Right Side News Reports from the Federation for American Immigration Reform in this November 16, 2009 Legislative Weekly
-
La Raza and FAIR Face Off on Providing Taxpayer-Subsidized Health Care to Illegal Aliens
-
Napolitano Affirms Amnesty Legislation is on the Agenda in Early 2010
-
Illegal Alien Files Million Dollar Suit against Sheriff in Attempt to Undermine 287(g)
-
British Prime Minister Acknowledges "Cost" of Immigration, Advocates Reduction
La Raza and FAIR Face Off on Providing Taxpayer-Subsidized Health Care to Illegal Aliens
Last week, FAIR's President, Dan Stein, and the National Council of La Raza's (La Raza) Vice President, Eric Rodriguez, penned competing editorials over the issue of whether illegal aliens should be able to access the "exchange" marketplace created by the House health care bill. (For FAIR's editorial, click here; For La Raza's editorial, click here). In addition, Stein authored another editorial that was published on November 12 by USA Today (available here).
In the La Raza editorial, La Raza's primary argument for allowing illegal aliens to participate in the "taxpayer-subsidized" exchange centered on the issue of cost. According to La Raza, illegal aliens should be allowed to use their own money to purchase insurance through the exchange because "[m]ore workers in the health exchange will help control costs and ensure that Americans are not exploited when purchasing health insurance." (Id.). However, as FAIR's President Dan Stein pointed out in USA Today, this is simply untrue. As Stein put it: "Uncompensated care for illegal aliens already costs taxpayers $11 billion a year. Extending health insurance to illegal aliens would be even more expensive. [The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has] concluded 'that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall.'" (See USA Today, November 12, 2009; See also CBO, August 9, 2009).
One area where FAIR and La Raza do agree is that the exchange will be, as La Raza put it, "taxpayer-subsidized." In other words, taxpayers will be paying for a system that benefits anyone participating in the exchange. As the CBO has indicated, under the House health care bill, taxpayers will be paying between $41 to $51 billion for the initial set-up and operation of the exchange. (See CBO score). Nearly half (46.5 percent) of the 25.6 million non-citizens in the United States are illegal aliens, and about 59 percent of illegal alien adults currently lack health insurance. This means that illegal aliens will constitute a substantial portion of those using the exchange. (CRS Report, November 2, 2009). As a result, it is highly likely that allowing illegal aliens to buy into the exchange would dramatically increase the bureaucratic costs of the taxpayer-funded exchange. This will inevitably lead to increased costs for American taxpayers. FAIR's USA Today editorial also pointed out that an increase in the number of persons accessing health services, without a corresponding increase in the number of doctors, nurses, hospital beds, and doctor's offices, "could impact health care quality for all Americans, resulting in longer waits at the doctor's office and reduced access to services." (USA Today).
Napolitano Affirms Amnesty Legislation is on the Agenda in Early 2010
On Friday, November 13, Janet Napolitano, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, gave a speech at the Center for American Progress (CAP). Napolitano used the speech to highlight the Obama Administration's continued support for a mass amnesty for millions of illegal aliens, promising amnesty legislation in early 2010.
Napolitano - who has been designated as President Obama's point person on the issue of immigration reform - described the administration's vision of immigration legislation as consisting of a "three-legged stool." This so-called "stool" consists of: (1) a mass amnesty for the approximately 12 million illegal aliens currently living in the United States; (2) "improved legal flows for families and workers" which means a dramatic increase in legal immigration; and (3) empty promises of "serious and effective enforcement." (Secretary Napolitano's Prepared Remarks, November 13, 2009). As for when the administration expects to see Congress take up an amnesty bill, Napolitano stated that she expected to see legislation move in "the first part" of next year. (CAP, November 13, 2009).
In addition to advocating amnesty, Napolitano utilized last Friday's speech to dismiss concerns that legal immigration is adversely affecting U.S. workers. During a brief question-and-answer period following the completion of her speech, a member of the audience expressed concerns about foreign workers obtaining engineering jobs over equally-qualified American workers. With unemployment now over ten percent for the first time in 26 years (Bureau of Labor Statistics, November 6, 2009), Napolitano answered by alleging that the questioner had posed a "false dichotomy," and added that she "think[s] there's enough engineering jobs for everybody." (CAP).
Illegal Alien Files Million Dollar Suit against Sheriff in Attempt to Undermine 287(g)
Last Tuesday, an illegal alien filed a federal lawsuit against officials in Frederick County, Maryland, claiming that her civil rights were violated when deputies arrested her last year. The plaintiff, Roxana Orellana Santos, a Salvadoran immigrant, alleges she was detained despite committing "no criminal offense under Maryland law," though it seems clear from her detention by immigration authorities that she was held for being in the country illegally. (CNN, November 11, 2009).
Her attorney would not confirm her immigration status to CNN, responding, "We're not commenting on that at all." (Id.) Santos, backed by pro-amnesty groups Latino Justice PRLDEF and Casa de Maryland, is suing Sheriff Jenkins, Deputy Openshaw, the Frederick County Board of Commissioners, and current and former immigration officials for allegedly questioning and detaining her based solely on her ethnic appearance. (Washington Post, November 11, 2009; CNN, November 11, 2009). Santos, who does not speak English, claims that she was eating lunch when two deputies asked her for identification, then detained her and turned her over to immigration authorities for possible deportation after she produced a national identification card from El Salvador. (Frederick News Post, November 13, 2009). However, Sheriff Jenkins disputes this characterization, stating that the deputies were doing a routine check of the area when she jumped up and ran behind a storage container after seeing the deputies. (The Gazette, November 12, 2009). The deputies checked her identification against a federal immigration database, and learned the plaintiff had an outstanding arrest warrant from ICE for failing to appear in court. (Id.).
At issue in this lawsuit is 287(g), the highly successful federal program that allows Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to provide training to state and local law enforcement agencies to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration laws. In addition to accusing the Frederick County Sheriff's Office of racial profiling, the suit claims the local law enforcement officers exceeded the scope of their authority under 287(g). (Complaint, November 10, 2009). This latest attack on 287(g) is not surprising, given the determination of amnesty proponents to eliminate the program altogether, and the Administration's ongoing efforts to undermine its effectiveness. (See FAIR's Legislative Update, October 13, 2009).
Earlier this year, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that DHS was changing the program, placing a new emphasis on aligning 287(g) with "the identification and removal of criminal aliens." (See FAIR's Legislative Update, July 13, 2009). According to the author of the legislation that created 287(g) (House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith (R-TX)), the new approach contradicts the legislative intent of the program. (See FAIR's Legislative Update, July 13, 2009). Smith noted at a House Homeland Security Committee hearing in March that "the goal [in creating 287(g)] was to really enable those local law enforcement authorities who wanted to enforce the immigration laws in whatever way they thought best...and that's really a decision made by the government in individual situations." (House Homeland Security Committee Hearing, March 4, 2009). Last month, a bipartisan group of 54 Representatives sent President Obama a letter expressing their support for 287(g), which stated that 287(g) was not intended to be "limited to 'dangerous' criminals, as some have suggested, but designed to let state and local law enforcement officials help enforce all immigration laws and to remove illegal immigrants from the streets before they go on to commit preventable crimes." (See Letter, October 26, 2009; See also FAIR's Legislative Update, November 2, 2009).
This lawsuit is a consequence of DHS's attempts to weaken 287(g) by disregarding Congress's original intent for the program. The complaint asserts that the "main objective of the 287(g) program is to address serious criminal activity, such as violent crimes, gang activity, narcotics smuggling and other felonies committed by foreign nationals." (Complaint, November 10, 2009). As previously reported by FAIR, this is a blatant misstatement of the legislative intent of the program. Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX), who authored 287(g), has said that 287(g) should be tailored to suit the needs of participating law enforcement agencies, "and that might or might not include those who have committed serious crimes." (See FAIR's Legislative Update, July 13, 2009).
This lawsuit is not only an attack on 287(g), but is also an attack on Sheriff Jenkins, who is a "vocal crusader against illegal immigration." (Washington Post, November 11, 2009). The complaint in the lawsuit recognizes that Sheriff Jenkins campaigned for sheriff on promises of increased immigration enforcement, and charges that after assuming office, he "engaged in anti-immigrant rhetoric." (Complaint, November 10, 2009). Jenkins has said that Casa de Maryland has always been a critic of his office's participation in 287(g), but that he remains undaunted by the lawsuit. (The Gazette, November 10, 2009).
British Prime Minister Acknowledges "Cost" of Immigration, Advocates Reduction
Last week, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown acknowledged what the overwhelming majority of American citizens have understood for decades: unrestricted mass immigration suppresses wages, takes jobs away from those who desperately need them, and creates social tension. Brown's comments came in the face of an increasing public outcry in Great Britain demanding that, in the face of rising unemployment, the government take action to address the issue of immigration.
According to British media reports, Brown delivered a speech last Thursday in which he "accepted people's fears that [immigration] has undermined wages, affected job prospects for children and whether families can live near each other." (The Telegraph, November 12, 2009). Acknowledging that immigration has a disproportionately harmful effect on the unemployed and other struggling families and individuals, Brown stated: "If you work in a sector where wages are falling or an area where jobs are scarce, immigration will feel very different." Brown elaborated: "If you're living in a town which hasn't seen much inward migration before, you may worry about whether immigration will undermine wages and the job prospects of your children - and whether they will be able to get housing anywhere near you." (Id.).
The attitudes of mainstream American citizens toward mass immigration are strikingly similar to those of the citizens of Great Britain. A recent poll conducted by CNN and the Opinion Research Corporation found that 73 percent of Americans "would like to see a decrease in the number of illegal immigrants in the country." (CNN, October 22, 2009). A Gallup poll conducted in August 2009 found that 50 percent of Americans say immigration should be decreased, while only 14 percent support an increase. (Gallup, August 5, 2009). Furthermore, an April 2009 Pulse Opinion survey found that strong majorities of progressives and liberals believe that high levels of immigration into the United States have harmed the nation's quality of life, environment, and job prospects for legal workers. (Progressives for Immigration Reform, April 14, 2009).
In addition to his comments addressing British citizens' concerns with unrestricted mass immigration, Brown "pledged to create thousands more jobs for British workers by reducing the number of skilled occupations that are open to foreign workers." (The Telegraph). FAIR has consistently advocated this same type of reduction as a way to create jobs in the United States, as well. However, it does not appear that the Obama Administration feels the same way. On Friday, November 13, President Obama's Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, responded to a questioner who expressed concerns about foreign workers obtaining engineering jobs over equally-qualified American workers by saying that she "think[s] there's enough engineering jobs for everybody." (Center for American Progress, November 13, 2009). Secretary Napolitano's statement is astonishing, especially in light of recently issued numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) indicating that the nationwide unemployment rate is now 10.2 percent - the highest it has been in 26 years. (BLS, November 6, 2009).
---------------------------------------
The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) is a national, nonprofit, public-interest, membership organization of concerned citizens who share a common belief that our nation's immigration policies must be reformed to serve the national interest.
FAIR seeks to improve border security, to stop illegal immigration, and to promote immigration levels consistent with the national interest-more traditional rates of about 300,000 a year.
