You are here: Home / Archives for Karl Filippini
avatar

About Karl Filippini

With a political science degree from the University of Arizona, Karl came to FAIR in 1998. He maintains and evaluates FAIR's website and manages E-Mail traffic. Karl also offers an invaluable mixture of technical and issue related knowledge. As technology constantly changes Karl helps FAIR remain ahead of the curve.

Grassley – Amnesty Bill Delegates Too Much to DHS (Video)

May 10, 2013 By 7 Comments

During yesterday’s markup of S. 744, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) said the bill was just like Obamacare – which contained 1,600 delegations of Congressional authority. S. 744 allows the DHS secretary to waive rules over 400 times, including in cases where criminals attempt to get amnesty. Watch the video of his remarks about delegation below.

In addition, the border security provisions of the bill are too dependent on the DHS secretary self-certifying that DHS is doing a good job of enforcing the border. Instead, Congress should be the one to make the final judgment on whether the border is secure. Despite these common-sense arguments, however, the Republican members of the Gang of Eight voted against common-sense fixes to the bill yesterday.

Filed Under: Amnesty 2013, Border, Law, Politics, Population, Society

Thanks for Helping FAIR Reach 50,000 Fans on Facebook

August 1, 2012 By 2 Comments

All of us at FAIR would like to thank our friends and supporters for helping us break the 50,000 ‘like’ mark on Facebook. Thanks to your help, we are reaching more and more people with the immigration reform message every day! The American people deserve to know the truth about immigration and our current lack of enforcement, and we’ll be sure to keep you updated here and on Facebook about the latest legislative developments and new research reports from FAIR moving forward!

 

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Should the D.C. Council Offer Sanctuary to Illegal Campaign Contributors?

July 12, 2012 By 4 Comments

Imagine the headlines if the D.C. City Council adopted a resolution offering sanctuary to people who make illegal campaign contributions. Just this week, another member of the “shadow campaign” that helped elect Mayor Vincent Gray pled guilty to campaign finance violations. Isn’t it really unjust, however, for undocumented campaign contributors to be forced to remain in the shadow of our political campaigns? Wouldn’t it make it easier for police to build trust with the powerful, undocumented Medicaid contractors who are forced to use intermediaries so they can buy the electoral results (and subsequent contracts) they want — if these undocumented contributors knew that they would be free to live without the oppressive fear of discovery during routine traffic stops?

Of course, that’s not what really happened this week in D.C. Instead, “the D.C. Council approved a bill that will limit the ability of the federal government to enforce immigration laws by restricting the circumstances in which individuals can be held in the custody of local law enforcement at the request of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement,” says a story in the Huffington Post. So, our nation’s capital is now a sanctuary city for illegal aliens – refusing valid detention requests from ICE and, in effect, frustrating the Obama administration’s woeful effort to maintain any pretense of enforcing immigration laws.

Frustrating the administration’s policies of enforcement (or lack of enforcement) is something that the Supreme Court has ruled states may not do. Only Congress has that authority, but they refuse to exercise it (but that’s another matter). Maybe the D.C. City Council figures that as a non-state, they are free to ignore the recent ruling about SB 1070. Or, maybe, it’s just the Council’s latest ploy to make D.C. a state.

Filed Under: Crime, Law, Local, Politics, Population, Society

An Economist Who “Gets” Immigration

November 16, 2011 By 18 Comments

Earlier today I came across a blog about immigration written by an economist, and knowing the typical economist’s position on immigration my first reaction was, “here we go again.” But, I was pleasantly surprised to read this entry by Mark Thoma from the University of Oregon and he actually has something intelligent and rational to say.

Professor Thoma is rebutting an article that appeared on the Atlantic site (which itself is relying on the economic doom and gloom spin by Alabama businesses). About halfway down the post Mr. Thoma begins his rebuttal which plainly reminds employers complaining that they can’t find workers that they aren’t immune from the free market. Employers always have the option of raising wages to attract more workers, something they seem to have forgotten. Mr. Thoma very eloquently says that:

[B]usiness owners will complain, of course, that if they pay the wages needed to attract Americans to these jobs — basically to keep them out of soup kitchens — then they won’t be able to make a profit. That may or may not be true, but assume it is. What does it really mean? It means that the product they are selling is not viable unless people are forced by their circumstances to work at wages below what would be acceptable if even the barest of social services were available.

You can read the rest of this excellent blog at Economist’s View, and it’s well worth the time.

Filed Under: Crime, Jobs, Law, Population, Society

New Investor Visa Program Picks Up Steam Under Obama Administration

September 21, 2011 By 4 Comments

Even before President Obama announced his jobs plan this month, DHS was hard at work behind the scenes on a revamp of the EB-5 investor visa program. The investor visa program began with the idea that foreign investors would set up a business in the U.S. and hire employees here, and in exchange they would receive a green card.

Following DHS’s decision to “streamline” the EB-5 process, there has been a blizzard of activity by U.S. lawyers and other promoters of the visas organizing conferences and touting new ventures targeted especially at Chinese investors.

The mechanics of the EB-5 visa program have morphed into a very different approach to attract foreign investors than when the program was created. Instead of setting up an actual business, most EB-5 investors place their money with a DHS approved “regional center” – which could be a private investment firm but can also be the arm of a regional, state, or local economic development agency.

EB-5 money is being used not only for investing in new small businesses but is also now being pooled with other investors in large ones such as the new arena for the Sacramento Kings NBA franchise.

Foreign investors looking for a fast-track to residency should examine the track record of the program. An investigation by Reuters last December revealed that barely half of EB-5 applicants eventually got a green card.

The program also raises troubling questions about whether the U.S. is putting residency up for sale. And given the recent history of government directed investment, is it really wise to assume that taxpayer money isn’t involved in loan guarantees or other ways? Furthermore, As Michelle Malkin noted in her column last weekend, “If the feds can’t be trusted to invest government subsidies wisely in American companies, how can they possibly determine which overseas investors will be successful here?”

Filed Under: Jobs, Law, National, Politics, Society, White House Watch

La Raza Calls Off Unsuccessful Arizona Boycott

September 13, 2011 By 3 Comments

The National Council of La Raza has reportedly called for an end to a boycott of Arizona that began after the passage of SB 1070 last year. The group says that they “discouraged other states from enacting similar immigration laws” with the boycott and that it was hurting Arizona workers too much. (states like Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Indiana must have missed La Raza’s memo)

How much did the Arizona boycott cost the state? Advocates for illegal aliens claim Arizona was hurt by their boycott, but given that Arizona’s tourism and convention business was worth $16 billion in direct spending in 2009, and almost $18 billion in 2010, it appears to have had no impact at all. Additionally, their highest profile effort (to get Major League Baseball to pull the 2011 All Star game out of Phoenix) failed miserably.

Even when the boycott was new, Arizona hotels said that the occupancy rate was higher in 2010 than in 2009. “Fundamentally, the boycotts have been unsuccessful,” said Barry Broome, president of the Greater Phoenix Economic Council, back in July 2010.

And this year, the tourism industry in Arizona is experiencing growth. “While the nation and Arizona struggle to add new jobs, the state tourism industry may see as many as 20,000 new jobs in 2011. After two years of declines, more people are traveling and many of them are headed to the Grand Canyon State,” notes KOLD-Tucson.

Bottom line is, how does anyone know how much Arizona lost as a result of the boycott? It is impossible to prove a negative. No one knows how much tourism business Arizona would have had if SB 1070 had not passed, or if the advocacy groups had not called for a boycott. It is just as likely that any decline in tourism was a result of the lousy economy. And it is important to also note that the state has probably saved far more than $250 million because of the decline of the illegal alien population and because American workers filled some or most of the jobs vacated by illegal aliens.

With the economic rationale of the boycott called into question, and several states adopting Arizona-style laws this year, along with more coming during 2011, its easy to see why La Raza would be eager to “declare victory and go home”, to use the Vietnam-era phrase.

Filed Under: Border, Jobs, Law, National, Politics, Population, Society
« Older Posts