Kris Kobach, Author of SB1070

John Tanton

This law was written by Yale-educated Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach while moonlighting for the man the Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled an American bigot, John Tanton.

Dr. Tanton founded the Federation for Americans for Immigration Reform (FAIR), the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), NumbersUSA and Official English groups, all funded by an outlier foundation that studies Black penis size relative to crime rates. He also comes from population control groups like Zero Population Growth and Planned Parenthood.

A federal district judge eviscerated SB1070 and she was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States with one exception, that of a “papers please” section of SB1070 that allows local and state police to demand proof of legal residency when people are detained. It declared that issue not legally “ripe” but suggested that when that provision was enforced the courts would rule on it when someone with standing sued.

In the meanwhile, two other controversial SB1070 provisions jumped from the district court to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals where a panel unanimously upheld the lower court’s junking of these provisions of SB1070.

Politico:

The provisions in question make it illegal for a person in a car to pick up and hire a person for work, and for someone to enter a stopped car for that purpose, if the vehicle blocks traffic.

The judges agreed that the State of Arizona simply failed to prove the lower court injunctions wrong when SB1070 criminalized stopping on a road to offer someone a job or for an individual to ask for a job or enter a stopped car after accepting a job offer. The court said it was a broad assault on commercial and free speech. They also ruled that Arizona failed to show how traffic safety was actually involved.

Judge Raymond Fisher

Judge Raymond Fisher writing for a unanimous three-judge panel:

Arizona … has failed to justify a need to serve that interest through targeting and penalizing day labor solicitation that blocks traffic, rather than directly targeting those who create traffic hazards without reference to their speech, as currently proscribed under the state’s pre-existing traffic law. Laws like this one that restrict more protected speech than necessary violate the First Amendment.

That pesky 1st Amendment to the Constitution — if only we had a President like Venezuela’s now-deceased Hugo Chavez who simply closed down newspapers, television and radio stations when they criticized him.

Another interesting part of the court’s decision was how the judges smacked Arizona around for trying to cover unconstitutionality by claiming it was trying to improve traffic safety. Judge Fisher wrote that SB1070 was a “classic example” of limiting free speech to a narrow band consisting of making it a crime to offer someone a job or to accepting one from a roadside or sidewalk.

On Arizona’s claim that the intent of the law was only “traffic safety” the court ruled:

The district court reasonably determined that the purpose of the day labor provisions was to suppress labor-solicitation speech rather than to promote traffic safety. Significantly, the purposes clause introducing S.B. 1070 describes it as an immigration bill, not a traffic safety bill…Finally, the day labor provisions’ punishment is far out of line with punishments for other similar traffic violations. For example, conduct that recklessly impedes traffic is punishable by 30 days’ imprisonment, but day labor solicitation that is not dangerous or reckless, but merely impedes traffic, is a class 1 misdemeanor punishable by up to six months’ imprisonment.

The decision does not rule these provisions unconstitutional but it prohibits them from being implemented. The judges also stated that if these provisions were enforced, they would most likely be ruled unconstitutional at the first opportunity in front of a judge.

Once again, the John Tanton/Kris Kobach legal conspiracy to attack legal and illegal immigrants with laws at the state (Arizona, Alabama, Georgia) and local levels (Texas, Nebraska, Pennsylvania) that violate the federal constitution’s power in Article 1, Section 8 for Congress to “make a uniform rule of naturalization (immigration)” suffers extreme mortal wounds in judicial courts.

Reposted with permission from Cafe Con Leche Republicans – original link

####

Raoul Contreras Lowery

Raoul Lowery Contreras (1941) was born in Mexico, raised in the USA. Former U.S. Marine, athlete, Dean’s List at San Diego State. Professional political consultant and California Republican Party official (1963-65)…Television news commentator, radio talk show host…published Op-Ed writer (1988 to present)…author of 12 books (as of 1-05-12). His books are available on Amazon.com.

A recent YouTube video, “Wealth Inequality in America,” has been steadily circulating through various internet sites and social media outlets. The viral video seeks to educate the American populace on how unjust or “skewed” the American Economic system is because it creates horrible economic inequality.  However, the video is rather vague for it seems to only emphasize the topic of the distribution of wealth, without actually explaining why they believe this inequality is ghastly and unfair. The video raised the question of whether or not CEOs are worth what they earn.  According to the video, a CEO earns in one hour what the average employee earns in one month.  The video also made the hypothetical query, “Does a CEO really work 380 times harder than his average worker?”; implying that this is immoral because  Americans do not ideally think or even perceive the value placed on CEOs as being fair distribution of wealth.  So then I pose this question, “Is this supposed unjust distribution caused by an inherently evil unjust system and do the rich like CEOs and athletes get paid an unjust amount?”. I have concluded that this is view is inaccurate as it is a misconception of how wealth is actually earned and dispersed.

First, we must become aware of how wealth is actually distributed in the United States, with the exception of government contracting, bailouts, grants and loans, social security, welfare (both corporate and individual). Whereas the Federal government chooses the winners and losers, wealth distribution is based off the free market. The market is simply people – millions of people that make day to day decisions. In fact, every time you choose to shop at Wal-Mart, Target or any other store you are deciding where to distribute your wealth. There is no system or outside force that causes you to purchase goods and services at any particular store in the United States or even a particular brand. Instead, we the American people decide how to spread our wealth. Economist, Walter E. Williams clearly conveys the truth of this idea,

Look at how Wal-Mart Stores generated wealth for the Walton family of Christy ($25 billion), Jim ($21 billion), Alice ($21 billion) and Robson ($21 billion). The Walton family’s wealth is not a result of ill-gotten gains, but the result of Wal-Mart’s revenue, $422 billion in 2010. The blame for this unjust concentration of wealth rests with those hundreds of millions of shoppers worldwide who voluntarily enter Wal-Mart premises and leave dollars, pounds and pesos.

In other words, millions of people are freely choosing to shop and distribute their wealth as they see fit.  This can also be seen when you choose to buy a generic brand over the name brand or when you decide to eat at a chain restaurant or a local restaurant; and by the fact that store owners and managers respond to your purchases by stocking the shelves with the products you desire most. These are all actions and reactions to people’s decisions.

Second, there seems to be a misconception of where people get the money to distribute the wealth they have. So where does wealth come from? Economist, Thomas Sowell explains this best,

Despite a voluminous and often fervent literature on “income distribution,” the cold fact is that most income is not distributed: It is earned. People paying each other for goods and services generate income…[M]ost wealth is not distributed at all. People create it, earn it, save it and spend it.  (Sowell, The Vision of the Anointed, 1995, pg 211)

It is crucial for one to understand Sowell’s point that most wealth is earned and created by innovation and hard work. With this earned wealth, these people then can choose to spend, save, invest or even give their money away.  Ultimately, this is an admirable thing because it demonstrates free people making free decisions based on their own family and unique life situations.  It is not some central organization or mystical entity that distributes money – if so, it clearly would be unjust. Moreover, the video’s argument that there must be something inherently wrong since the desired and perceived distribution of wealth is categorically off from the actual wealth distribution numbers, is no real argument at all! This does not make for a cogent argument, especially if a person’s perception is already based on a false understanding of how wealth is created and distributed.  Economist Walter E Williams expounds on these common misconceptions some more,

I think some of the ignorance and much of the demagoguery stems from the usage of the phrase “income distribution.” It might make some people think income is distributed; in other words, there’s a dealer of dollars….An alternative vision might be that there’s a pile of money intended for all of us. The reason why some are rich and some are poor is that the greedy rich got to the pile first and took their unfair share. Clearly, in either case, justice would require a re-dealing, or redistribution, of the dollars, where the government takes ill-gotten gains of the few and returns them to their rightful owners.

Williams is right, although many in our culture seem to think they were given the shaft by some mythical dollar dealer or somehow they did not get their fair share as if there was a predestined share they were entitled to receive at birth. Now contrast that to the reality that wealth is created by producing goods and services that are pleasing to “one’s fellow man,” as Williams states. In other words, the only way you will obtain wealth is to earn it from your “fellow man” and to do that you need to produce goods and services that will be of use to them.

Thirdly, the video poses the idea that Athletes and CEOs do not produce as much as their employees. As a reference library assistant, I get paid for the services I provide to students for the university. I am paid a wage that is on par with the value the university places on me, and thus is willing to pay me. Furthermore, I work there because I am willing to be compensated at that rate. Again, millions of people do this same process all over the nation voluntarily.  This same voluntary process happens for CEOs, athletes and other rich members of our society by getting paid based on how much their employers value them. For example, Derek Jeter the short stop for the New York Yankees is to be paid this year about $24.5 Million. Now to you and me, Jeter may not be worth 24 million dollars nor does he necessarily work as hard as you or I combined. But to the New York Yankees, he is worth every penny. According to Andrew Marhand of ESPN New York,

“He [Jeter] is the brand,” said St. Louis Blues interim CEO Mike McCarthy, who ran MSG Network when it owned the rights to Yankees’ games. From McCarthy’s unique position as a top television executive and now as part of an ownership group in St. Louis, the 36-year-old Jeter adds premium value to the Yankees and YES — both estimated to be worth more than a billion each, maybe much more — as he likely becomes the first Yankee with 3,000 hits.

Kurt Badenhausen of Forbs magazine gives us even more perspective:

During his Yankees career Jeter has made $213 million in salary (with another $43 million still to come) and roughly $100 million in endorsements. Yet his value to the Yankees has been even greater. The value of the Yankees and its related enterprises has increased by nearly $5 billion during Jeter’s career. Yes other stars contributed greatly to the Yankees success, but no one quite like the Captain.

In other words, Jeter adds more to the team in value than just what he produces out on the field. This is not an unjust distribution of wealth because again it is millions of people like you and I who buy the Jeter memorabilia and watch the Yankee games on TV which adds to ratings – all of these situations examples of wealth being distributed on account of the voluntary decisions of free individuals and not some scheming system planers.  The same goes for CEOs, for it is not  society that gets to decide how much the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, University of Phoenix, or any other company gets paid for the job they do. Society does not know the value that these positions is worth to those individual stock holders.

In conclusion, we are the ones who choose how to spend our dollar votes.  Therefore, the next time you go shop at a store or buy a Derek Jeter Yankee’s jersey, realize that you are distributing your wealth. There is no system that is ideal. The video clip, “Wealth Inequality in America,” is talking about an imaginative system or idea of more equality that does not exist and never will exist. Free markets are not perfect, but compared to all other economic systems there is nothing better. If you wish for more just results, then maybe giving to charity or starting a business and employing people at a wage you believe is fair would be a start. Either way, it is up to the millions of individuals to decide how they will distribute their wealth, because they are the ones who make up the market.   Therefore, let’s looks beyond idealism and ignorant perception and seek understanding.

Originally published on the Cafe con Leche Republicans blog.

####

Editors note: as with all blog postings that appear with a by-line, the opinions presented are the author’s and not necessarily the positions of Cafe Con Leche Republicans.

Thomas Martin Salazar is an Arizona leader of the Café con Leche Republicans. Thomas was born and raised in Arizona. He holds a Bachelor’s degree in History from Grand Canyon University and is currently working on obtaining a MDiv in Biblical Communication from Phoenix Seminary. Thomas has also served as the Grand Canyon University College Republicans Vice President and interim President (February 2007-April 2008) and as a Maricopa County Republican Precinct committeeman (August 2009 – August 2012).

While many Americans seethe privately about Mexicans and where they come from, Mexico, as well as Mexican history, Mexican religion and Mexican economic, social and personal contact with America and Americans, few have publicly manifested their hatred and profound anti-Mexican racism in public. It wasn’t polite.

Polite American society no longer tolerates public racism like it used to before the civil rights revolution. That revolution was fueled by the United States Supreme Court decision in a critical Texas ruling (Hernandez v. Texas 347 U.S. 475) in which it ruled official governmental discrimination against people of Mexican origin was illegal.

That decision took anti-Mexican racism out of the state capitols and buried in the minds of some individuals

Pat Buchanan – Nativist

In the early 90s, however, it surfaced in public discourse with the emotional and hysterical campaign by people like Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot, Jesse Jackson, a group labeled the Halloween Coalition, that arose to fight the North American free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

Ross Perot

“The Mexicans are coming, the Mexicans are coming” became Ross Perot s 1992 and 1996 Presidential campaign themes. Pat Buchanan tried it in 2000 and again in 2004. Last year, dozens of Republican congressional candidates, some incumbents, campaigned against Mexicans in thinly veiled “anti-illegal alien” campaigns.

They failed miserably. Perot and Buchanan were slaughtered (giving us Bill Clinton in 1992). Buchanan received less than one half of one percent of the presidential vote.

J.D. Hayworth

Republican hysteric congressman J.D. Hayworth was slaughtered in a Republican district as was his fellow hysteric, Randy Graf, who lost in an open Republican seat partly because he was endorsed by the Minutemen and former Klansman David Duke. Other hard line Mexican haters in Congress defeated and replaced by Democrats.

These losers were all open about their hatred but they managed to couch their hatred and racist feelings by claiming they had little against Mexicans; they only were against illegal aliens. By claiming they didn’t hate Mexicans, even though they did, they managed to cover up their racism behind terms like “sovereignty,” “open borders,” “American jobs,” “What part of illegal don’t you understand?” ad infinitum.

Now, in 2007 in the wake of their 2006 electoral disaster, the haters are coming out more publicly than ever in a last ditch effort to destroy Mexico, its people and its relations with the United States.

Mark Krikorian

The Center for Immigration studies (CIS) had a public presentation this week In San Diego, the largest American city on the Mexican border. It included panelists Professor George Grayson (College of William and Marry, Virginia), S. Lynne Walker, longtime correspondent from Mexico for the San Diego-based Copley Press and CIS Executive Director, Mark Krikorian. The panel was moderated by former United States Attorney and Undersecretary of the Treasury, Peter Nunez, who serves as CIS Chairman.

John Tanton

Note: The CIS was founded by John Tanton, defined by many as the most effective bigot in America and a prime Mexican hater. He also founded a publication, Social Quarterly, in an effort to legitimize racism; he founded NumbersUSA, another anti-immigrant group. He also founded the Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform (FAIR). He used racist Pioneer Fund money to start up FAIR.

When he founded CIS, he installed as its head Mark Krikorian who worked for Tanton at FAIR. The CIS is theoretically a non-partisan “think tank.” It is not.

It is vehemently anti-immigrant, legal and illegal. If there was any doubt, here are ideas proposed by Mark Krikorian at the presentation.

Thousands of Mexicans cross the border every day in San Diego to spend $3-billion a year on goods and services in San Diego annually; consider further that an estimated 50-75,000 Mexicans legally cross the border every day to legally work in San Diego, Orange and Los Angeles counties.

First, Krikorian demands that the United States “insulate ourselves” from our largest neighbor, Mexico. In rejecting the idea that the side-by-side economies of America s 7th largest city, San Diego, and Mexico s fourth largest city, Tijuana, were economically interdependent, Krikorian said, “It, frankly, is a parasitic phenomenon” and that, it is “fundamentally in conflict with the interests of the United States.”

San Diego Union: “He (Krikorian) also suggested getting rid of border-crossing cards that (legally) allow Mexicans who go through a screening process to enter the United States to go shopping or visit family as well as taking away green cards from people who live in Mexico and cross the border to work every day.”

There it is, on the table for all to see. Prohibit legal Mexican border-crossers from crossing to do business, visit doctors, work or go to the world famous San Diego Zoo. Why? Will stopping legal Mexican border-crossers and workers from coming to San Diego, El Paso and Brownsville enhance American security? Will a fairy godmother pour billions of dollars into San Diego to make up what it will lose if such a program of border crossing denials is implemented?

What we have here is pure deep-seated racism, the likes of which was exposed in Hernandez v. Texas. Mr. Krikorian reveals what he and the CIS are all about.

Stopping legal Mexican visitors and workers from crossing the border boggles the mind. What part of legal don’t these people understand? Legality, you see, means nothing to the CIS, Krikorian and their fellow travelers.

Reason: Mexicans are Mexicans and they have a different skin color, speak Spanish and, as Catholics, worship differently than the White Anglo Saxon Protestants who are behind Armenian-origin Krikorian and his English-origin boss, John Tanton.

####

Reposted from Cafe Con Leche Republicans with the author’s permission – original link

Raoul Contreras Lowery

Raoul Lowery Contreras (1941) was born in Mexico, raised in the USA. Former U.S. Marine, athlete, Dean’s List at San Diego State. Professional political consultant and California Republican Party official(1963-65)…Television news commentator, radio talk show host…published Op-Ed writer (1988 to present)…author of 12 books (as of 1-05-12). His books are available on Amazon.com.

Ann Coulter – Nativist

Ann Coulter has just insulted naturalized citizens with her absurd claim that President George H.W. Bush eliminated the naturalization test English requirement!

Naturalized citizens have every reason to feel proud to become naturalized citizens, after a lengthy process involving years of English, American history, and civics studies to prepare them for an interview and civics exam in English. Fully one third of native born adult citizens cannot pass the naturalization exam, but 97% of immigrants pass!

Naturalized citizens, especially those who arrived without much formal education, have every right to feel proud. I personally know a naturalized citizen of very humble origins who struggled with English and civic studies for many years. She felt such enormous pride when she became an American citizen that she had her naturalization certificate blown up and framed for display in a prominent place of honor in her living room!

Naturalization Test in English Has Been Law Since 1906

In 1906, Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1906, stating:

That no alien shall hereafter be naturalized or admitted as a citizen of the United States who can not speak the English language: Provided, That this requirement shall not apply to aliens who are physically unable to comply therewith, if they are otherwise qualified to become citizens of the United States.

In 1950, the McCarran Internal Security Act strengthened the English requirement to require the ability to read, write, and speak English, and demonstrate a knowledge of history and form of government. The revised statute states:

Sec. 304. No person except as otherwise provided in this Act shall hereafter be naturalized as a citizen of the United States upon his own petition who cannot demonstrate -

1. an understanding of the English language, including an ability to read, write, and speak words in ordinary usage in the English language: Provided, That this requirement shall not apply to any person physically unable to comply therewith, if otherwise qualified to be naturalized, or to any person who, on the date of approval of this amendment, is over fifty years of age and has been legally residing in the United States for twenty years: Provided further, That the requirements of this section relating to ability to read and write shall be met if the applicant can read or write simple words and phrases to the end that a reasonable test of his literacy shall be made and that no extraordinary or unreasonable conditions shall be imposed upon the applicant; and
2. a knowledge and understanding of the fundamentals of the history, and the principles and form of government, of the United States.

Millions of immigrants have toiled through years of English studies, American history, and government to prepare them for an interview and civics test in English with an Immigration officer. During the administration of President George W. Bush, the naturalization test was made even more difficult, but 97% of immigrants still pass the exam. The same exam has been given to native born citizens, and fully 1/3 failed the same exam! Perhaps Ann Coulter would fail the naturalization test too!

Ann Coulter Insults Naturalized Citizens and Slams George H.W. Bush

Ann Coulter just diminished the accomplishments of naturalized citizens with another of her bald faced lies. In her most recent rant, Hispanicked GOP elite: They’ll respect us in the morning, Coulter showed contempt for President George H.W. Bush:

President George H.W. Bush created “diversity visas,” massively increased legal immigration and eliminated the English requirement on the naturalization test.

George H.W. Bush

Ann Coulter lies! The Immigration Act of 1990, signed by President George H.W. Bush, did not eliminate the English requirement.  The middle-aged  and especially the elderly have a difficult time mastering English. The 1950 law made an exception for those aged 50+ with 20 years of residency. The 1990 law merely added an exception for those who are 55+ with 15 years of residency. They still have to take the civics exam, but can take the exam with an interpreter. There is no exception to the civics exam unless one is 65+ and a 15+ year resident.

The vast majority of immigrants are still interviewed and take the civics exam in English. Exempting the elderly is consistent with the spirit of the 1906 law, which states “requirement shall not apply to aliens who are physically unable to comply”, but doesn’t exempt the middle aged or elderly. The mentally impaired and physically disabled are exempted, consistent with the spirit of the 1906 law.

Do Today’s Immigrants Refuse to Learn English?

Not surprisingly, Nativists like Coulter often claim today’s Hispanic immigrants refuse to learn English, but credible statistics by Pew Research shows just the opposite! I blogged about this in Do Today’s Immigrants Refuse to Learn English. From Pew Research

As telling, perhaps, is a look at how many people said teaching English to immigrant children is not important. Among Latinos, only 2% held this view compared to 27% of non-Latinos.

The truth of the matter is that virtually all immigrants, both today’s and those of many decades ago, believe learning English is important, but also struggle with mastery of English, particularly if they are older when they arrive or have less formal education. The fact that a mere 2% of Latinos don’t think teaching English to immigrant children speaks volumes.

Ann Coulter Misrepresented Immigration Levels Too!

Ann Coulter also misrepresents immigration levels, and like many of her Nativist pals often claims the U.S. is being overrun by immigrants. The 1990 immigration law increased immigrant visas from 500,000 to 700,000, but Coulter fails to mention the quota had not been changed for decades and had not kept up with population growth.

In 2010, 1,042,625 immigrants obtained permanent resident status, compared with U.S. population of 310,383,948, 0.336% as a percentage of population. That numbers sounds large, until we realize the U.S. ranks #22 of 34 OECD nations in immigration as a percentage of population, near the bottom! A few nations that accept more immigrants than the U.S. as a percentage of population:

• Tiny Luxembourg: 3.116% of population, nearly ten times the U.S. immigration level
• Switzerland, 1.751% (Switzerland is one of the world’s most affluent nations)
• Canada, 0.825% of population, 2-1/2 times the immigration levels of the U.S.
• The U.S. – a mere 0.336%, or if Ann Coulter’s Nativist pals get their way and slash legal immigration to 1956 levels, 0.104%!

If the U.S. slashed its immigrant quota to 1956 levels to satisfy the Nativist lobby, we would then rank #31 of 34 OECD nations, near the very bottom!

Conclusion – Ann Coulter Will You Please Stop Insulting Naturalized Citizens!

Ann Coulter is right about many issues, but when it comes to immigration she is clueless. Since Ann Coulter is often held out as a spokesperson for the conservative movement, her rhetoric is very alienating to New Americans, such as Hispanics and Asians. She further insults these demographics with insinuations they are natural Democrat voters.

Canada’s Conservative Party was able to increase their immigrant vote support from a 3:1 loss (like Mitt Romney) to parity, 1:1. George W. Bush also won 44% of the Hispanic vote in 2004, as compared to 21% in the 1996 presidential race, reinforcing that conservatives can win votes from immigrant dominant demographics.

Ann Coulter is woefully ignorant about all things Hispanic, and would do well to find new sources of information, as clearly she has been drinking the Nativist Kool-Aid from the Nativist (and liberal) lobby comprised of FAIR, CIS, and NumbersUSA.

####

Reposted from Cafe Con Leche Republicans – original link

Bob Quasius is the founder and president of Cafe Con Leche Republicans

The short answer is yes, there are non-citizens voting, but in very small numbers, and less of a problem than other forms of voter fraud. In researching voter photo ID, which Cafe Con Leche Republicans supports, I also researched illegal voter registration and voting by non-citizens. Here I will attempt to put the problem into perspective.

Last night an Irish Central blog posting claiming massive problems with illegal voting by non-citizens caught my attention, prompting me to dig deeper. Similar claims usually turn out to be baseless or wildly overblown.

A network of organizations founded by population control progressive John Tanton often makes baseless claims about immigrants. Tanton founded or led more than 20 organizations that seek to reduce population growth from immigration. Tanton is the founder of the Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform, NumbersUSA (with Roy Beck), Center for Immigration Studies, and held leadership positions in groups such as Zero Population Growth, Planned Parenthood, and environmental grouips. Tanton’s organizations have a long history of making wildly inflated and false claims about immigration, in promoting their agenda.

Tanton is known to manipulate Republicans, stoking fears that immigrants invariably vote Democrat, which is nonsense. From a Tanton letter to a supporter:

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.

From the Irish Central blog:

Colorado IDENTIFIED 12,000 illegal voters on its rolls and ascertained that 5,000 of them voted in the last election. The Republican Senate candidate was narrowly defeated by the Democrat….But how many illegal voters didn’t they identify?

The Colorado connection immediately caught my attention. In 2006, Governor Bill Owens called a special session of the legislature to pass laws to prevent 50,000 unauthorized immigrants from receiving tens of billions of dollars in welfare benefits. There was huge fanfare in the news media, and the legislature passed a tough set of laws to stop all those dastardly immigrants from sucking Colorado dry. Millions of dollars were spent auditing Colorado welfare rolls and licensing and not a single unauthorized immigrant was found receiving welfare benefits or licenses! There has hardly been any media coverage of the failure to find any unauthorized immigrants collecting welfare. No doubt many remember the initial hysteria, special session, etc. Numerous other states have audited their welfare rolls and found just a handful of unauthorized immigrants, if any.

Colorado has a long history of immigration hysteria, led by one of America’s leading xenophobes, Tom Tancredo. Not surprisingly, the claims of massive illegal voting by non-citizens proved to be vastly overblown as well. From the Denver Post:

At least 88 percent of the approximately 1,400 suspected non-citizens run through a federal database by the Colorado Secretary of State’s office were determined to be U.S. citizens, and are therefore eligible to vote.

The office is looking further at the remaining roughly 168 people, but that list may also include people who are citizens, said Michael Hagihara of the state’s elections division.

[...] the number of voters still in question equals less than one-hundredth of 1 percent of Colorado’s approximately 3.5 million registered voters.

Last May, the Miami Herald reported:

Nearly 2,700 potential non-U.S. citizens are registered to vote in Florida and some could have been unlawfully casting ballots for years, according to a Miami Herald-CBS4 analysis of elections data.

Earlier this month, the Tampa Bay Times reported:

U.S. District Judge Willam J. Zloch denied a request from a coalition of voting-rights groups to halt the purge of 198 potential non-citizens.

The Irish Central Blog claims that Loretta Sanchez was elected due to illegal non-citizen votes, when incumbent Bob Dornan lost by just 984 votes:

California lost a conservative congressman when his district was flooded with illegal alien votes. He was replaced with liberal Democrat, Loretta Sanchez.

However, a congressional panel soon whittled a list of 7,841 alleged illegal voters down to 624 after reviewing immigration records, then discontinued the probe since even if all 624 were indeed illegal voters that voted for Sanchez, that would not be enough to change the outcome. As explained later, it’s likely that at least some of the 624 voters were citizens but were flagged as non-citizens due to errors in immigration records, name confusion, etc.

From these and other stories, we can draw several conclusions:

• When politicians make claims of massive voting by non-citizens, it usually turns out to be wildly exaggerated. In all three cases mentioned, the actual numbers of illegal voters after a first pass review turned out to be around 10%, before delving deeper into individual cases.
• Politicians making these claims are usually relying on driving records, when a person may have been a non-citizen when they obtained their license, but later became a naturalized citizen and registered to vote. Drivers records aren’t automatically updated reflect their new citizenship until the driver renews, so without further review politicians often are misled and exaggerate the actual numbers.
• Their first reaction is often to demand access to DHS databases. However, DHS databases only contain records of persons who were in the immigration system at some point, and to search a DHS immigration database one needs an alien “A” number. Native born citizens and unauthorized immigrants with and previous contact with DHS won’t be found in DHS immigration databases either.
• Other times, DHS databases are simply in error. A recent study of Secure Communities found 3,600 U.S. Citizens who had been arrested and held as unauthorized immigrants, despite the use of fingerprints for accuracy.
• There is no question that there are non-citizens who register and vote, either because they are confused about their lack of voting right or they simply break the law. As with any other illegal voters, they should certainly be held accountable. The numbers of non-citizens voting are very small, but there are always close races where even a handful of illegitimate votes can throw an election.

I am more concerned about voting by dead people, fraudulent voter registrations by non-existent persons, absentee ballot fraud, and multiple registrations, though all sources of vote fraud need to be addressed.

Election officials certainly should review records and purge voters who appear to be ineligible, and public confidence in our elections needs to be restored. Recent scandals have shaken the public’s confidence in the integrity of our elections.

However, because of strong possibility that a supposed non-citizen may in fact be a citizen, it is essential that voter purges follow a meticulous process, with adequate time for voters to contest purge decisions. No one should be denied their vote without due process.

Today, thousands of Americans of all political persuasions mourn the ongoing tragedy of legalized baby-killing in this country. On this day in 1973, SCOTUS handed the American people the pile of legal gibberish known as Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion procedures during all moments of a pregnancy – even up until the very moment of birth itself. Over 50 million Americans have been killed by abortion in the 39 years that have passed since this tragic decision. That is 50 million too many.

While I am unable to attend the March for Life this year as I have in years past, I stand in solidarity with the countless number of pro-life Americans (including two of my younger brothers, who are joining in the March for Life today) in working and praying for an end to abortion. I also offer the GOP my gratitude for opening its doors to pro-life Americans such as myself looking for a political home. With the Obama administration and the Democratic Party at large opposing even the most modest regulations on abortion procedures, it’s safe to say that the ever-growing number of pro-life Americans will continue to be drawn to Republican candidates so long as the party continues to stand in favor of the unborn.

Unfortunately, the GOP has allowed Planned Parenthood and other abortion-aligned allies quite a bit more wiggle room in the GOP since 2008. No, I’m not talking about the nomination and election of staunchly pro-choice RINOs like Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), as bad as they are. I’m talking about the infiltration of the GOP and the Tea Party by anti-immigration organizations like NumbersUSA, FAIR, and the Minutemen – all of whom are either bankrolled and/or staffed by abortionists, eugenicists, racists, and other operatives from the culture of death. Yes, you read that correctly. Planned Parenthood and its allies in the abortion industry are directly connected to the “anti-amnesty,” “border security,” “anti-illegal immigration” movement in this country.

Let’s start with FAIR, the Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform. FAIR openly advocates for strong enforcement measures like SB1070, E-Verify, and legal immigration caps, while opposing efforts to streamline legal immigration. This group is commonly cited when the issue of illegal immigration is raised in news reports, especially amongst conservatives; FAIR’s statistics have been used by Bill O’Reilly, Gov. Jan Brewer of AZ, and Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), among many others. It’s the largest and most well-funded organization of its type in the country.

FAIR was started by a man named John Tanton, who founded Planned Parenthood of Northern Michigan back in 1972. He continues to openly advocate for abortion, as his letters to supporters indicate quite clearly. His racism and anti-Catholic prejudice is clearly documented. But FAIR’s connections to the abortion rights movement run far deeper than Tanton; FAIR’s Board of Directors is a veritable laundry list of abortion advocates and pro-choice stalwarts. Sarah G. Epstein, FAIR’s Secretary, is on the Board for Planned Parenthood in Washington State. Alan Weeden, another member of FAIR’s Board of Directors, has connections with Planned Parenthood International. Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-CA), head of FAIR’s political outreach, is a pro-choice Republican. There’s even Joyce Tarnow, a Florida abortionist who famously said Haitian earthquake victims should “stew in their own juices,”who was until very recently listed on FAIR’s website as a member of their Board of Directors.

Another prominent “anti-illegal immigration” organization that is playing a particularly outsized role in the current GOP presidential primary is NumbersUSA, headed by Roy Beck. Beck is a close friend of John Tanton, and his website has advocated for “family planning services” (read: abortion). NumbersUSA is not content to end illegal immigration; for them, virtually all immigration must be slowed down or stopped. Unsurprisingly, this extreme and economically detrimental position has led many a racist into the ranks of the organization, and John Tanton has kept his close eye on the organization the entire time. NumbersUSA, too, has been actively supported and even cited by some grassroots conservative activists and tea party groups – a fact that should make every pro-life Republican and tea partier shiver.

It may not be immediately obvious to pro-lifers that abortion advocates and eugenicists should be so interested in immigration issues. I myself was incredulous when evidence of this connection was first presented to me. Since when does Planned Parenthood’s racist, abortion-supporting agenda have anything to do with immigration? Well, as anyone who’s viewed Maafa21 can tell you, the pro-choice movement has always about racism and eugenics, not empowering women, and the “anti-illegal immigration” movement has never been about “border security,” either. Allowing women to kill their own children is not a promotion of “women’s rights.” Likewise, allowing government to enter people’s homes and detain and/or separate them from their families does absolutely nothing to improve border security. Both acts do, however, violate human dignity – something the government is supposed to defend and protect, not violate.

Pro-life conservatives owe it to themselves to confront this menace head on. Conservative politicians cannot be allowed to advocate for Planned Parenthood’s agenda, whether its abortion “rights” or enforcing “the law.” Lincoln and Reagan had no place for such things, and neither should we.

####

Andy Kirchoff is the Illinois state leader for Cafe Con Leche Republicans, a national pro-immigrant Republican organization.

This myth has been around for a long time and often leads to bad immigration policy based on deeply flawed data. It’s worthwhile to look at today’s myths in a historical context, as the same cycle of anti-immigrant propaganda, public hysteria, and the enactment of bad policy repeats itself.

The Dillingham Commission reported in the early 20th century that “new” immigrants (i.e. those from Southern and Eastern Europe) were draining society, lowering wages, increasing crime rates, etc. A few years later in 1916, the book “The Passing of the Great Race; or, The racial basis of European history” was published by early modern progressive Madison Grant, which argued Europeans from Southern and Eastern Europe were inferior to “Nordics.” This book is one of the most infamous works on scientific racism, and Madison Grant played an active role in crafting anti-immigrant and anti-miscegenation legislation.

Grant was also a Vice-President of the Immigration Restriction League that led the drive to severely limit immigration, particularly from Southern and Easter Europe, leading to the 1921 Emergency Quota Law and Immigration Act of 1924, including the National Origins Act, and Asian Exclusion Act, which extended prohibitions against immigration from China and India to all Asians. Within several years of these acts, illegal immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe totaled several million, who then were “inspected” (given amnesty) and naturalized. None of the dire consequences warned by the Dillingham Commission ever materialized, but the now familiar claims that ‘today’s’ immigrants are different than our parents and grandparents is a cycle.

The Immigration Restriction League, which was at the forefront of imposing severe restrictions on non-desirable immigration was heavily funded by the Pioneer Fund, which funds “scientific study of heredity and human differences”, in other words race and ethnicity. The Pioneer Fund also heavily funded the Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform, the flagship of a network of organizations founded by eugenicist John Tanton, such as the Center for Immigration Studies, U.S. English, Pro English, and NumbersUSA.

Tanton, like his ideological grandfather Madison Grant, is a conservationist, a big believer in the long discredited psuedo-science known as eugenics, and a progressive who believes government should be heavily involved in population control through abortion, immigration restriction, etc. Progressives are ‘spot on’ about Tanton’s bigotry, but they usually fail to mention that Tanton is a progressive, not a conservative, as shown by his resume emphasizing environmental and conservation causes, as well as leadership positions in Planned Parenthood and Zero Population Growth, hardly conservative causes.

Part of Tanton’s messaging resonates with many conservatives, the part calling for strict enforcement of immigration laws. However, few conservatives are calling for drastic reductions in legal immigration, or a ten year timeout on all immigration. ‘Personal responsibility’ and the ‘rule of law’ are core conservative values, which is why immigration enforcement has resonated with conservatives so much in recent years.

Tanton first sought to co-opt Planned Parenthood and Sierra Club with his immigration reduction agenda, before turning to co-opting conservatives, because Tanton ideologically is a progressive in the tradition of Madison Grant. The Tanton network is an unholy alliance of population control progressives and white nationalists. As with Tanton’s ideological grandfather, Madison Grant, the weapons in Tanton’s arsenal include propaganda against immigrants based largely on jazzed up statistics, constant repetition of age-old myths about immigrants, fear mongering, and outright lies.

Alex Nowrasteh of the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute debunked much of FAIR’s recent propaganda in a recent Huffington Post op-ed. FAIR’s statistics are deeply flawed, and never include contributions from immigrants and their U.S. born children. This excerpt says it all:

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) is a stridently anti-immigration organization that wants to substantially decrease legal and unauthorized immigration to the United States. It frequently makes inaccurate claims about immigrants. Its most egregious economic claim is that unauthorized immigrants cost American state, local, and federal governments about $113 billion a year. This is pure bunk that I take to task here.

FAIR’s evidence is detailed in its report, “The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers” by Jack Martin and Eric A. Ruark. Quite frankly, it is one of the most amateurish and error filled reports I’ve ever read. It ignores the fiscal benefits of unauthorized immigration and uses dubious numbers and poor methodology to reach its conclusions.

Every human activity has both costs and benefits. People constantly weigh costs and benefits. If a given action’s benefits outweigh its costs, that action is worth taking – but you have to analyze both the costs and benefits first before you can come to that conclusion. The FAIR report counts the costs alone.

FAIR estimates that it costs states and the federal governments $52 billion a year to educate unauthorized immigrants and their American-born children. FAIR doesn’t compare that figure with the increase in income that people experience after earning a high school degree or GED, about $7,208 over non-high school graduates. That’s $7,208 more of taxable income. On top of that, between half and three-fourths of all undocumented immigrants file tax returns. The tax revenue gained from increasing education must be compared against the increased cost of public education when determining the net fiscal costs.

FAIR doesn’t consider this because it stops counting the tax payments of the children of unauthorized immigrants by the time they graduate high school. Most children cost the government before the age of 18 because of our insanely expensive and ineffective public education system, so if you stop counting the costs and benefits of students by the time they reach 18, you’ll reach the conclusion that children are always a fiscal loss for the government. If FAIR’s reasoning were applied to the rest of society, it would never make fiscal sense to have children, and the quicker we stopped the better for the government’s fiscal balance.

Full Article here.

Now, the next time you hear lawmakers quote statistics in justifying laws to crack down on illegal immigration, check the source of their statistics, as most of the time you’ll find the source is an organization founded or nurtured by John Tanton.

As you are reading this post, the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary’s Subcommittee on Immigration Refugees and Border Security is meeting to debate Arizona’s 1070 law. This law is also being heard this week by the US Supreme Court as it is being challenged by Obama’s Department of Justice.

While one can debate the merits of the 1070 law and even its constitutionality, it is an interesting exercise in the status of the 10th Amendment and state’s rights in general. There is ample evidence that 1070 has caused economic damage Arizona and to other states that have enacted similar legislation. At the same time, other states like Texas and Utah, have stayed away from these types of legislation and have avoided the economic collateral damage these types of laws have created.

Many are saying this hearing is of little or no value. But for others it is an opportunity to bring forward a debate and discussion that needs to happen in our county. When are we going to get serious about border security and meaningful immigration reform?

In an article by Erin Kelly of the Republic Washington Bureau, Louis DeSipio, a professor of Chicano/Latino-studies at University of California-Irvine said, “It’s political theater… That doesn’t mean the debate won’t be valuable, but I doubt it will lead to any action on immigration reform in an election year.”

Responding to a question from TexasGOPVote, Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) said, “This is not an attempt at having a sincere hearing on the merits. Unfortunately, the Democrat majority seems to have embraced President Obama’s ‘mañana’ approach to immigration reform.”

Unfortunately, this is what the federal government keeps doing on immigration reform and border security. This leaves those who support open borders and the abuse of workers who are not protected under our current system of chaos, with a de-facto victory of sorts. The longer we ignore this issue, the longer there is a virtual amnesty and continued illegal migration.

Sen. Cornyn went on to say, “This hearing does nothing to advance immigration reform in Congress or otherwise fix our broken system. It is no more than election-year theater. The Supreme Court will decide the fate of Arizona’s SB1070 on constitutional grounds. Yet none of the majority’s witnesses is an expert on the complex questions the Court will consider.”

The hearing was apparently only attended by Senators Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin.

Also testifying today is Mr. Todd Landfried, Executive Director of Arizona Employers for Immigration Reform. Following is a copy of his testimony, obtained in advance of the hearing. He begins with a quote from Dr. Douglas Massey, Co-director of the Mexican Migration Project, “A salient characteristic of the current debate on U.S. immigration policy is the high ration of hot air to data.”

LANDFRIED’S TESTIMONY:

(For entire testimony document including footnotes and charts, CLICK HERE)

Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee for inviting me to speak today.

For the record, my name is Todd Landfried, and I am the Executive Director of Arizona Employers for Immigration Reform (AZEIR). AZEIR is a 501(c)(4) organization with approximately 350 small, medium and large member businesses who want to see sensible immigration reform passed at the federal level. It was formed in response to the introduction of Arizona’s Employer Sanctions law and has been active in the state ever since. We were the only business organization actively opposing SB1070 in 2010 and have been a persistent voice for reasoned solutions to the immigration problem. We have filed an amicus brief opposing SB1070 to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will hear the case tomorrow.

I’m going to focus my remarks not on whether there is problem with our country’s immigration laws (there is), or whether states have any inherent authority to inject themselves into federal immigration enforcement (they don’t), or whether we support SB1070 (we don’t). Rather, I’ll focus on whether laws like Arizona’s SB1070, Georgia’s HB87 or Alabama’s HB56 and others are good public policy and something that should be copied in other states or as a federal solution.

By “good public policy,” I mean what are the outcomes? What are the results of these laws? Do they have the intended consequences? Do they secure the border? Do they open up jobs and reduce state expenses? Do they fulfill any of the numerous promises their proponents make?

It’s a legitimate question that more and more people are starting to ask, because they say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results and at a time when government programs fall under increased scrutiny, it’s only fair that state-level laws are examined using the same microscope.

The members of this committee may not be aware of it, but the “SB1070″ approach has been tried before.

2006 – Farmer’s Branch, TX
2006 – Hazelton, PA
2007 – Oklahoma HB1804
2008 – Prince William County, VA
2010 – Arizona SB1070
2011 – Georgia HB87
2011 – Alabama HB56
2011 – South Carolina Act 69
2011 – Indiana SB590
So, this idea of “attrition through enforcement” has been tried before at each and every level of government: local, county and state. At each of these levels, the same groups have been behind it: the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and their Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI). At each of these levels, the only research used to justify the action came from FAIR, FAIR-sponsored, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) or Numbers USA. To my knowledge, at no time has any other group approached any governmental jurisdiction with the same issue. None. Most importantly, at every level of government where this strategy has been tried, it has failed. Let me repeat that statement: at every level of government where this strategy has been tried, it has failed.

Failed as in doesn’t work. Failed as in causes more harm than good. Failed as in killed jobs, businesses, markets, trade relationships, real estate markets, tourism, stifled cooperation with law enforcement, damaged reputations and the ability to attract high-skill workers to the state.

For any serious practitioner of public policy, this should raise a red flag and I’m happy to say it has. You heard earlier that SB1070 is wildly popular and that 35-odd states have introduced versions of it. But as elected officials, each of you knows there is a huge difference between a bill that is introduced and one that becomes law. Let’s look at SB1070′s record in state legislatures.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), 30 states introduced SB1070 copycat bills in 2011.i Not 34 or 35, 30. Of those 30 states, direct copycat legislation was passed in four. Now I’m not a lawyer or a politician, but simple math tells me that four in 30 are not good results. Put another way, nearly 87% of the states -­rejected-Arizona’s approach. In the business community, an 87% failure rate is hardly indicative of success and any product with an 87% failure rate won’t be on the market very long.

In fact, if you look at all 1,592 all immigration bills introduced in 2011, only 162 passed, which is a 90% failure rate. So what caused 87% of the states to reject SB1070 copycat and 90% of all immigration bills? They failed because legislatures were shown the simple fact that these bills never work as planned. Here are just a few examples and data points. There are many more.

Oklahoma Taxpayer & Citizen Protection Act

After Oklahoma passed HB1804 in 2007, the Oklahoma Bankers Association commissioned a study that found the loss of 90,000 unauthorized workers and their families resulted in a $1.9B loss to the state’s Gross State Product.ii

A study by the Urban Institute and the Migration Policy Institute found negligible impact on savings on public services from departure of the undocumented because by law they’re ineligible for those benefits anyway.iii

Georgia – HB 87

According to a Georgia Restaurant Association survey in November 2011, 71% their members were experiencing labor shortages and 88% were concerned they would experience labor shortages in the future. They estimate the average monthly sales loss due to the labor shortage was $21,000.iv

Georgia farmers told Governor Deal in a Georgia Department of Agriculture survey they needed 11,080 workers to bring in that spring’s spring fruit crop or they faced the loss of $330M due to the labor shortage.vvi Governor Deal offered up probationers as a solution and on the first day, 11 showed up. That’s .001 percent of the number needed. According to news reports, two remained a week later. The resulting losses to farmers were significant, with one small grower losing $250,000 due to the labor shortage and an estimated total state loss of $391M.vii

One aspect of using probationers or prison labor is the increased liability insurance costs to adequately protect business owners from any problems caused by these workers. This is an additional unintended consequence of such suggested solutions and programs.

Fourteen days after the bill was signed into law and after the complaints started rolling in, Governor Deal asks for an economic impact study. Shouldn’t that have been done -before-the bill was passed?viii

Alabama HB 56

1. An analysis by the University of Alabamaix cites a number of troubling impacts to their economy. Each one was easily predictable if they would have examined what happened in other states
a. Reduction of 70,000 – 140,000 related jobs, causing a loss of up to %5.8B in earnings
b. $2.3 M- $10B loss in state GDP
c. $56.7M- $264.5M loss in state income and sales tax collections
d. $20M – $93.1M in lost local sales tax collections

2. Business and dog owners have been caught up in Alabama’s law by being required to prove their U.S. citizenship to renew their business license or to register their dog. Mobile County reportedly spent over $150,000 just on equipment to enforce the citizenship provisions of HB56. The county even gave back $30,000 in fines collected because business owners needed more time to prove their citizenship before their licenses were renewed.x

Arizona – SB 1070

1. Immediate impact on the tourism industry:

a. Losses from conventions already cancelled: $490M and 2,761 jobs
b. Potential losses from future convention booking declines: $262M and 1,475 jobs
c. Total losses from cancellations and booking declines: $752M and 4,236 jobs
d. Companies paid Arizona convention centers up to $60,000 to break their contracts.xi

Loss of an estimated 150,000 consumers from the Arizona economy at an estimated decline in Gross State Product of $24.4B (9.6%), a loss of 291,000 direct and indirect jobs and resulting loss in tax revenues of $2.1B in tax revenues xii

Farmers are letting planting less acreage and letting some land go fallow not due to market conditions, but labor shortages.

Construction firms are concerned they will not be able to find enough workers to fill job openings, putting projects and contracts at risk.

Prince William County. VA

$14.1M to fund police staffing, training and overtime, evaluation, public education and ADC farmouts directly related to PWC ordinancexiii

$3.2M to fund cameras in all PWC police cruisersxiv

$750,000 per year to County foreclosure rate 3X regional rate and contributed to falling property values

Violent crime increased 10.9% in 2009xv Contributed to extending the recession’s impacts in PWC.

In March of 2011, when it was learned five more SB 1070-related immigration bills were being introduced in the Arizona legislature, 60 Arizona CEOs wrote a letter to former Senator Pearce asking him to refrain from moving the bills. They sent the letter knowing the negative impacts SB1070 and the boycotts had on the state’s convention and tourism, agriculture and construction industries and rightly feared the passage these five bills would further harm Arizona’s economy at the worst possible time. Fortunately, thanks to the letter and a galvanized business community, none of those bills got out of the Senate.

In July of 2011, the leaders of 64 agriculture associations wrote Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas asking him to not hear H.R. 2164 stating it threatened $5B to $9B in annual agriculture production and hundreds of thousands of upstream and downstream jobs. Given the experiences of the other jurisdictions who have had to live with these laws, they were rightly concerned.

Reports and findings like these are the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Study after study on jurisdiction after jurisdiction; year after year, whenever and wherever these laws are tried, the results are always the same and they’re always bad. Mr. Chairman, I am not aware of a single study in the public domain that indicates any one of these jurisdictions have experienced any positive economic impact. Not one.

To be fair, there are studies that show these laws are successful in one aspect: they cause undocumented immigrants to move. Whether they move within the state, out of state, or back home is a difficult question to answer. But what tends to happen to those who remain is we push them deeper into the underground economy, where these workers suddenly become entrepreneurs and open cash businesses, thereby taking even more money out the economy that we would be better off having in it. xvi

This begs the question of if these laws are so good for us, how can the impacts be so universally bad? The answer, Mr. Chairman, is simple: you have bad outcomes because you have bad inputs. The claims used to justify these laws are largely wrong or distorted.

How Can Good Laws Create Bad Results?

You heard in earlier testimony about the supposed $2.5B it costs Arizona each to “educate, medicate and incarcerate” illegal aliens. You heard that 17 percent of the inmates in Arizona’s prisons are illegal aliens. You heard that crime in Arizona is at a 30-year low as a result of SB 1070. You heard that 9,000 Americans are killed each year by illegal aliens and you heard that Arizona is now saving $500M a year by the departure of the children of illegal immigrants from the school systems. The casual listener would hear these statements and be concerned. But the problem is, not a single one of these statements is true. In fact, nearly every statement made to justify SB 1070 has serious factual problems with it, with many being completely unfounded.

Inflating and Misleading Data Is The Norm

The $2.5B cost number comes from a 2004 Federation For American Immigration Reform (FAIR) study that uses data from 1994 to draw their conclusions on the costs of undocumented immigrants to the state.xvii This report’s most significant flaws include using decade old data and purposefully overestimating costs while ignoring revenues. As members of Congress, you know there are two sides to the fiscal ledger (at least we hope you do) and you can’t choose to ignore where the tax dollars come from.

In Arizona, education is funded primarily through sales and property taxes. If there are taxes we know everyone pays it’s sales and property taxes. Just like everyone else, immigrants pay sales taxes when they buy clothes, cars, furniture, tickets, etc. Just like everyone else, they pay property taxes either directly or indirectly through their mortgage or their rent. There is also significant evidence that many of these workers pay income taxes, which flow into the state’s General Fund and other accounts, which pay for other government services such as health care and law enforcement.

Studies by the University of Arizona that looked at revenues and spending in 2004 found that the costs to the state were $1.4B and the revenues were $2.4B, creating an annual net benefit of nearly $1B.xviii Other studies, such as ones by New York’s Fiscal Policy Institutexix and the Cato Institutexx have examined this “they don’t pay their way” argument and found they do. Is it no wonder then that when they, as consumers, are pushed out, the impacts such as those discussed earlier are felt throughout the economy.

The flip side of this coin is asking how much better off we would be if we brought all of these people above board and made them active contributors to our economy. Most economists would and do argue the benefits would be significant. In the case of Arizona the IPC study says it would add 261,000 jobs and increase tax revenues by $1.68B.xxi Our state could sure use those dollars.

Misleading Crime Claims

There is no report available from Arizona Department of Corrections (AZDC) that indicates the “criminal alien” population has ever been 17%.xxii Currently, the “criminal aliens” population makes up just over 13% of all inmates in Arizona prisons. But exaggerating the numbers isn’t the only problem with this statement.

Another problem is its purposeful and misleading use of the term “criminal alien.” As any law enforcement official should know, “criminal aliens” are not just those here illegally. They include visa and green card holders. Permanent legal residents who are in the nation’s prison system are classified as “criminal aliens.” Add on to this the fact no law enforcement agency collects or reports crime statistics according to immigration status., and you’ll see the problem. Therefore, anyone or any statistic that represents “criminal aliens” as synonymous with “illegal immigrants” is over-exaggerating the data in order to make the problem appear worse than it is.

SB1070 Is Not Responsible For Crime Rate Reduction

It has been suggested that SB1070 is the reason for largest drop in crime in Phoenix in 30 years. Unfortunately, there are no data from the Phoenix Police Department, the Arizona Department of Public Safety, the FBI or anyone else to substantiate or use as a basis for justifying in any manner whatsoever this claim. None.

Crime rates in Arizona and Maricopa County have been dropping for several years and to suggest that the results of the largest decline in 30 years happened since 2010 (it hasn’t) and are because of SB1070 is reckless at worst and misleading at best. To further substantiate this point, the Arizona Department of Corrections FY 2011 annual report listed several reasons for the reduction in the number of prison inmates and the six characters missing from any of those reasons are “S-B-1-0-7-0.”xxiii

Contrary to the rhetoric, crime studies have found that undocumented immigrants are actually less likely to commit crimes than their domestic counterparts. A 2006 Migration Policy Institute study found that non-citizens are five (5) times less likely to be incarcerated than non-immigrants.xxiv The reason for this is if they are caught, they will be likely, and appropriately, deported. The reality is they commit crimes in percentages equal to their numbers in the population, which any statistician will tell you is what we should expect.

One of the more outlandish claims is 9,000 Americans are murdered each year in the U.S. from unauthorized immigrants. While no disputes its unfortunate occurrence, were this claim to be true, it would mean that according to FBI statistics, undocumented immigrants are committing 63% of the crime in the U.S. There is simply no evidence whatsoever to justify taking this statement seriously. xxv

Immigrations Claim Are Wrong 9-out-of-10 Times

“The greatest threat to democracy is having a public that thinks it is fully informed, but really isn’t very well informed at all.” – Linda Foley

Major news organizations are also finding fault with these claims. Using just two of the major news organizations “Fact Check” services, “PolitiFact” by the Tampa Bay Timesxxvi and “AZ Fact Check’ by the Arizona Republicxxvii, have both found that when the topic turns to immigration, more often than not, false.

PolitiFact Immigration Statements (3/14/12)

I know there are a lot of lawyers in the room and I will presume that many of you have either been to trial or had witnesses swear an oath to tell the truth when they give sworn testimony. Even on TV, we hear that familiar oath spoken by witnesses as they take the stand. I have yet to hear of any instance when a witness is sworn to “Tell the truth, mostly the truth, or half of the truth.” Yet based on the independent analyses of these news organizations, 88.7% of the statements examined by PolitiFact and 91.8% of those checked by AZ Fact Check fail to meet the standard for truth used in our judicial system.

AZ Fact Check (3/14/12)
Bad Data Equals Bad Public Policy

These data help make my final point. The reason every political jurisdiction experiences significant negative impacts from the passage of local, county or state immigration enforcement laws is because elected officials and the public are being fed bad data from which they make bad decisions. As the quote at the beginning of my remarks states, the significant characteristic of the immigration debate is the high ratio of hot air to data. Given what we know from prior experiences, why are we surprised when these policies fail?

We spend way too much time asking the question “Are you for or against SB1070?” We should be asking, “Does SB1070 work and if it does not, then what should we do next?” With all of the proof that “attrition through enforcement” had plenty of negative and unacceptable impacts, it should concern everyone that SB1070 was apparently the best idea anyone could come up with. We should have known better.

Because we are distracted with SB1070, we have not spent enough time looking for alternative solutions. We have not listened to the many informed and insightful idea that have been proposed by business, law enforcement, faith and community leaders. There are very good ideas and you would be amazed how close people from the political right and the left end up when they talk about how to solve the problem-and none of them include amnesty, open borders or anarchy.

On May 1 in the Rayburn Office Building Gold Room, AZEIR, Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy (TxSIP), the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the National Immigration Forum are sponsoring a conference we’re calling “The Congressional Immigration Solutions Conference. At this event, we will present information and solutions those of us who live, run businesses, conduct research and enforce the laws near the border feel are worthy of Congressional consideration. It will likely be the best three hours you or your staff could spend as you consider how to solve this vexing problem. All of your offices have received invitations.

Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee for your time and attention. I am prepared to answer any question you may have for me.

A famous French Army Marshall, Ferdinand Foch, declared during the darkest days of WWI that: “Hard pressed on my right; center is yielding; impossible to maneuver. Situation excellent, I shall attack!”

Today’s version among the far right anti-immigrant, anti-Mexican lunatic fringe that has controlled the immigration issue for several years is just the opposite of Marshall Foch.

They are in full retreat, not because they have lost their CHUTZPAH or have run out of lies, but reality and common sense have overtaken them in the legislative halls, in public opinion and in courage of Republicans who refuse to bow to cowardly immigration restrictionists.

The national restrictionist cabal is led politically by the Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and its myriad affiliated front groups like the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) and NumbersUSA and intellectually by their supplicant publication “The Social Quarterly” and a web site of author Peter Brimelow’s, Vdare.com, named for the first white child born in Virginia circa 1607.

The founder of these groups was a man named John Tanton who previously served as head of Zero Population Growth (ZPG) who also served in high Sierra Club office and founded Planned Parenthood locals. His underlying theme is that the U.S. is being caught by people – Mexicans – with their “pants down” versus America being caught with its “pants up.”
He also targets all Roman Catholics.

Facts contradict their old time racist (as declared by the Southern Poverty Law Center) views of Mexicans breeding like rabbits as the Mexican birth rates of old have been slashed to almost U.S. rates by decades of birth control education by the Mexican government.

Nonetheless, the Tanton/FAIR groups and their paid lawyer, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach are busy on many fronts trying to pass laws that attack people who may be in the country illegally, especially if they are Mexican. Towns in Pennsylvania, Texas, Nebraska and the states of Arizona, Alabama, South Carolina and Georgia have all passed Kobach-written laws that are attacks on Spanish-speaking immigrants even if they are legal.

Central to these “laws” is racial profiling by authorities of people who they “suspect” of being in country illegally. Authorities are not permitted by federal civil rights laws to profile by race or ethnicity. Nonetheless, these laws have common corollary elements of allowing almost every single public employee to confront people they “suspect” of being illegally present, to demand proof of legal residency.

We speak of building inspectors, municipal bus drivers, meter maids, school teachers, school administrators and office clerks, not just sworn police officers.

In Alabama, the legislature has pulled back from its passage of a highly dubious anti-illegal resident law passed last year and mostly stopped by a federal court. It has introduced new legislation eliminating highly controversial elements that do not pass constitutional muster. In Arizona, before its infamous SB 1070 even went into effect, the legislature made major changes that a federal court invalidated anyway. In Texas, the town of Farmer’s Branch with its own Kobach-written law has spent mucho dollars in the federal courts defending its law and has lost at every level almost bankrupting the city. In Nebraska, a Kobach-written town law has never been implemented because the town has no money to fight for it in court. They know they will lose.

And now, Nebraska hits the news again. Right wing Republican legislators tried to defeat a pre-natal care bill that would be available to expectant mothers regardless of legal residency. Governor Dave Heineman weighed in on the question with this statement:

“We should only be using taxpayer funds for legal Nebraska citizens, not for illegal aliens. I am going to fight against LB 599 because it’s not right (April 3, 2012).”

This statement, of course, proves the Governor has a very limited view of reality.

First of all, people in Nebraska who might not be legally-present pay taxes thus are “taxpayers.” Secondly, though he claims to be “pro-life” he refuses to acknowledge that pre-natal care is not to treat a woman but to make sure her baby-to-be is born healthy. That baby will probably be born in Nebraska, born a United States citizen as per the Constitution.

Governor Heineman declared he would veto the bill if passed. It passed because Republican legislators ignored the ignorant governor and voted “Pro-life” for LB 599 31-15, a veto proof majority.

The question, then, has the anti-immigrant, anti-illegal-immigrant; anti-Mexican provocateur of the Tanton-type hit the high tide mark of the movement? Its corollary question is: is it receding in the face of court injunctions and opposition based on the Constitution and common sense?

And, where do we place the credit for this triumph: The Courts? The people…Common sense…The Constitution?

How about, all of the above?

###

Raoul Lowery Contreras (1941) was born in Mexico, raised in the USA. Former U.S. Marine, athlete, Dean’s List at San Diego State. Professional political consultant and California Republican Party official(1963-65)…Television news commentator, radio talk show host…published Op-Ed writer (1988 to present)…author of 12 books (as of 1-05-12). His books are available on Amazon.com.

P. T. Barnum’s oft-quoted “There’s a sucker born every minute” is appropriate today in the US of A. Why? Because of illegal immigration that has generated an April session in the Supreme Court of the United States on the State of Arizona’s declaration of war on the United States and the Constitution that formed and governs the country.

Defenders of Arizona’s anti-Mexican SB 1070 law often insist that the infamous law enjoys considerable public support. It certainly doesn’t have much support in the federal courts what with an Arizona-based federal district judge stopping the law’s critical provisions cold. The 9th Circuit upheld the judge’s injunctions and now those injunctions are up for review by the United States Supreme Court.

Most polls taken after the law’s passage showed something between 60 and 70% public support nationally. Of course, most people are ignorant of the Constitution as a whole in particular of Article 1, Section 8 which explicitly enumerates the power of the United States Congress “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization,” which means immigration.

Millions of people are unaware of the constitutional congressional mandate on naturalization/immigration, nonetheless P.T. Barnum “suckers” line up to support the Arizona law, especially the “usual suspects” who apparently lack detailed knowledge of the Constitution.

When I speak, I speak of people like Bill O’Reilly at Fox News and Laura Ingrahm, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity of radio fame and myriad other constitutionally unread public figures, the “suckers.”

There really aren’t that many suckers because if there were the Supreme Court would have been inundated by mountains of legal briefs supporting Arizona’s law. It wasn’t and those that were submitted look like “cut and paste” jobs by legal shops that represent a monolithic Arizona defense that is at best ludicrous and unconstitutional in spirit and in word. These silly supporting briefs are mostly from ultra-conservative congress people, a few other conservative officials and a number of hate groups organized by the country’s most active racist, Dr. John Tanton. These are hate groups like FAIR and its non-profit arm, the Center for Immigration Studies (organized by Tanton to fight any immigration including legal especially Catholics from Mexico).

Numerous well-known and influential outside parties oppose the law:

• Sixteen current and former chief law enforcement officers filed briefs opposing SB 1070, including the former Phoenix police chief and the sheriff of Pima County, Arizona, which shares a longer border with Mexico than any county in Arizona. Two law enforcement officials – only – filed supporting SB 1070, including Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio who is being investigated by the federal government that accuses his deputies of the worst racial profiling in the country.
• One brief filed to oppose SB 1070 was joined by a former Secretary of State (Madeline Albright, Democrat), a former Secretary of Defense (William Cohen, Republican), and two former ambassadors to the United Nations (Albright and John Negroponte, Republican).
• Another was submitted on behalf of two former commissioners of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (Doris Meissner, Republican and James Ziglar, Republican). No member of any prior Presidential administration (Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II) joined a brief supporting SB 1070.
• Eleven states with a combined population of nearly 100 million—submitted a brief opposing SB 1070, including California, New York, and Illinois. More than 40 cities and counties filed opposition to 1070, three of which are in Arizona (Tucson, Flagstaff, and San Luis).
• A brief filed on behalf of 68 pro-immigrant members of Congress was joined by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and other high-ranking members of the House Democratic leadership. No member of the House Republican leadership signed a pro-SB 1070 brief filed on behalf of fifty conservative lawmakers.
• The government of Mexico filed opposition to SB 1070 that was joined by sixteen other Latin American countries.
• Finally, a dozen briefs were filed on behalf of more than 50 national organizations ranging from the ultra-liberal ACLU, to the AFL/CIO, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the conservative U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Briefs here, briefs there, briefs everywhere. None with pro-signatures from the Republican Congressional leadership, none with pro-Governors other than the high school-only educated Arizona governor who did not attend a four year college or took academic college courses even in community college unless they came under her medical office worker certificate program.

The law’s sponsor, Russell Pearce (who was the Arizona Senate President then) was flushed down a recall toilet last November when his conservative constituency threw him out of office.

Arpaio is being investigated by the feds for alleged criminal acts. SB1070 supporting Arizona sheriff Paul Babeu (Boo-Boo) is also being investigated for criminal acts.

Support for and supporters of SB1070 are narrow in scope and numbers. Question: do they have five “sucker” supporters on the Court?

###

Raoul Lowery Contreras (1941) was born in Mexico, raised in the USA. Former U.S. Marine, athlete, Dean’s List at San Diego State. Professional political consultant and California Republican Party official(1963-65)…Television news commentator, radio talk show host…published Op-Ed writer (1988 to present)…author of 12 books (as of 1-05-12). His books are available on Amazon.com.