| U.S. Legislative Immigration Update February 1, 2010 |
 |
 |
| Written by FAIRUS.org |
| Monday, 01 February 2010 17:44 |
|
Right Side News Reports from the Federation for American Immigration Reform in this February 1st, 2010 Legislative Weekly
State of the Union Disappoints Amnesty ForcesPresident Obama disappointed many amnesty advocates last week with only a passing mention of immigration during his State of the Union speech. This reference, consisting of just 38 words near the end of the more than hour-long speech, was noticeably ambiguous: "And we should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system to secure our borders and enforce our laws and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nation." (CNN, January 29, 2010). Absent was any mention of "comprehensive" immigration reform, a path to citizenship, or even legalization. This passing reference to immigration reform has amnesty proponents questioning whether President Obama truly intends to push for such legislation as part of the agenda he laid out for his second year. The amnesty special interest groups immediately reacted to the president's apparent lack of enthusiasm for comprehensive immigration reform. Frank Sharry, the executive director of America's Voice, said, "We knew in advance that it would be a drive-by reference in the speech. But we didn't know that the president would be driving by at 75 miles an hour." (Politics Daily, January 29, 2010). Rev. Samuel Rodriguez of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference expressed his disappointment with the president's remarks by observing that the measly reference to immigration was "a crumb that was placed on the domestic-policy-agenda table to really satisfy the hunger of the immigrant and Latino communities. It was the death knell of immigration reform in 2010." (Newsweek, January 28, 2010). Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), who introduced a sweeping amnesty package in the House of Representatives last December, responded that it is now obvious that Congress "cannot wait for the President to lay out our timeline for comprehensive reform." (Id., See FAIR's Legislative Analysis of H.R. 4321). Interestingly, Clarissa Martinez of La Raza was slightly less critical of the president's cursory mention of immigration: "From the perspective of the Latino community, the most pressing issue is the economy and job creation." (Id.). But she added that amnesty forces will not be patient forever in waiting for comprehensive immigration reform, as there is "definitely an expectation that there will be movement, and there will be disappointment if that doesn't happen." (Id.). Although President Obama barely mentioned immigration, he made it clear in his State of the Union Address that creating new jobs is his most important domestic priority in 2010. (See FAIR's Press Release, January 28, 2010). While the president talked at length about his plans to create new jobs for the approximately 25 million Americans either out of work or involuntarily working part-time, he pointedly omitted mention of some eight million existing U.S. jobs that are currently held by illegal aliens. Moreover, during his first year in office, President Obama has dramatically scaled back efforts to enforce laws against illegal aliens working in the U.S. by curtailing immigration enforcement in the workplace. Enforcing laws against illegal aliens in the workplace will not entirely solve the unemployment crisis in America, but freeing up millions of jobs would help many Americans find jobs and increase wages. Members of the Senate are reportedly drafting a "jobs" bill, and FAIR is urging true immigration reformers in Congress to push for steps to improve our immigration laws that can help the American worker at little or no cost to the American taxpayer. (Washington Post, January 8, 2010). One commonsense measure would be permanently reauthorizing E-Verify. U.S. Suspends then Resumes Transport of Haitians as Florida Hospitals Become OverwhelmedLast week, the government announced that it was halting the transport of Haitians to U.S. hospitals due to the uncertainty of who would pay for the cost of care. (The New York Times, January 29, 2010). On Wednesday, January 27, Florida Governor Charlie Crist sent a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius asking the federal government to pay some of the costs for treatment. In the letter, Crist wrote that his state did not have capacity to support plans to transport 30-50 critically ill patients to Florida for an indefinite period of time. (Letter, January 27, 2010). Governor Crist's office later added: "Florida stands ready to assist our neighbors in Haiti, but we need a plan of action and reimbursement for the care we are providing." (The New York Times, January 29, 2010). However, upon receiving "assurances that additional capacity exists both [in the United States] and among [the U.S.'] international partners," the White House resumed the evacuations on Sunday, January 31. (The New York Times, January 31, 2010). Florida hospitals have been feeling the strain of caring for victims since the tragic January 12 earthquake. Last week, state and federal officials were forced to divert Haitian evacuees from several southern Florida hospitals that have become overwhelmed by the sudden influx of Haitians. According to media reports, officials in Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach have indicated that hospitals in south Florida "could take in no more" earthquake victims, forcing officials to redirect injured Haitians to facilities in Tampa and Orlando. Hospitals in the area have said that all of the free medical care they had administered to refugees was "crippling their ability to provide essential services to local people." One local hospital, which has handled the majority of Haitian refugees seeking medical treatment in south Florida, is already "running a significant loss." (Sun Sentinel, January 27, 2010; NBCMiami, January 28, 2010). Meanwhile, polls show that most Americans oppose inviting Haitian refugees into the United States. A January 21 Rasmussen Reports survey found that 46 percent of Americans oppose inviting Haitian refugees to the United States, while 31 percent support such a move and 22 percent are undecided. (Rasmussen Reports, January 21, 2010). On January 25, Gallup released a poll indicating that only 41 percent of Americans believe that the Federal government should increase the number of immigrants from Haiti allowed into the U.S.; 53 percent said that Haitian immigrant admissions should not be increased. (Gallup, January 25, 2010). Christmas Day Bombing Highlights Turf War Over Visa AuthorityOne of the most disturbing revelations in the wake of the foiled Christmas Day attack, in which Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab allegedly attempted to set off explosives on a plane bound for Detroit, was that the suspect had a valid United States visa. (Fox News, December 30, 2009). In a recent hearing on the attack held by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Ranking Member Susan Collins (R-ME) stated that "the most obvious error" in handling this case was that the State Department did not revoke his visa. (Homeland Security Hearing Testimony, January 20, 2010). This particular issue has fueled a debate that has raged since September 11th over who has ultimate authority to revoke visas. (Washington Times, January 12, 2010). The issue of visa revocation stems from compromises made during the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) itself in 2002. The initial plan to grant Homeland Security the exclusive authority over visas was what many lawmakers supported. However, the State Department resisted and Congress finally compromised by maintaining the Department of State's (DOS) authority to issue but giving the Department of Homeland Security a new role in visa policy and procedures. DHS also obtained dual revocation authority that is exercised through the Department of State. (See 6 U.S.C. 236(b) and the Memorandum of Understanding, paragraph 5, issued pursuant to it in 2003). In addition, Congress also directed Homeland Security to station personnel in Saudi Arabia to review all visa applications prior to decision and authorized DHS to create Visa Security Units that could go into other U.S. consular posts, review visa applications, conduct investigations, and advise State Department officials. With Department of Homeland Security and the State Department having dual revocation authority, a process had to be established to clarify how each agency would use its authority and which one had the ultimate say. DHS and the State Department executed a memorandum of understanding in 2003 which allowed DHS to request State to revoke a visa in certain cases. However, the State Department and DHS have not always agreed when refusal or revocation of a visa is appropriate and whether the information provided was enough to sustain a decision under current law. In such cases, a State Department consular officer or DHS officer in the foreign country would send a request back to State Department Headquarters for resolution with input from Homeland Security. The lack of a clear process may have contributed to the national security failures that allowed Abdulmutallab to board a flight bound for the U.S. Some critics blame State for failing to revoke his visa, but others argue that the intelligence community should have used the information it had to recommend revocation to State. (Washington Times, January 11, 2010). John R. Bolton, former undersecretary of state for international security and later ambassador to the United Nations, has said the "allocation of responsibilities on visas between [the Departments of] State, Homeland Security and [the National Counterterrorism Center] has not worked out, although different people blame different agencies." (Id.). From the recent Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing, it is apparent the different agencies do not entirely understand or agree who holds the ultimate authority to revoke visas. In fact, during last week's hearing, the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Michael Leiter, the Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, and DHS Secretary Napolitano conceded that they are investigating the proper roles each agency should play. (Homeland Security Hearing Testimony, January 20, 2010). Some Senators, including Homeland Security Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman (I-CT), appear to favor stripping the State Department of all of its authority over the visa process and granting it to Homeland Security. He stated, "I believe, incidentally, that we ought to take a look at taking the visa application and admission responsibility from the State Department. It doesn't really fit with foreign policy anymore. And in an age of terrorism, I think the Department of Homeland Security ought to be handling visas abroad." (Reuters, January 3, 2010). Lieberman has stated he intends to hold further hearings on visa functions within the Departments of State and Homeland Security. (Homeland Security Hearing Testimony, January 20, 2010). President Obama has also ordered a review of "visa issuance and revocation criteria." (Washington Times, January 11, 2010). Representatives Introduce Bill to Block Illegal Aliens from Accessing In-State TuitionOn Wednesday, January 27, Congressmen Todd Tiahrt (R-KS), Rodney Alexander (R-LA), Brian Bilbray (R-CA), and Duncan Hunter (R-CA) introduced the "Fairness for American Students Act" (H.R. 4548). This commonsense legislation would amend the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act to clarify that illegal aliens who attend a postsecondary educational institution are ineligible for in-state tuition unless the institution offers those rates to all American citizens. To help enforce this provision, the bill provides out-of-state students legal standing to file civil actions against states and institutions that violate the law. Finally, H.R. 4548 would bar any college or university that provides in-state tuition to illegal aliens from receiving any Federal funding. Currently, ten states grant in-state tuition to illegal aliens. Groups of American students have challenged these laws in both California and Kansas. The suit in California is pending before the state supreme court. However, in Rep. Tiahrt's home state of Kansas, a Federal judge dismissed the suit for lack of standing. (NILC, October 5, 2005). H.R. 4548 would help American students challenge the granting of in-state tuition to illegal aliens by creating a civil cause of action for citizens who suffer financially by not receiving in-state tuition from a college or university that simultaneously grants such benefits to illegal aliens. (§ 1(a)(3)). FAIR has strongly endorsed the Fairness for American Students Act. As FAIR President Dan Stein noted, "This commonsense bill is consistent with the belief held by millions of Americans that our government should not subsidize and reward illegal immigration." (American Chronicle, January 28, 2010). 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.
Trackback(0)
Comments (2)
  written by Dave, February 01, 2010
Now America security is at stake, by cultivating free trade with Mexico with the free movement of goods. This is not limited to border security, but our shipping container ports that are not sufficiently guarded either from some murdering religious zealot smuggling in a nuclear devise. Our legislators are deliberately ignoring the chance of dangerous incursions by foreign nationals with those murdering intentions. Once the twin towers fell, politicians should have enforced our Northern and Southern borders, to even rescinding The Posse Comitatus Act, by a vote of Congress and placing our regular military on the thin national line. In our immediate future, when terrorists attack our nation--this is When and not If? The ultimate blame will be with pariah business organizations, many unions, faith groups with the leaders usurping of US Immigration law from the Vatican, open border organizations and anti-American groups as with La Raza. El Quada planned the monstrous nightmare in New York for many years, as they will again--biding their time. Their patience is unnerving, because they will wait until our guard is down. They are very aware that some politicians will sacrifice Americans in the name of free trade and gorging on imported cheap goods, while our own exports remain stagnant.
Now we hear that Ben laden is making inquiries of Weapons of Ma*s Destruction around the world. Likely he is looking to Russia--the old Soviet Union, where many WMD's have remain unaccounted for in military inventories. Politicians like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Janet Napolitano have left us wide open to a terrorist attack, because of ma*sive underfunding of the border walls and immigration as a whole. E-Verify which can in the majority of cases identify illegal immigrants. 287 (G) giving our police forces the right to question any suspicious individual and detain them for ICE. The fact that drug dealers in Mexico are collaborating with foreign combatants, to infiltrate the United States. Zeta's are paramilitary recruited from the Mexican army to work with the drug king pins, as enforcers against other cartels. However, now the have moved into the narcotics battle in major cities, but are also involved in human trafficking and other obnoxious crimes. Yet our border remains very flimsy against any a*sault upon this sovereign country. Even Mexico has Federal troops on the border with Guatemala and Belize and anybody desperate enough to illegally enter are thrown into prison or disappear without a trace. Only voting against incumbents and those who believe in enforcing immigration laws should ever reach Washington. We have had to many years lawmakers who have catered to the wealthy Robber--corporate--interest--Barons, who believe its their right to cheat the American people.Call the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 and asked for your Senator or Congressman. In addition bombard your State Representatives to enforce state laws. NO MORE AMNESTIES, MAKE E-VERIFY PERMANENT , FULLY FUND 287 (G) FOR LOCAL POLICE AND RESUME EXPANDED ICE RAIDS. Learn more at NUMBERSUSA dot com, JudicialWatch dot org and Americanpatrol dot com Latest Immigration News: San Bernardino County (Calif.) Sun Cost of teaching English learning students in SB County $34M San Bernardino County public schools are spending more than $34 million in state and federal money this school year to educate English learners, a group whose population has doubled since 1995. -- That amount doesn't include additional funding for services and programs available to English learners as well as other students. Salt Lake Tribune: Gaps on the border: US agencies at odds After a 20-minute drive into a federally protected stretch in Arizona, retired Forest Service employee Mark South points to an aging, four-strand barbed-wire fence separating the United States from its southern neighbor. -- "See that fence? That's Mexico," South says... [Much of what the Tribune is claiming is a fence isn't a fence at all.
Write comment
|
| Last Updated on Monday, 01 February 2010 17:57 |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
We now need a commitment from those in power to enforcing our immigration laws. But as usual American safety comes--LAST--behind the unceasing lines of illegal aliens and their families. As Usual its left for taxpayers to forfeit extra taxes to pay the financial tab for supporting the millions of illegal immigrants, when it should be the--BUSINESS--partnership with rogue politicians and the National business organizations that--SHOULD BE DEMANDED--to pay for their upkeep? After all the ordinary man/women in the street, never welcomed them here? All border states live on the edge of a smoldering volcano, ready to erupt at any time. California is broke, followed by Arizona in a close race to insolvency.Whereas Arizona has just past harsh laws to stop illegal aliens taking legal residents jobs and the sponging mechanism of welfare entitlements. But the California Liberals in Sacramento cannot justify in saving their State from financial crisis caused partly by the illegal immigration invasion. Partly by unparalleled incompetence. Perhaps the California governor is correct, even though is critics say no, to building prisons in Mexico. It would rid California of dangerous gangs that have permeated the State and elsewhere, like a toilet that hasn't been flushed for years? Illegal immigrants from South of the border, would think twice in criminal acts and being deported, as American prisons are like halfway house to the inmates compared to what awaits them South of the fence? For a short time Washington did enforce the border with the National Guard, but since have employed them in the Middle East.