Morning Bell: An Appetite for Real Immigration Reform

Posted By Rory Cooper On April 30, 2010
In a very rare visit to the press cabin of Air Force One yesterday, President Barack Obama told reporters that the White House will not be leading any immigration reform efforts in 2010. Obama said : “…I’ve been working Congress pretty hard. So I know, there may not be an appetite immediately to dive into another controversial issue.” Obama went on to assert that energy taxes  were a higher priority, and that the election in November would make tackling immigration tough.

Apparently, Majority Leader Harry Reid didn’t heed the President’s advice. Several hours later, Reid, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and their colleagues from the left introduced an immigration reform framework  that on the surface is identical to the legislation America rejected in 2007. When you dig down, it may be worse.

Of course, once introduced, President Obama issued a statement that his administration would take “an active role ” toward ironing out the details. This confusing flip-flopping from the White House is indicative of how the administration has treated border security and immigration reform since taking office. Even Speaker Nancy Pelosi agreed saying : “If there is going to be any movement in this regard, it will require presidential leadership.”

Effective reforms can be done in a responsible and deliberate manner through discrete steps rather than another bloated bill that hides from the American people what Washington is trying to do to gain even more power and authority over its citizens. What is required is a step-by-step approach,  not an ill-conceived “framework” disguised as “comprehensive” reform.

An appropriate solution  would reject amnesty; apply appropriate security to the border; work as a partner with Mexico in helping them address economic and civil society reform and combating transnational crime; enforce workplace and immigration laws in partnership with state and local governments; pilot effective temporary worker programs that help employers get the employees they need to help grow the economy; and reform our visa, immigration and citizenship services.

The Reid-Schumer plan  does not accomplish these goals. Their proposal adds a lot more government and bureaucracy (and government spending) while doing little to actually ensure over the long-term the sovereignty, security and prosperity of the nation. It is another example of government taking the short term view of long-term problems.

The Reid-Schumer framework puts an emphasis on amnesty , with empty promises of border security. Granting amnesty, access to welfare and government benefits and citizenship to all who claim they were in the United States at time of enactment of this proposal could cover 11 to 15 million people and overwhelm our borders with people looking to take part. And forgiving such violations would increase the likelihood that these laws be violated again. When you throw in family members, the total number of those eligible for citizenship through amnesty could then be 17 to 22 million individuals.

While Senate Democrats pay lip service to border security, this proposal lacks meaningful metrics for determining “when” the border is secure. It relies on an unelected commission to determine whether we are safe and secure.

And maybe most troubling is the call for a biometric national id card [6], thinly disguised as a more robust Social Security card. Reid and Schumer are ignoring many legitimate on-going or proposed efforts including E-Verify , Social Security no-match verification and information sharing, and REAL ID in favor of an expansive and expensive program of questionable value as an appropriate enforcement tool.

There are better alternatives :

We need a temporary worker program. One that is in fact temporary, market-oriented and feasible. A balanced and well-constructed program would provide an additional option or legal temporary workers, while diminishing the incentives for illegal entry. Congress must ensure it resolves issues of family status, require bilateral agreements, include triggers, provide economic incentives, contain caps and resists unwieldy government excess.
We must remember the American economy. No solution in this debate comes without an economic impact , whether through increased government services, unemployment or states shouldering unfunded mandates. Our immigration policy should encourage a growing economy, not expand the welfare state as we know it. Congress must consider these fiscal costs and benefits.
Above all, our first priority is national security . No other reforms are possible without a complete, and strict, security apparatus. From the point of origin, to transit, to the border, to within the United States – we require a system of protection that has gone needed for too long. If our borders remain porous and open, if our border states continue to suffer from unwarranted crime, if our laws go unenforced, then this contentious debate will only be a precursor to another and likely more disruptive process in the future.
We are a nation of immigrants. The Statue of Liberty stands as a testament to our desire to create an environment welcoming to all men and women who yearn for freedom and prosperity. We are a self selected class of people who see greater opportunity available through smaller government, economic freedom, religious and social tolerance and a shared responsibility of security and safety. It is no surprise that people from other nations would yearn for what we may sometimes take for granted. Reforming our broken immigration system should not set aside these aspirations, but embrace them.

IBD Editorials

Playing The Puerto Rico Card

Posted 04/29/2010 07:05 PM ET
Politics: Faced with losing Congress, the Democrats want to make Puerto Rico a state whether the people want it or not. The Democrats would get two new senators, new congressmen and a campaign issue.

Throw in voting representation for D.C., amnesty for illegals and voting for felons, all items on the Democrats’ agenda, and in their cookbook you have a recipe for Democratic majorities as far as the eye can see. It’s a plan to retain control at all costs and counteract a Tea Party movement that threatens to throw their big-government liberalism on the ash heap of political history.

You also have the added bonus of energizing Hispanic activists all too eager with administration help to paint the GOP as racists, particularly in the light of the new Arizona law that does nothing but say that since the feds dropped the ball on border security, Arizona will pick it up and run with it.

A scheduled Thursday vote in the House of Representatives on HR 2499, dubbed the Puerto Rico Democracy Act, was designed to rig the game in favor of Puerto Rican statehood, something native Puerto Ricans have rejected in the last three self-determination elections. Puerto Ricans like their current status just fine. Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democratic leaders do not.

HR 2499 would not make Puerto Rico a state. It would split the past voting process into the two parts. The first would be an up-or-down vote on whether Puerto Ricans simply want to change their island’s status from a commonwealth in association with the U.S. instead of an up-or-down vote on statehood in the past.

Democrats hope enough people favor independence or statehood to cobble together a majority in favor of status change. Once the first hurdle is cleared, a second vote will determine what the new status should be with the choices being commonwealth, statehood or independence.

This is where the Democrats’ subversion of the democratic process begins. The second vote winner is determined by a mere plurality of one of the choices. Under this plan, if statehood just finishes in the lead, it wins, even without a clear majority.

It gets better. Under HR 2499, nonresident Puerto Ricans living in the 50 states could vote in the new referendum. According to the U.S. Census, there are more eligible Puerto Ricans living outside the proposed 51st state than in it.

So native Puerto Ricans could vote no on statehood while their mainland cousins could make it a yes. In case the vote is still no, HR 2499 requires a new referendum every eight years or until it becomes a yes in favor of statehood.

This still wouldn’t make Puerto Rico a state, but it would grease the skids and let supporters paint opponents as racists in an election year. This would be ironic, since letting nonresident Puerto Ricans vote is making ethnicity a qualification rather than residency. Isn’t that racist?

The new state would automatically make America a bilingual nation in perpetuity. At least half of Puerto Ricans do not speak English. It would create new spending demands to bring Puerto Rico’s economic status up to the mainland’s level. Puerto Rico’s median income is nearly a third lower.

Statehood for Puerto Rico would undoubtedly send two Democratic U.S. senators to Washington as well as six to eight more Democratic congressmen. Puerto Rico the state would have a larger delegation than 25 of the current 50.

The Democrats are also pushing amnesty for illegals and putting them on the “path to citizenship” to quickly add a massive new voting constituency likely to vote their way.

Another bill, HR 3335, would give convicted felons no longer incarcerated the right to vote. Think they’d vote for a law-and-order Republican? Not likely.

All these actions are designed to provide fresh sources of votes to replace those they are clearly losing — middle-class, tax-paying, Tea Partying Americans.

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down. �
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. �
You cannot build character and courage by taking away people’s initiative and independence.

You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.
……Abraham Lincoln

Morning Bell: The Ahmadinejad Victory Tour

Posted By Conn Carroll On April 29, 2010
Yesterday, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley confirmed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had submitted an application for a visa to attend the United Nations nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty conference in New York next month. Since Crowley also confirmed that Ahmadinejad is likely to be awarded the visa, the Iranian President can now look forward to witnessing first hand the failure of President Barack Obama’s Iran policy.

At first the White House believed that President Barack Obama’s sheer power of personality and persuasion would be enough to convince the Iranian regime to give up their nuclear program. So the President gave a conciliatory speech in Cairo , sent a direct message to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei , and opened up direct talks with the Iranian regime . The results have been crystal clear: the Iranian regime has only accelerated its nuclear program , accelerated its ballistic missile program, and further crushed internal dissent, all while the Obama administration remained silent  as the Green Revolution was brutally crushed .

Now the Obama administration is seeking “crippling” sanctions on Iran through the U.N. Security Council. This is another Obama fantasy that plays right into Iran’s “cheat, retreat, and delay”  nuclear strategy. Whatever goodwill the Obama administration hoped to get from Russia by caving into their New START demands has not paid off . With help from Turkey , China and now Egypt , Iran’s rope-a-dope  U.N. diplomacy will render any U.N. sanctions regime completely toothless .

All these Ahmadinejad victories over President Obama would not be so alarming if the Obama administration were not actively undermining our nation’s ability to deter and defend against Iranian nuclear attack. First there was President Obama’s decision to cancel missile defense installations in Eastern Europe . The Obama administration claimed that their alternative system, called the Phased Adaptive Approach, could defend U.S. allies by 2020. But a recent Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report  warns Iran may be able to reach the United States with an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) by 2015. This means President Obama has created a new “window of vulnerability”  for our enemies to exploit.

And then there is President Obama’s New START agreement which limits U.S. conventional, nuclear and missile defense options. Former director of the Missile Defense Agency, Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Henry Obering, noted in The Washington Times [18] this week: “Strangely, New START may actually rest on what Russia permits the United States to do to defend Americans and our allies from such a missile attack. This equation is both bizarre and unsafe.”

“Bizarre and unsafe” is a generous assessment of the Obama administration’s efforts to protect America from Iran’s nuclear ambitions so far. The Obama administration must change course. The United States should impose and enforce the strongest possible sanctions , even if doing so requires action outside of the U.N. framework, and step up public diplomacy efforts to discredit the regime’s legitimacy and offer support to opposition groups, such as the Green Movement . Most importantly the Obama administration must make the commitment to create and sustain a layered missile defense system , designed to counter every range of Iranian missiles in all stages of flight, including those that threaten the territory of the United States and its allies. This would include scrapping New START, returning missile defense installations to Eastern Europe and fully funding missile defense.