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.

[r9etb]

You, otoh, seem to want to blame everyone in this country for their presence.

LOL! Ironic that you should post that in a thread about strawmen.

[wolfcreek]

I do my best to avoid using companies or products I KNOW are employing illegals.

How ‘bout you?

[wolfcreek]

What would you think about telling every employer, you have a set amount of time to rid yourselves of illegal employees or face prison time/fines, if caught? (they know who they are.

Tell every illegal in this country, you have a set amount of time to put your affairs in order and leave or face prison time/fines and permenant deportation, if caught. (back of the line, Ese)

What would you say to that proposal? (assuming we had complete control of the border)

[r9etb]

I do my best to avoid using companies or products I KNOW are employing illegals.

Do you grow your own food?

[wolfcreek]

As much as possible. We hunt for most of our meat and have several gardens. We get a lot of our other produce from MEXICO. (due to where we shop and our proximity)

Now, please answer my questions?

[r9etb]

What would you say to that proposal? (assuming we had complete control of the border)

Honestly? I think it's far too simplistic.

There is are underlying economic reason for the illegals coming north, and for Americans hiring them. You can't properly address the problem of illegal immigration if you ignore those reasons:

* Americans cost a lot to employ; not just money, but also benefits. Not to mention all of the Social security, medicare, and other unavoidable overhead.

* Americans -- as a rule -- have no incentive to perform the sorts of difficult manual labor jobs often taken by illegals. They can take less difficult minimum wage jobs, or go on welfare, and get better money doing so.

When you look at it from that angle, the problem doesn't actually look the same.

There are also some significant political issues in play -- all those benefits had to be assigned by some elected body.

The real question is: specifically what is the problem with somebody being an "illegal immigrant?"

Is it simply that it's "not legal?" If so, amnesty would address that problem admirably.

Or is it something else? If so, what?

[wolfcreek]

“* Americans cost a lot to employ; not just money, but also benefits. Not to mention all of the Social security, medicare, and other unavoidable overhead.”

My Wife works for a large multi-national. She was laid off and hired back as a contract worker with no bennies.

* Americans — as a rule — have no incentive to perform the sorts of difficult manual labor jobs often taken by illegals. They can take less difficult minimum wage jobs, or go on welfare, and get better money doing so.

Many of my friends and I have work in those *manual labor jobs* so, that doesn't fly either.

“The real question is: specifically what is the problem with somebody being an “illegal immigrant?”

Gee, we have laws here in Texas for trespassing and stealing cattle. We shot you because what you're doing is ILLEGAL. (and I and others listed the extent of criminal activity attributed to illegal immigrants along with the other social expenses)

[CPT Clay]

ping

[r9etb]

You're still dodging the questions.

My Wife works for a large multi-national. She was laid off and hired back as a contract worker with no bennies.

1. Which is actually confirmation of my point, which is that Americans, as a rule, cost more to hire than illegals do. It's an incentive for Americans to hire illegals, who are essentially "in-sourced" labor, similar to the outsourced labor against which your wife is competing. How, in general, would you address that discrepancy in the price of employment?

Many of my friends and I have work in those *manual labor jobs* so, that doesn't fly either.

2. Well, good for you and your friends. Did you have to compete with lots of Americans for those jobs? In other words, are you the exception, or the rule? I think you know the answer to that.

Gee, we have laws here in Texas for trespassing and stealing cattle. We shot you because what you're doing is ILLEGAL. (and I and others listed the extent of criminal activity attributed to illegal immigrants along with the other social expenses)

3. Again, you did not answer the question. If we made them legal tomorrow, you would almost certainly complain. But why?

A very large percentage of illegals come up here to work, and they do work -- they're not on welfare or committing crimes. So I ask: for that kind of person why -- specifically -- should it be illegal to come here to work without having filled out the the proper paperwork? It's a cop-out to say "because it's illegal."

[wolfcreek]

A large number of illegals do come here JUST to commit crimes and seek welfare. I give you the large number of Hispanic gangs (such as MS-13 and the Mexican Mafia) and the millions of anchor-baby moms. (one hospital in Dallas alone delivered 11,200 anchor babies in 1 year)

Aside from all that (which you've most likely heard/seen before) I'm Irish. My ancestor came from a continent, where we were basically slaves and came here through Ellis Island, LEGALLY.

BTW: if you were sick when you got off the boat, you were sent back. If you're even remotely trying to insinuate I'm racist...... We are a land of laws.

[wolfcreek]

“2. Well, good for you and your friends. Did you have to compete with lots of Americans for those jobs? In other words, are you the exception, or the rule? I think you know the answer to that.”

You come off as a snobbish elitist who never done a hard days work in his life. Do you realize that? You are the one with the minority opinion on illegals. (very easy to pick off)

[wolfcreek]

20% of 50 million on welfare. (Their numbers)

http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters7fd8

[r9etb]

I'm Irish. My ancestor came from a continent, where we were basically slaves and came here through Ellis Island, LEGALLY.

Your history is askew. For example, serious immigration legislation was put in place many years after the bulk of Irish immigration had taken place. If memory serves, those laws started being put in place no earlier than ~1870 or so.

The idea of "illegal immigration" is therefore relatively recent. In earlier days, the distinction was apparently ethnic in some contexts, or citizen vs. non-citizen in others.

There were certainly cultural concerns back then -- the "Know-nothings," for example, were driven by fears about the immigration of Irish and German Catholics, and the supposed papal control they would bring with them.

There was also a rather familiar concern about the low-cost labor that such immigrants provided, to the detriment of Americans..... (Interestingly, this concern played in also to the abolition debate: the Irish demographich was somewhat opposed to abolition, on the grounds that free slaves would undercut their employment possibilities....)

I suspect that the same sort of cultural unease informs much of the concern about current immigration, as well. It's a valid concern -- but it's rarely admitted, probably for fear of being branded a bigot.

[r9etb]

You come off as a snobbish elitist who never done a hard days work in his life. Do you realize that?

You come off as one who doesn't want to answer the question because he knows that the answer isn't in line with what he's been saying.

And, fwiw, I've had my share of hard days' work in my past.

You are the one with the minority opinion on illegals. (very easy to pick off)

You don't even know my opinion on illegals -- all you might infer from my posts is that I think your opinion is simplistic and ill-considered.

[wolfcreek]

“You don’t even know my opinion on illegals”

When you start saying, “What’s wrong with being illegal” it’s not hard to figure.

If you feel differently, you need to spell it out.

[wolfcreek]

That doesn't take away from the fact my people came here legally. (although I will admit there are 100s of thousands to illegal Irishman here today , much to my chagrin)

I'll repeat this in case you weren't listening.

We are a land of laws. Without law, there is chaos. Here's one from Texas: When is a landowner allowed to shoot at a trespasser? "According to Section 9.42 of the Texas Penal Code, a landowner can shoot at or use other deadly force against a trespasser if the landowner reasonably believes the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means, or that the landowner himself would be exposed to substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury if the landowner does not use deadly force. A landowner can also shoot at or use other deadly force against a trespasser if the force is immediately necessary to prevent the trespasser's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or to prevent the trespasser who is fleeing immediately after committing one of those acts from escaping with the property. "Criminal mischief" includes "knowingly or intentionally damaging or destroying, tampering with or marking, inscribing slogans, drawing or painting on tangible property " of the property owner. Using potentially dangerous measures to protect your property is not recommended in all cases, as it can expose a property owner to possible physical harm and also criminal prosecution if too much force is used. However, property owners should be aware of, and exercise, their right to protect their property under the proper circumstances."

[antisocial]

“REQUEST: I’d appreciate a ping to good resources to help educate/inform the general, apathetic public on exactly how illegal immigration hurts them, their career opportunities and their children’s future. Looking for short, concise articles, good graphics etc....thanks in advance.”

Grassfire.org and Numbersusa.com are great resources.

[r9etb]

When you start saying, “What’s wrong with being illegal” it’s not hard to figure.

You figure incorrectly.

The reason I asked the question is because a lot of people can't give a good answer to it... or won't, for whatever reason.

You're not giving much of an answer, yourself.

[r9etb]

How very nice that you're spouting laws against trespassing. It's not the same topic, of course, but you apparently cannot be bothered to understand the difference.

Unless, perhaps, you're planning on shooting illegals for "trespassing?"

[wolfcreek]

What would you like people to say? That it’s OK to ignore the laws of our country?

Where do you think that would lead?