Feed on Posts or Comments 22 January 2018

Category ArchiveIllegal Immigration



Conservatives &Illegal Immigration Richard Falknor on 23 Sep 2011

Will Immigration Play Its Proper Role in the GOP Finals?

UPDATE FROM KRIKORIAN ! More on Perry’s Jobs Record and Immigration

Will Immigration Play Its Proper Role in the GOP Finals?

“Illegal aliens who deliberately flout the immigration law are knowingly and foreseeably subjecting their children to the consequences of their illegal action. It is of course regrettable that children may be harmed by their parents’ illegal action (though one needs to ask: compared to what?), but if having a child should cancel a parent’s illegal status, the result would be the final erasure of our immigration laws and a slap in the face to immigrants who came to the U.S. legally.” Heather MacDonald

Few controversies illustrate the gulf between the conservative base and the GOP Establishment as do those surrounding immigration.

(Readers who wish to look more into the fiscal or social costs of illegal (or of unrestricted legal) immigration can learn much from Mark Krikorian here, Heather MacDonald here, or Robert Rector here. And here (scroll down) is Mark Kirkorian’s post last year on “Why are the state think tanks generally so bad on immigration, when they address it at all?”)

Jobs and Immigration in Texas

Yesterday Steve Camarota pointed to (NRO) “Perry’s Ambiguous Employment Record : Who benefited from job growth in Texas?” —

“Texas governor Rick Perry has pointed to job growth in Texas during the current economic downturn as one of his main accomplishments. But in a new report for immigrants (legal and illegal) have been the primary beneficiaries of this the Center for Immigration Studies, based on data collected monthly by the Census Bureau, we found that newly arrived growth between 2007 and 2011, not native-born workers.

We found that of jobs created in Texas since 2007, 81 percent (225,000) were taken by newly arrived foreign workers (legal and illegal). The Census Bureau asks immigrants to say when they came to the United States, so it is easy to look at new arrivals who took jobs. Of newly arrived immigrants who took a job in Texas, the data show that 93 percent were not U.S. citizens. We estimate that about half of newly arrived immigrants who took jobs in Texas since 2007 were illegal immigrants. This means that about 40 percent of all the job growth in Texas between 2007 and 2011 went to newly arrived illegal immigrants and 40 percent went to newly arrived legal immigrants.

What is so surprising about these numbers is that so much of the job growth in the state went to immigrants even though the native-born accounted for 69 percent of the growth in Texas’s working-age population (16 to 65). Put another way, even though natives made up most of the growth in potential workers, most of the job growth went to immigrants. As a result, the employment rate for natives — the share of working-age natives holding a job in the state — declined in a manner very similar to that seen in the rest of the country. This is an indication that the situation for native-born workers in Texas is very similar to that of the nation as a whole, despite the state’s job growth.” (Emphasis Forum’s.)

The Candidates and Immigration Concerns

NumbersUSA gives only three presidential candidates passing grades (in our view, a grade above “D-“) on immigration, and major GOP contender governor Rick Perry gets a “D-”.

More Than Illegals?

Ann Corcoran, an expert on the flawed Refugee program,  also gave her perspective yesterday in the Potomac Tea Party Report on immigration concerns widely shared by many throughout the conservative base —

“I feel like a broken record, but urge everyone to stop saying ‘legal immigration is o.k., it’s illegal I have a problem with’—our legal immigration system is filled with fraud and abuse and must be reformed and the numbers admitted to the US reduced!

And, once again, establishment Republicans, and of course Democrats, continue to fail to see the huge impact the immigration issue will have on this election.”

Bad Dreamsin-state tuition rates for illegals.

The good Mr. Perry’s support of the Texas version of the so-called dream act is certainly a complication for Maryland conservative leaders who are doing their utmost to bring the Maryland version of the dream act to referendum.

Annie Linskey reported in her “Rick Perry to raise $$ in Maryland” (Baltimore Sun) —

“Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, is set to make a stop in Baltimore later this month to raise money for his presidential bid, an event that would be his first in Maryland since announcing his national intentions last month. Organizing the fundraiser is Republican money man Dick Hug, a veteran from Gov. Robert Ehrlich’s tenure. He also raised money for President George W. Bush. Hug said that he flew down to Texas about three weeks ago with other fundraisers and spent time with the Perry team. ‘When you see him and meet with him you’ll be very impressed,’ Hug said. ‘He’s going to be our next president.’ The Perry fundraiser is scheduled for 8:15 a.m. Tuesday Sept. 27 at The Center Club in downtown Baltimore. Tickets are $2,500 and include a photo-op with the presidential hopeful, according to a list compiled by Annapolis lobbyist Bruce Bereano.” (Emphasis Forum’s.)

One wonders whether those $2,500 Maryland contributors to Texas governor Rick Perry next Tuesday will also open their purses for Mdpetitions.com which seeks donations to “continue the fight to stop Maryland in-state tuition benefits for illegal aliens, as it moves into the courts.”

Illegal Immigration Richard Falknor on 29 Aug 2011

Tuition Break for Illegals? JW To File Appeal For Taxpayers

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton today weighed in on – –

the August 16, 2011, decision by the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, dismissing Judicial Watch’s taxpayer lawsuit against Montgomery College for providing discounted tuition to illegal aliens.”

Fitton chief of this public-interest group “that investigates and prosecutes government corruption” explained – –

“This decision seems to ignore nearly 150 years of binding precedent in the State of Maryland allowing citizens to challenge the illegal expenditure of taxpayer funds.

Maryland taxpayers should not have to bear the burden of paying for the cost of educating illegal aliens. Especially in this time of extreme financial hardship, Montgomery College’s illegal alien tuition policy, besides being contrary to law, is a waste of precious taxpayer resources. Importantly, the court decision did not find that the college’s policy was legal.

Judicial Watch will most certainly appeal the Circuit Court’s ruling. Our taxpayer clients deserve to have their day in court to uphold the rule of law in Maryland.”

Readers are encouraged to consider the entire text of the Judicial Watch release.

Illegal Immigration Richard Falknor on 19 Aug 2011

Amnesty Now! Lawless Presidency? GOP Leadership Mute?

“In an announcement I would have expected them to try to bury on a Friday afternoon instead of Thursday, the administration said it would review the cases of 300,000 illegal aliens already in removal proceedings — and not just let some of them go, but give them work authorization as well.

“This is further proof, as if any is needed, that the administration is using the pretext of ‘prosecutorial discretion’ as a tool of policy. In other words, any executive needs to exercise some discretion, because the law is a blunt instrument and requires those carrying it out to have some wiggle room to deal with the handful of highly unusual cases that might warrant it. But this administration is using this necessary, but limited tool as an instrument of policymaking, which can only be described as a lawless act.” Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of CIS

NumbersUSA’s Chris Chmielenski reveals today in his “Obama’s Administrative Amnesty: From Rumor to Reality’ —

“Last year, we were the first to break the news that the Obama Administration was considering options that would grant an administrative amnesty to illegal aliens living in the United States. Yesterday, that possibility became a reality when White House Director of Intergovernmental Affairs Cecilia Munoz announced a change to the Department of Homeland Security’s deportation policy. Going forward, DHS will review deportation cases on a case-by-case basis and focus future deportations only on criminal illegal aliens, allowing non-criminal illegal aliens to stay in the country. Making matters worse, the Wall Street Journal has confirmed that illegal aliens who receive deferred action or parole from deportation can apply for work permits allowing them to compete with 22 million Americans looking for full-time work. That’s 300,000 illegal aliens who could potentially receive work permits!”

Except for a statement today from House Judiciary Committee chairman Lamar Smith, at press time we see nothing on the websites of speaker John Boehner or majority leader Eric Cantor about this travesty. Smith, however, weighed in —

“The Administration has again made clear its plan to grant backdoor amnesty to illegal immigrants.  They have created a working group that appears to have the specific purpose of overruling, on a ‘case-by-case’ basis, an immigration court’s final order of removal, or preventing that court from even issuing such an order.”

“The Obama administration should enforce immigration laws, not look for ways to ignore them. The Obama administration should not pick and choose which laws to enforce. Administration officials should remember the oath of office they took to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land.”

The House Judiciary panel has serious remedies to explore when the president of the United States fails to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” on such a grand scale.

In the meantime, the House of Representatives could vote to deny funds to the Executive Branch starting next fiscal year on October 1, 2011 for granting work permits to  illegal liens.

But then again, maybe not.

Maybe that would be the kind of action majority leader Cantor deplores

“House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) urged rank-and-file Republicans in a Wednesday memo to avoid brinksmanship in battles over Washington spending.  The message from the majority leader is an effort to prevent the kinds of fights over government spending that could lead to government shutdowns this fall if Congress cannot agree on legislation to fund the government.”

After all, it is only about jobs. Hardly worth risking a government shutdown over that.

Illegal Immigration Richard Falknor on 03 Aug 2011

Petition Chief Neil Parrott To Push Back Against Casa Suit

Casa de Maryland wants to void the successful petition drive putting SB167 (providing in-state tuition for illegal aliens) on the November 2012 ballot.

But the Casa lawsuit has hardly left the winning petitioners supine. (Link gives slightly earlier tally but one broken down by county.)

Point man on the SB 167 petition, delegate Neil Parrott, told Blue Ridge Forum today that “we are looking to intervene and have started consulting with attorneys.”

Yesterday Megan Poinski in her Casa sues to stop referendum on immigrant tuition (Maryland Reporter) explained — 

“Questioning the validity of the petitions and the legality of a referendum to overturn the Maryland granting in-state tuition to illegal immigrants, Casa de Maryland and eight Marylanders have sued the State Board of Elections, asking the court to cancel the planned referendum on the law and allow its provisions to take effect now. The lawsuit was filed Monday in Annapolis. Casa and the eight named plaintiffs are being represented by attorneys from two Washington firms, Sandler, Reiff, Young & Lamb and Arnold & Porter, who took the case on for free. Joseph Sandler, lead attorney on the case, said that the State Board of Elections should not have certified many of the 108,923 petition signatures it received – nearly twice the 55,736 required to put the issue on the November 2012 ballot. ‘Although they turned in a lot of signatures, our review showed that they didn’t turn in enough that were legally valid,’ Sandler said. He also said that the bill should legally be classified as an appropriations bill, meaning that state law prohibits it from going to the voters for a referendum.”

Readers will note the useful link to the text of the Casa complaint in the foregoing Poinski quote.

On Monday Potomac Tea Party Report’s Ann Corcoran gave us some needed background on the Hard Left and their opposition to the successful Maryland petition to referendum.

The update to her post — “Joey ‘the hitman’ Sandler wants to silence Maryland middle class voters” — features a Sandler quote that says it all —

“’Maryland law makes this [petitioning to referendum] deliberately difficult,’ Sandler added. ‘We live in a representative democracy. We don’t live by mob rule; not every law is supposed to go to the voters.’”

The stakes are very high for those of Mr. Sandler’s persuasion. Maryland conservatives and pro-petition voters should not expect a cakewalk.

But Washington County legislator Parrott emphasized

“Right now we are accepting donations at the mdpetitions.com site that will be used to defend the signatures.”

Illegal Immigration Richard Falknor on 01 Jul 2011

Maryland Petition: The Clergy, the Laity, the Victory

Last night’s Washington Post report by Aaron C. Davis “Counting begins to force referendum on immigrant tuition law” acknowledged that —

“Opponents of a new Maryland law to give undocumented immigrants in-state college tuition breaks said they turned in more than twice as many signatures as needed on Thursday night to suspend the law and to force it to a statewide referendum.”

Davis, however, also gave prominence to quotes suggesting that leaders of the faithful thought SB 167 (giving in-state tuition to illegal aliens) was a dandy idea —

“Hours earlier, proponents staged their own event in Baltimore, saying those trying to defeat the law had ‘spread misinformation and hate’ about the measure.

‘The efforts to revoke the Maryland DREAM Act are not only mean-spirited, they are also interlaced with an unspoken and yet deeply rooted racism that seeks to have Maryland move backwards rather than forwards,’ said Rev. Paul Johnson, a clergy leader from Maryland Industrial Areas Foundation, a coalition of faith-based groups that supports the in-state tuition breaks for undocumented immigrants.

The Maryland Catholic Conference also said it launched a taskforce to begin educating the state’s Catholic congregations about why the tuition law ‘deserves their support.’

‘Legitimate concerns over illegal immigration cannot be solved by denying the needs of children,'[sic] the group said in a statement.” (Underscoring Forum’s.)

Apparently the Post could find no lay voices from the faithful for quotes.

Ever vigilant Potomac Tea Party Report, however, would have none of it!

Scroll down in “Tea Party Power: Maryland petition drive succeeds beyond wildest expectations” to the subhead “Beware the Religious Left!”

And How About The Industrial Areas Foundation in Maryland?

Last July 22, we wrote (scroll down to middle of foregoing link) that

In 2004, as Deputy Secretary of State, Mary Kane reportedly promised to advance Action in Montgomery’s (AIM) priority of ‘a full-service immigration and naturalization office in Montgomery County’

‘After the adoption of the agenda, the County Executive Doug Duncan, Congressman Van Hollen, and Deputy Secretary of State for Maryland Mary Kane were asked to stand and individually pledge to support AIM’s [Action in Montgomery] agenda by taking specific action and here is what they pledged:

  • Deputy Secretary of State for Maryland Mary Kane – will arrange for a meeting with Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele and other officials from the Governor Ehrlich’s administration to discuss how to support the immigration action.” (Underscoring Forum’s.)

And who is AIM?

“The current AIM website [updated] also declares – –

‘AIM is affiliated with the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF), the oldest and largest national, congregation-based, community organizing network in the United States. Founded more than 50 years ago by Saul Alinsky, the IAF works with more than 55 community organizations like AIM across the United States, and in Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom.’

 

The “Huge Divide” between The Faithful and Their Clergy.

 

Research chief Steve Camarota of the respected Center for Immigration Studies authored a very useful post entitled “Religious Leaders vs. Members: An Examination of Contrasting Views on Immigration.”

Camarota’s December 2009 post revealed – –

“Among the findings:

Most members of religious denominations do not feel that illegal immigration is caused by limits on legal immigration, as many religious leaders do; instead, members feel it’s due to a lack of enforcement.

  • Catholics: Just 11 percent said illegal immigration was caused by not letting in enough legal immigrants; 78 percent said it was caused by inadequate enforcement efforts.
  • Mainline Protestants: 18 percent said not enough legal immigration; 78 percent said inadequate
    enforcement.
  • Born-Again Protestants: 9 percent said not enough legal immigration; 85 percent said inadequate enforcement.
  • Jews: 21 percent said not enough legal immigration; 60 percent said inadequate enforcement.

Unlike religious leaders who argue that more unskilled immigrant workers are needed, most members think there are plenty of Americans to do such work.

  • Catholics: 12 percent said legal immigration should be increased to fill such jobs; 69 percent said there are plenty of Americans available to do such jobs, employers just need to pay more.
  • Mainline Protestants: 10 percent said increase immigration; 73 percent said plenty of Americans available.
  • Born-Again Protestants: 7 percent said increase immigration; 75 percent said plenty of Americans available.
  • Jews: 16 percent said increase immigration; 61 percent said plenty of Americans available.

When asked to choose between enforcement that would cause illegal immigrants to go home over time or a conditional pathway to citizenship, most members of religious communities choose enforcement.

  • Catholics: 64 percent support enforcement to encourage illegals to go home; 23 percent support conditional legalization.
  • Mainline Protestants: 64 percent support enforcement; 24 percent support conditional legalization.
  • Born-Again Protestants: 76 percent support enforcement; 12 percent support conditional
    legalization.
  • Jews: 43 percent support enforcement; 40 percent support conditional legalization.”

Maryland readers in particular, during the run up to the likely November 2012 referendum on SB167, should keep tracking Cliff Kincaid’s “Religious Left Exposed”!

 

Illegal Immigration Richard Falknor on 30 Jun 2011

Montgomery County, MD: “An Illegal Alien’s Guide. . . .”

Fox News contributor Bob Dane has just recognized Montgomery County, Maryland!

But first, some background!

On June 16, we reported here that one of the nation’s most affluent jurisdictions Montgomery County, Maryland had submitted only 2,054 valid petition signatures (to put SB167 allowing in-state tuition for illegal aliens on the November 2012 ballot) while Baltimore County submitted 11,998 valid signatures.

Montgomery County, moreover, is barely second to Baltimore County in the number of registered Republicans: Montgomery County has 122,552 registered Republicans; Baltimore County has 124,962 registered Republicans.

Even taking into consideration that an estimated 30 per cent of petition signers statewide (as of May 31), were registered Democrats, Montgomery County’s performance on the initial batch of petition signatures would seem counter-intuitive.

According to the June 23 Baltimore Sun report above, author Annie Linskey also pointed out – –

“Republicans made up the majority of signers in all areas save one: Baltimore City, where 80 percent of voters are Democrats. There 56 percent of signers are Dems. There were also large numbers of Democrats signing in Baltimore County (39%) and in Prince George’s County (38 percent).”

Yesterday Fox News published Bob Dane’s “An Illegal Alien’s Guide to the Top Five Best Places to Live In America.”

“When ‘relocating’ to the United States, it’s best to avoid states that have selfishly put the interests of their legal residents ahead of yours with laws that hinder your access to jobs and benefits. But many attractive destinations remain, endorsed by millions of illegal aliens already living in each.”

. . . . .

“2. Montgomery Country, Maryland

If jobs are what attract you, then this upscale community close to our nation’s capital offers the mother of all magnets.

The first step to getting a job is to visit a Casa De Maryland (CASA) Welcome Center. Their employment specialists help you find a job and don’t give a hoot about your legal status. They will even help you acquire an IRS-issued taxpayer identification number because, of course, you’re here illegally and not eligible for a real Social Security number. This powerful organization is truly the illegal alien Welcome Wagon with $16 million in assets, $4.9M of it acquired in 2010 from government contracts!

Don’t worry about Secure Communities because the County recently opposed its implementation. And for college-bound illegal aliens, take advantage of in-state-tuition now that the state passed the Maryland Dream Act.”

Readers may also be interested in Casa De Maryland’s 2008 (July 1, 2008-June 30, 2009) public-charity filing with the Internal Revenue Service. Page 9 lists $3,265,673 in “government grants.”

Perhaps Montgomery County’s very thin showing of petition signatures will be substantially increased when the final batch of petition signatures is submitted to the Board of Elections this evening.  Otherwise we must conclude that the County’s GOP Establishment has chosen a different path than other Maryland Republicans.

Common Defense &Illegal Immigration Richard Falknor on 22 Jun 2011

Federalism in Action: Are States Making Real ID Work?

This morning the Heritage Foundation gave conservatives a very useful panel “Making REAL ID a Reality: Next Steps for Congress” —

“Passed in 2005, the REAL ID Act set minimum standards for driver’s licenses and state issued identification documents that are used for ‘official purposes.’ Based upon a recommendation of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (‘The 9/11 Commission’) — after several of the 9/11 terrorists fraudulently obtained 33 driver’s licenses — REAL ID was to close those loopholes and make it harder for terrorists to carry out attacks undetected.”

Coalition for a Secure Driver’s License chief (and former House Judiciary Committee investigator) Brian Zimmer underscored the successful heavy lifting done by the state departments of motor vehicles in making Real ID a going concern. Zimmer commented that the Real ID effort is becoming an example of successful Federalism.

For quick reference on Real ID, readers are invited to re-visit our Obama To Dumb Down “Real ID” Regulations and Who Has a Stake in Opposing Lawful Presence and Real ID?

It is particularly worth watching the concluding parts of the Heritage panel video to get a fuller grasp of this secure-identification effort – – and how it meets a spectrum of challenges, from national security, to implementing E-Verify, to hindering identity theft.

Illegal Immigration Richard Falknor on 28 May 2011

E-Verify: A Big Win – In Spite of the Open-Borders Crowd

SCROLL TO BOTTOM FOR ADD-ONS AND UPDATES

An outcome some of us may already know and one in which all should rejoice: the Supreme Court last Thursday gave proponents of state e-verify laws a big victory.

Our redoubtable friends at NumbersUSA then reported

“The Supreme Court decided 5-to-3 that states can punish employers who violate a mandatory E-Verify law. The court challenge was led by the U.S. Chamber of Congress against Arizona’s 2007 law that suspends a business’s license if they don’t use E-Verify to check the eligibility of all new hires.

During the creation of the Basic Pilot Program, which is now known as E-Verify, Congress gave authority to the states to use its business licensing practices as penalty for companies that hire illegal workers. The Court used that clause in its majority opinion.”

For readers who want to dig deeper into the Court’s holding, Scotus.blog reports

“Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Whiting


Docket No. Argument Opinion Vote Author Term
09-115 Dec 8, 2010
Tr.Aud.
May 26, 2011 5-3 Roberts OT 2010

Holding: The provision of the Legal Arizona Workers Act that provides for the suspension and/or revocation of the business licenses of Arizona employers who knowingly or intentionally employ unauthorized aliens is not expressly preempted by the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act, which prohibits the knowing hiring of unauthorized immigrants and preempts state laws imposing sanctions on those who hire unauthorized immigrants; the Arizona law falls within the IRCA’s exception that preserves state authority to impose sanctions through ‘licensing and similar laws.’ Nor is Arizona’s requirement that employers use the federal ‘E-Verify’ system to confirm eligibility for employment not impliedly preempted, as it does not conflict with the federal scheme, and the federal statute establishing E-Verify does not constrain state action.”

Whose Side Are Businesses On?

What would we do without the Center for Immigration Studies?

Of particular interest to our readers in the “sanctuary state” of Maryland  is the Center’s Jon Feere’s report yesterday “Open-Border Groups in Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting”–

“For many years the open-border crowd has pushed hard to perpetuate illegal employment throughout the United States, but today, in Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Whiting, the Supreme Court has put an end to their anti-E-Verify effort. Many amnesty groups submitted briefs to the Court in support of the Chamber of Commerce in an attempt to get Arizona’s law blocked. The list of groups involved in the lawsuit, below, includes the American Immigration Lawyers Association, La Raza, the SEIU, and the notorious Southern Poverty Law Center. Even though this list represents only the tip of the iceberg, it is a good reminder of what the pro-enforcement crowd is up against”

Here are some business associations filing a brief in opposition to the Arizona e-verify law — names our readers might recognize:

“BRIEF OF BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS . . . Amici curiae file this brief to inform the Court of the significance of this issue to businesses, large and small, in many industries. As representatives of the business community, amici emphasize the substantial burdens imposed on businesses by the Legal Arizona Workers Act and scores of varying laws recently enacted in other jurisdictions. The Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. (“ABC”) is a national construction industry trade association representing nearly 25,000 individual employers in the commercial and industrial construction industry. ABC also has 78 chapters throughout the United States. . . . The U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce (“USHCC”) is the nation’s largest business chamber that focuses on the needs and issues of Hispanic owned businesses, employees and consumers. USHCC’s membership includes companies and professional organizations of every size, in every industry sector, and from every region of the United States and Puerto Rico. It also serves as an umbrella organization for local, regional and statewide Hispanic chambers in the United States, Puerto Rico, Canada, Mexico, and South America. The Chambers of Commerce of Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, New Jersey, and West Virginia; the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry; the State Chamber of Oklahoma; the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry; the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce and Industry; the Texas Association of Business; and the Association of Washington Business are statewide organizations that are composed of and represent the interest of businesses, both large and small, as well as local chambers of commerce and other interested parties.”

On Thursday, the Center’s Janice Kephart in her “Arizona Catches a Break from the Supreme Court” recounts her background with E-Verify

“I took on the case of E-Verify a few years ago when the Chamber of Commerce’s attacks almost sunk the program. The program itself has worked hard to make itself strong, durable, fast, efficient, accurate, and helpful. While the case decided today did not relate to the validity of E-Verify, the political ramifications for the future of this long-accosted program were potentially significant. A ruling nullifying Arizona’s requirement that its employers use E-Verify to determine worker authorization or risk losing their license to operate was the pilot case for other states’ E-Verify laws and states considering passing such a law. Moreover, a win would have been a shot in the arm to the Chamber of Commerce, which has fought worker authorization in every form for years. A Supreme Court ruling would enable the Chamber’s powerful lobbying organization to gain steam in decimating E-Verify and continuing to spread the misconstrued data they have been spreading like fodder to everyone for years.(Underscoring Forum’s.)

Center chief Mark Krikorian set out the longer-term goal in his “Creating Facts on the Ground”  —

“Of course, the point of the push for such state E-Verify mandates isn’t really to get all 50 states to sign on separately, but to move Congress to pass a national E-Verify mandate, something House Judiciary Committee chairman Lamar Smith would very much like to do. The state mandates help this along in two ways: First, they obviously create political momentum. But in a more practical sense, as more states require use of E-Verify — whether for all employers or just state agencies and/or state contractors — a larger and larger share of the nation’s hiring will be run through the system, increasingly making it a standard part of the employment process. In other words, the goal is to make E-Verify a fait accompli, so that when Congress finally gets around to passing the national requirement, it will be more of a mopping-up operation than the imposition of an unfamiliar requirement on unsuspecting employers. And I think we’re already getting close to that tipping point.

This Memorial Day weekend, dedicated Old Line State citizens are laboring to collect voter signatures for the petition to stop Maryland in-state tuition benefits for illegal aliens.

Even in “Blue” Maryland, the fiscal, social, and security costs of illegal immigration have been steadily gaining visibility.

* * * * *

ADD-ONS: Mark Krikorian writes More on the Magnitude of the E-Verify Win (National Review on Line): – – “The reason the administration and the Chamber of Commerce saw this case as so important is that they want to hold back mandatory E-Verify as their main bargaining chip for what they really want out of a ‘comprehensive’ immigration deal — amnesty for the Obama administration and massive increases in imported captive labor (‘guestworkers’) for the Chamber. The decision makes it more likely Congress will be able to pass such a mandate on its own, not bundled with any amnesty or guestworker provisions. In other words, it’s not just a win for enforcement but also a setback for amnesty and increased immigration.(Underscoring Forum’s.)  

Immigration watcher Ann Corcoran  points us to Andy McCarthy’s Winning the Case, Losing the Principle: Arizona won, but the sovereignty of states suffered a setback.
(National Review on Line) – – “While the Court’s bloc of progressive activists lost this skirmish, they’re winning the federalism war in a rout. Whiting leaves in tatters the concept of state sovereignty, federalism’s bedrock. For that, Arizona can place much of the blame on itself. Chief Justice John Roberts’s majority decision boldly asserts that the ‘power to regulate immigration is unquestionably a federal power.’ Arizona has mounted no meaningful resistance to this proposition, neither in Whiting nor in the ongoing litigation over the more hotly disputed Senate Bill 1070. Thus, it is perhaps to be expected that this is the one point on which all nine of the Court’s justices seem to be in agreement. Chief Justice Roberts’s assertion is untrue, at least insofar as it implies federal supremacy over the question of immigration. As I’ve previously contended, there is nothing in the Constitution that vests the federal government with the power to police illegal immigration within the territory of a state. To the contrary, the Constitution empowers Congress merely ‘to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,’ i.e., to prescribe the qualifications for American citizenship. It says nothing about how those standards are to be enforced. In adopting the Constitution, the states did not delegate to the national government their inherent authority to police their territory, to defend their citizens, and to detain persons who have no lawful right to be on their soil.”

 

 

 

 


Illegal Immigration Richard Falknor on 19 May 2011

Illegals: College Park’s Purtilo Lets In Some Sunshine

Today immigration expert Mark Krikorian wrote in his “Affirmative Action for Illegal Aliens”(National Review on Line) that – –

What shocked me in this recent story was that college admissions officers give preference specifically to illegal-alien applicants:

University of Maryland (College Park) computer science Prof. James Purtilo told FoxNews.com that, during his time as an associate dean, he frequently saw admission officers favor students because of their “undocumented” status.

“They favor students with special circumstances. ‘Undocumented alien’ would be one of these special circumstances… They help fill out the diversity picture for the admissions office.”

“It was just the norm,” Purtilo added, “that obviously we need more of these students [undocumented aliens]… ‘this student has a real story to tell’ would be a common thing the admissions officers would say. Or that ‘they’re enriching the College Park experience.’

Readers may also visit here Edward Blum’s and Roger Clegg’s 2006 NRO column “Indiscriminate Discrimination: Immigrants–legal, illegal, or ‘temporary’–should not be beneficiaries of affirmative action.”

For historical depth, Mark Krikorian’s 2002 National Review article “Black & Tan Fantasy” reviewing Hugh Davis Graham’s “Collision Course: The Strange Convergence of Affirmative Action and Immigration Policy in America” should not be missed.

For those of us who have worked with Jim Purtilo over the last decade, one thing is certain:  he calls the shots as he sees them, without fear or favor. At College Park, Purtilo conducted honors seminars (in addition to his regular teaching load) along the lines of “Privacy versus In-your-face Big Government” with a range of outside speakers from Representative Roscoe Bartlett to defense expert Peter Huessy to distinguished scholar John Lott to (full disclosure) your author.

Taxpayer-Aided Higher Education for Illegals?

Author Krikorian goes on to make a wider point about taxpayer-aided higher education for illegals – –

“The whole debate over in-state tuition for illegals is beside the point — the more important effort is to bar illegal immigrants from taxpayer-funded higher education altogether. Heck, now that Eric Holder tells us that state’s can’t have their own immigration policies, we need to require all colleges, public and private, that accept federal student aid to verify the legal status of applicants and cut off aid if they admit illegal immigrants.” (Underscoring Forum’s.)

For more background on these increasingly powerful concerns in the Old Line State, visit Ann Corcoran’s “In-state tuition bill all wrapped up in affirmative action push at U. of MD?” in her Potomac Tea Party Report.

Illegal Immigration Richard Falknor on 06 May 2011

In-State-Tuition Referendum: Is Support Widening?

In a very useful but strangely titled article (because it is largely about the reach of support for the referendum on in-state tuition for illegal aliens)  in the Maryland Reporter Wednesday, Glynis Kazanjian reveals that at least two Maryland Democratic state lawmakers support the petition to referendum effort – –

“Sen. Jim Brochin, (D-Baltimore County), a prominent Democrat who supports the referendum, said a successful effort to overturn the legislation would mean a majority of voters don’t like the law and the process is part of checks and balances and a system of democracy.

‘I haven’t heard anything about the Tea Party,’ Brochin said. ‘I represent a pretty conservative district, and I am a Democrat, but I can tell you that in the liberal parts of my district, I have liberal Democrats coming up to me on a consistent basis saying, ‘What about illegal don’t these people understand?’ This isn’t a Tea Party issue.”

. . . . .

“. . . Del. Emmett Burns, Baltimore County Democrat who voted against the bill and supports the referendum . . . [declared]

‘I do think the people should decide whether or not they want this to happen,’ Burns said. ‘This was pushed by a very liberal wing of the Democratic Party in the House and it was a very, very close vote.  I think due to the closeness of the vote, the constituents of the state should make that decision.’

The bill passed 74-65, getting just three more than the required constitutional majority of 71 needed for passage.”

Maryland GOP chairman Alex Mooney told Blue Ridge Forum last Monday that he is actively supporting the petition effort  

But we haven’t heard much from the Maryland business community on supporting the referendum.

Here is the most recent questionnaire posted on the Maryland Business for Responsible Government (MBRG) website. The word “immigration” does not appear there. Nor does NFIB Maryland’s issues list include immigration.

Perhaps these organizations have other statements on illegal immigration and its many fiscal and security costs to Maryland. Otherwise, this is a strange silence for those voices who want to restrain taxes and government in this “sanctuary state.”

Immigration scholar Mark Krikorian yesterday did a quick take on “Republicans and Immigration” (National Review on Line) – –

“So, Republican and Democratic voters understand that ongoing high levels of immigration (legal or illegal) are, in part, a tool to promote Democratic political dominance. Democratic leaders also understand this,as I spelled out last year in my Encounter Broadside. It’s only Republican leaders like Bush and McCain (and Graham and Gingrich and Romney and Barbour et al., ad nauseum) that seem to be clueless. No wonder they’re the Stupid party.”

We recommend the entire post by author Krikorian.

From what we have already heard from volunteers busy collecting signatures for the referendum petition, they are encountering not only substantial voter support but an already existing awareness of the problems of in-state tuition for illegal aliens.

« Previous PageNext Page »