Excerpt: President Obama’s speech Thursday did not add anything to the immigration debate. He tried to make a case for the same package that amnesty advocates have been offering for years now: legal status for illegal immigrants and increased future legal immigration in exchange for promises of enforcement in the future. He announced no new initiatives, no bills about to be introduced, no executive branch action. It was just another serving of the same rhetoric.
But more important than the lack of news is the broader question: Is such a package deal a good idea or not? The answer is “no.” There are many aspects to the issue, but let’s look at just two:
Excerpt: It’s not news that Americans have a deep-seated fear of efforts by the state to register and document the citizenry. During the 1996 immigration debate, open-borders activists lobbied Congress with bar-code tattoos on their forearms, implying that proposed identity-verification measures were akin to Nazi concentration-camp methods. Google “national ID” with “Nazi” and you get 50,000 hits. And, of course, Arizona’s recent legislation introducing into state law the existing federal document requirements for foreigners has spawned much demagoguery about the impending arrival of fascism.
Excerpt: The American Bar Association is taking some heat from its dues-paying members for filing an amicus brief aimed at stopping Arizona’s S.B. 1070.
As explained on its website, the ABA ‘provides law school accreditation, continuing legal education, information about the law, programs to assist lawyers and judges in their work, and initiatives to improve the legal system for the public.’
Excerpt: The President’s call-for-amnesty speech, given Thursday at American University, should raise one main question in every American’s mind: Whose side is President Obama on?
This bully pulpit brow-beating demanded all or nothing on immigration: no enforcement without legalization of all illegal aliens, plus the DREAM Act and AgJOBS amnesties, and the creation of yet another guestworker program – this one a mega-guestworker program to ensure that every foreigner who wants a job in America and can’t qualify for one of the many current guestworker visas can further flood the U.S. labor pool. This speech pretty much confirms what Sen. Kyl contends President Obama said in a recent conversation, that the administration is holding enforcement hostage to amnesty-plus.
Excerpt: The bloody confrontation Thursday between rival Mexican smuggling gangs just south of the Arizona border is a jolt to the entire region. It has particular resonance for people like U.S. Rep Raul Grijalva of Arizona, whose father emigrated from the area of the shootout, which left 21 dead.
The violence took place between the hamlets of Saric and Tubutama, along a notorious smuggling corridor. Nearby is the town of Altar, which for more than a decade has been a major staging area for illegal immigrants headed for the Arizona border.
Excerpt: So, I figured the president’s major address on immigration might reveal something important. I’m at Cub Scout camp out in western Virginia, but I had to go to the laundromat anyway, so I watched the stream of the address using their free wi-fi while the clothes spun and tumbled. And what was the news that came out of it?
Nothing. Bupkes. Zilch.
Excerpt: The House Appropriations Subcommittee for Homeland Security reported last week that it had flatlined funds for Border, Immigration and Trade Security functions.
Detailed figures are not immediately available and the moneys voted included some customs, as opposed to immigration, activities, but last year’s budget was $16,161,000,000 for this work, and it will be $16,143,000,000 for the coming year, a reduction of about one-tenth of one percent. The funds voted were within a few million of what the Administration had requested. (I have excluded moneys for the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office in these calculations.)
Excerpt: Bill McGurn of the Wall Street Journal has come around to enforcement-first perspective; his column can be summed up by its subtitle: ‘Secure the border and a healthy debate might follow.’
McGurn opens his column well enough, but after condemning ‘those who effectively oppose real enforcement of any immigration law,’ he resorts to a false equivalence:
Excerpt: Both the British and American governments want to change their nations’ immigration policies; both, apparently, are currently engaged in maneuvers that fuzz the issues.
There are both parallels and differences between the two nations’ systems, as they face similar questions: Should migration be reduced? And what should be done about the current population of illegal aliens?
Excerpt: Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano recently announced several new border protection initiatives in a renewed attempt to secure the Southwest border in Arizona. She laid out these strategies at a symposium sponsored by the Center for Strategic and International Studies last Wednesday, June 23.
‘No one is happy with the status quo [on immigration and the border],’ Napolitano said. ‘I’m certainly not and neither is the president.’
The above is a press release from from Center for Immigration Studies. 1522 K St. NW, Suite 820, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 466-8185 fax: (202) 466-8076. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org. The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent research institution which examines the impact of immigration on the United States. The Center for Immigration Studies is not affiliated with any other organization