EXECUTIVE AMNESTY 11/6/2012

 

     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 1/5^th 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.”