Mitt Nails Illegal Immigration: "Our problem is not 11 million grandmothers" (And Other Gems)

From the Republican debate Thursday night. Mitt Romney speaking. [Thanks to Roy Beck at NumbersUSA for the transcription.]

I think I described following the law as it exists in this country, which is to say, I'm not going around and rounding people up and deporting them.

What I said was, people who come here legally get a work permit. People who do not come here legally do not get a work permit. Those who don't get work will tend, over time, to self-deport.

I'm not going to go find grandmothers and take them out of their homes and deport them. Those are your words, not my words. And to use that rhetoric suggests to people that somehow, if you're not willing to keep people here who violated the law, that you're anti- immigrant. Nothing could be further from the truth.

...

You know, our problem is not 11 million grandmothers. Our problem is -- all right. (applause) Our problem is 11 million people getting jobs that many Americans, legal immigrants, would like to have. It's school kids in schools that districts are having a hard time paying for. It's people getting free health care because we are required under the law to provide that health care.

And the real concern is the people who want to come here legally. Let's let legal immigrants come here. Let's stop illegal immigration.

Yes yes yes to all of that! The question of illegal immigration is about respecting legal immigrants. It's about requiring (silly concept, I'm sure) that employers hire only legal immigrants or citizens. It's about the impact on state and local budgets.

How gratifying also that Romney targets and blows up the Big Lie of illegal immigration advocates.

... somehow, if you're not willing to keep people here who violated the law, that you're anti- immigrant. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Great point! (Why didn't I think of that???)

Stripped of lies, there is nothing left of the argument in favor of illegal immigration. Accordingly, let's ask the correct question of the pertinent party, our elected officials: why are you encouraging illegal immigration and discouraging legal immigration? Because that is what you accomplish by refusing to enact e-verify, failing to properly qualify applicants for public programs and willfully ignoring the very reasonable laws on our books.

And to our elected officials on the state level, there's no point in bleating that immigration is a federal matter. YOU HAVE MADE IT A STATE MATTER, with all of the substantive implications to state and local budgets and our unemployment rate, BY DELIBERATELY CREATING A MAGNET FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.

So. President Obama. Senate President Paiva-Weed. Governor Chafee. Why do you support illegal immigration and oppose legal immigration?

More Deception on In-State Tuition for Illegals

Back in October, I pointed out that the academic study on the effects of a policy of offering in-state college tuition to illegal immigrants cited in the media and by the Board of Governors for Higher Education was so erroneous as to be fraudulent. Now, a comment on Newsmakers from the board's chairman, Lorne Adrain, has brought another bit of... let's say... creative interpretation to data on the matter. I've cued up the video to the relevant moment:

The interviewers chuckle and greet with incredulity Adrain's assertion that the people of Rhode Island had shown that they "embrace" the notion of in-state tuition for illegals, leading Adrain to draw a distinction between the "loud" people who show up for hearings and residents more generally. As evidence of the latter's views, he refers back to a Brown University poll showing that "the vast majority of Rhode Islanders felt that this was a good thing."

Astute viewers will note that Adrain begins by explaining the necessity of having "sufficient conversation about the question to get a sense of how the people of Rhode Island feel about it" and ends by dismissing a broad portion of the feedback that his board received. His conclusion, apparently, is that the people who take the time to opine in public forums and attend hearings don't count as much as the 508 folks who happened to pick up the phone when Brown randomly called their phone numbers, because he mentions no other source of information about "how the people of Rhode Island feel."

In order to do a PolitFact-style check on Adrain's assertion of a "vast majority," I found the poll release itself, and indeed, it reports that:

Rhode Islanders show strong consensus on issues of immigrant education: 83 percent support programs for teaching immigrant children English, and 68 percent support extending in-state tuition rates to undocumented immigrant children who graduate from Rhode Island high schools.

In modern usage, a 68% majority is close enough to "vast" to count. But the poll also found that 54% of respondents support a law requiring "local police" to "arrest anyone who is present in the country without proper documentation." How do these two findings coincide? Well, the actual question asked on in-state tuition gives a clue:

Illegal immigrant children attending college in our state should be charged a higher tuition rate at state colleges and universities: a) strongly agree/agree, 23%; b) neither agree nor disagree, 9%; c) disagree/strongly disagree, 68%

It is definitely possible that some of the people who answered "disagree/strongly disagree" might have done so because they think that illegal immigrants should not be attending state colleges and universities at all — they should be deported. As a matter of the question's construction, though, we also have to note that it does not specify "higher tuition" than what. It sounds more like such students would be charged an "illegal immigrant" penalty, which gives the sense of taking advantage of a captive class. Had respondents been asked whether illegal immigrants' tuition should be equal to out-of-state tuition, the answer might have been different.

What's particularly disturbing about this journey of the data from a poorly posed question to a factor in a public official's policy decision is the place in which most of the shift was made: by the poll takers themselves. It's not as if Adrain, recalling a survey from last spring, misremembered the specific import of the question. Rather, the Brown University Taubman Center, itself, took a pretty open question and layered in the relevant specifics after the fact. The question says nothing about "in-state" tuition or "children who graduate from Rhode Island high schools." Those are elements that the surveyors thought it important to insinuate into the news coverage of their results.

And yet, it is on the basis of this sort of information that those who lead our state and our nation choose a way forward — or, more accurately, that they attempt to justify their own preferences to a nation with whom they share an increasingly narrow set of values.

Judicial Watch to RIBGHE: In-State Tuition for Illegals Appears To Be "clear violation of federal law and must, therefore, be reversed"

Tuesday, the RIBGHE voted to increase tuition at the three state colleges. It is very difficult not to link this increase to their vote five weeks ago to offer in-state tuition to illegal alien students. Now, with their vote Tuesday night, when the colleges go to the General Assembly for more tax dollars to cover the shortfall of these additional "in-state students", RIBGHE can claim to have done their part on the funding front.

... except that there remains a decided question of legality about the policy, which Judicial Watch points out to the RIBGHE in a letter sent October 19.

Judicial Watch, the public interest organization that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it sent a letter on October 19, 2011, to the Rhode Island Board of Governors for Higher Education (RIBGHE), calling on the State of Rhode Island to abandon a new illegal alien tuition policy impacting Rhode Island's public institutions of higher education.

On September 26, 2011, the RIBGHE established a set of criteria by which students, including illegal aliens, would be eligible for reduced in-state tuition rates. However, as Judicial Watch notes in its letter to RIBGHE Chairman Lorne Adrain, "Under federal law, unlawfully present aliens generally are ineligible for state or local public benefits, including post-secondary education benefits such as reduced tuition, unless a state has enacted a law affirmatively providing for such eligibility."

Continue reading "Judicial Watch to RIBGHE: In-State Tuition for Illegals Appears To Be "clear violation of federal law and must, therefore, be reversed""

In-State Tuition Raises Larger Question About Social "Investment"

In a Providence Journal op-ed (which now apparently inevitably means "not online"), Sandy Riojas and Daniel Harrop argue in favor of in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. The first part of their argument is that President Ronald Reagan would have supported their side of the debate.

As admirable and iconic as Reagan may have been, a former president's view of a current state policy question is effectively irrelevant. And besides, it's not as if illegal immigration and in-state tuition are recent developments, so one might well reply: Forget "would have"; the applicable question is, "did he?" I've not seen the evidence.

More interesting, however, is the view of government and higher education that Riojas and Harrop promulgate:

There are Rhode Island Republicans who believe the state wastes its investment when it educates undocumented students through high school and then forces them to pay hiogher prices to attend a public college. Is high school graduation the milestone when these students are penalized for unknowingly entering the country illegally?

... [Subsidizing in-state tuition, the] state ultimately loses nothing, while gaining a greater proportion of the population that is college-educated and can participate in improving the future of Rhode Island.

Is high school really so worthless that a graduate cannot "participate in improving" the state? I'd argue that such an attitude, with the concomitant increase in the subsidization that the government provides for higher education, is what's driven the unsustainable inflation of tuition across the board. A high school diploma is, or ought to be, valuable in its own right, and any reasonable assessment of the actual skills needed in the workforce will likely conclude that it is sufficient for a great many jobs. So, yes, a high school diploma may, indeed, be the line after which the local society should consider legal residency status.

A precondition to both the development of the economy and the improvement of the state and nation as civic units is that the rules apply. Individuals and private organizations can bend them, but the state — with its ability to apply force and confiscate property — cannot. Putting aside the fact that subsidizing in-state tuition does, undeniably, cost the state something, the greater cost may lie in the lesson that doing so for illegal immigrants teaches about the validity of the rule of law.

The Legislative Response Rate on Tuition

There are two major takeaways from the Providence Journal's poll of RI legislators on the matter of in-state tuition for illegal immigrants:

1. 55% of senators and 37% of representatives were willing to go on the record opposing it even though there is no vote currently before them.
2. 24% of senators and 41% of representatives didn't even respond to the question; add in "undecideds" and the percentages are 32% and 52%.

This issue comes up regularly, and it has been pretty heavily covered in the media, lately. How is it possible not to have an opinion?

The third takeaway, of course, is whether your own senator and representative responded in the way that you would like him or her to... whether he or she responded at all is also an important fact to keep in mind next time you're voting.

Peter Palumbo on Legislation to Reverse In-State Tuition for Illegal Immigrants

At yesterday's rally at the Rhode Island statehouse in protest of Governor Lincoln Chafee's bypass of the legislature on various issues (in-state tution for illegal immigrants through a board decision of a public corporation, an executive order to being the process of creating healthcare "exchanges", and possible executive action to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants), State Representatives Joe Trillo and Peter Palumbo spoke to the crowd of their intention to introduce legislation to reverse the decision on illegal immigrant tuition made by the Board of Governors for Higher Education.

I was able to ask Representative Palumbo about his bill, and whether he expected to receive leadership support for it...

Anchor Rising: What is the content of the bill you are planning to submit to the legislature?
State Representative Peter Palumbo: The intent of the bill is going to be to override the decision...that the Board of Governor's made that gives illegal aliens in-state tuition...	Audio: 15 sec
AR: And are you expecting to have leadership support for that bill?
PP: At this time, no. At this time I do not anticipate it, but this doesn't mean we're not going to go forward with it...	Audio: 34 sec
AR: You've kind of answered the third question I was going to ask, but I will ask it directly: You are prepared to go ahead with this bill, without leadership support?
PP: We've been doing this, and we're going to do it in a bi-partisan manner...hopefully, if we get enough people...and the people get activated after this rally and contact their local reps, there is optimism there.	Audio: 34 sec

The Governor's Evasive Principles on Immigration

It's been a few weeks since he made it, but I didn't want to let Governor Chafee's statement on in-state tuition for illegal immigrants go without comment:

"I have long been a supporter of efforts to encourage college attendance among students who, through no fault of their own, do not have full residency status," Chafee said.

He continued: "All that separates these young people from the thousands of other students who gain entry to Rhode Island's public colleges and universities each year is the place where they were born -- a factor none of us can control."

Place of birth is in no sense the issue; plenty of people not born in the United States have made their way to Rhode Island in such a way as to be eligible for in-state tuition. At issue, with immigration, is the right of the people of the United States to regulate the flow of foreigners into their country. That cannot be accomplished by walls and force alone, so it is critical to temper the lure of illegal entry by reducing the benefits that its practitioners seek to acquire and increasing the difficulty of operation within the country for those who have come here through improper channels.

Erroneous, One-Sided Public Discourse Misleads on Tuition

As news consumers across the nation and the globe are aware, on Monday, September 26, the Rhode Island Board of Governors for Higher Education approved a policy granting in-state tuition rates to illegal immigrants who attended local high schools. As recently as this spring, the General Assembly explicitly declined to join the twelve other states that offer this concession, so it is a matter of some controversy that an unelected board has cemented RI's reputation for diluted democracy by making ours the second to join the list as a matter of policy, not law.*

With this issue, as with many others, our drift toward unabashed aristocracy is abetted by a lack of balance in the public debate, locally. The problem goes much deeper than mere media bias, down to the data on which discussion and decisions are based. In this case, a report from the Latino Policy Institute at Roger Williams University has enjoyed a near monopoly when it comes to research citations — from radio to Web sites, from television to print.

Even just in the A section of this Sunday's Providence Journal, the institute's findings received two high-profile mentions. The first came in a characteristically unfair PolitiFact take-down of Terry Gorman, executive director of Rhode Islanders for Immigration Law Enforcement. According to journalist Lynn Arditi, the study "showed that 74 undocumented students were attending one of the three public institutions of higher education in Rhode Island in 2009."

The second mention came from Board of Governors member Lorne Adrain, in an op-ed written on behalf of his fellow members. Adrain explains that their decision was based, in part, on the study's suggestion that "our state schools will still experience net new revenues from the policy."

Both assertions are demonstrably false. At a basic level, the study has broadly been assumed to deal with illegal immigrants (or "undocumented," if you prefer), although the term in the title and throughout the document is "non-citizens," which the authors never define. Thus, the report's executive summary cites the U.S. Census's 2009 American Community Survey, finding 69,757 "non-citizens" in Rhode Island, meaning that many residents counted as "not a U.S. citizen," no matter their legal status, as a few clicks at census.gov prove.

Something similar is true of the "74 non-citizen undergraduate students attending" public college. This data comes from the National Center for Education Statistics, and what it actually tallies are all "nonresident aliens" enrolled in RI's public undergraduate system. Clicking "i" for information brings up the following definition: "A person who is not a citizen or national of the United States and who is in this country on a visa or temporary basis and does not have the right to remain indefinitely."

The NCES may or may not have slipped illegal immigrants into that total, but it appears mainly intended to indicate students temporarily in the United States pursuing degrees. The new tuition policy will not apply to such "international" students. Moreover, legal-immigrant residents, whom the NCES counts among the general student body, appear already to be eligible for in-state tuition.

But let's pretend that the Latino Policy Institute's report actually addresses the students affected by the Board of Governor's new policy. That is, for the sake of argument, let's say that there are 74 illegal immigrant undergrads currently attending the University of Rhode Island (with 38), Rhode Island College (with 21), and the Community College of Rhode Island (with 15), and that in-state tuition will attract another 12 to URI, 7 to RIC, and 5 to CCRI. Will that increase in enrollment yield "net new revenues," as Mr. Adrain claims?

The Latino Policy Institute gives that impression by factoring in the "FTE instructional cost" for each institution, or the amount that it spends on a narrow range of expenses specifically filed under "instruction." The Institute subtracts that number from the tuition and counts the difference as a profit. Thus, the authors claim that "the enrollment of non-citizens would result in roughly $162,000 in revenue to public institutes of higher education per year."

The glaring error in this argument is that the "net new revenue" is not coming from "net new students." At out-of-state tuition rates, those 74 students are currently paying $1,435,010 in tuition. Give them the in-state rate, and the colleges and university are looking at a total tuition loss of $881,530. The 24 new students whom the lower tuition would supposedly attract would only bring the loss down to $703,586.

It's worth repeating that these headcounts are essentially made up. If illegal immigrants count among those here on a "temporary basis," there would be many fewer of them; if they count among those "who have been admitted as legal immigrants for the purpose of obtaining permanent resident alien status," there could be many more. In any case, the question of whether new illegal immigrant students provide a profit or require a subsidy would have to be the subject of another essay. (I'd argue that they represent a net cost of thousands of dollars each per year.)

At the very least, one can say that an unelected board should not be implementing public policy in lieu of duly passed laws, especially on the basis of erroneous and one-sided research. The Board of Governors should rescind its decision, and the civic society of Rhode Island should find a way to foster better-rounded public discourse.

* I attempted to change the Providence Journal version of this essay (which appears in the paper today) to reflect an AP report that specifically cited 12 other states that offer in-state tuition to illegal immigrants, with Oklahoma having already blazed the trail of doing so via policy. Either my correction came too late, or the Projo's findings differ from those of the AP.

ADDENDUM:

I've corrected Lorne Adrain's gender in the above, and I apologize for the error. The only other "Lorne" I've ever heard of is Lorne Michaels from Saturday Night Live, and for some reason, my initial feeling that it was a woman's name never went away, despite knowing that Michaels is a man. Fortunately, though, my argument does not rely whatsoever on the personal qualities of the people whom I mention, and even if it did, I provided links to all of my sources, so readers can check my results on their own.

With all of the time that I spent culling data, I didn't have time to research Mr. Adrain's biography, which after all, is entirely irrelevant.

Analyzing the Civics of the Board of Governor's Illegal Immigrant In-State Tuition Policy Change

Determining whether it was a legitimate exercise of authority for the Rhode Island Board of Governors for Higher Education to make certain illegal immigrants eligible for in-state tuition at RI public colleges and universities takes us into a murky borderland in the civic landscape occupied by "public corporations" and "quasi-public entities" that have been created by governments to provide "non-public" goods or services. (In economic parlance, a "non-public" good or service is one that can be parceled out in a manner such that those who want it can spend what they want for it, and those don't want it don't have to buy any at all).

Whether government should ever create “public corporations” or other "quasi-public" bodies for the provision of private goods and services is a valid question in itself, but given that such entities are already with us and making decisions that impact people's lives, the immediate focus needs to be on whether their actions directly violate the core principles of democratic governance. In the case of the BoGfHE’s illegal immigrant tuition “policy change”, this means making certain that the Board has not exceeded its authority by doing something that must be a legislative function, and that it has acted in a way that was a reasonable exercise of its statutory mandate.

To address these issues, it is useful to consider a "public corporation" that deals with a less controversial good or service (at least in this century) such as a state-run liquor store. While the legislature authorizes and defines the purpose of a state-run retailer, it is not left to a legislature, or a committee of legislators, or even a board that is hired and fired directly by the legislature to make day-to-day decisions on matters such as pricing and inventory. Indeed, allowing a legislature to directly exercise executive authority in such a manner would be the violation of the separation of powers principle.

Likewise, allowing the Board of Governors for Higher Education to manage tuition pricing is not in inherent conflict with the principle of separation of powers, so long as the board is acts in a manner that does not conflict with the law. And since Rhode Island law makes no significant mention of immigration status in the context of public higher education and Federal law is unclear, the Board's action is consistent with current law.

Of course, because a “public corporation” can do something does not mean that it should, and there is a strong case to be made that the unelected board of a public corporation should not be imposing measures which the legislature has had before it but decided not to enact. The flip-side of this is that if a legislative majority feels that the Board has stretched an ambiguity in the law beyond reasonableness, it is their right -- and their duty -- to clarify the ambiguity.

The legislature does not have to wait for the Board of Governors to rescind its tuition policy change to begin a move to reverse it. It is not the legislature that has to make its actions conform to those of the Board of Governors; it is the Board of Governors that must set policies that conform to the law. If a new section is added to Rhode Island law regarding public higher education, perhaps in the form of language similar to section 40-6-27.1(b) of current RI law, which prohibits giving certain public assistance benefits to illegal immigrants, then the BoGfHE would have to change its policies in response.

The action taken by the Board at this stage is no more permanent than any preliminary budget recommendation for spending money in the next fiscal year, and it is certainly not written in stone that any government department, never mind a government created corporation, must get everything that it asks for. Indeed, for those inclined to view this purely as a budgetary and fiscal issue, one option the legislature could pursue would be to cut the budget of the BoGfHE -- a budget item separate from that of any actual educational institution, and that costs Rhode Islanders about $7 million annually in operations and personnel -- by the amount needed to make-up the difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition for the number of illegal immigrants expected to be admitted to RI colleges.

In the end, if a 3/5 majority of Rhode Island legislators think the Board of Governor's decision on in-state tuition for illegal immigrants is a bad idea, they can only be bypassed in our system of government if they allow themselves to be. (I am assuming that the current Governor of Rhode Island would veto a standalone bill on this subject, necessitating a veto override, although this matter would also be germane for inclusion in the annual budget bill, which could allow it to passed as part of the same 2/3 majority that has to approve the budget). Approval of the legislative leadership should not be any factor; if a supermajority wants a bill passed, there are various ways a bill can be brought to the floor, if the members value having something passed more than they value following leadership dictates. And if the voters believe that the Board's decision should be reversed, but their legislators refuse to act for whatever reason, then the people need to consider electing new legislators who will.

Calculating the "Cost" of a College Student

In discussion of in-state tuition for illegal immigrants, commenter Russ illustrates why public debate so often gets stuck in conflicting assertions and animus:

...dividing the total operating costs of the University of Rhode Island by the number of full-time equivalent students suggests that the university has to make $20,615 per student.

Wrong, but hey let's pretend the university has no other sources of income and that tuition covers housing, dining services, and any number of other items not relevant to this discussion.

Wonder why that is that you folks (repeatedly) feel the need to misrepresent this?

The cost of educating a college student (which is different than the cost to the student of receiving an education) is a debatable question. Advocates for granting in-state tuition to illegal immigrants assert that the amount that students pay should be considered the cost of their attendance, but this ignores the fact that state aid, other activities, and the inflated costs to out-of-state subsidize those students. By contrast, some advocates on the other side treat the out-of-state tuition as the cost, but this errs in the opposite direction. Other people might wish to look at budgetary line items and tease out those directly associated with the day-to-day experience of students, but the institution's activities are all so integrated that there isn't a clear line to draw.

Note that, in the text of mine that Russ quotes, I didn't say that tuition has to be $20,615, but that the University of Rhode Island "has to make" that amount per student. My premise is that the primary mission of a college or university is education, and most of its non-educational activities serve that mission. Some of those activities — such as funding professors' research — represent an overall cost, but are worth the expense because they enrich the knowledge of the professors, expand the opportunities for students, and bring recognition to the departments. Some of the activities — such as collegiate sports — may represent an area of profit, thereby helping to lower tuition rates from where they otherwise would be.

We could argue the point to death about whether (for example) the sports subsidize the research and therefore have no effect on tuition rates. But with education being the core mission and tuition being the main source of revenue, it seems most reasonable to use a per student measurement for questions of finance.

Thus, we can total the expenditures of the University of Rhode Island at $400,430,444 and average the number of credits purchased in the spring and fall semesters of that year to determine that, for 2010, the university had the equivalent of 19,424 full-time students.and say that, overall, the university must make $20,615 per student — regardless of the source of that revenue — to meet its expenses. Again, some of its other activities increase that cost and others decrease it, but if that's the theoretical per-student number, a student paying in-state tuition and fees of $11,366 per year is not carrying his or her own weight.

We can go a step farther and adjust the ratios of students to take into account the amounts that different categories pay (in-state, out-of-state, and regional). Doing that suggests that the University of Rhode Island's actual per-student income is somewhere around $16,862. I should emphasize that these are rough calculations. I lack the time and resources to divide up the student body by, for example, those who live on campus versus those who don't or to separate graduate students from undergraduate students and so forth. In this context, though, it's interesting to observe that the regional tuition rate (not including fees and housing) is currently $17,192, so it may be that the university sees that as "cost" in the sense that, on a small scale, it doesn't affect the per-student rate.

Be that as it may, these numbers are why we periodically hear university officials talking about the need to attract more out-of-state students. As the ratio shifts toward them, the number that the institution actually makes per student moves toward the number that it has to make per student.

According to advocates for the illegal-immigrant giveaway, 74 illegal immigrants currently attend URI, RIC, and CCRI, and they calculate that the reduced price will attract another 24. We're not talking huge numbers, here, by any means, but I don't see how it's plausible to argue that cutting the revenue from 74 students by 60% and adding another 24 at rate that must be subsidized will do anything but increase costs. (Note that, due to time constraints, I'm putting aside the possibility that the percentages differ from one institution to the next.)

A rational debate could proceed in a number of interesting and fruitful directions, from here, but it's more difficult to accuse people of being heartless when one acknowledges that the question is whether a cost is justified, not whether there is a cost.

And Now: Drivers Licenses

Incrementalism is a beautiful thing.

E-verify rescinded earlier this year.

In-state tuition passed yesterday.

Now the latest: drivers licenses.

Governor Chafee said Tuesday that he is looking into the possibility that the state might issue driver's licenses or driving permits to illegal immigrants.

Responding to questions about a vote by the Board of Governors for Higher Education to approve in-state rates for undocumented students, Chafee said being able to drive would help people who need transportation to go to school or work or to look for work.

He said has spoken with officials in Utah, which he said is the only state that has established a special class of driver's licenses for illegal immigrants.

"I'm working on it," he said.

Question. Why would this particular group of people need a vehicle to look for or report to a job when THEY ARE NOT ELIGIBLE TO WORK HERE?

In-State Tuition for Illegals, Whether You Want to Pay for It or Not

Last night, with the approval of RI's chief executive, Lincoln Chafee, the Board of Governors of Higher Education decided to act in lieu of the General Assembly and implement a policy of offering illegal immigrants in-state tuition rates for the state's public universities. That makes Rhode Island just the fourteenth state to be so generous, and the first to make the decision without involving the people's elected legislators.

The big lie of issue, which Ted Nesi describes here is that there is no cost to this decision — perhaps even an increase in revenue. I spent some time looking at the numbers, last night, and although I don't have time, this morning, to make my findings presentable for this post, I just don't see how that could possibly be so.

I'll show my work (as the math teachers say) in a future post, but in a nutshell, dividing the total operating costs of the University of Rhode Island by the number of full-time equivalent students suggests that the university has to make $20,615 per student. Clearly, total tuition and fees of $11,366 for in-state matriculating undergrads won't cut it. If, as advocates claim, in-state tuition were sufficient to educate a student, then the University ought to be investigated for price-gouging out-of state students, who pay $27,454.

In State Tuition for Non-Citizens Again

A panel of the Governor's Board of Higher Education has recommended that Rhode Island offer in-state tuition to non-residents of Rhode Island. If you're not a US resident or citizen, is it possible to be a Rhode Island resident, by the legal definition? I guess according to the Board of Governors, you can.

Even more interesting, the fact sheet from the Board of Governors says that there will be no extra cost to the taxpayers, but will actually lead to additional revenues. I honestly don't see how this can be a true statement. Looking at the costs of one semester's tuition at URI, I see:

	Undergraduate
In-State	$9,824
Out-of-State	$25,912
Difference	$16,088

When I see that difference (per semester), I ask why? Why is there that difference? Is it because $25,912 is the true cost of educating a student at URI? If it is, where does the remaining $16,000 come from? Don't the taxpayers make up that difference through the support the school gets in the state budget? So if you add more in-state students, you increase the cost to the taxpayers. The fact sheet also claimed this change would add approximately 31 extra students to the state college system. If all 31 of them attended URI (a very unlikely scenario), that is an extra half million dollars that needs to be paid. Not only that, the fact sheet claims there were currently 74 undocumented immigrants attending Rhode Island's state colleges and paying out of state tuition. If we give them in-state tuition and also figure they all attend URI, that is an extra $1.2M. So this change could, in a worst-case scenario, cost the state an extra $1.7M for one semester or $3.4M for the academic year.

Going back to the table and seeing that $16,088 difference between in-state and out of state tuition, if that $25k number isn't the true cost of educating a student at URI, then is the $9,824 the true cost? If it is, then why do we charge out of state students an extra $16,000? That would results in millions of dollars of profits for URI for all those out of state students.

I don't know of any other possibility. One of those numbers is the true cost of educating a student for a semester at URI. I believe the first scenario is far more likely to be true, which makes me extremely skeptical of statements that there is no extra cost to the taxpayers.

Prez to Illegals: You Can Stay - Just Don't Murder Anyone

This is unacceptable.

The Obama administration's plan to review the cases of 300,000 illegal immigrants currently in deportation proceedings to identify "low-priority" offenders has sparked a debate in Washington and beyond.

Officials said that by launching the case-by-case review, they are refocusing deportation efforts on convicted felons and other "public safety threats." Those who have not committed crimes could be allowed to remain in the U.S.

How long before word gets around the world - literally - that if you can just make it over the United States' border, however you have to do it, you're golden? Too late; it already happened.

With this action, President Obama is spitting simultaneously on legal immigrants and on the sovereignty of the United States. Will Congress stand next to him and do likewise by refusing to intercede on behalf of the people who came here lawfully (and at considerable cost), on behalf of US sovereignty and on behalf of ITS OWN CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE AND POWERS?

On the issue of deportation, the executive branch has the privilege of determining how to implement the law, but it does not have the power to manipulate the way a law is carried out to the extent that it changes the meaning of the law. ...

The President’s newest round of executive branch legislating, though, through the Department of Homeland Security, is particularly abhorrent. It represents the first major time that President Obama has successfully used the executive branch not only to bypass the legislature, but to act directly contrary to it. In the face of a hostile House of Representatives, it is likely that these ‘screw you’ moments will become increasingly frequent.

Wherefor the Flow of Immigrants

You may have heard that illegal immigrants are returning to Mexico because they can't find work in the United States. Mark Krikorian notes that, while that is surely a factor, other shifts (less conducive to the liberal storyline) are in play, as well:

Buried in the story, and not highlighted in the headline or the lede, is this comment from someone a whole lot more likely to know what ordinary illegal aliens are actually thinking:

... "They're going back home because they can't get medical help or government assistance anymore," Frausto said, "And when it's getting so difficult for them to find a job without proper documentation, it's pushing them away."

Mayor Menino: Grand Theft Auto Is Fine (As Long As It's Committed By Undocumenteds)

The mayor of Boston is trying mightily to expand the list of crimes that undocumented immigrants are (tacitly) permitted to commit. (H/T Howie Carr.)

Boston Mayor Thomas Menino is now reversing course and threatening to withdraw from the Secure Communities program.

That's a big change for Boston, where police Commissioner Ed Davis had been a strong supporter of the program, wich shares the fingerprints of everyone arrested by local police with federal immigration authorities. ...

But now Menino says he'll pull out of the program if US immigration authorities don't limit deportations to serious criminals.

“This was supposed to be on issues like homicides, major crimes, and they were taking this too far. A guy steals a car, they do the fingerprints, send it to Washington, have the person deported. That's not the Boston I want. I want Boston to be a city that welcomes immigrants,” Menino said.

... so immigrants won't feel welcomed if they're not permitted to steal cars??? Or are you saying, Mr. Mayor, that only immigrants steal cars? Also, please advise at what point car theft became an unserious crime.

In any case, keep talking, Mumbles. Though your campaign manager is undoubtedly hiding under a desk right now knocking back the aspirin, your foot-in-mouth disease is a considerable source of amusement to the rest of us.

For In-State Tuition, Show Us the Taxes

William Dimitri, of Johnston, makes an interesting suggestion regarding in-state tuition for illegal immigrants, in a Providence Journal letter that does not appear to be online:

On the one hand, those fortunate enough to earn in excess of $250,000 already pay a substantial amount of taxes, but that fact seems to escape the grasp of the ... proponents [wish to increase those taxes].

On the other hand, it is highly unlikely that those illegal immigrants whom Diaz, Pichardo and the other "immigrant advocates" want to benefit have ever paid income taxes.

How about requiring that those illegal immigrants provide copies of their tax returns for every year they have been in Rhode Island before granting them the privilege of paying in-state tuition rates (which would make the idea more palatable to those who do pay taxes and tuition, like me) and leave those who work legitimately and pay taxes alone and in peace.

Honestly, I don't know the statistics for illegal immigrants and income taxes, and even were such requirements included for in-state tuition, I'm can't say I'd be for it. How about requiring people to follow the proper procedures for entering and remaining in this country? Especially with in-state tuition, which amounts to government-subsidized higher education, following the rules for becoming a legal resident seems the least one can do.

In-State Tuition for Illegal Immigrants to be Heard in Committees in *Both* Chambers Tomorrow

This is kind of interesting. According to a Tuesday posting to the General Assembly website, the Rhode Island Senate will hear the in-state tuition for illegal immigrants bill (S0321) on the same day that the House Finance committee does (tomorrow, May 26) . The House hearing (H5245) was posted last week.

Supporters of the bill wouldn't be trying to rush it through just before a long weekend, would they?

Brown's One-sided Immigration "Symposium"

Let me start with the caveat that I didn't attend Brown's immigration symposium convened to discuss a poll (that I've already touched on) and am relying on this morning's report from the ProJo. That out of the way, stepping back, it really is remarkable, if unsurprising, that a supposed institution of higher learning would hold a symposium on such a hot-button issue as immigration--illegal and otherwise (as is standard "immigrant" advocacy practice, they conflated the two in the poll, too)--and offer only one side of the argument. According to the article, here's a sample of the wide-ranging views represented at the conference:

[Bishop Thomas Tobin] urged that people recognize that immigrants, “regardless of the status of their paperwork, are children of God and our brothers and sisters in the human family.”

Brown history professor Evelyn Hu-Dehart called the term “alien,” as applied to illegal or undocumented immigrants, “a very problematic word” used to distinguish “between good and bad immigrants...I ask you to think about that word — alien not only as a stranger, but dangerously different and undesirably opposite of the warm and fuzzy feeling we conjure when we think of the [American] melting pot.”

Nasser Zawia, dean of the graduate school at the University of Rhode Island, said that as a Muslim, Arab and member of the Yemeni community, “I guess I’m the ‘enemy alien.’ I’m also part of the community in conflict with the United States. I’m always, the ‘other.’ ”

Symposium organizer Alexandra Filindra, of Brown University, said she was heartened by the survey results showing 68 percent of Rhode Islanders favor extending in-state tuition rates to undocumented children who graduate from Rhode Island high schools.

Was it really that one-sided or did the ProJo simply not report on the alternate views (if any) that were expressed? I'm not sure, a closer look at the 5 members on the Symposium's panel seems to confirm the suspicion. In addition to the aforementioned Dr. Hu-Duhart, here were the other 4 members on the "Expert Panel on Immigration":

Dr. Michael A. Olivas - President of the American Association of Law Schools and Professor of Law at the University of Houston. Olivas is an advocate for allowing illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition at public colleges and universities.

Dr. M. Daniel Carroll, Professor of the Old Testament, Denver Seminary has his own blog. He approaches the issue from the same moral Christian perspective as Bishop Tobin.

Dr. George Borts, Professor of Economics, Brown University is a Club for Growth cited advocate of Free trade. Borts has written an op-ed calling for immigration reform and denouncing the labels of "alien" and the rise of what he calls "nativism".

Dr. Cynthia Garcia Coll, Professor of Education, Brown University seems to center her research on immigrant children and often turns up at rallies (for instance, the DREAM act rally) that support immigrant--illegal and legal--rights.

Now, there is certainly some generality here given the rudimentary research I did, but I think it's safe to believe that all of the above could be considered sympathetic to illegal immigration. I know that Terry Gorman of RIILE didn't stand a snowball's chance of being invited, but there wasn't at least one person with perhaps a different view than the majority of the panel that could have been added? Were 4:1 odds too much? This sounds more like a pep rally than an actual examination of all sides of the issue.

Re: Budget Thoughts

I certainly appreciate Marc's fair-minded and temperamentally conservative response to Governor Chafee's budget proposal, but I think he slips into a political trap not unlike the practice of spending budgets on pet projects and then looking to debt to fund such necessities as road repair. It is insufficient to go through a budget proposals as if it were itemized lists of distinct suggestions. It is also arguably the case that general thrust is more important in judging the baseline that the governor puts forth than the specifics.

Recall the process every time Governor Carcieri included some sort of tax increase, new fee, or one-time fix in his budgets. They would give the General Assembly cover, even as the legislature brushed aside attempts at reform, such as mandate relief. The same will happen here, only Chafee has extended the tax-and-fee-increase cover beyond what even some in the General Assembly might have wanted, and he's barely pushing for reforms.

His 1% tax on currently exempt items has morphed into a 1% tax on sensitive items like clothes, heating fuel, and textbooks and a 6% tax on less sensitive items like hair cuts and auto repairs. His pension reforms are more of a request, subject to negotiation, with real changes pending further review, posturing, and tribal dances for a miracle rain. His savings in other areas, such as health and human services, are the typical illusory promise of better efficiency and oversight.

As for the corporate tax, the problem with the combined reporting proposal is that the details remain the very-complicated devil. It's all in how the state figures out its share of a corporation's tax once everything is combined. And with regard to the balance of rates and credits, all one needs to know — all one needs to know for the entire budget, really — is that Chafee wants to increase spending on education and municipal aid while eliminating a quarter-billion-dollar-plus deficit. That can only happen if the total tax and fee burden on Rhode Islanders and its economy increases.

Brown Concludes RIers "Deeply Divided" on Immigration

Brown U. has done a poll on immigration and is framing it as a look at a "deeply divided" RI public (and the ProJo is parroting it). The actual poll numbers tell a different story. It doesn't look like Rhode Islanders are "divided" so much as they are just plain confused. First, it looks like Rhode Islanders want to enforce the current immigration laws (or make them tougher a la Arizona):

Immigrants should change so they blend into American society: a) strongly agree/agree, 70%; b) neither agree nor disagree, 11%; c) disagree/strongly disagree, 19%.

Police in our state should be able to check the citizenship and immigration status of all people including citizens: a) strongly agree/agree, 55%; b) neither agree nor disagree, 7%; c) disagree/strongly disagree, 38%.

Schools in our state should offer specialized programs for teaching English to children whose first language is not English: a) strongly agree/agree, 83%; b) neither agree nor disagree, 7%; c) disagree/strongly disagree, 10%.

How much do you support or oppose the approach that Arizona is taking on immigration? a) strongly support, 32%; b) somewhat support, 22%; c) neither support nor oppose, 10%; d) somewhat oppose, 14%; e) strongly oppose, 23%.

If the Arizona law were enacted in our state, how much would you support or oppose a tax increase to pay for additional police to enforce immigration law? a) strongly support/somewhat support, 54%; b) neither support nor oppose, 10%, c) somewhat oppose/ strongly oppose, 36%.

RIers are also open and sympathetic to immigrants (illegal or otherwise):

Immigrants today have the same values as American-born citizens: a) strongly agree/agree, 59%; b) neither agree nor disagree, 19%; c) disagree/strongly disagree, 22%.

Immigrants make our state more open to new ideas and cultures: a) strongly agree/agree, 41%; b) neither agree nor disagree, 20%; c) disagree/strongly disagree, 39%.

Illegal immigrant children attending college in our state should be charged a higher tuition rate at state colleges and universities: a) strongly agree/agree, 23%; b) neither agree nor disagree, 9%; c) disagree/strongly disagree, 68%.

Wanting to enforce or toughen the laws and still being sympathetic to the plight of others aren't mutually exclusive positions to take. However, it appears that many RIers are neither open or sympathetic to immigrants (illegal or otherwise, apparently)

Immigrants today have the same values as previous generations of immigrants: a) strongly agree/agree, 35%; b) neither agree nor disagree, 16%; c) disagree/strongly disagree, 49%.

Immigrants strengthen our state because of their hard work and talents: a) strongly agree/agree, 10%; b) neither agree nor disagree, 9%; c) disagree/strongly disagree, 80%.

That being said, many RIers are also open and sympathetic to immigrants:

Immigrants today are a burden on our state because they take our jobs, housing and healthcare: a) strongly agree/agree, 17%; b) neither agree nor disagree, 21%; c) disagree/strongly disagree, 62%.

It is very important that everyone in the United States speaks English: a) strongly agree/agree, 34%; b) neither agree nor disagree, 17%; c) disagree/strongly disagree, 49%.

?[Scratches head]. These answers lead me to wonder if; a) there is a misunderstanding of what exactly an immigrant is; b) Rhode Islanders are schizophrenic; 3) there is a problem with some of the questions; or IV) a, b and 3 are correct or; E) perhaps the real problem lay in the polling methodology: "two waves, in November 2010 and February 2011" (I'm not a polling expert, but isn't a 3 month span between data sets significant? Were all of the questions asked during both polling periods? Were the same pollsters involved?)

AZ to Fed Gov: You Claim It As Your Purview

... so buckle down.

Arizona on Thursday filed a lawsuit against the federal government, alleging that Washington has failed to secure the state's porous border with Mexico. ...

"Because the federal government has failed to protect the citizens ... of Arizona, I am left with no other choice," Brewer told reporters at a news conference in central Phoenix, as several boisterous protesters attempted to shout her down.

"We did not want this fight. We did not start this fight. But, now that we are in it, Arizona will not rest until our border is secured and federal immigration laws are enforced," she added.

Signs of Life in Committee: Four Reps Oppose Holding the Illegal Immigration Bill "For Further Study"

A source who was at Tuesday's night hearing of the Labor Committee of the Rhode Island House of Representatives informs me that the decision "to hold for further study" the bill that would write former Governor Donald Carcieri's illegal immigration executive order into law passed by a vote of only 8 - 4 (one committee member was absent). Representatives Deborah Fellela (D-Johnston), Brian Newberry (R-North Smithfield/Burrillville), Robert Phillips (D-Woonsocket) and Jack Savage (R-East Providence) were the votes against further study.

Let's review exactly what it was that 8 members of the Labor committee voted for, in voting for "further study": By voting "to hold for further study", the majority on the Labor Committee voted against giving the full House of Representatives a definitive opportunity to vote on the illegal immigration bill, and instead voted in favor of giving the Speaker of the House the power to decide whether this bill should receive any further attention during this legislative session.

Given the committee's disposition of the immigration bill, no one outside of the 4 Representatives who voted against "further study" can be considered amongst its supporters. Certainly some members of the House Labor Committee, such Chairwoman Anastasia Williams (D-Providence), have given unmistakable indications of opposing the bill on its merits. But it would definitely be of interest to constituents of the Labor Committee members who voted for "further study" to find out if their Rep opposed the bill because of its substance, or because they were told they were not allowed to send it to the House floor for a vote at this time, even if they did support it.

Remember, asking legislators to vote in committee for bills that they support isn't asking for an arcane parliamentary trick. It's simply asking legislators to do the job they were elected to do, and not give away their representation of their constituents to someone else.

How To End the Tyranny of "Held For Further Study" II

Three high-profile bills go before their Rhode Island House of Representatives committees this week, 1) the bill, referred to the Labor Committee to be heard today, that would make the provisions of former Governor Carcieri's executive order on illegal immigration into law, and 2 and 3) bills, referred to the Judiciary Committee to be heard on Wednesday, one establishing same-sex marriage at the statutory level, the other defining marriage as being between a man and a woman at the Constitutional level. (h/t Ian Donnis)

Given the recent history of legislature action in Rhode Island, the question is, once these bills go to committee, who will make the decision on whether they are eventually sent to the full House for a floor vote: the members of the committee together, or the Speaker of the House alone? Does a committee decide what happens to the bill referred to it, or does a committee immediately hand bills back to the Speaker of the House and say "you tell us what to do"?

I have no inside information on what the majority committee positions are in the case of the immigration and the same-sex marriage bills, but they are certainly not instances where straight party-line votes are expected. And if any RI Representative believes that that a majority of a committee on which they serve would decide the fate of a bill differently from what the House leadership would allow, there are the procedures she or he can follow (consistent with Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure, referenced in the House Rules) to help a bill get its rightful consideration.

1. If the committee meeting begins, as is common practice in Rhode Island legislative committee meetings, with a motion to hold every bill on the current agenda for "further study", any representative can make a motion to "divide the question", and have the bill they are interested in (same-sex marriage, immigration, etc.) considered as a separate vote.
   
2. If the legislature follows its own customs and practice, the motion to divide the question should be granted by the committee chair automatically, without a vote being needed. If you check the Journals of proceedings on the House floor, motions to divide the question are routinely granted without a vote being taken, as long as the Speaker rules that a question is divisible. There is absolutely no question that a motion to vote on multiple bills at the same time is divisible into separate votes.
   
3. Then when the bill of interest comes up for its separate consideration, if a motion to "hold it for further study" is immediately made, that motion opens the question for debate (it the language of parliamentary law, any motion that would send the bill out of committee falls into the category of a "main motion" which opens general debate on the subject). Any representative who wants to speak on the substance of the question should be afforded the opportunity to do so, before any vote is taken, and the debate should follow the same rules that are followed when bills that have been blessed by the Speaker and the Committee chair are considered. However, just as importantly...
   
4. Motions to either postpone definitely, or to lay the bill on the table (two separate options) are now in order. The important difference between a vote to "hold for further study" and a vote for "to postpone definitely" is that further study sends a bill back to the full House, where its fate is placed into the hands of the Speaker, while "definite postponement" keeps the bill in committee, where its fate must still be decided at a later time by a majority vote of the committee, no matter what the Speaker or the committee chairperson thinks.

   A motion for definite postponement could take the form, for example, of a motion to postpone consideration of bill until after the people who have come to testify on that day have been heard, or until the next committee meeting, or until the first committee meeting after witnesses have been heard, etc. Also, according to Mason's Manual, the motion for definite postponement is debatable to the degree that the "propriety of the postponement" is discussed, meaning that it would be perfectly in order for the Rep who made the motion (or any other Rep on the committee) to explain to the other members of the committee (and the audience for the hearing) during their speaking time how this motion keeps the fate of the bill in the hands of the committee, instead of transferring it to the Speaker. (The first time this procedure is used, this might also make for some interesting blank and confused stares on the faces of certain legislators).
   

5. The motion to postpone definitely does have to be voted on -- which means the real question about invoking this process centers on whether the members of a committee charged with considering a bill believe that the Speaker of the House would make the same decision on the bill that they would. If they think the Speaker would not allow a bill to get a vote on the House floor, even though a majority of the committee would supports it, then they should follow the procedure described above.

Look, I know that the 19th century language used as the names for some of these motions can make parts of the process sound arcane, but this is not parliamentary trickery being sketched out. This is, in fact just the opposite, a review of some accepted and staid rules, adopted over the centuries of American democracy, to ensure that legislatures are run as the gatherings of equally-ranked representatives of the people that they are intended to be. In the specific context of the RI legislature, those particular principles that need protecting are...

1. That legislatures make decisions on substantive matters by majority vote.
2. That legislators cannot be forced to vote on substantive matters, before they have had an opportunity to deliberate them.
3. That legislators cannot be required to consider unrelated bills at the same time.

If you think those principles are unreasonable, then the form of government you believe in is something other than democratic.

Immigration and Buzzards

Monique and Matt talked of illegal immigration policy and a meaningful juxtaposition of headlines on the Matt Allen Show last night. Stream by clicking here, or download it.

We're still not to our goal of funding a full-time job, by the way, so please email or call (401-835-7156) me to pledge financial support — as subscriptions, donations, or advertising — for 2011 to help us create a full-time job within Anchor Rising.

Common Sense Locked Out

With Governor Lincoln Chafee determined to ease the way for illegal immigrants in Rhode Island society, some legislators will surely increase their attempts to affect the relevant aspects of Rhode Island law through legislation, as Rep. Peter Palumbo (D, Cranston) has promised to do:

Palumbo also said he will introduce another bill, or package of bills, when Governor-elect Lincoln D. Chafee goes forward with his announced plan to repeal Governor Carcieri's executive order on illegal immigration. The bill, or bills, "will mimic the executive order to take its place legislatively," Palumbo said.

The stunning stretches of parliamentary procedure that similar legislation received last year (see here and here) suggest that the legislative route may not work. The prospects, this year, are made more dim by the fact that any legislation that passes will likely require enough support to override a gubernatorial veto.

Perhaps the makeup of the General Assembly changed just enough for a new dynamic on immigration, but I doubt it. All that's left is for residents to speak up and make it increasingly difficult for the state's political leaders to cater to their ideologies and favored special interests.

The Not-So-Approachable Governor

An email from Terry Gorman, executive director of Rhode Islanders for Immigration Law Enforcement, inspired a new category title, on Anchor Rising, when he sent the following email:

Just received a call from Anita, a senior staff person on the Chafee transition team and she related to me that without hearing from the source the Governor elect fully understands RIILE'S position on Gov. Carcieri's Executive order and that the Governor elect had already conducted all the meetings he would with constituents on matters such as these at this time. RIILE put in three phone requests and many requests via Talk Radio for meetings with the Governor elect to explain RIILE'S side of the Illegal Immigration issue to enable Mr. Chafee to at least make an informed decision before rescinding the Executive Order. We thank them for considering our request for a meeting and appreciate the courtesy of a return call. However, RIILE feels that Mr.Chafee has been totally MISINFORMED by the Illegal Alien advocates and like thinking Union officials on his transition team. RIILE fails to see how a rational decision can be made by our State's highest ranking elected official without at least knowing both sides of any issue, especially one that so adversely affects the fragile economy our fine State. This reluctance to weigh both sides of an issue does not bode well for the next four years of governance in Rhode Island.

In like fashion to National Organization for Marriage Rhode Island Director Chris Plante, Mr. Gorman has found that our incoming governor has already granted constituents all of the hearings they're going to get, and he's not even in office, yet. One begins to wonder whether Mr. Chafee is disinclined to open his door to too many folks with whom he disagrees out of fear that they'll be able to determine whether he operates by means of strings or a hand up the back of his shirt.

Chafee's Aimin' to Give It

What's the famous H.L. Menken quotation? "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." I suspect that's going to be the unofficial slogan of the Linc Chafee years in Rhode Island. It came to mind when the Department of Revenue found that Chafee's plan to tax everything that moves in Rhode Island would actually increase the taxes that we pay by $121 million, rather than the $89.4 million that he'd been claiming:

The list of 93 items that are exempt from the existing 7-percent state sales tax, in addition to food, clothing and medicine, is made up of items that state lawmakers deliberately chose not to tax, among them: school meals, prosthetic devices and sales to charitable, educational and religious organizations. Also included: equipment purchased for manufacturing purposes and adaptive equipment that helps amputee veterans drive their cars. [Don't forget heating fuel.]

When asked last week whether Chafee favors taxing such items, his spokesman, Michael Trainor, said the former U.S. senator "never wavered" during the campaign from his plan to establish a 1-percent tax on exempt items, and is not wavering now.

"Certainly, in the early days of his administration, there needs to be additional revenue," Trainor said. "He views this as a temporary extension to the exempt items that would be retired as soon as the budget situation is under control."

And what happens when "the budget system" (along with spending) becomes more out of control? Well, the difference between items currently taxed at 7% and those to be taxed at 1% is minimal, wouldn't you say?

The quotation came to mind, again, when Chafee dug in on his pledge to wipe away E-Verify at the state level, doubled down with an intention to bring this campaign across state borders, and offered this non sequitur, which raises serious questions about the governor-elect's capacity for reason:

"We have a disaster of an economy. Unemployment is one of the worst in the country. We're way worse than our neighbors, who all have the same labor laws as us," except for the immigration order, he said. "Obviously it's not working."

Blaming the state's economic woes on the fact that the state government has at least minimal controls against the hiring of illegal immigrants is nonsense on its face. Can the man who is soon to be the chief executive of our state think no more clearly than that? Even the Providence Journal editors think Chafee's way off, on this one:

The governor-elect argued that E-Verify "simply doesn’t work" and "has proved ineffective."

That would surprise people with much greater expertise on the subject, including Janet Napolitano, the secretary of homeland security for President Obama, whom Mr. Chafee strongly supports.

"E-Verify is a smart, simple and effective tool that helps employers and businesses throughout the nation maintain a legal workforce," Ms. Napolitano said this month, in announcing that the program is being expanded at the federal level to include U.S. passports and passport cards for employment verification. Thirteen states now mandate E-Verify and the number will grow. (See "Chafee understates use of E-Verify system," news, Nov. 19.)

And even you don't agree with Chris Plante and the National Organization of Marriage, perhaps you'll hear echoes of Menken in the Chafee camp's handling of Plante's effort at least to be heard on the issue in the governor's office:

[Dhavee spokesman Michael Trainor] also denied ever telling Plante "that the governor-elect would sit down with him." In fact, Trainor said, his letter reflected his belief that a meeting would probably "not be productive" in light of Chafee's "long-established position" on the issue.

But Trainor said Chafee is, in fact, open to talking with Plante one-on-one about the issue. Explaining why his own letter to Plante did not raise this possibility, Trainor said it was sent without the governor-elect's knowledge, amid "literally hundreds of requests for meetings."

"But now that Mr. Plante has decided to make a public issue of this, Lincoln Chafee is more than willing to have him in and to have a conversation."

It's just basic politics to make some effort to allow the opposition to feel as if it has had input, thereby defusing some of the bitterness from the debate. Governor Carcieri, for one, met with advocates for same-sex marriage even though his stand was at least as strong in the opposite direction as Chafee's.

The frightening theme that recurs with every article concerning the soon-to-be governor of Rhode Island is that the people of the state are going to have to look to the General Assembly for balance and reason while Chafee's in the executive seat. Those who believe that the healthiest outcome for Rhode Island would be a hastening of its demise (and therefore, its recovery) may soon get their wish.

"I campaigned on it...I can't go back on a campaign pledge."

So says our governor-elect when talking about his pledge to revoke the E-verify Executive order. Hey, he's honest, right? I guess that means we can be sure that a 1% sales tax increase is coming. Yippee.

The Goal Is to Silence, Not to Oppose

The opposition went to the immigration law enforcement rally, last Friday, dressed humorously to distract from their underlying intent, which is to prevent the public from hearing or understanding an argument with which they disagree:

Suddenly, demonstrators in polyester clown suits filed through security and entered the State House rotunda, carrying signs that said, "Clown Power," and "Clowntocracy."

At that point, the "Clowns for Immigration Law Enforcement" outnumbered Palumbo-bill supporters, whose critical mass never exceeded 50.

The clowns mocked the speakers with whoops and applause: "Peter Palumbo! Clown in Chief!" "Peter Palumbo! Clown in Chief!" "When I say 'Clown!' You say 'Power!'"

It's not surprising that, in the middle of a work day, it's easier to raise a crowd opposed to enforcing immigration law than supportive of it. More to the point, the intention here — as with protestors at the recent rally hosted by the National Organization for Marriage, in Providence — is to make it more difficult for a public conversation to be had.

Take away the "clown," and all they're shouting is "power."

Inanities But Not Sovereignty: The Wildly Upside Down Priorities of the Administration (and their Accomplices in Congress)

True to their misguided word in their lawsuit against Arizona that they lacked the resources to enforce our borders, the Obama administration has ordered ICE to cut way back on (Joe B, correct me if this is wrong) non-felony violations of our border.

The new guidelines are outlined in a June 29 memo from Assistant Secretary John Morton, who heads the agency, to all ICE employees regarding the apprehension, detention and removal of illegal immigrants, noting that the agency "only has resources to remove approximately 400,000 aliens per year, less than 4 percent of the estimated illegal-alien population in the United States."

Mr. Morton said ICE needed to focus wisely on the limited resources Congress had provided the agency and would "prioritize the apprehension and removal of aliens who only pose a threat to national security and/or public safety, such as criminals and terrorists."

Don't we now have a border that is partially open? If you can get here, we won't deport you.

Though Senator Lindsey Graham has a record on illegal immigration that is checkered at best, certainly we can have the conversation that he proposes about birthright citizenship. I would agree with those who assert, for example, that the word "jurisdiction" in the Fourteenth Amendment may have been misinterpreted all these years.

More urgently even than that, however, can we ask both President Obama and Congressional pro-illegal immigration, anti-sovereignty advocates to explain why they have chosen to spend billions of dollars on the most inane pork and stimulus projects but are now sharply curtailing resources for one of their primary functions: preservation of this country's sovereignty and borders? Can we also ask them to please correct their terribly misguided priorities forthwith?

Clarifying a Point on Immigration

In my conversation with Matt last night about the Arizona immigration law court decision, I mentioned that I had come across an interesting point: that the Federal lawsuit against Arizona shows that comprehensive immigration reform probably won't work because the enforcement provisions of any such plan will be litigated (and thus implementation delayed) while the other aspects are enacted. Mark Krikorian is the one who posted about this and ascribed the point to Steve Camarota:

Any employer verification system will be challenged in court. So will any efforts to coordinate immigration enforcement with local police. Immigration lawyers also will fight every effort to detain more of their clients. Building new fencing and dealing with environmental and property rights issues at the border will involve legal battles. While in time these things almost certainly will pass legal muster, court injunctions and proceedings will hold up enforcement for years.

Borders, National and Educational

Marc and Matt discussed (independently) immigration and education on last night's Matt Allen Show. Stream by clicking here, or download it.

Cost of Illegal Immigration to Rhode Islanders

My main focus with regard to illegal immigration has been its implications to US sovereignty and, with the recent rise in kidnappings and violence along the border, the personal safety of those who reside there.

It is not unreasonable, however, to also examine the more pragmatic impact that it has on Rhode Island wallets and public budgets. John Loughlin will be appearing on WPRO a little after 3 pm to discuss this with Buddy Cianci, along with Loughlin's recent visit to Arizona and other matters pertaining to Rhode Island and District One.

[Terry Gorman of RIILE kindly provided these figures from the indicated sources.]

Education -- As of 2004, the US Census Bureau estimates there were 8,740 students in RI schools who were illegal aliens or the US born children of illegal aliens. Multiply this by RIDE's figure of $23,000 annually to educate ELL's ( English Language Learners) and get $201,020,000. Now we need to add in the cost to educate the Special Needs students. If we include the additional cost of Special Needs students in this category - using the same percentage as the total student population - 20.1% of 8,740 = 1,756 X $22,000 = $38,600,000.

Total, Education $239,600,000

Incarceration -- As of 2008, there were over 200 inmates at the A.C.I. who were illegal aliens at a cost of $43,000 each annually. (Source: the Director of the A.C.I.) That's at least $8,600,000. Now subtract reimbursement from the federal government of $1,200,000.

Net total, Incarceration: $7,400,000

Medical Services -- In 2005, the Providence Journal estimated that 35% 0f Rite Care recipients were illegal aliens.

Fast forward to 2009 when the Rite Care budget for medical services was $357 million. (This represented an increase of only $1,000,000 over 2005 due to screening changes implemented by the Governor and D.H.S.) Take the ProJo's 35% and multiply it times $357,000,000.

Total, Medical Services: $124,950,000

Uncompensated care (compensation supplied by RI taxpayers) -- In 2008, the state paid a total of $138,000,000 (source: the state's budget) to RI hospitals for uncompensated care. Attempts to quantify how much of this was paid on behalf of illegal aliens (for purportedly emergency services only) is made difficult because, as Terry Gorman observes

RIILE is stymied in this area also by the refusal of the hospitals to divulge the number of U S Citizens and Legal Immigrants receiving this uncompensated care. This would reveal the actual number of Illegal Aliens for whom they are providing services.

So let's use what would seem to be a conservative percentage of one half. (Correction cheerfully made if and when hospitals are willing to release actual numbers.)

Total, Uncompensated CAre: $69,000,000

Jobs Taken -- Apply the estimate by the US Census Bureau and D.H.S. that 59% of illegal aliens in the United States are employed to a more conservative figure of 30,000 illegal aliens residing in Rhode Island.

Total, Jobs Taken: 17,700

Grand total: $440,950,000 annually plus 17,700 jobs

Really? State Officials Are Not Permitted to Enforce Federal Laws?

Presumably inspired by the Obama administration's lawsuit against the State of Arizona, commenter and Engaged Citizen David Potts, via e-mail, presents an interesting scenario.

Suppose a RI trooper is patrolling I-95 and he stops a motorist for speeding. As he approaches the offender's vehicle he sees a set of engraving plates for U.S. $100 bills sitting on the passenger seat. Does our hero a) detain the motorist and notify the Secret Service or b) consult his copy of the constitution and, realizing that punishing counterfeiting is a federal responsibility, issue a speeding ticket and send the motorist on his way?

In that vein, Adam J. White at the Weekly Standard hones in on the precedent that may prove to be a stumbling block for the plaintiff in the matter of The United States of America vs The State of Arizona.

The administration's primary obstacle is De Canas v. Bica (1976), in which the Supreme Court emphatically declared that federal immigration laws did not prohibit the states from enforcing the policies embodied by those federal immigration laws. (In that case, the state law was a California prohibition against the employment of illegal aliens.) The Court reviewed the text and history of the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, and found no indication that "Congress intended to preclude even harmonious state regulation touching on aliens in general, or the employment of illegal aliens in particular." According to the Court, states may enforce laws consistent with federal immigration laws, so long as the state does not "impose additional burdens not contemplated by Congress."

Let's Be Clear: If You Oppose the Recent Changes to the Arizona Immigration Law, You Oppose United States Immigration Law

Because, see, the substance of the revisions to the Arizona law make it almost a carbon copy of the federal law. "Almost"; the Arizona law is actually less harsh than the federal law because, unlike with federal law, Arizona officials cannot simply walk up and ask someone for their papers.

And, did you know that the Arizona law includes the following provisions? [Emphasis and editorial comment added.]

Page 2:

J. THIS SECTION SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL LAWS REGULATING IMMIGRATION, PROTECTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF ALL PERSONS AND RESPECTING THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF UNITED STATES CITIZENS.

Page 6:

The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin.

Page 16:

The terms of this act regarding immigration shall be construed to have the meanings given to them under federal immigration law. [Again, emphasizing that this law is based upon federal law.]

C. This act shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens.

I point this out both because there has been widespread confusion about the Arizona law, reaching as high as the White House, and for the edification of two Rhode Island candidates in particular: Anthony Gemma, candidate for the first Congressional district and Ken Block, candidate for governor. A transcript of the portion of Mr. Gemma's recent appearance on the WPRO Buddy Cianci Show dealing with the Arizonal law is posted after the jump.

Mr. Gemma is a nice man. But the transcript reveals that he is clearly in way over his head on the matter of illegal immigration: he is unaware that the United States already has in place a path to citizenship (and has had for decades) and he doesn't even understand the concept of birthright citizenship. Yet lacking a full understanding of the issue, he inexplicably proceeds to voice an opinion on it.

And, while Ken Block appears to warily support Governor Carcieri's Executive Order on e-verify, he describes the Arizona law (thank you, Andrew, for attending, recording and transcribing) as "assinine" and "xenophobic".

Shall we take two? Do both of these gentlemen - and everyone who opposes the Arizona law - stand by their reservations now that they are aware that the law is simply a less rigorous version of federal immigration law?

Continue reading "Let's Be Clear: If You Oppose the Recent Changes to the Arizona Immigration Law, You Oppose United States Immigration Law"

RI Governor 2010 - Immigration Reference Chart

Based on Andrew's reporting as well as the ProJo and the GoLocalProv accounts, here is a quick reference chart detailing the 2010 RI Gubonatorial candidates' stance on four key Immigration related issues: Governor Carcieri's 2008 Executive Order, E-Verify, in-state college tuition for the illegal/undocumented, and the Arizona Immigration law.

Issue	Chafee	Lynch	Giroux*	Caprio	Block**	Robitaille***	Moffit
Carcieri Exec order	Against	Against	Against	Approve	Qualified	Qualified	Approve
E-Verify	Against	Against	Against	Approve	Approve	Approve	Approve
College Tuition	Approve	Approve	Qualified	Approve	Qualified	Against	Against
Arizona Law	Against	Against	Against	Against	Against	Qualified	Approve

* Giroux - Not ready for an in-state tuition program, though implies eventual support.
** Block - Would tweak the language of the executive order to ensure no racial profiling. Approves of in-state tuition for illegal immigrants who are in the process of becoming legal.
***Robitaille - Supports Executive Order, but would use the Florida secure communities model instead of 287(g). Would consider some components of AZ law for RI, but states are different.

The First County of Aztlan

This is stunning, and it ought to be thrown in the faces of those North Easterners who point their sanctimonious, oh-so-tolerant fingers at Arizona. Swaths of land within our borders are being closed to Americans because the invasion of illegal-immigrant smugglers, human traffickers, and drug runners from Mexico has simply made them too dangerous.

Perhaps Rhode Island should send Senate President Teresa Paiva-Weed and Speaker of the House Gordon Fox there on a fact-finding mission.

Spend to Punish

In response to the Providence City Council's useless declaration condemning Arizona's controversial immigration law, Domenick Fabrizio, of Cumberland, has a suggestion:

Since this city council wants to use economics to punish Arizona, my wife and I have decided to draw an economic line in the sand. We've decided to boycott organizations in Providence that we have frequented for years, including the Barker Playhouse, the Providence Performing Arts Center, the Providence Place mall, the Rhode Island Philharmonic and several restaurants.

We urge others who agree with us to do the same.

The first consideration ought to be the state of the economy, and anything that hinders that is inadvisable. More deeply, though, an economic boycott in response to the foolishness of city officials seems to punish the wrong people; those who are actually out there being productive are probably not the decisive factor in electing such goons. Of course, one must adjust for the left-leaning inclinations of the specific industries, mainly in arts and entertainment, that Fabrizio lists. Increasing economic pain and government dependency would conceivably have an opposite effect to that desired, when it comes to electoral politics.

So, don't boycott. Spend more, but in targeted fashion in order to encourage business and maybe to put money into the hands of folks who'll support a change of government in the city.

Re: The Legislative Leadership Is Not Nearly As Powerful as our Rank and File Legislators Let Them Be

According to Karen Lee Ziner of the Projo, the e-verify bill that was recommitted to the Rhode Island Senate Judiciary Committee last evening had 19 co-sponsors, exactly half of our 38-member Senate...

[Senator Marc Cote] said he felt so strongly about, and had such support for his bill (19 co-sponsors) that he decided to invoke a parliamentary procedure apparently last used in 1995. That rule, 6.5, allowed him to put the bill on the calendar without committee deliberations, circumventing years of resistance to a floor vote.

A few Senators were absent from the floor session last evening, so we don't know if supporters of the bill comprised a majority of those present and voting, but we do know that a roll-call vote should be used when the numbers are this close. The question is, besides waiting for the Peter Palumbos and the Marc Cotes to wait too long to take action yet again next year, can anything be done now?

Here are a few suggestions:

1. The antidote to politics is often politics. If the 19 co-sponsors are serious about their responsibilities as elected members of a legislature which is supposed to be engaged in deliberative decision making, they should announce publicly that they can no longer support current Senate President Teresa Paiva-Weed in any future Senate leadership election, on the grounds that she is unable to carry out the basic responsibilities of her position in a manner consistent with the principles of majority rule.

   Of course, this will not occur if we have a bunch of Senators who are happy to give away to someone else the legislative responsibilities that they have been entrusted with by their constituents, in which case the willingness of legislative candidates to support leaders who will not allow their votes to be counted becomes a legitimate campaign issue, i.e. a vote for Christopher Maselli is a vote for Teresa Paiva-Weed, and a vote to let Teresa Paiva-Weed make all of the important decisions that Christopher Maselli should be making.

2. However, Senator Marc Cote and the other primary sponsors of this year's e-verify bill (including Republicans Leo Blais and David Bates) need to be asked why they were unprepared to exercise their rights to have their votes included as part of the record, and specifically, if they really had a majority, why they did not bring the e-verify bill out of committee via the procedure specified in Senate rule 6.10, which would have required that every Senator wanting to speak on the subject to be heard at least once, before a vote on a motion to recommit could be taken.
   
   
3. Finally, it is worth making a note of a quirk of the Senate rules, which Senators who are serious about the principle that votes need be counted when a legislative body makes a decision (if there are any) could use today. RI Senate rules allow for a motion to reconsider a bill. However, the rules are explicit that a motion to reconsider must be offered on the same legislative day that the original vote was taken, so this is not what I am suggesting. There is also a provision in the Senate rules allowing a Senator to change his or her vote (with permission of the majority of the Senate) again provided that the request for a change is made on the same day as the original vote. And there is also a provision in the Senate rules that allows any Senator to have his vote recorded in the Senate Journal on matters where the roll was not called but without any expressed time-limit on when this right can be invoked. So if there are a majority of Rhode Island State Senators who wanted to pass the e-verify bill that was killed by the leadership last night, they should at the earliest available opportunity exercise their right to enter into the Senate Journal how they voted, and make the Senate leadership's undemocratic action a part of the official public record.

   This assumes, of course, that we have Senators who are more interested in good government than in obedience to Senate leadership. But if nothing else, wouldn't you like to see Democratic Majority Leader Daniel Connors respond to Senators asking to have their votes recorded by hopping out of his seat and shouting that counting votes is out of order in the Rhode Island legislature; individual votes don't matter here.

Speaker Fox Does a Volte Face on Hearing Palumbo's Arizona-style Illegal Immigration Bill (But the Rally is Still on Thursday)

Question for State House observers: is it true that this is the first time that a bill has been pulled after it was scheduled for a hearing?

House Speaker Gordon D. Fox decided Monday that Rep. Peter Palumbo’s controversial Arizona-style bill on immigration will not be heard this session.

"The speaker opposes this and feels it’s better addressed federally. We’re not going to hear it this year," said Larry Berman, spokesman for the House of Representatives. Palumbo could not be reached for comment.

The bill filed by Palumbo, D-Cranston, mirrored legislation signed into law by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer last month that is considered the toughest such law in the country. It would require the police to determine the immigration status of a person involved in a lawful stop "where reasonable suspicion exists" that they are in the country illegally, and would criminalize failure to carry alien registration documents.

Pro-illegal immigration advocates were to have held a rally late this morning in Central Falls, inexplicably terming this a victory over racial profiling. Inasmuch as the model for Palumbo's bill, the Arizona law, and the original template, the federal immigration law, have nothing whatever to do with racial profiling, they will be celebrating, not a hollow victory, but a completely non-existent one.

By the way, the rally at the State House 4 pm Thursday in support of this bill and of silly notions like sovereignty and honoring those immigrants who respected our process to come here is decidedly still on.

"Arizona Sing-A-Long": The Importance of Reading

(... the AZ law before commenting on it). H/T NewsBuster's Noel Sheppard.

On a slightly more serious note, Rep Peter Palumbo's bill to bring the "Arizona" - aka, the US federal - immigration law to Rhode Island will be heard in the House Judiciary Committee late Thursday afternoon.

Reform? or Abolish? What is the Real Goal?

A couple of points for commentators and advocates who are happily parroting the lies of the msm (Heather MacDonald at City Journal sets the record straight) to vilify the new Arizona law and, purportedly, to demand reform of our federal laws.

1.) The Arizona law was carefully written to mirror federal immigration law, which had already included the requirement, for example, that legal immigrants carry papers on them at all times and specifically does not permit arbitrary fishing expeditions for illegal immigrants, whether they are driving down the road or out for ice cream with their family. (Shame on you, Mr. President, for creating this myth.) This leads inexorably to the question: is the real objection here to the existence of any kind of immigration law?

2.) Foreign Policy magazine points out that, despite what you might think from all of the wailing and breast-beating, neither the United States nor Arizona has particularly harsh immigration laws. On their list - which inexplicably does not include Mexico - of the top five, they name Italy and Switzerland, but not the US. Again, is it possible that what advocates find harsh is the mere existence of borders and a very reasonable immigration law?

The Citizen, the Legal, and the Illegal

In her Providence Journal column, yesterday, Froma Harrop inadvertently illustrated the problem that America has resolving the illegal immigration problem. Regarding Arizona's new immigration law:

Stopping brown people in the street is not the way to address the problem. The great majority of illegal immigrants come for work. Though they shouldn't be here, these are mostly good people supporting their families. These poor folk deserve to be treated humanely.

Notice how Harrop casually elides illegal immigrants with legal immigrants and citizens who might be profiled. The bottom line is that conservatives think, for good reason, that all talk of compassion and comprehensive reform are cover for amnesty. We don't need "comprehensive" reform. We need enforcement of currently existing laws and a decrease in incentive to come to and live in the United States illegally.

If we penalize people for hiring from among the illegal population and if we decrease the comfort of living in this country without permission, we can begin to reverse the flow. That, by the way, is rightfully a state and federal endeavor. Don't let the Democrats turn Arizona into an excuse to reach for their wish-list of immigration lunacy.

The Immigration on Which We Agree

Amity Shlaes' Saturday op-ed on immigration gives the impression of suggesting something controversial regarding a way in which immigration could help to save Social Security, but when the reader gets to the following, it turns out to be something not very controversial at all:

Here's where demography morphs from enemy to friend. Suppose we adopt the partial fix above. At the same time, the government hands out hundreds of thousands of green cards to skilled workers, the sort of talent that companies such as Microsoft, Wipro, Intel and Infosys sponsor.

Make the rules for receiving those visas liberal enough that immigrants can get them with minimum hassle and can, eventually, become citizens. Since these skilled immigrants will earn more than the average immigrant, or even the average worker, they will pay more payroll taxes.

At least to my experience, nobody argues that the United States should not seek to cull the cream of the world's crop. The dispute is over the degree to which we should strive to be so selective — read, by some, as "discriminatory." It's peculiar, therefore, to argue that immigration could save Social Security without stressing, above all, as the primary point, that America needs to focus on a particular type of immigration policy.

We'll realize any number of benefits if we manage that cultural, intellectual shift.

Two Troubling Aspects of President Obama's Reaction to the New Arizona Illegal Immigration Law

... and all the more troubling because, as the Arizona law is a carbon copy of federal law, they reflect his views on the issue of illegal immigration.

The first is the basis of his objection.

Our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others. ... And that includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threatened to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans ...

Illegal immigration pertains to the critical matter of sovereignty as tangibly manifest in the integrity of the border. It is also a matter of compliance with law (the enforcement of which constitutes genuine fairness). That the president chooses to frame this, instead, as a vague, emotional appeal to "fairness" indicates that sovereignty and the integrity of the border are secondary priorities to him. This is a problematic and disturbing mind-set for the occupier of the highest elected office in the country.

Also troubling is the solution that President Obama proposes in place of simply enforcing current federal immigration law. Far from being a responsible action by the federal government, "comprehensive immigration reform'', more accurately described as amnesty for illegal immigrants currently in the United States, would only exacerbate and accelerate illegal immigration to the United States.

Indeed, Mr. President,

... we can all agree that when 11 million people are living here illegally, that's unacceptable.

But contrary to what you propose, the solution is not to flip a switch and simply make legal what was illegal. This would only guarantee the permanent breach of our sovereignty by encouraging millions more to come here to wait for our misguided officials to pass yet another mass amnesty after this one. The answer is to enforce existing immigration laws, particularly those pertaining to employment and social benefits. Our immigration laws are not "broken", as you wrongly assert. They merely lack for a sufficient number of elected officials with the will to enforce them.

If They Can Make Their Voice Heard in November, Then They Don't Need Immigration Reform, Do They?

It appears that immigration reform, more honestly known as amnesty (which would be the eighth in recent history, one of the bases for the heavy scepticism of claims that "We're just allowing these 12-20 million and no more!") has hit a roadblock, at least this legislative year. From Josh Gerstein at Politico.

A pair of White House meetings Thursday designed to chart a path forward for immigration reform instead spotlighted the daunting obstacles ahead — and showed why many Capitol Hill insiders believe it’s quite unlikely an immigration bill will happen this year.

After meeting with President Barack Obama, the leading Republican backing a comprehensive approach warned that a Democratic health care push could scuttle any chance of action on immigration in this Congress.

“I expressed, in no uncertain terms, my belief that immigration reform could come to a halt for the year if health care reconciliation goes forward,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said in a statement issued just after he and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) met with Obama.

And, of course, Democrats are hell-bent on passing health care via reconciliation, no matter how many billions of our money they have to spend or print on ... er, unique Medicare billing arrangements for a couple of lucky states or on completely unrelated items such as student aid.

One of the responses by advocates of illegal immigration to this set back has been, somewhat inexplicably, "Remember in November".

“One of the things that we are going to be telling the immigrant community is that they have a vital stake in the outcome of this debate, and they need to make their voices heard in November,” said Eliseo Medina of the Service Employees International Union.

(Side note: shame, shame on all of those labor union leaders who have put the best interest of the members that they purport to represent a distant second to an unspoken but clearly selfish consideration by advocating for amnesty.)

Why would an "immigrant" who can vote support immigration reform? He or she would not need immigration reform, having completed the immigration process legally and admirably and being so far along that s/he now has the right to vote. In fact, immigration "reform" is an insult to all who came here legally. Is the advocating of this course - letting voices be heard in November - further confirmation, as though any were needed, of the imperative for voter identification?

Remitting the Market

In reading Karen Lee Ziner's summary of a report about immigrants' financial remittances to their home countries, it's tempting to muse about the use of public universities to generate content for political think tanks:

The report, "Many Happy Returns: Remittances and their Impact," by political science professor Kristin Johnson, was released Tuesday by the Immigration Policy Center, a nonpartisan research and policy arm of the American Immigration Council in Washington. ...

Among the report's conclusions: remittances — whose recipients are among the most impoverished sectors of the population in developing countries — increase the consumer capacity of those individuals; help build financial infrastructure and provide otherwise unavailable micro-financing for small businesses.

Remittance outflows also dramatically increase the pool of possible foreign consumers for U.S. goods; contribute to economic stability in developing countries; and increase profits of financial companies and banks through increasing reliance on electronic fund transfers.

Having read the report itself, it's difficult to characterize it as anything other than an extended opinion piece. At no point does it provide a straightforward table of remittances to particular regions corresponding with changes in product exports to the same regions. Instead, the reader gets such factoids as this:

Remittances to Mexico reached their peak in 2006, at nearly $6.2 billion dollars, and in 2007, Mexico was one of the top three global remittance recipients.

Which contrasts peculiarly with this, later in the document:

Export increases from three states that comprise over half of U.S. trade with Mexico also increased substantially from 2005‐2008; Texas realized $50 million in exports to Mexico in 2005 which rose to $62 million in 2008, with an increase of 10.9% from 2007 to 2008 alone.

Apart from the huge disparity in the dollar numbers, themselves, it's curious that money transfers to Mexico began to decrease after 2006, but Texan exports to the country increased in subsequent years. Where's the correlation?

In a general way, it makes an intuitive sense that money sent to poor countries might help the global economy. Residents in developed nations might waste or store away wealth, whereas the residents of poorer nations have incentive to make the most of every dollar — whether being judicious in their expenditures or finding ways to compound the value of resources through investment and business activity. But those sending the money out of the wealthier nation are not likely to be among its wealthier workers. Moreover, to the extent that increases in the immigrant population decrease the wages of low-end workers, the domestic effect is likely to be an upward flow of wealth away from Americans who share the incentive to use their income efficiently.

These are all mere considerations; there are a number of ways to adjust the balance in a reasonable way. The clincher, for me, is from a global perspective: There's a reason some nations export their workers and derive significant portions of their national income from remittances. They aren't, themselves, conducive to economic activity, whether for reasons of corruption or a lack of regional resources (most often the former, I'd wager). In other words, on a larger scale, remittances are a poor investment propping up social structures that deserve to fail and to be refigured.

Protesting on Behalf of Vanity

So, from this report, the situation appears to be as follows: A bookstore/cafe serving Yale in New Haven is happy to hire immigrants and makes a point of helping them to learn English — a sure social and economic advantage.

However, when owner Charles Negaro made it company policy that English should be spoken in publicly accessible areas of the establishment, the Ivy League community rushed to illustrate its own vapidity. Ostensibly on behalf of the workers, people are protesting and boycotting the business that employs them.

I say "ostensibly" because the real motivation for such protest is the petulant vanity of people with too much time and too narrow a perspective.

Prudential Differences from Pulpit to Pew

Whenever the issue of immigration comes up with some reference to religious groups, especially where Roman Catholic clergy are involved, somebody inevitably calls in to talk radio to declare that it's really just a scheme to increase the number of church-going Hispanics. The claim is more cynical than is merited, but to the extent that such considerations potentially play a subconscious role, Mark Krikorian points out another dynamic that should be considered:

The three Christian groups had remarkably similar views, with born-agains slightly more hawkish and Catholics slightly more dovish, as you'd expect; in any case, overwhelming majorities thought overall immigration was too high and preferred attrition over legalization as a way to deal with the current illegal population. While Jews were most permissive, again as expected, even there a plurality preferred attrition, and ten times more said immigration was too high as opposed to too low. These views are the opposite of the leadership of the various denominations, which uniformly, and with increasing stridency, support amnesty and increased immigration.

Given that the difference of opinion between religious leaders and followers spans denominations and even religions, the underlying cause seems more likely to be one of perspective than of self-interest:

Overwhelming majorities of all groups [of lay people] thought illegal immigration was caused by inadequate enforcement rather than by limits on legal immigration, and also that there are plenty of American workers to fill low-skilled jobs, if the wages and working conditions were improved, as opposed to needing to increase legal immigration.

Perhaps church leaders should adjust their prudential judgment in light of the experience of their flocks, who by the nature of their vocations, spend more time interacting with the economy. By advocating for increases in the nation's low-end workforce, as well as for social welfare and amnesty policies as incentive for crossing our border by any means possible, clergy are helping to suppress the economy's ability to improve working and living conditions for everybody.

The Right Immigration

As frequently as right-wingers have to insist that they aren't opposed to immigration, per se, we have to begin making a better effort to tie our views on the discrete issue to our broader understanding of culture and economics. Reuven Brenner puts it well:

The histories of Israel, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, and West Germany have much in common with that of Amsterdam. In each of these places, the state provided a relatively decent umbrella of law and order compared with what was offered by neighbors. This gave people a greater stake in what the business society was doing: attracting immigrants and entrepreneurs from around the world. In turn, the influence of these critical masses of talent radiated around the world and made people richer in distant places, too. Other places such as Malaysia and even Australia and Europe, as hard as their governments have tried with massive investment funds to create venture capital, have not been as successful. You need the vital few in a tolerant environment to properly deploy that capital. If a place does not attract them, governments create statistical venture capital but not real capital. It's the ability to attract and retain talent that sheds light on the above miracles.

A leftist spin on this observation might be that "a relatively decent umbrella of law and order" must include a safety net that protects residents from calamity and union-built gates that prevent backsliding. In order to gain those features, however, a society must turn its government into a thief. The immutable reality is that productive, innovative people who are also selfish will avoid regions that siphon their money away, and productive, innovative people who are not selfish do not need a government intermediary to ensure their charity.

Failing to craft immigration policies that favor the immigrant population that Brenner presents as high-value human capital strains safety nets while giving "the vital few" reason to fear that they will not be permitted to harvest the fruits of their hard work. Sensitivity about discrimination (neutrally intended) may have a salutary effect on self-image, but it really isn't healthy for anybody involved.

ADDENDUM:

Brenner works his way through an interesting parenthetical note that's worth considering:

These policies no longer fit today's more mobile world. Until they are changed, however—and the sooner, the better—the least the United States can do is try, explicitly, to attract the vital few to its shores and, at the same time, speed up the domestic production of talent. (This is achievable by reducing the number of years youngsters spend in school.)

A disposition toward contrary conclusions makes this suggestion particularly attractive in an environment in which one is more likely to hear of a need for schooling to begin at a younger age, with longer days, and through more-advanced degrees. (Of course, one must pay attention to the parties making those declarations.) If we're looking to foster self-motivation and innovation, though, our society ought to provide exits for young generations to blaze their own paths.

A Constituent Speaks out on Kennedy's Studied Indifference to Illegal Immigration

In today's Providence Journal, Deloris Issler of Cranston enumerates the ways that Congressman Patrick Kennedy poorly serves his district and the state with his views on illegal immigration and opposition to e-verify.

To this, I would only add, without snideness or rancor, that the Congressman does not enhance his image in the area of intelligence if he has, in all seriousness, mistaken racism for heart-felt concerns about budgets, jobs, sovereignty and the exploitation of undocumenteds.

Rhode Islanders are accustomed to being embarrassed by Patrick Kennedy, but his recent performance was particularly disgraceful. His opposition to an amendment requiring the use of E-Verify to prevent illegal aliens from receiving Federal Employee Health Benefits is indefensible.

Kennedy’s hostility toward the enforcement of immigration law exacerbates the problem of foreigners entering the U.S. illegally by giving them an incentive. His offensive tantrum in the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on H.R. 2517 sends a clear message to illegal aliens. If they break U.S. laws long enough, we will overlook it, concede to their crimes, and give them benefits reserved for America citizens.

Kennedy gives tacit approval to swim, run, or crawl across our borders illegally and citizenship by entitlement to anyone that does. He jeopardizes the safety of those who protect our borders and undermines their efforts. Kennedy finances this through double-taxation of U.S. citizens who pay for homeland security in addition to housing, medical care, food and education for illegal aliens. It does not matter that taxpayers object, he simply refuses to meet with them.

That’s okay.

Patrick, you will hear our voices in our votes.

Transforming Society to the Aristocrats' Tastes

Perhaps you've come across this already, but information divulged by a former senior adviser to the British government is worth considering, here across the pond:

The [reports from the Performance and Innovation Unit, Tony Blair's Cabinet Office think-tank] were legendarily tedious within Whitehall but their big immigration report was surrounded by an unusual air of both anticipation and secrecy.

Drafts were handed out in summer 2000 only with extreme reluctance: there was a paranoia about it reaching the media.

Eventually published in January 2001, the innocuously labelled "RDS Occasional Paper no. 67", "Migration: an economic and social analysis" focused heavily on the labour market case.

But the earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.

I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended - even if this wasn't its main purpose - to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.

In other words, borders were opened up both to transform the society toward the aesthetic preferences of its ruling class and to shift demographics' role in national politics. Working- and middle-class Americans — perhaps union members, especially, given the uses to which their dues are put — should pay attention:

Ministers were very nervous about the whole thing. For despite Roche's keenness to make her big speech and to be upfront, there was a reluctance elsewhere in government to discuss what increased immigration would mean, above all for Labour's core white working-class vote.

Liveblogging Tonight's Immigration Forum

I'm on the Brown University Campus, where a panel of Rhode Island all-stars is preparing for a panel discussion on the issue of immigration.

Panelists include RI State Senator Juan Pichardo, Judge Roberto Gonzalez, former U.S. Attorney Robert Corrente, Warwick Mayor Scott Avedisian, RI State Representative David Segal, and Reverend Donald Anderson. Moderator will be Professor Wendy Schiller of Brown.

Audience members include Terry and Karin Gorman and Joe Bernstein.

Brown undergrads will present 3 views of immigration, "families first", "economy first", and "security first".

FFirst: Focus on family reunification, remove arbitrary per-country annual limits, "regularize" illegal immigrants (and make their income taxable). Border enforcement does not work -- it just makes the journey more dangerous. Enforcement within the US is even more disconcerting; violates civil liberties and leads to profiling. "Guest worker" programs should be ended.

EFirst: Immigrants play central role in keeping the US economically competitive. Immigrants take jobs that Americans won't take. Falling fertility rates mean that immigrants are needed to prevent a labor shortage. Hospitality, food-service and construction need low-skill immigrant labor. Costs of services and goods would increase if immigration was limited. High-skilled immigrants are important too. "Regularize" illegal immigrants and expand guest worker programs. Abolish e-verify.

Andrew editorializes: Other than the guest worker position, I don't see much difference between EF and FF.

SFirst: Concentration of Spanish-speaking immigrants leads to social isolation. They don't share the "Protestant Work Ethic" (I'm just reporting here.). Bi-lingual education eats up resources that could be used otherwise. If we can't control the border, we don't know who may come in. Drug and human traffickers take advantage of an open border. Immigration must be curtailed, until we can absorb the 35 million illegal immigrants who are already here. Significant resources should be used for border control, state and local police forces should be used as a force multiplier.

Over to the panel...Intros just finished...

Schiller throws out 3 questions. Andrew types only fast enough to record 2. What is the top immigration policy priority for the nation? What is you view on movements by "some groups" to discourage participation in the census? (Backfill: 3rd question was how might the RI priorities differ from Federal priorities)

Sen. Pichardo: Top priority is concentrating on comprehensive reform at the Federal level. RI priority is having a vibrant immigrant community and having family reunification. We also need stronger labor laws to protect workers. We need to help integrate the immigrant community by providing more services to them, for instance more state and local funding for English classes.

"We are a sovereign nation that must protect our borders", but we must do it in a humane way. And we can't do it with piecemeal policies -- we need comprehensive immigration reform.

Judge Gonzalez: We live in a society where lies and hate are promoted about immigrants. Praises removal of Lou Dobbs from CNN. Long history in this country of promoting the broken immigration system we have to today. Indigenous populations were decimated to make room for European settlers (I'm just reporting here). No need to apply for immigration papers in the past. CIA has toppled Latin American governments -- had the effect of making them poor and difficult to manage. Everyone agrees the immigration system is broken. We can do this if we're all honest about what the issues are (though I'm not sure the preceding commentary a great example of that.) Not convinced that an open border is a security problem.

Now a strange pivot: The Judge is not sure that legalizing immigrants is the "moral" thing to do, but it's good for the economy. Prof Schiller cuts him off, for time...

Currently Without Title Corrente: All 3 perspectives must be considered simultaneously, for both political and policy effectiveness reasons. Ignoring any perspective will just bog down the debate. Instead of surrounding the headquarters of ICE after an enforcement action, people should surround the capitol and demand better laws. It's unfair to blame the people enforcing the laws for the problems with our immigration system. A fence cannot solve the problem -- the full infrastructure needed of border security is an unbelievable expense. But knowing who is entering and leaving the country is critically important. ICE was the agency that was first to identify the September 11 attackers.

It's way past time for comprehensive reform. The current Napolitano proposal is similar to what was offered before.

Mayor Avedisian: Endorses Corrente's all-3-at-once view. Takes on census question -- declining to participate won't punish elected officials, it punishes residents. All kinds of grant money is based on census figures (and even one of our Congressional seats may be at risk in RI). Napolitano proposal is short on specifics; the Mayor is disappointed by the lack of detail. Family reunification issues need a framework that has latitude for case-by-case consideration.

Rep. Segal: Need census participation, so we can ultimately take civil-rights issues to the courts (I'm just reporting here). We're a stable and attractive country, but US policies have encouraged instability elsewhere. Ethnic enclaves aren't really a problem, they have been a source of strength and pride in RI, cites Rhode Island's portuguese community as an example.

Rev. Anderson: Addresses the Judge directly; every aspect of immigration is a moral issue. Our Senators and Congressman lack the courage to do the right thing, because they are too concerned about getting re-elected. A pathway to citizenship should be the priority. If more immigrants looked like his own ancestors did, the issue might not be such a big problem (Computer acting up -- I'll have to backfill in a little bit.)....

(I got up to ask a question here, so I wasn't able to liveblog the first few questions. When it was my turn, I asked Rev. Anderson about whether the use of the term "undocumented" in its various forms could be taken to mean that citizenship meant only having the proper documents. Rev. Anderson answered that there indeed was much more to citizenship. More on this to come in the near future.).

Wendy Schiller asks Joe Bernstein a question (I'll explain later): What one thing would you change in immigration law if you could? JB: Deportation of illegal aliens who commit crimes. And people who want the law enforced shouldn't be characterized by a handful of bigots [Backfill: Joe B. had taken offense to the characterization of immigration enforcement agents as using "Gestapo tactics", which I believe had been mentioned during the question-and-answer period, and related several personal experiences as to why he thought that was inaccurate, leading Prof. Schiller to ask him what he would change if he could."])

Terry Gorman also objected to the assumption of racist motivation to people who want the law enforced. Rev. Anderson answers that there is an "atmosphere" out there that could lead to problems. Gorman answers with the example of Newport; there are a large number of illegal immigrants there of European origin, and he wants the law enforced there as much as anywhere else.

Closing statements:

Sen. Pichardo: Debate cannot be piecemeal at the state level. It must be at the Federal level. E-Verify needs to be made more effective before it is implemented, and it should be a part of comprehensive reform. Everyone should participate in the census. Suggests a connection between the Governor rescinding his executive order and the census that I didn't quite follow (but the Senator is delivering a letter to the Governor tomorrow that will explain things).

Judge Gonzalez: We need to sift the hate, racism and xenophobia out of the debate (but tells Terry Gorman that he's not talking about him). There are technical and procedural problems with E-Verify. The state shouldn't be trying to work out solutions to what is a Federal problem. Also, he explains what he means by Gestapo tactics -- bring people out in irons during immigration raids, and pregnant women being shackled to their beds when delivering their babies.

(More technical glitches -- my touchpad is too sensitive, and I keep getting knocked to a different page, without stuff being saved. Justin, do you have this problem with your laptop?)

CWT Corrente: We can't afford as a country to have the immigration issue stall, as it has so far. We need a solution that address all of the concerns.

Rep Segal: It's a Federal issue, but the state legislature is having some success in helping the people who are here. (Another tech glitch -- not sure why these keep happening in the Segal/Anderson speakers bloc)

Rev. Anderson: Bypassess the "older" people to talk to the students. Immigration decisions affect real people. In the Kingdom of God, there are no second class citizens. We need to think about what put them in their current situations -- and if the roles were reversed we might understand their situations better. We have a moral responsibility that we have to live up to.

Apologies for the gaps. Signing off for now...

Principles Affirmed in Immigration

Upon death, I expect to confront, in some fashion, my countless errors of thought and of faith and to regret the actions to which they led me. On some issue, perhaps a habit, many of us will find it difficult to resist the urge to defend long-held beliefs even in the face of divine correction.

If it turns out, for example, that annual amnesties of illegal immigrants are a morally necessary practice, the task would be not to defend opposing beliefs — arguing that we better understood fairness in life than God — and to desire truly to understand why the option that seemed so wrong to us was, in fact, fair. I tremble to say it, but I'm wary of Bishop Tobin's confidence that our individual final judgment will hinge on our correctly identifying "the right side of the issue" of illegal immigration, and his implicit argument that "comprehensive immigration reform" is that side.

Granted, the bishop has strong scriptural support in Jesus' remonstration to welcome strangers as if they are He, and an Old Testament passage is a theologically weaker card to play, but I've been reading through Ezekiel, lately, and have been struck by God's tone when repeatedly instructing the prophet to warn the Israelites of their sins, here, for one example:

... anyone hearing but not heeding the warning of the trumpet and therefore slain by the sword that comes against him, shall be responsible for his own death. ...

But if the watchman sees the sword coming and fails to blow the warning trumpet, so that the sword comes and takes anyone, I will hold the watchman responsible for that person's death, even though that person is taken because of his own sin.

The amnesty, or "path of legalization," that Bishop Tobin urges seems not only to be welcoming strangers, but also to be confirming them in their implicit beliefs about boundaries and rules. Attempting to steal one's way into Heaven, while not inevitably punishable by eternal damnation, seems likely to be a more painful path to salvation, ultimately, than taking the steps as laid out.

This is not to say that we should consider admission to the United States to be comparable to admission into Heaven, but that the mindsets by which we live as individuals should mirror our spiritual mindsets. And in this, the position that the entire conference of bishops takes, in America, strikes me as having the same essential problem as the grammatical phrase, "comprehensive immigration reform." The first word of that phrase, when not applied purely for its beguiling sparkle, typically means "addressing multiple facets of the problem," but it seems ever to fall short of allocating responsibility to all who have erred. As I've argued before, a comprehensive spiritual policy on illegal immigration must also correct the immigrants in their errors of thought.

I'd look to my religious leaders to convince me that the appropriate reaction to circumstances should not include an instruction to illegal immigrants to be happy in their penance of returning to their countries and taking a legal approach. Bishop Tobin acknowledges that it is wrong to ignore "the law in coming to our nation," but he immediately nullifies that law as superseded by the "law of love." How could such a higher law fail to hold them accountable, as sentient human beings capable of understanding consequences?

Illegal immigration is surely not the greatest of sins, and there are myriad mitigating factors, but the one-way nature advocacy on behalf of such immigrants is hardly comprehensive. They are requesting special dispensations, and I have yet to see their advocates admonish them that it is critically important that that they prove themselves, from the beginning, to be desirous of earning full citizenship (by, for one thing, learning the language of the country) and acknowledge fully and humbly that they have trespassed.

Instead, we are told to affirm the apparent lesson of the last amnesty, a couple of decades ago: that rules don't really mean anything for the brash, and a society's inclination to love and care for others will inevitably lead them to adjust the rules in your favor. For every essay urging fellow Americans toward leniency, shouldn't there be one addressing the responsibilities and moral mindsets of those who would be its beneficiaries? After all, as attractive as it may be for them to become legal residents of the United States, it is of infinitely greater importance that they become members of the community of Heaven.

Following-Up the Newsmakers Follow-Up on Illegal Immigrants and Healthcare Reform

Senators Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse appeared on this week's Newsmakers program on WPRI-TV (CBS 12), offering substantive answers to some very good questions on healthcare reform asked by panelists Tim White, Arlene Violet and Ian Donnis. On at least one issue, however, the issue of how illegal immigrants are being addressed in the proposals currently being considered by Congress, viewers were left with a bit of ambiguity about the Senators' positions.

Tim White asked a question (originally posed by a viewer) on this subject and did his best to get a direct answer from Senator Whitehouse…

Tim White: Albert sent this via Facebook. He writes: "What are the unintended consequences of this reform. For example, I hear politicians state that nowhere in the reform does coverage include undocumented aliens but, conveniently, they don't state that nowhere (sic) are they are excluded either." This is, Senator Whitehouse, one of those hot-button issues. You got a lot of these questions last night. How about it, language to exclude illegal aliens…

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse: I think it's clear enough to my satisfaction that this bill does not provide coverage for illegal aliens. A number of our colleagues in the Senate consider this to be a make-or-break issue, and they seem comfortable with it. I think we can safely say that this is not a bill that will provide Federal support for healthcare for illegal aliens.

TW: But would you support any specific language that excludes them?

SW: I have a bill that we've supported already, and it excludes them to my satisfaction. I'm comfortable that we're in the right place on that.

In his answer, Senator Whitehouse is referring to a Senate proposal different from the House bill (HR3200) which has generated much of the current discussion of the details of Congress' plans for health reform; for its part, HR3200 does not extend new coverage or subsidies to illegal immigrants.

But even if the Senate proposal copies exactly the approach of HR3200, the issue is still not a settled one. Writing in the Hill earlier this month, Congressman Lamar Smith expressed concern about HR3200's failure to define the kinds of eligibility verification procedures used in conjunction with other Federal entitlement programs -- and about active resistance from House Democrats towards adding those requirements…

The legislation contains no verification mechanism to ensure that illegal immigrants do not apply for benefits. Republicans offered an amendment to close this loophole — it would have required verification using the existing methods that are already in place to verify eligibility for other federal benefits programs. But, when they were asked to put the language of the bill where their words were, in a party-line vote, House Democrats rejected the amendment to require verification and close this loophole.

At an August 19 panel sponsored by the Center for Immigration Studies, carried on C-SPAN, Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation went into a bit more detail…

If we were to look at the current healthcare reform legislation, this takes an unprecedented step in opening up the US welfare system to illegal immigrants. Under the current law, really forever, we have had a system of identity checks that largely prevents adult illegal immigrants from getting on to these means-tested welfare programs. You have to be able to substantiate that you're in the country legally and you have to be able to substantiate, if you're a legal immigrant, that you've been here over the time-limits for eligibility.

The healthcare reform legislation turns that on its back and tramples it into the dust. It basically says we will not verify, we will not check….If you are going to do that with respect to healthcare, why would you not also establish the same precedent with respect to food stamps, to public housing, to the earned-income tax-credit and so forth, and I believe that that is indeed the direction that the Congress wants to go to, to allow all welfare benefits to be fully available to all illegal immigrants.

As health reform legislation moves forward, the relevant question concerning this issue is likely to be whether the eligibility verification requirements for new healthcare entitlements are at as least as stringent as the requirements on other means-tested Federal programs, and if not, why there is a difference.

A More Direct Route to Welfare

Here's an eye-popper:

Josefina Lorenzi, 47, who has been imprisoned since her Dec. 11 arrest last year, was sentenced by Judge William E. Smith in U.S. District Court, according to acting U.S. Attorney Luis M. Matos.

Lorenzi pleaded guilty in connection with the scheme that used other names but her home address [to file false tax returns]. Lorenzi must surrender for deportation while on supervised release. She is an illegal immigrant, according to Thomas Connell, spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s office in Rhode Island. ...

Using a search warrant, agents said they found eight more refund checks totaling $22,526, payable to other people at Lorenzi’s Indiana Avenue home. Agents later found 27 more false returns.

The additional refund requests and prepared checks found in her home and the total money fraudulently sought came to $150,360.

The article doesn't explain whose names Lorenzi used (and a quick online search reveals no further information), but one thing that's obvious is that her scheme wouldn't even have been a possibility were the income tax a simple flat rate without the intricacies of prior withholding. Or, in this case, if the government expended a little bit of effort ensuring that the people with whom it deals are actually citizens.

Making Facilitators Pay for Illegal Immigration

The story of the illegal immigrant in Florida who sustained heavy brain damage during a car accident is a tough one. On the one hand, we don't want a system that sweeps people who've been hurt under the rug because their immigration status is uncomfortable. On the other hand, making the hospital culpable for a lifetime of specialty care because it devoted $1.5 million to stabilize the injured man is plainly immoral and stands as a single example of one factor driving up costs that harm all Americans, especially when his family appears to have been content to leave him in the hospital.

Here's a crazy idea: Keep a national database of employers, landlords, and other folks who facilitate the continued presence of illegal immigrants — adjusted for the amount that they've benefited from that presence. Then, when cases like Luis Jimenez's arise, the bill could be divided among the parties on the list. If we could figure out a way to fairly place politicians on the list for their role in the broken system, the costs would be divided among a very significant number of payers.

After a Difficult Violent Roundtable, Part 2

A second conversation in which sufficient articulation proved difficult on Friday night's all–Anchor Rising Violent Roundtable on the Matt Allen Show related to Matt's statement that the Catholic Church is in some respects an anti-American institution. Having such a strong statement catch one off guard doesn't make measured extemporaneous response an easy accomplishment, but upon reflection, I'd suggest that Matt is backing into a perilous political philosophy.

The Roman Catholic Church — any church, for that matter — should not be an "American" institution. The U.S.A. exists as an entity and as an idea; to the extent that an authentically American church were not redundant, it would be dangerous. A religion with policy conclusions in lock-step with the practice of the American idea would necessarily lend theological import to a quintessentially secular project. It would be a fundamental establishment of religion, marrying Church and State.

There is not only great value in, but essential need for cultural institutions completely separate from the reigning polity — with a source and structure of authority that is distinct from the nation's governmental strategy. Where members of the hierarchy are wrong in prudential matters, Catholics should discuss (even debate) the issues and argue for the Church's proper role, but all should realize that the Church's interests are not the same as the country's. Sometimes one will be wrong, or the human beings who guide it will step beyond their appropriate boundaries; sometimes the other will be the culprit; but that's reason to accept them as mutual ballast.

In an objective analysis, Matt's imputation of anti-Americanism on the part of the Church based on the public policies for which some of its representatives advocate is identical to the impulse of those within the hierarchy who wish overzealously to leverage the government's powers of taxation. Both sides judge and prescribe as if the two pillars of society ought to be more of a continuous support, in which the visibility of light is indicative of fatal cracks, not expected separation.

Let's not dilute anti-Americanism. I don't believe it is Matt's point of view that the Roman Catholic Church takes as its goal the downfall or diminution of the United States as a secular construct. The institutional Church has watched governments rise and fall throughout its history, and there are multiple bold lines between supporting policies that are arguably detrimental to the civic body and calling for the downfall of a Great Satan. An instructive distinction exists between President Ronald Reagan's characterization of the Soviet Union as an "evil empire" and Pope John Paul II's view of communism as "a medicine more dangerous than the disease itself" that became "a powerful threat and challenge to the entire world."

Both the United States of America and the Roman Catholic Church are centrally concerned with liberty. For one, it's liberty from oppression by people; for the other, it's liberty from oppression by sin and evil. Those concerned with either in particular should pay close attention to the other, but nobody should expect their requirements always to be the same, just as nobody should drive the two apart because one — accurately or erroneously — points in a different direction from time to time.

The project of post-Enlightenment conservatism (as we understand it today) is to layer balances and restraints against human nature, and theologically, the impulse to declare opposition amounts to a Church of Me, in which the individual pushes away a perspective that ought to be given credence. Here, the philosophical thread leads to a final point of contention on Friday night — namely, conservative wariness of populism — which I'll address after I've trimmed some hedges and made my way through the Sunday paper.

But What Are Immigrants Coming For?

David Segal's phrasing of the motivation for immigration is telling:

Reasons for immigration vary year by year and generation by generation, but there are two basic themes: Flight from violence, and flight from destitution.

Whatever somebody's reasons for running from a place, it's not irrelevant to consider why they run to another place — in this case, the United States. Immigrants travel to the United States for freedom and opportunity — self governance — and unless we acknowledge that our nation has something of globally incomparable value, then we'll forget that precious qualities must be preserved. And if we forget that, then we just might follow the likes of Segal into confusion about how immigration policy can affect such preservation.

A Fair Hearing for E-Verify in the Senate?

A comment from Joe Bernstein:

E-verify will not make it through the Senate.

It is "inexplicably" being scheduled for hearing before the Judiciary instead of Labor.

Why? Because Paiva-Weed knows she can't any longer just bury it, so she wants to make damn sure it gets voted down in committee. That won't happen in Labor.
Judiciary has a different makeup this session - apparently Raptakis and Blais, who would be good bets to vote for E-verify, have been replaced.

Goodwin and a new Senator, Erin Lynch, are on the panel, along with RHODA PERRY, CHARLES LEVESQUE, AND HAROLD METTS.

Do the math.

A question: Are there any rules governing which committee handles which bill, or is this yet another means by which the legislative leadership wields its power?

Comprehensive Immigration Reform Stalling - Advocates in Neutral

It looks as though President Obama is holding off on comprehensive immigration reform. Even if it would be more corect to append a "for now" to that sentence, the president is to be applauded for doing so.

What caught my eye was this.

"I'm just surprised at how muted the reaction has been to Obama's complete lack of action on immigration," said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, who said immigrant rights groups are giving Mr. Obama "a lot more slack than they would have given a President McCain."

Now why would that be? Is it because advocates of illegal immigration believe that the president will deliver comprehensive immigration reform, a.k.a. amnesty, in due course and they just have to be patient? Or is it just easier to hear "bad news" from someone whom you view as being on your team; i.e., because President Obama is a Democrat?

One example that comes to mind is President Bill Clinton signing welfare reform to minimal objection on any front. (Republican examples welcome; I'm sure they exist but am drawing a blank at the moment.)

Some Ideas on Immigration Reform

David Segal believes that illegal immigrants in Rhode Island have come here for the same reason as other, previous immigrant groups: Flight from violence, and flight from destitution. I agree. Further, he attempts to knock-down our current immigration restrictions by reciting a brief history of immigration to the U.S.: the hurdles, the hardships, the "Know-nothings", "no Irish need apply", With Out Papers, etc. This is all in an attempt to persuade that we need a better immigration policy than what we have now: one that was conceived--he contends--out of hatred:

And so I ask myself, do I want to uphold this legacy? Do I want to put a "no immigrants need apply" sign on the state of Rhode Island -- understanding that today's undocumented immigrants would be here entirely legally if they had come under the same regulations that were in place when the bulk of the Germans and Irish came, and when the first southern and eastern Europeans came? Do I want to strengthen pernicious regulations, born of hatred of my ancestors, and those of so many of my friends and colleagues?

Hell. No. Let's put an end to this terrible cycle. Let's welcome our new neighbors with open arms -- even the 2% of the population that's here without papers. Let's allow them to integrate, and allow them to work and to feed their families.

I'm also quite familiar with immigration history and I understand, though I don't entirely agree, with his broad sentiment. I also can relate to the compassion he exhibits: having visited many countries in my time in the Merchant Marine, I have witnessed first hand the poverty and violence so many try to escape. It would be a cold soul who didn't feel compassion for these human beings.

Unfortunately, no matter how much we might wish it so, we cannot harbor--or save--all of those in dire straits. And so, though some "pernicious regulations" were "born of hatred", many--if not most--were put in place for the purpose of maintaining what was deemed to be the national interest. Segal is right in that call for immigration restrictions were often couched in the worst kind of xenophobic rhetoric, but that was a symptom of the fear that Americans had when it came to keeping their jobs. In the early twentieth century, as the need for primarily unskilled labor decreased, the call for restricting that flow of labor increased. And very often, it was the follow-on generation of previous immigrants who were afraid of losing their jobs to the new waves of immigrants reaching American shores. For instance, while many "Anglo's" demeaned French-Canadians, the latter faced some of the stiffest resistance from 2nd or 3rd generation Irish who worked in the mills of New England.

I am sympathetic with Segal's desire to help out those in need--America has always reached out a hand--but the bottom line is that we have laws restricting immigration for good reason. There is only so much we, as a nation, can bear. That these laws have been repeatedly ignored by illegal aliens and those elected and appointed to uphold them is a major reason so many Americans--including legal immigrants who followed the rules--are angry and distrustful of any call for reform. They don't trust politicians and they don't trust business and they don't like rule-breakers. Their anger and fear can lead to hyperbole--including, perhaps, paranoia--but their reaction is often in response to those who recognize no rule, no border and will excuse those who enable breaking the rules. It offends the deep-seated sense of fair play held by Americans. When they hear "reform", they think, "let them off the hook."

Thus, the solution is not to ignore inconvenient rules, but to enforce them while seeking reform. That's why tightening restrictions first is so important: it displays a good faith effort at comprehensive reform. And while it's clear that we need immigration reform, it should be implemented with the best interest of the future of our country in mind. That's not being "nationalistic" or xenophobic, it's being responsible for current and future generations of Americans and fair to those who followed the rules as written, no matter how difficult or unfair.

So how do we get there? There can be no doubt that compromises will need to be made. There will always be naysayers, and no solution is perfect or will be the end-all, be-all. Yet, recent pieces by Gordon Crovitz, Michael Barone and Victor Davis Hansen all exhibit ideas that seem, if mixed and modified, could go towards what I think would be a broadly acceptable plan.

Crovitz's call to increase the amount of skilled workers we allow into the country would provide a benefit to our nation and our economy. Crovitz also thinks we need more unskilled workers, but I don't think he has a strong case to make, especially with today's economy. Barone agrees with the skilled-worker idea--noting we could use the Canadian or Australian model--and thinks perhaps a guest-worker would be acceptable to a majority of people. Hansen would allow for a path to citizenship, too.

[W]e say to the illegal alien: if you are working, if you have not committed a crime after arriving here illegally, and if you are willing to stay in a country that makes no special allowances for those who speak languages other than English or who claim some privileged ethnic heritage, then, yes, you can find a path to citizenship involving fines for your initial crime of breaking the law, and necessary background checks and testing of basic acquaintance with American citizenship.

Following such a path would help convince most Americans that illegal immigrants truly want--to use Segal's term--to "integrate."

Those who come to America to escape hardship should recognize that living in America is a privilege. As an American, they will enjoy all of the rights of a citizen, but they also must be made aware that there are duties and responsibilities that come with citizenship. That means we should expect them to obey the law, learn our culture, work hard, participate in the political process, and pay taxes. (Yes, I realize that many Americans who were lucky enough to be born here ignore some or all of these expectations: but it doesn't logically follow, ie; "you're being hypocritical," that we should make the same allowances--or mistakes--when it comes to new citizens). I think most immigrants would readily accept these expectations--these conditions--if it means the chance at a better life. We just have to require it of them.

Finally, learning the American culture does not mean we expect immigrants to forget their own or that their heritage is second class. However, none should forget that it is American culture that lay at the heart of this nation of opportunity. I agree that immigrants should be integrated into our country, but it is incumbent upon them to prove that they actually want to be integrated.

Tancredo in Pawtucket

Our coverage this time is courtesy of Joe Bernstein who, along with myself, was one of over a hundred in attendance at the event Wednesday night.

Joe walked right by me that night without saying "hi", not that I'm calling him a snob. But in his comments under Justin's post, Joe channelled and articulated my reaction to the substance of Tom Tancredo's remarks very well and has kindly agreed to let me post them. The balance of his comments, slightly edited, is left as color commentary of the event as a whole.

Crowley was easy to spot-he was the only protester who didn't look like he had just scrounged in a dumpster. I gave an appropriate comical gesture (non obscene) to his little camera, but I guess he chose not to display it because I was neither intimidated nor angry. It was amusing to watch this assemblage of feckless ****-ants trying to pass themselves off as the vanguard of the "revolution". There were about 100-120 attendees and maybe 30 or so protesters.They were all mostly empty headed young people or old {people} who looked like 60's protest retreads ...

The police did a good job of preventing vandalism to parked vehicles so beloved of these low*****. They were busy copying down our plate numbers, though. I'm terrified - eek!! They didn't chant the hey-hey, ho-ho garbage at least, so it was tolerable.

Tancredo was a good speaker and if he made any racist comments I must have missed that. I am no one's robot, so I may not be down with Tancredo 100%, but he certainly made a lot of valid points, and he really didn't seem to be driven by hate, but rather by love of country. The protesters sounded and looked pretty hateful. It must be tough for them getting up every and realizing what empty lives they lead,waiting for the next picketing event. ...

* * *

For what it's worth,Tancredo didn't even have a racist undertone to what he said. ...

Assimilationist thinking is quite anti-racist. The"multicultural" way of thinking which leads to an ethnic mosaic is a recipe for mutually hostile enclaves wiithin a larger society. Assimilation doesn't necessarily mean abandoning one's original culture, but it does require acceptance of the larger culture to some significant degree. Older immigrants may not be able to do this, but younger people (under 50) can and should for their own good and America's.

Maybe you want to belong to some world village. I don't. I will always believe in independent countries.

Thoughts on Immigration: Tancredo Here; Howard Down Under

Former Congressman Tom Tancredo will have two public appearances tomorrow in Rhode Island: the first, at 4:30 pm outside of the gate (outside because the college did not invite him to speak inside; there are conflicting reports as to how and why this came about) of Providence College; the second, at 7:00 pm at the Euart Post, 55 Overland Avenue, Pawtucket.

On the slightly different matter of immigration (as opposed to the illegal variety), in 2007, then Prime Minister of Australia John Howard changed the name of the "Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs" to the "Department of Immigration and Citizenship". Asked why he did so by The Corner's Peter Robinson, Mr. Howard replied

The whole idea of immigration is to make citizens. Multiculturalsim is a very confused credo.

An Important Distinction on the American Dream

Semantic distinctions can be frivolous or they can be significant. Sometimes, as with Mart Martinez's letter supporting in-state tuition for illegal immigrants, they point to an underlying difference in how people interpret something, like the American dream:

I support H-5353 because I believe in the American dream. The American dream is about rewarding those who work hard.

No. That wording implies that there's a pool of rewards and that Americans acknowledge the legitimacy of having an authority to dole them out. The American dream is about allowing people to keep the rewards that they earn and minimizing the obstructions to opportunity.

Education should not be a privilege, it should be the expectation of everyone who dreams of having a bright future.

An education requires an individual's work and commitment. It therefore cannot be an expectation, but an objective, and when one wishes it to be subsidized, those putting forward the money have a right to impose some limitations, such as legal residency in their society.

They may seem like minor differences on the surface, but often discussions run on endlessly around such pivot points.

Accuracy of E-Verify

In her statement to Anchor Rising, one of the bases for Lieutenant Governor Roberts' opposition to e-verify was accuracy. She is not the first to express such reservations. In fact, it is the most commonly voiced concern about the system.

Some easy research, however, would quickly allay these concerns. From the Department of Homeland Security:

Currently, approximately 96.1 percent of qualified employees are cleared automatically by E-Verify, and 99.6 percent of all work-authorized employees are verified without receiving a tentative nonconfirmation or having to take any type of corrective action.

Geoff Cook: Why I Need a Citizen's Voice

[This Engaged Citizen post by Geoff Cook originally appeared on October 16, 2008.

To Geoff and the five hundred other people becoming naturalized citizens this morning at Veterans Memorial Auditorium: Congratulations and welcome to America.]

In a strange twist of coincidence, Tuesday, October 14, I went to ICE in Providence to take my citizenship exam. The coincidence? Monday the 13th was the 18th anniversary of my arrival to work on a winter program at a “summer” camp. I would never have guessed then that I would still be here now!

So why am I becoming an American citizen? Let’s be honest: there really is nothing wrong with being English. The ladies certainly love the accent (will I lose that if I pass?), and it certainly helps with my eccentricities. But after 18 years, I need to belong.

America is truly a great place, if you forgive the amount of people who are unable to make a decent cup of tea, and the American people have very big hearts. It's a shame you Americans sometimes forget that. If I were driving in front of you on I95 during the rush hour, you might kill me to be in my space, one car ahead, but if I came to you and told you I needed $10 for a meal, you'd find a $20, give it to me, and never expect it back.

I don't believe the USA has such a bad rap around the world as the media portrays. Of course, some friction comes from America sometimes forgetting its place in history. I was reading in a local newspaper about one of the oldest single room school houses in America being relocated in Portsmouth, RI. It dates back to the 1700s! Old? I smile. My old school back in England dates back to 1558, and some of the original buildings still stand! (I suspect some of the teachers I had were hired by the first headmaster.)

Sometimes, it’s true, America acts like the overweight uncle who comes to the barbeque, breaks things, and makes the children cry. How nice it is, though, to have that uncle by your side. By nature, this is a peaceful country; don't bother us, and we have no need to bother you. Always there to help in a crisis. Even when your enemies have an emergency, the USA has mobilized relief supplies and sent them to help those in distress.

So why Citizen Geoff? In a few short weeks this nation, my adopted home, will go to an election. I really need my voice to be heard. So many issues are at stake. Immigration, for one, with which I have first-hand knowledge. I've been through the system, and for that reason, I don't see why illegal immigrants should get a fast track or amnesty. I played by the rules, it isn't hard, and on a local level none of these immigration advocates have done anything for me. As for the governor's executive order regarding eVerify, well, I felt no more or less fear than before the order was enacted.

Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. Once again, the honest people, the working stiffs are getting stuck with the bill, ($700 billion) because the bleeding hearts wanted to help, insisting that everyone should be able to own a home. Why can’t people understand that there will be haves and have nots? It's an unfortunate fact of life, but with hard work and some common sense it doesn't take much to be a have. And how much have Dodd, Obama, Franks, and Reed skimmed off the housing industry? I don’t know about you, but I can’t wait for the investigations into their culpability.

The direction of the country. I moved from a country with socialist values. I know my parents, who were both active union and Labour Party members, will be spinning in their grave, but the American system truly offers the opportunity to make your dreams come true. Away from my parents’ influence, I have finally had the chance to realize that Thatcherism was a good thing. Having seen the state of the British healthcare system, and how the U.S. government efficiently runs everything from Amtrak to the Post Office to Freddie Mac, I’m of the opinion that this country cannot afford government controlled health. It's bad enough that the government has its fingers in the banking system.

The tentacles of state need to be removed from the lives of public citizens, and I hope my tiny voice will be part of the larger chorus. Change is a good thing, but I don’t want Barack's type of change. See you in the voting booth!

Dutch Skaters, World Problems

In the Netherlands, the canals have frozen over for the first time in years and the Dutch are strapping on their skates and having a blast, albeit with a few bumps and bruises. But the politics are never far away, even in what you'd think would be a feel-good story. First, there's the environmental angle:

In the 19th century, when Hans Brinker, the hero of the novel in which he tries to win a pair of silver skates, coasted along Holland's ice, the canals froze almost every year. But water pollution and climate change have made this so rare that today a boy of 15, Brinker's age, may never have seen a frozen canal, or at least remember one. Until, that is, this year.

Then there is the cultural and political angle:

"For us, it's in our genes," said Gus Gustafsson, 68, a retired insurance executive, explaining why he and his wife had rushed out to buy new skates and take to the ice under a cloudless blue sky. "It was like a frenzy that came over people, including lots of kids, like my granddaughter, who is 5." With thousands of others, they skated northeast toward the cheese capital, Gouda, then toward Utrecht.

With an influx of immigrants, the country has been struggling to maintain what it considers its Dutch soul, and Gustafsson was one of many here who thought the skating experience enabled the Dutch to reconnect with their identity. "There were only Dutch people on the ice," he said. "I saw no people of Arab descent."

But Andre Bonthuis, who has been mayor in this town of 23,000 people for the past 20 years, said he had seen Indonesians and Moroccans, among other newcomers to the Netherlands, on the ice. "It's rather new for people from Morocco," he said. But he agreed that there was something very Dutch about canal skating, which is depicted in paintings by Dutch masters as early as the 17th century.

To be sure, a couple interesting asides. In particular, the second provides Americans a little glimpse into the mindset of an average European. But I'm just glad the Dutch were able to skate.

Panel says Governor's Immigration "Order created fear"

So, the Immigration Panel has found that:

Governor Carcieri’s executive order on illegal immigration has created such fear throughout Rhode Island that...he [should] make a “well-publicized clarifying statement” to explain what the order does and doesn’t do.

Please. The ProJo "advoticle" (advocacy piece within a news article) is full of anecdotal 'fear' stories of immigrants hiding in basements and avoiding travel in Rhode Island. No word on whether the Panel's members actually worked to clarify any of these misconceptions. And Warwick Police Chief Stephen McCartney had an interesting response to all of the advocates' sturm und drang:

Warwick Police Chief Stephen McCartney said it would help if the police were allowed to attend some of the meetings with the immigrant community, to hear the complaints firsthand. The police members of the panel did not attend the five meetings held in Providence and Newport.

Legal immigrants have nothing to fear from law enforcement.

Et Tu, George?

In some parting advice to the GOP on Fox News today [h/t the Washington Post], President George Bush falls into the error of many others who have commented or reported on the subject. He leaves out that one critical word.

And we should be open-minded about big issues like immigration reform, because if we're viewed as anti-somebody — in other words, if the party is viewed as anti-immigrant — then another fellow may say, well, if they're against the immigrant, they may be against me.

Respectfully, sir, no one, Democrat or Republican, who supports the enforcement of our immigration laws is opposed to immigrants. We are opposed to politicians who either fail to discourage illegal immigration by insufficiently encouraging or funding ICE or who openly invite illegal immigration by championing amnesty legislation in the guise of "reform".

A One-Way Street Across a Two-Way Border

I may be misunderstanding him, but it appears that Rhode Island elementary and secondary education commissioner Peter McWalters believes that Rhode Island should seek to attract illegal immigrants to our state in order to educate their children:

In Rhode Island, McWalters said, "We're not in agreement that these kids are worth it because we are torn between a culture that's says, 'We don't want you,' and one that wants them to come here. We have to decide that these kids are worth it and that it is necessary to pay the bill."

I don't know, commissioner; we've got an awful lot of bills to pay. We should educate children while they're here, but for a state in our condition to deliberately court an intractable problem would be the height of insanity. Just skim down the article a few paragraphs:

English language learners are not a monolithic group, however. Nearly two-thirds are second- or third-generation Americans, with at least one parent born in the United States.

People that ambivalent about joining the culture into which they've moved probably aren't the human resource investment that Rhode Island ought to be prioritizing.

Using Immigration Law Toward an End

Yeah, I'm aware that a politically noisy segment of our society views immigration more as a social work process than a set of policies intended for the benefit of the country, but Dori Segal and Brian Lee Crowley have a worthy (if politically infeasible) idea:

... America should immediately offer fast-track immigration to foreigners willing to do two things.

First, they must buy a house in the United States worth a minimum of $200,000 or with a minimum area of 2,000 square feet, paying cash up front. Second, they must place a further $250,000 in a government-insured account with a U.S. financial institution or spend $250,000 to create a business in the U.S. employing a minimum of three U.S. citizens. The need is immediate and urgent, and so upfront entry requirements should be stripped to the bare minimum.

The fatal flaw of the plan is that, as with military action, Americans have absorbed the principle that the only morally legitimate actions and policies are those with no immediate national interests tainting their purity. How can the wealthiest nation in the world give preference to entrepreneurs with a strong financial starting point over poor, unskilled laborers?

One can hope that this attitude will change when the "wealthiest nation" tag begins not to apply, but given the politically claimed definitions of "hope" and "change," which have been retooled to point toward a dreamlight of national morality, a healthy dose of skepticism is advisable.

Didn't Chuck and Larry Get "Married"?

I highlight this only because I think Crowley, in his ineptitude, stumbles into an error of reason that others exhibit more subtly. Pointing to the expressed concern of Howard Weizmann, deputy director of the U.S. Office Of Personnel Management, that expanded domestic partner benefits would increase incidents of the sorts of fraud depicted in I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry, Crowley writes:

Bush administration officials hard at work protecting us from gay people insurance fraud. Now all this silliness can end with a very simple solution: grant marriage rights to all couples and we won’t have to worry about the nuances of Chuck N Larry.

In point of fact, in order to procure their benefits, Chuck and Larry do get married. The only way "granting marriage rights to all couples" avoids fraudulent benefit transfers (for instance) is by legitimizing what had previously been held to be fraud. Marriage and divorce laws being what they are, there would be very little disincentive to "marrying" a friend for benefit, tax, housing, or even testimonial reasons.

If society wishes to create a system that encourages the mutual care of partnered pairs, then it should do so distinctly from marriage; to do otherwise would be to dilute the institution into nothingness. And if we are to set up domestic partnerships/civil unions, it would seem the height of government intrusion to insist that there be verifiable sexual intimacy between the participants.

ADDENDUM:

Here's one further justification for taking Mr. Weizmann's concern seriously, but on a much broader scale:

Marriage to an American citizen remains the most common path to U.S. residency and/or citizenship for foreign nationals, with more than 2.3 million foreign nationals gaining lawful permanent resident (LPR) status in this manner between 1998 and 2007.

Tools for Future Subjugation

Alright, so let's allow that David Richardson pushed the envelope to an imprudent degree — that it was wrong of him to harass customers to his store for the reason that they were speaking Spanish. Mark my words: Such precedent will expand until it crowds out our freedom:

Providence storeowner David C. Richardson has signed a public apology for demanding to see a customer's Social Security card last March after hearing the customer speak Spanish with a friend. Richardson signed the apology and agreed to give $500 to charity after two human-rights commissions found probable cause that he discriminated against the customer. ...

The encounter, during the sale of an $18 plumbing supply, made national headlines. Richardson's store, Rhode Island Refrigeration, has since closed.

Once our society stops defending people's right to be boorish, we're apt to find the adjective to be more subjective than we might like.

Two-faced McCain

I don't like John McCain's politics. Never have.

This piece from Mickey Kaus is the latest example of why:

Attention Ms. Coulter: John McCain is running an ad in Spanish attacking Obama for allegedly failing to support the "comprehensive immigration reform" bill that McCain himself has said he no longer supports. ... I guess McCain got the "message" but not the mensaje. ... P.S.: The picture of Sen. Patrick Leahy is especially terrifying. ... P.P.S.: Would McCain ever run this ad in English? ...

Here is the ad. I don't know Spanish so will have to take Kaus' word.

More on the problems with McCain in the coming weeks.

Until You Have Paid the Last Penny

Among the factors that most impress me as indicative of the accuracy of the Roman Catholic faith is the mutual leaven of those influences that we are to consider when assessing the world in which we live. The individual conscience is sacrosanct, personal revelation possible, and compassion paramount, yet absolute truth exists, and organizational process — necessarily slow moving and impeded by the flaws of humanity — are institutionalized for applying that truth to the shifting world.

Conscience, revelation, and compassion are quick — like us, things of the moment. Hierarchy is cumbersome. Rooting decisions in ancient texts and slowly evolving catechismal documents requires that the ideas of the past be reckoned.

So, when I look to my Church for guidance, I look to these two practical sides of the belief system it proclaims, and with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' following RI Bishop Thomas Tobin's lead, I see a surfeit of divine compassionate impulse and a dearth of divine staidness. I hear the call to forgive drowning out the warning not to teach others by our transgressions:

... if you bring your gift to the altar, and there recall that your brother has anything against you, leave your gift there at the altar, go first and be reconciled with your brother, and then come and offer your gift. Settle with your opponent quickly while on the way to court with him. Otherwise your opponent will hand you over to the judge, and the judge will hand you over to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison. Amen, I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny.

Granted, the context of this passage emphasizes personal example and the culpability of sinful thoughts, but the essential messages are that amends must be made, debts paid, and that ideas have consequences for ourselves and for those whom our decisions reach. What, then — proclaiming neither the primacy of immigration law nor the infallibility of our secular leaders — are we to make of Gustavo Cabrera?

Bishop Tobin's answer would clearly be that we would be wrong to tear the illegal immigrant from his family — that disrupting their lives so dramatically would be immoral. But that result follows from Cabrera's action, not ours, and taking his family as reason to waive the consequences, meaning deportation, is apt to make the establishment of a family a milestone in the passage of other illegal immigrants, just as the amnesty granted in 1986 has arguably contributed to the exponential increase in violation of our immigration law.

One can hardly fault Cabrera for his decisions. He took a risk when he left his tearful family in Guatemala twenty-five years ago, and acknowledging the opportunities that his children have been, are being, and will continue to be given, that risk paid off. No doubt his own parents understood that when they watched the fading taillights behind which their son lay. To remove the sense of risk, however, is to make a promise that Americans may quickly find catastrophically expensive.

The fact that Cabrera found it necessary to give his multipage story to the Providence Journal through an interpreter, even after a quarter century in this country, underscores his outlook on his venture. He has always known that his stay within foreign borders was likely to be temporary; now that he's been caught, that straightforward consequence must be borne out. Perhaps he and his fellow returning expatriates will take the lessons that they've learned about governance back to the country that spurred them to leave — that made the sundering of families an attractive option for them.

On our end, we must remember the importance of ideas and that our own actions can have far-reaching ramifications. It's a natural urge for a moral heart to forgive the Gustavo Cabreras in our midst; it's a small thing, too, to say, "let them stay." Indeed, we need bear them no malice, and we should wish them well, with the hope that they can help to uplift those societies to which they return. (What would be the effect of return only illegal immigrants who are of criminal bent?)

I daresay that the lesson is equally applicable to us. Surely, we do ourselves spiritual harm by reinforcing the notion that putting some length of time between our decisions and their foreseeable consequences, and making those who depend on us vulnerable to those consequences, ought to translate forgiveness into absolution.

Opiate of the Open Borders Crowd?

Under Reverend Pastor Keith Mlyniec's "Engaged Citizen" post, commenter Rhody observes:

I love how the right has gotten so depenent on the clergy (not just Catholic, either) as an ideological enforcement agency.

It should be noted, firstly, that the desire for enforcement of US immigration laws is not an exclusive commodity of the "right", unless 75% of America is on the right.

As to the crux of Rhody's comment, let us pause to note how many clergy have spoken against the Governor's Executive Order. And have called upon us to stop enforcing our immigration laws. And cited scripture in the process. Conversely, how many have cautioned us not to selectively read scripture when approaching a particular issue? By my count, it is conservatively twenty to one.

One hundred and eighty degrees from Rhody's statement, it is rather those who inexplicably do not wish our borders and sovereignty enforced yet cannot convincingly make their case with substantive, reasoned arguments who have "gotten so dependent" on clergy, themselves motivated by misplaced compassion, in an attempt to guilt the general public into a reckless "ideology"; namely, the relaxing of our already generous immigration laws.

The Reverend Pastor Keith Mlyniec: Immigration Exegesis

[In light of Bishop Thomas Tobin's call yesterday for ICE to halt "mass" arrests of illegal immigrants, Pastor Mlyniec's Engaged Citizen post of April has been moved to the top of the blog.]

Dear Governor Carcieri,

It seems the media has chosen to portray all the clergy in our state as standing together with one voice against your recent executive order. Hence, the April 03 Providence Journal’s opening line of their lead story, “In an extraordinary show of unity, leaders of Rhode Island’s religious community yesterday called on Governor Carcieri to reconsider…” I would like to take this opportunity to share with you that not all the clergy of Rhode Island are opposed to your executive order pertaining to illegal immigrants.

As a pastor in South County, I support your leadership decision to boldly deal with such a complex issue. While I am in full agreement with other clergy in the need to be concerned for the care, rights, and dignity of each human being residing in our great state, I do not see any legitimate biblical justification to stand opposed to you. In fact, it is my opinion that there is ample biblical evidence to support your decision.

I recently heard a bishop justify his position by quoting Jesus, “I was a stranger and you welcomed me.” Best that I can tell, your executive order is not aimed at strangers, but illegal immigrants. Jesus never said, “I broke your laws and you harbored me as a fugitive.” Yes, we are to love our neighbors, but we are also to uphold and obey the local laws of the land as taught by the Apostle Paul when he said, “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities (Romans 13:1).”

Next, I heard a rabbi quote from the Old Testament, “…for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.” What he didn’t mention was that the Israelites were officially invited to Egypt at the request of the Pharaoh, that they were publicly welcomed, and that they were given the best of the land (Genesis 47). They did not slip into Egypt under the cover of darkness and attempt to live there illegally. While I applaud the rabbi for his generous show of hospitality and concern for human rights, I must respectfully disagree with his biblical argument which implies that those who have intentionally chosen to break the laws of the land should be considered strangers and therefore taken in and treated as the native in the land (Leviticus 19:34). We must keep in mind that in those days, both the natives and strangers willingly obeyed the laws of the land (Ruth 1:16).

And of course, like many others, I then heard a reverend declare, “In God’s kingdom, there are no second-class citizens.” Now, I am a firm believer in the equality and rights of each and every human being. However, I must respectfully point out to the reverend, that the State of Rhode Island may indeed be the “Ocean State” but it is certainly not the kingdom of God on earth. I also call to his attention that there are two distinct divisions of people in our state, those who are here legally and those who are not. I do not deny that we should consider those who are here illegally as first-class people, friends and employees. However, as hard as this sounds, the reality is that they are not citizens of the United States of America and therefore there is no citizen “class” in which to put them.

I affirm and support the efforts of my well-intentioned and passionate clergy brothers as they take a stand to calm the fears and anxieties resulting from your executive order. I also commend them for standing to be shepherds and peacemakers for their flocks. They have encouraged all of us to display a greater love for our neighbors and their well-being. I will be in prayer during this wave of unrest and division that God would grant peace and understanding to all involved. As we dwell in a season of difficult days, may God continue to grant you humility, wisdom, and the strength to continue to make decisions filled with justice for all.

With great respect,

The Reverend Pastor Keith Mlyniec
West Kingston Baptist Church

Foreclosures Versus Student Enrollment II

There is at least one glitch in the comprehensive municipality-by-municipality data that the Projo has been providing on foreclosures. According to a John Castellucci story that appeared in the April 15 Projo, there were 108 foreclosures in Pawtucket between January and mid-March of 2008 and 172 in all of 2007. That calls into question the completeness of the Projo's 2007 to 2008 Q1 comparison chart, where figures of only 5 foreclosures in Q1 of 2007 and 1 in Q1 2008 are quoted for Pawtucket.

I can't find any "official" data on the web for municipal level data for 2008, but there are a number of websites that give city-by-city listings of foreclosed properties for sale.

Yahoo has a real-estate site that lists foreclosed properties with the dates they were listed. Here's the number of foreclosure listings I retrieved last night…

Foreclosure.com breaks its listings into "foreclosure" and "pre-foreclosure" categories…

And the site that Ken suggested, RealtyTrac.com, divides its foreclosure listing into "Auction" and "Bank-Owned" categories; the bank owned includes listings originally from 2007. The totals in the two categories are…

The numbers in these other estimates are consistent with the Castellucci story for Pawtucket and roughly consistent with the other Projo-reported estimates for Central Falls/Cranston/Providence.

So, if as Matt Jerzyk postulates, the drop in student enrollment is directly related to foreclosures, then...

1. The drop in in Providence should be 25 to 50 times bigger than the drop in Central Falls…
   • …but it's not. The decline in Central Falls was about 450 students, the decline in Providence, about 1,700 students, a factor of about 4.
2. The drop in Cranston should be 5 to 10 times bigger than the drop in Central Falls…
   • …but it's not. The drop in Central Falls is more than 5 times larger than the drop in Cranston.

If Mr. Jerzyk is sitting on some data source that he's not telling anyone about, now is the time to release it. If not, then someone should be looking into the exact nature of the reverse-redlining that was apparently going on in Providence, because if the problem was only unscrupulous salesmanship, it is unlikely that Providence would be affected so much more disproportionately on a per-capita basis than Pawtucket or Central Falls. Is it possible that lending rules were being relaxed, even further than in other places, for housing with Providence zip-codes? If so, at what level in the mortgage process was that decision made?

Foreclosures Versus Student Enrollment

Matt Jerzyk of RI Future believes that declines in student population in Central Falls and Providence are due to foreclosures…

Speaking of questionable analysis, it is absolutely outrageous to me that anyone can get away with saying that significant drops in school enrollment in Central Falls and Providence are a result of the right-wing's anti-immigrant activism in Rhode Island.

One word, people: FORECLOSURES.

Ian Donnis of Not for Nothing thinks that the theory is plausible. I'm not sure about the causal chain in Providence, but it's hard to believe that foreclosures are having a big impact on student enrollment in Central Falls, unless you're willing to accuse the Projo of some really sloppy journalism.

In the August 16 Projo, Jennifer D. Jordan reported on the student enrollment decline…

In Central Falls, the state’s most heavily Hispanic school district, student enrollment numbers are down by more than 400….Currently, Central Falls enrollment stands at 3,050, down from its usual 3,500.

And the number of foreclosures in the period leading up to the 2008-2009 school year? Well, the Projo gives us two figures for Central Falls to look at, compiled from data provided by Rhode Island Housing…

• Legally Noticed Foreclosure Initiations, Central Falls, April 2007-March 2008: 17
• Legally Noticed Foreclosures By Municipality, Central Falls, Q1 2008: 2

Just to be clear, the numbers above are reported in units of one.

The foreclosure numbers for Providence are much higher, 609 in Q1 2008 alone, versus an enrollment drop of 1,700, but on the other hand, the community with the second largest reported number of foreclosures in Q1, Cranston with 155, has a student population that is holding steady, so there doesn't seem to be much correlation between rates of foreclosure and drops in student enrollment, unless you believe that the Projo is missing a big chunk of data, that foreclosures increased by about a factor of 10 in Central Falls after April '08, or that the average number of students living in a foreclosed home in Central Falls is somewhere in the vicinity of 20 or more.

Are There Valid Criticisms To Be Made of Sanctuary and Amnesty Policies?

Over at RI Future yesterday, Matt Jerzyk wrote…

When the immigration debate becomes about “them” and the “them” is largely determined by race and ethnicity, then racism is a clear component of the debate.

But how about the definition of "them" in other areas of public debate? In a post from just two days earlier, Paul Bovenzi is certainly more than comfortable with defining his view of "them" largely in terms of race…

Last I checked, the White, Conservative, Male still had a firm (and disproportionate) grasp on the power and wealth in this country, so why is he so terribly unhappy?

One more thing about the White, Conservative Male - he is also a top notch complainer!

So if you buy into Mr. Jerzyk's premise, unless a highly suspect double standard is to be applied, it seems that racism has to be considered a "clear component" of Mr. Bovenzi's argument too.

QED.

Look, what's really happening here is that the special interest groups who favor sanctuary and amnesty with respect to illegal immigration have hit a wall in persuading the general public that ignoring immigration laws is sound public policy. Unable to persuade, they've taken to trying to de-legitimize criticism of their policy positions, in the hopes that those who disagree with them can be bullied into silence.

ProJo Offers Clarity on "Immigration"

Golf clap to the ProJo for providing some clarity on the terminology games being played with the word "immigration" (emphasis mine):

[F]ew Americans oppose immigration or immigrants per se. After all, every citizen is an immigrant or a descendent of one (Native Americans, by the way, came from Siberia) and is well aware of that fact. But those who favor illegal immigration like to drop the word “illegal” and say that those who want to enforce the laws on the books hate immigrants. This is very intellectually dishonest.

Just because someone favors an orderly, predictable and transparent immigration system instead of the present near-chaos and corruption doesn’t mean that that person is a xenophobe. There are, sad to say, plenty of bigots around. But most Americans who favor enforcement of the immigration laws on the books are not. They just realize that for a country to lose control over who comes into it is dangerous.

That’s why most countries, including Latin American ones, enforce their immigration laws far more zealously than does the United States its own.

The rest of the editorial offers sound observations, too.

Charles Bakst’s Illegal Immigration Paradox

Projo news columnist Charles Bakst suggests that supporters of Rhode Island Governor Donald Carceri should be troubled by the recent discovery that many illegal immigrants were employed by firms with state contracts…

Some taxpayers who admire [Governor Carcieri] on immigration must have been disappointed and puzzled by the possibility that so many illegal immigrants could be working in so many state agencies, some right under his nose.

…but, in the same column, wonders why anyone should care…

By the way, while I don’t urge people to come here illegally, why would the federal or state governments focus so much energy on these particular folks from Honduras, Guatemala, Brazil and Mexico?

So unless I’m missing something, Bakst is arguing that Carcieri should be embarrassed by the number of illegal immigrants working for state contractors, BUT shouldn’t be trying to do anything about it!

Does that make sense to you?

When Does the PPD Fax the List to ICE?

Mayor David Cicilline stated on the Helen Glover Show this morning that the Providence Police Department informs ICE of suspects in custody before they are released from court. He is flatly contradicting his own Chief of Police.

But [Providence Police Chief Dean Esserman] later acknowledged that Providence police don’t do any investigation on their own but simply fax to ICE a copy of their arraignment sheet, which shows the names of anyone who has been arraigned that day.

Why this discrepancy between the statement of the Mayor and the statement of the Chief? When is the list faxed? While the suspect can be retained at ICE's request or when there's no point in even faxing the list?

ADDENDUM

Podcast of the interview, including the Mayor's exchange with former INS Agent Joe Bernstein, available here, courtesy Talk Radio 920 WHJJ.

Poll Numbers and Government Priorities

Two recent newspaper articles have suggested that the results of the Rhode Island College Bureau of Government Research and Services poll released on July 1 imply that immigration enforcement is not an issue of interest to Rhode Islanders; one article was from a source with an established track record of writing thoughtful, long-form news-analysis pieces, Ian Donnis of the Providence Phoenix…

[Providence City Councilman Luis Aponte] calls Cicilline’s liberal stance on immigration “absolutely right for the city,” but, he adds, “[I] think it does not play out well in a broader discussion.”

This might be a safe assumption, considering how the mayor and Providence Police Chief Dean Esserman have faced considerable public criticism for bucking Carcieri’s executive order on immigration. (Then again, in a recent Rhode Island College poll, just four percent of respondents ranked illegal immigration among the state’s biggest problems.)

…the other was from Scott MacKay of the Projo…

Last night, Governor Carcieri was again on national television –– conservative Fox News pundit Bill O’Reilly’s show –– to talk about his executive order cracking down on immigration.

While Carcieri, some legislators and the talk-radio hosts may think the issue is gaining traction locally, a recent public opinion survey by veteran pollster and political science Prof. Victor Profughi, of Rhode Island College, shows a substantial disconnect between average Rhode Islanders and political figures pushing illegal immigration as a top issue.

When asked “what do you think is the biggest problem facing Rhode Island right now,” hardly any respondents mentioned illegal immigration. Thirty-three percent said the economy, 17 percent said the state budget, 6 percent mentioned gas prices, 8 percent listed government corruption, 6 percent said taxes, 5 percent said education and 4 percent said illegal immigration.

In reponse to both excerpts, let me suggest that using polling results from open-ended questions to determine what people believe government's day-to-day priorities should be is a premise flawed from the start. In the present-day Rhode Island that we know and love, we have a perfect example of the limitations.

According to that same RIC poll, a whopping total of 1% of people surveyed gave an answer of "roads" when asked what the biggest problem facing the state was. We can safely take an answer of "roads" to include the sub-category of "potentially collapsing bridges", a problem the RI public is well-aware of.

Now, as far as I know, no one is seriously arguing that any plans for addressing Rhode Island's bridge maintenance troubles should be placed on the backburner until a bunch of other problems with better polling numbers are "solved”. I haven't seen anyone in the mainstream media, in the blogosphere or in person argue that Governor Carcieri's March announcement (the same month the illegal immigration executive order was issued, by the way) of Rhode Island’s need to effect 600 million dollars worth of "bridge repair and replacement" was a distraction from the “real” issues that government should be paying attention to. Indeed, the reaction to the bridging troubles has been exactly opposite, more along the lines of why wasn't state government paying better attention to this all along -- again, despite a meager 1% polling number for the problem of "roads".

So if a one-one-hundredth polling response does not delegitimatize the decision by Rhode Island’s executive branch of government to take some high-visibility steps to address problems that have developed over the long term in the area of “roads”, then why should Governor Carcieri's decision to address the problem of illegal immigration -- a problem also that also has been allowed to build up over the long term -- be viewed as controversial because of a similarly low (but higher) polling response?

Would it make sense to stop repairing the bridges too?

Look What Happens When Local And Federal Law Enforcement Work Together

The general public keeps hearing from various quarters that immigration is a federal matter, therefore local police authorities shouldn't take any initiative in enforcing immigration laws.

That refrain brings to mind Amanda Milkovits' story from the Projo of two Saturdays ago…

At dusk, a dozen Providence police officers and state police troopers in unmarked cruisers drove into the back of the Manton Heights housing projects, where the teenage boy killed on Wednesday had lived, and they created a ripple in the neighborhood....

Last night, without public fanfare, the police quietly launched a new street-crime task force –– made up of city and state police, and agents from the FBI –– with the intention of driving down the violent crime rate in the city’s most troubled neighborhoods.

I wonder if the FBI agents assigned to this task force told the Providence Police Department that though they would be riding along with this detail, they would only act in instances where Federal crimes were being observed, because it was up to state and local police to enforce state laws and federal agents to enforce federal laws.

Or is it more likely that the FBI agents offered their full cooperation, to help a fellow law enforcement agency do its job. Wouldn't that be ironic.

Waiting for that Hard-Hitting, Old-Time-Journalism Scott MacKay Column on Barack Obama's Misplaced Priorities

Presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama had this to say yesterday, in an address to the League of United Latin American Citizens in Washington D.C…

I fought with you in the Senate for comprehensive immigration reform. And I will make it a top priority in my first year as President -- not only because we have an obligation to secure our borders and get control of who comes in and out of our country. And not only because we have to crack down on employers who are abusing undocumented immigrants instead of hiring citizens. But because we have to finally bring undocumented immigrants out of the shadows.

Projo news columnist Scott MacKay criticized Obama for making the immigration issue a top priority…

You might think our political leaders would have something more important to do than wrangle over the illegal-immigration issue.

Wait?!?! You’re telling me I’ve made an error? You mean the above statement wasn’t directed at Senator Obama, but at Rhode Island Governor Donald Carcieri and Providence Mayor David Cicilline?

But if the idea that immigration reform is a distraction from real issues applies to Governor Carcieri and Mayor Cicilline, then columnist MacKay must believe that it applies to Senator Obama too, and that (as well as John McCain, for that matter) is wrong for making immigration reform a top issue in his platform, right?

ProJo Spins 75% Approval of E-Verify

Hey, you. The one who was part of the 75% percent of Rhode Islanders who said they approve of Governor Carcieri's E-verify Executive Order (and presumably the E-verify bill that just got killed by Senator Theresa Paiva-Weed). Guess what? The Journal's Steve Peoples and/or Cynthia Needham think you were just confused...or something...by the question (the only one they commented on, btw):

Seventy-five percent agree with the governor’s executive order cracking down on illegal immigrants. The order, according to a vague and rather long survey question, “requires that the Federal E-Verify system be used to screen state workers and employees of companies doing business with the state and directs certain state agencies to work cooperatively with Federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel in enforcing federal immigration laws.”

You poor, ADD-ridden rubes, you must have gotten distracted by a shiny object while listening to the question and just answered "Yes."

Arlene Violet on the Immigration Verification Policy of the PPD

This awful crime brought into focus the technologically retarded procedure whereby the Providence police check the immigration status of people who come into their official custody. We should note here that it was the Mayor of Providence, not the police department, who arranged and ordered this procedure.

Arlene Violet did some research and determined exactly how and why this procedure is so infeasible. [Courtesy the Valley Breeze.]

The local ICE (Immigration and Control Enforcement) office has been gutted by a reduction of personnel. In response, the ICE passed out equipment to large police departments. This computer responds to a typed in name by alerting officials that the person is not in the country legally since there is no record of him. What happens if a person "borrows" the name of somebody who is here legally? Well, a picture pops up of the legal immigrant. The police officer than can compare the suspect to the picture and determine if the use of the name and address is purloined.

The Providence police did not use the equipment where it takes less than a minute to check the status. Instead, the department sends over a weekly list of all arrests for the staff-starved ICE to check. It already knows that the officers there don't have the manpower to check the list since that was the reason why the Providence Police got the database equipment. In fact, sending an entire list masks the one or two who should have been checked.

The sad reality is that the Mayor of Providence panders to the immigrant community. He thinks he can protect his posterior by claiming that they sent the list. The excuse doesn't work. ...

What Exactly is David Cicilline's Position on Enforcing Immigration Law?

In Edward Fitzpatrick and W. Zachary Malinowski’s story on the fallout from the Marco Riz case in today’s Projo, Providence Mayor David Cicilline states his basic position on the enforcement of immigration law…

“Let me be clear,” Cicilline said, “anyone who is in this country illegally and breaks the law should be deported. That’s why Providence police will continue its longstanding policy of providing federal immigration officials with information anytime a person is charged with a crime in this city.”

So if the Mayor believes that everyone charged with a crime should have their immigration status investigated, then why isn’t his department using the best technonlogy available to assist in those investigations? What value is there in using a less efficient procedure when a better option is available?

And if the Mayor already claims that his city’s police department already supports investigations into the immigration status of individuals charged with breaking the law, then what objection does his administration have, if any, to the sixth provision of the Governor’s executive order on illegal immigration…

6. It is urged that all law enforcement officials, including state and local law enforcement agencies take steps to support the enforcement of federal immigration laws by investigating and determining the immigration status of all non-citizens taken into custody, incarcerated, or under investigation for any crime and notifying federal authorities of all illegal immigrants discovered as a result of such investigations.

And if Mayor Cicilline agrees with the Governor’s order in principle, but just differs over what means best facilitate inter-departmental law-enforcement cooperation, then how come immigration activists like the Rev. Eliseo Nogueras or the Rev. Donald C. Anderson aren’t organizing protests at Providence City Hall, accusing Mayor Cicilline of “anti-immigrant sentiment” and fomenting “unwarranted harassment of legal immigrants and citizens of color”. Do they perhaps suspect he is not as serious about enforcing immigration law as he is now trying to sound? Has the Mayor been issued one of those progressive “say whatever you want for political reasons, we know you don’t mean it” passes, or is there some more benign reason?

What Exactly is David Cicilline's Position on Enforcing Immigration Law?

In Edward Fitzpatrick and W. Zachary Malinowski’s story on the fallout from the Marco Riz case in today’s Projo, Providence Mayor David Cicilline states his basic position on the enforcement of immigration law…

“Let me be clear,” Cicilline said, “anyone who is in this country illegally and breaks the law should be deported. That’s why Providence police will continue its longstanding policy of providing federal immigration officials with information anytime a person is charged with a crime in this city.”

So if the Mayor believes that everyone charged with a crime should have their immigration status investigated, then why isn’t his department using the best technonlogy available to assist in those investigations? What value is there in using a less efficient procedure when a better option is available?

And if the Mayor already claims that his city’s police department already supports investigations into the immigration status of individuals charged with breaking the law, then what objection does his administration have, if any, to the sixth provision of the Governor’s executive order on illegal immigration…

6. It is urged that all law enforcement officials, including state and local law enforcement agencies take steps to support the enforcement of federal immigration laws by investigating and determining the immigration status of all non-citizens taken into custody, incarcerated, or under investigation for any crime and notifying federal authorities of all illegal immigrants discovered as a result of such investigations.

And if Mayor Cicilline agrees with the Governor’s order in principle, but just differs over what means best facilitate inter-departmental law-enforcement cooperation, then how come immigration activists like the Rev. Eliseo Nogueras or the Rev. Donald C. Anderson aren’t organizing protests at Providence City Hall, accusing Mayor Cicilline of “anti-immigrant sentiment” and fomenting “unwarranted harassment of legal immigrants and citizens of color”. Do they perhaps suspect he is not as serious about enforcing immigration law as he is now trying to sound? Has the Mayor been issued one of those progressive “say whatever you want for political reasons, we know you don’t mean it” passes, or is there some more benign reason?

Cicilline and the Minutemen, Side By Each

The Mayor of Providence continues to insist that illegal immigration is a matter for federal officials. In response to Bill Malinowski's story in Saturday's ProJo about the City of Providence's prior official encounters with Marco Riz, the Mayor released this statement:

I will not let the Providence Police pick up the slack or take the blame for yet another failed federal agency. Our priorities have resulted in the lowest crime rate in 30 years and they will remain the same.

He also accused Governor Carcieri of defending the Bush administration and its failure to control illegal immigration. The Governor has done nothing of the sort, of course.

But the Mayor is correct about one thing. The reality is that the Bush administration, the Clinton administration and their concurrent Congresses deliberately and inexplicably pulled way back on illegal immigration enforcement efforts, in particular, on employers. The result of this egregious abdication of responsibility has been stark. The border is no longer a couple of thousand miles away. Effectively, it is now here and all around the country. Accordingly, our state and local public officials no longer have the luxury of treating illegal immigration at arms length or of attempting to exclude it from the job description of our safety officers.

What Exactly is Dean Esserman's Position on Enforcing Immigration Law?

In light of the Marco Riz case, I am confused as to Providence Police Chief Dean Esserman's position regarding assisting Federal authorities with the enforcement of immigration law. Marco Riz is the illegal immigrant accused of rape who was taken into custody by Providence police twice last year, but released both times, despite being under a 2003 court-order to leave the country.

1. Back in April, Chief Esserman told the Projo's Richard C. Dujardin that the Providence police did not investigate the immigration status of anyone, unless an immigration violation was inadvertently revealed…

Police Chief Dean Esserman has put himself squarely in opposition to Governor Carcieri’s suggestion that local law-enforcement agencies investigate the immigration status of individuals they take into their custody.

Esserman said yesterday that he does believe the police have a responsibility to forward to the attention of federal agents any information about illegal immigrants whose status they have come upon “inadvertently.” But he said the responsibility should not extend to investigating the immigration status of people they have arrested or suspect may have been involved in other crimes.

“I am opposed to a proactive role because of the chilling effect it would have on our being able to have people have trust in us and to report crimes,” said Esserman.

But that's not the story Chief Esserman told W. Zachary Malinowski this past Saturday, post-Marco Riz…

Esserman and Kennedy also said that Providence police officers routinely call [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] to check on the immigration status of suspects in crimes. Detectives in major crimes and the gang-prevention unit are in constant communication with the local ICE office.

Has the Providence Police department changed its policy between April and now, or is one of these statements not fully conveying the reality of department policy?

2. One point of consistency between Chief Esserman's April and June statements to the public is the use of the fax machine as the primary regular contact between the Providence Police Department and ICE. Here's Dujardin in April…

Esserman had said initially yesterday that the Police Department, as a matter of standard procedure, notifies the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency of the names of all illegal immigrants who have been booked and arraigned by Providence police. But he later acknowledged that Providence police don’t do any investigation on their own but simply fax to ICE a copy of their arraignment sheet, which shows the names of anyone who has been arraigned that day.

...and, essentially the same thing, from Malinowski in June…

Esserman and Kennedy said that for more than 20 years the Police Department has faxed to the federal agency’s Providence office a list of suspects scheduled to be arraigned in District Court on criminal charges. They said that no one at the agency ever objected to the practice until last month.

Let's take the most recent story as most accurate. If Providence police routinely investigate the immigration status of individuals under investigation -- as Chief Esserman now claims -- and if ICE has an information system that can be used to help identify immigration-law violators, what is the objection to Providence enhancing its current faxing procedure to include regular use of the NLETS system(*), based on the same criteria that the major crimes and gang-prevention units currently use to trigger contact with ICE?

3. According to the Malinowski story, the Feds haven't exactly covered themselves in glory in this case either…

Michael Gilhooly, spokesman for ICE, said that the Providence police should have used the agency’s NLTS (sic) telecommunications system to check on Riz’s immigration status. He said that the police would have learned that a federal immigration court, in 2003, had ordered Riz to leave the United States.

Asked why immigration authorities did not move to deport Riz five years ago, Gilhooly said that he was in this country illegally, but there was no evidence that he was a “criminal.” As a result, he was released from custody.

(*) A description of the NLETS system can be found here, in a 2005 online article from The Police Chief Magazine.

E-Verify: Coming to a Federal Contractor Near You

Helen Glover reported this morning that e-verify legislation has stalled on Smith Hill because it contains monetary penalties for businesses which fail to comply. Apparently, the General Assembly has the power under these circumstances to pull a company's license but not to fine it.

In the meantime, President George Bush has mandated e-verify for companies which do business for the federal government.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said that President George Bush has signed a directive putting the requirements in place, thus bringing federal contractors under the same requirements already in effect for federal agencies

This is a list by company, parent company and dollar amount of all 1,727 federal contracts being performed in Rhode Island, companies which now must E-verify all new employees.

[Source: USASpending.gov]

RIILE Shut out of Governor's Immigration Advisory Group

Terry Gorman of RIILE (Rhode Islanders for Immigration Law Enforcement) was on Dan Yorke's show this afternoon and explained that neither he nor any RIILE members have been invited to participate on the Governor's 27 member Immigration Advisory panel (no documentation or press release yet). According to Gorman, he had gotten the impression that he was on the panel and had even been asked to recommend a few people.

According to ProJo, "[t]he group includes members from religious communities, community agencies, government, law enforcement and business." Gorman has seen the list and told Yorke that, with the exception of a few members of State law enforcement, the makeup of the panel looks like the membership of a pro-amnesty advocate group. I wouldn't go that far, but you get the point.

For his part,Yorke thinks it's a mistake by the Governor to exclude representatives from RIILE, who have been at the forefront of the debate in RI. So do I. If you're going to approach this issue holistically, and if you're going to include proponents of amnesty in the group, then shouldn't you balance them with those opposed? Heck, the Tax Policy Strategy Workgroup includes people from all over the political and ideological spectrum. Why not do the same for the Immigration panel? Here's the list:

Continue reading "RIILE Shut out of Governor's Immigration Advisory Group"

What Does Amnesty for Undocumented Farm Workers Have to Do with the Funding of our Action in Iraq?

Add Senator Larry Craig to Donald's list of Republicans who have gotten off track, in this case, by participating in the attempt to pass amnesty piecemeal.

The Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday added to an Iraq spending bill a controversial provision to help pave the way for undocumented agriculture workers to win legal status, a move that may reopen the divisive immigration debate on the Senate floor.

The so-called Ag-Jobs amendment, sponsored by Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Larry Craig (R-Idaho), would create a process that allows undocumented workers to continue to work on farms. Without the amendment, Feinstein warned that the U.S. would lose $5-9 billion to foreign competition, tens of thousands of farms would shut down and 80,000 workers would be transferred to Mexico. The bill would sunset in five years.

Agriculture needs a consistent workforce," Feinstein said. "Without it, they can't plant, they can't prune, they can't pick and they can't pack.

"This is an emergency situation," she added.

The prior failure of your branch of government to act responsibly in this matter does not constitute an emergency, Senator. Put me down as agreeing for once with Senator Robert Byrd (D) on both substance and procedure.

"No matter how one characterizes it, this enormous amendment still amounts to amnesty," said Chairman Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.). "I oppose amnesty. All these immigration issues should be addressed through the regular order."

The one encouraging note is that the 17-12 vote that brought this amendment out of committee was not along party lines. Perhaps there will be a sufficient number of responsible, long-sighted lawmakers in both parties to decry and/or derail this sneakiness.

Same Rally, Less Filled

The ProJo wonders why there are fewer immigrants showing up at immigrant rallies, but Rev. Robert Beirne, a priest at St. Anthony’s in Providence has the answer:

The estimated 300 people in attendance were but a fraction of the participation seen at immigration-rights rallies in years past.

“I’m very disappointed,” said the Rev. Robert Beirne, a Roman Catholic priest at St. Anthony’s in Providence. “Two years ago, there were tens of thousands of people who were proud to be here. Look at this turnout. I think people are afraid.”

In 2006, as many as 20,000 people participated at a State House rally designed to showcase the positive social and economic contributions of immigrants on International Workers’ Day. By last year, the number of supporters at a similar rally had dwindled to an estimated 500 to 700, following a raid two months earlier on a New Bedford factory, when 361 workers suspected of being in the country illegally were detained by federal officials.

Guess we know where the ProJo is leaning. How about this: maybe the immigrants aren't here anymore. Or maybe they've just moved on. You know, they've got better things to do, like work.

Recent Border Enforcement Activity (Not Always at the Border)

The Department of Homeland Security posts on their website updated information of border enforcement activity.

Coast Guard Repatriates 24 Dominicans, 1 Colombian

April 22, 2008 (San Juan, Puerto Rico) - The crew of Coast Guard Cutter Chincoteague repatriated a Colombian and 24 Dominican migrants to La Romana, Dominican Republic, following an at-sea interdiction by Department of Homeland Security law enforcement authorities. More at USCG.mil

ICE Agents Arrest More than 300 Poultry Processing Employees

April 17, 2008 (Dallas, Tex.) - U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested more than 300 foreign national workers at Pilgrim's Pride plants in five states who are suspected of committing identity theft and other criminal violations in order to obtain their jobs. More at ICE.gov

ICE Arrests 11 for Harboring, Detains 45 Illegal Aliens

April 16, 2008 (Buffalo, N.Y.) - U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement special agents detained 45 illegal aliens at 10 different sites and arrested 11 individuals for conspiring to harbor illegal aliens who were smuggled into the United States to work in Mexican restaurants in four states. This operation involved approximately 130 ICE agents and 30 state and local law enforcement officers and began in May 2006. More at ICE.gov

Coast Guard Cutter Crew Rescues, Repatriates 247 Haitian Migrants

April 15, 2008 (Miami, Fla.) - The crew of the Portsmouth, Va.-based Coast Guard Cutter Harriet Lane repatriated 247 Haitian migrants to Cap-Haitien, Haiti. More at USCG.mil

The Bishop on Immigration

Bishop Thomas Tobin's latest Without a Doubt column (still not yet online), which he frames as a Q&A on the Church's teachings with respect to [illegal] immigration, avoids the questions in which Roman Catholics who disagree with the bishop are most interested. Indeed, the answers stop frustratingly short of the actual dispute, veering aside with everything following the "instead" :

Does the Church promote and support illegal immigration?

"No. The Catholic Church does not support or encourage illegal immigration because 1) it is contrary to federal law and 2) it is not good either for society because of the presence of a large population living outside the legal structures or the migrant ... Instead, the Church is advocating changing a broken law so that undocumented persons can obtain legal status in our country and enter the United States legally to work and support their families." (USCCB Statement on Comprehensive Immigration Reform)

In short, illegal immigration is a bad deal for everyone — for our country and its citizens, for legal immigrants, and for those who have entered the country illegally.

The faithful are left with no guidance as to the view of the Conference of Catholic Bishops regarding the number of "undocumented persons" permitted to "enter the United States legally," or even the criteria and emphases that ought to be considered as public representatives determine the specifics. If the law is "broken," it sounds an awful lot as if the bishops believe fixing it means turning it into little more than a means of processing applications, not of judging civic value.

Yes, the response is easy to anticipate: It isn't the place of a government to judge the value of a human being. But that's clearly a dodge. All human beings are of equal value in an absolute sense, but some bring more to the table, or are just a better fit for current socio-economic needs of the nation. As an employer, the Church judges between candidates for particular jobs and does not tangle itself into moral knots deciding whether it is making a declaration of their inherent worth.

And so the debate goes on, with the bishop sounding more like a voice for one side of a political dispute than a beacon through which all sides can find their way out of contentious circumstances:

Immigrants who came to our land without proper documentation did so, in most cases, for positive reasons.

How does Bishop Tobin respond to we who find something stealthy in his presentation of such immigration as a matter of misplaced paperwork? Illegal immigrants didn't merely fail to file the appropriate documents; they didn't receive permission, and I suspect, if pressed, the bishop might concede that such permission is the right (the responsibility) of a political entity to grant and, sometimes, to deny.

More Truth-Challenged Arguments

Candidates and advocates are told to stay on message.

Such advice is sound only if the "message" contains a modicum of truthfulness or at least believability. Both of these qualities have been noticeably absent from the speeches and rhetoric of those who oppose the Governor's executive order on illegal immigration and related bills. Friday's rally followed form.

Members of the state's Hispanic community yesterday gathered at the State House once again to protest Governor Carcieri's recent order cracking down on illegal immigration.

* * *

"The anti-immigrant sentiment that swept across this state and this nation is going to cause a lot of families to be broken up," said the Rev. Eliseo Nogueras, 46, the pastor of Pawtucket's House of Prayer Gethsemane. He is also chairman of the Governor's Advisory Commission on Hispanic Affairs.

The call has been for the enforcement of existing immigration laws, not their removal from the books. Only the latter would constitute "anti-immigrant sentiment." Note also the phrasing of that sentence: not "anti-immigration" but "anti-immigrant." This is presumably to personalize and emotionalize a statement that is false to begin with.

Secondly, the reference to the breaking up of families is not just untrue, but insulting in two ways. It is insulting to everyone's intelligence to suggest that immigrant parents would leave their children in another country. And it is insulting to immigrant parents themselves to imply that they would do so.

In view of the emotion-rich and fact-poor arguments put forward from the beginning against the anti-illegal immigration measures implemented by the Governor and pending on Smith Hill, I am beginning to share the doubt of those who question the actual number of people who do not support these reasonable measures. They may count in their ranks not too many more than those who rally or testify on Smith Hill and a percentage (but not all) of undocumented immigrants.

The Executive Order and Victims of Identity Theft

Provision 3 of Governor Donald Carcieri's executive order on illegal immigration places a requirement on executive branch departments that become aware of the usage of a fraudulent identity in an attempt to get something from the state…

3. The Directors of each department and state agency in the Executive Branch shall attempt to notify any person whose identity was stolen or otherwise improperly used by any person in order receive any benefit, including but not limited to child care, health care, any government issued identification card, including driver’s license and non-driver’s license identification, welfare or employment.

Though contracting licenses aren't expressly covered by the order, according to Amanda Milkovits' report in today's Projo, the Rhode Island State Police certainly seem to be acting in the spirit of the order in their investigation into Mario Chirinos' alleged attempt to use false documents to obtain a Rhode Island contractor's license…

[Mario Chirinos] had bought a fake state driver’s license, in the name of Effrain Tarquino, off the streets of Providence, [State Police Major Steven O’Donnell] said. Chirinos also allegedly obtained a fake state ID card in the name of Chirino Mario, 29, and a Social Security card and permanent resident alien card in the name of Efran Tarquino, with different birth dates, according to the state police.

The fake driver’s license –– missing the tell-tale state seal –– caught the attention of an employee at the state Contractor’s Registration and Licensing Board, where Chirinos had gone to apply for a contractor’s license. Chirinos had presented the license and an affidavit at the counter, the state police said.

The board employee contacted the Capital Police, who contacted the state police, who noticed that the driver’s license photo also wasn’t consistent with the appearance of state driver’s licenses. The trooper searched Chirinos and found the other fake IDs, O’Donnell said….

O’Donnell said that Chirinos told investigators that he’d bought the identification cards off the streets in Providence. The state police are investigating whether the names on the identification cards belong to others

Do the opponents of the Governor's executive order really believe that provision 3 is unreasonable and needs be repealed, i.e. that state government should not inform possible victims of identity theft of the crimes perpetrated against them until the Federal government passes "comprehensive immigration reform" first?

Immigration Debate is Only Part of It

There is no doubt that there are illegal immigrants taking advantage of taxpayer dollars here in Rhode Island. How many? We don't know. But we do know that, if we are to apply the same sort of zero-sum economics favored by our friends on the left, any benefits going to illegal immigrants are not going to hard-working, but down-on-their-luck Americans. That's why the labor/immigrant alliance strikes me as a strange one. Though perhaps it works because of the conflation between legal and illegal immigrants combined with fond memories of the good ol' days of organizing the oppressed minorities of the past. Not sure.

Yet, I think the polls bear out that most Americans recognize the distinction between illegal and legal and, more importantly, have made it known that they think that people should live by the rules or face the consequences. It isn't racism or fear of "the other" that is upsetting people, but a belief that people are getting away with breaking the rules and benefiting with tax dollars, either directly or via entitlements sent towards their U.S. born children. It doesn't matter if the rules for entry into the country and becoming a citizen were easier 100 or 50 years ago: they are supposed to be tougher now and should be followed. Americans' sense of fair play demands it. That no one seems to be holding anyone accountable is the root cause of all of the anger out there. And that's why they applaud the Governor: finally, someone is taking a stand.

But I do wonder if we shouldn't try to apply thermodynamic theory and transfer some of the heat generated by the immigration debate into other relevant areas via some sort of a political heat balance solution. Illegal immigrants are a legitimate target insofar as it is pretty clear-cut that they have no legal claim to government largesse. But Rhode Island taxpayers shouldn't forget that a greater proportion of their money goes to legal Rhode Island citizens, not illegal immigrants. A sizable portion of the heat generated by the illegal immigrant debate should be redirected towards other pots--entitlement programs, state employment packages, etc.--so that, maybe, they too will begin to boil over and get some attention.

It Doesn't Count If You Don't Count

The newest addition to the list of "reasons" that the Governor's Executive Order and various legislative initiatives on illegal immigration should not be undertaken is that the actual number of undocumented immigrants in the state is unknown. Mr. Jaime Aguayo of the Governor's Advisory Commission on Hispanic Affairs made such an argument yesterday morning on WHJJ's Helen Glover Show. He further repeated his statement from the press conference Friday that he and other members of that advisory commission would step down if the Governor did not continue to meet with them on this issue.

Inasmuch as no one contends that the number of undocumented immigrants in the state is zero, the limited measures outlined by the Governor's Executive Order would seem reasonable in all senses of the word. Setting that aside for a moment, however, a suggestion and a question pose themselves from Mr. Aguayo's remarks this morning.

Press conferences are fun but facts are more substantive and a better addition to any conversation. It would seem to be both productive and in keeping with the nature of an advisory commission for the Advisory Commission on Hispanic Affairs to assemble and bring forward some data on the question which a member of the Commission himself raised; namely, the number of undocumented immigrants present in the state.

And the question raised is actually for everyone who believes that no action should be taken on the state level until the presence of undocumented immigrants in the state is specifically quantified. At what number, below what threshold should the Governor's Executive Order not be implemented and new laws not be passed?

On the Border of Discussion

Anybody who's truly interested in the immigration debate should skip Charles Bakst's typically useless column in yesterday's Providence Journal and turn instead to the Money & Business section, in which one can read John Kostrzewa's inquiry into the difficulties that the E-Verify mandate imposes on businesses:

To try to sort out some of the issues, I talked with Christine Cunneen, co-owner of Hire Image, a background-screening company based in Johnston.

She said that right now there are only 75 Rhode Island companies registered to use the E-Verify system.

Employers who want to use it have to sign up for a five- to six-hour online tutorial. Then the user has to pass a test showing mastery of the system. ...

Using the E-Verify system also opens the employer to an audit by the Department of Homeland Security.

Cunneen said the verification process can be confusing and cumbersome.

She added, "There have been some troubles with the system." For example, if a person gets married and the name hasn't been changed with Social Security, the E-Verify system may not verify the eligibility of the worker.

Kostrzewa's right that the entire debate has been conducted in an atmosphere of contentiousness and suspicion, although I'm not as quick to blame the governor; this fight's been long and broad in its approach. Consider this interesting nugget from an Andy Smith piece on the problems that Congressional inaction on immigration (specifically with reference to temporary work visas) is creating for Rhode Island's tourism industry (emphasis added):

In the House of Representatives, Langevin said he is also cosponsor of legislation that would allow more H-2B workers into the country. "I've heard a lot from the business community [in Rhode Island] and this is a major priority for them," he said. "This is an issue that directly affects the tourism and hospitality business in Rhode Island."

Langevin said the Hispanic Caucus would prefer the "whole package" when it comes to immigration reform, although he stopped short of saying the caucus was opposed to H-2B measures. He said the House bill, currently in the Judiciary Committee, may shortly be the subject of hearings in the immigration subcommittee.

That sounds like a little bit of the ol' "un pueblo unido" — in this case holding up desirable, even necessary, legal immigration legislation in order to gain leverage for the only part of the larger issue that encounters real disagreement: illegal immigration. One finds it necessary to continually consider which side benefits from the conflation of the illegal with the legal, and doing so makes it increasingly clear that xenophobia is not the villain.

I'm not sure whether to find it surprising that Kostrzewa finds the following significant:

During last week's debate, 25 Latino and Anglo business owners, bankers, buyers, managers and consultants gathered at the old Hope Club in Providence at a networking meeting of the World Affairs Council Of Rhode Island, a nonprofit group.

They shared and discussed ideas about marketing, media and how to reach customers to expand their businesses. They laughed about language mistakes when people from different cultures interact. They all left a lot smarter, with new ideas for making money.

The true contrast of this vignette with the governor's travails isn't so much one of facts versus no facts as it is one of joint cooperation toward a separate end versus wrangling over policy with different ends in view. When business people — any people — get together, superficialities like language recede into the scenery. When special interests and racial demagogues refuse to treat illegal immigration as a discrete issue, they make superficialities central in order to hide the important distinctions.

Is This Hostile Talk Radio? (Un Pueblo Unido Redux)

Latino Public Radio Chairman Pablo Rodriguez offers his own version of "un pueblo unido no mas sera vencido" (emphasis added):

I want to believe the governor when he says he is not anti-immigrant. However, his concept of the immigrant community stands in stark contrast to the realities of families and relationships. Thousands of small businesses and jobs are created by the growth of immigrant communities. More than two in three children in undocumented households are citizens by virtue of birth, and unless we change the Constitution they have every right of citizenship, and anything that threatens the stability of their family is a threat to their health. This inseparable nexus of undocumented parents with citizen children is at the heart of what constitutes the immigrant community as one body, regardless of immigration status. A threat to one is a threat to all.

Rodriguez goes on to insist that "business and the economy will suffer irreparable harm if Latinos vote with their feet and abandon the state," and I suppose it must be admitted that businesses will have to increase employee compensation in order to induce citizens and legal residents to take jobs that currently offer artificially low remuneration. Perhaps the state could use the hundreds of millions of dollars it will save in services currently provided to illegal immigrants to improve the horrid business climate of the state in order to counterbalance the lost wages of exploitation.

Toward Calm and Constructive Dialogue

Credit is due to the editorial writers of the Rhode Island Catholic for the following:

Unfortunately, many groups and individuals have failed to grasp the call for calm and constructive dialogue on this serious issue. Last week at the Rhode Island State House, while an immigrant group loudly protested Governor Carcieri's actions, they also stormed his policy offices in defiance of security officials. Neither serves the common good of society nor do they help secure a positive and peaceful dialogue about serious issues facing immigrants and the State of Rhode Island.

If the state's and country's religious and other moral leaders would voice this point more strongly, coupled with the conveyance that they actually understand the objections of the other side, they might help to pull people together toward fruitful discussion. Unfortunately, even were such an effort likely, resolution will remain beyond our cultural grasp as long as immigrants and activists insist on making "un pueblo unido" their centerpiece, because their only route toward victory is by means of a divided nation.

POV: The Employer of Undocumented Immigrants

Ceasing the exploitation of human beings is one of the reasons that so many of us support the enforcement of our immigration laws, particularly those pertaining to employment. [Note to Congress: Comprehensive immigration reform is not needed. The only problem with our existing immigration laws is that they are insufficiently enforced. This matter only requires a little oversight, not the revamping of perfectly good laws. Thank you.]

Commenter Greg reminds us, for example, that ICE might find it worth their while to visit Ira Green Incorporated in Providence. And the latest word out of Packaging Concepts Ltd, where Leonardo Cos was terribly injured, is that a second shift has been activated so as to boost production (ahead of a possible ICE raid?). But only "temporary" workers - employees brought in by the temporary employment agency Central 2000 - can sign up for this additional shift. It is an open secret at that company that most of the temporary workers there are undocumented immigrants. This stipulation can only be a cost-saving measure; "temporary" workers at Packaging Concepts must be paid less than documented ones. By the way, especially in light of Mr. Cos' injury on the job, isn't the parent company of Packaging Concepts, Abbott Industries, just a squidge nervous that one of its subsidiaries employs undocumented immigrants?

In today's Valley Breeze, former Rhode Island Attorney General Arlene Violet gets into the mind of the person who hires undocumented immigrants, allegedly including but not limited to the owners and managers of Ira Green Inc. and Packaging Concepts.

There is an employer in Rhode Island who has hired illegal immigrants. He pays them less than minimum wage since it is still more than they would make in Central America.

He has them where he wants them. They can't complain about poor housing, working conditions or long hours since he can threaten them with sending the authorities to their home and deporting them and their entire families. In fact, he thinks he's a hell of a fella for hiring them here in the Ocean State where they are getting more than they'd make back home, and more benefits.

"You have it good," he reminds his employees periodically. "If you're sick, go to the emergency room for care. It's for free. If you think you can't subsist on my wages which I pay you, apply for welfare in the name of your children. The state will give you money, housing, food stamps, free daycare and other benefits. See, isn't this a better situation than what you had in your native land? Stop complaining about my treatment of you. You should be grateful."

The employer hears a knock on his office door. A black Rhode Island citizen is there to apply for a job. "Beat it!" he's told. "Why should I hire you? You'll cost me more. There's no reason why I should pony up minimum wage for your salary. You're a drop-out and you are not worth it to me when I can make a killing in profits by doing what I'm doing now." The black man leaves dejected. He's one of tens of thousands of black men and women who can't get minimum wage jobs because he's been replaced by cheaper labor, albeit illegal labor.

The employer takes out his cigar and chuckles. "I've got it made," he thinks. "The bleeding hearts who complain that hiring illegals creates an apartheid situation where the illegals are more like slaves are now on the run because of the newest salvos."

He picks up the week's newspapers and contentedly grins. The governor is being lambasted. The lieutenant governor is busting the governor's chops by saying he's divisive by his attempt to uphold the law. "She'll run for governor in the future," he muses, "so I'll be safe hiring these greenhorns for quite a while."

The employer laughs out loud. "I even have the church on my side!" he says as he leafs through another edition of The Providence Journal. "Maybe I'll get to heaven, after all! He reads Bishop Tobin's and Rabbi Alan Flam's castigation of the governor. "That'll shut Carcieri up," he gloats. "Look at all the clergy who are ganging up on the governor. Ha! Maybe I'll even get a citizen of the year award," he hoots out loud again.

"Now here's the piece de resistance," he concludes. The columnists in the Journal like Charles Bakst and Bob Kerr are killing the governor, too. "That'll keep me safe. I can do what I want. They will continue to put the heat on the Pooh-Bahs and prevent any raids here. Maybe I won't have to fix up this dump where they work, after all." He sighs about the further profits he'll make.

He puts down the paper and decides to head for lunch. As he passes through his factory, he notes what good workers the illegals are. They've been working since 7 a.m. without a break. At 1 p.m. they'll have 15 minutes off for lunch. Then they'll work until 5 p.m. with no overtime, of course. For 50 bucks a day they are a bargain. Who needs pushy black Rhode Islanders who want a minimum wage? Smiling, he heads out to his swanky club to meet other entrepreneurs like himself.

An Unhelpful Visitor From Out of State

It sounds like during the 4:00 hour, WPRO's Dan Yorke was trying to diffuse the visceral reaction that some of his listeners, myself included, had to the remarks made by the "minister" (quotes because no true minister would utter the remarks he made) from New Jersey by pointing out where the "minister" from New Jersey agrees with the Governor's Executive Order.

Thanks, I'm not interested at the moment, though I look forward to returning to such a harmonious spot soon.

The "minister", in studio during the 3:00 hour with a Rhode Island minister, Rep Palumbo and Senator Maselli, threw the following bombs, paraphrased except for quotes:

> He said that the basis of all anti-illegal immigration legislation is preservation of the "Anglo-Saxon" something-or-other - translation, it is purely racist.

> He made reference to "ethnic cleansing".

> And he said that his organization was prepared to "sue" over the Governor's Order and/or the Palumbo/Maselli bill.

Ah, but the third item perhaps is understandable. Given that the first two utterly baseless assertions drain any credibility from his words, litigation may be the only means by which the "minister" can be heard in this conversation.

Remembering that such false, vile accusations only confirm the validity of the Governor's Executive Order as well as bills such as those introducted by Palumbo, Maselli, Singleton and Brien will help me return to that more harmonious spot.

ADDENDUM

Podcast courtesy WPRO available here.

ADDENDUM II

Commenter Joe B (more specifically, Joe B quoting his clearly thoughtful wife) referred with dismay to prior remarks by the Director of DCYF, Patricia Martinez, about the Governor's Executive Order. Ms. Martinez has now apologized for those remarks.

“I apologize for any misperceptions my comments might have caused,” she said in a statement released after the meeting. “In particular, I did not mean to imply that the governor’s actions were spreading hatred.”

Her comments are appreciated. Prodded by the ProJo, however, she did go on to say that

... she disputed assertions made recently by the governor and his supporters that undocumented immigrants are a drain on Rhode Island’s resources.

“We need to have the right facts before we begin to point fingers at everyone,”

Another of the Governor's staff members said something similar Monday on the Helen Glover Show - that the number of undocumented immigrants must be definitively quantified before we take steps to deal with the issue.

There are two problems with this. First of all, it is not disputed that undocumented immigrants have a presence in our state. Secondly, taking this approach - counting their exact number or calculating the exact cost of this state of affairs before taking minimal measures to address it - is simply a holding action, tantamount to doing nothing.

This Means It's Working

Governor Carcieri's executive order is already proving to be a success:

Rhode Island's decision to order State Police and other state agencies to help enforce federal immigration law is jarring border cities in Massachusetts, where illegal immigrants say they are now afraid to enter the Ocean State.

If they're that reluctant to cross a state border (with habitual experience of the ease of travel from state to state), imagine how much less likely they'd be to make a beeline to our state across a national border. Those who've opposed attempts to control illegal immigration on the grounds that it is impossible ought to take note.

Don't They Bear Some Responsibility?

Commenter JP has it right: The Providence Phoenix profile of the Providence diocese's immigration point-woman Stella Carrera is yet another litmus test on the issue. Consider one of several stories from her clients:

One of the faces Carrera knows is that of Carla Rodriguez (not her real name), a 42-year-old Guatemalan native who has been in the US illegally since 1994. At that time, Rodriguez, her husband, and her five children flew to Mexico and walked across the border into California. Rodriguez was eight or nine months pregnant. A week later, she gave birth to her sixth child. The family flew to Providence to be with Rodriguez's brothers and sisters, who had moved here years earlier. Her husband worked as a locksmith, and her children began to attend public school. The family has lived in fear for 13 years. It makes them nervous even to be out in the streets. They are afraid they will be stopped and deported. They don't go out, except to go to church, to the grocery store, and occasionally to visit relatives. The children do not work, or go to parties. They come straight home after school.

Of course we're rightly sympathetic to the difficult position in which their immigration status places the children, but where's the admission of culpability from the parents? Do they ever feel a pang of responsibility for having brought six children into circumstances that require them to keep such a low profile? Clearly, they find it to be a more attractive option to support a family of eight on a maximum salary (as reported) of $18,200 in the American shadows than in the broad daylight of Guatemala, but where's the gratitude to the society that has picked up a tab that surely amounts to many times that?

Another woman left her son in El Salvador and sends him $50 a week from a $15,600 salary. While in Rhode Island, she married an illegal immigrant (who, tragically, was murdered by robbers subsequent to his deportation), with whom she had two more children. The woman appears to be in the country with refugee status, but it's notable that she hasn't bothered to learn the language of the country that is protecting her during her 12-year stay.

Bishop Thomas Tobin frequently cites Jesus' suggestion that helping strangers is tantamount to helping Him, but it's difficult to see the lesson as applying to such cases. How many working class Rhode Islanders must live that much closer to the edge — some certainly slipping off — to ensure that their state remains an international beacon to large families that take up residence for the duration of their children's education? There must be moral obligations on such families — to acclimate, to contribute, to appreciate, to minimize the burden — but I just don't think I've ever heard immigration advocates enunciate them.

A Letter to the Catholic Church From a Parishioner

Jason Martins, producer of WPRO's Matt Allen Show, put the following letter in the collection basket yesterday in lieu of an offering.

Dear Father,

I am writing this letter in response to the comments made by Bishop Tobin earlier this week following the Executive Order by Governor Carcieri focusing on illegal immigration.

As you have noticed by now, I have chosen not to include an offering this week. This is my small way of expressing my displeasure with the stance that Bishop Tobin has decided to take on the increasingly important issue of illegal immigration. While I understand that the Bishop's stance is based on faith and not politics, I am writing to you as an American citizen who is deeply concerned about the future of this great nation we've inherited.

Why would Bishop Tobin support illegal aliens and not the millions of Catholic Americans who are disgusted by what is happening to this country?

As an American citizen and taxpayer, I find it disturbing that I work 2 jobs, 6 days a week (Sunday is my day off, of course), I pay taxes, and then I see that tax money going to people who are not supposed to be in this country, while hard working Americans struggle just to get by. If they were able to keep their own money maybe they wouldn’t have to struggle so much.

To me, and most like-minded Americans, this is a clear-cut issue, and the argument for the illegal immigrant advocates holds no water. So when the local leader of my religion chooses to support people who have broken the law by entering this country without permission and who steal my tax money then send it back to their homeland, the line in the sand has been crossed.

Lt. Governor Elizabeth Roberts called the Governor's Executive Order "divisive." What is more divisive than local leaders appearing at press conferences and taking sides with people who break the law and steal from Americans? That may not have been the Bishops intention, but when you hold a press conference with illegal aliens, against the Governor, the perception will be that you have taken a side. Bishop Tobin can say that he agrees with the Governor but may not like the timing or the effect the Executive Order may have, but at least Governor Carcieri is taking action that Americans can rally behind.

My only hope is that Bishop Tobin and the Catholic Church can support Catholic Americans in our attempt to save the country that was created by Christians under the premise that "In God We Trust."

I use this small gesture of protest to ask Bishop Tobin and all religious leaders to encourage illegal immigrants to go home, come here the right way, and lawfully enjoy all the opportunity that this great country has to offer.

Joseph Bernstein: Racial Profiling vs. Real Profiling

The basic fallacy being promoted by Senator Juan Pichardo and the ACLU of Rhode Island is that "racial profiling" will result from the governor's initiative (PDF). Nothing could be further from the truth.

When I was an INS agent in Chicago, I spent a lot of time on the common carrier detail, which was basically identifying and arresting illegal aliens using various forms of public transportation. It was a volatile situation at best, but we were never seriously accused of violating the rights of any U.S. citizen or resident alien.

When we worked the domestic terminal at O'Hare checking the "smuggler's special" flights from the West and Southwest, we profiled behavior and other articulable facts rather than just racial appearance. Men wearing two pairs of pants was a dead giveaway (the old pair outside to preserve the newer pair while crossing the border). Dental work on younger people that hadn't been done in the United States in many years. Inability to speak English when casually approached. A group of young men together wearing nearly identical out-of-date platform shoes and double-knit leisure suits (provided by the higher-end smugglers). "Reading" an English language newspaper upside down. Need I go on?

In another venue, the mass transit facilities in the city of Chicago, we stopped a lot of non-Latinos — many East Indians, Caucasians, and Africans — based on dress, the neighborhood, and other factors. The point here is that we didn't just stop people of "Latino" appearance. If such individuals exited a plane or a bus acting and dressed like they knew where they were and what was going on around them, they didn't merit a second glance. Believe it or not, some aliens were still dirty with dust and grime from their crossing. But we did not interfere with people who were lawfully here.

In the case of the ACI, there are two means of identifying potential persons of interest: place of birth, which is a normal pedigree question upon arrest or commitment to facility, and criminal record based on fingerprints. If fingerprint history shows a previous incident of processing by the U.S. Border Patrol, INS Investigations Branch (no longer in existence), or ICE, that is sufficient to conduct an investigation regardless of claimed place of birth. As for the latter, the Board of Immigration Appeals has held that admission of birth abroad is a prima facie indication of alienage. There are many people born abroad who are U.S. citizens at birth or through naturalization. A brief inquiry is usually sufficient to determine this, although there are some individuals who falsely claim U.S. citizenship, a serious felony (18USC911).

Note that, in both instances, race and specific national origin are not the elements which initiate the investigation. So how does this constitute "racial profiling"? It would be applied to all foreign born individuals in the ACI.

I recall a major case we worked in Illinois in the early 1980s when I was assigned to the Chicago Anti-Smuggling unit (now called "human trafficking"). It involved Caucasian aliens from Kosovo. A state trooper who was an expert at detecting smuggling "loads" (he intercepted over 800 smuggled aliens in just one year on I-80) stopped an automobile for overloading. There were eight adult males. The driver was a U.S. citizen, but none of his passengers could speak a word of English and apparently had no idea where they were. The trooper detained the vehicle and its occupants and called INS. This initiated the largest non-Mexican smuggling investigation in the history of the Chicago District Office, resulting in the indictment of eleven individuals.

"Racial profiling" played no role in this case. The trooper and all the occupants of the vehicle were white. The trooper relied on his knowledge and experience to evaluate the situation based on behavior, circumstances, and language (or lack thereof). He applied the same standard he always used regardless of the racial makeup of the vehicle occupants.

What we used as parameters to initiate questioning involved mainly behavior, clothing, location, and occupation (e.g., cab drivers). Interestingly, we never questioned or arrested Latino cab drivers because it was almost unknown for illegal aliens of Latino background to drive cabs and, the Latino drivers we observed were generally assumed to be citizens/legal residents.

In general, law enforcement agencies other than ICE should not engage in proactive investigation of immigration status of individuals absent an underlying arrest/detention for violations within the jurisdiction of the agency involved. An exception would be when a felony is apparently being committed in the presence of the officers — such as a traffic stop of a van when it is observed that a large group of people is contained within and have apparently been using improvised toilet facilities, are in dirty conditions indicative of a long trip without a chance to wash up, have soiled clothing possibly as a result of a border crossing, don't speak English, all of which would indicate the crime of smuggling/transporting under 8USC1324. This is a serious felony with potential incarceration of up to five years per alien transported/smuggled .

The Rhode Island State Police are exemplary professionals, and I believe they will put their ICE training to work in conjunction with their own training and experience to perform duties relating to illegal aliens in a restrained and dignified way, based on solid facts and observations rather than whim.

Joseph Bernstein worked for the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (now ICE) for twenty years, including twelve years in the Providence area.

Absolut Aztlan?

So the makers of Absolut vodka are advertising in Mexico with the statement that, "In an Absolut World," the Southwestern United States would be the territory of our neighbors to the south. One might call it immanentizing the endgame.

Well, my choice of vodkas just became easier by the subtraction of one.

(More on Gateway Pundit.)

Immigration Disconnect

"Fear grips immigrant community in wake of Carcieri's executive order" screams the headline of a Rhode Island Catholic story that doesn't appear to be online. For all of the talk about divisiveness, I'd wager that there's a fundamental disconnect from side to side in reaction to such details as this:

The undocumented people who are targeted by Carcieri's order are often people whose families and even children are American citizens, according to [Stella Carrera, coordinator of Immigration and Refugee Services for the Diocese of Providence]. They often enter the country with legal visas to visit family, work temporarily or study and, once the visas expire, do not return to their native countries to await being awarded legal immigrant status from the U.S.

The waiting list for people to become citizens, even for those being sponsored by a family member, are often backlogged for nearly a decade, according to data provided by Carrera. Someone who wants to become an American citizen is forced to make a difficult decision: either be separated from their American families for years while awaiting legal status, or stay in the country illegally to work or raise a family and hope they can keep a low profile.

The conspicuous silence begins with the introduction of individual agency: Legal visitors, temporary workers, and students should be aware that their time here is limited. That's spelled out explicitly in the expired documents of the now-undocumented. Having to choose between a low, illegal profile, a period of separation, or the relocation of the whole family to another country while waiting for new documents (a never-mentioned option) was a wholly foreseeable possibility.

Keep an eye on that passive voice: "Someone who wants to become an American citizen is forced to make a difficult decision." Forced by whom? By a law of which that person was surely aware long ago, or by his or her own prior decisions and a native country that creates the incentive to flee, even if doing so means becoming a stationary fugitive?

If religious leaders truly wish to play a considered, unifying role in the heated immigration dispute, they ought to be at least as vocal in encouraging the immigrants and activists to do everything they can to prove their desire to ease into America on its own terms — as opposed to chanting about citizens' inability to defeat them.

The Roberts Paradox

Cynthia Needham reports in today's Projo on the beginning of Lieutenant Governor Elizabeth Roberts' statewide tour to promote her proposed new healthcare mandates…

Lt. Gov. Elizabeth Roberts last night kicked off a statewide tour in South Providence to promote her health-care plan, making the first of 15 stops…

Similar to the Massachusetts system, the Roberts plan would require nearly all Rhode Islanders to have health coverage. Businesses with more than 10 employees would be expected to purchase insurance for their workers, or face fines. Individuals making at least $40,840 and families making $82,600 would be asked to purchase their own health care. The plan would also create a HealthHub, a quasi-public agency to help coordinate purchasing and regulate plans…

Roberts made only brief mention of the immigration issue. “This week I’ve been discouraged with how we do things in this state. But I still have confidence we can work together,” she said, segueing back to the evening’s conversation.

With respect to the illegal immigration issue mentioned by Ms. Needham, Lieutenant Governor Roberts has adopted the position that it is out-of-bounds for the state of Rhode Island to verify the citizenship/legal residency status of its new hires, believing it either to be too big a job for the government to handle, or maybe just unreasonable to ask. Yet at the same time, according to her healthcare legislation, Lt. Governor Roberts also believes that state government is ready and able to take on the burden of verifying the health insurance coverage status of every Rhode Islander...

44-30-101. Qualified coverage required -- (c) Every person required to file an individual income tax return as a resident of the state of Rhode Island, either separately or jointly with a spouse, shall indicate on the return, in a manner prescribed by the tax administrator, whether such person, as of the last day for the taxable year for which the return is filed:
(i) has qualified coverage in force as required under subsection 44-30-101(a) whether covered as an individual or as a named beneficiary of a policy covering multiple individuals; or
(ii) claims an exemption under section 44-30-102.

(d) If a person required to obtain and maintain qualified coverage under subsection 44-30-101(a) above who files a tax return in Rhode Island does not indicate on the return that he or she had such coverage in force, or if the person indicates that he or she had such coverage in force but the tax administrator determines, based on the information available to him or her, that such requirement of subsection 44-30-101(a) was not met, then the tax administrator shall compute the tax for the taxable year based on one less personal exemption, as set forth in section 44-30-2.6, than would otherwise be allowed….

44-30-103. Review -- An individual subject to section 44-30-101 who disputes the determination of applicability, as enforced by the department of revenue, may seek a review of this determination through an appeal established by the division of taxation under section 44-30-89; provided, however, that no additional penalties shall be enforced against an individual seeking review until the review is complete and any subsequent appeals have been exhausted.

Tell me, which sounds like an easier job to do, verifying the health insurance status of every Rhode Islander every year, or verifying the citizenship status of new state employees, one time, at the time of hire? The contrast emphasizes an obvious reality, that enforcing immigration law is something that certain politicians don't want to do, not something they believe can't be done.

I suppose that you might reach the conclusion that government doesn't have the time or resources to take the steps to prevent foreign nationals from breaking the law, as Lt. Governor Roberts apparently has, if you subscribe to the idea that the most important function of government is managing as tightly as possible the lives of law-abiding, gainfully employed citizens and residents. Still, it is legitimate to ask the Lt. Governor why she believes that government is competent enough to track the health insurance coverage of 1,000,000 Rhode Island residents on a year-to-year basis, but unable to reasonably determine the citizenship status of new state hires one-time.

Or does she just believe that illegal aliens are entitled to state jobs?

Re: "Un pueblo unido no mas sera vencido!"

The report on yesterday's storming of Smith Hill reminds me of an observation that Rocco DiPippo made when we were covering the International Workers of the World anti-police rally in North Providence a few months ago -- the United States is one of the safest places in the world to hold a demonstration of any kind, because you can count on the police and public safety personnel here in the U.S. to act honorably and professionally. Rhode Island's Capitol police showed that again yesterday.

And yet the consistent message heard at Rhode Island illegal immigration demonstrations and rallies is that cops can't be trusted, so it's better not to enforce certain laws at all. Oh, the ingratitude!

Will it ever dawn on Rhode Island's illegal immigration activists that demanding that police and other public safety personnel ignore laws for political reasons asks them to act a little less professionally, and a little more like the police from the countries that people are desperate to escape from in mass numbers?

"Un pueblo unido no mas sera vencido!"

Whoa. Listen to the audio provided on the Providence Journal page to which Monique links in the previous post. The above quoted line — used to rally momentary resistance to police instructions — is sounding more and more like a threat than encouragement:

Outside the State House, [Providence City Councilman Miguel Luna] said, "When you have the top clergy in the state of Rhode Island and they can't get through to him [Governor Carcieri], this is the option left."

"Can't get through to him," because, you know, there is only one acceptable course of action, and they will demand that it be taken. Rather than set fear to work in shaken public officials, such attempts at intimidation ought strengthen resolve and hasten implementation of the governor's plans.

A Capitol Idea

Here's the plan.

Seventy five of us are going to charter a plane and fly to the capitols of half a dozen countries around the world. I'm thinking Lisbon, Santiago, Bern, Warsaw, Rome and London.

When we get to each city, we're going to "storm" the office of the policy director of the president or prime minister. We're going to hold signs, chant a broad, non-relevant but vaguely feel-good slogan (in English) and demand that that country not enforce its immigration laws or its borders.

At a minimum, we will get a distinctly non-hostile reception by the Mayor and Police Chief of each city and, of course, sympathetic coverage by the local media, which will treat our demands as eminently reasonable. Local civil liberty and advocacy groups will champion our cause as a basic human right (you know, the same as not being tortured or summarily executed) and social service agencies will offer us tax funded benefits, even entering a bypass number if necessary to get us into their systems.

Right?

A Novel Way of Referring to Rhode Island

At the news conference yesterday of Rhode Island clergy leaders where the Governor's Executive Order on illegal immigration was criticized with various levels of tact, the Reverend Donald C. Anderson, Executive Minister of the Rhode Island State Council of Churches, observed

In God's kingdom there are no second-class citizens, only sisters and brothers.

Rhode Island is lovely but cannot be confused for God's kingdom. Or perhaps he was not literally referring to Rhode Island?

Giving New Meaning to Universal Health Care

A caller to the Dan Yorke Show this afternoon did not quite connect the dots but juxtaposed Lieutenant Governor Elizabeth Roberts' position on universal health care (she favors it) with her call for the Governor to withdraw his Executive Order pertaining to illegal immigration.

The caller raised an interesting point. Putting together the Lieutenant Governor's positions, if the Governor's eminently reasonable, even minimal, Executive Order is rescinded and undocumented immigrants continue to arrive in the state, what will be the eventual cost of universal health care if it is implemented? And who will pick up that tab?

Hang in There, Gov

The curious thing is that they don't offer an "instead":

At least 250 people packed the Algonquin House on Broad Street for the 2 p.m. news conference, sponsored by Immigrants United, We Can Stop the Hate Rhode Island, Univocal Legislative Minority Advocacy and Hispanic Ministerial Association

Miguel Sanchez-Hartwein, executive director of the Center for Hispanic Policy and Advocacy (CHisPA), noted that a letter was hand-delivered to Carcieri this morning. The letter calls Carcieri's executive order "the biggest attack on the rights of immigrants in Rhode Island in at least a generation."

At several points, people chanted "Un Pueblo Unido Jamàs sera Vencido!" (A united people will never be defeated).

"A people united will never be defeated." What people? La Raza? And against whom are they marching — for what? And how would that united people address illegal immigration? The answer is that they would not, as the print edition version of the report goes on to illustrate:

Miguel Sanchez-Hartwein, executive director of the Center for Hispanic Policy and Advocacy and member of We Can Stop The Hate Rhode Island, said though Carcieri "makes it sound like illegal immigration here is out of control," illegal immigrants account for between "1.9 and 3.7 percent" of Rhode Island's immigrant population. U.S. Homeland Security and the Pew Hispanic Center estimate Rhode Island's illegal immigrant population at between 20,000 and 40,000 people, he said.

It takes the "nation of immigrants" truism too far to make 2–4% of Rhode Island's total population into only 1.9–3.7% of its immigrant population, but math aside, I wonder why the anxiety of legal immigrants' fellow citizens and fellow legal residents over illegal immigration isn't enough for them to begin "a constructive dialog" about working together to secure our borders and stop the inflow of illegals. As I've said, if legal residents are concerned about insufficient differentiation between them and the targeted subgroup, they ought to be working to expand the differences.

Or perhaps my suggestion misconstrues which people they mean to unite, and they worry that in following it they wouldn't be inconquerable.

The Immigration Executive Order II (And why Normal People Think Progressives are a Tad Strange)

The first 2 sections of Rhode Island Governor Donald Carcieri's executive order on immigration concern the use of an automated system called "E-Verify" for confirming whether new hires by state government and state government contractors are in the country legally…

1. The Department of Administration shall register and use the federal government’s E-Verify program to electronically verify the employment eligibility of new hires in the Executive Branch and the validity of their Social Security numbers to ensure that all employees of the Executive Branch are legally eligible to be employed in the United States and take appropriate action against those that are not eligible for employment, consistent with federal and state law. For purposes of this Order, the Executive Branch of government is considered to be all agencies and departments in the Executive Branch, excluding the offices of general officers, said officers being the Department of Attorney General, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, and General Treasurer.

2. The Department of Administration shall require that all persons and businesses, including grantees, contractors and their subcontractors and vendors doing business with the State of Rhode Island also register with and utilize the services of the E-Verify program to ensure compliance with federal and state law.

Even before the issuance of the Governor's order, a number of progressive legislators had filed a General Assembly resolution objecting to the use of E-Verify…

RESOLVED, That this House of Representatives of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations hereby urges employers not to participate in the E-Verify program at this time, and calls upon the United States Congress to halt implementation of this program until such time as the issues described in this resolution are satisfactorily resolved

However, don't let the objection to E-Verify let you think that Rhode Island's progressives are opposed to the government and corporations (gasp!) investigating their employees -- even after they've been hired. Also introduced in the legislature this session by a group of progressive legislators (and Bruce Long) was a bill to require all Rhode Island employers above a certain size to designate a "transportation coordinator", who would be required to collect commuting information on all company employees and report it back to the government…

23-83-5. Requirements for employers -- (a) Not more than six (6) months after the adoption of the commute trip reduction plan by the department, each major employer in the state of Rhode Island shall develop a commute trip reduction program and shall submit a description of that program to the department for review. The program shall be implemented not more than six (6) months after submission to the department.

(b) A commute trip reduction program shall consist of, at a minimum:
(1) designation of a transportation coordinator and the display of the name, location, and telephone number of the coordinator in a prominent manner at each affected worksite…
(3) an annual review of employee commuting and reporting of progress toward meeting the single occupant vehicle reduction goals to the department consistent with the method established in the commute trip reduction plan;

At least one progressive legislator, State Representative Arthur Handy, was a sponsor of both the E-Verify resolution and the commuting restriction bill! So at the same time that Rhode Island's progressive brain-trust is telling us that identifying whether new hires are in the country legally is beyond what can reasonably be accomplished right now, they are also telling us that government is ready and able to continuously collect information on and ultimately restrict the activities of a great number of Rhode Islanders who drive to work!

Do you see a bit of a contradiction here? It's a strange attitude towards government that these progressives have, that the main function of government is to tightly manage the activities of law-abiding citizens and residents, while ignoring law-breaking by foreign nationals.

The Immigration Executive Order II (And why Normal People Think Progressives are a Tad Strange)

The first 2 sections of Rhode Island Governor Donald Carcieri's executive order on immigration concern the use of an automated system called "E-Verify" for confirming whether new hires by state government and state government contractors are in the country legally…

1. The Department of Administration shall register and use the federal government’s E-Verify program to electronically verify the employment eligibility of new hires in the Executive Branch and the validity of their Social Security numbers to ensure that all employees of the Executive Branch are legally eligible to be employed in the United States and take appropriate action against those that are not eligible for employment, consistent with federal and state law. For purposes of this Order, the Executive Branch of government is considered to be all agencies and departments in the Executive Branch, excluding the offices of general officers, said officers being the Department of Attorney General, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, and General Treasurer.

2. The Department of Administration shall require that all persons and businesses, including grantees, contractors and their subcontractors and vendors doing business with the State of Rhode Island also register with and utilize the services of the E-Verify program to ensure compliance with federal and state law.

Even before the issuance of the Governor's order, a number of progressive legislators had filed a General Assembly resolution objecting to the use of E-Verify…

RESOLVED, That this House of Representatives of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations hereby urges employers not to participate in the E-Verify program at this time, and calls upon the United States Congress to halt implementation of this program until such time as the issues described in this resolution are satisfactorily resolved

However, don't let the objection to E-Verify let you think that Rhode Island's progressives are opposed to the government and corporations (gasp!) investigating their employees -- even after they've been hired. Also introduced in the legislature this session by a group of progressive legislators (and Bruce Long) was a bill to require all Rhode Island employers above a certain size to designate a "transportation coordinator", who would be required to collect commuting information on all company employees and report it back to the government…

23-83-5. Requirements for employers -- (a) Not more than six (6) months after the adoption of the commute trip reduction plan by the department, each major employer in the state of Rhode Island shall develop a commute trip reduction program and shall submit a description of that program to the department for review. The program shall be implemented not more than six (6) months after submission to the department.

(b) A commute trip reduction program shall consist of, at a minimum:
(1) designation of a transportation coordinator and the display of the name, location, and telephone number of the coordinator in a prominent manner at each affected worksite…
(3) an annual review of employee commuting and reporting of progress toward meeting the single occupant vehicle reduction goals to the department consistent with the method established in the commute trip reduction plan;

At least one progressive legislator, State Representative Arthur Handy, was a sponsor of both the E-Verify resolution and the commuting restriction bill! So at the same time that Rhode Island's progressive brain-trust is telling us that identifying whether new hires are in the country legally is beyond what can reasonably be accomplished right now, they are also telling us that government is ready and able to continuously collect information on and ultimately restrict the activities of a great number of Rhode Islanders who drive to work!

Do you see a bit of a contradiction here? It's a strange attitude towards government that these progressives have, that the main function of government is to tightly manage the activities of law-abiding citizens and residents, while ignoring law-breaking by foreign nationals.