- President James Madison
Funny Video about USCIS
Was forwarded this video on Friday. It certainly fits in to the funny, but sad because it is true category.Posted on Monday, March 17 | 0 comments | Permalink
Problems with Employer Verification System
The Immigration Policy Center has a new report (view the report), outlining some of the problems with using the SSA Databse for the proposed e-verification system such as the one found in the SAVE Act.
According to the report:
-A mandatory employment verification system would mean that the country’s 7.4 million employers would have to sign up for the program. Currently, only 55,000 employers are using the E-Verify employment verification system—less than one percent of all employers.
-In 2007, the president of the National Council of Social Security Management Associations, Inc. testified that a mandatory EEVS could “cripple SSA’s service capabilities” and negate any progress in addressing the backlog of applications for disability benefits.
-There are 60 million phone calls directed to SSA Field Offices each year—and over half of callers received a busy signal.
-A harbinger of how SSA might function in the future was revealed in problems with the accuracy of SSA’s death information in which healthy Americans have been declared “dead.” As a result, they have lost their health insurance, their tax returns have been rejected, and their credit card accounts have been closed. In 2006, the SSA Inspector General discovered that SSA officials had to “resurrect” 23,366 people between January 2004 and September 2005; meaning that the agency had inadvertently “killed” more than 1,100 people a month—or 35 per day.
If the no-match were implimented, they could also potentially lose their jobs.
Posted on Friday, March 14 | 0 comments | Permalink
Anti-immigration Rep wins “Worst Person in the World”
Keith Oberman was doing his daily countdown of the "Worst Person in the World." The Winner? Congressman Paul Broun who claimes that 40% of illegal immigrants coming acrosss our southern border are from the Middleast and Southeast Asia. Real percentage? .001%. Won't be the last time members of Congress spread misinformation on this issue, but at least he's been called on it.
Posted on Thursday, March 13 | 0 comments | Permalink
Reform Could Happen This Year?
Nothing is anticipated on the scale of the comprehensive immigration bill that collapsed in the Senate last year. But seasonal employers, such as the restaurant and tourism industries, are pressing hard for more H-2B visas for lower-skilled workers this summer, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has promised Hispanic lawmakers an opportunity to add provisions addressing concerns in their community.
A third potential piece is a bipartisan bill introduced by Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) — with the support of fellow “Blue Dog” Democratic moderates — that takes a more conservative approach: beefing up border security and requiring employers to use a government database to verify that their workers are in the U.S. legally.
Its not clear what hte provision for hispanic lawmakers would be, but its clear that the Shuler Bill is an enforcement-only type non-solution that could relaly harm US Workers due to errors in the employment verification system. The article then continues, saying:
House Republican leaders met Tuesday night to discuss a potential discharge petition aimed at forcing Pelosi to allow a floor vote on the Shuler measure, first introduced last November. A final leadership go-ahead could come as early as Wednesday, with the goal of beginning to collect signatures next week and thereby elevating the issue prior to the spring recess beginning March 14.
The strategy is designed to force Pelosi’s hand on immigration, assuming whatever option the speaker chooses will pose problems in the fall. “That’s going to be a problem for us, because it is such a volatile issue,” said House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.). “I don’t think the Republicans are interested in good policy. They’re interested in good politics right now, and they think the discharge is good politics.”
Of course the irony is that the Shuler Bill is introduced by a Democrat and in and of itself a political answer, not an immigration fix.
Posted on Wednesday, March 05 | 0 comments | Permalink
Immigration and low crime rate
Conservative Columnist Jeff Jacoby Gets it. In his column today, Jacoby discussed immigration and crime. While it might be good for TV ratings to scare people with news of immigrant gangs, research shows that immigrants do not commit crimes at the same rate as the native born and during the current upswing in unauthorized immigration, crime has decreased in the US... all that during global warming (the crime rate goes up when its warm out). According to Jacoby:
The numbers are striking: While immigrants (legal and illegal) account for 35 percent of California adults, they represent just 17 percent of the state's prisoners. Men born in the United States are incarcerated in California prisons at more than two times the rate of foreign-born men. Within the age group most often involved in crime (ages 18 to 40), US natives - astonishingly - are 10 times more likely to be in prison or jail than immigrants (4.2 percent of the former are in correctional institutions, and just 0.42 percent of the latter). Even when the focus is narrowed to inmates who were born in Mexico and are not citizens - the demographic group most likely to include illegal immigrants - the rate of incarceration is only one-eighth that of men born in the United States. (Read More)
Posted on Wednesday, March 05 | 0 comments | Permalink
Some GOP candidates still tack right on immigration?
The Hill reports that some candidates are still going to the right on immigration, but its hardly those in competitive races. It seems surprising that after the 2006 elections, when everyone predicted taht immigration would stay the hot button issue, that a few long shots are the only ones still emphasizing it (when they aren't doing a fundraising letter).
But, after the Presidential primaries, special elections in Massachusetts, and state & local elections in Virginia & New York showed it having a minimal affect on races, I guess people are finally getting the picture. Or as The Hill puts it:
The issue has not proven to be a winner. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R), both opponents of the immigration reform bill sponsored by McCain, did not advance in the presidential primaries. In the 2006 election, anti-amnesty messages also failed to propel Arizona Republicans Randy Graf and former Rep. J.D. Hayworth to victory in their House races.
The two candidates discussed in the article are:
Lou Barletta is one of them. The Hazleton, Pa., mayor hopes to unseat 12-term Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D) by highlighting a get-tough immigration stand. Barletta signed an ordinance that made English his city’s official language and allowed fines against landlords who rent out to undocumented residents. He now wants to come to Washington to fight efforts that would grant amnesty to immigrants who are in the country illegally. He laments that his party’s national leaders, McCain and President Bush, last year backed such a bill.
and Jim Ogonowski, who:
Despite the long GOP odds of that race, Ogonowski and others will at least keep the immigration debate alive by running for Congress, according to Tancredo. In an interview with The Hill, Tancredo decried the fact that McCain, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) have each supported a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants.
I'm not making this up. These are the only two candidates discussed.
Posted on Tuesday, March 04 | 0 comments | Permalink
Splitting This Immigrant’s Vote
Not sure about the advice-givers belief that spliting Congress & President would make immigration reform more likely to pass (although i'm also not sure it would make it less likely). Given McCain as the Republican nominee though, that may be the case. Certainly has a point about government waste potentially going down with McCain, but for this blogs purposes that's neither here nor there. Intteresting comment in there by the way, from a supposed Democrat defending Republicans in Congress and calling Dems pro-amnesty... (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/stumped/2008/03/splitting_this_immigrants_vote.html)
Dear Stumped,
I'm an immigrant, soon to become a U.S. citizen. I'm pretty moderate and don't feel blind allegiance to either party, though on issues I do lean a little bit more toward Republicans. I believe in faith, family and small government, and I'm totally against abortion. On the other hand, I believe in social justice (and accountability) and fiscal responsibility, as well as environmental protection.
I am considering voting for the Democratic candidate in November. Why? Because that would be my way of expressing my discontent with the GOP and its anti-immigrant rhetoric. Nothing against John McCain (I actually like him), and although I do not favor an amnesty, I do favor just immigration reform. In the last two years Republicans lost my sympathy with their "self-righteous" attitudes. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's policies don't appeal to me, but I feel cornered. What should I do?
Luis Medina Garza
---
Dear Luis,
It is one of the bedrock principles of this column, steadfastly upheld for, let's see, going on four months now, that I do not tell people who to vote for. I can tell you why to vote, when to vote, where to vote, how to vote and even who's on the ballot, but I can't make the choice for you. That would be like Ann Landers telling someone to leave her husband -- which, as you know, she never did. She always advised people to seek counseling.
That said, here's how I see your dilemma: You like John McCain, you are pro-life, you want smaller government, and the Arizona senator shares your desire to see government protect the environment. It would be perverse for you to cast a protest vote against McCain because of his party's anti-immigrant venom, given that McCain valiantly bucked the trend -- indeed, he put his candidacy on the line pushing for comprehensive immigration reform.
And then there's this: A Democratic Congress, coupled with a Republican president, probably offers the best hope for sensible immigration reform.
Also, as a fiscal conservative, you should be a fan of divided government. As our libertarian friends at Cato are fond of pointing out, the federal government is better at watching its pennies (um, your pennies) when different parties control the White House and Congress. Maybe there is a rational reason voters have opted for divided government -- a hallmark of our republic not possible in parliamentary systems -- more often than not in the last half-century.
So welcome to the United States. Maybe you can join the fun by engaging in that traditional American practice known as ticket-splitting.
Posted on Tuesday, March 04 | 0 comments | Permalink
Latino voters in Texas are anti-wall
A new CNN Poll finds that on immigration:
Texas' Latino voters do not support a border fence.
Despite the conventional wisdom among many commentators, the data couldn't be clearer. Our poll finds that 73 percent of Texas Latinos think a wall along the Texas-Mexico border is an ineffective policy idea that will not decrease illegal immigration into the United States.
On this issue, the survey finds agreement across party lines. Among Republicans, 70 percent are opposed to the border fence, as are 72 percent of independents and 74 percent of Democrats.
Constructing 70 miles of barrier along the Rio Grande Valley, a region that is more than 80 percent Mexican-American, has become a hotly contested issue. Homeowners face eminent domain lawsuits by the Department of Homeland Security, environmentalists argue that it is detrimental to the region, and the business community has been vocal about the impact on the economy.
In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, Eddie Aldrete, senior vice president of IBC Bank, characterized the border wall idea as "a knee-jerk reaction by Congress. No one really studied the economic impacts, the environmental impacts." IBC Bank, which is the state's largest holding company and is headquartered in the border city of Laredo, is a Latino-owned business.
This month, Republican Gov. Rick Perry told the Greater Dallas Hispanic Chamber of Commerce that a wall along the border would not solve the illegal immigration problem. Indeed, a prominent Latino Republican adviser, Lionel Sosa, has repeatedly stated that if the party does not change its rhetoric on immigration, it will lose the Latino vote.
Rather than construct a wall, 63 percent of Latinos in Texas support a pathway to citizenship as a means of addressing illegal immigration.
On March 4th and November 4th, all eyes will be on Latino voters. Because they do not vote consistently with either party, appealing to them could be the life and death of many a candidate.
Posted on Thursday, February 28 | 0 comments | Permalink
