What should be done about illegal immigration?

This is the state of the immigration landscape as I see it.

I think that the path to citizenship (without the stupid leave and hope thing) is off the table. I wouldn't accept a bill that didn't have a path to citizenship for people who have been here a long time and have lives and families here.

I am pretty sure that a path to citizenship has the now political force behind it to make it part of any bill. Polls show that two thirds of voters approve of a path to citizenship as part of a comprehensive package, and the failure of anti-immigrant rhetoric in the election now backs that up.

I think the English-only thing will go in a few states (not mine) and I think it is mainly symbolic anyway.

I think the compromise is going to be along the lines of border security for a path to citizenship-- that is if the conservative Republicans don't continue to obstruct progress. If the Republicans aren't careful, this issue could become even more poison for them.

Run, Tancredo Run!

A little honesty would be welcomed. The republicans did not loose nor the democrats win based in any way on the immigration issue. In fact IMO and those i spoke to { democratic voters}coming from heavily democratic
NY.That is an issue that if it were not overshadowed by the incompetence of the Bush administration the Dem's could not win on.

rewarding criminal activity sucks.

Yes, Au, a little honesty about what the real issues are would be quite refreshing. You seem to be willing to see those real issues. Some others are not. Hanson I think is right on target that our current immigration policies--in practice more than by law--are as destructive to Mexico as they are to us. And as has been thoroughly documented in this thread, we have crystal clear evidence that any kind of amnesty program only encourages more illegal immigration to the detriment of both countries.

That "leave and hope" principle is one of the dumber things we've ever come up with. There is no potential citizen we know more about than the ones who have been living here, holding jobs here, and staying out of legal dificulties. Still, like McCain/Kennedy, I don't visualize a free pass for working in the country illegally. Now, there could be a problem with some illegal workers if they've been working under false documents. I don't think I've seen that addressed anywhere.

Social Security Data a Major Source in Terrorism Probes

By Carlos Roig and Christopher Kriva
Special to The Washington Post
Friday, November 10, 2006; Page A29

Sohaib Bin Lateef left Pakistan for the United States more than 25 years ago and fulfilled his dreams with a suburban home, a family and a string of gas stations and convenience stores in St. Louis. But along the way, he says, he took some bad advice and obtained a Social Security number under a false name.

Now Bin Lateef, 47, faces deportation and stands to lose everything, even though he insists he has no ties to terrorists. The Justice Department lists his case as terrorism-related.


Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Social Security Administration's vast databases of personal information have become a resource for federal investigators, who have asked the agency to check tens of thousands of records for number misuse and identity fraud -- potential precursors to terrorist activity. Bin Lateef is one of hundreds of people convicted as a result.

The Social Security Administration is "the Fort Knox of identity information in the United States," said James Huse, the agency's inspector general from 1998 to 2004. "That's a pretty impressive investigative tool that no other agency possesses."

From just after Sept. 11 through 2005, Social Security officials sent prosecutors 456 referrals that were classified as terrorism-related, according to statistics compiled by Syracuse University's Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. The review shows that 91 percent of those referrals led to prosecutions.

Only the departments of Justice and Homeland Security have referred more terrorism-related cases for prosecution, according to the Syracuse records, which are based on data compiled by the Justice Department's Executive Office for United States Attorneys.

Still, few if any suspects in Social Security cases are ever linked publicly to alleged terrorist activity. Most cases referred to prosecutors in the months after Sept. 11 involved document fraud by Latino immigrants working at airports.

Previous studies by the Syracuse center found that thousands of cases have been referred by all agencies for prosecution under the labels of "international terrorism" or "antiterrorism." However, senior Justice officials instead usually cite the criminal division's much smaller list of terrorism-related cases, which as of June included 441 defendants and 261 convictions. Most on that smaller list were charged with crimes unrelated to terrorism, an earlier Washington Post analysis found.

Prosecutors generally will not discuss individual cases. Law enforcement officials have said that even if they have evidence of terrorist activity, it does not need to be made public if suspects can be arrested or deported on lesser charges, such as document fraud or immigration violations.

"Prosecution of terrorism-related targets on these types of charges is often an effective method -- and sometimes the only available method -- of deterring and disrupting potential terrorist planning and support activities without compromising national security information," Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty wrote in a Justice Department report in June.

The federal law prohibiting misuse of Social Security numbers is "a very easy statute from a prosecution standpoint," said Jonathan Lasher, deputy chief counsel to the Social Security Administration's inspector general. "We don't have to prove a lot in the way of motive or intent. If you represent a number to be yours that isn't yours, you've essentially met the burden."



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/09/AR2006110901526.html?referrer=email

Republican candidates in race after race made immigration a major issue. In race after race Democrats who support a comprehensive solution that includes a path to citizenship won.

These Democrats have killed the obstructionist Republican majority in the House.

Spin it how you like. This election was a big win for those of us who support a compassionate solution.

We will pass a Comprehensive bill that has both security and compassion if you let us. We may now be able to pass it even over your obstructionism.

I have a somewhat different perspective to this than you, I think. Yes, those illegals who have been living here, holding jobs here, and staying out of legal difficulties would certainly be desirable legal immigrants and should be put on a path to citizenship - EXCEPT - they must not be rewarded for doing it illegally in the first place. As I have previously said, to reward such illegal activity mounts a huge flashing neon sign over America: "DON'T WORRY ABOUT USA LAWS - SNEAK IN AND IF YOU AVOID DETECTION FOR AWHILE, THEY'LL LET YOU STAY FOREVER.' That cannot help but encourage others to do likewise.

The 'good ones' who are here illegally though would almost certainly be attractive to their employers wouldn't you think? So put a temporary work permit program into effect and let those employers bring these people right back AFTER they first go home and re-enter legally. Put the responsibility on employers to go find and bring in the people they want though such people would be subject to background checks. The only amnesty should be maybe a 30-day period in which illegals could leave the premises without harrassment. After that, they are subject to arrest and deportation.

If they do it legally however, they should be allowed to get in line with everybody else who has applied for legal citizenship. Citizenship should not be guaranteed anybody, more especially to those who came into the country illegally, but we could revamp our policies to make the application process a bit more user friendly I think and we could afford to increase quotas to some extent.

Nobody who got here illegally should ever be allowed to apply for US citizenship.

If we want our laws to mean anything, they must be applied uniformly, evenly, and without prejudice or qualification.

Here are some of the highlights related to how immigration fared:

Arizona: Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano, a strong advocate of comprehensive immigration reform, won a resounding victory over her opponent. In the closely watched Arizona 8th Congressional district Democrat Gabrielle Giffords (D), a strong advocate of comprehensive immigration reform, clobbered Minuteman candidate Randy Graff (R) by a decisive margin. And in a stunning upset, comprehensive reform advocate Harry Mitchell (D) defeated hardliner incumbent J.D. Hayworth (R).

Colorado: Comprehensive reform advocates Bill Ritter (D) and Rick Perlmutter (D) handily won their races for Governor and Congress over hardliners.

Pennsylvania: Comprehensive reform advocate Bob Casey (D) trounced incumbent hardliner Rick Santorum (R) - who featured tough attacks on Casey's stance early and late in the campaign and launched www.caseyforamnesty.com - by 18%.

Governor's races: In numerous Governors' races Democratic candidates came under attack for begin "soft on illegal immigration," and in all of these races - MD, KS, OR, WI, MA, CO, AZ - the Democrat won.

Schwarzenegger: In a display of Republican savvy lacking in most races, Governor Schwarzenegger moved away from hard line views on immigration, deftly repositioning himself in the middle on immigration, and won going away.

According to the Washington Post: "About six in 10 voters said that they believe illegal immigrants working in the United States should be offered a chance to apply for legal status, a position that was supported by Bush but rejected by House Republicans who have pushed an enforcement-first approach to controlling illegal immigration."

Finally, more than 7 out of 10 Hispanic voters supported Democrats, and only 27% supported Republicans. This is in stark contrast to the 2004 election in which President Bush attracted an estimated 40 to 44% of the Hispanic vote.

I, personally, don't have any problems with a program to let illegal immigrants to become citizens by meeting some requirements, and not jumping ahead of those trying to become citizens legally. The details should be worked out by congress. I think illegals must be required to pay fees and fines in addition to a reasonable waiting period after they apply.

Nice, smart, relevant post, fbaezer.

Wonderful to see you again. We miss you...though not in any romantic sense.

Now, c.i., that is my feeling, exactly, possibly influenced by the likelyhood of 11 million illegals being suddenly deported.

http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i10414

Nick, I gave your link article one star. I didn't know how to record 1/3d star.

I'm glad you gave it a star CI. Her opinion certainly doesn't reflect the opinion of many. But it IS funny.

She earned the 1/3d star for the "funny" factor.

Medicaid Wants Citizenship Proof For Infant Care

By ROBERT PEAR
Published: November 3, 2006
Under a new federal policy, children born in the United States to illegal immigrants with low incomes will no longer be automatically entitled to health insurance through Medicaid, Bush administration officials said Thursday.

Doctors and hospitals said the policy change would make it more difficult for such infants, who are United States citizens, to obtain health care needed in the first year of life.

Illegal immigrants are generally barred from Medicaid but can get coverage for treatment of emergency medical conditions, including labor and delivery.

In the past, once a woman received emergency care under Medicaid for the birth of a baby, the child was deemed eligible for coverage as well, and states had to cover the children for one year from the date of birth.

Under the new policy, an application must be filed for the child, and the parents must provide documents to prove the child's citizenship.

The documentation requirements took effect in July, but some states have been slow to enforce them, and many doctors are only now becoming aware of the effects on newborns.

Obtaining a birth certificate can take weeks in some states, doctors said. Moreover, they said, illegal immigrant parents may be reluctant to go to a state welfare office to file applications because they fear contact with government agencies that could report their presence to immigration authorities.

Administration officials said the change was necessary under their reading of a new law, the Deficit Reduction Act, signed by President Bush in February. The law did not mention newborns, but generally tightened documentation requirements because some lawmakers were concerned that immigrants were fraudulently claiming United States citizenship to get Medicaid.

Marilyn E. Wilson, a spokeswoman for the Tennessee Medicaid program, said: ''The federal government told us we have no latitude. All states must change their policies and practices. We will not be able to cover any services for the newborn until a Medicaid application is filed. That could be days, weeks or months after the child is born.''

About four million babies are born in the United States each year, and Medicaid pays for more than one-third of all births. The number involving illegal immigrant parents is unknown but is likely to be in the tens of thousands, health experts said.

Doctors and hospitals denounced the policy change and denied that it was required by the new law. Dr. Jay E. Berkelhamer, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said the policy ''punishes babies who, according to the Constitution, are citizens because they were born here.''

Dr. Martin C. Michaels, a pediatrician in Dalton, Ga., said that continuous coverage in the first year of life was important because ''newborns need care right from the start.''

''Some Americans may want to grant amnesty to undocumented immigrants, and others may want to send them home,'' Dr. Michaels said. ''But the children who are born here had no say in that debate.''

Under a 1984 law, infants born to pregnant women on Medicaid are in most cases deemed eligible for Medicaid for one year.

In an interview on Thursday, Leslie V. Norwalk, acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said the new policy ''reflects what the new law says in terms of eligibility.''

''When emergency Medicaid pays for a birth,'' Ms. Norwalk said, ''the child is not automatically deemed eligible. But the child could apply and could qualify for Medicaid because of the family's poverty status. If anyone knows about a child being denied care, we want to know about it. Please step up and tell us.''

Under federal law, hospitals generally have to examine and treat patients who need emergency care, regardless of their ability to pay. So the new policy is most likely to affect access to other types of care, including preventive services and treatment for infections and chronic conditions, doctors said.

Representative Charlie Norwood, Republican of Georgia, was a principal architect of the new law

''Charlie's intent was that every person receiving Medicaid needs to provide documentation,'' said John E. Stone, a spokesman for Mr. Norwood, who is a dentist and has been active on health care issues. ''With newborns, there should be no problem. All you have to do is provide a birth certificate or hospital records verifying birth.''

But Dr. Berkelhamer disagreed. Even when the children are eligible for Medicaid, he said, illegal immigrants may be afraid to apply because of ''the threat of deportation.''

The new policy ''will cost the health care system more in the long run,'' Dr. Berkelhamer added, because children of illegal immigrants may go without immunizations, preventive care and treatments needed in the first year of life.

Doctors, children's hospitals and advocacy groups have been urging states to preserve the old policy on Medicaid eligibility for children born to illegal immigrants.

Sara Rosenbaum, a professor of health law at George Washington University, said: ''The new policy reflects a tortured reading of the new law and is contrary to the language of the 1984 statute, which Congress did not change. The whole purpose of the earlier law, passed with bipartisan support, was to make sure that a baby would not have a single day's break in coverage from the date of birth through the first year of life.''

California has objected to the new policy. S. Kimberly Belshé, secretary of the California Health and Human Services Agency, said: ''By virtue of being born in the United States, a child is a U.S. citizen. What more proof does the federal government need?''

au, Why does our government do everythng ass-backwards? Healthy children helps all children.

From the article Au posted:


Does anybody else see anything wrong with this picture on two fronts? If you have read the Bible, Jesus is quoted as saying (paraphrased) that we are called to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick, etc. and he also is quoted as saying "The poor will always be with you." with a teaching to look beyond that. The lesson is that yes, those who have much are obligated to help those who have little. But whether or not you are a believer, there is a larger universal truth contained in the teaching.

If our only solution is to give of our wealth to alleviate all poverty, the poor will drain our resources until we have no ability to help anybody. The trillians that have been poured into the 'war on poverty' with very limited success should have seared that teaching into our brains.

But if we look beyond the immediate problem to solutions that involve helping the poor to be less poor or even to become rich by their own initiative. we would likely be much better stewards of our resources.

A good immigration policy would look beyond the immediate need to what will significantly lessen the need. And then maybe we won't have 4 million babies needing Medicaid, at least tens of thousands of them being born to people here illegally.

It is "likely" that the number of babies involving illegal immigrants is in the tens of thousands, the New York Times article saysm but the number is unknown.

Not "at least tens of thousands" as Foxfyre untruely claims.

I have as much right to state how many illegals, babies or otherwise, I think are present the USA as much as you have the right to play "gotcha" Walter. And your "gotcha" didn't even make sense as "at least" is a qualifier affirming a belief in the accuracy of the numbers presented and that they may even be understated.