trojan horse. 'Look how tolerant I am, how appreciative of multiculti, how unthreatened I am by 'foreignness', what a mahatama I am!"

This is fine. Some people have a need to feel they are superior souls and who cares? But their basking in bright sun of their own 'tolerance' blinds them to the agenda being forwarded by Islam. They have constantly said they will conquer Europe, and this time, as they know they can't do it by the sword, they'll do it through births. Most Muslims in Britain did not come to Britain to find a new, more enlightened life. They came to continue their old, bigotted life, but with more comforts.

Islam is toweringly offended that the powerful people of the West do not embrace Islam, and they're going to try to force them to convert. They made a good start in Spain, where they blew up around 100 people and swung the election. The fact that we exist as free, independent spirits and don't acknowledge their Allah, is offensive to Islam.

Believe me, they are not seeking multiculti -- they are working towards uniculti - their culti. And every day, some public service worker - I include BBC employees and denizens as public sector workers - hands them one more tiny victory.

Posted to MultiCultiCult at 10:08 PM | Comments (1)

"Islam is not an exotic addition to the English country garden"

From a column in the Telegraph UK:

One thing we are supposed to welcome in modern Britain is "diversity". The theory is that the mixture of races, cultures and religions which we have more and more become is a source of strength and should therefore be nurtured and celebrated. Although there is a great debate about how strong the overarching idea of Britishness needs to be for the diversity to work, there is clearly much to be said for the theory.

The authorities therefore set to work to accommodate, within reason, the special requests of the minorities...

HSBC now boasts of "Our Sharia Board" stuffed with learned sheikhs and Justices from Arabia and Pakistan. Isn't all this an encouraging example of how the resourcefulness of modern free societies can achieve tolerance and market efficiency?

But when you look a little further into the question of Islamic banking, you find that it is not, in fact, required by Islam...

So what is being proposed with Islamic banking is actually a hardening of the religion, not an accommodation of its existing custom... And when you look at HSBC's Sharia Board you find that a couple of its members have links with the Deoband, the long-standing ultra-conservative group whose schools in Pakistan educated many of the Taliban.

Two others are Wahhabis...

I return to the question of diversity. What happens if an important element of the mixture does not itself believe in diversity, but solely in the advance of its own interest?

...It does not necessarily follow that most Muslims will try to impose their beliefs on this country by violence... But it perhaps does mean that we cannot just regard Islam in Britain as a charmingly exotic addition to the English country garden...

...Once there are Islamic financial institutions, how long will it be before Muslims insist that the state and business direct all their monetary dealings with Muslims through these institutions (boycotting businesses with Jewish connections en route)? How long before Muslims, extending the logic of their concentration in places like Bradford and Leicester, seek to establish their own law within these areas, the germ of a state within a state? And how diverse would such a state be?

Some people will accuse him of racism. Some will attempt to downplay the possibility of a state within a state. The next post's for you.

Posted to MultiCultiCult at 09:53 PM | Comments (1)

"Mexican remittances head for new record"

From the AP:

Remittances sent home to Mexico by workers abroad reached $7.87 billion in the first half of 2004, 25.9 percent higher than the same period of 2003, the country's central bank reported Wednesday.

Experts say remittances are rising, but that some of the increase is due to increasing use of more easily monitored electronic or bank transfers; in the past, many workers sent their money home in cash, which is harder to track.

Remittances rose to four-fifths the value of oil exports in the first half of the year, according to the Bank of Mexico. Remittances have surpassed foreign investment and tourism revenues, and are the second-largest source of foreign income, behind oil...

Nothing like an unhealthy dependency, and nothing like people sending money out of the country. While economists will no doubt say that those who send money out of the country also spend money here, in the international relations context this is quite unhealthy.

Remittances are a huge income source for Mexico, and they're going to fight like hell to make sure that they keep getting that money and more. That means more meddling in our internal politics, and more borderline deals between Bush and Fox. That means they're going to attempt to protect their "trade routes" that they use to send people into the U.S.

Remittances are not a healthy, long-term industry for Mexico. Instead of trying to create jobs and new industries in Mexico, they're just going to send more people to the U.S.

And, those U.S. companies that profit off remittances are going to protect their turf as well. First Data Corp, owner of Western Union, is now opposing Tom Tancredo.

Posted to Immigration2004 at 12:22 PM | Comments (0)

"GOP Convention Delegate Drops Out Over Bush"

#4 links to this story:

Congressional Quarterly reported Friday that after attending four previous conventions, Philadelphia's Jesse Walters was chosen as a delegate to this year's GOP convention in New York only to resign the position, saying he could not support Bush and expressing concern with the rightward move of the Republican Party.

Calling the decision to drop his position one of the five hardest he has had to make in his life, Walters said he plans to cast his first-ever vote for a Democrat for president in November.

However:

Republican delegation hopefuls [from PA] include... and Log Cabin member Jesse Walters.

And:

At least one elected delegate won’t be making the trip to New York City. Jesse Walters, of Philadelphia, resigned Wednesday, Aug. 18, as a delegate, saying he could no longer cast a vote for Bush.

“It has been weighing on me for months,” Walters said. “I can’t support him.”

While many gay Republicans are rejecting Bush due to his support of the Federal Marriage Amendment, the reason for Walters’ resignation had more to do with the president’s record of high spending, he said.

“I think he’s a train wreck,”Walters said. “Apart from the tax cut and cleaning up the mess in Afghanistan, I can’t think of anything I agree with him on."

"Rightward move" indeed.

Posted to Politics at 11:52 AM | Comments (0)

How soon could we recall the entire California government?

Gil Cedillo might soon get Moter Voter cards driver's licenses into the hands of illegal aliens. The CA Assembly has just passed another bill into which SB1160 - the previous driver's license bill - had been inserted. Now it goes to the governor to be signed into law or vetoed. (Latest report here, out-of-date reports here and here).

Arnold Schwarzenegger has previously said he'd veto SB1160 in its current form; after the bill was passed Arnold reiterated his intent to veto the bill.

Only one problem: Arnold is out of town, and unrepentant MEChA member Cruz Bustamante is our acting governor. And, long-time Californians will remember Mike Curb. From this 10/28/03 article:

Lieutenant governors have taken varying degrees of liberty with their powers over the years.

The most extreme in recent history was Republican Lt. Gov. Mike Curb, who appointed an appellate judge while Gov. Jerry Brown was out of state exploring a presidential run in 1979.

Brown was able to withdraw the nominations, only to have Curb resubmit them the next time he left California.

Will Bustamante try a Mike Curb?

Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante said he would "not be a Mike Curb."

"He feels it is unseemly for the acting governor to act like the governor, " said Bustamante spokesman Ardie Zahedani.

That's what he said then. Will he make an exception? If he does, will Arnold immediately overturn his decision? Could it all have been an Arnold-"One Bill Gil" conspiracy that would allow the bill to be signed into law while giving Arnold plausible deniability? When exactly will the bill be submitted to the governor's office, while he's away or will it take a week and will Arnold be back by that time? Stay tuned.

If this bill passes, expect a very large backlash that would hopefully end a few careers.

You can call Arnold at 916-445-2841. He previously had had an automated poll that would allow you to vote on whether illegal aliens should have driver's licenses. However, strangely enough, the poll seems to have been removed. Nevertheless, you can still call 24/7 and leave a message. Or, send an email to governor@governor.ca.gov

UPDATE 2: There's a more recent AP report here. The L.A. Times weighs in with "Driver's License Bill Clears Legislature but Faces Veto", which includes this laughable bit among others:

Cedillo also included a number of efforts intended to be conciliatory toward critics who said having licenses would make undocumented immigrants think they could serve on juries, vote or buy a gun: The bill would ensure that the names of illegal immigrants not be sent to court clerks for jury pools, and would provide all licensees with a form underscoring the prohibitions.

Like as not, the form with the prohibitions would remind the "immigrant" to pick up his Motor Voter form.

Posted to Immigration_dls at 10:06 PM | Comments (0)

Handouts? Go Beyond the Usual [Canards and Suspects]

In one or two columns, Steve Lopez of the L.A. Times was starting to make some sense. See April's "Way Too Many People in Paradise".

However, with his latest discussion of illegal immigration he's reverted to the usual LAT set of canards and "experts". From "Handouts? Go Beyond the Usual Scapegoats":

...even if the claim [in the recent CIS study regarding the costs of illegal immigration] is completely true, let's keep in mind that $10 billion is less than one-half of 1% of the federal budget. And considering this outfit's agenda, only a fool would accept its findings as the whole truth and nothing but the truth...

[Quote from National Immigration Forum deleted...] You don't have to trust the [National Immigration Forum], which has its own ax to grind in favor of legalization for some undocumented immigrants. Daniel Griswold, an economist with the libertarian Cato Institute, agrees that the study's analysis is incomplete.

"It doesn't take into account the broader economic context, which is the ability of employers to hire workers who are important to broad sections of the economy, from hotels to construction to retail, and agriculture as well," he said.

I don't trust the NIF, and I certainly trust Dan Griswold far less. (See "Dogmatic Libertarians"). He is, after all, the author and/or inspiration for the Bush/Fox Amnesty. (Watch the beginning of the video here). And, he isn't identified as such in Lopez' column.

"They argue that a legalization program under President Reagan made immigrants more productive and raised their salaries, making them less of a drain."

It also resulted in millions of illegal aliens coming here, but, who's counting?

"Ruben Beltran, Mexican consul general in Los Angeles, noted that illegal immigrants often do jobs that others aren't dying to do. Come to think of it, I don't know a lot of native-born Californians of European descent who are clamoring for a chance to pick strawberries."

Another fine source. I wonder how many members of Mexico's European elite are picking strawberries in Mexico. And, perhaps instead of encouraging serf labor we should be finding ways to harvest strawberries that don't involve people being forced to retire at 45. (See "In the Strawberry Fields") Remember: plantations bad, technology good. (See "In Florida Groves, Cheap Labor Means Machines" and "The Mirage of Mexican Guest Workers")

If that doesn't work, I'm more than willing to allow all strawberry production to move offshore. Farmers can plant other crops.

"One thing people don't think about is the cost of consumer goods if these immigrants weren't working in certain sectors," Beltran said. "For the sake of discussion, if you have an iceberg lettuce on the shelf right now for 95 cents, what would the price be" if cheap labor were unavailable?

Wow. I have no idea. $10? $100? Wait, that doesn't make any sense, because labor costs account for 10% of the price of a head of lettuce. Watch those sources!

Please send him a short, polite letter: steve.lopez@latimes.com

Posted to Immigration2004 at 03:01 PM | Comments (1)

"George Bush�s Immigration Non-Policy"

LaShawn Barber has a long post about Bush, immigration, the 9/11 report, and "compassion" here.

Posted to Immigration2004 at 01:20 PM | Comments (1)

Are they border guards or stuffed poodles?

The department of Customs and Border Protection - part of the DHS - wants our border guards to stress the customer services aspects of their job. You'd think they would want to stress, oh, I dunno, security instead of etiquette, but I guess that wouldn't be "compassionate."

Remember, this is not an article from the Onion. The WashTimes' "Border agents put on happy face" has excerpts from a new CBP memo detailing new training sessions for border guards:

"First impressions are lasting impressions. Whether it is a traveler from a weary flight, the trade community needing an entry cleared, the importing public or simply a passer-by that may have an opportunity to observe you, the image you portray may form a lifelong view of CBP," the memo said. "It is vital that you mind your manners."

The training sessions will include instructions on etiquette, which the memo describes as "saying and doing the right thing at the right time;" grooming and body language, including posture; housekeeping and maintaining food or perishables in the workplace; and communication skills, including the use of the words "may I" and "would you please" instead of "you have to" or "give me."

The memo also said CBP officers will greet people with "welcome to the United States or welcome home," will interact with the public, trade community and others by saying, "Good morning. How may I help you?" and will bring closure to an encounter by saying, "Do you have any questions?" "It is a pleasure to serve you" and "Have a nice day."

According to the memo, CBP border officers also will exercise discretion when making decisions on whether to admit a person to the United States and that discretion will be applied on a case-by-case basis...

[The memo says] the officers must consider the situation and weigh all factors. It said, "Put yourself in the alien's shoes. Would you not want the officer to consider all flexibility within the law? Compassion goes a long ways."

There's more in the article, but the subtext is: "just wave them through. And, make sure you're smiling while you do it."

It's certainly nice when employees of the U.S. are nice. It's even better when they're nice and they protect the rest of us. But, if we have to choose, let's concentrate on the security part. The Bush administration appears to have come down on the nice side and forgotten about the security part.

See also "Border officials say they are unprepared to protect nation", "Poll Finds Low Morale for Border Officers", "Border Patrol union says new rules 'muzzle' critics of the agency", and "Why don't you let us do our jobs?".

(Via Hit & Run)

UPDATE: Someone who I believe is a CBP employee says this is all standard operating procedure, and much ado about nothing.

Note, however, that this might be a union or political thing, or it might not be. The recent survey ("Poll Finds Low Morale for Border Officers") was conducted of 250 Border Patrol agents and 250 immigration inspectors.

The WashTimes article includes this:

"We are highly trained and skilled law-enforcement professionals who carry out our duties in a professional manner," [Charles Showalter, president of the National Homeland Security Council] said. "It appears this program is an admission they are more concerned about meeting and greeting commerce and tourism than in protecting our nation's borders from terrorists, illegal aliens, criminals and others who would do us harm."

And:

The agents and inspectors said they lack proper training, equipment and access to up-to-date databases on terrorists and criminals. They criticized the leadership of the Department of Homeland Security, with three of every five saying flawed policies keep them from making the borders safer.

The AFGE represents about two-thirds of border-patrol agents and customs inspectors. Only union members were polled by the organization, which has backed Democrat John Kerry for president.

Homeland Security officials called the poll biased and said it didn't reflect massive manpower increases and technological advances on the border...

And:

"They want us to be meeters and greeters instead of enforcement officers," one was quoted responding to the [survey linked to above].

Note that Showalter's National Homeland Security Council is part of the AGFE union.

Based on the overwhelming evidence offered by other data points, I'm going to stick with the post's original tenor.

Posted to Immigration2004 at 12:59 PM | Comments (0)

"Committee Adopts Draft; Some Grumble"

From the NYT:

...Yesterday morning, leaders of the platform committee fought to fend off a last-ditch effort by conservatives to challenge a plank supporting Mr. Bush's proposal for a "guest worker" program that would be open to some currently illegal immigrants, which some conservatives denounce as a form of amnesty.

In an effort to counter the president's plan, conservatives proposed adding a call for a federal law to encourage law enforcement agencies to collaborate with immigration officials to expel illegal aliens.

But Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, who heads the platform committee, sent the amendment to be merged with a similar, less strident proposal, and the two were revised to urge continued cooperation "in securing our borders to prevent illegal entry." It passed decisively.

Richard Lessner, executive director of the American Conservative Union, called the language weak. The issue, he said, "is a place where the president is out of step with his base, which is why the president does not want any discussion of it here."

Let a thousand points of compassion shine, etc. etc.

Yesterday's report containted the following:

In a statement, Richard Lessner, executive director of the American Conservative Union, called the platform "a bland and uninspiring document" that lacked "solid conservative meat." Although most conservatives enthusiastically support the lengthy platform section on fighting terrorism, Mr. Lessner said, its "open-ended commitment" to keeping troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is troubling.

His harshest criticism fell on President Bush's plan for the new temporary worker program.

"This unfortunate initiative allows those who enter America illegally to become legal residents and apply for citizenship,'' he said. "This idea was D.O.A. among conservatives when the president first broached it, and it is still offensive."

...In a private e-mail message that circulated among conservatives at the platform hearings and on Capitol Hill, Paul S. Teller, legislative director of the conservative House Republican Study Committee, forwarded Mr. Lessner's statement, adding:

"It confirms, as was made so clear to me during the time of President Reagan's funeral and laying in state, that President Bush has no broad vision - and certainly no conservative vision - for the United States of America. All he has is a random assortment of policy prescriptions, many of which contradict one another. And let's not forget his primary goal on federal spending, to cut the deficit in half in five years. Wowwee."

Posted to Immigration2004 at 12:27 PM | Comments (0)

Well... alright!

We're happy you won too!

USA's Kerri Walsh, bottom, and teammate Misty May celebrate after beating Brazil in the gold medal beach volleyball finals during the 2004 Summer Olympic Games...

Other celebratory pictures here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Previous Olympics volleyball coverage starts here.

Posted to WackyHumor at 10:27 PM | Comments (0)

Is the Onion based in Minneapolis?

And, did one of their stories get loose and end up in a Minneapolis indie paper? The article "Mexicans Anticipate Consulate: Proposed center would be boon to immigrant community" would be funny if it weren't so sad. I've saved off a copy in case it gets re-written, and here are some excerpts:

...Mexican president Vicente Fox announced in June that Minnesota would be the next state to host a Mexican consulate.

For Fox, the first Mexican head of state to visit the region, the trip was intended not only to strengthen trade relations between Mexico and Minnesota, but also to strengthen his connection to Minnesota’s roughly 96,000 Mexican immigrants.

...Mexican community [...] turned out in such force to see Fox that he made his announcements in Spanish instead of English as planned...

[...a member of a Racial Identity group explains things to our reporter...]

Consulates help provide immigrants with anything involving government authorization, including identification, marriage certifications and work permits -- any legal papers necessary to obtain an education, reunite a family or find a good job.

“In addition to general immigration-type authorizations, one of the strongest services it provides is a matricular consular [MC], which is a Mexican government-issued ID,” Fuentes said. ["FBI Official Says Matricula Consular Card Is Security Threat"; see also this backgrounder --LW] “This ID is very helpful because many immigrants don’t have access to state-issued IDs. In Minnesota, if you need a driver’s license, they ask you for your social security number, so if you don’t have a number and the two other forms of ID they require, you don’t have access to a driver’s license. In the absence of a driver’s license, then, what can you use to get basic things like a bank account? The matricular consular serves this purpose.”

Why all the subterfuge then? Oh, yeah, I forgot. They aren't "immigrants," they're illegal aliens. Sorry, I momentarily forgot that semantic game we were playing.

Here are the excerpts about the city's "leaders:"

In recognition of the growing Mexican population and in anticipation of the potential consulate, in 2003 the city passed a resolution deeming the MC as valid for all city purposes... [once again: "FBI Official Says Matricula Consular Card Is Security Threat" --LW]

Minneapolis city officials had offered the consulate 5,000 square feet of rent-free space in Lake Street’s renovated Sears building, but were turned down. (WHEN?) City officials said they will put together another official offer soon.

The "WHEN?" is in the original article; I assume the author meant to fill that in at a later date but was so excited about the new consulate she forgot.

What about an unintentionally scary quote? Here's one:

“We could start a new country called US-Mexico … with all of the Mexicans that are here,” laughs Teresa Ortiz, a worker’s rights program director with the Resource Center of the Americas.

Yeah, that's funny.

The article provides a comments section; at post time there are five comments. They're all mostly responsible comments detailing what trouble Minneapolis is setting itself up for. The comment I left is in the extended entry.

From this: Los Angeles County school districts recently received a gift of 27,000 textbooks written for 1st- through 6th-graders in Mexico. "About 45% of our students are Hispanic," a Los Angeles County elementary school teacher specialist said. "It's beautiful for all of our kids to have access to that." Colorado schools received 90,000 textbooks last year, the most of any state. The Mexican consul general has contacted Wyoming to offer Spanish books and instruction guides there, on subjects ranging from math to geography.

Do we really want "immigrant" children learning about history and other subjects from a Mexican perspective?

From this: At a ceremony commemorating the opening of a new $8 million Mexican Consulate [in Chicago], Fox also called on municipalities to recognize cards handed out by Mexican consulates as legal forms of identification... Opponents contend the ID cards, called matricular consular, allow illegal immigrants access to services they aren't eligible for... "We are Mexicans that live in our territories and we are Mexicans that live in other territories," he said in a 20-minute speech in Spanish. "In reality, we are 120 million people that live together and are working to construct a nation."

So, Fox is saying that all Mexicans - even Mexican-Americans - are part of the Mexican Nation. Note also that the Matricula Consular cards are considered a security threat by the FBI.

From this: in the 1990s, Mexico embarked on a campaign of extending its political authority into the United States - not just over Mexican immigrants, but also naturalized and native-born Americans of Mexican ancestry. There are 10 million Mexican-born people in this country (including 5 million illegals) plus more than 10 million additional Americans of Mexican descent...

There's nothing secret about this effort. President Vicente Fox once referred to himself as president of all 118 million Mexicans - the 100 million in Mexico and the (then-)18 million in the United States, the majority of whom are U.S. citizens. And this is a long-term proposition for them: In June 2001, Juan Hernandez, former head of Fox's cabinet-level office for relations with Mexicans abroad, said on ABC's "Nightline," "I want the third generation, the seventh generation, I want them all to think, 'Mexico first.'"

Wake up Minneapolis.

Posted to Immigration_consul at 10:20 PM | Comments (0)

"U.S. military beefing up its presence on borders"

From Knight-Ridder:

There's a growing sense of urgency among those who police America's long, porous borders that tighter control is needed to prevent terrorists from slipping into the flood of illegal immigrants entering the United States.

The Sept. 11 Commission found that the nation's borders are largely unprotected and recommended that border security become an integral part of national security policy. Now that airline security has been improved, terror suspects increasingly are being detected trying to enter the country on ships or overland...

Where does one begin?

First of all, perhaps we should try to prevent the "flood" from coming here in the first place. With Bush administration-mandated interior enforcement practically non-existant, the "flood" is going to keep coming.

Cynically speaking, perhaps the "growing sense of urgency" is a sense that CYA pieces like the one above need to be fed to as many newspapers as possible.

Posted to Immigration_terror at 09:09 PM | Comments (1)

Welcome impeached federal judges turned international election observers!

CalBlog provides word that the leader of the international election monitors who'll be making sure that this November's elections are fair and transparent is Alcee Hastings. He's currently a representative from Florida. In a prior life he was a federal judge.

Oh, by the way, he's a Bush-bashin' Dem who represents Broward County and:

In 1988, The U.S. House of Representatives voted almost unanimously (413-3) to approve 17 articles of impeachment amounting to "high crimes and misdemeanors" against Hastings, who at the time was a federal judge. While sitting on the federal bench, an FBI bribery sting caught Hastings conspiring to obtain a $150,000 bribe in exchange for granting leniency to a pair of convicted racketeers. The Senate convicted Hastings of perjury and conspiracy to take a bribe. He is one of only a handful of judges ever to be impeached in the history of the U.S.

See their post for more. See also the earlier post "Welcome UN Observers!".

Posted to Politics at 09:01 PM | Comments (0)

Splintered Plank: The White House spins and misses on immigration

Mark Krikorian of CIS offers a must-read article on the draft GOP platform in "Splintered Plank: The White House spins and misses on immigration:"

The administration's effort to choreograph the platform's approach to immigration — an exertion greater than those undertaken in behalf of other platform issues — clearly shows that the White House knows its views are not shared by most Republicans. David Frum tells of being on tour for his most recent book when the president made his amnesty speech in January, and in Frum's radio interviews "it was like being there on the first day of the Somme when the machine guns opened; I mean, every show you did, every question." He and many, many others called the administration to tell them, in Frum's words, that "there's a problem up here in Americaland; the Americans are unhappy about this."

...There's only so long a party can divorce itself from the views of "Americaland" without losing support. The White House understands it has an immigration problem, but is trying to stage-manage its way out. The simpler solution would be to embrace better immigration policies.

Posted to Immigration2004 at 12:04 PM | Comments (0)

That's enough Kato-Aid, thanks though

The Inland Empire's Daily Bulletin has a report on the recent CIS study that found that illegal immigration costs the U.S. $10 billion per year and legalizing those illegal immigrants would cost $29 billion per year. A Cato Institute economist tries to offer a talking point, but, thankfully, the Daily Bulletin lets CIS respond. From "Study: Illegal immigrants cost billions":

Some experts questioned the findings.

"Take this study with a grain of salt," said Stephen Moore, an economist with the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C. "This contradicts what most other studies have shown, which is that immigrants help the economy. Overall, they use less government services than they pay in taxes."

Moore pointed to a 1997 National Research Council report that shows the typical immigrant and his or her children pay an estimated $80,000 more in taxes than they will receive in federal, state and local benefits during their lifetimes.

Camarota said that conclusion is misleading because the report included legal and illegal immigrants and projected the earnings of an immigrant family more than 300 years...

It also includes some lovely quotes from a [presumably illegal alien] day laborer:

"We contribute more to the economy than the Americans who were born in this country... We do all the heavy work because the Americans don't like to do it... If all the immigrants got together and decided not to work for two days, the economy of this country would fall apart."

I'd imagine there are quite a few American citizens who would disagree.

The day laborer also said he himself wasn't a user of public services. However, not only is that false - you can't live here without using a multitude of public services - but any attempt to generalize from that would also be faulty logic.

Posted to Immigration2004 at 12:01 PM | Comments (0)

"[GOP] Draft backs 'guest worker' plan"

The WashTimes has excerpts of the draft GOP platform:

The draft's immigration section, titled "Supporting Humane and Legal Immigration," backs the president's case for giving some illegal aliens temporary legal status under a guest-worker program, a position vehemently opposed by immigration-control forces in the party.

"A growing economy requires a growing number of workers, and President Bush has proposed a new temporary workers program to match willing foreign workers with willing U.S. employers, when no Americans can be found to fill the jobs.

"[The Bush/Fox Amnesty] would allow workers who currently hold jobs to come out of the shadows and to participate legally in America's economy..."

The draft language goes on to say that the plan "would allow men and women who enter the program to apply for citizenship in the same manner as those who apply from outside the United States."

The draft repeats [Bush's Orwellian claim that his program isn't an amnesty], saying flatly that the proposal "does not grant amnesty, which we oppose, because it would have the effect of encouraging illegal immigration and would give an unfair advantage to those who have broken our laws."

In addition to scoring big points against Bush's inability to provide border security, Kerry could also score big points about Bush's attempts to allow the world to bid on American jobs. See this post:

"We do envision that [the Bush/Fox guest worker program] would be open to any type of employee and any type of employer, such as nurses, teachers, high-tech workers, low-skilled workers. This is a concept that can apply broadly" [Bush's assistant said]

Can't you just hear Kerry saying, "President Bush wants to put American jobs on eBay and see who can provide the lowest bid..."

Posted to Immigration2004 at 11:31 AM | Comments (1)

"GOP Platform Draft Turns Left"

NewsMax has an overview of the kinder, gentler, more "compassionate" GOP platform:

Calls for expensive federal social programs, backtracking on big government, pandering on "women's health," backing off on illegal aliens – is this the Democratic or the Republican platform? Except for a stand against abortion, the GOP draft platform released Thursday blurs the distinction between the two major parties.

This year's preliminary platform shows a turn to the left from the conservative 1996 platform on many issues... [list deleted]

Let a thousand points of compassion shine!

UPDATE: Man, this is embarassing. Apparently this article is from 2000, not 2004. Can you blame me for not noticing?

Posted to Politics at 11:23 AM | Comments (0)

Should you tell the GOP what you think of the Bush/Fox Amnesty?

The GOP Convention website has a form letting you suggest items for the platform. That form has a nice popup menu on which you can select the topic that's most important to you: Homeland Security, Crime, Education, etc. etc.

Only one tiny problem: immigration isn't on that popup, despite being one of the key issues of the convention.

Perhaps if thousands of citizens went to that form and pointed out that omission they might get a clue. But, as we've seen time and time again, what the citizens want doesn't seem to mean much to the GOP leadership.

Posted to Immigration2004 at 12:09 AM | Comments (0)

"Mexico may sue U.S. over pepper-ball projectiles"

As previously posted, a small number of paintball-style non-lethal weapons have been used by the Border Patrol to non-lethally protect themselves against rock-throwing illegal aliens and smugglers.

Mexican politicians complained, "high-level" meetings were held. Then, Presidential Nephew George P. Bush went to Mexico and dissed the Border Patrol and their use of the weapons.

Now:

Mexican Foreign Relations Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez said Tuesday his government will consider helping migrants sue U.S. officials for improper use of so-called "pepper ball" non-lethal projectiles...

With "friends" like these, we need a new president who isn't so friendly with them.

Posted to Immigration2004 at 11:55 PM | Comments (0)

"Mexico arrests top migrant smuggler"

From this:

The alleged leader [was arrested in Mexicali where he] was caught with a group of Iraqis and Iranians en route to the United States, according to Mexican officials Montoya is reportedly also wanted by the FBI.

In case you missed that, he was caught with a group of "Iraqis and Iranians en route to the United States." Hey, maybe they were just coming here to work. Or, maybe not. But, should we really be putting human smugglers in charge of determining whether someone should be admitted to the U.S.?

Posted to Immigration2004 at 11:42 PM | Comments (1)

Spot the error, Part #4932

Can you spot the error(s) in the following newspaper report from Torrance, CA's Daily Breeze?

Cedillo pushes immigrant license bill

PROPOSAL: L.A. Democrat hopes to rally support today with a new plan to give driving privileges to illegal residents.

By Michael Gardner, Copley News Service

SACRAMENTO -- Gil Cedillo agonizes over two yellow voting cards taped to his desk, each representing where fellow senators stand on his contentious campaign to allow illegal immigrants to obtain driver licenses.

The Los Angeles Democrat has reached the time to start counting votes, pondering whether last-minute concessions and tactical maneuvers will be enough to accomplish his six-year mission to put driver licenses in the hands of those here illegally...

The answer will come within the next 72 hours as he pursues delicate negotiations with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and as lawmakers steam toward an expected session-closing marathon Friday...

[...his latest proposal might have a non-visible mark in the magnetic strip on the back or similar rather than the visible mark that Schwarzenegger supports...]

A bold, visible mark would be nothing more than a scarlet letter that invites discrimination, much like the Star of David on Jews in Nazi Europe, Cedillo maintained.

Cedillo was still unsure whether to drop the matricula -- a card issued by the Mexican consulate -- as an acceptable form of identification in the application process. ["FBI Official Says Matricula Consular Card Is Security Threat"; see also this backgrounder] Schwarzenegger had expressed concerns over forged matriculas...

OK, that's enough. Did you spot the error(s)? Yes, that's right! Everything in the article was just plain wrong.

Since it's more or less a "local" call and they're a small paper, rather than sending an email I'm just going to give them a call at (310) 540-5511. The rest of you can send an email to their Editor Sue Schmitt: sue.schmitt@dailybreeze.com

Posted to Immigration2004 at 11:18 PM | Comments (1)

Playing cards in Maine

Waterville, Maine mayor Paul R. LePage sent an email to the governor of Maine complaining about the governor's support for what amounts to an illegal alien sanctuary law. From the article "Immigration status law irks LePage":

LePage charged that the move encourages illegal immigration, which he said presents security risks and a social-service burden. Public services, he said, should only be for legal residents.

"It's a basic fundamental question," he told the Morning Sentinel on Tuesday. " 'Are you legally or illegally here in the United States?' If you're not, we should either help you become legal, or you've got to go."

..."I was appalled," he said. "The taxpayer can't afford it at the state or local level. I don't have a problem dealing with immigrants. We're all immigrants. I have no problem providing assistance if they're legal. My point is, if they're not, they should be reported."

...LePage said that the governor's order amounts to Baldacci committing a crime.

"If he turns his head on this, he's breaking the law," LePage said...

The amount of hysterical race-card playing that ensued has to be read to be believed:

[Governor John E. Baldacci replied] "The interests of public health and safety in Maine are not served when we have certain communities that feel they must live in some form of seclusion."

"This is not an act that will provide some sort of sanctuary for those that would do our communities harm," he wrote. "It is condescending to our communities of color to suggest that they are a haven for criminals."

..."If we receive a call for services ... our first duty is to respond to that call," [Public Safety Commissioner Michael Cantara] said. "Our first duty is to maintain public safety. To engage in second-guessing as to who's calling and why, and to have something remotely resembling racial profiling as an excuse to deny public safety services, would be contrary to law."

"When it comes to public safety, no one deserves to be beaten, no spouse or child deserves to be physically or sexually abused," he said.

"No one should have that (right) stolen from them. Regardless of their status, we must take action and we must keep the door open for the people we need to protect."

Here's Baldacci's record on immigration votes from when he was in Congress.

If you're upset about Baldacci's policies and his remarks, please send him a short, polite email: governor@maine.gov

Posted to Immigration2004 at 11:01 PM | Comments (1)

Drinking Kato-Aid on my veranda

From "Daniel Weintraub: Lawmakers sit on study praising offshoring jobs":

A new analysis commissioned by the Legislature suggests that sending American jobs overseas, far from being a blow to employment, can actually help preserve existing jobs and create new ones.

The paper, prepared by the Public Policy Institute of California, warns lawmakers against trying to stem the practice by prohibiting offshoring in state contracts, noting that such a ban would drive up the cost of services and take money away from other programs in the budget...

"Because of the dynamics of the U.S. economy and offshoring's expected effect on productivity, the overall, longer-run effect of offshoring may be to increase living standards at home," [the report says].

I scanned the report, and I didn't see anything in there supporting the long-term benefits of outsourcing. It doesn't address the problem of technological innovation being sent offshore. And, it doesn't address the problems described in Students saying no to computer science:

This fall, there are just under 200 new undergraduate majors in MIT's electrical engineering and computer science department, down from about 240 last year and roughly 385 three years ago.

The Rutgers University computer science department has canceled some course sections and expects total enrollment in classes in the major this year to be thousands less than its peak of 6,500 several years ago. Saul Levy, chair of the undergraduate computer science program, said the ongoing decline stems from the way students perceive career prospects.

"They don't believe in the job market in computers anymore," Levy said.

Because of offshoring, those in India do believe in the job market in computers. In fact, I'm sure Indian colleges are rapidly teaching their students all about computer programming even while Rutgers is reducing the number of classes. If that disparity accelerates, how long before schools start dropping CS programs? At that point in time, the long-term problems with offshoring might become clear to many people. But, fully expect the usual suspects to come out with yet another cheery, rosy report.

It's strange how many of the wonderful new programs proposed by our "leaders" - whether in offshoring or immigration - tend to have a whiff of Saudi Arabia or Latin America about them. I guess I should just top up my glass of Kato-Aid and sit on my veranda.

Posted to Politics at 10:15 PM | Comments (1)

"Bonilla demands review of OTM release policy"

This is about a month old, but I apparently didn't provide a link to it at the time:

Releasing undocumented immigrants to roam freely in the U.S. is "a terrible policy," U.S. Rep. Henry Bonilla told Del Rio [Texas, right on the border in the middle of nothing] and Eagle Pass leaders during a press conference in Del Rio Friday, and announced he is asking the Department of Homeland Security to take a hard look at the issue.

"If these people were being released in your neighborhood I am sure you would be outraged. This is happening in the communities I represent and I am outraged," Bonilla said in a letter Thursday to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge...

Posted to Immigration_terror at 12:44 PM | Comments (0)

"Study Says Illegal Migrants Cost U.S. $10 Billion a Year"

From the LAT:

Illegal immigrants cost the federal government more than $10 billion a year, and a program to legalize the undocumented would nearly triple that figure, a study released today concludes.

The analysis by the Center for Immigration Studies, which opposes efforts to legalize an estimated 8 million to 12 million migrants, comes as Republicans are bracing for a fight over immigration at their convention next week in New York.

Some Republican conservatives are pushing for language in the party platform that strongly opposes amnesty for illegal immigrants. But business-oriented Republicans want to significantly loosen immigration restrictions.

In the middle is President Bush, who has proposed a massive guest worker program granting temporary legal status to the undocumented, of whom a majority are Mexicans...

Well, he's not really in the middle. He's obviously in the WSJ camp.

Anyhoo, the study is entitled "The High Cost of Cheap Labor".

Quoting from the Executive Summary:

If we are serious about avoiding the fiscal costs of illegal immigration, the only real option is to enforce the law and reduce the number of illegal aliens in the country. First, this would entail much greater efforts to police the nation’s land and sea borders. At present, less than 2,000 agents are on duty at any one time on the Mexican and Canadian borders. Second, much greater effort must be made to ensure that those allowed into the country on a temporary basis, such as tourists and guest workers, are not likely to stay in the country permanently. Third, the centerpiece of any enforcement effort would be to enforce the ban on hiring illegal aliens. At present, the law is completely unenforced. Enforcement would require using existing databases to ensure that all new hires are authorized to work in the United States and levying heavy fines on businesses that knowingly employ illegal aliens. Finally, a clear message from policymakers, especially senior members of the administration, that enforcement of the law is valued and vitally important to the nation, would dramatically increase the extremely low morale of those who enforce immigration laws.

UPDATE: In addition to the "liberal" talking points outlined in the LAT article, I heard one in a brief radio report. The gentleman was named Gutierrez and he was with some group. Maybe he was the guy from UCLA. He said that illegal aliens utilize no social services except emergency medical services. Which is a blatant lie. Tell it to the residents of California who signed up for a $10 billion school bond, a very large chunk of which is going to build classrooms to educate citizens of other countries. His other big talking point was the CIS was [cue ominous music] a conservative think-tank masquerading as independent. CIS says they're independent, but, what praytell does their affiliation have to do with whether the facts in the study are accurate or not?

Posted to Immigration2004 at 12:32 PM | Comments (0)

Party above all

The draft GOP platform, according to the NYT:

...it also supports the expansion of legal immigration, a position that is already drawing opposition from some in the party's conservative base...

On immigration, the platform supports Mr. Bush's call for a new temporary worker program that would also be open to some current illegal immigrants...

It's definitely time for new GOP leadership. Perhaps even a new party that would put the country's interests ahead of those of a small elite.

Why would Bush and Rove encourage millions of people who want real immigration reform and real border control to stay home or even vote for someone else? Their calculation is that those people will hold their nose and vote for Bush; perhaps we should call their hand.

Maybe Karl Rove has been too smart by half. This would be a perfect opportunity for the Democrats to come out in support of real immigration enforcement. If they did that, how many millions of votes could they pick up?

See "Hillary: 'Secure our borders'", "Conservative gets immigration plank" and "Aliens program costs Bush".

If the Democrats could start making real immigration reform and real border control a campaign issue, that might force Bush to take the pledge.

UPDATE: Responding to the first comment: Reagan regretted his amnesty and he also built enforcement provisions into it that were gutted by Ted Kennedy. The latter-named great American is now nosing around the Bush/Fox Amnesty. In the unlikely event that the Bush/Fox Amnesty included stronger immigration enforcement, expect Teddy to work his magic on that just like he did before.

And, the Democrats could not only come out in favor of real immigration reform, they could do it successfully and use it to win the election. By pledging to support border control - and I mean a real pledge, not just happyspeak - they could severly undercut Bush's supposed homeland security advantage. They could show that he's endangering the country, and any talk of TANG would fade from the headlines.

By supporting the rule of law they would gain millions of new voters - both centrist and conservative - who are aghast at Bush's policies.

And, their numbers are the opposite of Bush's. The vast majority of the GOP opposes Bush's plans, but only a small but vocal segment of Democrats supports Open Borders.

The Democrats would lose the support of MALDEF, but where are they going to go? This is the opposite of the "Rovian" calculation: he thinks those who support real immigration reform have nowhere to go. On the other side, those in the Democratic party who support massive immigration are small in number and if the Democrats supported real reform they would be forced to choose between the Green party and holding their noses and voting the Kerry.

See "It takes a Democrat to raise an issue": "Senator [Zell] Miller could energize not just the 82 percent of Republicans who support tighter immigration policies, but he could end up helping Republicans make huge inroads with the 76 percent of Democrats and the 76 percent of Independents who also support tighter immigration policies".

UPDATE 2: Furthermore: The Dems could do this without appearing to be "mean-spirited racist xenophobic anti-humans." They'd simply explain that we need real immigration reform. Kerry came out against driver's licenses for illegal aliens. MALDEF had a hissy fit, but it doesn't seem to have hurt his chances one bit.

Posted to Immigration2004 at 12:11 PM | Comments (1)

"Bipartisan betrayal at the border"

Michelle Malkin's latest column touches on George P. Bush's comments about the Border Patrol:

George P. Bush calls it "barbarous" that we arm Border Patrol agents with plastic pellet guns. The true disgrace is that we have rendered our border guards defenseless, handing them toy guns instead of real weapons. The criminals in Mexico who traipse across our border have no problems with "macho" displays of barbarism. Park Ranger Kris Eggle was murdered by an AK-47-wielding Mexican drug smuggler two years ago this month. Kris was 28 when he was gunned down -- the same age as George P. Bush.

You want to talk about "reprehensible"? What is reprehensible is a prominent American citizen disrespecting our federal immigration enforcement officers on foreign soil while scraping for expatriate votes. Border Patrol agents and Park Rangers on the southern border put their lives on the lines every day to protect us from harm. They should be thanked, not trashed...

My discussion of GP's comments is here.

Posted to Immigration2004 at 11:36 AM | Comments (1)

"Poll Finds Low Morale for Border Officers"

From the LAT:

Front-line U.S. border security officers are divided over whether the nation is safer from terrorism than it was before the Sept. 11 attacks, and many say morale in the Department of Homeland Security is low, according to a poll released Monday.

A slim majority — 53% — of Border Patrol agents and immigration inspectors say they believe the country is safer, and 44% believe it is no safer or less safe, the survey of 1,000 officers found. Unions representing about 16,000 agents and inspectors sponsored the poll, which was conducted by Peter D. Hart Research Associates.

"The bureaucratic bungling that plagued and hampered the old Immigration and Naturalization Service has not only survived, it has thrived in the new Department of Homeland Security," said T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, one of the unions that participated in the poll. "Bureaucrats are not listening to the front-line border-protection personnel."

The poll results and a summary are in the PDF files here. See also "Border Patrol union says new rules 'muzzle' critics of the agency".

Posted to Immigration2004 at 08:14 PM | Comments (0)

"Purging illegal aliens from voter rolls not easy"

From the WashTimes:

Maryland election officials have been stymied in their efforts to purge illegal aliens from the state's voting rolls.

They have begun compiling a database of the state's 3 million registered voters, then they "hope to compare our data with the INS [Immigration and Naturalization Service]," said Linda H. Lamone, the state's elections administrator.

Just one or two problems: the INS/DHS only tracks legal immigrants, and they apparently can't give out information on them due to confidentiality. So, are the election officials not entirely "with it," do they know something the INS doesn't know, or are they intentionally spinning their wheels?

The article also contains this charming bit:

"Why would immigrants vote illegally when it puts them at risk?" [Ron Hayduk, professor of political science at the Borough of Manhattan Community College in New York] asked. "There is little evidence that immigrants actually do vote. It seems to me that the burden of proof is actually on those who claim illegal immigrants are voting."

What the article fails to mention is that Hayduk is an advocate of non-citizen voting. See the editorial he co-authored entitled "Let legal immigrants vote in [NYC]".

Compare his comments to that from the earlier article "Md. Elections Officials Vow To Purge Noncitizen Voters From Rolls":

Kim Propeack, an immigrant advocate who works for CASA Maryland and sought to defeat Dwyer's legislation, said elections officials are worrying about a problem "that doesn't exist."

"I know hundreds of Maryland residents who are not yet citizens, and none of them have ever registered to vote," she said. "They know they're not supposed to vote, and they don't vote."

Why, it's almost as if they're reading from the same script. If "immigrant advocates" tell us there isn't a problem, there probably is.

Posted to Immigration2004 at 01:17 PM | Comments (0)

Reading the 9/11 Commission Staff Reports: Chapter 3

Below are some excerpts from Chapter 3: Terrorist Entry and Embedding Tactics, 1993 to 2001. That chapter describes the various techniques used by terrorists to travel not just between foreign countries, but to enter and remain in the U.S. It provides several examples of the different ways that terrorists have done the latter: using several visas, overstaying visas, using student visas, getting married to U.S. citizens, applying for asylum, ad infinitum. The common theme is that they were very familiar with our immigration policies, and they used loopholes and lack of enforcement to their advantage.

Quoting from Page 46:

Although there is evidence that some land and sea border entries without inspection occurred, these conspirators mainly subverted the legal entry system by entering at airports.4 In doing so, they relied on a wide variety of fraudulent documents, on aliases, and on government corruption. Because terrorist operations were not suicide missions in the early to mid-1990s, once in the United States terrorists and their supporters tried to get legal immigration status that would permit them to remain here, primarily by committing serial, or repeated, immigration fraud, by claiming political asylum, and by marrying Americans. Many of these tactics would remain largely unchanged and undetected throughout the 1990s and up to the 9/11 attack. Thus, abuse of the immigration system and a lack of interior immigration enforcement were unwittingly working together to support terrorist activity.

That was pre-9/11. But, have we learned our lesson? See the earlier posts "Potential terrorists released due to lack of jail space, congressman says" and "Why don't you let us do our jobs?" for an answer to that question.

Continuing with the report, in the sidebar 'Exploring the Link between Human Smugglers and Terrorists' (p. 61)

We have already seen that documents are critical to terrorists—they are needed by those wishing to plan and carry out attacks. Documents are similarly critical to human smugglers, who have access to document vendors able to obtain genuine passports and visas from corrupt government officials. [Footnote 151 quoted below] Corrupt officials are also paid off to allow illegal migrants to pass through travel and security checkpoints.152...

Finally, there are uncorroborated law enforcement reports suggesting that associates of al Qaeda used smugglers in Latin America to travel through the region in 2002 before traveling onward to the United States.155 To date, only one human smuggler with suspected links to terrorists has been convicted in the United States. [Footnote 156 quoted below]

Footnote 151: One smuggler, Salim Boughader-Mucharrafille, smuggled Lebanese nationals sympathetic to Hamas and Hizbollah into the United States and relied on corrupt Mexican officials in Beirut, Mexico City and Tijuana to facilitate their travel. Specifically, Boughader obtained Mexican tourist visas from an official at the Mexican embassy in Beirut to facilitate the travel of humans to Mexico...

Footnote 156: Boughader was charged with human smuggling and sentenced to 11 months in prison. After serving his sentence he was deported to Mexico where he was arrested along with several other members of his smuggling ring. They face criminal charges and if convicted could serve lengthy jail times.

The 'Ajaj and Yousef: A Case Study in Fraud' sidebar (p. 47) contains too much to quote, but it's a must read:

Upon [WTC1 perpetrator] Ajaj’s arrival at Kennedy [International Airport], the immigration inspector noted that he was traveling on a photo-substituted Swedish passport. Ajaj was sent to secondary immigration inspection, where he claimed he was a member of the Swedish press.12 His luggage was searched and officers found a partially altered Saudi passport and a passport from Jordan, the documents supporting their alias identities, a plane ticket and a British passport in the name of Mohammed Azan, bomb-making manuals, videos and other material on how to assemble weapons and explosives, letters referencing his attendance at terrorist training camps; anti-American and anti-Israeli material, instructions on document forgery, and two rubber stamp devices to alter the seal on passports issued from Saudi Arabia.13 The immigration inspector called an agent on the FBI Terrorist Task Force to tell him about Ajaj, but the agent declined to get involved, instead requesting copies of the file. The inspector also called the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which was “not interested...”14

Ajaj was detained then jailed for six months for using an altered passport. Then... well, read the rest for yourself.

There's a summary of this chapter in "Al-Qaeda 'travel agency' revealed".

I excerpted part of Chapter 4 here, and I'll return with a longer post later.

Other excerpts from the report are in the extended entry. Click MORE directly below to read them.

p. 47
Once terrorists had entered the United States, their next challenge was to find a way to remain here. Their primary method was immigration fraud. [The next names are perpetrators of the 1993 WTC attack --LW] For example, Yousef and Ajaj concocted bogus political asylum stories when they arrived in the United States. Mahmoud Abouhalima, involved in both the World Trade Center and landmarks plots, received temporary residence under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers (SAW) program, after falsely claiming that he picked beans in Florida. [Footnote 7: His application was later denied. Abohalima was indicted as an accessory after the fact for assisting the WTC1 attackers.] Mohammed Salameh, who rented the truck used in the bombing, overstayed his tourist visa. He then applied for permanent residency under the agricultural workers program, but was rejected.8 Eyad Mahmoud Ismail, who drove the van containing the bomb, took English-language classes at Wichita State University in Kansas on a student visa; after he dropped out, he remained in the United States out of status.9

p. 52
Atlantic Avenue Subway Plot, July 1997. Gazi Ibrahim Abu Mezer committed serial immigration fraud during his planning to destroy the Atlantic Avenue subway in Brooklyn with explosives in 1997.49 Mezer was arrested on his third illegal entry into the United States along the northwest border with Canada. He asked to be deported to Canada, but Canada refused to accept him. He then filed a political asylum claim in the United States and was released on bond. Mezer withdrew the application, claiming he had returned to Canada when in fact he was in Brooklyn. His co-conspirator, Lafi Taisir Mufleh Khalil, was originally issued a C-1 transit visa; but upon his arrival at JFK Airport in New York, the immigration inspector incorrectly treated him as a tourist, which allowed Khalil to stay in the United States for six months. Khalil overstayed his visa and was arrested along with Mezer on July 31, 1997, the morning of the planned attack50.

p. 54
Thus, despite evidence that difficulties with travel documents restricted terrorist movement, no agency of the U.S. government was analyzing terrorist travel patterns or immigration abuses before 9/11.62 Because the government simply did not know what it knew, it missed opportunities to disrupt terrorist mobility and, therefore, terrorist operations. Conversely, by 2000, when al Qaeda began inserting participants in the September 11 plot into the United States, their operational knowledge of our immigration, visitor, and border systems was considerable.

p. 58-59
Document vendors provided al Qaeda with a wide range of bogus and genuine documents and were valued for their forgery skills. Through these vendors, al Qaeda operatives had access to an “impressive range of fraudulent travel, identification and other documents,” including passports from countries in almost every region of the world, travel cachets, blank visas, foils, stamps, seals, laminates, and other material.122 Some of these forgers are dedicated to al Qaeda’s cause and tend to be located along main travel routes; others are interested only in profit.123

Corrupt government officials have facilitated terrorist travel by selling genuine travel documents. Ramzi Yousef, convicted of attempting to blow up a tower of the World Trade Center in 1993, claimed he bought an Iraqi passport from a Pakistani official for $100.124 Two of the 9/11 hijackers, Waleed and Wail al Shehri, reportedly received new Saudi passports from a relative in the passport office.125 Al Qaeda also relied on bribery to get passports and the special plastic used inside them to protect biographical information.126 Moreover, corrupt officials have been known to take bribes at the border from a terrorist lacking proper documentation.127

There is also evidence that terrorists used human smugglers to sneak across borders.129 Smugglers were typically paid to make all logistical arrangements, including mode of travel and lodging, and to pay off corrupt officials if necessary.130 A typical smuggling scheme aided jihadist youth wanting to travel through Iran to Afghanistan to train in al Qaeda’s camps.

Posted to Immigration_terror at 11:37 PM | Comments (1)

Redeeming blogdom

For the most part the blogger coverage of the DNC sucked.

Hopefully those bloggers that are covering the RNC can do better.

I posted threads at RedState (redstate.org/story/2004/8/23/184419/535) and the CommandPost suggesting that people post the questions the RNC should ask, and what they should cover. Please leave your questions or suggested coverage at either or both locations.

Posted to Bloggage at 10:04 PM | Comments (0)

At The Lonewacko Blog, we keep you coming back

Brazil's Ana Paula Connelly (R) and team mate Sandra Pires hug after losing their match to team Brazil Adriana Behar and shelda Bede after the women's quarter-final beach volleyball event at the Athens 2004 Olympic Games

Previous coverage here and here.

(Via this)

Posted to WackyHumor at 09:42 PM | Comments (0)

"GOP to finesse immigration issue"

From the WashTimes:

The Republican Party's platform will oppose amnesty for illegal aliens, predicts Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, the platform committee chairman.

"I believe it likely there will be a strong statement against amnesty," the Tennessee Republican said in an interview with The Washington Times...

Sounds good! Coincidentally enough, I biked up 2000' a couple days ago, and I'm suddenly feeling like I did just before I started the downhill run:

The problem for Mr. Frist, he acknowledged, is that, in order to avoid a possible convention floor fight, the platform's immigration plank has to be written in such a way as to reconcile, or at least appear to reconcile, the irreconcilable. That is, it has to oppose amnesty, but not oppose the president's plan, which includes a temporary amnesty that also, as some critics claim, can lead to citizenship for those granted amnesty.

"The document," Mr. Frist acknowledged, "has to reflect the president's principles and at same time the party's principles and policies."

So, you want one company to be fined for immigration violations in the first five months of the year, but, at the same time, you're opposed to illegal immigration and amnesty? I can't wait to see that wording.

Posted to Immigration2004 at 04:57 PM | Comments (0)

"Immigration Laws Might Have Stopped Sept. 11 Plot"

From the LAT:

All of the Sept. 11 hijackers broke U.S. immigration laws and some of those violations could have led to their detection and arrest, according to a new staff report from the bipartisan commission that investigated the attacks.

The detectable violations included fraudulent passports presented by as many as seven of the 19 hijackers, the report said. Also, U.S. intelligence had linked at least three of the hijackers to terrorist groups, but officials never placed their names on the watch lists used by border inspectors.

Moreover, the report said, ringleader Mohamed Atta was allowed back into the United States in January 2001, even though he had previously overstayed a tourist visa and was not eligible for admission...

See also the AP's "9/11 staff report focuses on immigration".

The report is available here. A brief look at 'Chapter 4: Immigration and Border Security Evolve, 1993 to 2001' reveals the following discussion of "immigrant advocacy" groups and sanctuary laws:

Friction also existed in these relationships. It mainly arose from the INS's inability to respond to all requests for assistance, ambiguity regarding the role of state and local law officers in enforcing immigration regulations, and the discomfort many various immigrant advocacy groups had with local enforcement of immigration law. Despite these difficulties, many police officers continued officially and sometimes unofficially to work with the INS by identifying criminal aliens and turning them over to the INS. Many county officials sought to prevent criminal aliens from returning to the streets, and frequently pressured their congressional representatives to force local INS offices to deport them.

...In 1996, a new law enabled the INS to enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies through which the INS would provide training and the local agencies would exercise immigration enforcement authority. [281] Terrorist watchlists would not be made available to them. Such agreements were voluntary, and only Salt Lake City unsuccessfully attempted to take advantage of the law. Moreover, in prior years mayors of cities with large immigrant populations sometimes imposed limits on city employee cooperation with federal immigration agents. [282]

Footnote 282: This "sanctuary" policy was first published by Mayor Edward Koch on August 7, 1989, and directed city "line workers" who had contact with the public to not transmit information respecting any alien to federal immigration authorities. However, it exempted the police and the Department of Corrections and directed them to continue to work with federal authorities "in investigating and apprehending aliens suspected of criminal activity." Koch, executive order, Aug. 7, 1989.

See this for more information on L.A.'s Special Order 40. The previous post "License Crackdown Stirs Sharp Debate at Hearing" has more information about the 9/11 hijacker's use of driver's licenses.

Posted to Immigration_terror at 11:07 AM | Comments (1)

"Nanny Nuisance"

I can't figure out whether this NY Post blurb is a satire or is based on real comments:

Housewives in Westchester and other wealthy suburbs are in a tizzy because their housekeepers and nannies are about to lose their driver's licenses. Letters recently went out from the Department of Motor Vehicles in a crackdown on illegal aliens who are using bogus Social Security numbers. "It's a nightmare," complained one disgruntled housefrau. "What good is it having a servant if she can't do the shopping, or pick up the kids at school?" Thousands of immigrants from Mexico and Central America may lose their jobs once the DMV strips them of their license to drive. "I can't allow the family car to be driven by an unlicensed driver," one homemaker explained. "I'll just have to hire someone else..."

See the earlier post "License Crackdown Stirs Sharp Debate at Hearing", which featured the following excerpt from the NYT:

[The AILA rep tugged at our heart strings with tales about a] working mother in Westchester County, [who] is frantic because her devoted Uruguayan babysitter, who has lived in New York since she was 12, will lose her lic