Amnesty Advocates Go Global

mercatormapD.C. protests and a cross-country bus tour are just not enough for amnesty activists. They’re going global. Several open borders activists are trying to influence American politics from outside U.S. borders by begging for help from the United Nations and the Holy See.  These activists, who fail to generate support from Americans for amnesty (as seen in the recent NBC News-Wall Street Journal and Washington Post-ABC polls), are now going to foreign or international bodies to try to pressure U.S. lawmakers.

Last week, the National Guestworker Alliance, a pro-amnesty group, sent a letter to the United Nations, along with other amnesty supporters such as AFL-CIO, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Immigrant Legal Resource Center and National Immigration Law Center. They complained to this international body that U.S. actions “arresting, detaining, and removing” illegal aliens who complained about working conditions constitute “serious violations” of international law.  The National Guestworker Alliance seeks to gain for illegal aliens the “right to stay in the country and continue to work while pursuing a labor or human rights complaint.”

The United Nations isn’t the only pit stop for amnesty advocates. Several family members of illegal aliens are flying to the Vatican. A group of activists and children of illegal aliens are part of a delegation supported by a Los Angeles archbishop s to seek assistance from Pope Francis  in stopping illegal alien deportations.

U.S. lawmakers already encounter international pressure on the immigration issue.  Just this past weekend, Ireland’s Prime Minister Enda Kenny lobbied for amnesty directly to President Obama at the White House.  However, Irish illegal alien’s interests, which Kenny advocated for, are not the same as the American worker’s interests, which President Obama ought to represent.

In reality, the point of U.S. immigration policy should be to serve U.S. interests.  That’s why efforts to seek foreign help for pressure on this issue are inappropriate and severely misguided.

This Date in Obama’s Administrative Amnesty: March 18, 2009

This Date in Obama's Administrative AmnestyLess than two months after being inaugurated—and only a month after publicly declaring support for amnesty—President Obama met with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) on March 18, 2009 to plot his strategy for enacting “comprehensive” immigration reform. During the meeting, Obama expressed his intention to work closely with the CHC to “address immigration concerns in both the short and long term.” Later that day, Obama reiterates his support for amnesty at a town hall forum.

While Obama embraced amnesty at the early stages of his first term, he never intended to use Congress to implement his agenda. Despite Democrats controlling both the Senate and the House of Representatives for Obama’s first two years, he never instructed Members of the CHC or other pro-amnesty Members to introduce legislation. Instead, beginning in 2011, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) began to implement formal measures through a series of memos issued by former Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director John Morton. These “Morton Memos” granted administrative amnesty to hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens in the United States.

Read more at FAIR’s President Obama’s Record of Dismantling Immigration Enforcement.

Poll Shows Amnesty Support Hurts Candidates

According to a recent national poll of 1002 adults by ABC News/Washington Post, a plurality of adults say they are less likely to vote for a candidate for U.S. Congress who supports a “path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.” (ABC News/Washington Post Poll p. 17, March 4, 2014). The poll found that thirty-eight percent of adults said that they would be less likely to vote for such a candidate, and thirty percent said they would be more likely. (Id.) Twenty-nine percent said it wouldn’t make much difference, and three percent had no opinion. (Id.) Thus, according to this poll, among adults, support for amnesty, even described as “a path to citizenship,” results in a net loss in support rather than gain.  It should be noted that a random sample of 1002 adults, which may include illegal aliens, permanent residents, and non-voting citizens, may find different results than a sample of likely voters.

This poll undermines arguments made by amnesty proponents that Republicans must embrace amnesty to win national elections, particularly during presidential election years with larger turnout. For instance, Senate Minority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX) argued in January that “we can win in 2014 without resolving it [immigration], we can’t win in 2016 without resolving it.” (National Journal, Jan. 14, 2014) To the contrary, this poll suggests that rejecting amnesty would actually improve Republicans’ electoral position, even among a wider electorate. Similar analyses by FAIR and Eagle Forum draw the same conclusion. (See FAIR’s Analysis: ”Republicans Have an Immigration Problem — And Amnesty Won’t Solve It,” Oct. 2013; see also Eagle Forum’s “How Mass (Legal) Immigration Dooms a Conservative Republican Party, Feb. 2014)

This Date in Obama’s Administrative Amnesty: March 1, 2012

This Date in Obama's Administrative AmnestyOn March 1, 2012, Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano accusing DHS of releasing false and misleading border crossing data. In particular, the pair suggests that the number of illegal border crossings is substantially higher than previously reported by Customs and Border Protection (CBP). The letter states, “[T]he numbers appear to dramatically underestimate the volume of individuals who cross the border illegally and are neither arrested nor turned back south.”

The letter was prompted by the Oversight Committee’s receipt of DHS documents revealing that instead of tracking and counting border crossers who are neither arrested nor turned back south (referred to as “got-aways”) in its statistics, the Department lets these individuals fall off the record books. The letter explained that although CBP agents considered these individuals as “outstanding subjects of active pursuit,” and thus passed them along from shift-to-shift, that eventually CBP agents lost track of them and they were never logged into their daily shift reports.

According to Issa, an audit of border patrol shift reports showed over a one week period in 2011 that at least 82 illegal border crossers were never reported. Extrapolated over a full year for the entire U.S.-Mexico border, Reps. Issa and Chaffetz estimate more than 268,000 individuals who illegally crossed into the country went uncounted. They conclude that if the data is as misleading as it appears to be, the Administration’s claims that “the border is safer than it has been in decades’ is dangerously flawed.”

Read more at FAIR’s President Obama’s Record of Dismantling Immigration Enforcement.

The Double Standard on Teaching Immigration Law in Public Schools

Maryland Schools Ban Immigration Skit for Being Politically Incorrect

Amidst complaints, a Prince George’s County, Maryland, teacher’s lesson plan for third and fourth graders that had a skit called The Uninvited Guest was rejected by the school district. However, this skit has true educational value and accurately teaches current U.S. immigration law in a simplified fashion appropriate for elementary school students.  Apparently, some people don’t like the fact that illegal aliens are deportable under current law so they act to censor it from public schools. Meanwhile, however, no effort is underway to remove pro-amnesty curricula.

The Uninvited Guest is a short skit about three invited guests, including one on a nonimmigrant visa, in Uncle Sam’s house. Those invited guests are allegorical symbols for different categories of those who are legally present in the country. However, when an uninvited guest tries to sneak in the window, Uncle Sam catches him and orders him to leave. The uninvited guest is a metaphor for an illegal alien.

The skit offers a creative way to explain the meaning of Section 212(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which provides for classes of aliens ineligible for visas or admission to the country. Section 212(a) is a lengthy and complicated provision of federal law that explains ways that aliens are inadmissible.  Uncle Sam appropriately explains that “Outsiders who may pose a threat to the health or safety of my family aren’t welcome here. I don’t want any drug addicts or drug traffickers to come in, either. No criminals.”  Section 212(a)(2) is about inadmissibility for conviction of certain crimes, like drug trafficking. There are also Sections 212(a)(6) and 212(a)(7) which provide that aliens who enter without admission or parole, and those without documentation are inadmissible.

The skit also teaches children the importance of following the law. Uncle Sam tells the illegal alien, “But it’s not your country. You have to follow Uncle Sam’s Country Haven rules. You should have gotten a visa. I don’t like it when people sneak into my Country Haven.”  The consequence of illegal entry is deportation (See Section 237 of the Immigration and Nationality Act) as Uncle Sam explains: “You are going back to where you came from. For the health and safety of my people, that’s the way it’s got to be.”

There are many different types of visas and complicated application procedures involved. To cut through the complexity, this skit offers a simple introduction. Uncle Sam explains that “A visa lets in people who don’t live here. People who want to come for a visit need to get my approval. If I like them and I have the space, I welcome them in. I tell them how long they can stay, and if they want to stay longer, I’ll think it over.” This definition is in accord with the description on the State Department website.

While the leader of the pro-amnesty group Casa de Maryland denounced the skit as “horrible” and “horrendous,” this skit actually praises immigrants who enter legally. Uncle Sam declares, “I do appreciate guests who have a visa! Enjoy your visit!” One of the invited guests at Uncle Sam’s house says, “I got a visa, and Uncle Sam made me feel welcome!”

What’s really horrible and horrendous is the fact that a Maryland teacher was stopped from using a lesson plan that fairly teaches immigration law. But intervention in teaching immigration is not limited to just one instance. In Virginia, Senator Warner coordinated a public school program advocating for amnesty. How come teachers can teach amnesty (not currently the law), but can’t instruct students on what a deportation is (which is current law)? If amnesty advocates can’t convince adults on the force of their arguments, is the next step trying to indoctrinate the next generation by influencing the curriculum in public schools?