Tuesday, July 20, 2010

OBAMA'S FAILED AMNESTY is really AMNESTY AS WE KNOW IT ALREADY! bit by bit by bit by bit

OBAMA REALLY DOES NOT NEED AMNESTY, HE IS CONTENT WITH THE CURRENT SYSTEM OF LA RAZA DEMS'S AMNESTY, WHICH IS NO ENFORCEMENT OF EXISTING LAWS PROHIBITING THE EMPLOYMENT OF ILLEGALS, NO WALL - THAT'S STOPPED ALREADY, NO I.C.E. ENFORCEMENT, NO I.D. FOR ILLEGALS TO VOTE, NO ENGLISH ONLY, ILLEGALS LOATHE THE GRINGON LANGUAGE, AND CELEBRATING CINCO de MAYO IN THE WHITE HOUSE, WHILE KISSING THE NARCOMEX PRESIDENT'S ASS IN OUR FACE!

THAT IS OBAMA!

The Administration's Phantom Immigration Enforcement Policy
According to DHS’s own reports, very little of our nation’s borders (Southwestern or otherwise) are secure, and gaining control is not even a goal of the department.

By Ira Mehlman

Published on 12/07/2009

Townhall.com

The setting was not quite the flight deck of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln with a “Mission Accomplished” banner as the backdrop, but it was the next best thing. Speaking at the Center for American Progress (CAP) on Nov. 13, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano declared victory over illegal immigration and announced that the Obama administration is ready to move forward with a mass amnesty for the millions of illegal aliens already living in the United States.
Arguing the Obama administration’s case for amnesty, Napolitano laid out what she described as the “three-legged stool” for immigration reform. As the administration views it, immigration reform must include “a commitment to serious and effective enforcement, improved legal flows for families and workers, and a firm but fair way to deal with those who are already here.”
Acknowledging that a lack of confidence in the government’s ability and commitment to effectively enforce the immigration laws it passes proved to be the Waterloo of previous efforts to gain amnesty for illegal aliens, Napolitano was quick to reassure the American public that those concerns could be put to rest.
“For starters, the security of the Southwest border has been transformed from where it was in 2007,” stated the secretary. Not only is the border locked up tight, she continued, but the situation is well in-hand in the interior of the country as well. “We’ve also shown that the government is serious and strategic in its approach to enforcement by making changes in how we enforce the law in the interior of the country and at worksites…Furthermore, we’ve transformed worksite enforcement to truly address the demand side of illegal immigration.”
If Rep. Joe Wilson had been in attendance to hear Secretary Napolitano’s CAP speech he might well have had a few choice comments to offer. But since he wasn’t, we will have to rely on the Department of Homeland Security’s own data to assess the veracity of Napolitano’s claims.
According to DHS’s own reports, very little of our nation’s borders (Southwestern or otherwise) are secure, and gaining control is not even a goal of the department. DHS claims to have “effective control” over just 894 miles of border. That’s 894 out of 8,607 miles they are charged with protecting. As for the other 7,713 miles? DHS’s stated border security goal for FY 2010 is the same 894 miles.
The administration’s strategic approach to interior and worksite enforcement is just as chimerical as its strategy at the border, unless one considers shuffling paper to be a strategy. DHS data, released November 18, show that administrative arrests of immigration law violators fell by 68 percent between 2008 and 2009. The department also carried out 60 percent fewer arrests for criminal violations of immigration laws, 58 percent fewer criminal indictments, and won 63 percent fewer convictions.
While the official unemployment rate has climbed from 7.6 percent when President Obama took office in January to 10 percent today, the administration’s worksite enforcement strategy has amounted to a bureaucratic game of musical chairs. The administration has all but ended worksite enforcement actions and replaced them with paperwork audits. When the audits determine that illegal aliens are on the payroll, employers are given the opportunity to fire them with little or no adverse consequence to the company, while no action is taken to remove the illegal workers from the country. The illegal workers simply acquire a new set of fraudulent documents and move on to the next employer seeking workers willing to accept substandard wages.
In Janet Napolitano’s alternative reality a mere 10 percent of our borders under “effective control” and sharp declines in arrests and prosecutions of immigration lawbreakers may be construed as confidence builders, but it is hard to imagine that the American public is going to see it that way. If anything, the administration’s record has left the public less confident that promises of future immigration enforcement would be worth the government paper they’re printed on.
As Americans scrutinize the administration’s plans to overhaul immigration policy, they are likely to find little in the “three-legged stool” being offered that they like or trust. The first leg – enforcement – the administration has all but sawed off. The second – increased admissions of extended family members and workers – makes little sense with some 25 million Americans either unemployed or relegated to part-time work. And the third – amnesty for millions of illegal aliens – is anathema to their sense of justice and fair play.
As Americans well know, declaring “Mission Accomplished” and actually accomplishing a mission are two completely different things. When it comes to enforcing immigration laws, the only message the public is receiving from this administration is “Mission Aborted.”
*
MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com
*
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Monday, September 28, 2009

And T.J. BONNER, president of the National Border Patrol Council, will weigh in on the federal government’s decision to pull nearly 400 agents from the U.S.-Mexican border. As always, Lou will take your calls to discuss the issues that matter most-and to get your thoughts on where America is headed.

*
Republican immigration position likely to alienate Latinos, Obama officials say

By Michael D. Shear
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 20, 2010; A01



President Obama and his political aides privately acknowledge that the government's decision to sue Arizona over its new immigration law is helping to fuel an anti-immigration fervor that could benefit some Republicans in elections this fall.

But White House officials have concluded that, over the long term, the Republicans' get-tough message is a major political miscalculation. They predict it will ultimately alienate millions of Latinos, the fastest-growing minority group in the nation.

West Wing strategists argue that the president's call for legislation that acknowledges the role of immigrants and goes beyond punishing undocumented workers will help cement a permanent political relationship between Democrats and Hispanics -- much as civil rights and voting rights legislation did for the party and African Americans in the 1960s.

As a result, although the president is unlikely to press for comprehensive immigration reform this year, he has urged his allies to keep up the pressure on Republican lawmakers.

"Look: The Republicans, if you do the math, cannot be successful as a national party if they continue to alienate Latinos," said one Democratic strategist familiar with White House thinking on the issue.

Another top Democrat who has advised the administration on immigration added: "If the Republicans continue on the same course they are on, the politics of immigration are potentially devastating to their party."

Both spoke on the condition of anonymity to be candid about White House strategy.

Last month, Obama invited a small group of influential Latino activists to the White House and reassured them that he is committed to reform. But to succeed, he said, they had to stop their public complaining about how slowly he was moving and instead direct their fire at Republicans.

The activists came away from their presidential audience still convinced that he could be doing more to push the issue. But their discussion with Obama -- and a lengthier one with adviser Valerie Jarrett after he left the room -- made one thing clear to them: The White House plans to use the immigration debate to punish the GOP and aggressively seek the Latino vote in 2012.

"The president fundamentally understands that this is about the longer term," said Janet Murguia, president and chief executive of the National Council of La Raza, who attended the White House meeting. "This issue goes deeper than any list of needs. Your answer on this question will reveal to us whether you do or don't understand our community."

Advisers to the president say his long-standing position on immigration is not motivated by presidential politics. But in a few years, they predict, the Latino population will surge in "red" states, where residents have traditionally voted for Republicans in presidential contests. States such as Texas, which has been a GOP stronghold for a generation, could become permanently "purple" tossups if Republicans do not repair their image.

"The one thing that has the potential to grab a large part of that constituency is to actually show them respect for being here, being here legally, being part of the community," said a senior Democratic Party official. "The fight over immigration is a proxy for tolerance. It's a proxy for diversity."

Lionel Sosa, who has advised Republican candidates including George W. Bush and Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) on Latino issues, said the GOP needs to be careful about how its policies are being received in the Hispanic community.

"We must care about the people that we lured here to do the jobs we don't train our children to do," Sosa said. "If we forget those people, we are going to do ourselves a great disservice. . . . That comes off as insensitive, uncaring to the Latino community."

Ruy Teixeira, who studies Hispanic demographics for the liberal Center for American Progress, said the growth in the number of Hispanics in states including Arizona, Colorado, Nevada and Texas will give Democrats a significant edge in 2012 unless Republicans find a way to change the way they are perceived.

"It's like having a thumb on the scales that's getting heavier as the time goes by," Teixeira said.

Yet even some longtime Obama allies caution that the president shouldn't be too quick to count those votes. The Hispanic community is varied and complex, and previous efforts by both parties to win its allegiance didn't meet much success.

For their predictions to come true, they say, Democrats must deliver not only on Obama's promise of immigration reform but also on improving the economic conditions of Latinos. Unemployment among Hispanics is at 12.4 percent, well above the 9.5 percent rate for the rest of the country.

"This demographic group, like others, is expecting results," said Steve Hildebrand, Obama's deputy campaign manager in 2008. "If they haven't seen results, it's not going to be that easy."

Obama won the Hispanic vote by a 36-point margin. Hildebrand predicted that the president will have a difficult time duplicating that number in 2012 unless he has shown them results.

"I just don't think it's going to be that easy," he said. "We can't assume that immigration is the number one issue, or the only issue. If anything, I think we need to spend even more time trying to create jobs and deliver."

GOP pollster Neil Newhouse conceded that Republicans have had "a significant challenge with Hispanic voters" in recent years. But he said it's not clear that those voters' long-term political allegiance will be determined by a candidate's position on immigration.

"I'd rather win them over on economic issues and taxing-and-spending issues than on the issue of illegal immigration," Newhouse said. "Democrats are rolling the dice that this is going to help them more in '12 than it's going to hurt them in '10. That calculation is very risky."

In May, the Service Employees International Union gave a private polling presentation to strategists at the Democratic National Committee. It indicated how difficult it may be for either party to solidify Latino support.

The group's survey of Hispanic voters in Arizona shortly after the state's governor signed the controversial bill into law concluded that their anger was largely directed at Republicans.

But the poll also showed that even in Arizona, where the issue is the hottest, Latinos were not automatically pledging their votes for Democrats.

One of the presentation's concluding slides read: "GOP costs more severe, but enthusiasm for Democrats is severely constrained by perceived inaction. There is not a knee-jerk swell of support for Democrats, Latinos are proceeding very cautiously with respect to Democratic support."

Said Hildebrand: "It's a situation where Democrats need to make sure they are delivering for Hispanic voters. If they are not standing up and fighting for them every step of the way, we don't deserve to have a lock."

No comments: