ROMNEY HIRES HAZLETON DEFENDER TO BE ADVISOR ON IMMIGRATION

Just to put an exclamation point on the differences between himself and John McCain on immigration, Mitt Romney has brought on one of the leading anti-immigrant lawyers in the country to advise his campaign on immigration issues. Kris Kobach defended the city of Hazleton, Pennsylvania in their losing effort to prevent the city's harsh anti-immigration ordinance from being thrown out of court. And he is widely considered a leader in the national anti-immigration movement.

Comments

[b]

Legal and no longer waiting, most of the people I know who have written or met lawmakers don't go and demand that they be given a green card because they are legal. The argument has always been our employers have sponsored our GC. So we are needed (positive impact), not depressing wages and are not replacing any US citizens. Given a GC we could do more (job mobility for one, the list is long) with our skills, etc. GC also improves the quality of life for us who want to stay here long time, and continue contributing. So, delaying the GC hurts every one: the employee and the employer, and as a consequence the society we live in. And yes, following the immigration rule can be argued as a good thing.

[Legal and no longer waiting]

Kalifornian, you are off again. You are off because you were gravely misguided about the subject of the conversation by the antis. You bought into their trick, and now your conversation (yes, that very converesation with the lawmaker) is not going anywhere. You are furious, but there is no way out unless you change the paradigm.

The real question is - is immigration (in general) good or bad. Anti's aswer - bad, thus they go around and find all sorts of exuses to defend their position. Anything, that looks remotely plausible makes the list - from environment to "they destroy our culture" to "what about illegal don't you understand". The last argument works the best for the general public because nobody thinks doing something illegal is good, even though they don't understand a yota about what is exactly illegal why people do it.

Now, you bought into that. You suddenly think that since they can't a green card because they are illegal, you should be given a green card because you are legal. But the truth is that makes no sense whatsoever, yet you just keep repeating it. What you do not understand is that "illegal" has never been the real reason why antis do not want to accept these people - its because they think that any immigration is bad (and, as many people correctly noticed, they think that any immigration is bad because are rasists and bigots). Thus, arguing "I am legal, so give me a green card" is not going to get you anywhere, since you are not arguing the right point - that right point being that immigration is good for the country.

Now, if you think that immigration is good for the country, you just collect your facts and argue your point, and it will be heard. Yes, we can argue what kind of immigration is the bestest of the best and what is the second best, you may stack and rank immigration by age, skill, whatever else. At the end of the day, the facts show that all bona fide immigration is still going to land on the right side of the good-bad divide. If you can prove that immigration is good for the country, then the conversation turns constructive - what should this country do to encourage immigration/the right kind of immigration. This conversation never gets held up by the legal-illegal issue.

Now, I posted a link in one of the later conversation with a CNBC video where people talk about Presidential candidates and who is the best for EB/H1B immigration. What you will notice, that the word "illegal" is not mentioned in this conversation once, even though they talk a bit about immigration. Why? It is because the conversation is framed in a totally different way - Silicon Valley is major GDP contributor, and these companies need immigrants to continue to create great products, thus immigration is very important for this country's well-being. In this paradigm the conversation is not about legal-illegal, and guess what - the right side is finally up again. Also, pay attention to how they talk about President Clinton - and correlate that to me mentioning the while AC21/H1B/EB recapture law he pushed through two months before he was out of the office.

I really hope my rant gave you some interesting ideas.

[Kalifornian]

To dear "Lagal and no longer waiting" . It seems you just came through the EB channel and very familiar with it. I didn't mention EB or FB. I just meant 'Legal' . Is mentioning 'Legal' a tunnel vision ? Now about tunnel vision, people here have something like that. How dare USA wants to put visa restrictions etc ? There are humans all around the world. Whoever wants to come here should be freely allowed in. No number limit.

[George Chell]

Barbara Jordan had good intentions but she was an unwitting player in the GOP's racist southern strategy when it came to immigration. Barbara Jordan had the best interest of the US worker and poor families in her heart and mind. However, people who used her proposal to further their racist cause do not have the best interest of the US worker in mind. Lamar Smith, Steve King, Marsha Blackburn, Tom Tancredo, Marilyn Musgrave and Thelma Drake among others are only interested in the US worker when it comes to Hispanic or non-white immigratgion. These individuals have worked hard to destroy the American workers and their families by trying to defeat minimum wage legislation among others. In other words, their interests are essentially racial..nothing to do with the American worker.

The same argument can be made regarding FAIR, CIS, Numbers USA, American Patrol and a host of other anti-immigrant organizations. American worker becomes an issue when they speak about non-white immigrants but not otherwise. "We need to train more US workers to reduce dependence on foreign skills," they say..but would they fight outbound investment or outsourcing? The answer is no. Would they fight cuts in science and education budgets? The answer is no. Their goal is not the American worker or family but to stop non-white immigrants from coming into the US. They dont care if jobs go abroad.

Finally, there are at least 10,000 actors coming into this country from UK, Australia and Europe every year. But does it concern FAIR or CIS? Does it worry them that there are homeless aspiring and attractive American actors, white or otherwise on the streets of Hollywood? The answer is no. But, let in 30,000 Asian computer programmers, although this is a substantially small proportion of all programmer jobs relative to the actors we let in, FAIR and CIS would be out in front complaining. Why? The actors happen to be almost all white and the programmers happen to be almost all non-white. Any questions?

[Robert]

"To fight economic injustice, it urged reduction in immigration numbers that are now so high as to harm the most vulnerable American workers and their families."

Barbara Jordan was not well informed. She only got white reps from racist districts to sign on to her bill. No black congressman or woman would sign on to it. Why? Many would rather give up some wages to live in a non-racist majority non-white America.

[George Chell]

"I am working here in Colorado and I do not have any problem with the State? What do you mean when you say Colorado is not immigrant-friendly? Not because Tom Tancredo is here doesn't mean the whole state is like him."

The districts represented by Musgrave and Tancredo are more than enough to offset all the good deeds done by the rest of the state. Their constituents are racist as they come. A real estate agent in Tancredo's district told me as much. They are pretty anti-Asian. At a cafe in Tancredo I watched and listened to a bunch of middle aged women complain about her nephew dating an Asian girl in High School and that is the reason she moved from California to Colorado.

[George Chell]

"Heidi - I'm very aware of what I wrote. But it's sham to say that the folks pushing these bills are only against illegal immigration. These bills have the effect of driving out legal immigrants from communities and if you look at the organizations pushing these measures - FAIR, NumbersUSA, Center for Immigration Studies, etc., they oppose all immigration and not just illegal immigration. Look at Arizona today. The people fleeing that state are not just illegal immigrants. Legal immigrants are leaving as well because of the hostile environment."

Absolutely right!

[Jack]

Sorry for the confusion. This is what it was referencing. The thing I clicked on to find the group's officially recommended immigration number left that out for some reason.

The bi-partisan U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform.
(Click here to learn more about the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform.)

Barbara Jordan, chair (see bio)
To fight economic injustice, it urged reduction in immigration numbers that are now so high as to harm the most vulnerable American workers and their families.

The President's Council on Sustainable Development

[USC]

Sorry, I see that you were not referring to FAIR. The mistake arose because I do not click on links which reference numberusa, fair websites etc.

[USC]

"That is why these two prestigious national commissions have recommended reductions in the numbers."

I am confused. Are you referring to FAIR as a prestigious national commission? They are a hate group.

Henceforth, if anyone makes a reference to FAIR, without preceding it with "the hate group, FAIR" I intend to correct that person.

[Jack]

>>FAIR, NumbersUSA, Center for Immigration Studies, etc., they oppose all immigration and not just illegal immigration.<<

All? All = 0. I think you mean LOWER when referring to these groups' positions on legal immigration.

Honoring Our Immigration and Other Traditions

Some Americans for varying reasons are quite emotionally tied to the heritage of their immigrant ancestors and find the idea of reducing immigration numbers to be something of an assault on the honor of their families. Most Americans are proud of much of their country's immigration tradition. We are, too. That is why NumbersUSA recommends continuing this nation's very high traditional immigration average of 200,000 to 250,000 per year.

http://www.numbersusa.com/about/goals.html

But since 1990, the numbers have averaged far higher -- around ONE MILLION per year. That is why these two prestigious national commissions have recommended reductions in the numbers. It is not that they rejected our immigration tradition but suggested that Congress put immigration numbers back more in line with that tradition.

The numbers have to come down to respect not only our immigration tradition but also others of this nation's deeply imbedded traditions:

* tradition of individual liberty (overpopulation creates pressures for more and more regulation, restrictions and regimentation);
* tradition of easy access to open spaces (overpopulation congests transportation, drives urban sprawl that devours thousands of square miles of rural land each year, and crowds out esthetic satisfaction with too many people seeking refuge in dwindling open spaces near population centers)
* tradition of a life of dignity for all who work hard and play by the rules (mass importation of foreign labor depresses wages and puts the American dream of home ownership out of reach for too many workers)

Consider this testimony by Barbara Jordan before a joint House and Senate committee hearing June 28, 1995:

"Legal immigration ... has costs, as well as benefits. Immigrants with relatively low education and skills may compete for jobs and public services with the most vulnerable of Americans, particularly those who are unemployed or underemployed. Jobs generated by immigrant businesses do not always addresss this problem. Concentrated and/or rapid entry of immigrants into a locality may impose immediate net costs, particularly in education, where expenditures are required to meet the additional and special needs of newcomers. Concentration of new immigrants can exacerbate tensions among ethnic groups. ... Unless there is a compelling national interest to do otherwise, immigrants should be chosen on the basis of the skills they contribute to the U.S. economy."

This nation has a lot of wonderful traditions, such as the rule of law. It is extremely important that we do not confuse higher and higher volumes of immigration with our nation's immigration tradition. And it is especially important that confusion not undermine our many other positive traditions.

Close Window

Printed from www.NumbersUSA.com

[Lagal and no longer waiting]

Kalifonian, you are an example of a typical EB-tunnel vision, a view where EB immigrants are the only humans in the whole world. From a legislator or President's point of view, the big problems are the ones they need to be taken care of. It is what it is - and it always will be. They are not interested in in-depth understanding of the intricacies of the EB immigrnation, and, however unfortunate it sounds, it is a good thing. Legal immigration is exactly the kind of problems that is easy to fix or at least patch up, and if you remember, President Clinton signed H1B Increase/AC21 portability/H1 Extention beyond 6th year/recapture of EB visas in one big sweep in October 2000. Where would you be now if he have not done it, and who cares if he knows every detail of the EB system...

[Kalifornian]

OK. So, which candidate understands legal immigration issues ?
Some times when written about issues related to legal immigrants , the senators reply back "We know there are 12 million undocumeted workers etc. etc" . Do they understand there is a category called legal immigrants ?

[Greg Siskind]

>>Do I sense an endorsement here? Greg Siskind for Obama, perhaps?<<

Nah. I would only tell readers that Obama, Clinton AND McCain are all just fine on immigration issues and beyond that, pick the candidate who you support for other reasons. But I will give a negative endorsement (not sure what that's called) to Romney, Huckabee or Paul, any of which would be abysmal on immigration issues. The biggest joke is Ron Paul who has convinced people he's a libertarian while taking a totally nativist view on immigration. There is nothing libertarian about his immigration viewpoint.

[dr]

Do I sense an endorsement here? Greg Siskind for Obama, perhaps?

[Greg Siskind]

I promise you Kennedy and Obama were not behind the provisions you disliked in the 2007 CIR. The point system was brought to us by Senators Sessions and Kyl. The H-1B fees (which almost every Senator voted for probably assuming the problem would be fixed later, was pushed by Senators Sanders and Durbin, not Obama or Kennedy.

[A]

"The McCain-Kennedy immigration bill of 2006 was one of the best immigration bills in years for business and employment immigration - STEM Act, large increases in numbers for skilled immigrants, largely reducing impact of per country quotas."

Agreed, CIR of 2006 was the best product that ever happened for immigrants whether EB or otherwise. CIR 2007 is the worst thing that could ever happened to EB immigrants. I can only imagine what Kennedys, Durbins , Obamas will do to EB immigration thinking that EB immigrants represent businesses. Hope Dems dont get fillibuster proof majority in the Senate.

[Greg Siskind]

A - Obama (and Kennedy) have an overall positive record on dealing with employer immigration. The McCain-Kennedy immigration bill of 2006 was one of the best immigration bills in years for business and employment immigration - STEM Act, large increases in numbers for skilled immigrants, largely reducing impact of per country quotas. Obama has been fine on these issues as well. Check their ratings at NumbersUSA on business and employment cases and you'll see.

[Another voice]

"I dont know why I am bothering commenting on your blog"

Yeah Heidi why do you bother????

[Another voice]

Well hopefully McCain will get closer to locking down the nomination tomorrow and this will not be maningfull at all past tomorrow. But I agree with most people here Clinton or Obama will be better news for fixing the broken system and for all Immigrants.

[A]

"Romney & Huckabee, the last of the losers pandering to the antis are likely to be gone tomorrow. Our choices are going to boil down to McCain, Clinton or Obama. They are all great on immigration issues, however, my hope is that Clinton or Obama will win in the fall because the country can ill afford to continue the failed policies pursued by the Pubs. "

Obama/Kennedy is the worst the thing worst thing that can happen to legal employment based immigration. Both of these men are controlled by left wing nut jobs and union people. These guys hate businesses and who run them. They are very good for illegal immigrants. It was disgusting to listen to Kennedy talking in spanish in California.

As much as I like McCain, I dont want another pub in whitehouse.

I think Hillary is best for country and immigrants.

[CO Immi]

I am working here in Colorado and I do not have any problem with the State? What do you mean when you say Colorado is not immigrant-friendly? Not because Tom Tancredo is here doesn't mean the whole state is like him.

[USC]

"Heidi - I'm very aware of what I wrote."

Romney & Huckabee, the last of the losers pandering to the antis are likely to be gone tomorrow. Our choices are going to boil down to McCain, Clinton or Obama. They are all great on immigration issues, however, my hope is that Clinton or Obama will win in the fall because the country can ill afford to continue the failed policies pursued by the Pubs.

[Legal and no longer waiting]

I decided against interviewing with a company located in CO because the state is not immigrant-friendly. Combine that with my love of skiing, and you get the picture.

[D]

My husband was considering applying for a teaching position in Michigan but he gave up. We're not going to some place where we can't even drive legally.

[A]

"The people fleeing that state are not just illegal immigrants. Legal immigrants are leaving as well because of the hostile environment."

I turned down an offer of employment in Phoenix, AZ for the same reason. I told the hiring manager in no uncertain terms that AZ is not an immigrant friendly state.

[Greg Siskind]

Heidi - I'm very aware of what I wrote. But it's sham to say that the folks pushing these bills are only against illegal immigration. These bills have the effect of driving out legal immigrants from communities and if you look at the organizations pushing these measures - FAIR, NumbersUSA, Center for Immigration Studies, etc., they oppose all immigration and not just illegal immigration. Look at Arizona today. The people fleeing that state are not just illegal immigrants. Legal immigrants are leaving as well because of the hostile environment.

[Heidi]

I dont know why I am bothering commenting on your blog but Kris Kobach is in fact for LEGAL immagration. Get your facts straight.

[Vick]

A loser hiring another?