Comments on Immigration Alienate Some Hispanics

By TRIP GABRIEL
The New York Times
October 19, 2011

Today, Republican candidates are competing over who can talk the toughest about illegal immigration — who will erect the most impenetrable border defense; who will turn off “magnets” like college tuition benefits.

But after such pointed proposals heated up yet another Republican debate, on Tuesday night, some party officials see a yellow light signaling danger in battleground states with large Hispanic populations in November 2012. Will Hispanic voters remember and punish the eventual Republican nominee?

“The discussion of creating electrified fences from sea to sea is neither prudent nor helpful,” said Ryan Call, chairman of the Republican Party of Colorado, where Hispanics cast 13 percent of votes in 2008 and helped President Obama flip the state to blue. “They’re throwing red meat around in an attempt to mollify a particular aspect of the Republican base.”

Besides Colorado, Mr. Obama cemented his victory in part by carrying three other swing states with large Hispanic voting populations: Florida, Nevada and New Mexico.

Republican strategists have hoped to win many of these voters back by appealing to their discontent over the economy and to their social conservatism, issues that helped George W. Bush win a historically high 44 percent of Hispanic voters in 2004.

Now, however, that pitch may be thwarted, according to some Republican strategists.

Both Herman Cain, the former business executive, and Representative Michele Bachmann are proposing a 1,200-mile border fence — electrified, in Mr. Cain’s case, double-walled in Mrs. Bachmann’s.

Mitt Romney has attacked Gov. Rick Perry of Texas as soft on illegal immigration. Mr. Perry punched back in the debate on Tuesday in Las Vegas, accusing Mr. Romney of “hypocrisy” because, Mr. Perry said, “you had illegals working on your property.”

Robert Ramirez, a Republican state representative from Colorado who attended the debate, said Hispanic voters in his state “are sick and tired of empty promises from the Democratic Party.”

Nevertheless, Mr. Ramirez was concerned about the nominees’ lack of sensitivity. “We can’t pretend the Latino vote doesn’t exist,” he said. “It’s time we became the party of inclusion.”

Even Mr. Romney, who has been more measured in his remarks, may have lost Hispanic support over his criticism of a Texas law that allows some children of illegal immigrants to attend state colleges on in-state tuition.

“He can make as many trips to Florida and New Mexico and Colorado and other swing states that have a large Latino population, but he can write off the Latino vote,” said Lionel Sosa, a strategist in Texas who advised Mr. Bush and Senator John McCain on appealing to Hispanics. “He’s not going to gain it again.”

In each of those states, plus Nevada, Hispanics are a growing share of eligible voters, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. Although these voters have traditionally favored Democrats, Mr. Obama’s 67 percent share of the Hispanic vote in 2008 dipped to 60 percent who voted Democratic during the 2010 Republican wave that swept the midterm elections, said Mark Hugo Lopez, associate director of the Pew center.

In a Pew survey that year, Hispanic voters ranked education and the economy as their top issues. But there was strong support for state-level “Dream” acts allowing children of illegal immigrants to attend colleges on in-state tuition, and 61 percent disapproved of more border fencing.

Many analysts credit the Democratic victories that year of Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate majority leader, and Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado to get-out-the-vote efforts by Latinos.

“Sharron Angle got destroyed in the election because of her anti-immigration stand,” said Andres Ramirez, a Democratic strategist in Nevada, referring to Mr. Reid’s opponent, a Tea Party darling. Mr. Ramirez predicted that Hispanic participation in the 2012 election in Nevada would surpass the 15 percent from 2008, and he said that Republicans missed an opportunity in holding a debate in Las Vegas to showcase more moderate immigration views.

“Their rhetoric on illegal immigration was very over the top,” he said. “It will cost them in the future.”

Heidi Smith, the Republican national committeewoman from Nevada, said the focus on illegal immigration was a distraction. “It’s taking time off of the big issue, and that is we don’t have any jobs,” she said.

In Florida, where the Hispanic vote has traditionally leaned Republican because of large numbers of conservative Cuban-Americans, immigration issues may be especially divisive in 2012. The state’s favorite son Republican senator, Marco Rubio, seems only too happy to duck immigration issues, and the Republican-controlled State Senate refused to pass a bill this spring with a tough requirement on employers to check workers’ immigration status.

Joe Gruters, chairman of the Republican Party of Sarasota County in Florida, said that showing toughness against illegal immigration was an “electrifying” issue and could bump a Republican candidate many points in primary polls. He is disappointed by the moderation of candidates’ proposals so far. “Nobody said, ‘We have to repeal the 14th Amendment,’ ” he said, referring to the constitutional guarantee of citizenship to a child born in the United States. Critics of illegal immigrant mothers who supposedly enter the country to have “anchor babies” sometimes propose repealing the Reconstruction-era amendment.

Mr. Gruters was quick to concede that such positions would cost an eventual Republican nominee.

“In case they’re the nominee, it could be a deal-breaker where they take themselves out as a serious contender,” he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/20/us/politics/immigration-talk-turns-off-some-hispanics.html?emc=tnt&tntemail1=y

Law Suits Filed Against Obama's Stealth Amnesty Plan

By Tom Fitton
The Right Side News
Saturday, 02 April 2011

JW Sues DHS — Twice! — for Records Detailing Obama “Stealth Amnesty” Plan

The President was on record earlier this week saying he has no plan to suspend deportations for illegal aliens. The evidence, however, suggests otherwise. So Judicial Watch is going to court — again — to try to force the truth out of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

This week we filed two Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits against the DHS to obtain records detailing the Obama administration’s alleged plan to grant legal status to illegal aliens without going through Congress, a strategy commonly known as “stealth amnesty.”

On July 2, 2010, Judicial Watch sent a FOIA request to the DHS to obtain the following information: “Any and all records of communications between the Department of Homeland Security and any of the following entities, concerning ‘deferred action’ or ‘parole’ to suspend removal proceedings against a particular individual or group of individuals for a specific timeframe; as well as records of communications concerning ‘selective reprieve’ to the segment of the population holding expired visas: The White House; The Executive Office of the President; any third parties.” We’re also after internal DHS communications regarding “deferred action or parole.”

Then on August 30, 2010, Judicial Watch followed up with yet another FOIA request to DHS looking for the following information:

• Any and all records of, and/or records concerning, Department of Homeland Security briefings regarding a systematic review of pending immigration cases against suspected illegal immigrants in Houston, Texas.
• Any and all records of general guidelines issued to Department of Homeland Security attorneys, allowing dismissal of pending immigration cases.
• Any and all records detailing the determination and implementation of a systematic review of pending immigration cases against suspected illegal immigrants in Houston, Texas.
• Any and all correspondence with non-governmental organizations…concerning the process for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement to give consideration of possible dismissal of pending immigration cases.

The DHS acknowledged receipt of our FOIA requests. However, to date the agency has failed to provide a single document. The agency has also failed to indicate when a response will be forthcoming. In both cases the statutory allotted timeframe for response has long since passed, which is why we sued. (Of course this is unsurprising. Reporting by The Associated Press suggests that the DHS’s political appointees have improperly delayed FOIA requests on politically sensitive topics. And this week Rep. Darrell Issa’s (R-CA) House Government and Reform Committee released a devastating report detailing this lawlessness.)

So what is this illegal alien deportation scandal all about?

As you know if you’ve been reading this space for some time, the Obama administration has been heavily criticized for its alleged plan to bypass Congress and enact “stealth amnesty” by executive fiat. In fact, in June 2010, the press uncovered a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service “draft” memo that outlined a variety of ways to grant legalization to illegal aliens without going through Congress. A couple of months later we learned this “stealth amnesty” plan was not a theoretical exercise. It was already in full operation.

CORRUPTION CHRONICLES

• Obama Official Complains About Political Meddling In Public Records
• Border Patrol Union Blasts Napolitano
• Oregon Law Would Give Illegal Immigrants Cheaper Tuition
• U.S. Gives Obama Donor $500 Mil For “Green” Projects
• Jimmy Carter Bashes U.S. In Meeting With Communists
• Govt.-Bailed Mortgage Cos Paid Execs $35.4 Mil

According to the August 24, 2010, edition of The Houston Chronicle: “The Department of Homeland Security is systematically reviewing thousands of pending immigration cases and moving to dismiss those filed against suspected illegal immigrants who have no serious criminal records…Culling the immigration court system dockets of noncriminals started in earnest in Houston about a month ago and has stunned local immigration attorneys, who have reported coming to court anticipating clients’ deportations only to learn that the government was dismissing the cases.”

It appears the Obama administration has initiated a policy to selectively deport illegal alien lawbreakers, while allowing others off the hook entirely!

As I mentioned earlier, the President was asked to comment on these suspended deportations on Monday. And despite evidence to the contrary, Obama claimed that he has no such plan. “There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply, through executive order, ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president,” Obama said.

That is certainly true. But since when has the Obama administration cared a whit about immigration “laws on the books?” His Justice Department, while attacking Arizona’s get-tough illegal immigration law, has already announced it will not enforce federal immigration laws “on the books” to prosecute sanctuary cities. So why should deportations of illegal aliens be any different?

Obama may deny he has a plan to suspend deportations but this runs counter to the experience of immigration attorneys in Houston. And that’s why it’s critical that Homeland Security follows the open records FOIA law and turns over these records.

The American people need to know if the Obama administration has decided to flout our immigration laws (again) by enacting stealth amnesty for illegal aliens who are unlawfully here in the United States. And, as always, stonewalling by the “transparent” Obama administration suggests it has something to hide.

JW Obtains New Documents Detailing Controversial Provenge “Review”

The Centers for Medicaid and Medicare (CMS), under enormous public pressure, proposed that Provenge, a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved treatment for prostate cancer, be covered by insurance following a controversial “review.” A final decision on the issue is expected to be published 60 days after the public comment period for the proposed decision has ended.

On the same day as the CMS decision, Judicial Watch released hundreds of pages of documents from the Obama Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) detailing how and why the review was instituted. And here’s one of our major finds: While the Obama administration claimed the cost of Provenge had nothing to do with their review, these documents suggest otherwise. (Remember Medicare and the FDA are legally prohibited from denying approval of a medical treatment based solely on cost.)

As you may recall, we filed a FOIA request with HHS over Provenge after the press reported the CMS had taken the rare step of calling for a review Provenge to see if it is “reasonable and necessary” and should be covered by Medicaid and Medicare.

The move caused widespread panic among those patients who depend on the treatments to live, as well as anyone else who had heard all about health care rationing and “death panels” under Obamacare. (Let’s not forget, Obama named “Death Panel Donald” Berwick to head CMS and Berwick is on record supporting the idea of health care rationing, so these fears are not unfounded.)

When HHS stonewalled our FOIA request, we sued for the documents on January 3, 2011. And just this week we got our hands on some pretty interesting material.

Now, according to these new documents, the purpose of the Provenge review, deemed a National Coverage Determination (NCD), is to determine if the FDA-approved treatment should be reimbursed on a uniform and national level. The CMS claims the review was triggered by the fact that local Medicare contractors were not uniformly providing coverage for the Provenge, leading to multiple complaints by patients. Some contractors withdrew coverage in the middle of treatment.

Here are some other highlights from the documents, beginning with an interesting excerpt regarding the cost issue:

• The documents include a CMS Q&A sheet that denies cost was a factor in the decision to review Provenge. However, a June 8, 2010, internal email from William D. Rogers, Director of the CMS Physicians Regulatory Issues Team, to Louis B. Jacques, CMS Director of Coverage Analysis Group, states: "We discussed this on the last CMD [Contract Medical Director] call. $93,000 per treatment adds four months to life, 27,000 patients a year $2.6 billion dollars a year." Obama administration officials have denied that the review of Provenge had anything to do with the treatment’s costs.

• A July 28, 2010, letter to Louis Jacques from Hans Bishop, Chief Operating Officer of Dendreon, the company that manufactures Provenge, and Mark Frohlich, Dendreon’s Chief Medical Officer, objecting to the “highly unusual” review of Provenge.

  While noting the “overwhelming clinical evidence” of Provenge’s effectiveness, and the FDA’s rigorous approval process, Dendreon asked the CMS to shut down the NCD: “We remind you that the patients we serve have late-stage cancer and few, if any, appealing treatment options available to them, with only chemotherapy as an FDA-approved alternative. Not only is Provenge clearly reasonable and necessary…but it provides an unambiguous survival benefit and real hope for patients battling their disease.” Dendreon argued to keep the system’s status quo, with local contractors making coverage decisions as coverage variations have “subsided.” The letter also suggests that coverage is required by law as a result of the FDA’s prior approval of the Provenge treatment for prostate cancer.

• An internal CMS email indicating that the government hired health insurance giant Blue Cross Blue Shield, identified in public documents as an “external entity,” to conduct a technological assessment of Provenge’s clinical effectiveness. The involvement of Blue Cross Blue Shield raises serious concerns about a potential conflict of interest, as private insurers use Medicare’s coverage determinations in setting their own coverage limits.

• The documents include back-and-forth discussions between CMS and Dendreon about “comparative effectiveness.” In response to Dendreon’s request for clarification regarding the term “comparative effectiveness,” Jacque’s writes in a July 22, 2010, email to a CMS colleague: “Why do they need clarification?…We need to maintain an arms [sic] length relationship with them. We do no[t] owe them any questions.” Many have criticized comparative effectiveness research as a method to limit needed health care in order to reduce costs (i.e., death panels).

A number of the documents expressing concern over the review were distributed to CMS Administrator Donald Berwick himself.

Clearly, there is enormous public interest in the CMS decision to review Provenge, given all of the talk of health care rationing and death panels associated with Obamacare. The American people get very nervous when the government decides to meddle in their health care and they have every right to be nervous given that we have unaccountable czars like Donald Berwick running Medicare and Medicaid.

If you read these documents for yourself, you’ll see there was a strong bias against Provenge in the Obamacare bureaucracy. Fortunately, pressure from patients, the public, Congress and groups like Judicial Watch forced the government’s hand.

I’m willing to bet that HHS bureaucrats gave Provenge a pass (as the law seems to require), because they knew that Judicial Watch was set to expose their questionable decision-making process.

Still, this decision most certainly does not put an end to the issue of health care rationing. A recent study shows that in 2010, only two of the 11 National Coverage Determinations led to “unrestricted positive coverage decisions.” The remaining decisions mandated restrictions of coverage of one type or another.

Donald Berwick said it himself. It’s not a matter of if we ration healthcare, it’s a matter of when.

Judicial Watch Targets ACORN Voter Registration Fraud in Testimony before PA State Legislature

Voter fraud was front and center in the 2008 elections, with the “community organization” ACORN at the center of a slew of voter registration fraud scandals. Remember this is the same organization that paid “lazy crack heads” to fraudulently register voters, including names like “Mickey Mouse” and “Donald Duck.”

Well, Judicial Watch has taken the lead in exposing ACORN. As part of JW’s campaign, one of our attorneys, Michael Bekesha, provided testimony on March 21 to the Pennsylvania State Government Committee on Voter Fraud. Specifically, Michael provided his analysis of two pending Pennsylvania bills, HB 934 and HB 647.

As we head into election season again, voter registration fraud will continue to be a hot-button issue, especially since it appears ACORN has done nothing to mend its ways. At last count, approximately 27 states around the country are in the process of passing or have just enacted new laws to prevent voter fraud in the future. As the Supreme Court (Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1, 4 (2006)) stated:

Confidence in the integrity of our electoral processes is essential to the functioning of our participatory democracy. Voter fraud drives honest citizens out of the democratic process and breeds distrust of our government. Voters who fear their legitimate votes will be outweighed by fraudulent ones will feel disenfranchised.

We agree. So Michael took the trip to Harrisburg to give his analysis of the ways in which the integrity of the electoral process can be protected from ACORN and other corrupt groups. Here are a few excerpts from JW attorney Michael Bekesha’s testimony. (But I hope you’ll read it in full here.)

• As part of our mission to investigate and prosecute government corruption, Judicial Watch sought access to FBI records related to voter fraud. Specifically, we uncovered election law violations and voter fraud in Missouri and Connecticut. According to FBI records, in 2007, the FBI investigated and ultimately arrested eight St. Louis, Missouri, workers from the “community organization” Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) for violation of election laws and voter fraud.

  The FBI records include handwritten notes from FBI investigators interviewing canvassers working with Project Vote, an ACORN affiliate. The FBI found that those working for Project Vote and ACORN sought to “cause confusion on election day to keep polls open longer,” “allow people who can’t vote to vote,” and “allow [people] to vote multiple times.” Moreover, the FBI found instances of canvassers thinking that if they “used a completely fake name it would be less like ID theft.” These are just a few examples of how voter fraud may occur. Unfortunately, these are not isolated incidents.

• According to Judicial Watch’s ongoing investigation, ACORN and its various affiliates (most notably Project Vote) have been implicated in at least 35 well-documented election fraud schemes in 17 states.

• Reports of ACORN’s demise have been greatly exaggerated. Although ACORN’s vast network has been nominally disbanded, many of its former state-level branches have been reconstituted as distinct and legally independent nonprofit entities. Nearly all of these “new” organizations are led by former ACORN executives and employees, and most occupy former ACORN office space. They continue to perform the same type of work that was previously done by ACORN, ACORN Housing, and their state-level offices. In essence, it is the same organization operating under different names.

• In Pennsylvania, after the last election, there were media reports that organizations, such as ACORN, were busing people from New Jersey and New York to vote in Philadelphia. Moreover, a former ACORN staffer pled guilty last year to charges stemming from his involvement in ACORN voter fraud in Pittsburgh. Six fellow ACORN employees were indicted along with him. In 2008, the organization was found to have submitted tens of thousands of fraudulent voter registrations in Philadelphia alone.”

During his testimony Michael also analyzed measures that states are taking to avoid voter registration fraud, including enhanced identification measures. And specifically, Michael provided his thoughts on the two pieces of Pennsylvania legislation intended to deal with this problem, which Michael deemed imperfect, but a “step in the right direction.”

As I say, please check out his full testimony. And look for an upcoming Judicial Watch special report on ACORN’s rebranded affiliates. More details to come.

Until next week…

Tom Fitton

Judicial Watch is a non-partisan, educational foundation organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. Judicial Watch is dedicated to fighting government and judicial corruption and promoting a return to ethics and morality in our nation's public life

When Will Obama Tell the Truth About What's Going On Along Our Southern Border?

By Rep. Lamar Smith
FoxNews
Published April 01, 2011

At a town hall meeting in Washington, D.C. on Monday, President Obama once again called for comprehensive immigration reform, which would legalize millions of illegal immigrants.

Administration officials are now touting their so-called record on immigration enforcement and border security. It seems they are trying to convince the American people that their approach is working and that the legalization of illegal immigrants will fix any lingering problems.

But when comparing the Obama administration’s rhetoric with their record, it appears their words do not match reality.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano recently made comments that the administration’s approach to border security is working. Because deportations are up, apprehensions are down and more resources have been deployed to the border, the administration assumes the border is more secure than ever.

But it appears the administration has exaggerated its record. According to a December 2010 Washington Post article, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials used questionable methods to achieve their record deportation numbers.

In fact, ICE included more than 19,000 immigrants who had exited the previous fiscal year. They also continued operation of a Mexican repatriation program five weeks longer than they had done previously, allowing the agency to count at least 6,500 exits that would not have otherwise been included.

And ICE utilized Voluntary Return to bolster deportation numbers. But Voluntary Return is not removal because it does not subject an illegal immigrant to penalties for returning to the United States.

Even more alarming, a recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that the Border Patrol only has “operational control” of 44% of the Southern border. And of that, only 15% is “air tight.”

The GAO also found that efforts by Border Patrol to stop illegal crossings were “poor.” During the last fiscal year, over 460,000 individuals were apprehended trying to enter the country illegally – and those are just the ones we caught. It is estimated that there are three successful illegal crossings for every one thwarted. That means more than a million illegal immigrants enter the U.S. each year.

Drug-related violence along the Southwest border and in Mexico also continues to rise.

In the last five years, more than 34,000 people have been killed in Mexico due to drug-related violence. And the violence threatens to spill over into the United States.

To secure the border, we should fully honor the request made by the governors of Border States for National Guard troops to be stationed at the border. The administration has only partially fulfilled this request and the troops are scheduled to be removed this summer.

We should also complete the border fence. In San Diego, after a double layer fence was constructed, illegal crossings and apprehensions declined by 95 percent. Completion of the border fence would strike a devastating blow to drug trafficking and illegal immigration.

Officials at ICE also have said that they increased the number of audits of companies’ employment eligibility verification forms they filled out for their employees. These are commonly referred to as “I-9 audits.”

While it is true that fines and audits are both up, it is what happens immediately afterwards that is most important.

Through the audits, ICE is essentially telling employers to fire their illegal workers. But rather than arresting the illegal immigrants and holding them for deportation, the Administration is letting them walk down the street to the next employer.

And rather than consider criminal charges against businesses that knowingly hire illegal immigrants, ICE is simply slapping them with a fine. Many businesses view these paltry fines as a cost of doing business. Most don’t change their hiring practices.

Unfortunately, the administration has all but abandoned effective worksite enforcement actions. There have been fewer arrests of illegal workers, fewer criminal arrests, fewer indictments and fewer convictions under this administration.

Audits alone will not suffice, we need action. That means the full enforcement of our immigration laws. We should also expand E-Verify, a web-based program that enables companies to hire legal workers by verifying the Social Security numbers provided by newly hired employees.

Without worksite enforcement, we can’t stop employers from hiring illegal workers. And if we don’t stop employers from hiring illegal immigrants, we can’t put a stop to the jobs magnet. And as long as the jobs magnet exists, millions of illegal immigrants will come to the U.S. and take jobs from lawful workers.

While the Obama administration claims their approach is working, the truth is that the Southwest border remains porous and seven million illegal immigrants work in the United States. The administration’s immigration enforcement and border security strategies cannot be effective if it amounts to little more than spin. The American people are smart enough not to buy into the false promise that legalizing millions of illegal immigrants will secure the border and reduce illegal immigration.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/04/01/obama-tell-truth-whats-going-southern-border/#ixzz1ISvgFywu

Texas Republicans Take Harder Line On Immigration

By Wade Goodwyn
NPR
March 29, 2011

In Texas, the Republican Party is changing its tactics on illegal immigration.

The relatively welcoming, tolerant attitude embraced by George W. Bush when he was governor is waning. It has been overtaken by a flood of Arizona-style get-tough measures, with nearly 100 immigration bills written or filed.

And while legal challenges will surely follow if many of those measures pass, the debate in Texas is clearly shifting.

The Bush Strategy

The state is now more than ever in the nation's conservative vanguard. Among its most conservative leaders is state Rep. Leo Berman from northeast Texas. Though Berman's district is far from the Mexico border, he's leading the charge on immigration. One of his bills would "stop giving automatic citizenship to children born in Texas."

There's also a voter ID bill; a bill that would require elementary school children to prove their citizenship upon enrolling — data that would then be turned over to state and federal authorities; and another Berman bill that would make English the official state language.

"That will shut off the state printing anything in any language but English," he says, "and that's going to save millions of dollars right there."

This is a significant change in strategy for the Texas GOP. In the mid '90s, Texas Republicans watched as their counterparts in California went on an anti-illegal immigration crusade and lost control of the state.

But in Texas, the economy was booming; the suburbs of Dallas, Houston, Austin and San Antonio were exploding; and thousands of illegal immigrants sat astride 2-by-4s, nail guns in hand, building those neighborhoods.

So, then-Gov. Bush and his man Karl Rove crafted a different strategy from their California colleagues: Hispanic-friendly.

The result? In 1998, George W. Bush crushed his Democratic opponent, getting nearly half the Hispanic vote — a triumph that placed him on the path to the presidency one year later.

The young governor learned his political style at his father's knee. Not only was George H.W. Bush a former president of the United States; he was a Texas oilman. And for generations, those independent oil producers, along with farmers and Texas ranchers, have employed inexpensive, hard-working Mexican laborers.

'Throwing Away Their Future'?

But in the halls of the Texas Capitol in 2011, Bush's approach is considered insufficiently conservative by most Republicans. The one powerful interest group that still thinks Bush had it right is the Texas Association of Business.

"If suddenly all the undocumented workers [in the state] were simply to go back to their home of origin, it would be disastrous for the Texas economy," says Bill Hammond, president of the group.

It is no exaggeration to say the membership of Hammond's group supplies the Texas Republican Party with a large measure of its fiscal lifeblood. On behalf of his clients, the thousands of big- and small-business owners in Texas, Hammond roams the state Capitol, trying to impart a bit of reality about the Lone Star State's economy.

"The impact on the Texas state economy of immigrant labor is about $17 billion a year," he says. "That's an enormous segment of our economy, and we simply would not be able to function without these people."

Until this year, Hammond and his Republican allies in the Texas Legislature have been able to kill most immigration bills in committee. Hammond would like to expand the immigration pipeline to allow more workers to legally enter the state. That proposal currently has zero chance.

"Today, 56 percent of Texans under the age of 25 are minorities. The growth in the population has been largely Hispanic over the last 10 years," he says. "I believe the Republican Party is throwing away their future."

A Plea To Tone Down The Rhetoric

Republican state Rep. Aaron Pena represents the border city of Hidalgo. "The tone of the debate is basically saying, 'We don't want you. ... This is a war over our culture. These people bring diseases into our country.' "

He says the six Hispanic Republicans in the Texas House have been trying to persuade some of their colleagues to tone down the anti-Hispanic rhetoric.

"Many times, you won't see our handiwork out in public," he says. "It's done behind the scenes."

Pena says there are plenty of Texas Republicans who quietly share his concerns about the tone of the debate and its long-term effect on Hispanic voters.

But now, there are plenty who don't, including Berman. "Most Hispanics right now do vote Democrat; there's no question about it," Berman says. "So what vote are we going after? We're going after a vote that doesn't vote Republican anyway."

It's too early to tell how many of the dozens of bills will become law. While the Texas House seems hot for immigration bills, the Senate seems less so. It's distracted by a $27 billion budget deficit that's threatening to gut the state.

http://www.npr.org/2011/03/29/134956690/texas-republicans-take-harder-line-on-immigration

Senate panel kills House-approved bills targeting illegal immigration

By Fredrick Kunkle
The Washington Post
February 16, 2011

A Democratic-led Senate subcommittee on Wednesday made short work of Republican bills sent over from the GOP-led House to crack down on illegal immigration, including a measure that would have applied Prince William County's strategy to the whole state.

HB1421 - the so-called anti-sanctuary bill sponsored by Del. David B. Albo (R-Fairfax)?

Dead.

HB1465 -- a bill from Del. Christopher Peace (R-Hanover) that would require colleges and universities to adopt written policies prohibiting the enrollment of illegal aliens?

Dead.

HB2332 -- Del. Scott Lingamfelter's proposal modeled on Prince William County that would require police to ascertain the immigration status of anyone arrested?

Dead.

Hurrying because the full Senate was to convene late in the day -- and perhaps because the outcome was all but pre-ordained -- Senate Majority Leader Richard L. Saslaw pestered the subcommittee chairman, Sen. John S. Edwards, to move things along. And Edwards (D-Roanoke) did, sometimes giving witnesses less than a minute to speak or no time at all.

Then Saslaw would make a motion to kill the bill, Sen. L. Louise Lucas (D-Portsmouth) would second, and the Democrats, joined by Sen. Henry Marsh, would inevitably swamp Sen. Frederick M. Quayle, (R-Chesapeake), who several times cast the lone vote for Republicans.

"No one who pays attention to these things at all is surprised," said Del. Todd Gilbert (R-Shenandoah), whose closely watched bill designed to tally immigrant schoolchildren also died. "The Democrats threw in with the open-borders crowd a long time ago, so they're just being consistent."

His bill would have required local school boards to count the number of children who could not provide a birth certificate or enrolled in English as a Second Language courses.

The panel did approve measures to revoke drivers' licenses from people who are deported and to require some large government contractors to begin using the federal, computerized eVerify system to check workers' immigration status.

Although the panel voted to kill a stricter House eVerify bill sponsored by Del. Charles W. Carrico Sr. (R-Grayson), the members agreed to roll another eVerify measure sponsored by Del. Richard L. Anderson (R-Prince William) into a more lenient measure that Sen. George L. Barker and Sen. Jeffrey L. McWaters (R-Virginia Beach) shepherded through the Senate.

An overflow crowd filled the hearing room for the fast-moving hearing.

Supporters, such as the American Council for Immigration Reform, talked about the hidden costs of undocumented immigrants and crimes committed by illegal immigrants who should have been deported, including the triple slaying in Manassas on Feb. 10 that allegedly was committed by a man identified by police as an illegal immigrant.

"Several murders -- the one just last week -- may have been prevented if that person had been held," said John Kwapisz, of the Virginia chapter of the American Coalition for Immigration Reform.

A small contractor, Fred Laube, who owns Duke Construction, Inc. in Goochland, told the panel that he cannot compete with people willing to work for $3 or $4 an hour under the table while he pays taxes and files forms for his crews. He estimated that he has lost one out of every five possible home improvement jobs to competitors who use illegal immigrant labor and come in 30 percent under his estimates.

"We are paying what we are supposed to pay, and they don't," Laube said. "It's not fair."

Opponents warned that some bills would stir irrational fear and bigotry against immigrant communities, making them vulnerable to profiling or driving them further into the shadows.

Beatrice Amberman, founder of the Hispanic Community Dialogue Organization, warned some of the measures would damage the relationship between police and the immigrant community, who might be reluctant to report crimes.

Rebecca Jaramillo, of the Democratic Latino Organization of Virginia, suggested that some of those who were motivated to take action against illegal immigration were motivated by bigotry and discomfort with sweeping demographic changes that she has welcomed.

"But there were some people who were not thrilled, and they have done and they have had some behaviors that, quite frankly, have made me ashamed to be from that area," Jaramillo said. "It is time for people like me to say 'Enough. We can accept these people into our commuintiy without changing the commuity too much.' "

Business groups, such as the National Federation of Independent Business, also pushed back against measures that would require them to use the federal eVerify program, saying that rushing to comply could be an extra burden, especially for smaller businesses.

Some Democrats also warned that the GOP-led crackdown could backfire in a state that has become much more diverse, according to the latest census.

"The Republicans are on a longterm kamikaze mission," Del. Scott A. Surovell, a Democrat in a Fairfax district whose percentage of white voters declined by 10 percent in the past decade. "What's next -- they're going to require the grocery stores toi find out if you're here legally before you can buy food?"

2011

02

16

17

52

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2011/02/senate_panel_kills_house-appro.html

GOP Legislators Support Work-Site Raids On Undocumented Immigrants

By Personal Liberty News
January 31, 2011

GOP legislators support work-site raids on undocumented immigrantsRepublican lawmakers are calling for more aggressive measures in an attempt to preserve American jobs.

The Immigration Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) held its first hearing under GOP leadership on Jan. 26. Republican members called on President Barack Obama's administration to reinforce workplace raids on undocumented employees, which was an aggressive approach adopted by George W. Bush in the final years of his presidency.

According to the Los Angeles Times, work-site raids for immigration-related offenses have decreased by about 70 percent since Obama took office. Representative Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the chairman of the HJC, said that this practice should not be ignored with the national unemployment rate exceeding 9 percent.

"It is hard to imagine a worse time to cut work-site enforcement efforts by more than half," said Smith, quoted by the news provider. "Citizens and legal immigrants should not be forced to compete with illegal workers for jobs."

According to United States Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE), it costs taxpayers about $12,500 to deport each illegal immigrant. Frank Sharry, executive director of the America's Voice Education Fund, said that lawmakers should focus their efforts on getting these undocumented workers to register with the government and pay taxes, as opposed to charging Americans millions of dollars for mass deportations.

http://www.personalliberty.com/news/gop-legislators-support-work-site-raids-on-undocumented-immigrants-800370030/

GOP Hits the Ground Going Backwards

By Victor Landa
NewsTaco
28 January 2011

So enough speculation, we’re starting to get a real sense of what the new House Republican leadership will be doing with their feet on the ground and their agenda in motion.

The Immigration Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee opened its tent flaps and got down to the business of its business. The first act on the play bill was this: “ICE Worksite Enforcement – Up to the Job?”

There are a few things to discuss here, and its important to do so because the new House majority made immigration one of the sharpest points of its election pitchfork. As head of the Judiciary Committee, this is Rep. Lamar Smith’s (R-San Antonio) watch, and he was recently called-out by ilw.com for creating a Toxic anti-Hispanic environment.

First, the sub-committee has come out with both barrels blazing in criticism against the Obama administration’s immigration enforcement record. The sub committee is questioning the President’s plan, which has turned out to be more efficient than his Republican predecessor’s.

Obama has concentrated his enforcement on employers and has, so far, out done his predecessor in total deportations. But the Republican leadership apparently wants him to return to the less effective work site enforcement tactics of the past. Bush’s plan caused more pain to the immigrant but got more publicity – posse sweeps and raids are followed by TV cameras. That’s what the new leadership wants.

The Republican’s are also inching their way toward the deportation of the 12 to 18 million (depending on who’s counting) undocumented taxpayers who live and work in the US. What they are not mentioning is what this would look like, or how much it would cost. But we’ve got an idea. At last count it costs $12,500 dollars to deport one person. Multiply that by 12 million. The Republican idea to deport undocumented persons would cost $150 billion.

This is no longer just about immigration. This is a matter of fiscal responsibility in the wake and throes of a debilitating recession. And this is no longer a political campaign tactic, this is leadership. This is a new congressional leadership that touts smaller government and spending cuts on the one hand while holding hearings to reverse a more efficient deportation plan with an ultimate goal of adding personnel and $150 billion to the federal budget on the other.

Here’s what else it is: it’s the beginning of the 2012 election season.

http://newstaco.com/2011/01/28/gop-hits-the-ground-going-backwards/