New orders
weakening the deportation criteria for illegals were issued on June 17, 2011.
The head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), John Morton, instructed
ICE staff to exercise “prosecutorial discretion” in weighing any future
deportations. Among the factors newly to be considered – an illegal’s “contributions
to the community, including family relationships; the person’s age, with
particular consideration given to minors and the elderly; whether the person or
the person’s spouse is pregnant or nursing.” Leniency was also mandated for
“individuals present in the US since childhood; and individuals with serious
health conditions,” among scores of other disqualifications.
The subtext of
Morton’s memo is clear: Stop enforcing nearly all measures against illegals.
The only deportation “priorities” under the new ICE guidelines are: individuals
who pose a clear threat to national security; serious felons, repeat offenders,
or individuals with a lengthy criminal record of any kind; known gang members
or other individuals who pose a clear danger to public safety; and individuals
with an egregious record of immigration violations, including those with a
record of illegal re-entry and those who have engaged in immigration fraud.”
From here we will reveal second-term plans to expand these exemptions even further.
A month after
Morton’s order, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced a
two-prong initiative to limit deportations to those persons deemed by her
department most dangerous to the country, rather than on the general population
of millions of illegals. Napolitano said the Obama administration would limit
deportation proceedings on a case-by-case basis for illegal immigrants who are responsible
for other family members’ care. In other words, without any Congressional
approval – much less public knowledge – the Obama administration has already
taken major steps toward comprehensive amnesty for illegals.
In reviewing
deportation orders for just the first three months of FY 2012, a non-partisan
research center – the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) – found
historic drops in deportations and increases in illegals allowed to stay.
Illegals are deported in only half the cases on record, making the lowest rate
in two decades. “Clearly, the Obama Administration’s stealth amnesty plan to
suspend the deportations of most illegal aliens is in play here,” complained
Judicial Watch, referencing the TRAC statistics.
Obama’s
administration has again signaled its strategy of “executive amnesty” by
appointing, in January 2012, a longtime open-borders advocate to direct White
House Domestic Policy Council, the executive body mainly tasked with
immigration issues. Cecilia Munoz had been a senior vice president for the
national Council of La Raza, a group lobbying for open borders, mass
immigration, and amnesty for illegal aliens. Munoz also chaired the board of
the Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform.
Just how many
illegal immigrants are there in the US today? The estimated number varies
widely and is the subject of considerable debate. A little over a half decade
ago, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) shocked the public when he estimated – based on
illegal immigrant apprehension statistics of the US Border Patrol – that nearly four million people had crossed the
US border illegally in 2002 alone. In September 2004, Time magazine put the illegal population somewhere around 11
million. An independent study of the underground economy by Wall Street firm
Bear Stearns, released in January 2005, and estimated 18 to 20 million illegals
in the US.
There is, of
course, nothing new about the concept of amnesty for illegal immigrants.
Indeed, since the radically liberalized Immigration and Nationality Act of
1965, there have been a total of seven amnesties. The first was the Immigration
and Reform Control Act of 1986 in which President Ronald Reagan approved
amnesty for 2.7 million people, providing forgiveness for those who entered
illegally, an setting them on the path to citizenship. Of the 1.3 million
amnesty applications that ensued, more than 90 percent were for a specialized
program for agricultural workers. The number of illegal aliens seeking amnesty
exceeded expectations, however, and there was reportedly widespread document
fraud, with as many as a third of the applicants having been granted amnesty
improperly. Reagan’s IRCA was a failure; it neither stemmed the tide of illegal
immigrants through strengthening of border security, nor increased immigration
enforcement against employers, as was intended.
During the
Clinton administration, there were six more amnesties granted. In 1994, there
was a temporary, rolling amnesty for 578,000 illegal immigrants, with an
Extension Amnesty in 1997. Also in 1997, there was the Nicaraguan Adjustment
and Central American Relief Act, which granted amnesty for nearly one million
Central American illegal immigrants. The Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness
Act Amnesty in 1998 granted amnesty for 125,000 Haitian illegal immigrants. In
2000, there were two more amnesties. One, called the Late Amnesty, granted
amnesty to an estimated 400,000 illegal immigrants who claimed they should have
been amnestied under IRCA in 1986. The second, called the LIFE Act Amnesty,
reinstated the 1994 rolling amnesty and included 900,000 more.
Obama and progressives
fully understand that documenting millions of illegal immigrants and putting
them on the path to citizenship can fundamentally transform our country in so
many obvious ways, most prominently ensuring Democrat rule into the long term.
Before we divulge specific second-term schemes to make this happen, it is
instrumental to take a look at US border enforcement, where plans are afoot to
drastically transform the country’s ability to stem the flow of illegals into
our country.
In searching for
future border policies, our extensive research must eventually lead to one
major piece of legislation, the 645-page “Comprehensive Immigration Reform for
America’s Security and Prosperity Act of 2009.” Within the bill, we find the
specific handiwork of the usual suspects, the major progressive groups that
have already been so instrumental in crafting Obama’s major first-term
initiatives, most notably ObamaCare and the so-called stimulus bill.
For those
scratching their heads in wonderment as to why we would return to a 2009 bill
to divine Obama’s border plans for a second term, rest assured there is good
reason. It is important to recall the way in which progressive legislation and
research papers that traced back to 2002 and, in some cases even back to the
1990s, eventually made their way into what became Obama’s health care bill. In
other words, the foundations for ObamaCare had been hiding in plain view for
over a decade. We also showed how progressive politicians strategically
introduced such legislation over time, working with the liberal think tanks to
craft and perfect the bills.
Following the
review of much border and immigration reform legislation as well as progressive
research and policy papers on the topic, it has become clear that significant
blueprints for future border policies were strategically placed within the 2009
bill, a piece of legislation that is doubtful that many reporters or critical
analysts have bothered to read in full, if at all.
The bill was
introduced on December 15, 2009, by Reps. Solomon Ortiz (D-TX) and Luis
Gutirrez (D-IL), with ninety-one original co-sponsors, including many members
of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. (The CPC was founded by the Democratic
Socialist of America, the largest socialist organization in the US, and the
principal US affiliate of the Socialist International, the world’s largest
socialist umbrella group.)
The bill
immediately minimizes the capabilities of US border agents to conduct searches
or to carry out actions intended to root out the smuggling of illegal
immigrants. Because it mandates the creation of a Border Communities Liaison
Office in every border sector (there are nine border sectors along the US
border with Mexico), civilians living in those border communities – some of
whom may be actively involved in illicit actions – would be warned by
“liaisons” ahead of time about the operational plans of border agents intended
to curtail smuggling. Each new “liaison office” would be required to consult
with border communities on the “directives,” “laws,” ‘strategies,” and
“operational issues” of border patrol authorities.
The Armed Forces,
including the National Guard, would be prohibited under this bill from ever
acting on the US border unless the president first declared a national
emergency. The only exception would be for specific counterterrorism duties,
and even then the military would not be allowed to conduct armed operations
within 25 miles of the border.
The vast majority
– 96.6 percent – of apprehensions of illegal aliens by the Border Patrol in
2010 occurred along the southwest border. It does not take a genius to realize
that the construction of a barrier along the entire 1,951-mile border between
the US and Mexico could curtail a large number of smuggling attempts. Already,
the DHS under President Bush built 190 miles of pedestrian border fence and
154.3 miles of border fence – about 1/5th of the total length needed
– mainly in New Mexico, Arizona, and California.
Throughout the
years there have been calls for a barrier along the entire US-Mexico
border. In 2006, President Bush
supported a major upgrade in border security with calls for a network of
fences, cameras, radar, and communications equipment to help speed the response
of US Border Patrol officers.
Under Obama,
however, the fence project was halted, with DHS spending nearly $90 million on
environmental analysis and mitigation measures it claims are aimed at blunting
any adverse impact the fence could possibly have on the environment. The proposed
645-page immigration reform bill contains detailed provisions on how barriers
cannot be constructed on areas if the fence will impede “wildlife migration
corridors, key habitats, and the ecologically functional connectivity between and
among key habitats sufficient to ensure that species (whether or not designated
as rare, protected, or of concern) remain viable.” Furthermore, the bill is
concerned with whether such unspecified species are “able to adapt to the
impacts of climate change.” In other words, a security border fence could not
be constructed where it would somehow impede a turtle’s ability to adapt to
so-called global warming.
When it comes to
border security, the progressives’ greatest fear does not concern illegals
infiltrating or terrorists making their way into our population zones.
Apparently, their biggest concern is whether border agents exercise “racism” or
violate the “civil liberties” of illegal aliens. A close reading of the bill
makes clear the “racism” canard is actually a carefully constructed stratagem
to impede border agents’ ability to confront illegal immigration. The scheme
mandates the collection of ethnic data on border searches to determine “the
existence or absence of racial profiling.” So if a border agent along the
Mexican border searches a lot of Mexicans, that agent can be cited with racial
profiling. There’s more! Progressives are planning for every authorized border
agent to be trained “on constitutional, privacy, civil rights, and civil
liberties issues related to such searches.” Let us imagine the training manual
for agents at the Mexican border: “Agents
are advised not to apprehend more than 17 percent of suspects from any given
ethnic group lest agents be subject to prosecution under Article 8, Subsection
6 of the Progressive Penal Code…”
What about the apprehension of
illegals already within the US? The bill invents a new class of illegals –
those from “community-based” and “faith-based” organizations. The bill would
make it illegal to apprehend “undocumented” persons in the “premises or in the
immediate vicinity of a childcare provider; a school; a legal-service provider;
a Federal court or State court proceeding; a funeral home; a cemetery; a
college, university, or community services agency; a social services agency; a
hospital or emergency care center; a healthcare clinic; a place of worship; a
day care center; a head start center; a school bus stop; a recreation center; a
mental health facility; and a community center.”
The bill also
prohibits the apprehension of disabled or pregnant illegals.
There would also
be new restrictions placed on apprehending illegals who are members of a newly
defined “vulnerable population.” Included is this neologism: “Individuals who
have been determined by a medically trained professional to have medical or
mental health needs.” Afraid of deportation? A doctor’s note claiming “medical
needs” or a social worker documenting “anxiety” might suffice. Also in the
“vulnerable population” are “individuals who provide financial, physical, and
other direct support to their minor children, parents, or other dependents” –
in other words, virtually every single illegal alien inside the US.
Perhaps the
biggest proponents of these new sensitivities would be the illegals themselves.
Once they understood the litany of new perks they’d receive in detention in the
US under Obama, they’d be lining up to be arrested (although their arrests
could be prevented under the provisions of the new anti-racial profiling laws)!
The bill contains
many more pages of scandalous, newfound “rights” provided to all illegals held
in detention centers. Each detainee would have a right to “prompt and adequate
medical care, designed to ensure continuity of care, at no cost to the detainee.”
Included would be “care to address medical needs that existed prior to
detention; and primary care, emergency care, chronic care, prenatal care,
dental care, eye care, mental health care and other medically necessary
specialized care.” This is better care than some of the most expensive private
health plans. And it is only the beginning of the taxpayer-funded madness that
could comprise Obama’s second-term agenda on illegal immigration. Also included
in the completely free, mandated coverage for detained illegals would be
“medication, prenatal care, prenatal vitamins, hormonal therapies, and birth
control.” Every detainee’s needs would be met since, upon detention, each
inmate is to get a “comprehensive medical, dental, and mental health intake screening.”
Other second-term
progressive immigration plans – some of which are included in its amnesty bill –
actually call for more immigrants to
enter the US, albeit legally. John Podesta’s Center For American Progress,
the “idea center” of the Obama White House, highlighted those plans in a January
2012 report – “Immigration for
Innovation: How to Attract the World’s Best Talent While Ensuring
America Remains the Land of Opportunity for All.” Podesta’s recommendations
include eliminating the cap on the number of H1B visas provided to foreigners.
H-1B is the most widely used high-skilled immigration classification for
temporary workers. At present – the system is regulated by a congressionally established
annual cap set at 85,000 H-1B visas per year. The report also complains that we
aren’t giving out enough “green cards.” Currently we are giving out 140,000 “green
cards” each year. These people are also demanding that the cap on H-1B numbers and
“green cards” be removed, as well.
To be fair, this
particular progressive goal – an increase in legal immigration of highly
skilled foreigners – is shared by many fiscal conservatives. Many of those in
business already live in ethnically diverse American cities, and have not
experienced the sense of cultural inundation of average Americans forced to
adjust to large waves of illegal aliens flooding into their more ethnically
homogenous communities. Fiscal conservatives also see the economic
contributions of highly skilled immigrants as compensating for the services
they receive in the US, in a way that the poorer, and much more numerous,
illegals do not. The 2009 amnesty bill itself makes precisely the same CAP
arguments for lifting the cap on visas in a section entitled “Visa Reform.” But
its solution is to take the regulation of legal immigration away from Congress,
and vest it in an agency within the executive branch. The so-called Commission
on Immigration and Labor Markets (I never knew or even heard of this commission)
would establish “employment-based immigration policies that promote America’s
economic growth and competitiveness while minimizing job displacement, wage
depression and unauthorized employment in the United States.” The executive
branch would henceforth determine the number of new immigrants, as well as to
whom visas would be issued. Viewed in another way, it would oversee the flow of
an untold number of new immigrants into the US, in addition to the unknown
number currently residing inside of, and still entering the country.
Mass amnesty for 10
to 20 million illegals would profoundly alter the electorate. Many champions of
amnesty have noted this openly, although the news media routinely neglect to
report it. A good example is Eliseo Medina, the3 SEIU’s international secretary-treasurer,
who was appointed in November 2008 to serve on the Obama transition team
committee on immigration. Medina made some very revealing, if largely unreported,
remarks at the 2009 session of the annual progressive conference organized by
Campaign for America’s Future. Medina said of Latino voters: “When they voted
in November [2008], they voted overwhelmingly for progressive candidates. Obama
received two of three voters that showed up.”
No comments:
Post a Comment