National pro-immigration reform group Cafe Con Leche Republicans today reacted to the presidential election debacle. Bob Quasius, president, said

Yesterday’s election results show it is imperative that the Republican Party improve Latino outreach or become permanently uncompetitive in presidential and many other races. Exit and election-eve polls put Mitt Romney’s votes among Latinos at 23%, although over 60% of Latinos are center-right, according to Pew Research.

Polls consistently show a majority of Republicans support immigration reform, including a path to legalization, and a PEW Research poll from May 2011 showed that even among staunch conservatives there is a 49/49% split on immigration reform. However, due to lack of engagement and outreach and shrill rhetoric on this issue from a small minority of Republican politicians, Democrats have been successful in unfairly framing the Republican party as anti-immigrant and anti-Latino, particularly in states where there has been harsh rhetoric on immigration.

This trend started in California. Prior to proposition 187, Republicans were competitive in statewide races, but since Governor Pete Wilson jumped on the proposition 187 bandwagon, many Hispanics left the GOP and since then the GOP has not been competitive in statewide races in California.

Latino outreach improved during the Reagan/Bush years, and President Bush won over 40% of the Latino vote during his reelection campaign, proving that Latinos can be swayed to vote Republican with the right messaging and sensible solutions to issues of interest to Latinos like immigration.

However, since SB1070 and other harsh laws were passed, mass exodus of conservative Hispanics has occurred in Colorado following Tom Tancredo’s candidacy for Governor, in Arizona following SB1070, and in Nevada due to harsh rhetoric from Sharon Angle in the U.S. Senate race.

Cafe Con Leche Republicans initially supported Newt Gingrich, and one of our reasons is that Newt’s campaign recognized the importance of outreach to Latinos and a sensible stance on immigration reform, neither mass amnesty nor mass deportations but a solution that addresses our broken immigration system and seeks to strike a balance between accountability for illegal immigration, and the need to keep families together and avoid damaging our economy. Newt’s campaign reached out to us, and ultimately Cafe Con Leche Republicans provided five members of Newt’s national Hispanic leadership team.

When Newt dropped out of the race and Mitt Romney became the nominee, we decided to support Mitt Romney. Numerous attempts to connect with the Romney campaign’s Hispanic outreach proved fruitless. In our one year of existence, we’ve also had just one conversation with the RNC’s Latino outreach, and were left with the impression the RNC wasn’t interested in working with us due to our pro-immigration focus.

A common complaint among Latino Republican leaders is that RNC Latino outreach is dominated by a small clique of Latino Republicans from Washington DC and Florida, to the exclusion of others, particularly from the Southwest. We share the frustration of Latino Republican leaders from outside the DC/Florida clique that Mitt Romney received bad advice to largely ignore immigration, and some of Mitt’s rhetoric and association with immigration extremist Kris Kobach early in the campaign provided useful fodder for Democrats to frame Mitt Romney as anti-immigrant and anti-Latino, which we don’t believe is the case.

It’s time to root out the small minority of immigration extremists from the GOP. That process is already underway, for example Russell Pearce, the author of SB1070, has now twice been defeated by conservative Republicans who differed mainly by having sensible positions on immigration reform. We’d like to see Kris Kobach leave the party. Kobach is a top lieutenant to John Tanton, a notorious bigot and population control progressive, who once bragged how he manipulates Republicans. In a letter to a supporter, Tanton in 2001 stated:

The goal is to change Republicans’ perception of immigration so that when they encounter the word “immigrant,” their reaction is “Democrat.”

Our plan is to hire a lobbyist who will carry the following message to Republicans on Capitol Hill and to business leaders: Continued massive immigration will soon cost you political control of the White House and Congress, given the current, even division of the electorate, and the massive infusion of voters about to be made to the Democratic side. We are about to replay the Democratic hegemony of 1933-53, fueled back then by the massive immigration of 1890-1924.

It’s time for the GOP to recognize this pattern of manipulation, and fully embrace immigration reform based on free market principles, and not arbitrarily low quotas promoted by population control progressives like Tanton. Harsh rhetoric on immigration coupled with lack of adequate engagement with Latinos and race baiting by Democrats has resulted in very low GOP support among Latinos, and we ignore this at our own political peril.

The 2012 election served up lemons for Republicans, but with sensible changes in strategy and direction we can make lemonade instead. Already we’re hearing that party leaders have woken up and ‘smelled the coffee’ and we’re hopeful this situation can be turned around.

President Obama promised to pursue immigration reform during his second term. Due to President Obama’s history of immigration fakery and failure to put anything on the table during his first term, we have reason to doubt this promise, but he is welcome to surprise us. With the election behind us, we have put our partisan hats and boxing gloves aside, and we stand fully ready to work with President Obama and Democrats on immigration reform, which won’t happen without bipartisan support. We hope that President Obama will ‘hit the reset button’ in his relationship with Republicans in Congress, as the hyper-partisanship that has characterized the last four years has been a major stumbling block to governing our nation.

Original link here.

####

About Us – Cafe Con Leche Republicans is a national organization of Republicans who welcome “New Americans”, defined as immigrants and family of recent immigrants. Our mission is to make America and the GOP, more welcoming to “New Immigrants” through political activism, “in-reach” and education within the Republican Party, and lobbying government to adopt more immigrant friendly policies. We also seek to bring more conservative and moderate “New Americans” to the Republican Party. These efforts will strengthen the GOP, and lead more Republicans to embrace welcoming policies for immigrants and their families. We have members nationwide, with chapters in Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona, and California. Our members and leadership are predominantly Hispanic, though we define ourselves by mission and guiding principles, not ethnicity, and we welcome all who share our goals. Our leadership is 100% Republican.

by Bob Quasius

Since 2006, the article “The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants in the United States“ by Deborah Schurman-Kauflin, Ph.D. of the Violent Crimes Institute has been cited endlessly to justify harsh measures against illegal immigration. The article is sensational in its claims but falls far short on credible facts.

It is not a myth that a small minority off unauthorized immigrants are sex criminals or other serious offenders, but Dr. Schurman-Kauflin’s analysis is badly flawed and her estimates of sex criminals among the unauthorized immigrant population are wildly exaggerated.

Anyone with a good knowledge of statistics will tell you that samples from a target group must be selected randomly. In order to believe this study, one must believe that incarcerated prisoners are statistically representative of a much larger group. From the study:

Based on population numbers of 12,000,000 illegal immigrants and the fact that young males make up more of this population than the general U.S. population, sex offenders in the illegal immigrant group make up a higher percentage. When examining ICE reports and public records, it is consistent to find sex offenders comprising 2% of illegals apprehended. Based on this 2% figure, which is conservative, there are approximately 240,000 illegal immigrant sex offenders in the United States.

This translates to 93 sex offenders and 12 serial sexual offenders coming across U.S. borders illegally per day. The 1500 offenders in this study had a total of 5,999 victims. Each sex offender averaged 4 victims. This places the estimate for victimization numbers around 960,000 for the 88 months examined in this study.

According to the DHS 2006 annual report of Immigration Enforcement Actions, 272,389 non-citizens were removed (deported) from the U.S. in 2006, and 1.9% of those removed were indeed sex criminals. The unauthorized immigrant population in 2006 was estimated at  11.6 million. These removals represent 2.35% off the estimated unauthorized population. However, authorized immigrants are also removed if convicted of a felony, as mandated under a 1996 federal law, so removals of unauthorized immigrants are a portion of the total.

The author incorrectly assumes that those arrested by ICE are representative samples of the total unauthorized immigrant population of the U.S., when in fact ICE has long prioritized immigration enforcement, and dangerous criminals, such as sex criminals, are one of ICE’s top priorities.

The “Morton Memo dated March 11, 2011, which replicates long standing policy regarding prioritization of immigration enforcement, prioritizes as follows:

Priority l.  Aliens who pose a danger to  national security or a risk to  public safety

Priority 2.  Recent illegal entrants

Priority 3.  Aliens who are fugitives or otherwise obstruct immigration controls

With total removals each year a just 2% or so of the total unauthorized population, the need to prioritize dangerous criminals for apprehension and removal is obvious. Resources expended chasing non-criminal unauthorized immigrants means less resources available to pursue violent criminals.

Due to this prioritization and the fact that criminals are much more likely to come to the attention of law enforcement, due to their crimes and victims, its simply not logical to believe prison inmates are representative samples of the community at large.

Now let’s apply Dr. Schurman-Kauflin’s methodology to the U.S. prison population. From the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) report “Prisoners in 2009“, 7.9% of sentenced prisoners in federal prisons on September 30, 2009 were in for violent crimes, and 52.4% of sentenced prisoners in state prisons at year end 2008 were in for violent crimes. From the 2002 BJS report “Profile of Jail Inmates” 25.4% of inmates in jails in 2002 were convicted or held for violent crimes. Applying these percentages to mid-2006 inmate populations, there were 819,202 inmates incarcerated or jailed for violent crimes in the U.S., or 41.4% off the U.S. prison and jail population.

Applying Dr. Schurman-Kauflin’s same methodology to the current U.S. population of 314 million, we would conclude that 130 million (41.4%) of our total population are violent criminals, which would seem an outlandish number. Is our prison population representative of Americans in general? Clearly not, but that is what Dr. Schurman-Kauflin’s would have us believe in her claim there are 240,000 unauthorized immigrant sex offenders in the U.S.!

But what about the high percentage of young males among the unauthorized immigrant population mentioned in her study? It turns out the unauthorized immigrants are not that representative of their home nations due to the self-selection process.

In the scholarly research paper “The Myth of Immigrant Criminality and the Paradox of Assimilation: Incarceration Rates among Native and Foreign-Born Men“, the authors, Rubén G. Rumbaut, PhD and Walter A. Ewing, PhD note that young male unauthorized immigrants are actually less likely to engage in criminal activity than citizens:

Because many immigrants to the United States, especially Mexicans and Central Americans, are young men who arrive with very low levels of formal education, popular stereotypes tend to associate them with higher rates of crime and incarceration. The fact that many of these immigrants enter the country through unauthorized channels or overstay their visas often is framed as an assault against the “rule of law,” thereby reinforcing the impression that immigration and criminality are linked. This association has flourished in a post-9/11 climate of fear and ignorance where terrorism and undocumented immigration often are mentioned in the same breath.

But anecdotal impression cannot substitute for scientific evidence. In fact, data from the census and other sources show that for every ethnic group without exception, incarceration rates among young men are lowest for immigrants, even those who are the least educated. This holds true especially for the Mexicans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans who make up the bulk of the undocumented population. What is more, these patterns have been observed consistently over the last three decennial censuses, a period that spans the current era of mass immigration, and recall similar national-level findings reported by three major government commissions during the first three decades of the 20th century. The problem of crime in the United States is not “caused” or even aggravated by immigrants, regardless of their legal status. But the misperception that the opposite is true persists among policymakers, the media, and the general public, thereby undermining the development of reasoned public responses to both crime and immigration

Dr. Schurman-Kauflin, based her interviews with prisoners and mostly anecdotal media sources, claimed the highest numbers of sex offenders came from Mexico and El Salvador. However Dr. Rumbaut and Dr. Ewing, citing credible sources, note common assumptions about youth, education level, etc. do not fit the data for immigrants:

• Among men age 18-39 (who comprise the vast majority of the prison population), the 3.5 percent incarceration rate of the native-born in 2000 was 5 times higher than the 0.7 percent incarceration rate of the foreign-born.
• The foreign-born incarceration rate in 2000 was nearly two-and-a-half times less than the 1.7 percent rate for native born non-Hispanic white men and almost 17 times less than the 11.6 percent rate for native-born black men.
• Native-born Hispanic men were nearly 7 times more likely to be in prison than foreign-born Hispanic men in 2000, while the incarceration rate of native-born nonHispanic white men was almost 3 times higher than that of foreign-born white men.
• Foreign-born Mexicans had an incarceration rate of only 0.7 percent in 2000—more than 8 times lower than the 5.9 percent rate of native-born males of Mexican descent. Foreign-born Salvadoran and Guatemalan men had an incarceration rate of 0.5 percent, compared to 3.0 percent of native-born males of Salvadoran and Guatemalan descent.

One explanation can be found in “Why Are Immigrants’ Incarceration Rates So Low? Evidence On Selective Immigration, Deterrence, and Deportation“,  by Kristin F. Butcher and Anne Morrison Piehl of the National Bureau of Economic Research conclude:

There is evidence that the process of migration selects individuals who have lower criminal propensity or are more responsive to deterrent effects than  the average native. Similar to the foreign born, the native born who live outside their state of birth also reduced their relative institutionalization rates over time.

In other words, the same higher level of ambition that leads people to immigrate or move to another state also makes them less likely to commit crimes.

It’s time to stop the ‘unjust enrichment’ and fear mongering of unauthorized immigrants, blaming them for problems that the vast majority of them do not cause. Certainly, unauthorized immigrants who engage in crime, particularly violent crime, need to be punished and leave the U.S., but those who come here to work, be with family, and stay out of trouble should be treated with more respect and much less hostility. I don’t condone illegal immigration, neither do I demonize those who come here illegally to support themselves and their families.

(Original Posting)

by Bob Quasius

For more than two decades, anti-immigrant politicians and activists have stridently sought to redefine birthright citizenship. Harry Reid even introduced a bill in 1993 to redefine birthright citizenship, to exclude the children born of unauthorized immigrants. Hypocritically, Reid now criticizes Republicans who introduce anti-immigrant laws!

Opponents of birthright citizenship claim the framers of our constitution and authors of the 14th amendment meant something entirely different than what our courts have consistently ruled for over 100 years.

The plain language of the 14th amendment is crystal clear, which explains why no court has sided with birthright citizenship opponents. Section 1 of the 14th amendment states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

Opponents deliberately confuse “allegiance” with “jurisdiction”, claiming that children born of unauthorized immigrants owe allegiance to their parents’ home nation, not to the U.S., and therefore are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Black’s law dictionary defines jurisdiction as:

The power and authority constitutionally conferred upon (or constitutionally recognized as existing in) a court or judge to pronounce the sentence of the law, or to award the remedies provided by law, upon a state of facts, proved or admitted, referred to the tribunal for decision, and authorized by law to be the subject of investigation or action by that tribunal, and in favor of or against persons (or a res) who present themselves, or who are brought, before the court in some manner sanctioned by law as proper and sufficient.

In layman’s terms, if a court or government can hold you accountable under laws, then you are subject to its jurisdiction. Applying common sense, virtually everyone present in the U.S., regardless of any allegiance to any foreign government, is subject to U.S. jurisdiction. If an unauthorized immigrant throws a gum wrapper on the sidewalk in violation of anti-littering laws, they can be given a ticket or arrested. That’s jurisdiction! If unauthorized immigrants or their children were not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” then they would be immune to U.S. courts, could not be sued, fined, deported, etc.

The only present exception to U.S. jurisdiction are foreign leaders, diplomats and their families including U.S. born children, who have diplomatic immunity and cannot be arrested or sued in U.S. courts, and therefore are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction. If a diplomat throws a gum wrapper on the sidewalk in front of a cop and the cop tries to ticket for littering, the diplomat can claim immunity under international law and U.S. courts cannot fine him for littering.

Another frequent argument against birthright citizenship is that the 14th amendment was merely intended to ensure that newly freed slaves would be considered citizens and not to grant citizenship to children born of unauthorized immigrants.

Its true the purpose of the 14th amendment was to address citizenship of slaves. Under English Common Law at the time the U.S. became a nation, children born of slaves were not considered subjects or citizens, and the 14th amendment was needed to reverse the infamous Dredd Scott decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that blacks could never become citizens.

The doctrine of 1776, that all (white) men “are created free and equal,” is universally accepted and made the basis of all our institutions, State and National, and the relations of citizenship–the rights of the individual–in short, the status of the dominant race, is thus defined and fixed for ever.

But there have been doubts and uncertainties in regard to the negro. Indeed, many (perhaps most ) American communities have latterly sought to include him in the ranks of citizenship, and force upon him the status of the superior race.

This confusion is now at an end, and the Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott decision, has defined the relations, and fixed the status of the subordinate raceforever–for that decision is in accord with the natural relations of the races, and therefore can never perish. It is based on historical and existing facts, which are indisputable, and it is a necessary, indeed unavoidable inference, from these facts.

There is little doubt the purpose of the 14th amendment was to overturn Dredd Scott v. Stanford and ensure that Southern states respected newly freed slaves as citizens. However, transcripts of the Congressional debate showed that the status of children born of immigrants was vigorously debated. Some members of Congress wanted to exclude children born of Chinese immigrants, but when the vote was taken the 14th amendment passed.

Transcripts of debates in state legislatures that ratified the 14th amendment would no doubt show that citizenship of children born of immigrants was also considered. There is no grand historic misunderstanding. Congress did not intend to exclude the children born of immigrants from birthright citizenship. and a plain reading of the 14th amendment is crystal clear.

A good explanation of the 14th amendment can be found in this briefing by the Cato Institute. It is especially noteworthy that slaves imported after the ban went into effect in 1808 were among America’s first unauthorized immigrants, as well as many impoverished Irish immigrants who bypassed legal ports of entry to evade a head tax which they could not afford. In light of the ban on the slave trade which continued anyway, it is logically inconsistent to argue Congress meant to exclude anyone who immigrated illegally.

Prior to the 14th amendment, English Common law provided for birthright citizenship except for slaves. Upon independence, states passed reception statutes to implement and continue English common law except where it conflicted with state constitutions.

So just what did English Common law say about birthright citizenship when the constitution was adopted? The most authoritative text “An Analysis of the Laws of England” by William Blackstone, first published in 1765, and reprinted in 1770, 1773, 1774, 1775, 1778 and 1783. An updated version of Blackstone’s authoritative text was published by Henry John Stephen in 1841, and reprinted until after the Second World War.

Blackstone defined “natural born subjects” as those born within the dominions of England, and he argued that even if a natural born subject later swears allegiance to another nation, they are still natural born subjects of England. When America became a nation, we called ourselves citizens rather than subjects, but the concept of birthright citizenship remained. From William Blackstone (1765), Commentaries 1:354, 357–58, 361–62

The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject. The thing itself, or substantial part of it, is founded in reason and the nature of government; the name and the form are derived to us from our Gothic ancestors.

Allegiance, both express and implied, is however distinguished by the law into two sorts or species, the one natural, the other local; the former being also perpetual, the latter temporary. Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king’s dominions immediately upon their birth. For, immediately upon their birth, they are under the king’s protection; at a time too, when (during their infancy) they are incapable of protecting themselves. Natural allegiance is therefore a debt of gratitude; which cannot be forfeited, cancelled, or altered, by any change of time, place, or circumstance, nor by any thing but the united concurrence of the legislature. An Englishman who removes to France, or to China, owes the same allegiance to the king of England there as at home, and twenty years hence as well as now. For it is a principle of universal law, that the natural-born subject of one prince cannot by any act of his own, no, not by swearing allegiance to another, put off or discharge his natural allegiance to the former: for this natural allegiance was intrinsic, and primitive, and antecedent to the other; and cannot be devested without the concurrent act of that prince to whom it was first due…

The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. 

Since Obama’s election, another dimension to the birthright citizenship debate emerged, claiming that one is not a “natural born citizen” unless both parents were citizens.  Article Two of our constitution requires that our president be a “natural born citizen” but does not define that term:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States

A 2011 report prepared by the Congressional Research Office concludes:

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.

This conclusion is entirely consistent with Blackstone’s commentary on English common law:

The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.

Blackstone also notes that children born abroad of diplomats are still considered natural born subjects:

Yet the children of the king’s embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.

As per Blackstone’s commentary, Americans such as John McCain, who was born of American citizen parents on a U.S. military base in Panama, who would have been considered a natural born subject of England under English common law. Ditto for Marco Rubio, whose parents were permanent residents of the U.S. when he was born.

The  Congressional Research Service also notes:

The term “natural born” citizen is not defined in the Constitution, and there is no discussion of the  term evident in the notes of the Federal Convention of 1787. The use of the phrase in the Constitution may have derived from a suggestion in a letter from John Jay to George Washington during the Convention expressing concern about having the office of Commander-in-Chief “devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen,” as there were fears at that time about wealthy European aristocracy or royalty coming to America, gaining citizenship, and then buying and scheming their way to the presidency without long-standing loyalty to the nation. At the time of  independence, and at the time of the framing of the Constitution, the term “natural born” with respect to citizenship was in use for many years in the American colonies, and then in the states, from British common law and legal usage. Under the common law principle of jus soli (law of the soil), persons born on English soil, even of two alien parents, were “natural born” subjects and, as noted by the Supreme Court, this “same rule” was applicable in the American colonies and “in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution …” with respect to citizens. In textual constitutional analysis, it is understood that terms used but not defined in the document must, as explained by the Supreme Court, “be read in light of British common law” since the Constitution is “framed in the language of the English common law.”

So why on Earth are some groups trying to rewrite hundreds of years of history and legal precedent? Clearly the birther movement is behind the effort to redefine ‘natural born citizen’ to de-legitimize President Obama, who clearly is a natural born citizen. There’s also a subliminal message that Obama ‘is not one of us.’

Note that I am no fan of Obama, and believe he’s our worst president in modern history. However, I do believe Obama is a natural born citizen per the legal precedent in place at the time our constitution was adopted. We should get rid of Obama, but at the ballot box, not in the courts. Its noteworthy also that the birther movement is batting ZERO in over  100 court cases.

Clearly there are also those who do not like Marco Rubio because he is Hispanic and the son of immigrants. By raising the issue of ‘natural born citizens’ some hope to derail any chance that Marco Rubio might become a VP running mate or a future presidential candidate.

With regards to immigration, there is clearly an effort afoot to generate hostility to groups that are perceived either as immigrants or recent offspring of immigrants. It’s also become acceptable in many quarters to hate unauthorized immigrants, blaming them for a range of social problems. By making an issue of birthright citizenship, now it becomes OK to also hate citizens who are perceived as benefiting from birthright citizenship.

Original posting

by Bob Quasius

As I read this Fox News story and watched the video, two things impressed me.

First, crossing our borders illegally is really very dangerous, and the conditions the former INS agent talks about were many years ago when there was less border security. Nowadays it costs thousands of dollars to pay a smuggler to cross our border, and hundreds die every year from exposure, dehydration, etc. As border security has become tighter in recent years, migrant workers depend more and more on criminal cartels who also smuggle drugs too. When migrant workers get into trouble, quite often their coyotes simply abandon them to the elements. Many also drown crossing the river.

Paradoxically, some immigration attorneys have told me that because it became so much more difficult to cross illegally, many migrants began staying here in the U.S. all the time and brought their families, rather than leave family members in Mexico and return for 2-3 months each year after earning money working in the U.S. Without fixing legal immigration, the unintended effect of more border security increased the number of undocumented wives and children in the U.S. Tighter border security not only reduces the numbers entering the U.S., but also deters those here illegally who wish to leave.

Second, why would anyone pay thousands of dollars and take such risks to life and limb if all they had to do was ‘stand in line’ as anti-illegal immigration activists constantly harp about? Some statistics help put things in perspective. First, according to the 2011 DHS Immigration yearbook, 1.7 million non-citizens were admitted to the U.S. for work or training. Various other estimates peg undocumented workers in the U.S. at seven million, which is reflective of our economy’s needs for mostly unskilled workers. Only 20% of ‘guest workers’ are here with some type of visa! Visas are nearly all subject to strict quotas arbitrarily set by Congress. This sad situation reflects on just how broken our immigration system has become. We expect people to wait in a line that for most is non-existent, but then we have unmet labor needs for jobs that most Americans are unwilling to take!

Bottom line: the best way to reduce illegal border crossings, at least for the large majority who simply want to work here, it so fix legal immigration so crossing our borders illegally is not necessary to work in the U.S. We even have a plan to overhaul legal immigration to be much more in harmony with our economy, which you can read here.

Tucson, Arizona – After watching the Arizona presidential debate, we’re very disappointed that three of the four candidates are clearly tone deaf on immigration. This does not bode well for the GOP in the general election, as their comments and clear lack of practical solutions will help Obama with New Americans. Immigration is not the #1 issue, but ranks a close #2 among Latinos, according to recent polls.

Of the four, only Newt Gingrich seemed to fully grasp that the root cause of our problem with illegal immigration is our broken legal immigration system, mentioning that Congress did not follow-up the 1986 immigration laws with sensible guest worker program reforms. Historically, whenever our immigration laws are in conflict with free market capitalism the result has been illegal immigration.

Mitt Romney claims Arizona’s e-verify law reduced undocumented workers, when in fact undocumented workers regularly circumvent e-verify by borrowing a real person’s name and social security number, rendering Romney’s statistics dubious. Romney and Santorum both praised the Joe Arpaio policing model, embodied as Arizona’s SB1070 law, introduced shortly after Arpaio was stripped of 287(g) street immigration enforcement authority due to pervasive racial profiling and not following program guidelines.

Arpaio’s policing model is a proven failure. Crime, particularly violent crime, has skyrocketed in areas patrolled by Arpaio due to massive diversion of resources to immigration enforcement, while crime rates fell everywhere else in Arizona. In one community alone, 432 sex crimes went uninvestigated due to lack of resources and leadership. The federal government already has the 287(g) program to empower state and local police to enforce immigration laws, and 287(g) is problem plagued, according to ICE’s Inspector General.

A recent DOJ investigation, using Arpaio’s own traffic stop records, found Latinos are 4-9 times more likely to be stopped by Sheriff’s deputies, and 20% of the stops lacked probable cause, in other words ‘driving while brown.’ Now Arpaio wants the rest of Arizona and nation to follow his failed policing model, throwing the civil rights of 50 million Hispanics ‘under the bus.’

The candidates claim Obama isn’t enforcing immigration laws, when in fact immigration law enforcement and deportations have dramatically stepped up, and our ‘deporter-in-chief’ sets new records for deportations. The immigration court system and detention facilities are already straining at capacity, so more immigration enforcement without addressing other aspects just worsens the problem, and damages whole sectors of our economy such as agriculture.

Ron Paul claims illegal immigration happens due to the welfare state, yet undocumented immigrants have been barred for decades from welfare, and numerous audits in multiple states consistantly failed to find a problem with undocumented immigrants collecting welfare. You’d think as a libertarian Paul would grasp that our current immigration system is a failed progressive solution, and free markets largely determine immigration levels, not government quotas. Ron Paul is clearly a ‘crypto-libertarian’ when it comes to immigration.

The best way to stop immigrants from crossing our borders seeking work in the U.S. is to provide them a line to stand in for visas. For most immigrants, there never was ‘a line to stand in’, but there are jobs here that most Americans don’t want. Newt Gingrich is the only one of the four who fully grasps the problem.

original

by Bob Quasius

With the upcoming Arizona presidential primary, Republican voters will want to consider the immigration stances of the candidates. Rick Santorum is again seeking the endorsement of immigration extremist Joe Arpaio, and this is just the latest!

Sharing a recent blog from our Illinois state leader, Andy Kirchoff (with permission):

With Rick Santorum’s recent rise in the polls, scrutiny of his Senate record has become far more prevalent; his conservative orthodoxy (and lack thereof) have been dissected and evaluated by many commentators at this point, and there’s very little reason to re-hash those criticisms here. However, Santorum’s positions on immigration issues seem to have skated by most conservatives, including those of the pro-immigration reform bend. This post aims to remedy that.

Given Santorum’s familial background (which includes immigrants on both his father’s and mother’s side), you’d think he’d be willing to support some commonsense immigration reform solutions. Alas, his record is one of complete and utter opposition to comprehensive immigration reform. While he now claims to support guest worker programs, he stood with Barbara Boxer and the SEIU in opposing a guest worker program back in 2005. Despite proudly wearing his Catholic faith on his sleeve, he vocally criticizes the Catholic Bishops for their strong advocacy for immigration reform. Although his early congressional career shows a willingness to back smaller amnesty proposals, his steadfast opposition to “amnesty” in principle has led him to reject even Newt Gingrich’s more demure version of the DREAM Act; he’s even gone so far as to call Newt’s moderate immigration stance “false compassion for illegal immigrants.”

Santorum even went where no other GOP Presidential candidate has gone: he has openly called for a reduction in legal immigration. This economically perilous and progressive stance caught the attention of the notoriously xenophobic, pro-abortion group NumbersUSA. Roy Beck, the President of the group who has publicly spoken to racist organizations, upgraded Santorum’s rating to an “A-” – by far the highest score of any of the remaining Presidential candidates (Mitt Romney has the next highest score, receiving a “C+”).

Santorum even had the gall to say that he would “grieve” for the elderly who were deported under his Presidency, but would not make efforts to prevent their imminent deportation. This statement demonstrates that Santorum lacks even a rudimentary understanding of immigration issues, and his statements should disturb anyone, Santorum supporter or not. The callous nature of these comments is reminiscent of Obama’s tone-deafness on the abortion issue (recall, if you will, how pro-lifers were upset in 2008 when then-candidate Barack Obama said that a baby was “punishment”). Suffice it to say that to most Americans, a willingness to deport the elderly won’t exactly go over well.

But really, if a candidate of either party thinks that upholding the law (a campaign theme for Santorum both in 2006 and now in 2012) is more important than keeping families together or maintaining strong economies and communities, said candidate cannot honestly be called a conservative. Of course, Santorum vocally opposes Ronald Reagan’s idea of what conservatism essentially is, so I guess no one should really be too surprised to see him embrace a progressive, big-government solution to immigration issues.

Conservatives, don’t be fooled. Rick Santorum isn’t one of us. As a prominent PA GOP operative has said, “Yeah, he’s Mr. Pro-life. He’s socially conservative. But he is, in my mind, unfit to be President.” Hopefully, more conservatives and Republicans start to realize this before it’s too late.

by Bob Quasius

Our endorsement of Newt Gingrich for President has stirred some controversy, but I am confident our leadership team made the right decision. With the Minnesota and Colorado caucuses at hand, now is a good time to review the remaining candidates. Note that while we endorsed Newt Gingrich, any of the GOP candidates could do a better job than Barack Obama, the worst president in modern history!

We still see Newt as a strong electable candidate, for several reasons.

• Proven leadership experience as Speaker of the House. Newt was one of the primary authors of the very successful ‘Contract with America’ and worked closely with Ronald Reagan. Newt knows how to get things done in Washington, sometimes ‘breaking arms’ when necessary, but more often working across the aisle.
• Obama has a terrible record of hyper-partisanship, and no track record before or as president of working across the aisle. Obama’s awful job performance shows that experience leading large organizations does count.
• Mitt Romney has never held office in Washington, and his experience as governor of Massachusetts is not impressive. Romney has overplayed his business experience; investment bankers aren’t involved much in the management of the businesses where they acquire a an equity stake.
• Santorum was a U.S. Senator with no particular accomplishments of note or leadership roles.
• Ron Paul was in Congress for 23 years and only one bill passed into law. Ron Paul never held any leadership positions either, and his foreign policy stances are dangerously naive. All the best ideas in the world are useless if you can’t convince others to follow you and execute those ideas!
• Newt is a fairly consistent conservative, though he has strayed a couple of times over many years. By comparison, Mitt Romney has been ‘all over the map’ on abortion, climate change, government run health care (RomneyCare = ObamaCare), support for Ronald Reagan, immigration reform, etc.
• Rick Santorum is a conservative on social issues, but was a big government guy in the Senate. Ron Paul is ‘Dr. No’, opposed to just about everything. Unfortunately a leader can’t get anything done with others just be being opposed to everyone else.
• Newt’s willingness to stake out a centrist and pragmatic position on immigration is impressive. Immigration reform is a thorny issue that will require excellent leadership skills to develop a bipartisan solution. I don’t agree with Newt’s immigration solution, but his solution comes closest, and knowing Newt’s ability to get things done with Congress I am confident in the end we will have a workable solution.
• The other three Republican candidates as well as Obama seem unable to articulate anything resembling a workable solution, and Obama failed to even introduce immigration reform, and meanwhile deportations has set records. ‘Enforcement on steroids’ is not a workable solution, and is destroying sectors of our economy as well as ripping mixed-status families apart.
• During the only four years in my lifetime that we had a balanced budget, Newt Gingrich was speaker of the House! Obama has failed to even introduce a budget, and government expenditures have been authorized through omnibus spending bills and individual bills. Spending in Washington has clearly spiraled out of control, and needs decisive and experienced leadership to rein in spending and make painful cuts.

With our nation in dire straits, it’s critical our new president be prepared to lead from day one. There’s no time for ‘on the job’ training as President. We’ve been suffering from Obama’s inexperience for three years now!

Please join us in supporting Newt Gingrich in the upcoming Arizona primary!

Dear Sheriff Babeu,

We are stunned at the allegations of extortion and intimidation from your former lover, as reported by the Phoenix New Times and other media outlets. These allegations are serious, and there is evidence such as text messages that support his claims.

You also posted semi-nude photos of yourself on a web site accessible to the general public merely by registering for the dating service. This shows extremely poor judgment, much as former Congressman Anthony Weiner showed poor judgement in a similar situation and left Congress.

At your press conference on Saturday, you claimed you have no power to deport Jose, but your department does have 287(g) authority from the federal government, which means you have the power to arrest suspected undocumented immigrants. If you knew José or his family are here illegally, then why didn’t you act?

Even if José is here legally, as a prominent figure nationally, with an ongoing relationship with DHS through 287(g), most immigrants would readily perceive that you are in a position to influence revoking of visas, and denial of visa extensions. As a Congressman, you would have even more influence over DHS. José is entirely right to perceive your threat to his legal status, as well as that of his family members.

Evidence that you have or may abuse your power are extremely relevant in the upcoming elections. You did the right thing by stepping down as Mitt Romney’s Arizona campaign co-chairman, though it’s likely you would have been asked to step down had you not preempted the firing by resigning first.

You should also withdraw from the congressional race immediately. The obvious lack of judgement you demonstrated, and these serious allegations hanging over your campaign make you unelectable. Leaving the race will clear the field for the two credible Republican candidates in the race now, and open the door for other qualified republicans to step forward and run for this office. Note that we are not supporting either of the two other Republican candidates.

You are not a credible candidate, due to your constant fear mongering about border violence, the apparently self-inflicted shooting of one of your deputies, and now this scandalous behavior, all of which call into question your leadership and integrity. Several border area mayors even wrote you a letter debunking your constant claims of border violence spiraling out of control, when in fact FBI statistics show that our border communities are among the safest.

The constant drumbeat of Arizona politicians that our border is insecure has fomented a national hysteria about border security, when in fact border security has been greatly enhanced in recent years and recently net illegal immigration from Mexico dropped to zero.

America needs to fix it’s dysfunctional legal immigration system, but unfortunately with the misinformation emanating from you and other Arizona politicians, many Americans have been misled about the true situation near our borders. We need problem solvers in Washington, not politicians such as yourself who use wedge issues such as immigration to play on the fears and emotions of Americans.

Please step down from the congressional race, and allow more electable Republicans to run in your place.

yours truly,

Bob Quasius
President, Cafe Con Leche Republicans
Original
###

Cafe Con Leche Republicans is a national GOP group of Republicans who welcome New Americans. Our members and leaders are predominately Hispanic, though we define ourselves through our mission and guiding principles rather than ethnicity, and we welcome anyone who supports our mission as a member or supporter. Our leadership is limited to Republicans. We have chapters in Arizona, Nevada, California, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Florida.

(written by Bob Quasius)
GOP Group Demands Sheriff Arpaio Resign and Leave GOP
For Immediate Release   13 December 2011

Phoenix, Arizona – Sheriff Joe Arpaio is actively campaigning for presidential candidate Rick Perry and his own reelection, and other activities not related to fighting crime in Maricopa County, such as investigating President Obama’s birth certificate.

Meanwhile the wheels are falling off the wagon at the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO), as shown by the lack of investigation of at least 400 serious sex crime cases, many involving child rape. Sheriff Arpaio has diverted resources from critical crime fighting activities such as investigating sex crimes and serving thousands of felony arrest warrants, to immigration sweeps and prosecution of his critics. The Board of Supervisors estimates up to $100 million was improperly diverted by Arpaio.

As a direct result of Arpaio’s misplaced priorities, violent crime has soared by 57% during the last ten years, while falling elsewhere in Arizona. The MCSO is the subject of massive lawsuits related to malicious prosecutions of Arpaio critics, wrongful deaths, federal investigations into abuse of power by Arpaio, and a class action racial profiling lawsuit.

Sheriff Arpaio and the MCSO has become America’s poster child for why state and local police should not become heavily involved in immigration enforcement. A recent report by the Goldwater Institute documents misplaced priorities and improperly cleared criminal cases. Arpaio’s incompetence and misplaced priorities effectively provides amnesty to violent criminals including child rapists!

We demand that Sheriff Arpaio immediately resign and apologize to the sex abuse victims, the people of Maricopa County for his abject failure to protect them, and to thousands of Hispanics, who were victims of racial profiling. A new sheriff is needed who will transform the MCSO into a professionally led department that prioritizes crime fighting and community policing, rather than grandstanding for media exposure, persecuting critics, and immigration sweeps of Hispanic neighborhoods, which terrorize these communities and undermine community policing. There is already one qualified candidate in the race, and with Arpaio out of the race more qualified candidates will likely emerge.

Sheriff Arpaio has disgraced his office and the Republican Party, and severely polarized Arizona into two camps, divided over the immigration issue. If Sheriff Arpaio remains in the race and the Republican Party, Democrats in Arizona will rally Latinos in opposition to Arpaio, and turn Arizona Blue, perhaps for decades.

A recent PEW Research Report shows a majority of Republicans support immigration reform, contrary to the perception that Arpaio fosters with his rhetoric. The vast majority of Republicans, including most opposed to immigration reform, do not deserve the image of Republicans that Joe Arpaio and other Nativists foster.

Arpaio does not belong in the party of Lincoln. Arpaio does not respect the constitution, and he seeks massive expansion of government power over citizenry, and clearly abuses his power. For both the good of people of Arizona and the GOP, we call on Arpaio to immediately step down and leave the GOP, and clear the field for a worthy candidate to fill the job of Sheriff.

original

# # # # #

About Us – Cafe Con Leche Republicans is a national organization of Republicans who welcome “New Americans”, defined as immigrants and descendants of recent immigrants who are going through the process of acculturation. Our mission is to make America and particularly the GOP, more welcoming to “New Immigrants” through political activism, “in-reach” and education within the Republican Party, and lobbying government to adopt more immigrant friendly policies. We also seek to bring more conservative and moderate “New Americans” to the Republican Party. This combination of efforts will strengthen the Republican Party, and lead more Republicans to embrace more welcoming policies for immigrants and their families. Cafe Con Leche Republicans has chapters in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Minnesota, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania.

(written by Bob Quasius)

Phoenix, Arizona – We are pleased at the Department of Justice investigation into civil rights violations by Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s department, confirming what we have been saying about Arpaio. We repeat our call for Arpaio to resign, and apologize to violent crime victims whose cases were not even investigated, and the many thousands of Latinos who were unjustly targeted by Arpaio’s police through racial profiling. We also call on Arpaio to leave the Republican Party, the party of Abraham Lincoln. A majority of Republicans support immigration reform including a path to legalization, and most Republicans who are opposed to immigration reform do not share Arpaio’s extremist values. Arpaio’s affiliation with the Republican Party hurts our chances in the next election and we’d like him to leave.

We also call on the presidential candidates who embraced Joe Arpaio to now renounce Arpaio. In particular, Rick Perry sought and received Arpaio’s endorsement and campaigned together in New Hampshire. Rick Perry has also adapted extreme views on immigration involving mass deportations. We repeat our call for Rick Perry to end his campaign, as we do not believe he is electable, and Arpaio’s involvement hurts the GOP. We also call on Michelle Bachmann, who also has called for mass deportations, to renounce Joe Arpaio, whose endorsement she sought. Mitt Romney also sought Arpaio’s endorsement and has taken an enforcement only stance, though less extreme than the other candidates. We would like to know whether each of these candidates approve of such extreme policing measures, such as targeting Latino drivers for traffic stops, arrests for minor traffic violations instead of writing a ticket, etc.

Joe Apraio and his department is a poster child for why police should not become involved in immigration enforcement. The massive diversion of resources in Arpaio’s department detracted from fighting crime, and opened the door to racial profiling. Official crime statistics showed that from 2002 to 2009 violent crime rose in Maricopa County by 58% while violent crime fell elsewhere in Arizona. Unfortunately, Arpaio popularized the notion that more enforcement is all that is needed to resolve our nation’s immigration problems, rather than address the root cause, which is a broken immigration system. Numerous credible studies show racial profiling of Latinos and other minorities is already a problem, and requiring state and local police enforce immigration law only encourages more racial profiling.”
original

# # # # #

About Us – Cafe Con Leche Republicans is a national organization of Republicans who welcome “New Americans”, defined as immigrants and descendants of recent immigrants who are going through the process of acculturation. Our mission is to make America and particularly the GOP, more welcoming to “New Immigrants” through political activism, “in-reach” and education within the Republican Party, and lobbying government to adopt more immigrant friendly policies. We also seek to bring more conservative and moderate “New Americans” to the Republican Party. This combination of efforts will strengthen the Republican Party, and lead more Republicans to embrace more welcoming policies for immigrants and their families. Cafe Con Leche Republicans has chapters in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Minnesota, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania.