Immigration Watch International

In a near catastrophic event last week, the thwarted attack on Northwest flight 253 serves as a reminder for our elected officials – immigration policies are national security policies. The Obama administration and Congress must enforce our immigration laws to adequately protect our national security.

Full implementation of common sense immigration polices are vital to ensuring the safety of not only air passengers, but of all U.S. citizens. However, instead of strengthening identification requirements, the Department of Homeland Security recently extended the deadline for states to comply with REAL ID. REAL ID is the federal law requiring that driver’s licenses and other government issued identity documents meet certain security standards to ensure that they are not abused by terrorists and other criminals. This postponement effectively terminates implementation indefinitely and is the direct result of DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano’s support of PASS ID, which would repeal many of the key national security and immigration enforcement provisions established by REAL ID and recommended by the 9-11 Commission.

PASS ID will essentially re-establish many of the security and immigration loopholes that allowed the 9/11 hijackers to carry out their attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

New Asylum Detention Policy Jeopardizes National Security

On Wednesday, December 16, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced that it will stop detaining aliens seeking asylum as “part of ICE’s ongoing immigration detention reform efforts.” Under the new policy, aliens who show up at the U.S. border without proper documentation but claim asylum will immediately be eligible for parole into the U.S. if they have a credible fear of persecution or torture and are not considered a danger or flight risk.

Under current ICE policy, aliens who come to United States without documentation and request asylum are detained until immigration officials have determined whether the alien’s asylum claim is legitimate. This process sought to promote national security by giving federal officials time to screen asylum applications before releasing applicants into the general public.

Federal officials began to take detention of asylum applicants more seriously after discovering that immigration officers cleared Ramzi Yousef into the country after he entered the United States at JFK airport on September 1, 1992, without travel documents and applied for asylum. He then began organizing the first attack on the World Trade Center and fled the country after the blast.

According to FAIR Director of Special Projects Jack Martin, the policy is “irresponsible because it rewards illegal entry” and “dangerous because there is no check on the identity of the traveler.” Martin concluded that the revisions would serve as “a green light to Al Qaeda.”

Democratic Support for Amnesty Bill Grows

As the Obama administration continues to dismantle meaningful immigration enforcement, Democrats in Congress are flocking to Rep. Louis Gutierrez’s mass amnesty legislation. The recent breaches in our national security call into question the feasibility of doing background checks on 13 million illegal aliens. It’s a shear impossibility and would dilute valuable law enforcement resources from the mission of homeland security.

See if your congressman is co-sponsoring the House Democrats amnesty bill H.R. 4321 by going to www.steinreport.com/archives/013052.html

Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison says the continuing arrival of boat people is putting the assessment system under too much pressure. “The government’s indifference and weakness, both in their border protection policies and the decisions they’ve taken, have ensured that Australia has become a magnet for people smugglers,” Mr Morrison told ABC radio on Tuesday. “So we’re now left with a situation where we have Christmas Island full, boats arriving pretty much at will and this must be putting extraordinary pressure on the processing systems that need to be undertaken under such overcrowded conditions.”

The latest suspected asylum seeker arrivals will be taken to nearby Christmas Island for questioning and to undergo security, identity and health checks.

The interception comes only days after the federal government rejected claims overcrowding in detention facilities on Christmas Island had forced it to move 30 Afghan asylum seekers to Melbourne for processing. It is the 59th asylum seeker boat to have been intercepted in Australian waters so far this year.

Thailand has sent army troops with shields and batons to begin evicting 4000 ethnic Hmong asylum-seekers from Thai camps and send them back to Laos despite strong objections from the US and rights groups who fear they will face persecution. Under tight security, an initial group of Hmong – many of them children – was driven out of the camp in covered military trucks, each manned by several soldiers. Journalists kept at a distance from the camp could see the convoy as it left. Thai authorities said the first batch would include 448 people.

Washington called for the eviction to stop. “The United States strongly urges Thai authorities to suspend this operation,” US State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said in a statement, noting that the UN and Thailand in the past had deemed that many of the Hmong in this group were “in need of protection because of the threats they might face in Laos”.

The Hmong, an ethnic minority group from Laos’s rugged mountains, helped US forces during the Vietnam War. Many Hmong fought under CIA advisers during the so-called “secret war” in Laos before it fell to the communists in 1975.

The Hmong claim they have been persecuted by the Lao government ever since. More than 300,000 Laotians, mostly Hmong, are known to have fled to Thailand since 1975. Most were either repatriated to Laos or resettled in third countries, particularly the US – but Washington has said it has no plans to resettle more Hmong.

The Thai government claims most of the Hmong are economic migrants who entered the country illegally and have no claims to refugee status, and says it has assurances from Laos that the Hmong will be well-treated. The group was being held at a camp in northern Thailand that the government wants to close.

The Thai army’s co-ordinator for the operation, Colonel Thana Charuwat, said 5000 soldiers, officials and civilian volunteers were involved in the eviction. He said the troops carried no firearms and that their shields and batons met international standards for dealing with situations where people were being moved against their will. Two dozen trucks could be seen heading towards the refugee camp yesterday.

In contrast to many national religious leaders who are lobbying for increases in immigration, a new Zogby poll of likely voters who belong to the same religious communities finds strong support for reducing overall immigration. Moreover, members strongly disagree with their leaders’ contention that more immigrant workers need to be allowed into the country.

Also, most parishioners and congregants prefer more enforcement to cause illegal workers to go home, rather than legalization of illegal immigrants, which most religious leaders prefer. The survey of Catholic, mainline Protestant, born-again Protestant, and Jewish voters used neutral language and was one of the largest polls on immigration ever done. Among the findings:

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

* Catholics: Just 11 percent said illegal immigration was caused by not letting in enough legal immigrants; 78 percent said it was caused by inadequate enforcement efforts.

* Mainline Protestants: 18 percent said not enough legal immigration; 78 percent said inadequate enforcement.

* Born-Again Protestants: 9 percent said not enough legal immigration; 85 percent said inadequate enforcement.

* Jews: 21 percent said not enough legal immigration; 60 percent said inadequate enforcement.

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

* Catholics: 12 percent said legal immigration should be increased to fill such jobs; 69 percent said there are plenty of Americans available to do such jobs, employers just need to pay more.

* Mainline Protestants: 10 percent said increase immigration; 73 percent said plenty of Americans are available.

* Born-Again Protestants: 7 percent said increase immigration; 75 percent said plenty of Americans are available.

* Jews: 16 percent said increase immigration; 61 percent said plenty of Americans available.

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

* Catholics: 64 percent support enforcement to encourage illegals to go home; 23 percent support conditional legalization.

* Mainline Protestants: 64 percent support enforcement; 24 percent support legalization.

* Born-Again Protestants: 76 percent support enforcement; 12 percent support legalization.

* Jews: 43 percent support enforcement; 40 percent support legalization.

In contrast to many religious leaders, most members think immigration is too high.

* Catholics: 69 percent said immigration is too high; 4 percent said too low; 14 percent just right.

* Mainline Protestants: 72 percent said too high; 2 percent said too low; 11 percent just right.

* Born-Again Protestants: 78 percent too high; 3 percent said too low; 9 percent just right.

* Jews: 50 percent said it is too high; 5 percent said too low; 22 percent just right.

Discussion

Most major denominations agree that illegal immigrants must be treated humanely. But the leadership often goes much further and takes the position that illegal immigration is caused, at least in part, by not letting in enough legal immigrants. They then call for increases in the number of workers and family members allowed into the country. For example, early this year, the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) issued a resolution stating that, “Due to the limited number of visas, millions have entered the United States without proper documentation.” The NAE then calls for increases in the number of immigrant workers allowed in.

The Catholic Church states that the law must be reformed so that more “laborers from other countries can enter the country legally.”

The Episcopal Church adopted a resolution in July of this year stating that, “Immigrants are filling the jobs that go unwanted and unfilled by U.S. citizens.” The resolution makes clear more immigrant workers need to be allowed in legally.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in November 2009 adopted a document that states illegal immigrants do jobs that “citizens often will not do” and that legal immigration should be increased to meet, “the annual need for foreign workers.”

A Commission of the Union for Reform Judaism argues that limits on immigration contribute to illegal immigration, and calls for legislation that “Increases the number of visas allowing unskilled laborers to work in the U.S.”

Most parishioners believe that enforcing the law and improving the wages and working conditions of unskilled workers to attract more Americans is the best way to deal with illegal immigration. The huge divide between leaders and members means that if there is a full-blown immigration debate next year it will be all the more contentious, with Jewish and Christian leaders on one side of the issue, their members on the other, and elected officials in the middle.

Methodology

Zogby International was commissioned by the Center for Immigration Studies to conduct an online survey of 42,026 adults. Zogby used its online panel, which is representative of the US population. Zogby International weighted the data slightly to more accurately reflect the U.S. population. Zogby conducted the survey from Nov 13 to 30, 2009. The margin of error for the three Christian groups is +/- 1.1 percent and +/- 2.4 percent for likely Jewish voters.

Understandably, the White House is trying very hard to get out in front of the would-be Christmas bomber story. The head of the Department of Homeland Security isn’t helping. I watched her on three shows and each time she was more annoying, maddening, and absurd than the pevious appearance. It is her basic position that the “system worked” because the bureaucrats responded properly after the attack. That the attack was “foiled” by a bad detonator and some civilian passengers is proof, she claims, that her agency is doing everything right. That is just about the dumbest thing she could say, on the merits and politically.

I would wager that not one percent of Americans think the system is “working” when terrorists successfully get bombs onto planes (and succeed in activating them). Probably even fewer think it’s fair that they have to take off their shoes, to endure delays and madness while a known Islamic radical — turned in by his own father — can waltz onto a plane (and into the country). DHS had no role whatsoever in assuring that this bomb didn’t go off. By her logic if the bomb had gone off, the system would have “worked” since it has done everything right.

Napolitano has a habit of arguing that DHS is a first-responder outfit. Its mission is to deal with “man-caused-disasters” after they occur. It appears she really believes it. If the White House wants to assure people that it takes the War on Terror seriously (a term Robert Gibbs used this morning, by the way), they could start by firing this patently unqualified hack.

SOURCE

Fire Napolitano, Cont’d

More reax, from a reader:

Jonah,

I had the same reaction. I also have noticed Gibbs and others claim that his name was on a watch list data base of 550,000 names. They make it sound like this is a monumental task to query a match. When I make a purchase using a credit card, I swipe my card and within seconds that information is accessed from a data base of millions and my purchase is approved. Now that the US government is in the banking business, what’s their excuse?

And, from another reader:

Jonah,

I most wholeheartedly agree with your calls for Napolitano to be fired. I have had repeated correspondence with my Congressman (Burgess – TX 26th) in the past on that subject, and Congressman Burgess has repeatedly called for her to step down, so far with no avail. I did write Congressman Burgess and both my Senators again with a renewed call for her to resign.

I do think Gibbs’ use of the term “War on Terror” represents a concession on the part of the Obama Administration that it realizes this war is far from over, and maybe they are starting to understand that these people hate all Americans, and not just George Bush.

Maybe it’s just wishful thinking on my part. Nonetheless, it’s becoming abundantly clear to everyone that this administration must seriously change its amateurish ways or there will soon be a lot of Americans who have to pay with their lives.

ALIPAC called for the termination or resignation of Homeland Security Chief Janet Napolitano earlier this year, when it was discovered her department was instructing police officers to scrutinize Americans concerned about popular issues such as illegal immigration, taxes, and government spending as possible domestic terrorists. Napolitano’s “advisories” to police were based on strange Internet blogs and political sources, instead of traditionally accepted law enforcement methods.

“At this time the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government under Bush, and now Obama, appears consistent in efforts to jeopardize the security, prosperity, and freedoms of the American public,” said William Gheen. “Existing laws passed by Congress requires Homeland Security and Immigration Services to screen and reject all visa applicants on the terrorism watch lists. The Detroit bomber was just the latest proof that millions of visa applicants are not being properly checked, despite earlier revelations about this problem. That is why we are calling on Congress to investigate and correct this situation immediately.”

On 8/23/2006, Sara A. Carter of the Washington Times revealed a major scandal with evidence that 75 percent of applicants for immigrant benefits such as green cards, work visas, and a host of other documents, were not being screened against terrorism watch lists or being denied when they were found on the lists. According to sources from inside DHS and USCIS, millions of immigration documents were issued to people that had not been checked against the lists.

See: Terrorist screening missed 75% of time Green card and visa applications — http://www.alipac.us/article1459.html

ALIPAC is encouraging the public to renew calls for the dismissal of Janet Napolitano, along with demands for Congressional hearings to investigate those responsible for the massive and systematic disregard for existing immigration and national security laws passed by Congress.

“Janet Napolitano has been busy trying to pass Amnesty for illegal aliens and casting suspicion on American citizens who are fed up with Government corruption and failures, instead of doing the job of protecting Americans against terrorist threats,” said Gheen. “Each day the evidence all around us grows that the Executive Branch of the U.S. government has been compromised and hijacked by political interests that are not empowered by the Constitution.” said Gheen. “Giving aid to militant enemies of the United States at a time of war is an act of Treason, and we need Congress to find out who the traitors are and how many thousands of visas these government employees have given to people on the terrorist watch lists. Those thousands of visa holders who are currently in the U.S. and on the terrorism lists need to be located and removed immediately! Those who are responsible for issuing the visas should be fired and possibly charged with crimes. All new visa applicants must be properly screened.”

Americans for Legal Immigration PAC has the archive materials which show the prior disregard of the terrorism watch lists, as well as revelations that TSA has cleared illegal aliens to work in airports, U.S. air marshals have been ordered not to hinder illegal aliens flying into the U.S. in large groups, and illegal aliens have been cleared to work on commercial jet aircraft engines. This latest scandal involving the U.S. visa issued to the terrorism suspect from Detroit is only the latest in a large pattern of high level government officials betraying the American public on numerous laws designed to protect the American public.

The number of immigrants from English-speaking countries has also increased by 17 percent this year, from 4,511 to 5,294, said Eli Cohen, the director-general of the agency’s aliyah department. “After 10 years during which we saw less and less immigrants, now we see an increase,” said Sharansky yesterday at a press conference at the Jewish Agency’s Jerusalem headquarters. “This year there were more immigrants from the former Soviet Union, more immigrants from the United States, from Britain and from South Africa – there’s an increase from almost everywhere.”

The largest number of new immigrants still comes from the former Soviet Union, where the numbers increased by 21 percent from 5,867 to 7,120.

Sharansky and Landver attributed the climb to what the Jewish Agency calls its “Red Carpet” program, which includes so-called aliyah fairs for new arrivals during which they are assisted with their initial absorption, such as opening bank accounts, choosing health care providers, etc.

The numbers presented at yesterday’s press conference include four planeloads of immigrants who are scheduled to arrive in Israel this week, but exclude Ethiopians who moved to Israel this year, as they did not immigrate according to the Law of Return but based on a special law, called the Law of Entrance.

Gutierrez “The lawmaker said Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), who has led the House effort on comprehensive immigration reform, initially ‘didn’t want to deal with it. At all.’ Then he tried to work out a ‘stupid’ compromise whereby the same-sex partner provisions would be in the bill but they wouldn’t take effect for five or six years, said this Member. ..

Gutierrez denied that he wanted to keep gay and lesbian language out of his bill. ‘That’s just not true,’ he said, pointing to his long-standing record of supporting the gay community. The real issue, he said, is that same-sex partner matters have not come up in past immigration reform debates and people are still figuring out how to bring the two camps together. ‘There has never been a serious, in-depth discussion between the gay and lesbian community and the immigrant community. It’s never existed,’ Gutierrez said. ‘It’s a new conversation, but not one that I’m fearful of. I welcome it. But you can’t expect after nearly two decades of struggle for a new component’ to be quickly embraced.”

An amendment with a same-sex provision has been proposed by Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) who noted that a repeal of DOMA would alleviate the issue.

Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) said she was ‘very frustrated’ because she ‘wanted to see a bill that was comprehensive. But we deal with political reality here.’ Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who earlier this year pronounced a DOMA repeal ‘dead’ this Congress, predicted it will be ‘a very, very hard sell’ to attach the same-sex provision to the immigration reform bill.

Gutierrez released a statement to the Windy City Times: “The process I am committed to being a part of in Congress will, I hope, address the unacceptable situation that lesbian and gay bi-national couples live under every day. … Everyone’s goal should be a comprehensive immigration reform bill that includes a commitment to all families and honors our history as a nation of immigrants. That is my goal, and it is inclusive of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community, too.”

The paper adds: “Gutierrez also noted his support for the Uniting American Families Act, which would let U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents to sponsor their gay and lesbian partners for immigration to the United States. That measure received a local boost in support last week as the Chicago City Council passed a resolution, introduced by Aldermen Tom Tunney and Daniel Solis, urging its passage in the House of Representatives.”

The announcement earlier this month that a coalition of lawmakers in Washington are pushing for another try at reforming the nation’s immigration system has mobilized activists in the state once more.

A group of religious leaders from around the state that includes state Appeals Court Judge Wendell Griffen has already begun campaigning for some type of reform, calling it a moral issue. Steve Copley, a Methodist minister and activist on immigration issues, says he’s hopeful that the push for reforms will come next year after Congress addresses overhauling the nation’s health care system. Copley said he’s hopeful that any legislation will include a path to citizenship for the some 12 million people who are in the country illegally. “The system’s broken and something needs to happen,” Copley said.

Key Republicans view the push as an opportunity for a do-over, with former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie saying in a recent Little Rock speech that it could help the GOP soften its image and possibly attract more Hispanic voters. “I think there’s an opportunity there for Republicans to get the tone right in this debate and not come across as anti-immigration, but pro-legal immigration,” Gillespie said earlier this month. “As a whole, I think our party was poorly positioned on the immigration debate.”

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee echoed those comments, noting that he had “paid dearly” during the Republican presidential campaign for his past support of legislation that would have made the children of illegal immigrants eligible for scholarships and in-state tuition rates. “Republicans have to be careful to distinguish between standing for principles of law and order and recognizing the obvious issue of the growing demographic influence of the Hispanic population,” Huckabee said. “I believe that most of the problem with illegal immigration is the fault of the government because the government never controlled our borders.”

Finding that balance in Arkansas may be difficult, however, judging by this year’s legislative session. A revived attempt to make children of illegal immigrants eligible for in-state tuition failed in the Senate despite a vigorous push by its sponsor. That push included a rare “committee of the whole” hearing before the full Senate and lobbying by heads of the state’s major colleges and universities. “The bottom line is this: They are in our state. They are not leaving,” Sen. Joyce Elliott said earlier this year. “We can choose to have them here as educated people, or we can choose to have them here as folks that we deny an education to. That’s our choice.”

The measure faced objections from lawmakers who said they were worried that it would violate federal law, and who also said they were afraid it would reward illegal immigration by offering the lower rates.

The same chamber had halted a similar proposal in 2005 by Elliott, who was then a House member calling for in-state tuition as well as scholarships for the children of illegal immigrants. That measure passed the House, but failed in the Senate despite removal of the scholarship provision. That failure, in part, has emboldened a group known as Secure Arkansas to try once more with its own proposal that would require state government agencies to verify that all those seeking benefits are legal U.S. residents. The group, which tried and failed to get a similar measure on the ballot last year, has gathered about 3,000 signatures in its effort to get the proposal on next fall’s ballot. The group must gather 77,468 signatures to place the proposal on the November 2010 general election ballot.

The measure is likely to face resistance again from Gov. Mike Beebe, who opposed the proposal last year because he said it would duplicate laws that are already on the books. Beebe’s office has said the governor was likely to again oppose the measure if it was similar to last year’s proposal.

Jeanne Burlsworth, the group’s chairwoman, said she thinks Secure Arkansas will be more successful this time because it started gathering signatures earlier and has a more organized campaign than it did last year. Burlsworth says she thinks the congressional talks on immigration reform will spur more interest in the restriction. “Arkansas has been a battleground state and I feel like the people are going to be more determined than they ever have been to see change,” Burlsworth said.

As Tamil Oceanic Viking refugees arrive in Australia, those on the boat at Merak and in immigration detention in Indonesia have called on the Australian government to act compassionately and guarantee their processing and re-settlement in Australia.

“We are the same as the people on the Oceanic Viking,” said Alex, from the boat at Merak. “We have been waiting since early 11 October. The Australian government personally phoned the Indonesian president to intercept our boat. If we had been treated the same as those on the Oceanic Viking we would have been processed by now. But now, 31 children will be spending Christmas on the boat.”

Asylum seekers in immigration detention in appalling conditions in central Jakarta have also asked the Australian government to intervene in their cases. Nine Afghan men, including one who has been there 15 months, are in a cell, three by five metres.

The Afghan detainees asked Australian refugee activists visiting the Jakarta detention cells why the Australian government signed the Refugee Convention if it was not going to give refugees protection.

The twelve Tamil detainees from the Merak boat in the second immigration cell said, “Some of us already have UNHCR refugee status, but we are being treated like criminals. Some of us have been threatened with deportation. We were told that we would see the UNHCR but we haven’t seen them. We need Australia’s protection.”

Four of the Tamils were detained by the Indonesian police after they left the Merak boat, some seeking medical attention, last Thursday. One of them left Sri Lanka in December 2008, after his brother was arrested as an LTTE sympathiser and he also began to be harassed.

The refugee activists were shocked by the conditions in which the Tamil and Afghan men are being imprisoned. The Tamils cell is a triangular hole barely three by ten metres, holding twelve men.

“It is no better than a cage,” said Ian Rintoul, spokesperson for the Refuge Action Coalition. “They get only two meals a day, and fruit only once a week. They sleep in rosters, because there is so little room. They are not allowed out to exercise.”

“This is the reality of the Indonesian solution,” said Ian Rintoul. “The interception, detention and mistreatment of asylum seekers is being funded by the Australian government. Sri Lanka is still unsafe. If these people were on Christmas Island, at least they would be in tents and be able to walk around. There would certainty for resettlement.

“Kevin Rudd needs to make another phone call,” said Ian Rintoul, “This time to let the Indonesian president know that Australia will live up to its obligations under the Refugee Convention and resettle the asylum seekers stranded in Indonesia.”