Kick Me

"This is terrible. More, please."  CNN reports

New York Mayor Eric Adams has claimed that some migrants are being "forced" on buses from Texas, as 14 more asylum seekers arrived in the city Sunday on another bus sent by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott.

Fifty-four asylum seekers arrived in New York Friday on board a bus from Texas, according to the Mayor's Office of Immigrant Affairs.

Abbott's office indicated that New York is now a designated "drop-off location for the busing strategy as part of the governor's response to the Biden administration's open border policies overwhelming Texas communities," according to a statement released Friday announcing the arrival of the first bus.

"It's unimaginable, what the governor in Texas has done," Adams told reporters Sunday. "When you think about this country, a country that has always been open to those who were fleeing persecution and other intolerable conditions, we've always welcomed that. And this governor is not doing that in Texas, but we are going to set the right message, the right tone, of being here for these families."

On Monday, Adams called it a "mean and cruel thing."   Thus:

Wow: NYC Mayor Eric Adams says Texas gov Abbott forced some migrants to get on bus to nyc. If true that is felony human trafficking. DOJ must open an investigation to see if Abbott is in any way coercing people.

— (((DeanObeidallah))) (@DeanObeidallah) August 8, 2022

True to the "kick me" sign affixed to Mayor Adams' posterior

Manuel Castro, commissioner of the mayor's immigrant affairs office, told CNN New York is a right-to-shelter city, so anyone who needs shelter may receive it. However, the city has "exhausted" its regular shelter space, so it has leased additional space at hotels, he said.

"These are families, these are people," Castro said. "They have a right to be here as asylum-seekers and New York is here to welcome them. They frankly need a lot of support. They've traveled a long way to get here."

Adams repeated Monday he hoped to be in touch directly with the White House about federal assistance on the matter.

"Right now, we are at a state where we must get to the assistance from the federal government," Adams said.

The Biden administration has "been in regular contact with Mayor Adams," White House spokesperson Abdullah Hasan said, and the administration is "committed to working with them as we do effectively with other local leaders through FEMA funding and other support".....

Adams issued an emergency declaration last week to "rapidly procure shelter and other services" for people seeking asylum in the city. Those who want to stay in New York will go to shelters, and volunteer groups will be helping "those who want to go somewhere else" to travel to another location, the mayor said.

Score one- one big one- for the mayor of Texas, in a hotly contested re-election race in a conservative state as he

claimed in a statement Monday, though, that the asylum seekers freely chose to go to New York, "having signed a voluntary consent waiver, available in multiple languages, upon boarding that they agreed on the destination."

"What's horrific is the thousands of illegal immigrants overrunning and overwhelming our border communities with populations smaller than a New York City borough, and Mayor Adams is hypocritically upset about welcoming a few dozen into his sanctuary city," Abbott said. "If the mayor wants a solution to this crisis, he should call on President Biden to take immediate action to secure the border—something the President continues failing to do."

A fierce critic of the Biden administration's immigration policies, Abbott began sending hundreds of willing migrants on buses to Washington, DC, earlier this year as an affront to the administration. Abbott's office has said that "to board a bus or flight, a migrant must volunteer to be transported and show documentation from DHS."

More than 5,100 migrants have arrived in Washington from Texas on more than 135 buses, according to the governor's office.

"In addition to Washington, D.C., New York City is the ideal destination for these migrants, who can receive the abundance of city services and housing that Mayor Eric Adams has boasted about within the sanctuary city," Abbott said Friday.

His state has been busing people to Washington, DC and New York City "to provide relief to our local partners," Abbott said in the statement.

In some instances of GOP extremism- such as President Trump's policy of family separation at the border- cruelty is the point. Not in this case, though. Governor Abbot has no problem with New York City providing emergency services, ongoing social services, or amnesty for the immigrants he has sent to New York City.

With Eric Adams' assistance, Greg Abbot has made his point:  Texas is for Texans, New York City and other liberal cities are for immigrants, with sanctuary and a full panoply of, as conservatives put it, "free things."

Obeidallah is right. NYC can't fight this on its own, and the federal government must intervene to address an appalling policy established to set one state against another. In the absence of action by the Department of Justice, Governor Abbott will successfully convince voters that conservatives believe America is for Americans, not for outsiders, whatever their need; and that conservatives are men of action, not men who will take it up that part of the anatomy where NYC Mayor Eric Adams has the "kick me" sign.

             

Share |

How Could We Be So Cruel?

Most of the millions (or perhaps dozens) of the readers of this blog no doubt will agree with the post (below) of the liberal, pro-Democratic establishment Center for American Progress criticizing the immigration policies of Mitt Romney.

And perhaps someone will explain to me why because the position expressed by the candidate's spokesman (aside from whatever else Romney has said on the subject, or believes) seems to make perfect sense. Amanda Peterson Beadle, in what very likely reflects CAP's position, blogged on thinkprogress.org

During last night’s national security debate, emerging GOP presidential frontrunner Newt Gingrich explained that he would support giving undocumented immigrantslegal status without offering citizenship. “If you’ve been here 25 years and you got three kids and two grandkids, you’ve been paying taxes and obeying the law, you belong to a local church, I don’t think we’re going to separate you from your family, uproot you forcefully and kick you out,” he said.

Former frontrunner Mitt Romney’s campaign immediately saw a chance to present their candidate as the anti-immigrant candidate to an increasingly nativist GOP electorate. After the debate, Romney advisor Eric Fehrnstrom said Gingrich was setting up a plan to offer amnesty to undocumented immigrants like the 1986 amnesty act. But while attacking Gingrich for supposedly supporting amnesty, Fehrnstrom couldn’t explain what Romney’s plan would be— beyond creating a hostile environment, that is:

I followed up by asking Fehrnstrom whether Romney believed in deporting those immigrants who are already here illegally.

“He doesn’t believe in granting them amnesty,” Fehrnstrom responded. [...]

Finally, after I asked the question for a seventh time, Fehrnstrom responded by emphasizing employer enforcement as a way to get illegal immigrants to leave through attrition.

“Well, if you cut off their employment, if they can’t get work, if they can’t get benefits like in state tuition, they will leave,” he said. [...]

Just to be clear, I wanted to know about those that still could remain under such a scenario.

“I just answered your question Phil, and you keep hectoring me about it,” he snapped. “You turn off the magnets, no in state tuition, no benefits of any kind, no employment. You put in place an employment verification system with penalties for employers that hire illegals, that will shut off access to the job market, and they will self retreat. They will go to their native countries.”

Surprisingly, this is actually a significant move to the left for Romney. In 2008, Romney actually suggested that he could support mass deportations so long as undocumented immigrants with deep roots in this United States are given “enough time to organize their affairs and go home.” Nevertheless, Romney’s newest position still aligns him very closely with the far right. At the end of the day, Romney’s immigration plan boils down to the Alabama plan under HB 56: create conditions so terrible that they’d have to leave.

Fehrnstrom says his employer supports "no in state tuition, no benefits of any kind, no employment." I have no clue what "benefits of any kind" refers to. (There was, significantly, no reference to the DREAM Act.)

But let's consider in-state tuition. Texas, in 2001, was the first state to extend this privilege to the children of legal and illegal immigrants and between fall of 2004 and summer 2008 granted $33.6 million in state and institutional financial aid to those students.

Suppose you are were born in Mexico and are a citizen of Texarkana, Arkansas, living on the east side of State Line Avenue, and work in Texarkana, Texas. Your daughter wants to be an engineer, has decided to attend Texas A&M University in Texarkana, and is not qualified for a scholarship or student loan. She (or you) will have to pay $12,304.26 in tuition and fees annually. If, however, your family had crossed into the U.S.A. illegally and now live across the street, on the west side of State Line Avenue, you would be residing in Texarkana, Texas. With tuition and fees, your daughter would be paying $4,609.26 per year.

Congratulations! You now are paying 267% more per year because you are an American citizen and living on the wrong side of the street.

At least you still have your job a few miles away, or perhaps even across the street. But your employer has the opportunity to lay you off and hire the illegal immigrant on the right side of the street, elsewhere in Texas, in Arkansas, or anywhere, and humanely pay him or her the minimum wage. Of course, the employer risks being the subject of a raid by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, an occurrence increasingly rare and which never would occur were it up to CAP.

Alternatively, we could be "humane" and give the illegal immigrant, who probably has come to the U.S.A. to find employment, your job. This would be advisable because we have so many jobs available in the nation now, a surplus of jobs to individuals looking for work.

Oops! We don't- rather, there has been approximately 4.7 unemployed workers for every job available. According to the St. Louis Fed (chart, from Business Insider, below), combine unemployed individuals, individuals working part-time who would like to work full-time, and persons who have given up looking for a job, and the unemployment rate would be calculated at 17%. But denying illegal immigrants employment? Inhumane, racist, and unconscionable!

While the Occupy Wall Street movement has brought attention to unemployment, underemployment, and a decline in mobility among Americans, issues the left has championed, some on the left are fond of encouraging what they believe is a right of illegal immigrants to employment. Still others believe taxpayers should pay for tuition for illegal immigrants (and/or their children) while American citizens continue to pay high tuition because they live in the wrong state. It is an impulse not without effect, however; it gives conservatives and moderates additional reason (or excuse) to believe that government is out-of-control and does not work for them.

A great, liberal triumph, that.

Share|
|

On Illegal Immigration, Not Much Difference

WARNING: Rush Limbaugh and the left agree about illegal immigration.

Not everything about illegal immigration, of course. And not for the same reason- the left sympathizes with the newcomers while for Rush the motivation is otherwise. Still, the similarity is striking.

This is the first portion of a conversation about immigration Limbaugh had on Monday with a caller:

CALLER: Yes, sorry for my not perfect English. I'm a Polish native. Mr. Limbaugh, I might have missed one of your programs, (unintelligible) since like maybe seven years ago. I may miss your program. I never hear from you about what (unintelligible) about government should do, if anything, in order to solve the illegal immigration issue, you know, long-term (unintelligible) speaking, do you have any position on it? And if you allow later I can also (unintelligible) couple comments.

RUSH: Uhhh, well, yeah, I think I have offered not a solution per se. We already have laws on the books about immigration. All we'd have to do, Paul, is enforce them. We have a bunch of different categorizations of visas. The legal immigration in this country is a long process. It requires answering questions, taking tests, ascertaining whether or not the new arrivals want to assimilate and actually become part of our culture. We are ignoring the law when it comes to immigration on our southern border, and all we'd have to do is just enforce that law like we enforce it everywhere else against the Europeans, against the Asians, I mean everybody else in the world. It doesn't require anything new here. It just requires our own federal government obeying its own laws. It's not complicated.

Following two more comments from his caller, Rush explained

Now, I know the point of your question, because I'm host, and I am well aware of many people trying to trick the host. It's a game that callers make. And what you're trying to get me to do is say something deathly unkind about the so-called 30 million illegals here. What you're hoping I will say is, "Round 'em up and kick 'em out, and if they won't go, throw 'em out," that's what you want me to say. And I'm not going to say that. I have never said, whatever number are here illegally, "Round 'em up and deport 'em." It isn't realistic.

When the conversation turns to illegal immigration, those generally labeled as "liberal" say first "well, you can't round up the 12 million undocumented workers." Limbaugh, for his part, says "I have never said, whatever number are here illegally, 'Round 'em up and deport em.' It isn't realistic." (Rush instead referred to "30 million"- but that primarily emphasizes in his mind that deportation is unrealistic.)

Limbaugh does want "laws on the books" enforced- but I have never heard liberals/progressives claim they do not want the laws enforced or even that doing so is unrealistic. Instead, they decry the idea of "rounding them up"- just as Rush does.

And the Limbaugh solution? Don't look now, but it's "answering questions, taking tests, ascertaining whether or not the new arrivals want to assimilate and actually become part of our culture." When Maverick John McCain was working with the late Senator Ted Kennedy on comprehensive immigration reform The New York Times portrayed the vaunted 'path to legalization' as one which

would let illegal immigrants get right with the law and become Americans, too, if they have clean records, learn English and pay back taxes and fines.

Ron Brownstein recently described that bill as one which which

would have toughened enforcement of immigration laws, devoting additional resources to guarding the border and policing employers who hire undocumented workers. It established a guest-worker program to regulate the flow of immigrant labor. (Under an Obama amendment, that guest-worker program would be suspended whenever unemployment reached 9 percent.) And it provided a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants who pass a background check, pay a fine, and learn English.

A bill introduced by Representative Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill) in December, 2009

would create a program providing conditional non-immigrant status for undocumented immigrants (and their spouses and children) in the U.S., which is valid for six years. An undocumented immigrant must establish his/her presence on or before December 15, 2009, pass a criminal background check, learn English and U.S. civics and pay a $500 fine (plus necessary application fees) in order to obtain a six-year visa.

A proposal recently unveiled by Senator Chuck Schumer of New York and other Senate Democrats would include a biometric national identification card and require illegal immigrants "to register with the government, pay back taxes, learn English and go to the back of the line for citizenship." And Schumer asserts "Our framework is fix the border first...."

Judging by what Limbaugh said today, how does his vision differ from that of the (mostly Democratic and liberal/progressive) supporters of comprehensive immigration reform? Certainly not in affirming the importance of fixing the borders. And Rush acknowledges "the legal immigration in this country is a long process," just as the current effort envisions those here illegally to "go to the back of the line." Moreover, "pay back taxes" and "learn English" (and especially the Gutierrez notion of learning civics) sound a lot like "ascertaining whether or not the new arrivals want to assimilate and actually become part of our culture."

Oh, okay, the language is different. While liberals/progressives favor "undocumented workers," Limbaugh prefers "illegals." No doubt that is the preferred nomenclature of the latter's audience, most of which has little sympathy for these individuals and wants them out of its midst, for whatever reason(s). And Rush continually defends the law in Arizona (or at least unfailingly attacks its opponents) but that is no contradiction, given that the legislation (contrary to media myth) targets immigrants, rather than illegal immigrants.

Most of all, Rush, like the left he enjoys flogging, opposes "rounding up" these folks.

Of course he does. But virtually no one in the political mainstream or in public life advocates "rounding up" illegal immigrants. Instead, these individuals are (periodically) arrested in workplace raids- something Limbaugh, by his avoidance of the subject amidst highly conservative listeners, appears to abhor.

Note how Rush defensively decried "trying to trick the host." Here he is, always complaining about these foreigners and intruders and now he is being cornered into a position which appears sympathetic to them. His listeners might, if they are alert, recognize the apparent contradiction. But Rush remains true to himself, standing in opposition to 'rounding them up.' As well he should; after all, we wouldn't want to inconvenience major employers by standing between them and the practice of hiring vulnerable immigrants who become poorly paid, poorly treated, vulnerable employees.

Rush Limbaugh stands accused of being a pro-war bigot. And accurately so. But that is not what he is about. Nothing in his worldview ever would conflict with his advocacy of policies designed to lower the wages and benefits of American workers and undermine the middle class. It is the central core of his economic philosophy, and of his philosophy. Sadly, when it comes to immigration reform, the strengthening of the American middle class, anathema to Rush Limbaugh, also is not a high priority of the left.

Share|

Better Than A Flip-Flop

John McCain, then later Barack Obama, spoke to July 8, 2008 to the gathering of the League of United Latin American Citizens in Washington, D.C. The greatest attention, justifiably, was given to Obama's criticism of McCain's seeming 180-degree reversal on the matter of "comprehensive immigration reform." Virtually every report of the appearance of either or both presumptive nominees noted Obama's statement

....for eight long years, we've had a President who made all kinds of promises to Latinos on the campaign trail, but failed to live up to them in the White House, and we can't afford that anymore. We need a President who isn't going to walk away from something as important as comprehensive reform when it becomes politically unpopular.

Notable enough, but Obama's remark immediately prior to this comment is more telling but noted in fewer articles reporting on the candidates' comments. He noted

Now, I know Senator McCain used to buck his party on immigration by fighting for comprehensive reform, and I admired him for it. But when he was running for his party's nomination, he abandoned his courageous stance, and said that he wouldn't even support his own legislation if it came up for a vote.

This wasn't the first time someone has pointed out that McCain said that he would vote against McCain-Kennedy if it hit the floor again. But a reversal this blatant is extraordinary, beyond the famed "flip-flop," but virtually ignored by the mainstream media. It's one thing to "walk away" from your legislative proposal- quite something else to admit you would vote against it if you have a second chance.

McCain And The Rule Of Law

Really, one should have some sympathy for John McCain. In speaking to the Conservative Political Action Conference on February 7, 2008, the Arizona senator knew he would have to address the issue of illegal immigration, one of the issues which has put him at odds with the Repub base and majority of registered Republicans.

So he finessed the issue, successfully putting off till later his day of reckoning on the matter. This is what he said in relevant part:


I have pledged that it would be among my highest priorities to secure our borders first -- (cheers, applause) -- to secure our borders first. And only after we have achieved widespread consensus that our borders are secure would we address other aspects of the problem in a way that defends the rule of law and does not encourage another wave of illegal immigration. (Applause.)


If you don't know what McCain was saying, you've read carefully. Of course, he was trying to say "I'll close the border first." Except that he didn't say that, but instead "it would be among (his) highest priorities"- whether that means one of his two or one of his eight-six highest priorities is anyone's guess. And he didn't say that he would- or wouldn't- build a wall, which opponents of the McCain-Kennedy "Comprehensive Immigration Act" want above all.

Understandably, then, McCain did not define a solution which would "defend the rule of law and does not encourage another wave of illegal immigration." For that matter, McCain might argue that the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 did not "encourage another wave of illegal immigration"- though it did legalize millions of illegal immigrants. And lest the applauding conservatives did not notice, McCain did not pledge to propose legislation consistent with that objection and the rule of law- only that he would "address" the problem- and not necessarily "comprehensively" (a term dear to the Senator) but only "other aspects." I do, though, admire McCain's speechwriters for their sleight of hand.

Liberal supporters of comprehensive immigration reform need not panic at the possiblity of election of McCain (except for other reasons). He may want to cut taxes for the hyper-rich; allow mentally ill individuals to buy weapons (pledging opposition to waiting periods); cut Medicare for the elderly and Medicaid for the poor (propagating the myth of "entitlement programs that are bankrupting us"); promote federal control over citizens (curtailing the right to an abortion); and turn a blind eye to our urgent need for health care- but he'll wait awhile to "defend the rule of law." And given McCain's attack on Democrats for blocking "an extension of surveillance powers," it's clear that the rule of law, like the protection of privacy, would not be one of those "highest priorities" of his administration.

GOP Debate (On Hunter, Giuliani, Brownback)

Some impressions, albeit three days later, from the Republican Presidential debate of June 5, 2007:

Representative Duncan Hunter, following applause for remarks by Representative Tom Tancredo, former Governor Huckabee, and his own remarks regarding two Border Control agents imprisoned after shooting an illegal immigrant bringing a huge cache of marijuana into the U.S.A., makes a notable mistake for a GOP debate: he betrays an interest in the middle class (and immediately after mentioning the iconic Ronald Reagan!) And, of course... no applause.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani accuses the Democrats of having two nights earlier promoted socialized medicine. Given that only one (Representative Dennis Kucinich) of the candidates specifically advocated a single-payer system, this would be disturbing if Rudy actually believed it. Of course, if moderator Wolf Blitzer doesn't call him on it, there is no reason why Rudy 9-11 Giuliani shouldn't throw his audience some red meat.

Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas has recommended in at least two GOP debates a three-state solution (Sunni, Shiite, Kurd) for Iraq. This puts him in the same company as his colleague, Democratic candidate Joe Biden of Delaware, who has recommended this for, oh, probably over a year now. In the unlikely event something positive comes out of Persian Gulf War II, it will probably be something similar. Perhaps President Bush will come to believe thusly- or perhaps he does already. However, in September General Petraeus comes back to Congress and will not say: "Sorry, I have failed, the situation is growing grimmer." Some progress and/or a need to give the escalation (pardon me, "surge") more time will be claimed. A three-state solution, however, may have to be invoked at some time as the rationale for continuing military involvement.