The Wonk Room

Steve King Reminisces About The Days When Football Players Could ‘Get A Job Because They Knew Someone’

Yesterday, Republican members of the House Immigration Reform Caucus (HIRC) dedicated a three and a half hour long pseudo-hearing in a nearly empty room in the Rayburn building to spewing their “well-worn rhetoric about the hordes of illegal aliens destroying the American way of life.” During the event, “American Jobs in Peril: The Impact of Uncontrolled Immigration,” Rep. Steve King (R-IA) seemed to suggest that the U.S. should rid itself of its immigrant workers because, back in the good ‘ol days, high school “football stars” could get good-paying jobs not because they were qualified to work at them, but rather, because “they knew someone”:

Thirty years ago in the packing plants there in that town — which I do call my hometown — you had to know somebody to get a job. And I can remember looking at the football stars on our football team that graduated back in those years in the mid to late 60s and thinking:

“Those guys will get the best-paying jobs at the beef plant. They can just take their degree and go out and get a job — IF they know someone. If they don’t, they won’t get the job. Well I can’t do that because I’m not tall enough or strong enough.”

But today it’s entirely different.

Watch it:

King attributes the end of cronyism in the meatpacking industry and the deterioration of wages and working conditions to undocumented immigrants. The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW), which has represented meatpackers for almost a hundred years, has a different take about the sequence of events.

Back in March, Center for Immigration Studies Senior Fellow Jerry Kammer — who was also a panelist at the event — offered an interpretation of the industry’s history similar to King’s, minus the football players. The UFCW was quick to point out that Kammer’s misinterpreted and manipulated “data to reach a totally biased and flawed conclusion” and demonstrated a “complete lack of understanding about the history of the meatpacking industry.” They also provided their own account of what happened:

Immigrants worldwide have been essential in strengthening the U.S. meatpacking industry, by organizing around increased wages and improved industry standards. But during the ‘80’s, something happened. Consolidation, mergers, and company-induced strikes helped drive down wages for meatpackers. During the strikes, companies aggressively recruited strike breakers-not immigrants but individuals who came from the decimated farm industry-to cross the picket lines.

Many of these workers soon realized something: these jobs were tough. Too tough to perform at the wages companies were offering. So, they left. But the damage was done. And the UFCW has been fighting to rebuild wages and standards for these jobs ever since.

In direct reference to yesterday’s event, UFCW’s Director of Civil Rights and Community Action, Esther Lopez, commented, “Given their [King and his allies] terrible track record on worker issues, it really is the height of hypocrisy that they are now trying to portray themselves as champions of workers.”

The House Immigration Reform Caucus (HIRC) is a group of (mostly Republican) representatives founded by former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) with the mission of stopping “the explosive growth in illegal immigration,” “reversing the growth in legal immigration,” and halting “amnesties.” The forum featured panelists from two of the three organization which “stand at the nexus of the American nativist movement,” and are often referred to as part of the “Nativist Lobby.”

Cross-posted at Think Progress.

Cornyn Senselessly Wonders If Alleged Terrorists Can Seek Asylum While Tried In U.S.

Republicans often use immigration as a wedge to kill initiatives and policies they don’t like, but Sen. John Cornyn’s (R-TX) most recent antics are quite a stretch. Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee put Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. in the hot seat over the decision to hold the trials of alleged 9/11 plotters on American soil.

Holder seemed baffled when Cornyn started drilling him on whether alleged 9/11 plotters will have an immigration status or be able to apply for asylum:

CORNYN: When the detainees come to the United States, will they have some immigration status?

HOLDER: I am not an immigration expert, I do not know what their status might be. I am confident however, given the fact that they would be here under the supervision of and as a result of being charged in a federal court that we would be able to detain them, that we would be able to hold them as we would do with anybody who has been charged with such serious crimes.

CORNYN: Are you aware of any more to their ability to claim asylum, or argued that they should not be able to be removed from the U.S. because of the convention against torture?

HOLDER: Again, I am not an immigration expert. One can be paroled in the United State solely for this purpose, but there’s no right to be here after[...]

CORNYN: Will you acknowledge that it’s possible — or let me ask you if you’d like into it — whether if a detainee claims an immigration status by virtue of their presence on U.S. soil it will allow them to immediately trigger tandem administrative and federal judicial immigration proceedings?

Watch it:

The National Immigration Law Center tells the Wonk Room that detainees will be brought to the U.S. but kept in custody on criminal charges — without an immigration status. In the unlikely event that they are acquitted, they could still be kept in custody and put in removal proceedings.

It’s unlikely that suspected 9/11 plotters would be granted asylum — let along a green card — even if they tried. Syracuse University points out that there’s a common misconception that the U.S. asylum system is abused by people who endanger national security. However, “asylum applications are subject to stringent review procedures by adjudicators in the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice and to rigorous background and security checks.” Terrorism concerns essentially lead to an automatic disqualification from asylum and immediate deportation.

In yesterday’s congressional testimony, Holder indicated that he was “confident justice would be delivered to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and other accused plotters of the 9/11 attacks.”

SPLC President Tells Bill O’Reilly To Pay Up $10,000 Bet

When the Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) President J. Richard Cohen appeared on Bill O’Reilly’s show this past summer and called on CNN to fire Lou Dobbs over his inaccurate immigration reporting, O’Reilly advised Cohen to stop wasting his time. O’Reilly was so sure Dobbs would never be fired from CNN that he was willing to bet Cohen $10,000:

O’REILLY: CNN is never going to fire him, you know that…

COHEN: I’m not quite as cynical as you are Bill. I think that if enough people speak out, CNN will listen and be more responsible in the future.

O’REILLY: You wanna bet?…I’ve got ten grand for Habitat for Humanity on the table if you wanna bet me.

COHEN: How about ten grand for the Southern Poverty Law Center?

O’REILLY: But I’m not going to take your money. There’s no real bet there — he’s not going to get fired.

Watch it:

In an open letter addressed to O’Reilly that was posted yesterday, Cohen states “You lost the bet. Time to pay up!” Granted, O’Reilly’s commitment to the bet was tepid, at best — but Cohen points out that “in the court of public opinion, you lose.” Cohen cites Dobbs’ $8 million severance package as proof that Dobbs didn’t just get “fed up and quit.”

Fox News’ O’Reilly Factor featured a friendly interview with Dobbs last night in which O’Reilly suggested that Dobbs’ departure had nothing to do with responsible journalism, and more to do with CNN not wanting to offend the President. Dobbs clarified that CNN had a problem with his “advocacy journalism” and agreed to “come back on a semi-regular basis.”

Tennessee Sheriff Pulls Out Of CIS Event Citing Think Tank’s Hate Group Ties

The Nashville City Paper reports that Sheriff Daron Hall of Davidson County, Tennessee has pulled out of an event hosted by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS). Local immigration activists brought the group’s nativist history to his attention and Hall canceled his meeting with CIS so as not to “cause discord among the people [he's] trying to building bridges with.”

Hall was set to appear Thursday at a CIS event dedicated to perpetuating the myth that “immigrants have relatively high rates of criminality.” It’s unclear what position Hall was going to take at the event, but there certainly won’t be any dissenting opinions in his absence. The panel now solely consists of CIS staff: Director of Research Steven Camarota, Director of Policy Studies Jessica Vaughan, and Executive Director Mark Krikorian. When questioned about Hall’s cancellation, Krikorian remarked that CIS’ nativist ties have been exaggerated as part of a “broader, concerted effort to delegitimize any skeptic of amnesty or increased immigration”:

“They don’t have the balls to describe us as a hate group, they have to do this McCarthyite kind of guilt by association thing…Their function is to provide information for this campaign of vilification…The sheriff can do whatever he needs to do, we’re going to be disappointed he’s not here but that’s his call to make. It’s the advocacy groups that are essentially lying to him that are at fault here.”

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) describes CIS as a “think tank [which] bills itself as an ‘independent’ organization,” despite the fact that it “has never found any aspect of immigration that it liked.” SPLC explains that “the organized anti-immigration ‘movement,’ increasingly in bed with racist hate groups, is dominated by one man, John Tanton.” CIS, along with its unofficial sister organizations, NumbersUSA and the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a designated hate group, were all founded by Tanton — the “nativist impresario.”

Hall faced “a firestorm of criticism” when he headlined a white supremacist event sponsored by the Middle Tennessee chapter of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC).

Napolitano: ‘If You Don’t Do Anything, You Have Amnesty By Inaction’

In an interview this morning on Fox & Friends, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano defended the proposals she offered as part of her first comprehensive discussion on immigration reform. Last Friday, Napolitano announced that immigration reform should consist of “serious and effective enforcement,” a rational system for dealing with future flows of immigrants, and — perhaps most importantly — a path to legalization for those who are already here.

Today, Fox News anchor Gretchen Carlson asked Napolitano to explain her “controversial comments.” Napolitano responded:

I don’t think they’re controversial. I think they’re commonsense…

The notion that somehow you’re going to find and deport the 11-12 million who are here illegally is illusory. So if you don’t do anything, you basically have amnesty by inaction. What we’re saying is look, you gotta come out, you’ve gotta report, you’re gonna have to pay a fine, you’re gonna have to learn English, you’re gonna have to be a taxpayer — those are the things that bring people out of the shadows.

Watch it:

Jon Feere over at the Center for Immigration Studies is one of those individuals who opposes Napolitano’s “controversial” solutions and favors an “illusory” strategy of “attrition through enforcement.” Feere proposes shrinking the population of undocumented immigrants through hardline enforcement measures that include deporting as many immigrants as possible and making life so unbearable for those that aren’t caught, that they choose to “deport themselves.” Besides the questionable moral implications associated with Feere’s recommendation, attrition through enforcement just isn’t feasible.

The estimated costs associated with any mass deportation effort would likely be at least $206 billion over five years, and could be as high as $230 billion or more. Meanwhile, the estimated revenue associated with the 2006 immigration reform bill which would’ve put undocumented immigrants on a path to legalization totaled $66 billion over a ten year period. Most undocumented immigrants come to the US out of economic desperation and it’s unlikely that there’s much the government could legally do to make their life harder here than it is for them abroad.

Ultimately, it’s unlikely that the federal government will start pouring billions of dollars into an “illusory” strategy that’s only supported by a vocal minority. Requiring undocumented immigrants to register with the government, pay all taxes they owe, and face certain penalties as part of earning legal status is a “tough and fair” path to legalization that’s supported by the majority of voters, not un-endorsed amnesty. Meanwhile, inaction on immigration reform would represent a silent pardon of the status quo that wouldn’t go unnoticed.

Napolitano Says ‘Our Hands Are Tied’ When It Comes To Dealing With Undocumented Youth

Yesterday, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano made the case for the enactment of comprehensive immigration reform at the an event hosted by the Center for American Progress. One topic that Napolitano did not touch on during her speech is the plight of young undocumented immigrants — many who had little say when they were illegally brought to the country by their parents at a young age and have always considered the U.S. “home.”

Napolitano told ThinkProgress that the Department’s “hands are tied” and that the situation must be addressed through comprehensive immigration reform:

This illustrates again, why we need immigration reform. And the DREAM Act should be part of any bill that comes out of Congress. It is heartbreaking when you have a case of a young person who has been raised in this country, wants to go to college and can’t — or commits a minor crime and must be deported. And our hands our tried, we have very little discretion in those matters. So if we want to change that, we need to have the reform. And I think the members of Congress who are working on this all agree that some form of a DREAM Act-type provision would be an important inclusion.

Watch it:

The DREAM Act that Napolitano refers to is a piece of bipartisan legislation that has been repeatedly proposed in both the House and Senate that would provide a path to U.S. citizenship for undocumented immigrants who entered the country more than five years ago while they were under the age of 16 and who complete two years of college or two years of military service. Currently, DHS deals with deportation petitions on a case-by-case basis and has deferred the final removal orders of many, but not all, young undocumented immigrants.

The College Board estimates that approximately 65,000 undocumented students who have lived in the U.S. for five years graduated from high school this past spring and now face overwhelming barriers to higher education and continued development. According to the College Board, the DREAM Act would provide an estimated 360,000 undocumented high school graduates with a “legal means to work and attend college,” and provide incentives for another 715,000 children between the ages of five and 17 to finish high school and pursue postsecondary education.

Napolitano On Sheriff Arpaio: ‘He Was Unwilling To Accept There Were Standards That Needed To Be Met’

Today at the Center for American Progress, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano gave her first full discussion on immigration policy and what DHS is doing to lay the foundation for comprehensive immigration reform in 2010. One of the more controversial steps DHS has taken is the revision and standardization of its 287(g) immigration‐enforcement agreements with state and local police as part of DHS’ efforts to prioritize the removal of dangerous undocumented immigrants. Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio made national headlines last month when he belligerently stated that he would continue to enforce immigration laws on the streets of Maricopa County, despite the fact that DHS deliberately limited his power to checking the immigration status of inmates who entered his jails.

Napolitano sat down with ThinkProgress today to explain what drove DHS’ decision to limit some of Arpaio’s authority amidst rampant allegations of racial profiling against the Sheriff’s Office:

I’ve known Sheriff Joe for a long time, and my view was the 287(g) — the agreements that were in existence were pretty standard-less. They had no terms, they had no priorities. They were pretty basic…It was time to build some standards into 287(g) and to put some organization into this.

There are two kinds of 287(g) — one is the task force model where local law enforcement pairs with federal law enforcement and the other is the jail where you’re doing work to move and identify criminal aliens and help with the immigration system. The jail model has never been an issue with Sheriff Joe…it is the task force model that has been problematic. And he was unwilling to accept that there were standards that needed to be met. He wanted to go off on his own. And so that’s where we had a parting of ways.

Watch it:

If Arpaio had showed that he was willing to accept the standards DHS was requiring, he would’ve had to stop conducting blind immigration raids and prioritize “the identification and removal of criminal aliens.” Arpaio would also have had to agreed to be bound by civil rights laws and subject to greater oversight by DHS’ Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. DHS indicated that police agencies who could not meet the new uniform standards would lose their federal authority.

Arpaio has stuck to his promise of continuing his notorious immigrant “crime sweeps” despite the fact that he lacks federal permission to do so. During the event’s Q&A, Napolitano openly opposed Arpaio’s continued immigration raids, stating that she doesn’t believe that they are the best way to ensure public safety. However, she also indicated that he is operating under state, not federal laws and thus it’s up to the Department of Justice to address Arpaio’s alleged civil rights infringements as part of its ongoing investigation.

Napolitano’s sensible explanation countered the defiant account Arpaio hastily provided the cameras back in October. Arpaio has adamantly insisted that he is simply the White House’s “poster boy” and that DHS singled him out and took his authority as an example. Arpaio also said, “if she [Napolitano] doesn’t like what I’m doing, that’s ok. I’m still the Sheriff.”

U.S. Citizen And Samoan Diplomat Accidentally Arrested By Immigration Authorities

Court House News reports that Hans Joachim Keil, a U.S. citizen and Samoan diplomat, was wrongfully arrested by US immigration authorities who thought he was an “illegal alien” and incarcerated for nine days.

Keil alleges that immigration agents confiscated his valid U.S. and Samoan Diplomatic passports and questioned him without providing legal counsel. Keil claims that he was charged with falsely claiming to be a U.S. citizen and is seeking punitive damages for “constitutional violations, unlawfully imprisonment, pain and suffering, emotional and mental duress, and for being denied permission to leave Missouri for 4 months to tend to his diplomatic duties.”

Keil isn’t the first U.S. citizen to get tangled up in the nation’s broken immigration system. In June, U.S. citizen Irving Palomo was detained and put in a van headed for Mexico due to an U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) mix-up. Diane Williams, a U.S. citizen of Caucasian and Native American descent, was recently deported to Honduras due to a mistake made by ICE officials. Mark Lyttle, a U.S. citizen who suffers from a mild mental disorder, was deported to Mexico. Mexican officials then deported him to Honduras, and Honduras deported him to Guatemala. After spending four months in Latin American prisons and homeless shelters, Atlanta airport officials tried to deport Lyttle again on his way back to his home in North Carolina.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) conservatively estimates that approximately 100 U.S. citizens are accidentally ensnared by the country’s broken immigration system each year.

The charges against Keil were immediately dropped when the Department of State acknowledged he was a citizen.

Do Anti-Immigration Tea Parties Have Dick Armey’s Blessing?

William Gheen, founder of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC), claims he is organizing 50 “tea parties” this coming Saturday in an attempt to stop efforts to “destroy America through mass illegal immigration and amnesty.” Gheen says his rallies are joining ranks with the Taxpayer Tea Party and 9/12 Movements. However, while the events do pose a great organizing opportunity for Gheen, they may not attract the support of all tea partiers. Apparently tea bagger-operative and FreedomWorks chairman Dick Armey takes a more politically savvy approach to immigration. This weekend, the New York Times wrote:

He [Armey]also has a more liberal view of immigration than many in his party. “Reagan went to Berlin and said, ‘Tear down this wall,’ ” Armey said. “We went to San Diego and said, ‘Build a fence.’ It was just stupid. You have Hispanics saying, ‘I’m not going to vote for those guys because they don’t like me.’“

While Gheen warns that American “hospitality and values are being strained” by “illegal aliens,” Armey has long been opposed to anti-immigrant fear mongering, stating:

More and more these days, immigrants are being viewed as if they were the source of America’s problems. It seems the old Malthusian notion that people are a drain is making one of its regular revivals…

Anti-immigration has always been ironic, because throughout our history newcomers have been a source of strength, not weakness. America still attracts the world’s best talent. And surely that is no liability. Think of it. We can avail ourselves of much of the world’s intellectual wealth simply by opening our doors…The impulse to limit immigration is really a manifestation of the protectionist impulse. And it’s misguided.

During the 2006 immigration debate, Armey referred to anti-immigrant xenophobe, former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), as the “cheerleader of jerkiness in the immigration debate.” Armey has proposed privatizing the US immigration system to allow in immigrants who love liberty and are willing to obey the law.

Nonetheless, Armey’s immigration views are probably motivated more by his pocket book than the goodness of his heart. A few months ago, Think Progress reported that corporate lobbyists were playing a big role in orchestrating tea party protests. That might help explain why Armey’s FreedomWorks was one of the few right wing organizations to support comprehensive immigration reform in 2006. Curiously, his lobbying firm was simultaneously representing the Senado de Republica (Mexican Senate) on “enhancing U.S.-Mexico relations,” specifically on immigration policy. Armey also probably recognizes that opposing immigration hurts his movement more than it helps. Only 9% of Republican voters cite immigration as one of their top issues and 89% of Republicans support comprehensive immigration reform that includes a path to legalization.

Armey might be pro-immigration, but ultimately he’s at least partly responsible for inspiring anti-immigrant tea party sideshows. In April, the Southern Poverty Law Center warned that hate groups and “nativist extremists” would begin exploiting the anger of tea baggers in an effort to recruit more supporters to join their hateful cause.

Chuck Norris On Legalizing Immigrants: ‘I Think Mike Would Go For This’

This weekend, in an interview with Fox News’ Geraldo Rivera, action star and conservative activist Chuck Norris pointed out that most undocumented immigrants are “good and law abiding” and even proposed a three-step plan for providing them with a path to legalization. Norris went as far to suggest that friend and political idol, Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AK), might support his proposal:

NORRIS: A lot of my [KickStart] students parents were or are illegal immigrants. But they’re making a living here and they’re law-abiding citizens. And my solution to it is give them a work-permit for two years, and for two years — if they maintain their law-abiding status — then give them a permanent worker permit. And in three years after that, let them apply for their US citizenship.

RIVERA: We should lobby Gov. Huckabee about that. Because I say if the Republicans reached out to Latinos on the issue of immigration, I think that the Republicans would be the majority Party.

NORRIS: Oh, I think Mike would go for this.

Watch it:

It would come as a breath of fresh air if Huckabee adopted Norris’ position on immigration, but it might take some convincing. While relatively moderate on immigration during his tenure as governor, Huckabee’s immigration platform veered far to the right during his presidential campaign in 2008. Huckabee specifically signed an anti-immigrant group’s “No-Amnesty Pledge” which made clear that he opposed allowing undocumented immigrants to remain in the US and would not support a path back to the US once they were deported back to their home countries. His own immigration plan was modeled after the right-wing diatribe of anti-immigrant zealot, Mark Krikorian. Throughout his campaign, Huckabee sparred in a tit-for-tat debate with Gov. Mitt Romney over who was toughest on immigration.

It wouldn’t be easy, but Huckabee and the Republican Party would probably benefit from regaining the trust and respect of Latino voters. Several members of the GOP leadership came out of last year’s elections saying the GOP seriously needs to “change its tune” on immigration. That includes former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Republican strategist Karl Rove, Colin Powell, former Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL), and many more.

President Obama would like to see undocumented immigrants “pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line” before fixing their status.

Joe Wilson And GOP Colleagues Lie About Immigrants And Health Care Reform

Today, Rep. Joe ‘You Lie’ Wilson (R-SC) staged a press conference with several other Republican congressmen during which Wilson and his colleagues repeatedly lied about taxpayers funding the health care coverage of 2.5 million additional undocumented immigrants under H.R. 3962.

WILSON: I am sorry to report that the Polosi take-over bill has loopholes in it which actually is even worse than H.R. 3200. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office [CBO], the number of illegal aliens who would benefit from receiving health care benefits in this country would increase by 2.5 million. From 6 million to 8.5 million people [undocumented immigrants] would be able to receive health care benefits. It would cost the American taxpayer 30.5 billion dollars for people who have illegally come to this country.

Watch it:

The CBO estimate actually doesn’t say anything about 2.5 million additional undocumented immigrants receiving health care benefits. What it does say is that about half of the 17 million non-elderly residents who would remain uninsured if H.R. 3200 passed would be “unauthorized immigrants” (8.5 million) and approximately one third of the 18 million who would remain uninsured under H.R. 3962 would be unauthorized (6 million). The CBO’s analysis does not reference the undocumented population other than to point out that the percentage of the uninsured population increases if undocumented immigrants are included in its estimates. There is no reference as to how many undocumented immigrants would be covered by the proposed health care bill because both CBO analyses were essentially written under the assumption that undocumented immigrants will not be eligible.

When it comes down to it, it’s hard to say how many undocumented immigrants would remain uninsured because there is so little information on the population. In a recent blog post, the CBO explained:

The use of the terms “about one-third” and “nearly half” was meant to convey the uncertainty and imprecision surrounding our estimates of the characteristics of the remaining uninsured population. Because of that uncertainty and imprecision, we cannot provide a specific figure for coverage of unauthorized immigrants under any of the proposals. Despite the difference in wording, we would not expect any significant differences between the two bills in the number of uninsured who are unauthorized immigrants, because the relevant features of the two proposals are similar.

The CBO does not discuss how many undocumented immigrants will be insured if health care reform passes, but it’s unlikely that their insurance will be tax-payer funded. Under both House bills, undocumented immigrants are permitted to participate in the health exchange and purchase insurance at full cost with their own money. They do not qualify for subsidies. Ultimately, most undocumented immigrants avoid interacting with the US government and it’s improbable that any large number will risk getting deported just to pay lower premiums. Wilson’s claim that undocumented immigrants will cost taxpayers $30.5 billion is either misinformed or downright deceitful.

The merged House bill requires US citizens to be verified against Social Security Administration data and non-citizens to be verified using the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program which was designed to help benefit-granting agencies ensure that only entitled applicants receive benefits.

Dan Stein, President of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) joined Wilson. FAIR has been listed as an anti-immigrant hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center since 2007.

Vitter Demands Apology From Reid Before Census Amendment Dies In Cloture Vote

Today, the Senate voted 60 to 39 in favor of cloture and effectively ended debate on the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill without considering an amendment proposed by Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) which sought to cut off financing for the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2010 survey unless it added a question about citizenship. Vitter, however, did not go down without a fight. In a final floor speech before the vote, Vitter denied criticism that his amendment was anti-immigrant and demanded an apology from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) for promoting inaccurate accusations:

It’s absolutely mind-boggling to me — some of the statements that have been made about it…the Majority Leader called my amendment “anti-immigrant”…Senator Reid said my effort is akin to the activities in the 1950s and 1960s to intimidate Black citizens and try to get them to stay away from voting in the voting booth. I take personal offense to that. I think there’s no reasonable comparison and I ask Senator Reid to apologize to me for that outrageous statement on the Senate floor…

It’s interesting in this debate that the other side has been flailing around for an argument against my amendment. It’s interesting that nobody’s argued — that I’ve heard — that reapportionment should be done counting citizens and non-citizens. That that’s more consistent with the notion of Congress being the representative body of citizens of the United States.

Watch it:

If Vitter were asking for nothing more than a “simple citizenship question,” as he repeatedly claimed throughout his floor speech, Reid’s remarks may have been out of line. However, Vitter consistently justified his amendment by claiming that states with many immigrants would steal the representatives of states with few immigrants if non-citizens aren’t excluded from congressional apportionment decisions. Considering the fact that Vitter’s amendment didn’t contain any language stipulating a change in the way representatives are apportioned, it can only be assumed that he was hoping to limit the enumeration of non-citizens by discouraging them from participating.

Deliberately discouraging non-citizens from participating in the Census and deterring African Americans from voting have one major aspect in common: the violation of the Constitution. The 14th Amendment made African American slaves citizens with voting rights and also stipulated that representatives would be apportioned according to “the whole number of persons in each State.” Along those lines, Vitter’s critics actually have suggested that “reapportionment should be done counting citizens and non-citizens” because the Constitution says so.

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) called Vitter’s amendment a “transparent political stunt” that would’ve cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

Four Lessons That Should Stop Vulnerable Democrats From Cowering Away From Immigration Reform

The Hill reports that vulnerable House and Senate Democrats want to focus more on the economy and “skip the party’s controversial legislative agenda.” Rather than safeguarding their reelection bids, these Democrats are more likely shooting themselves in the foot by deliberately sidestepping issues like immigration reform and climate change which helped Obama win the White House and put many of them in office.

In a Huffington Post column posted today, political strategist Robert Creamer offered Democrats four pieces of invaluable advice in preparation for next year’s midterm elections. Yellow-bellied Democrats should apply some of Creamer’s “lessons learned” to the immigration debate before passing up a golden opportunity to craft and pass progressive immigration reform in a Democratic-controlled Congress:

1. “First and foremost, the results show that it is critical that the Democratic message be framed in populist terms.”

Creamer explains that yesterday’s election results represent a referendum on incumbents — or candidates from the incumbent party — who failed to present themselves as populist “agents of change who will return economic power to average Americans.”

Backing away from the immigration issue isn’t going to do anything but reinforce the status quo. Democrats can and should talk about immigration reform in economic terms. For example, they could mention that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 would have generated $66 billion in new revenue during 2007-2016 if right-wingers hadn’t blocked it. Legalizing undocumented immigrants wouldn’t just generate more tax revenue, it would also level the playing field for all workers and improve wages and working conditions in industries that currently exploit immigrant labor. Meanwhile, shutting the door on high-skilled immigrants could drive the world’s best and brightest away from contributing to and growing the US economy.

2. “Independent voters will demand that Democrats deliver on our promise of change.”

Creamer points out that independents are impatient and need to see “some serious evidence” of change. He specifically lists immigration reform as one of the battles Democrats are going to have to win in addition to passing legislation that stimulates the economy. The nation’s immigration system has been broken for a long time and Democrats could win a lot of points for being the Party that finally fixes it.

3). “Democrats must inspire the base.”

Latino and immigrant voters make up a growing and powerful voting bloc that in 2008 came out in droves to support Obama and helped flip red states blue. Latinos overwhelmingly favored Democrats in hopes of seeing major improvements in their communities. Much of the political success of the current Congress and administration hinges on its ability to deliver comprehensive immigration reform and in turn make life-long Democrats out of Latino and immigrant voters.

4. “Our not-so-secret weapon in 2010 is the Republican circular firing squad.”

The right-wing’s self-destructive tendency is especially evident in the immigration debate. Right-wing anti-immigrant demagoguery tarnished the Republican brand during the 2007 immigration debate. The GOP is now viewed amongst Latino and immigrant voters as having created a climate of undeterred public immigrant-bashing that brought nativism into the mainstream. Some Republicans are trying to clean up the Party’s image, but one doesn’t have to look very far to realize that it’s probably going to be a while before the GOP is able to purge itself of its nativist fringe. Old habits die hard, and right-wing anti-immigrant rhetoric will probably lose hardline Republicans some votes without any Democratic interference.

But Creamer warns that Democrats can’t count on it. Actions speak louder than words and despite the fact that it’s progressives who created the “deep well of desire for real change in America,” their majority is by no means guaranteed if they don’t have the guts to go after it.

GOP Health Care Bill Excludes All Immigrants From ‘High Risk Pool’

Throughout the health care debate, Republicans have been harping on Democrats for not doing enough to block undocumented immigrants from receiving public benefits. However, it turns out Republicans aren’t just opposed to expanding access to health care for undocumented immigrants, they’re against providing any assistance to all “high risk” seriously ill immigrants, regardless of their immigration status.

The long-awaited health care bill that the Republican House leadership sent to the Congressional Budget Office explicitly states that only US citizens and nationals will be eligible to participate in a State’s “high risk pool.” High risk pools are problematic for a lot of other reasons, but they’re one of the few recourses the GOP is providing individuals who can’t obtain health insurance as a result of a serious illness. States are required to verify citizenship or nationality in a manner consistent with section 1903(x) of the Social Security Act:

Chances are most immigrants wouldn’t be able to afford to buy into pricey high risk pools even if they were eligible. Nonetheless, by explicitly excluding a population that includes legal residents who tend to be healthier than US citizens, use less medical care, and use less expensive care; the GOP is putting its nativist principles before practical common sense. A relatively small number of “high risk” immigrants probably wouldn’t bankrupt the hypothetical pool system, but their participation could upset the GOP’s right-wing base. Republicans already fought in previous years to make sure legal permanent residents don’t qualify for Medicaid until they’ve been in the country for five years and now they’re essentially suggesting that immigrants who get sick and can’t obtain Medicaid or private health insurance should either die broke in the US or go back to their home countries. Many have pointed out that the GOP’s plan is “designed for the healthy while they’re healthy” and for legal immigrants this concept is amplified and downright punitive.

The GOP proposal also prohibits States from including uninsured undocumented immigrants in their calculation of average premiums or number of uninsured.

Sec. 242 and 246 of the Democrats’ health care bill states that only individuals who are not lawfully present in US will be denied health care benefits.

FBI Investigating Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Use Of Power Against Critics

Phoenix’s local KPHO-Channel 5 reports that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is looking into accusations that Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is “using his position to settle political vendettas” against those who have been critical of his controversial tactics, primarily his aggressive pursuit of undocumented immigrants.

KPHO lists a series of well-known Arizona public figures who were paid “unwelcome visits” by Arpaio’s deputies shortly after speaking out against the Sheriff. Following previous criticisms made by former Mesa Police Chief George Gascon, the Maricopa County police inexplicably raided Mesa City Hall and the public library in search of undocumented janitors. Gascon was one of Arpaio’s harshest critics who, on his last day on the job, was still slamming the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office’s (MCSO) “incompetence” and stated that Arpaio’s immigration sweeps make “absolutely no sense” and are contrary to “good policing in general.” Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon asked the US Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate complaints of alleged racial profiling committed by Maricopa County cops. Just a few weeks later, Arpaio’s deputies demanded all of Gordan’s e-mail, phone logs and appointment calendars. “He knows he never has to prove anything,” Gordon told KPHO. “He just raises the issue, and then he hides behind the badge — and the damage is done.”

KPHO also lists Dan Saban, who ran against the sheriff in 2004 and 2008; Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, who tepidly opposed the Sheriff’s immigration tactics; Superior Court Presiding Judge Barbara Mundell, who challenged Arpaio’s handling of inmates; ACLU attorney Daniel Pochoda, who has sued the MCSO several times; and the entire Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. However, all of the sources declined to speak with Arizona Republic on the record because of the a “fear of reprisal from the Sheriff’s Office.” KPHO points out that none of Arpaio’s investigations involving the individuals mentioned have resulted in convictions. Nonetheless, Arpaio has cost them “hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and tarnished reputations.”

Former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias, who was “fired by Karl Rove for failing to be political enough in his prosecutions,” told KPHO that he would seek an indictment if he were working on the case:

“I’ve been in and around law enforcement for about 20 years — state, local and federal level (and) even some military prosecution work. I’ve never seen anything like this…This is remarkable, I can’t believe this is happening in the United States. This is something that I have seen in South America, Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe. Absolutely unacceptable. We don’t do this kind of thing in this country without some kind of consequence.“

The “normally talkative” Arpaio refused KPHO’s repeated requests for an on-camera interview, but did put out a release stating that KPHO “has an axe to grind against this Office” and slammed KPHO for citing “the same attorney [Iglesias] who was fired in 2006 by the US Attorney General.”

Watch the KPHO report:

Sessions Lies About Unemployment Benefits Going To ‘Illegals’

Yesterday, on Fox News’ Your World with Neil Cavuto, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) proclaimed that Democrats are trying to prevent him from submitting an amendment that would prevent “illegals” from accessing jobless benefits. Sessions is upset that the Senate has denied his amendment to the Unemployment Compensation Extension Act requiring new unemployment benefit applicants to have their citizenship status checked using E-Verify — a controversial and error-ridden web-based employment verification system.

Sessions said, unequivocally, that undocumented immigrants are currently receiving unemployment benefits and are being “rewarded” for their “illegal behavior” by applying with their Social Security Numbers (SSN):

SESSIONS: What we want them to do is, like we’re asking businesses to do, is check with E-verify to see if the person who seeks unemployment insurance and compensation is actually lawfully in the country. That can be done, but they do not want to do that for reasons that baffle me and frankly have said that nothing is going to be voted on…

CAVUTO: So, are illegals presently getting jobless benefits, you can say that unequivocally?

SESSIONS: Yeah, uh, and they file using their Social Security Numbers and they get the benefits and if you check those numbers you would identify some of the people who shouldn’t be getting it. One of the more simple things you should do is simply not reward this illegal behavior.

Watch it:

To begin with, only US citizens individuals who are authorized to work are issued SSNs. Undocumented immigrants may possess stolen or fake SSNs, but if they try to apply for public benefits, the likelihood of them getting caught is very high. Phony SSNs immediately raise a red flag and stolen ones are easily identifiable in states that cross-match SSNs against the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) database and in all cases in which the theft has been reported.

Ultimately, most undocumented immigrants wouldn’t touch federal unemployment insurance with a ten foot pole. They’re in the US to work, not to collect public benefits. Chances are if they lose their job, they’ll just keep looking for another one before risking deportation and possible jail time. “It’s such a red herring — undocumented workers are too scared to apply for these kinds of benefits — they know the consequences of getting caught,” Jodi Conti of the National Employment Law Project tells Wonk Room.

Millions of US citizens are unemployed and they do qualify for and depend on unemployment benefits. However, if E-verify were instituted a 4% error rate could be devastating. In other words, for every million citizens that are unemployed, unemployment benefits for 40,000 American families could be denied or delayed due to errors in the SSA and Department of Homeland Security databases. The current number of total unemployed persons is currently at 15.1 million.

Nativist Extremist’ Minuteman PAC Endorses Hoffman For Congress

Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate for New York’s traditionally Republican 23rd District, has just won the right-wing support of the Minuteman Political Action Committee — the political action arm of a “nativist extremist” armed vigilante group. The Minuteman PAC is currently running Independent Expenditure radio spots and predicts that Hoffman is “positioned to win a landslide victory” over Republican Party nominee Dede Scozzafava.

The Minuteman PAC’s Hoffman ad claims Scozzafava and Democratic candidate Bill Owens are tied directly to “the left-wing social agenda”:

You already know about ACORN — the corrupt organization scamming your tax dollars to promote a radical left agenda. And you’ve seen videos where Acorn officials offer to help a teenage prostitution ring involving illegal aliens. Now blogger Michele Malkin exposes yet another Acorn scandal: subsidized mortgages for illegal aliens. Acorn must be stopped, but how?

Two candidates for Congress, Dede Scozzafava and Bill Owens, are tied directly to Acorn and their far left-wing socialist agenda. That’s why voters all over Central New York and the North country are backing Doug Hoffman for Congress. Doug Hoffman is a CPA — a solid conservative and the only candidate for Congress opposed to amnesty and government handouts for illegal aliens. And only Hoffman will stand up to Acorn and the liberals. The choice is clear: Doug Hoffman for Congress — the wake-up call politicians in both parties need now.

Listen here:

The Minuteman PAC proclaims that it’s “THE ONE Political Action Committee that the open-borders, pro-amnesty lobby fears most,” but has been widely criticized for hoarding money and spending only a small fraction of its funds on political candidates.

However, Hoffman’s website indicates that he’s actually opposed to putting up a wall to “stop all immigration.” “The answer is to create an easier path for immigrants to enter the United States – and to work here,” says his immigration platform. Agriculture is one of central New York’s main industries and many farmers depend on migrant labor. The New York Farm Bureau has expressed “deep disappointment” in “the failure of Congress…to come up with an immigration reform measure that addresses the pressing labor needs of agriculture in New York and across the nation.”

Cross-posted at Think Progress.

Report Says Immigration Enforcement Creates ‘Perverse Economic Incentive’ To Hire Undocumented Immigrants

The AFL-CIO, American Rights at Work and the National Employment Law Project (NELP) released a joint paper today which shows that Bush-era immigration enforcement tactics created a “perverse economic incentive for employers to employ undocumented workers.” In other words, employers systematically deny undocumented workers “the most basic workplace protections” and escape responsibility “by simply calling for an immigration inspection.” While clueless anti-immigrant groups like the Center for Immigration Studies ignorantly claim that disruptive immigration raids actually help native-born workers, the report, “Iced Out: How Immigration Enforcement Has Interfered with Workers’ Rights,” affirms that “threats to call immigration authorities deprive workers in nearly every industry of their right to a voice at work.”

In 1998, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) forged between the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS, now ICE) and the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) sought to create a balance between immigration and labor law enforcement. The MOU established that the two agencies would work together to increase employers’ compliance with minimum labor standards and clearly stated that immigration enforcement would not trump labor law enforcement. Ten years later, ICE’s preoccupation with immigration enforcement was blatantly undermining the work of those trying to enforce labor laws. The report lists several examples of disruptive ICE actions, including massive immigration raids conducted in the middle of major labor disputes and organizing campaigns, stating:

“ICE actions have created incentives for shady employers to continue hiring and abusing undocumented workers, since the deportation of their employees may excuse those employers from complying with labor laws…ICE has been too quick to embrace workplace enforcement actions at the behest of employers and other individuals, including law enforcement, acting directly and transparently on behalf of employers, where a labor dispute was in progress or where some level of due diligence would have uncovered the pending dispute. When enforcement is focused on immigration status without regard to the implications for upholding workplace standards, our country’s workers — immigrant and non-immigrant alike — are trapped in abusive jobs at the mercy of abusive employers.“

Two GAO reports released over the past couple years found that the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division hasn’t been doing its job either. The most recent, released this past March, showed that five of ten labor complaints reported by undercover agents were neither recorded in its database or investigated. Meanwhile, immigration prosecutions have risen 110% since 2004.

Ana Avendaño, assistant to AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, and a report co-author, points out that “the ultimate solution” is immigration reform which creates a path to legalization for undocumented immigrants and strips employers of their power to exploit and threaten workers who stand up for their rights. Earlier this year, the AFL-CIO, along with Change to Win, “agreed for the first time to join forces” and support comprehensive immigration reform based on a “joint framework.”

Wife Of Iraq Vet Suffering PTSD Fighting Deportation

U.S. Army Spc. Jack Barrios served bravely in Iraq only to come back to the US with a debilitating post-traumatic stress disorder and learn that his wife, who he refers to as his “everything,” might be deported back to Guatemala.

Frances Barrios was illegally brought to the US by her mother when she was only 6-years-old and wasn’t even aware of her immigration status until high school. Nonetheless, she would have to return to her home country and stay there for 10 years before being able to apply for a US green card to be with her husband and two children. The Los Angeles Times points out that Frances has no criminal record and speaks better English than Spanish.

Frances is not alone. Lt. Col. Margaret Stock, an immigration attorney who helped establish the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s Military Assistance Program, claims she receives one call a day related to immigration problems. New America Media reports that one commander was almost deployed not knowing if her husband would still be there when she got back. The army ended up being more understanding than federal immigration agents and agreed to let her command her unit from a station in the US. If her husband is deported, she will have to quit the army and move with her family to either Mexico or El Salvador.

Last year, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) introduced legislation — co-sponsored by two Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee — that would give servicemembers’ spouses a path to citizenship. Yet the legislation has its critics. Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of the anti-immigrant Center for Immigration Studies, describes the bill as a “get-out-of-jail-free card.” Rep. Steve King (R-IA) also offers little sympathy, stating “Our soldiers fight and, in some cases, give their lives to preserve the rule of law. It seems ironic indeed that some would propose to disregard the rule of law just as another reward or inducement to serve our country.”

Several widows and widowers of deceased soldiers have also been affected by a draconian policy which allows immigration officials to annul spouses’ permanent residency applications when their US citizen husbands or wives die before the marriage is two years old. A bill that overturned what is often referred to as the “widow’s penalty” passed Congress this month and is awaiting President Obama’s signature.

Dallas Woman Ticketed For Not Speaking English

The Dallas Morning News reports that Ernestina Mondragon, a native Spanish-speaker who is still learning English, was wrongfully issued a ticket by an officer in training for not speaking English. Non-English speakers aren’t allowed to operate taxis or commercial vehicles in Texas, however Mondragon has every right to be on the road in her private car according to state and local law.

A local Dallas news station explains that the new police officer may have been confused. “Rookie” Officer Gary Bromley also issued Mondragon a citation for a wrongful U-turn and driving without a license. Mondragon was running late taking her 11-year-old daughter to school and had left her driver’s license at home. The error went inexplicably unnoticed by his supervising officer, who was with him the morning he issued Mondragon the ticket.

Throughout the years, English-only bills have been considered by the Texas state legislature — including one that sought to designate English as the official language of the State of Texas. Yet so far, non-English speakers in Texas are still allowed to drive.

Watch the local news report: