Amnesty Pushers Concoct Six Straw Men

Human Events ^ | 05/06/2009 | Rep. Lamar Smith

[Delacon]

It’s an old device in politics: Set up a straw man to criticize when you can’t win an argument on your own. Such tactics, unfortunately, are standard fare when it comes to efforts by a handful of special interest groups to bring about amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Organizations such as the National Council of La Raza, the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) and the Migration Policy Institute know that most Americans disagree with their desire for amnesty. Most Americans want to see immigration laws enforced. So these groups create straw men. They use them as diversionary tactics to criticize the way in which immigration laws are enforced without ever admitting to their true amnesty goals.

Who are these Straw Men? Let’s take a look:

1. The Civil Rights Abuses Straw Man

One of the most popular with the amnesty movement is the Civil Rights Abuses Straw Man. He is the one on whom the open-borders crowd call when they want to undercut successful efforts of state and local police and sheriffs to enforce immigration laws through a federal program known as 287(g).

The 287(g) program was created in the “Illegal Immigration Control and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.” It allows states or localities to enter into an agreement with the federal government to assist in the investigation, apprehension and detention of illegal aliens. It is purely voluntary on behalf of local law enforcement officials.

But the Civil Rights Abuses Straw Man suggests that allowing state and local law enforcement officers to enforce immigration laws increases the risk of racial profiling and leads to civil rights violations.

This claim, however, fails on several fronts:

First, 287(g) is authority given to police and sheriffs, sworn to uphold our laws. Those officers regularly interact with the public to enforce a huge range of criminal statutes -- day in and day out. It is absurd to suggest that granting additional authorities to police officers and sheriffs’ deputies will somehow cause them to take leave of their senses and start violating people’s civil rights.

Moreover, as the Supreme Court made clear in the 1996 case of Bush v. Vera, mere “racial disproportions in the level of [law enforcement activity] for a particular crime may be unobjectionable if they merely reflect racial disproportions in the commission of that crime.” In other words, the fact that many illegal immigrants fall into specific racial categories, and arrests of illegal immigrants reflect those categories, does not mean that civil rights violations have occurred.

2. The Strained Resources Straw Man

A close friend of the Civil Rights Abuses Straw Man, the Strained Resources Straw Man is also often called upon to undercut 287(g). This one suggests that police and sheriffs shouldn’t be given 287(g) authority because enforcing immigration laws will strain their ability to carry out other law enforcement functions.

But 287(g) is entirely voluntary.

The reality is that the annual number of jurisdictions that choose to voluntarily participate in 287(g) has risen dramatically -- from one in 2002 to 67 currently -- and DHS cannot keep up with the increased demand. In fiscal 2007, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which administers the program, received 69 new applications, the vast majority of which had to be rejected because of limited funding.

Does the Strained Resources Straw Man really believe that if police chiefs and sheriffs thought that 287(g) authority would detract from their other public safety responsibilities, they would ask for it anyway?

3. The Serious Criminals Straw Man

Another of the men of the amnesty movement is the Serious Criminals Straw Man. He rightly recognizes that some illegal immigrants commit heinous crimes, and that they pose serious threats to public safety in American communities.

But the suggested response is flawed.

The Serious Criminals Straw Man wants ICE to focus on finding and deporting serious criminal aliens only after they have committed their crimes and to the exclusion of other immigration enforcement. He suggests that federal agents should not arrest illegal immigrants for a whole array of crimes like identity theft, Social Security fraud, vandalism, public intoxication and even driving under the influence. His argument is that these “minor” offenses should be ignored.

A better approach is to comprehensively identify and work to deport illegal immigrants for their violations of immigration law, rather than waiting to identify them until after they have committed a more “serious” crime.

4. The Family Separation Straw Man

One of the newest men in the amnesty movement is the Family Separation Straw Man. He’s traveling around the country with amnesty advocates on a so-called “Family Unity Tour.” His goal is to focus on what happens to families when immigration laws are enforced.

This man acts as if the only option for illegal immigrant parents who are caught breaking the law is separation from their children. But he forgets that children can travel to their parents’ home countries with them. And the federal government may even cover the cost if the family cannot afford it.

In most cases, the children will be welcomed abroad as citizens of their parents’ home countries -- so they won’t be “stateless” as Family Separation Straw Man suggests. In fact, the 10 countries that are estimated to have sent the most illegal immigrants to the U.S. are Brazil, China, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Mexico, the Philippines and South Korea. In all of these countries except China, the country’s law is clear that children born in the U.S. who have at least one parent who was a citizen of their country (and born in the country) are either automatically citizens of the country or can easily seek citizenship. In China, the law is unclear, but the practice of the Chinese embassy is to allow children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrant Chinese parents to return to China as Chinese nationals.

The Family Separation Straw Man also fails to account for the number of illegal immigrants who come to the U.S. alone, leaving family behind in their native countries. These individuals knowingly broke our laws and entered our country illegally. They need to take responsibility for their actions.

5. The Detention Straw Man

As the American public and Congress increasingly pushed the Bush Administration to enforce the immigration laws on the books, the need to increase the capacity of immigration detention facilities became clear.

At the time, there were an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the country, including more than 600,000 who had already been ordered deported but stayed in the U.S. instead of going home. There were many thousands more who were arrested by the Border Patrol or ICE, but never even showed up for their day in court.

Catching and releasing these individuals clearly wasn’t working. In the old days, the Justice Department’s inspector general found that only 13% of non-detained aliens with final removal orders were returned home. What’s worse, only 6% of non-detained aliens from countries designated as state sponsors of terrorism who had final removal orders were deported.

But ICE had the capacity to hold only about 17,000 detained aliens. The bipartisan Congress worked with President Bush to roughly double that number.

The Detention Straw Man, however, doesn’t like detention because it is effective: It ensures that those ordered deported actually leave.

His solution is to use so-called “alternatives to detention” such as electronic monitoring or telephone reporting. He forgets, however, that these programs do not work in most cases. Even under ICE’s intensive monitoring program, one third of the “supervised” aliens who are ordered deported ignore their deportation orders.

The Detention Straw Man also suggests that detained illegal immigrants should have more rights, including the right to comprehensive medical and dental care and an array of comforts. While he is correct that basic medical screening should be provided to individuals, he overlooks the fact that most illegal immigrants are in ICE custody for just 31 days and therefore do not require that level of care. More important, in many cases, illegal immigrants remain in custody only while they continue to fight their deportation cases in U.S. courts. They could in fact go home at any time if they chose to.

At the core of the Detention Straw Man’s philosophy is the erroneous proposition that individuals who broke our laws to come here illegally in the first place will automatically comply with our laws after they are caught and ordered to leave.

6. The Flawed Verification System Straw Man

The final straw man is the Flawed Verification System Straw Man. Although he doesn’t insert himself into many of the day-to-day debates about immigration enforcement, he works quietly to be sure that individuals who illegally enter the U.S. can continue to find jobs when they arrive.

His presence among the Straw Men of the Amnesty Movement is particularly troublesome now: Currently, nearly 13 million citizens and legal immigrants are looking for jobs. Almost eight million illegal immigrants hold them.

The Flawed Verification System Straw Man consistently claims that he understands the link between illegal immigration and the ability of illegal immigrants to gain employment, yet he opposes efforts to help employers comply with the law.

Notably, he claims that E-Verify, the federal government’s system that enables companies to hire legal workers, is fatally flawed. He forgets that there are currently more than 115,000 companies that voluntarily use the E-Verify system. And he fails to recognize that it immediately confirms 99.6% of work-eligible employees, the kind of success rate that any company would be happy to have.

Those who use the straw men politically never admit knowing them. If they did, the truth might come out: These straw men exist to divert attention from their true goal: amnesty for all illegal aliens.

Mr. Smith represents the 21st District of Texas. He is the former chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims.

[wolfcreek]

Are you sure about that?

Sorry, I'm NOT taking credit for illegals coming into this country. Nor will I be connected with an illegitimate government.

I have my own business and COULD hire plenty of illegals. I DON'T.

[Delacon]

If you are saying that we should be pointing the finger a businesses and indiviguals that hire illegals, then I think you are preaching to the choir here for most of the people who are for stricter boarder control and enforcement of our immigration laws. The biggest dissenters are the libertarian anti E-verify crowd on FR.

[freekitty]

Thanks for the ping. This is one of the most informative I have read.

[wolfcreek]

“Americans are the ones handing out the money....”

I'll admit American consumers are in the dark when it comes to knowing where, how and by whom their products and produce come from but, I'm an not going to take a fall for unscrupulous employers.

[wolfcreek]

“Americans are the ones handing out the money....”

Add this to the Straw man argument list.

Maybe Obama will apologize for it.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Landru]

An army of strawmen fall before the law.

Enforce the law, as written, and strawmen by the score fall before the eyes.

We need no strawmen, we merely need to insist the existing law(s) be enforced; and, if they're not?
Those we pay who're responsible for enforcing the laws are held strictly accountable. [read: They're terminated and another's found who can *&* will do the job.]

[AuntB]

Following is an article sent by NAFBPO this morning. It is a MUST read!

President of Costa Rica: United States not to blame for past, present or future ills confronting Latin America

Posted: 08 May 2009

La Prensa (Managua, Nicaragua) 5/7/09

(Full translation of speech by Oscar Arias, President of Costa Rica, at the Summit of the Americas meeting in Trinidad & Tobago on April 18, 2009)

“I have the impression that every time Caribbean and Latin American countries get together with the president of the United States of America it is to ask for things or to demand something. Almost always it’s to blame the United States for our past, present and future ills. I don’t believe that is at all just. We cannot forget that Latin America had universities before the United States created Harvard and William & Mary, which are the first universities of that country. We cannot forget that in this continent, as in the whole world, at least until 1750 all Americans were more or less the same: all were poor.

When the industrial revolution came about in England, other countries hopped on that wagon: Germany, France, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand…… and thus the Industrial Revolution passed over Latin America like a comet, and we didn’t realize it. Certainly, we lost the opportunity.

There’s also a very big difference. Reading the history of Latin America, compared with the history of the United States, one realizes that Latin America did not have a Spaniard John Winthrop, nor a Portuguese who might have come with a bible in hand, ready to build “a City on a Hill”, a city that would shine, as was the wish of the pilgrims who arrived in the United States.

Fifty years ago, Mexico was richer than Portugal. In 1950, a country such as Brazil had a higher per capita income than that of South Korea. Sixty years ago, Honduras had more riches per capita than Singapore, and today Singapore – in something like 35 or 40 years – is a country with $40,000 annual income per person. Well, we Latin Americans did something wrong.

What did we do wrong? I cannot list all the things we did wrong. To start, we have a seven-year schooling. That is the average length of schooling in Latin America and it’s not the case with the majority of Asian countries. It’s certainly not the case in countries such as the United States and Canada, with the best education in the world, similar to the Europeans’. For every 10 students who enter high school in Latin America, in some countries only one finishes. There are countries with an infant mortality of 50 children per thousand, when in the more advanced countries it is 8, 9 or 10. We have countries where the tax load is 12 percent of the gross national product, and it’s no one’s responsibility, except our own, that we don’t tax the richest people of our countries. No one is to blame for that, except we ourselves.

In 1950 each American citizen was four times richer than a Latin American citizen. Today, an American citizen is 10, 15 or 20 times richer than a Latin American. That is not the fault of the United States, it’s our fault.

The value system of the 20th century, which seems to be the one we are putting into practice in the 21st century, is a wrong value system. Because it cannot be that the rich world devotes 100 billion dollars to alleviate the poverty of 80 percent of the world’s population – in a planet that has 2.5 billion human beings with a $2 a day income – and that it spends 13 times more ($1,300,000,000,000) in weapons and soldiers.

It’s incredible that Latin America spends $50 billion in weapons and soldiers. I ask myself: who is our enemy? Our enemy, of that inequality which President Correa (of Ecuador) points out very correctly, is the lack of education; it is illiteracy; it’s that we don’t spend on the health of our people; that we don’t create the necessary infrastructure, the roads, the highways, the ports, the airports; it’s that we are not dedicating the necessary resources to stop the deterioration of the environment; it’s the lack of equality which we have, which really makes us ashamed; it is a product, among many things, of course, of the fact that we are not educating our sons and our daughters.

One goes to a Latin American university and it still seems we are in the sixties, seventies or eighties. It seems we forgot that something very important happened on November 9, 1989, when the Berlin Wall fell, and that the world changed. We have to accept that this is a different world, and about this I honestly believe that all thinking persons, all the economists, all the historians, almost agree that the 21st century is the century of the Asians, not of the Latin Americans. And I, unfortunately, agree with them. Because while we keep arguing about the “isms” (which is better? capitalism, socialism, communism, liberalism, neo-liberalism, social-christianism…) the Asians found a very realistic “ism” for the 21st and for the end of the 20th century, which is pragmatism. Just to mention an example, let us remember that when Deng Xiaoping visited Singapore and South Korea, after having realized that his own neighbors were quickly becoming richer, he returned to Peking and told the old comrades who had accompanied him on the Long March: “Well, the truth is, dear comrades, that I don’t care whether the cat is black or white, the only thing that matters to me is that it catch mice”. And if Mao would have been alive he would have died again when he said that “the truth is that becoming rich is glorious”. And while the Chinese do this, and from 79 until today they grow at some 11, 12 or 13 percent, and they have taken some 300 million out of poverty, we keep on arguing about ideologies which we should have buried a long time ago.

The good news is that Deng Xiaoping achieved this when he was 74 years old. Looking around, I don’t see (among the presidents who participated in the Summit) anyone who is close to 74 years of age. That’s why I ask you not to reach that age in order to make the changes which we have to make.”

http://m3report.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/president-of-costa-rica-united-states-not-to-blame-for-past-present-or-future-ills-confronting-latin-america/

[Kimberly GG]

Worn out "straw man" used by OBL Rhino's ... "we can't round up 12 million and deport them ALL" [as if anyone is suggesting it, but then they avoid discussing attrition through enforcement!]

Perhaps not a "straw man", but my favorite red flag is the one used by Fred Thompson, who opposes "blanket" amnesty and Sarah Palin who opposes "total" amnesty. How many WILL get amnesty????

I'll get the usual STFU's from the Palin fans, but this is the EXACT type of RED FLAG conversation to watch out for:

UNIVISION: Governor, let me ask you about immigration. How many undocumented immigrants are there in Alaska?

PALIN: I don't know, I don't know. That's a good question.

UNIVISION: As governor, how do you deal with them? Do you think they all should be deported?

PALIN: There is no way that in the US we would roundup every illegal immigrant -there are about 12 million of the illegal immigrants- not only economically is that just an impossibility but that's not a humane way anyway to deal with the issue that we face with illegal immigration.

UNIVISION: Do you then favor an amnesty for the 12 or 13 million undocumented immigrants?

PALIN: No, I do not. I do not. Not total amnesty. You know, people have got to follow the rules. They've got to follow the bar, and we have got to make sure that there is equal opportunity and those who are here legally should be first in line for services being provided and those opportunities that this great country provides.

UNIVISION: To clarify, so you support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants?

PALIN: I do, because I understand why people would want to be in America. To seek the safety and prosperity, the opportunities, the health that is here. It is so important that yes, people follow the rules so that people can be treated equally and fairly in this country.

[AuntB]

It’s time Palin clarifies her position on Amnesty/illegal aliens. If she’s another open border Rino, we need to know it now.

A must read!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2247614/posts?page=26#26

[algernonpj]

“We are bringing in over 120,000 LEGAL FOREIGN WORKERS A MONTH right now in the middle of the highest unemployment rates in a quarter of a century.”

.
Actually more like 138,000 ...
http://www.numbersusa.com/content/nusablog/beckr/december-5-2008/533000-jobs-lost-nov-but-feds-imported-another-140000-foreign-workers

No doubt doing work Americans can’t/won’t do. /sarc

[algernonpj]

Thanks for the info on Palin.

[kabar]

It is not a matter of taking credit. One problem is that we are not enforcing the existing laws. Why not?

[kabar]

I spoke to one of Palin’s big supporters at CPAC. I told him that Palin must move away from the McCain position on amnesty. If she doesn’t, then she will be finished as far as most conservatives are concerned. He agreed and said he was trying to arrange a trip for her to the border for a briefing.

[kabar]

I am aware of the NumbersUSA figures. Rosemary Jenks addressed our group a couple of months ago. I am using the more conservative numbers from CIS that were developed from the FY-2008 numbers, i.e., 1.45 million. Trends in Immigrant and Native Employment

[wolfcreek]

“Why not?”

1. Our elected representatives have forsaken us. They are mostly all the same and are loyal to outside powers.

2. IMO, no use enforcing immigration laws when amnesty is right around the corner.

3. IMO, no use enforcing border security when eventually they’ll be none.

4. Time to take our country back before 2 and 3 happen!

[HiJinx]

Ping!

[rodguy911]

Excellent thread, 287G is the answer as well. The Feds don't have and never will have the manpower or desire to tackle the illegal problem which is more like 38 million than the purported 12-20 million that the DBM has successful fed into their brainwashing machine that feeds the left over and over.

[Onelifetogive]

Now the constitution grants children citizenship when born here...

No, judges do. The Constitution granted citizenship to former slaves born in the US.

People born here AND subject to the laws. It does not include visitors, foreign embassy staff, etc. It should not include children born here to people here illegally (i.e. Not subject to our immigration laws.)

[Delacon]

Great post AuntB.