re: "'Back door amnesty' a cynical political ploy by Obama"

Rick Moran at American Thinker (" a daily internet publication devoted to the thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans ") criticized the "back door amnesty" of letting illegal immigrants receive waivers of their visa ineligibilities while illegally in the U.S.

Money quote(s):

"This destroys the entire purpose of the hardship waiver. It was meant to prevent penalizing legal immigrants and US citizens who had married an illegal and whose deportation would impoverish the family. By rewarding illegal immigration, the administration will only encourage more of it."

1/7

re: "Political Idea Bomb #1: Rejigger the Immigration Debate"

David Brin at Contrary Brin ("Author, Futurist, Scientist") has been thinking about immigration issues.

Money quote(s):

"What is the biggest driver of this rapid change in the makeup of the U.S. citizenry? Listen to the rage, and you'd think that it was an invasion, a veritable tsunami of wetback illegals. But facts speak otherwise. The driver of demographic change in America, over the last generation or so, has been legal immigration.

When ethnic quotas on immigration were removed in 1965, the number of first- generation immigrants living in the United States quadrupled, rising from 9.6 million in 1970 to nearly 38 million in 2007. In 1990, George H.W. Bush signed the Immigration Act of 1990, which resulted in an increase in legal immigration to the United States by 40%.

The United States admitted more legal immigrants in the most recent decade -- ten million legal immigrants settled in the U.S. Still, this represents an annual increase of only about 0.3% as the U.S. population grew from 249 million to 281 million. A lot of people. But remember this isn't new. By comparison, the highest previous decade was the 1900s, when 8.8 million people arrived, increasing the total U.S. population by one percent every year. Specifically, "nearly 15% of Americans were foreign-born in 1910, while in 1999, only about 10% were foreign-born." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

By itself, legal immigration by those reuniting with family members already (legally) in the U.S., even with so-called "chain immigration," wouldn't have resulted in the sweeping demographic changes the U.S. is experiencing, at least not this quickly.

But factor in the effects of the diversity visa lottery, the scheme where we deliberately recruit immigrants from countries who aren't as heavily represented in the flow of legal immigrants; well, that's what get us where we are now.

"(S)ince 1986, Congress has passed seven amnesties for illegal immigrants, converting one kind of immigrant into the other."

This is why no one believes claims that just-one-more amnesty (by whatever name) would be the last one. Because it's been proven a lie six times already.

"(T)here are issues that run beneath issues here, and they merit your consideration. Take the criteria that the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the State Department have been required to follow, when doling out legal immigrant visas.

For decades, the top consideration went to re-uniting family members. And at first sight, that does seem a compassionate and just basis to allow people into the country, instead of keeping folks separated from those they love.

Except... isn't that just rewarding the lucky with more luck? And when you admit a legal immigrant's brother, then does the brother's son come along? Of course the son's mother (his wife) is next. And then... her brother too? And that brother's kid and wife... and so on... Isn't it clear that there is no place to clearly draw a line?"

Actually, Congress has drawn several lines in this regard, numerically limiting the annual immigration numbers of more distant (and more adult) family members of legal residents and citizens.

Another factor is time. Those just arriving have to actually immigrate before they can file petitions for their non-immediate relatives (i.e., beyond the spouse and minor children who presumably came at the same time), they have to meet certain financial sponsorship criteria, and the whole process takes months to years before additional legal "chain" immigrants start arriving.

"If we're limited in the number of people we can absorb per year, and can only take a small fraction of those who are both deserving an eager, then why not have a fair number of those slots go to those whose arrival will benefit us all, in clearcut and immediate ways? Are they any less deserving, just because they happen to be instantly useful?

Indeed, won't the increased prosperity they help generate here allow us to be more generous to others, in the future?

Canada and Australia and the U.S. all issue a certain number of Employment-Based visas. And a strong case can be made for increasing this number, along with slots for inventors and company builders and major investors. It has even been proposed to solve our current housing crash by giving a green card to anyone who immediately buys a home with $500,000 or more in cash."

&

"It should be blatantly obvious to anyone with a mix of compassion and practicality that immigrant kids need health care and education... and we need them to be both healthy and educated."

Un-vaccinated children represent a public health vulnerability in that they constitute a potential reservoir for contagious disease. This is not news. Nor is the prospect of creating a self-perpetuating uneducated underclass much more palatable.

10/24

re: "Stop “DREAM”-ing And Embrace Reality"

Robert at Atlantic Crossings ("Between the Hudson Highlands and the South of England...") gave the issue of child illegal immigrants some careful thought (in advance of DHS taking this issue on unilaterally).

Money quote(s):

"(T)his needs saying plainly: denoting as an “immigrant” anyone other than a landed arrival with legal permission to settle, is an egregious misnomer that is insulting to actual landed immigrants. The word “immigrant” is not properly applied to those who have taken it upon themselves to “settle unilaterally” (if we wish not to say “illegal”), but have not received a legal right to reside. Nor does it ever apply to the “unilaterally settled” no matter how often it is misused, children included."

Insulting legal immigrants, those who followed the rules and waited their turn, is never a sufficient deterrent to those who want to jump the queue.

"Many activists and journalists do appear to think that whenever someone sets foot in the U.S., he should apparently be allowed to remain permanently regardless."

Especially those journalists who are themselves illegal immigrants.

"(I)n Britain, every child’s immigration status is ascertained upon initial enrollment in school. Doing so prevents any rearing of a generation of “imagined Britons” who spend 10 years in school and think they are British citizens when they are not. Also the “passive barrier” of checking the legality of schoolchildren’s residency makes “unilateral settlement” by adults with children who must attend school extremely difficult to manage.

As a result, “unilateral settlement” in the UK is almost entirely an “adults only” issue. But we, in the U.S., have accidentally allowed the creation of “imagined U.S. citizens.” We have done so due to our being unfailingly “generous” in educating unquestioningly every child who shows up at the school gate."

American citizen children have to come up with birth certificates and proofs of innoculation in order to register for schools. So what gives with unlawfully resident children?

"Even if all of those “undocumented students” of today are overnight granted the right to remain, if the U.S. does not change its approach fundamentally it is inevitable there will ALWAYS be children and parents who are “unilaterally settled” in the U.S.

Moreover if we are seriously considering legislating that if one can essentially sneak children into the U.S., that once in they will be allowed to remain legally a few years later as adults, let us understand the road down which we are heading. It is no secret that word spreads like global wildfire in a world in which media is now immediate. No one on the planet is less than 24 hours’ travel from a U.S. airport.

So as we blunder around looking for some politically plausible framework to address how to assist “undocumented students,” let us at least also bear both of those realities in mind, as well as recall also how the road to hell is indeed often paved with good intentions."

Robert clearly understands how globalization has accelarated the effective speed of information communication, as between the illegal immigrant and prospective illegal immigrant communities.

"The only viable approach to ending the “imagined U.S. citizen” dilemma appears to be two-fold. First, grant a “green card” to anyone under age 26 who can demonstrate “permanent” presence in the country since age 6 — which is easy enough to glean from school records. If for some reason that is not possible, or if they were “brought in” older, give them a student/ work visa, with the “Rubio Plan” for permanent residency and later citizenship, then to kick in."

CAA is not as sanguine about the sanctity and trustworthiness of school records as is Robert, but it's not that bad an idea, it's certainly a start, and is very likely to be a cornerstone of how DHS will actually implement its latest child amnesty scheme.

"More importantly for the longer-term solution is to stop the creation of “imagined U.S. citizens” at all. It appears the only way to do that is end the lackadaisical attitude toward U.S. legal residency and school enrollment. So, second, nationwide, after Part 1 is implemented, from the following August/September every child when first enrolled in school must have produced on his behalf a U.S. birth certificate, green card, or valid U.S. visa (to be asterisked for re-checking at its renewal date), as part of the routine registration process. If some form of legal U.S. residency cannot be supplied, the child cannot be enrolled.

Doing both should largely put the issue to rest. It ends the “legal limbo” entrapping those kids and young adults currently “through no fault of their own.” It will also prevent the arising of yet another generation of “imagined U.S. citizens” who will end up trapped just like them." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

This would be a tough sell, and one that might cause more serious problems (for the U.S.) in the long run than the supposed "imagined U.S. citizen" problem. That's the "permanent underclass" problem of creating an un-educated, un-innoculated underclass of the permanently disadvantaged.

It's bad enough we import them, or allow them to self-import.

5/7

re: "Illegal Immigration Is Immoral"

Victor Davis Hanson at Private Papers specified eight (8) reasons why illegal immigration is immoral.

Give it a read, wontcha?.

Money quote(s):

" Legal immigration. Hundreds of thousands from Asia, Africa, and Europe wait patiently and in legal fashion to apply for citizenship. “Crowding to the front of the line” is not a cheap talking point, but an accurate description of those who ignore the rules while others suffer. In essence, the United States has established that several million foreign nationals have precedence for citizenship by virtue of the facts that (a) they have already broken the law in entering the US, (b) they are currently residing illegally in the US, and (c) they are of a particular ethnic group. To question why a PhD in electrical engineering from India must wait for years to gain permanent residence in the US while someone from Oaxaca without a high-school diploma is exempt from such scrutiny is deemed illiberal; in fact, the reality, not the description of it, is the real illiberality."

The president's recent initiative to provide temporary documentation, status, and work permits to an estimated 800,000 illegal immigrants who entered the country when they were teenagers (but may now be as old as 30) means that perhaps a million illegals are cutting to the head of the line in front of all those legal immigrants who've been following the rules.

"4. The law. Much of the discussion focuses on the fact that illegal immigration flouts federal law. But the problem is less the initial entry into the US without documentation, and more the succession of law-breaking that needs must follow. If one crosses the border illegally, then one is not likely to state the truth on dozens of subsequent official documents, from matters of identification to certification of employment and entitlement. At each juncture, the law itself is insidiously eroded and the calls for it to be ignored increase. The real immorality is not a law that is found oppressive, but the notion that anyone, most ironically a foreign national, has the right to pick and choose which laws he will obey. No civilization can survive when the law hinges on individual interpretation. If foreign nationals are not required to abide by US law, why would American citizens think that they must?"

Entering the country is just the first in a series of crimes that each illegal commits. The crime spree then cascades from obtaining fraudulent identification documents, using a false or stolen social security number (causing tax and credit problems for the SSN's actual owner), to driving without a license or auto insurance. Of course, none of this is likely to instill any respect for the remaining body of our state, federal, or local laws and ordinances.

"There are ways that are both moral and practical to deport recent arrivals, felons, and those entirely on public assistance, while offering mechanisms for long-residing aliens, employed and not convicted of felonies, to apply for citizenship — without automatic approval, however, and only after meeting logical criteria and paying fines. The only real issue is whether the qualified should obtain temporary residence cards while waiting for adjudication of their requests, or must return to Mexico to apply; but that is a decision that follows, not precedes, an end to open borders."

12/15

re: "When Good Politics Is Bad Policy and Bad Law"

DAVE SCHULER at The Glittering Eye considered the Arizona immigration testimony before the Supreme Court.

Money quote(s):

"The Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in the case Arizona v. United States, the federal challenge to Arizona’s immigration law, considered draconian by its foes and obvious by its defenders. You can’t draw hard and fast conclusions about how the justices will rule based on oral arguments but the day did not go well for the Obama Administration."

It's tough to make strong arguments when your case is so weak.

"To my untutored layman’s eye the federal government’s argument appears to be that it can have its cake and eat it, too. The Congress can pass and the president can sign laws and then, if enforcement or even simple management is too burdensome, it can merely ignore them. That strikes me as a political argument rather than either a policy or a legal one. Congress should either authorize the resources necessary to enforce the laws it passes or limit their scope so that they can be enforced with the resources they’re willing to grant." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Mr. Schuler isn't wrong about what Congress should do, but getting Congress to do what it should do is beyond the powers of mortal men.

"On immigation the Congress has chosen the path of political least resistance by in theory having fairly strict immigration law while in practice having very limited immigration law. That doesn’t make any sense either from a policy or legal standpoint.

Just to restate briefly my views on immigration I don’t think we have an immigration problem in this country. I think we have a temporary problem of Mexican immigration in this country, temporary because of Mexican demographics and, indeed, Latin American and Caribbean demographics more generally. I think that we should increase the number of work permits available to Mexicans by at least an order of magnitude, possibly several orders of magnitude, give employers better tools for verifying the status of the workers they hire, and thereafter enforce immigration laws strictly in the workplace, imposing severe penalties on employers who refuse to comply. But, honestly, I’m not worried about the issue because, as I’ve said, it is temporary and the recent stories about immigration from Mexico slowing or even reversing recently fully support my view."

Congress has gotten around much in the way of immigration-related costs by putting the financial burden for legal immigrants firmly on those immigrants themselves, by requiring DHS (and State) to impose fees, making many of these functions pay for themselves.

The costs of dealing with illegal immigrants aren't amenable to such an approach.

4/25

re: "Supreme Court Hears Arizona Immigration Law Case"

Patterico at Patterico's Pontifications ("Harangues that Just Make Sense") looked a the Arizona immigration law case before the Supreme Court.

Money quote(s):

"The issue, as I see it, is whether Arizona is authorized to empower local law enforcement to carry out federal immigration law, or whether President Obama gets to say: hey, I am the decider of what laws we’re going to enforce around here."

&

"(Y)ou should read “federal law enforcement priorities” as code for “Obama’s decision not to fully enforce immigration laws.” He is the president, dammit, and he doesn’t want his nullification of Congress’s laws to be nullified."

There are good reasons this has gone all the way to the Supreme Court, after all.

"Congress has passed laws and expects them to be enforced. Obama surely has discretion, but that discretion should not extend to non-enforcement. And that is what he seems to seek: the ability not to enforce federal immigration law." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

4/25

re: "Germany and France are not happy with Schengen"

Helen at Your Freedom and Ours ("A blog about politics and other things... ...but always from the right perspective.") noted dissension in the ranks of the Schengen zone.

Money quote(s):

"Dear me, what is it I see? A certain lack of faith in the effectiveness of the Schengen agreement. It seems that Germany and France are discussing the possibility of reintroducing national border controls to deal with illegal immigration. But was (not) Schengen and the general common border policy supposed to be the best weapon against illegal immigration?"

The evaporation of national border controls within the (European) Schengen zone puts the entire burden of illegal immigration on periphery states (plus international sea- and airports). It also means that residency restrictions on asylum seekers, once admitted to any state in the Schengen zone, are illusory.

4/21

re: "The Moral Dimensions of Illegal Immigration"

Victor Davis Hanson at Private Papers considered several aspects of our illegal immigration problem.

Money quote(s):

"Poverty is the burden of illegal immigration — understandable when poor indigenous peoples from the Mexican interior left everything behind and started at the bottom rung of American society with three strikes against them – illegal, undereducated, and without English. But recently Mexico has been the recipient of billions in remittances; estimates usually range from $20 to $25 billion per annum.

The new magnitude of such transfers raises a number of questions never quite adequately addressed. The profits certainly explain the loud editorializing of the Mexican government, which has opened dozens of new consulates and is now suing Arizona over the state’s new immigration laws. And they raise questions about American entitlements as well. Do the math. One assumes that most of the remittances are sent home from Mexican nationals. California, for example, is also thought to spend about $10 billion-plus for entitlements to ensure minimal parity for illegal aliens. California is also believed to be the home of 25%-40% of those illegal aliens now residing in the US — or probably between 2 and 4 million in the state.

In some sense, then, California allots about the same amount of cash to help illegal aliens as the latter may well send home to relatives in Mexico. That might raise all sorts of ethical questions: Is the undeniable poverty of illegal aliens in part due not to a stinginess on the part of the California taxpayer or the rapacity of the employer, but rather also to the choice to send thousands of dollars per year back to Mexico? Both the capital flight from California, coupled with the staggering increase in entitlements, may well nullify any advantage rendered the state by industrious and rather inexpensive workers. Is it ethical to take state support and still send money back to Mexico?" (B0ld typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Consular officers serving "south of the border" see the results of illegal immigration (and remittances) on a daily basis. We see the deportees, the spouses and children left behind, and what happens when illegal immigrants start new families in the U.S. and can no longer afford to send all that money to their old family anymore.

"In one of the more brilliant public relations feats in recent memory, the Mexican government has managed to play the aggrieved party, whose citizens are supposedly lured away by rapacious American capitalists. The cynicism has become unmistakable. Let us count the ways: a) Mexico reaps billions — remittances are the second largest source of foreign exchange for the Mexican government — from the hard toil of its own expatriates. (I say cynical because it has published a comic book on how to cross the border illegally — assuming, apparently, that legality is of no importance, and most of its own emigrants are illiterate.); b) Mexico seems little interested in creating conditions in its interior that might improve the lot of its indigenous citizenry, in the manner it has managed to accomplish in Baja to attract the capital of mostly affluent American vacation-home owners; c) Mexico would never allow conditions on its own southern border that it insists should apply on its northern; Why so?; d) Mexico is more concerned about galvanizing a potent expatriate community once it is gone from Mexico than in pursuing social equitability that might lead to improved conditions to keep Mexicans home. I could go on, but the debate over illegal immigration must focus on Mexico as a cynical player, one that sees the lives of millions of its own citizens not in terms of moral concern, but largely through foreign exchange and geopolitical leverage." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

10/16

re: "Perry Bills Feds for Illegal Immigration"

Patterico at Patterico's Pontifications ("Harangues that Just Make Sense") seconded Gov. Perry's question.

Money quote(s):

"From California’a Prop. 187 to Arizona’s more recent laws, the federal government is forever fighting state laws that regulate illegal immigration, arguing that controlling immigration is a purely federal responsibility.

So when the federal government fails to discharge that responsibility, why should the financial consequences of that failure fall on the border states?"

CAA is just a poor (but honest) consular officer.

Like many in that line of work, considering the many hours of my life devoted to implementing the Department of State's side of the legal immigration (and non-immigration) equation, I find it absolutely maddening when read about how some on the other side of that equation just throw up their hands and simply fail to carry out their professional responsibilities with regards to immigration.

Is the oath-of-office sworn by these federal employees in any way demonstrably different from the one FSOs swear?

8/27

re: "The News Behind the News"

Victor Davis Hanson at Private Papers discussed several topics of interest, including illegal immigration.

Money quote(s):

"“Illegal immigration” is not about illegal immigration. I would have thought the issue was only about poverty, until realizing that $40-50 billion a year leave the US in remittances to Latin America, in many cases from those who use American subsidies to free up cash to send home. It is not quite about moral justice, given that the US is in near recession with millions of citizens out of work and whose earning power in the Southwest was eroded by cheaper workers here illegally. Nor is Mexico innocent, but by design seeks to export its own impoverished to win remittances, ease the burden of paying for social services, and build an expatriate community more sympathetic to Mexico the longer and farther it is away from it."

&.

"(T)here is some sort of notion that past history or present ethnic solidarity privileges a distortion of the immigration law to such an extent as to render it ineffective. In other words, advocacy for blanket amnesty and open borders hinges on no one else taking up such an offer except those from Mexico and Latin America: there can be only so much controlled chaos before things get uncontrollably chaotic.

If one were to say that we need to resume mass immigration from Europe, one would be seen as a tribalist, racist even — on the grounds that one’s ethnic profile matched the ethnic profile of those who should be given preference in immigration. Yet imagine if an offer of fast-track citizenship were to be extended to any in a now crumbling EU — or for that matter, anyone at all — with a bachelor’s degree, mastery of English, and $20,000 in capital? I think a million skilled workers would arrive within 12 months, along with billions in capital. So let us be frank. Those accused of racism for wishing immigration law enforced can make the argument that they are racially blind and wish it applied without regard to specific individuals; those accusing others of racism wish to render immigration law null and void, only because of the shared race or ethnic background of those who break it." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

11/12

re: "Cain survives"

Lemuel Calhoon at Hillbilly White Trash ("Commenting about politics, religion, firearms, food, Celtic music, beer, science fiction and the Asheville Vortex. Home of the Hillbilly Ecosystem.") shared his analysis of the Herman Cain presidential candidacy (and why it had to be stopped).

Money quote(s):

"In the fever swamps of liberal/progressive thought supporting Cain is absolute
proof positive that one is a racist!"

This came up recently in a Facebook discussion I was party to: bolstering his Dem. talking points about how bigoted Republicans are, a fellow commenter pre-emptively stated that Cain and Steele don't make the Republicans not racist.

(Personally, I can take-or-leave Steele; as a former Maryland resident CAA is about as impressed with the (relatively) conservative credentials of Md. politicians as he is with those from Massachutsetts. Now, Rep. West on the other hand....)

"This makes him a mortal enemy (as all conservatives are) to the political left,
but because he is black he occupies a place of extraordinary vilification in
that by his very existence, he disproves the left's narrative of American life."

And that must not be allowed to stand.

Mr. Calhoon concluded:

"This is to the Democrat party what sunlight is to a vampire. If even 20% of
black Americans voted Republican the Democrats would never win a presidential
election and would win damn few congressional contests.

Democrats know this and they are desperate to keep blacks in their place.It is
also why they are so desperate to open America's borders and get amnesty for the
millions of Mexicans illegally in this country. They need a replacement
minority that can be controlled in the event that the black population (or even
a large minority of it) wises up and realizes that the white liberals they have
been voting for are responsible for much of their misery and the black "leaders"
they have been trusting have in fact sold them out.

This is the essence of the furor to destroy Herman Cain as it was the driving force behind the
attempt to destroy Clarence Thomas. It is why every black conservative who
dares to step forward and declare him or herself is attacked is attacked and
smeared.

This is why the Chicago machine bestirred itself to vomit out a
small parade of women who were willing to falsely claim that Mr. Cain "harassed"
them. This is why Republicans have been unwilling to play along and boot him
out of the race. We know that they are trying to play us and we ain't going
along."

11/11

re: "Nuke the News: Kill the Aliens Before They Kill Us"

Frank J. at IMAO ("Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated.") is for honesty.

Money quote(s):

"Isn’t staying staying in the country illegally a crime, hence the term “illegal”? I don’t know.

I wish the pro-illegal immigration crowd would be honest and just argue for open borders with no checks on anyone instead of this “we’ll keep saying its a crime and never enforce it” position. And that’s the main thing about the pro-illegal immigration people: Dishonesty. The way they’re always trying to conflate illegal immigration with legal immigration shows they know they have an untenable position and want to do anything they can to avoid dealing with it head on. That’s why we have to keep the pressure on. We can’t give up America’s sovereignty just because some people think they have a great position to win votes."

CAA is a big fan of legal immigration and legal immigrants. Mainly because they, by definition, exhibit law-abiding behavior in the course of immigration to the U.S. What's not to like about that?

CAA is not professionally unaware of the inefficiencies and burdensome requirements incorporated into the processes and system (and CAA uses that term somewhat loosely) through which legal immigrants must navigate. But CAA is also professionally aware of the many frauds and other abuses those many obstacles are intended to discourage and prevent.

8/19

re: "Journalist Admits Is Illegal, Has License Cancelled"

Patterico at Patterico's Pontifications ("Harangues that Just Make Sense") signaled his outrage.

Money quote(s):

"Another guy living in the shadows, by which I mean writing an article in a national publication about his illegal status" (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

Doing the work that 90 percent of the print journalists in America would give their left nut to do, i.e., write for the Washington Post.

"I am outraged. I call upon all good citizens of conscience to demand that this man be allowed to seek citizenship in the normal manner that an illegal immigrant seeks citizenship."

Off the top of my head, that "normal manner" would involve:

a.) Self-deporting;

b.) Getting someone (employer, relative with legal status) to file an immigrant petition for him with DHS;

c.) Somehow get a waiver of the 10 year bar to entry to the U.S. which he's incurred by living and working illegally all these years;

d.) Immigrating (legally) to the U.S. and receiving an actual, non-fraudulent "green card";

e.) Residing (legally) in the U.S. long enough to qualify for naturalization as a U.S. citizen.

Note: Step "e." can be accelerated by enlistment, and honorable service, in the U.S. military during a time of war.

7/22

re: "Deport the Criminals First (and Only?)"

Karl at Patterico's Pontifications ("Harangues that Just Make Sense") demonstrated how the devil hides in the details.

Money quote(s):

"(A) review of the June ICE memo (.pdf) detaling (sic) the new policy makes clear that the prosecutorial discretion involved is not limited to prioritizing deportations, but decisions to arrest, settle or dismiss proceedings, defer action, grant parole, etc. Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times describes the new policy as “virtually stopping deporting students who are in the U.S. illegally, taking steps even as Congress has resisted passing the DREAM Act.”"

Consular officers familiar with the rules for foreigners seeking to attend schools in the U.S. legally will recognize the great disparity between what we expect of lawful visitors vs. the free ride given to illegal immigrants.

That sucks.

It may not be strictly criminal, but it's grand theft, from the taxpayers, nonetheless.

8/18

re: "The GOP and Immigration"

Hugh Hewitt at Hewitt Blog summed up what he believes was the 2006 Republican consensus on immigration.

Money quote(s):

"The fence is the "outward expression of an inner conviction" to control immigration. It is hugely important, and the failure to get it built year after year undermines confidence in both parties as both parties promise border security."

A nation which does not control its own borders is not fully sovereign. Loss of border control leads to loss of territorial control and it gets worse from there.

"(A)s there is no reason to prefer illegal aliens over U.S. citizens, there is no reason to prefer foreign students traveling her for the first day of college over those who went to high school here."

10/4

re: "Attrition Through Enforcement Immigration Policy Works in Alabama"

Daniel Horowitz at RedState ("the most widely read right of center blog on Capitol Hill") believes attrition through self-deportation works.

Money quote(s):

"Proponents of illegal immigration and open borders are constantly propagating a straw-man argument for amnesty that offers false policy choices. They contend that “we cannot possibly send back the illegals without physically deporting every one of them, and therefore, we are forced to grant them amnesty, in addition to a ‘pathway to citizenship.’ Those with some sense of sanity have always realized that the source of the problem is our incentivizing of illegal behavior, and that a concerted effort to enforce the laws would drain the illegal population through “attrition by enforcement.” "

If you reward (or "incentivize") something, you get more of it. That's basic psychology and basic economics. If you dis-incentivize something, you get less of it than you would have otherwise. Maybe not none of it, but less of it.

"(P)eople vote with their feet. They did the same thing in Arizona. Even though SB 1070 was never implemented, roughly 100,000 illegals left the state. The bottom line is that when they are not collecting $4.2 billion in refundable tax handouts, receiving some form of welfare on behalf of their American-born children, or obtaining employment, they will leave."

In part, this is the beauty of the federal system. Individual states act as laboratories of a sort to try out all sorts of things and other states can learn (or not) from their experiences.

"Texas, which has experienced an economic boom, is the only state with a growing population of illegals. 200,000 more illegals have invaded the Lone Star State from 2007-2009. Now, if only we could actually remove the magnet without destroying our economy, we would solve the illegal problem without mass deportation or amnesty – or even worse, a pathway to citizenship. In other words, treating illegals as illegal actually works."

10/4

re: "Quiz: Where Are Parents Required To Produce "Original Passports/ Visas"?"

Robert at Atlantic Crossings ("Between the Hudson Highlands and the South of England…") exhibits a firm grasp of the issues and consequences.

Money quote(s):

"American states had never felt impelled to look for evidence of enrolled children’s U.S. “legal status”. One reason was probably because if there were illegal immigrant children in school, their small numbers did not seem to justify the effort. That seems no longer so."

Local school districts are much more concerned about truancy by school-age children than by their immigration status. And I believe this can reasonably, until quite recently, be extended to the individual states. It's a case of conflicting priorities: local school districts (and states) should not tolerate the fostering of a generation of un-schooled children. That's not their mission.

"(I)n allowing non-U.S. resident children in school, the U.S. has big-heartedly and accidentally ended up doing at least partly what Justice Brennan thought that ruling would prevent. Leaving aside that enrolling them could encourage illegal parents “to root” themselves in the country as they could not otherwise if their children could not be schooled, larger collateral damage that was unforeseen has been those children’s enrollment a decade on creates the tragic “imagined American” teen illegal. Have we not heard far too much about kids who had been through school and mistakenly THOUGHT they were U.S. citizens, only suddenly to discover they are not…when they tried to obtain a driving licence, apply to college or seek a job?

That is where the desire on the part of many for a “Dream Act” comes from. But any such “Dream Act” too is worrying precisely for yet another issue it would also create. And no one seems to be be thinking ahead on that either, but yours truly raised it previously.

The U.S. should be asking: if they are to be schooled, what can be done to prevent the arising of children who come to think they are U.S. citizens when they are not? And if we are genuinely to assist those now trapped of no fault of their own, if all illegally present children are now perhaps to be granted anmesty to do so, how are we possibly to stop millions more parents from entering with young children illegally and hoping for the same outcome for their own kids eventually?"

Although citizenship laws aren't really written this way, most real Americans know in their heart-of-hearts that being an American is much less about the circumstances of a person's birth than about their commitment to American values. That's something that legislators just can't craft into law, no matter how much they might try. They are, after all, lawyers (most of them) so they approach the question of nationality in a legalistic fashion.

"Immigration is rarely able to be dealt with in policy isolation. It is not just about schooling. Anyone pushing (liberals especially) also for universal health cover in the U.S., would, if it ever came about, certainly have to confront then how to cope with non-residents? If you admire European universal systems, understand they “work” because they are limited. Break your leg in Britain as an American tourist, and you had better have travel insurance or lots of cash at the ready, because the British National Health Service (NHS) treats “for free” ONLY legal UK residents." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

10/4

re: "Alabama vs. Illegal Immigration [ArthurK]"

Open Blogger at Ace of Spades HQ watched a video about Alabama's new anti-illegal immigration law.

Money quote(s):

"I have a heart. But I still want them out of the country. Sometimes you gotta do stuff that makes you sad."

That is ofttimes the essence of immigration-related (including consular and visa) work. I don't want to work with consular officers who have no heart, I just want them to make their adjudicational decisions with all of their decisional faculties: heads, hearts, and gut.

Real life ain't bean-bag. You can't please everyone, after all; you're sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution (and laws) of a particular country.

"The question is always asked, "How are you going to remove 12 million undocumented?" Here's an answer - cut off the reasons they come here (jobs (via that online id check) schools)and they'll remove themselves."

Self-deportation works.

(10/1)

re: "Mickey Kaus: Perry's Positions on Immigration Are Even Worse Than I Thought"

Ace at Ace of Spades HQ has his own ideas about immigration reform.

Money quote(s):

"I've long been in favor of a guest worker program. Liberals hate this idea because they want immigrant workers voting in elections, and also supporting the American social welfare system (because, being citizens, they'd be beneficiaries). The unions hate the idea because they don't like the idea of immigrants with legal status competing for jobs.

Many conservatives don't like the idea because they want illegal immigrants stopped, period."

Like a lot of consular officers who work hard and conscientiously in implementing lawful immigration programs, illegal immigration pretty much burns my shorts. (We are not amused!) There's an in-joke that plays on the predominently liberal flavor of our diplomatic corps: new foreign service officers are liberal, but after their first tour interviewing (and adjudicating) visa applicants they're still liberal, but not when it comes to immigration.

"(T)here is a fact on the ground that cannot easily be ignored that American agriculture relies, to a serious extent, on immigrant farm workers coming in to collect the harvests. There is a glib response to that -- "We'll just encourage Americans to take those jobs!" -- and I suppose that's possible, but the American public of 2011 is not the American public of, say, 1932. Whereas once American workers might take a bus to the heartland and work the fields for a season, American workers no longer feel they need to do that, as government unemployment programs don't require them to change jobs or to travel long distances for work. So, in the main, they don't." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

If things got bad enough (and here's hoping they don't), that lack of needful feeling could change drastically. But for now, with the modern welfare state (and the option of moving back home to your parent's house) American citizen labor is unlikely to be quite that mobile.

"(P)art of the reason there aren't any serious immigration reforms -- and I mean on the enforcement side, here -- is because neither side is particularly willing to confront the facts on the ground. Liberals demand an amnesty and citizenship to goose their vote share (and further drain our social welfare finances), which is a non-starter for conservatives. Business-oriented conservatives, however, block real immigration enforcement, because they feel those enforcement efforts don't take into account the fact that many businesses have come to rely on immigrant workers, and would be disrupted by any kind of crackdown that was more than superficial (which is what our current raids mostly are).

To me, the best solution is to permit guest-worker visas but only for those industries that have long relied on immigrant illegal workers (agriculture, mainly), with a smaller pool of visas for industries that have recently begun to rely on such workers (hotels, restaurants), and none at all for industries which are just recently beginning to indulge in illegal hiring.

Then start reducing the visas for the middle category (the hospitality industries), to begin ratcheting this practice down in a slow way, forcing them little by little to stop hiring illegals.
Such guest worker visas should only be generous for the one industry that seems to be historically dependent on seasonal workers (agriculture).

That is, less of a war on illegal immigration, and more of a containment and rollback model."

Ace seems considerably more in touch with public sentiment on this issue, in severe contrast to our elected/appointed leadership which seems bent on expanding categories of worker programs.

"I think our laws do not reflect the reality that immigrants pick crops, and there aren't a huge number of Americans ready and able to step in were they to stop. Businesses will hire them illegally because they have to, and then the political structure will turn a blind eye to all of this because they know it's necessary, and the situation continues, with no support on either side for any kind of actual governing law.

Because there is no majority for any scheme of law here, we've all collectively decided, essentially, to keep the old "law" in place and just ignore the fact it's being broken left and right."

(9/6)

re: "On Jose Antonio Vargas"

Daniel Foster at The Corner ("a web-leading source of real-time conservative opinion") tells the tale of an illegal alien.


Money quote(s):


"Vargas was sent to California by his Filipino mother at age twelve. He was raised there by his (naturalized) grandparents, and did not discover he was in the country illegally until he brought his green card to the DMV at age 16 and was told it was a forgery."

Minor children are victims (at worst) or merely passengers (at best) when it comes to illegal immigration. And under current law no legal penalty (aside from deportation) attaches to them thereby. But read on.


"Vargas entered the country illegally after his grandfather paid a coyote $4,500 to smuggle him in. The grandfather then obtained a fake passport and green card for Vargas, which they used to acquire a valid Social Security card. But that card, which subjected Vargas’ right to work to the approval of the then-INS, was illegally doctored, allowing Vargas to secure job after job for more than a decade by showing nothing more than a photocopy of a fake document."

Grandpa ought to be getting a visit from various federal agencies regarding his multiple crimes in this matter.


"(A) fear- and shame-driven Vargas, with the aid of his family, perpetuated and compounded those crimes (Vargas eventually got around to what you might redundantly call fraudulent tax fraud, repeatedly reporting himself as a citizen rather than a “permanent resident”, when in fact he was neither), elicits from me nothing like the outpouring of support Vargas is already enjoying on the Left.


Punishing a minor by removing him from the culture he’s adopted as his own, for the crimes of his parents, does strike me as fundamentally unfair. But what liberals leave out of this story, time and again, is a competing — and in my view overriding — unfairness. Reihan has argued repeatedly, and effectively, that we should treat access to the U.S. economy, not to mention its extensive welfare state, as a scarce resource. We can debate and debate the best way of distributing this resource– from “not at all” to “come one, come all” and everywhere in between. But distributing it based on who manages most successfully to violate the law, at the expense of would-be immigrants who are honoring the process, is surely not a valid option."

Fear and shame notwithstanding, Mr. Vargas had a choice upon reaching age 18. Actually, he had a six month window at that point where, even though he was accuring unlawful presence in the U.S. for which he, having reached age 18, was now legally responsible, it wasn't until he had reached six months of unlawful presence that he'd even incurred a visa ineligibility!

You understand that correctly: he could have flown back to Manila, turned around and legally submitted an application for a U.S. visa, and there would have been no automatic visa ineligibility for all the years of living illegally in the U.S. right up until he was 18 years and six months of age.