xrayzebra
05-27-2006, 11:54 AM
Has anyone read the Senates version of the immigration bill? Here a
couple of studies made on just a couple of items in the bill:
Research: Immigration
Immigration Numbers: Setting the Record Straight
by Robert Rector
WebMemo #1097
May 26, 2006 |
|
The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA, S.2611), which recently passed the Senate, provides amnesty to illegal immigrants and creates a massive “guest worker” for life program. Earlier this month, The Heritage Foundation released an analysis calculating that the bill, if enacted, likely would result in 103 million immigrants obtaining legal status or entering in the U.S. legally over the next twenty years.[1] All of these individuals would have the right to permanent residence and could become citizens and vote in U.S. elections.
On May 18th, the White House Office of Media Affairs issued a press release challenging the Heritage study.[2] The White House defended the Senate bill, charging that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated the bill would add only 8 million new legal immigrants, “a fraction of the Heritage report’s claims.”[3]
The Heritage estimate that 103 million immigrants would gain legal status under S.2611 explicitly included: legal immigrants who would enter the country under current law; illegal immigrants currently residing in the U.S. who would receive amnesty; and the increase in new legal immigration that likely would result from the bill.
The CBO figure of eight million immigrants promoted by the White House differed from the Heritage estimate because the figure:
* was limited to 10 years rather than 20 years;
* excluded immigration allowed under current law; and
* excluded illegal immigrants currently residing in the U.S. who would receive legal permanent residence due to S.2611.
CBO’s Clarification
In a subsequent memo provided to Senator Jeff Sessions (R –AL) on May 24th, CBO clarified the number promoted by the White House.[4] This CBO memo shows the White House figure was less than half of the actual CBO estimate of persons who would receive permanent status under S.2611.
The CBO memo indicated that, over the next ten years, S.2611 would result in 11 million current illegal immigrants receiving legal permanent residence and 7.8 million new legal immigrants entering the country. Combined with 9.5 million immigrants who will enter under current law, the result would be 28.3 million persons becoming legal residents over ten years. This is almost three times the level permitted by current law.
Differences in CBO and Heritage Estimates
The CBO number of 28 million is still considerably lower than the original Heritage estimate of 49 million over ten years. The difference is caused by four factors.
Amnesty Rates: CBO estimated that most current illegal immigrants would receive legal permanent residence and the right to citizenship but assumed that many would not qualify for direct amnesty; instead, they would achieve permanent residence through participation in employment-based visa programs. This would, in turn, reduce the number of foreign residents entering the U.S. with employment visas during the first ten years. This factor accounts for a difference of roughly five to six million between the Heritage and CBO estimates.
The CBO estimate assumed that only 50 to 66 percent of individuals eligible for amnesty under S.2611 would receive it, claiming that this ratio is based on experience from the 1986 amnesty.[5] The Heritage Foundation assumed, given the very lenient standards of evidence in S.2611, that almost all of those deemed potentially eligible for amnesty would receive it; this estimate also assumes that current count of 12 million current illegal immigrants in the U.S. may be low and that there may be a large number of fraudulent amnesty claims filed.
Dependents: Under the bill, immigrants placed on a track to amnesty or in the guest worker program may bring into the U.S. spouses and dependent children from abroad. The number of spouses and dependent children that may be given legal permanent residence status through this provision is not limited by S.2611.
Historically, foreign workers receiving employment-based visas have brought 1.2 dependents with them. On the other hand, many illegal immigrants currently residing in the U.S. already have families with them, and therefore the Heritage analysis assumed that only 0.6 dependents would be brought into the U.S. for each current illegal immigrant receiving permanent residence. By contrast, CBO estimated that current illegal immigrants obtaining legal permanent residence will bring very few dependents from abroad—roughly one dependent for every seven illegal immigrants gaining permanent residence. CBO also seems to assume a lower ratio of dependents to workers in the guest worker program in general. The CBO numbers appear to be well below historic norms in immigrant programs. This factor accounts for a five to six million-person difference between the estimates.
Guest Workers and Green Cards: CBO assumed that the permanent guest workers in Section 408 of the bill would be subject to the green card caps granting legal permanent residence under Section 501. Because there was no language in the bill stating that the permanent guest workers would be subject to this cap, the Heritage analysis assumed the green card cap would not apply. This resulted in a difference of eleven to twelve million persons between the estimates. (After the publication of both the Heritage and the CBO estimate Senator Jeff Sessions successfully introduced an amendment, with concurrence from Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL), a chief sponsor of S.2611, stipulating that the Section 501 caps would apply to guest workers.)
Emigration The White House also claimed that The Heritage Foundation study was flawed because it failed to take into account that many immigrants, given the right to become permanent U.S. citizens, would instead choose to leave. The White House states that “emigration rates may be 25 to 30 percent.”[6] There seems to be little basis for this claim. The Census Bureau finds that the less developed a nation is, the less likely immigrants from that nation are to leave the U.S. and return home.[7] Its data show that the return rate for Hispanic immigrants is around 7 percent per decade.[8] If enacted, CIRA would probably reduce return rates even further by greatly increasing incentives for immigrants to stay in the U.S.[9]
The CBO estimates include a fairly significant emigration factor; the assumed rate of emigration and the basis for determining that rate are undisclosed.
Immigration Under the Amended Bill
S.2611 has been amended by Senator Bingaman (D-NM) to reduce the largely unlimited potential inflow under the guest worker program. The bill has also been amended by Senator Sessions to include guest workers under the employment green card caps in the bill. These amendments reduce the vast flow of 103 million immigrants projected under the original bill. The amended bill would still grant permanent residence (and the opportunity for citizenship) to some 60 million persons by over the next twenty years. Finally, it should be noted that our estimates assume zero future illegal immigration. In reality, S.2611 is likely to increase future illegal immigration.
Robert Rector is Senior Research Fellow in Domestic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
================================================== =======
Second article:
Research: Immigration
Terrorist Loophole: Senate Bill Disarms Law Enforcement
by Kris W. Kobach
WebMemo #1092
May 24, 2006 |
icon_print
|
The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA, S.2611) before the U.S. Senate is touted by proponents as a “compromise,” combining amnesty for current illegal immigrants with stepped-up enforcement provisions. Nothing could be further from the truth. A previously unnoticed provision in this complicated legislation would disarm America’s state and local police in the war against terrorism.
A Costly Lesson
One of most important lessons that the United States learned on 9/11 was that state and local law enforcement can be the difference between an unsuccessful terrorist plot and a devastating terrorist attack.
Five of the nineteen hijackers had violated federal immigration laws while they were in the United States. Amazingly, four of the five had actually been stopped by local police for speeding. All four terrorists could have been arrested if the police officers had asked the right questions and realized that they were illegal aliens.
Police officers across the country responded by stepping up their efforts to assist the federal government in making immigration arrests. But CIRA would stop them from protecting the American public in this way.
The cases of two of the 9/11 hijackers show just how critical a role state and local police can play.
Lebanese terrorist Ziad Jarrah was at the flight controls of United Airlines Flight 93 when it crashed in rural Pennsylvania. Jarrah first entered the United States in June 2000 on a tourist visa. He immediately violated federal immigration law by taking classes at the Florida Flight Training Center in Venice, Florida—a violation because he never applied to change his immigration status from tourist to student. Jarrah was therefore detainable and removable from the United States almost from the moment he entered the country.Six months later, Jarrah committed his second immigration violation when he overstayed the period he was authorized to remain in the United States on his tourist visa.
Jarrah successfully avoided contact with state and local police for more than fourteen months. However, at 12:09 A.M. on September 9, 2001, just two days before the attack, he was clocked driving at 90 miles-per-hour in a 65-miles-per-hour zone on Highway 95 in Maryland, 12 miles south of the Delaware state line. He was traveling from Baltimore to Newark in order to rendezvous with the other members of his team.
The Maryland trooper did not know about Jarrah’s immigration violations. Had the officer asked a few questions or simply made a phone call to the federal government’s Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC), which operates around the clock from Williston, Vermont, he could have arrested Jarrah. Instead, the trooper issued Jarrah a $270 speeding ticket and let him go. The ticket would be found in the car’s glove compartment at Newark Airport two days later, left behind when Jarrah boarded Flight 93.
Saudi Arabian terrorist Nawaf al Hazmi was the second-in-command of the 9/11 attackers and a back-up pilot. He entered the United States on a tourist visa in January 2000 and rented an apartment, where he lived for more than a year, with fellow hijacker Khalid Almihdhar in San Diego. As with Jarrah, Hazmi’s period of authorized stay expired after six months—after July 14, 2000, Hazmi was in the United States illegally. In early 2001, Hazmi moved to Phoenix, Arizona, to join another 9/11 hijacker, Hani Hanjour.
On April 1, 2001, Hazmi was stopped for speeding in Oklahoma while traveling cross country with Hanjour. Had the officer asked Hazmi a few basic questions or asked to see Hazmi’s visa, he might have discovered that Hazmi was in violation of U.S. immigration law. Once again, the officer could have detained him but did not. The officer also had the authority to detain Hanjour, who had entered the country on a student visa but never showed up for classes.
All of the 9/11 hijackers’ encounters with local law enforcement were missed opportunities of tragic dimensions. If even one of the police officers had made an arrest, the terrorist plot might have been unraveled.
Lesson Learned
In the wake of the attacks, the Department of Justice announced the conclusion of a new Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion: state and local police officers do have the legal authority to arrest any deportable illegal alien. This announcement did not create any new authority—the police had possessed it all along. Rather, the announcement reminded local law enforcement agencies of the crucial role that they could, and should, play in the war against terrorism by making immigration arrests.
The OLC opinion affirmed the conclusion of numerous U.S. Courts of Appeals that states have the inherent authority to assist the federal government by making immigration arrests. Moreover, Congress has never acted to displace, or “preempt,” this inherent authority. As the Tenth Circuit concluded in United States v. Santana-Garcia (2001), federal law “evinces a clear invitation from Congress for state and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws.”
Police departments across the country responded to the lessons of 9/11 and the OLC opinion by exercising their inherent arrest authority with renewed determination. The number of calls to LESC by local police officers who had arrested illegal aliens nearly doubled, reaching 504,678 in FY 2005—or 1,383 calls per day, on average. Local police have become a crucial participant in the enforcement of federal immigration laws.
Disarming Law Enforcement
The Senate’s immigration reform proposal would change all of that. Section 240D would restrict local police to arresting aliens for criminal violations of immigration law only, not civil violations. The results would be disastrous.
All of the hijackers who committed immigration violations committed civil violations. Under the bill, police officers would have no power to arrest such terrorists.
Moreover, as a practical matter, CIRA would discourage police departments from playing any role in immigration enforcement. Most police officers (indeed, most lawyers) do not know which immigration violations are criminal and which violations are civil. There is no particular logic to the distinctions. Overstaying a visa (something hijackers from the Middle East are more likely to do) is a civil violation, but marriage fraud is a criminal violation. Which one is more dangerous to national security?
Afraid of arresting the wrong type of illegal alien—and getting sued as a result—many police departments will stop helping the federal government altogether.
As the country is making progress in the war against terrorism, the Senate is poised to unilaterally disarm the men and women on the front line. Sadly, many senators aren’t even aware of the damage they might inflict on U.S. national security.
Kris W. Kobach is a Professor of Law at the University of Missouri—Kansas City. During 2001-2003, he served as Counsel to the U.S. Attorney General. He was the Attorney General’s chief advisor on immigration law.
================================================== ======
Of course let's not forget the little provision they stuck in at the last
second of the session: Consultation must occur with the Government of
Mexico and local communities on any fence or barrier we build on the
border. Don't you love it.
================================================== =======
I apologize for this post being so long, but I think it is important we know
what a joke the Senate is trying to play on the American people. Thank
goodness Cornyn and Hutchinson had enough sense to vote against it.
For which I thanked them. There are many other provisions of this bill
which show it for what it is a "sham".
couple of studies made on just a couple of items in the bill:
Research: Immigration
Immigration Numbers: Setting the Record Straight
by Robert Rector
WebMemo #1097
May 26, 2006 |
|
The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA, S.2611), which recently passed the Senate, provides amnesty to illegal immigrants and creates a massive “guest worker” for life program. Earlier this month, The Heritage Foundation released an analysis calculating that the bill, if enacted, likely would result in 103 million immigrants obtaining legal status or entering in the U.S. legally over the next twenty years.[1] All of these individuals would have the right to permanent residence and could become citizens and vote in U.S. elections.
On May 18th, the White House Office of Media Affairs issued a press release challenging the Heritage study.[2] The White House defended the Senate bill, charging that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated the bill would add only 8 million new legal immigrants, “a fraction of the Heritage report’s claims.”[3]
The Heritage estimate that 103 million immigrants would gain legal status under S.2611 explicitly included: legal immigrants who would enter the country under current law; illegal immigrants currently residing in the U.S. who would receive amnesty; and the increase in new legal immigration that likely would result from the bill.
The CBO figure of eight million immigrants promoted by the White House differed from the Heritage estimate because the figure:
* was limited to 10 years rather than 20 years;
* excluded immigration allowed under current law; and
* excluded illegal immigrants currently residing in the U.S. who would receive legal permanent residence due to S.2611.
CBO’s Clarification
In a subsequent memo provided to Senator Jeff Sessions (R –AL) on May 24th, CBO clarified the number promoted by the White House.[4] This CBO memo shows the White House figure was less than half of the actual CBO estimate of persons who would receive permanent status under S.2611.
The CBO memo indicated that, over the next ten years, S.2611 would result in 11 million current illegal immigrants receiving legal permanent residence and 7.8 million new legal immigrants entering the country. Combined with 9.5 million immigrants who will enter under current law, the result would be 28.3 million persons becoming legal residents over ten years. This is almost three times the level permitted by current law.
Differences in CBO and Heritage Estimates
The CBO number of 28 million is still considerably lower than the original Heritage estimate of 49 million over ten years. The difference is caused by four factors.
Amnesty Rates: CBO estimated that most current illegal immigrants would receive legal permanent residence and the right to citizenship but assumed that many would not qualify for direct amnesty; instead, they would achieve permanent residence through participation in employment-based visa programs. This would, in turn, reduce the number of foreign residents entering the U.S. with employment visas during the first ten years. This factor accounts for a difference of roughly five to six million between the Heritage and CBO estimates.
The CBO estimate assumed that only 50 to 66 percent of individuals eligible for amnesty under S.2611 would receive it, claiming that this ratio is based on experience from the 1986 amnesty.[5] The Heritage Foundation assumed, given the very lenient standards of evidence in S.2611, that almost all of those deemed potentially eligible for amnesty would receive it; this estimate also assumes that current count of 12 million current illegal immigrants in the U.S. may be low and that there may be a large number of fraudulent amnesty claims filed.
Dependents: Under the bill, immigrants placed on a track to amnesty or in the guest worker program may bring into the U.S. spouses and dependent children from abroad. The number of spouses and dependent children that may be given legal permanent residence status through this provision is not limited by S.2611.
Historically, foreign workers receiving employment-based visas have brought 1.2 dependents with them. On the other hand, many illegal immigrants currently residing in the U.S. already have families with them, and therefore the Heritage analysis assumed that only 0.6 dependents would be brought into the U.S. for each current illegal immigrant receiving permanent residence. By contrast, CBO estimated that current illegal immigrants obtaining legal permanent residence will bring very few dependents from abroad—roughly one dependent for every seven illegal immigrants gaining permanent residence. CBO also seems to assume a lower ratio of dependents to workers in the guest worker program in general. The CBO numbers appear to be well below historic norms in immigrant programs. This factor accounts for a five to six million-person difference between the estimates.
Guest Workers and Green Cards: CBO assumed that the permanent guest workers in Section 408 of the bill would be subject to the green card caps granting legal permanent residence under Section 501. Because there was no language in the bill stating that the permanent guest workers would be subject to this cap, the Heritage analysis assumed the green card cap would not apply. This resulted in a difference of eleven to twelve million persons between the estimates. (After the publication of both the Heritage and the CBO estimate Senator Jeff Sessions successfully introduced an amendment, with concurrence from Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL), a chief sponsor of S.2611, stipulating that the Section 501 caps would apply to guest workers.)
Emigration The White House also claimed that The Heritage Foundation study was flawed because it failed to take into account that many immigrants, given the right to become permanent U.S. citizens, would instead choose to leave. The White House states that “emigration rates may be 25 to 30 percent.”[6] There seems to be little basis for this claim. The Census Bureau finds that the less developed a nation is, the less likely immigrants from that nation are to leave the U.S. and return home.[7] Its data show that the return rate for Hispanic immigrants is around 7 percent per decade.[8] If enacted, CIRA would probably reduce return rates even further by greatly increasing incentives for immigrants to stay in the U.S.[9]
The CBO estimates include a fairly significant emigration factor; the assumed rate of emigration and the basis for determining that rate are undisclosed.
Immigration Under the Amended Bill
S.2611 has been amended by Senator Bingaman (D-NM) to reduce the largely unlimited potential inflow under the guest worker program. The bill has also been amended by Senator Sessions to include guest workers under the employment green card caps in the bill. These amendments reduce the vast flow of 103 million immigrants projected under the original bill. The amended bill would still grant permanent residence (and the opportunity for citizenship) to some 60 million persons by over the next twenty years. Finally, it should be noted that our estimates assume zero future illegal immigration. In reality, S.2611 is likely to increase future illegal immigration.
Robert Rector is Senior Research Fellow in Domestic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
================================================== =======
Second article:
Research: Immigration
Terrorist Loophole: Senate Bill Disarms Law Enforcement
by Kris W. Kobach
WebMemo #1092
May 24, 2006 |
icon_print
|
The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA, S.2611) before the U.S. Senate is touted by proponents as a “compromise,” combining amnesty for current illegal immigrants with stepped-up enforcement provisions. Nothing could be further from the truth. A previously unnoticed provision in this complicated legislation would disarm America’s state and local police in the war against terrorism.
A Costly Lesson
One of most important lessons that the United States learned on 9/11 was that state and local law enforcement can be the difference between an unsuccessful terrorist plot and a devastating terrorist attack.
Five of the nineteen hijackers had violated federal immigration laws while they were in the United States. Amazingly, four of the five had actually been stopped by local police for speeding. All four terrorists could have been arrested if the police officers had asked the right questions and realized that they were illegal aliens.
Police officers across the country responded by stepping up their efforts to assist the federal government in making immigration arrests. But CIRA would stop them from protecting the American public in this way.
The cases of two of the 9/11 hijackers show just how critical a role state and local police can play.
Lebanese terrorist Ziad Jarrah was at the flight controls of United Airlines Flight 93 when it crashed in rural Pennsylvania. Jarrah first entered the United States in June 2000 on a tourist visa. He immediately violated federal immigration law by taking classes at the Florida Flight Training Center in Venice, Florida—a violation because he never applied to change his immigration status from tourist to student. Jarrah was therefore detainable and removable from the United States almost from the moment he entered the country.Six months later, Jarrah committed his second immigration violation when he overstayed the period he was authorized to remain in the United States on his tourist visa.
Jarrah successfully avoided contact with state and local police for more than fourteen months. However, at 12:09 A.M. on September 9, 2001, just two days before the attack, he was clocked driving at 90 miles-per-hour in a 65-miles-per-hour zone on Highway 95 in Maryland, 12 miles south of the Delaware state line. He was traveling from Baltimore to Newark in order to rendezvous with the other members of his team.
The Maryland trooper did not know about Jarrah’s immigration violations. Had the officer asked a few questions or simply made a phone call to the federal government’s Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC), which operates around the clock from Williston, Vermont, he could have arrested Jarrah. Instead, the trooper issued Jarrah a $270 speeding ticket and let him go. The ticket would be found in the car’s glove compartment at Newark Airport two days later, left behind when Jarrah boarded Flight 93.
Saudi Arabian terrorist Nawaf al Hazmi was the second-in-command of the 9/11 attackers and a back-up pilot. He entered the United States on a tourist visa in January 2000 and rented an apartment, where he lived for more than a year, with fellow hijacker Khalid Almihdhar in San Diego. As with Jarrah, Hazmi’s period of authorized stay expired after six months—after July 14, 2000, Hazmi was in the United States illegally. In early 2001, Hazmi moved to Phoenix, Arizona, to join another 9/11 hijacker, Hani Hanjour.
On April 1, 2001, Hazmi was stopped for speeding in Oklahoma while traveling cross country with Hanjour. Had the officer asked Hazmi a few basic questions or asked to see Hazmi’s visa, he might have discovered that Hazmi was in violation of U.S. immigration law. Once again, the officer could have detained him but did not. The officer also had the authority to detain Hanjour, who had entered the country on a student visa but never showed up for classes.
All of the 9/11 hijackers’ encounters with local law enforcement were missed opportunities of tragic dimensions. If even one of the police officers had made an arrest, the terrorist plot might have been unraveled.
Lesson Learned
In the wake of the attacks, the Department of Justice announced the conclusion of a new Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion: state and local police officers do have the legal authority to arrest any deportable illegal alien. This announcement did not create any new authority—the police had possessed it all along. Rather, the announcement reminded local law enforcement agencies of the crucial role that they could, and should, play in the war against terrorism by making immigration arrests.
The OLC opinion affirmed the conclusion of numerous U.S. Courts of Appeals that states have the inherent authority to assist the federal government by making immigration arrests. Moreover, Congress has never acted to displace, or “preempt,” this inherent authority. As the Tenth Circuit concluded in United States v. Santana-Garcia (2001), federal law “evinces a clear invitation from Congress for state and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws.”
Police departments across the country responded to the lessons of 9/11 and the OLC opinion by exercising their inherent arrest authority with renewed determination. The number of calls to LESC by local police officers who had arrested illegal aliens nearly doubled, reaching 504,678 in FY 2005—or 1,383 calls per day, on average. Local police have become a crucial participant in the enforcement of federal immigration laws.
Disarming Law Enforcement
The Senate’s immigration reform proposal would change all of that. Section 240D would restrict local police to arresting aliens for criminal violations of immigration law only, not civil violations. The results would be disastrous.
All of the hijackers who committed immigration violations committed civil violations. Under the bill, police officers would have no power to arrest such terrorists.
Moreover, as a practical matter, CIRA would discourage police departments from playing any role in immigration enforcement. Most police officers (indeed, most lawyers) do not know which immigration violations are criminal and which violations are civil. There is no particular logic to the distinctions. Overstaying a visa (something hijackers from the Middle East are more likely to do) is a civil violation, but marriage fraud is a criminal violation. Which one is more dangerous to national security?
Afraid of arresting the wrong type of illegal alien—and getting sued as a result—many police departments will stop helping the federal government altogether.
As the country is making progress in the war against terrorism, the Senate is poised to unilaterally disarm the men and women on the front line. Sadly, many senators aren’t even aware of the damage they might inflict on U.S. national security.
Kris W. Kobach is a Professor of Law at the University of Missouri—Kansas City. During 2001-2003, he served as Counsel to the U.S. Attorney General. He was the Attorney General’s chief advisor on immigration law.
================================================== ======
Of course let's not forget the little provision they stuck in at the last
second of the session: Consultation must occur with the Government of
Mexico and local communities on any fence or barrier we build on the
border. Don't you love it.
================================================== =======
I apologize for this post being so long, but I think it is important we know
what a joke the Senate is trying to play on the American people. Thank
goodness Cornyn and Hutchinson had enough sense to vote against it.
For which I thanked them. There are many other provisions of this bill
which show it for what it is a "sham".