On Wednesday, July 8th, the Washington Post story, "Task Force Recommends Overhaul of U.S. Immigration System" provoked this pithy letter from legal American citizen Yeh Ling Ling, Executive Director, Alliance for a Sustainable USA:
"Intelligent Americans know that once millions of illegal people are amnestied, naturalized and become potential voters, there will be no will for the Obama or future administrations to enforce our immigration laws. By requiring illegal migrants to pay back taxes, it will cost taxpayers billions of dollars because many will receive earned income tax credit. Is the Task Force being ignorant or misleading?"
This open borders task force was likely timing the release of its report [PDF]to counteract the actions of the US Senate, which that same day adopted two critical immigration amendments to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Appropriations Bill for the coming fiscal year (FY 2010).
These amendments were:
Senator Jeff Sessions` (R-AL) Amendment (#1371) on E-Verify, which, as the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) reports, "permanently re-authorizes E-Verify and requires federal contractors to use the program. The Sessions Amendment ensures that good-faith employers will always have access to this successful, accurate tool - a tool that has been proven as an effective deterrent to illegal immigration. And, by making E-Verify permanent, the Sessions Amendment will prevent supporters of mass amnesty from using any further extension of E-Verify as leverage to try to pass an amnesty bill for at least 12 million illegal aliens."
Of course the usual amnesty advocates tried to keep that from happening. For example, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) led the fight against the Sessions Amendment with floor speeches. He argued that this amendment was "moot" because the Obama Administration had announced earlier in the day that DHS would be issuing a "new rule" requiring federal contractors to use E-Verify".
Again FAIR comes to the rescue on the facts, saying, "In truth, the Sessions Amendment is a better approach because the Administration`s `new rule` can be changed by DHS at any time in the future, whereas the Sessions Amendment would prevent DHS from watering down the rule in the future."
Then on July 8th, late in the day, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced it would move forward on a Bush-era regulation requiring all federal contractors to use E-Verify.
FAIR notes, "This announcement is welcome news, but it also represents a last minute attempt by the Obama administration to fend off a proposal to impose more stringent standards that the Senate was considering on the same day."
Senator Jim DeMint`s
(R-SC) Amendment (#1399) on the border fence was also
approved, requiring that the Department of Homeland
Security complete the 700 miles of the Mexican border
fence by 2010, designed to stop both vehicular and
Senator Jim DeMint`s (R-SC) Amendment (#1399) on the border fence was also approved, requiring that the Department of Homeland Security complete the 700 miles of the Mexican border fence by 2010, designed to stop both vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
Again, efforts to stop this were thwarted. The Fence where properly constructed has proved most effective in stopping illegal immigration.
Well, this certainly was good news, but of course the Senate version still has to pass the House, so don`t get too enthused.
And while the Obama Administration`s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced it would move forward on a Bush-era regulation requiring all federal contractors to use E-Verify, as noted, this is not as good as the Session`s amendment, because there is no reason, based on its record to think the DHS won`t seek to weaken the use of E verify in the future.
Why? Simultaneously with the DHS announcement on E verify, we learn, again from FAIR, that the DHS announced its "decision to abandon the "No-Match" rule, which would have protected American workers. The No-Match rule requires employers who are notified by the Social Security Administration (SSA) that workers` Social Security numbers do not match data in SSA`s database to take action to correct those discrepancies in order to ensure their workforce is legal. By rescinding the No-Match rule, the administration is making it easier for employers to retain illegal workers. Rescinding the No-Match rule will help illegal aliens keep the jobs they currently hold, despite the fact their employment violates U.S. law, instead of freeing those jobs for legal American workers."
Can you believe this idiocy? Of course you can! It is apparently becoming standard operating perfidy procedure.
You can easily see that the anti citizen/pro open borders folks in Congress and the Administration are ignoring the economic situation, the Rule of Law, and common sense in their mad pursuit of Hispanic fealty and corporate approbation. But in the Senate, there are some people who have seen the light, and others who felt the heat—the open borders crowd did not get away with it:
"A series of Senate floor votes this week seeking to toughen immigration enforcement is giving the Obama administration its first real taste of the chilly climate for overhauling immigration laws.
On Thursday, the Senate approved a measure that would effectively overturn an immigration-enforcement decision announced one day earlier by the Obama administration. The Department of Homeland Security had said Wednesday that it would rescind a Bush administration program aimed at forcing employers to fire workers who are unable to resolve discrepancies in their Social Security records." [ Senate Resists Changes on Immigration, By Cam Simpson, Wall Street Journal, July 10, 2009]
Stay tuned, folks. The plot will continue to thicken, and you can be sure that only continuing citizen anger and involvement will result in enactment of sound immigration policy represented by the TWP amendments passed by the Senate.
Donald A. Collins [email him], is a freelance writer living in Washington DC and a former long time member of the board of FAIR, the Federation for American Immigration Reform. His views are his own.