Red Clay Citizen

Real ID Opponents: Follow the Money

Although the Oppose Real ID Act did not pass the Senate this year, we want to point out that opposition to Real ID has little to do with fiscal responsibility.

After all, the sponsors of the Oppose Real ID Act requested $1.2 billion in earmarks during the past 2007-2008 legislative session. Compare that to the $200-$300 million price tag to implement Real ID.

Proposed earmarks include Rep. Cole's (D-Rockingham) request for $55,000 for a national banjo museum in Rockingham as well as Rep. Coates (D-Rowan) request for $29 million for the N.C. Research Campus at Kannapolis.

Here is the list of total proposed earmarks by sponsors of the Oppose Real ID Act:

Primary Sponsors:
Nelson Cole (D-Rockingham): $11 million
Lorene Coates (D-Rowan): $31.7 million

Co-Sponsors:
Cary Allred (R-Alamance): none
Alice Bordsen (D-Alamance): $9.4 million
Becky Carney (D-Mecklenburg): $72 million
Walter Church (D-Burke): $9.2 million
Jerry Dockham (R-Davidson): $3.1 million
Nelson Dollar (R-Wake): $500,000
Jean Farmer-Butterfield (D-Wilson): $21.2 million
Phillip Frye (R-Caldwell): $3.8 million
Pryor Gibson (D-Anson): $35.3 million
Mitch Gillespie (R-Burke): none
Jim Gulley (R-Mecklenburg): $1.1 million
Phillip Haire (D-Haywood): $28.2 million
Jim Harrell (D-Alleghany): $59.3 million
Pricey Harrison (D-Guilford): $38.4 million
Dewey Hill (D-Brunswick):$40.4 million
Pat Hurley (R-Randolph): $8 million
Verla Insko (D-Orange): $17.2 million
Maggie Jeffus (D-Guilford): $86.5 million
Jimmy Love (D-Harnett): $5.6 million
Marvin Lucas (D-Cumberland): $33.9 million
Paul Luebke (D-Durham): $570,000
Deborah Ross (D-Wake): $46.1 million
Drew Saunders (D-Mecklenburg): $13.6 million
Tim Spear (D-Chowan): $12.1 million
Joe Tolson (D-Edgecombe): $316.2 million
Jennifer Weiss (D-Wake): $41.3 million
Arthur Williams (D-Beaufort): $287.1 million

$1.2 billion for banjo museums and research boondoggles and $5 million horse parks. But not enough money to protect North Carolinians from terrorists and identity thieves -- or to secure our driver's licenses from illegal aliens.

... something needs to change.

Jameson Taylor, with Amanda Abbott

 

Cole and Hackney Cut Off Debate on Real ID

The House just passed HB 2136, which forces North Carolina NOT to comply with Real ID. There was no debate on the bill at its third reading today, which is surprising given the vigorous discussion about the measure yesterday. As Rep. Thomas (R-Buncombe) noted, this lack of debate about Real ID speaks to the primary problem at the General Assembly: a lack of transparency and honest dialogue.

Stated Thomas while making a point of personal privilege on the floor: “This procedure made a lot of members make a mistake. And we didn’t have to do it that way.” Speaker Hackney (D-Chatham) forbid Thomas from relaying new information about Real ID that he had just learned from the Department of Homeland Security.

Sponsored by Rep. Cole (D-Rockingham), the motion to not debate the measure passed 63 to 51. HB 2136 then passed by a vote of 69 to 45.

Cole is the primary sponsor of HB 2136, which forbids North Carolina from complying with Real ID. According to Cole, Real ID is an "unfunded mandate." This is ironic coming from a member who has requested $11 million in earmarks during this past session, including $55,000 for a national banjo museum in Rockingham.

Indeed, illegal immigration -- which Real ID would help prevent -- is a far more costly unfunded mandate that Rep. Cole and others who oppose Real ID seem content to fund. According to economists with the National Bureau of Economic Research, "the net loss to U.S. natives from immigration was $68 billion" in 2002 alone.

Likewise, losses from identify theft -- which Real ID would also help prevent -- run $64 billion annually. Identity theft also victimizes 300,000 people a year in North Carolina.

According to the Fiscal Research Division, complying with Real ID will run $29.1 million through 2017. This is a lot of money -- but it represents 0.015% of the current state budget.

In the end, it comes down to priorities, but as long as the House leadership does not permit genuine debate about these priorities nothing is going to change.

Read more about Real ID here.

New Budget Slashes 287(g) Funding

If there is any one issue about immigration that nearly everyone agrees on, it is that criminal illegal aliens have no right to be in the United States. (Even the 1986 Reagan amnesty did not include felon illegal aliens.)

Thus, 88 percent of N.C. voters support county participation in the 287(g) program.

Given widespread public support for 287(g) the House budget allocated $1 million in nonrecurring funding to the North Carolina Sheriff's Association to expand the program here in North Carolina. Currently, only 7 counties are enrolled in or in the process of enrolling in 287(g).

The Senate budget countered by cutting 287(g) funding to $500,000.

In the end, the House/Senate conference committee let the Senate cuts stand -- reducing 287(g) funding from $750,000 in last year's budget to $600,000 in this year's budget.

The message: arresting and helping to deport criminal illegal aliens is not a priority for the state of North Carolina -- or, at least, those legislators who voted for the budget.

Oh, and by the way, the budget does nothing else to fund immigration reform and enforcement. Yet it does expand funding for several programs that provide educational and healthcare benefits to illegal aliens -- i.e., More at Four ($30 million), Learn & Earn ($3.5 million), community health centers ($4 million), etc., etc.

Why the Crips and the Bloods Should Not Meet with the ALKQN

Jorge Cornell, leader of North Carolina's Almighty Latin King and Queen Nation gang urged gang members in rival gangs to join him in opposing the 287(g) program.

287(g) trains local law enforcement to help enforce immigration law. 7 of North Carolina's 100 counties are currently enrolled in the program.

From the perspective of pure economics, this is my advice to local Bloods and Crips and other native-based gangs. 287(g) is your friend.

1) By deporting criminal illegal aliens, 287(g) opens up opportunities for native gang members. This increases profits for native gangs.

As you know, as much as 95% of the membership of gangs like MS-13 is made up of illegal aliens. In fact, 22% of all gang members in North Carolina are Hispanic, although Hispanics only account for 7% of North Carolina's population. Likewise, Hispanics are thought to comprise 49 percent of total gang membership nationwide.

2) Contrary to Cornell's claims, 287(g) is not racist and immigration enforcement has nothing to do with race. If anything, as the residents of Durham and L.A. have seen in recent years, Hispanic gangs have been targeting African-Americans.

Peace is a good thing. But, as they say, if you want peace ... work for justice. And justice comes by equally applying the law to all people -- no matter what their color or national origin or immigration status. Why should the ALKQN -- or any other gang -- be able to break immigration law with impunity? After all, native gang members have to obey the law.

Not to mention do the time (illegal aliens won't, if Senator Rand has his way), if they break the law.

Blue Ridge Community College: Public Not Invited

As reported below, Blue Ridge Community College is renting out space tomorrow to the Mexican consulate's mobile unit which will be meeting with illegal aliens to supply them with consular ID cards (matricula consulars).

The college is making $360 from the deal -- to rent out the space beginning 6 pm tonight and ending 9 pm tomorrow.

See the application here: Download aplication.pdf

The matricula consular is still accepted by the North Carolina DMV as proof of residency.  Yet, the FBI warns that matricula consulars are "vulnerable to fraud and forgery."

According to officials at Blue Ridge, the public is not invited to the event and "groups or individuals may not come on campus to monitor." Added Director of Public Relations Lee Anna Haney, "We have no reason to believe that any illegal actitivity will take place on Saturday."

U.S. law prohibits using any building to conceal, harbor or shield from detection an illegal alien. Yet, providing illegal aliens with ID cards is an attempt to conceal or obscure the fact that they are "undocumented." And Blue Ridge Community College is providing the building.

In what may become a campaign issue for some candidates in the mountains, Republican nominee for the U.S. House Dr. Carl Mumpower has issued a press release on this issue and is organizing a protest.

One can only hope Henderson County Sheriff Rick Davis -- who as an elected official has taken an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution -- will be there too.

N.C. Community Colleges Working with Mexican Consulate to Hand Out Mexican IDs

NC Listen is reporting that the Mexican consulate's mobile unit is going to be on the campus of Blue Ridge Community College issuing matricula consulars (Mexican IDs) to illegal aliens on Saturday, June 28, 2008.

Read the press release:

NC LISTEN - PRESS RELEASE 

June 27, 2008

 

Blue Ridge Community College (Flat Rock - NC), part of the North Carolina Community College system, was sent a letter by NC LISTEN to inform them that the Latino Advocacy Coalition of Henderson County was renting a state building on their community college campus for purposes of inviting Mexican Consulate officials to provide and assist illegal immigrants with Consular Matricula ID cards.  The event scheduled [and predominantly advertised in Spanish] for this Saturday 28 June at the Thomas Auditorium Gallery at Blue Ridge Community College [8am to 9pm] will also provide recommendations and other information to illegal immigrants and foreign nationals.  Foreign government officials should not be using our state government buildings for purposes of issuing foreign ID cards that have the primary purpose of being used by illegal immigrants to open bank accounts, etc.  Our federal government does not accept Consular Matricular cards for ID purposes and the FBI has stated they are unreliable as an ID and can be easily forged. 

 

Blue Ridge has just informed us the event will not be stopped and will be allowed to take place on their campus.  Even though foreign government officials from Mexico and illegal immigrants will be there as noted above, Blue Ridge Community College through their PR person [Ms. LeeAnna Haney] has pointed out the event is not open to the general public and furthermore citizens with interest are advised not to come-on campus during the event.  Ms. Haney can be reached at (828) 694-1885.  I expect citizens and the media should decide for themselves whether they can attend or not, and whether to videotape what they observe.  Further actions will take place due to this situation.

 

NC LISTEN is a North Carolina-based 501 (c)(3) non-profit organization involved in immigration reform. 

 

Ron Woodard
Director
NC LISTEN
Ofc:  (919) 460-8156
www.nclisten.com 

This story is developing ... updates to come soon!

Europe: Deporting Illegal Aliens

As we continue to succumb to the alliance of business, special-interest groups and politicians who oppose comprehensive immigration enforcement and reform, Europe is securing its borders.

The European Parliament has passed a measure that requires illegal aliens to do one of two things: 1) go home voluntarily; or 2) be deported. And, yes, if need be, Europe will deport millions of illegal aliens.

Of course, the third -- and most likely -- option is that all of these illegal aliens will come to the United States.

ALIPAC Immigration Rally

Dr. Jameson Taylor spoke at the ALIPAC rally yesterday at the N.C. General Assembly. Check out his remarks here:

I am here today to tell you what the voters of North Carolina want.

Civitas has been polling registered voters for the past 3 years. We only poll people who have voted in the past three elections and for that reason we believe our poll provides the most accurate reflection in the state of what voters actually want.

The media often makes it seem that Americans are opposed to comprehensive immigration enforcement and reform, that immigration reformers are an isolated minority. Our polling data proves nothing could be further from the truth.

Consider, the 287(g) program, which assists local law enforcement officials in enforcing immigration law. An authority – by the way – that they possess regardless of whether their counties are enrolled in 287(g) or not.

88% of voters support county participation in the 287(g) program (July 2007).

Yet, we only have 7 counties out of 100 that are enrolled or in the process of enrolling in 287(g). Yet, the Senate budget proposes cutting 287g funding for this year from $750,000 to $500,000. If we have $400,000 to spend on a teapot museum, we can find an additional $250,000 to make our state safe from criminal illegal aliens.

81% of voters support securing the border and enforcing America’s immigration laws before new immigration laws are passed (June 2007).

Yet, the politicians in Washington can’t come together to pass Representative Heath Schuler’s SAVE Act.

91% of voters support requiring employers to verify the legal status of anyone they employ (April 2008).

Yet, legislation – and this is a bill that enjoys bipartisan support – that would require employers to enroll in the E-Verify program will most likely die in committee this session. It will die in committee unless our message gets heard.

69% of voters oppose providing education benefits to illegal immigrants (August 2005).

Yet, the House leadership wouldn’t even permit a vote on an amendment introduced by Representative Debbie Clary that would have prohibited illegal aliens from attending community colleges. Likewise, Representative George Cleveland’s bill to prohibit illegal aliens from attending all public universities and colleges is dying in committee as we speak.

79% of voters think illegal immigration is a burden to our state (May 2008).

Yet, every single piece of comprehensive immigration reform legislation – such as the NC Illegal Immigration Prevention Act sponsored by Representative Bryan Holloway & the Security and Immigration Compliance Act sponsored by Senator Austin Allran – has failed to get out of committee. We can’t get a hearing on this legislation and we can’t get a vote.

We have the good ideas. We have the policies. We have the public support. What we don’t have is leadership willing to stand up to the special-interest groups and pass the legislation that this state needs and that voters want. What we don’t have is accountability for why these good bills are dying in committee year after year.

What we need is a change in leadership. The word here on Jones Street is that legislators want to pass the budget and get out of town so they can get back to campaigning. They don’t want to do anything controversial.

Let’s make this controversial. Let’s let them know that failing to pass immigration reform legislation is controversial. Let’s let them know that this is a campaign issue.

Not just at the federal level, not just here in the General Assembly or the governor’s race – but in every single election – whether for mayor or sheriff or dog catcher – at every level in this state. Let me tell you folks, we constantly hear that immigration is only a federal issue. That the state of North Carolina that your county, that your hometown can’t do anything about illegal immigration.

It used to be – read the Constitution – that the states took the lead in crafting immigration policy. Today, it is said that they have no role. This is simply not true. North Carolina law (G.S. §11-7) requires every elected and appointed official, including all local officials, to “solemnly and sincerely” swear to support the U.S. Constitution. Education, welfare, law enforcement – these are local issues – and local taxpayers are footing the bill for providing these services to illegal aliens. Just ask John Stirrup – who is going to be here in September speaking about the reforms he passed in Prince William County, Virginia – whether immigration is a local issue. And ask him how much his reforms are saving taxpayers.

Immigration is a local issue, a state issue and a federal issue. What we need are local, state and federal leaders who are going to listen to what voters want and respond with real and lasting immigration reform.

See this piece for more polling on illegal immigration.

How Mexico Treats Its Illegal Aliens

Check this out.

Imagine that ... Mexico has a hypocritical immigration policy ...

Illegals Banned from Colleges ... in South Carolina

Contrary to reports last month that characterized North Carolina's policy regarding illegal immigrants and community colleges as unusual, to say the least, South Carolina has enacted legislation that will "ban undocumented students from attending, or receiving financial aid to attend, public colleges or universities in the state."

Looks like it's not such a crazy idea after all.

Is Immigration Really a Campaign Issue?

I've asked before whether immigration is going to be a key issue this campaign season and determined that it might be, especially if framed in terms of jobs and the economy. That, at least, is what our May poll suggests, with "improve the economy" registering as the second-most important issue for voters, behind education -- and immigration dropping to a 7th-place tie with "gas prices."

I think, in fact, that both issues -- immigration and gas prices -- are much more important than this poll indicates because both issues affect nearly everything else. For instance, high fuel prices are contributing to price inflation in every sector, including healthcare ("lower healthcare costs" was # 5). Likewise, gas prices are hurting economic growth in some sectors, thus impacting jobs (#3) and the economy (#2). Immigration has the same uber-impact.

All that being said, let's face the facts. Immigration has not really been an issue in the presidential campaign. John McCain, to put it politely, is "pragmatic" when it comes to immigration enforcement and reform, which is to say that he is lukewarm. For his part, Obama wants an amnesty.

At the Congressional level many candidates simply don't want to talk about immigration. As Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) confessed to the AP news yesterday: "You have to ask yourself, 'Do I want to really get out front on an issue that isn't really going anywhere and my opponent can demagogue it and misrepresent my position?' If you're going to go out on a limb on something, there has to be a payoff, and on this, there just isn't."

Flake's comments aside, immigration will be a more important issue for North Carolina than it will be in the national race.

Still, Flake's comments remind us that there are two poles to the immigration debate: for conservatives, it boils down to the rule of law; for liberals, it boils down to race.

For the media, race baiting is a lot more entertaining than the "rule of law." Hence, most news coverage of this issue, as John Hood recently pointed out, is biased. This scares a lot of candidates.

The electorate, however, is more intelligent about immigration than is the media. They intuit, for instance, that opposition to illegal immigration has nothing whatsoever to do with race. They also intuit that immigration reform is about asking everyone to play by the same rules.

Contrary to what the pundits, and even the politicians are saying, immigration will continue to be a key issue for voters. But voters need to be shown the big picture, to be told how illegal immigration is undermining the law, hurting the economy and compromising America's future. These are things that the voters intuit as well -- let's hope they act upon this intuition in the fall.

Federal Contractors Required to E-Verify

President Bush signed today an executive order requiring federal contractors to verify the immigration status of their employees (HT: Chris).

Notes the EO:

It is the policy of the executive branch to enforce fully the immigration laws of the United States, including the detection and removal of illegal aliens and the imposition of legal sanctions against employers that hire illegal aliens. Because of the worksite enforcement policy of the United States and the underlying obligation of the executive branch to enforce the immigration laws, contractors that employ illegal aliens cannot rely on the continuing availability and service of those illegal workers, and such contractors inevitably will have a less stable and less dependable workforce than contractors that do not employ such persons.

Two questions:

1) Why was this not done sooner? Or, how can Bush seriously say it is the policy of the executive branch to fully enforce immigration law, when the border is still not secure?

2) As Chris notes, could Governor Easley do the same here in North Carolina?

Jamiel Shaw and Illegal Immigration

Still think 287g is a bad idea? Read this piece on the reaction in Jamiel Shaw's community to his murder/execution by an illegal immigrant gang member.

Myrick Petitions ICE on Colleges

Congresswoman Sue Myrick has petitioned Assistant Secretary Julie Myers to explain just what ICE's policy is regarding the admission of illegal aliens into taxpayer-supported colleges and universities.

Download 52808_letter_to_asst_sec_julie_myers_illegals_comm_colleges.pdf

Following the state's decision to cease admitting illegal aliens, the News & Observer published an unsigned letter from ICE that stated, "It is left for the school to decide whether or not to enroll out-of-status or undocumented nonimmigrants."

As Myrick's letter points out, there is cause for "concern that ICE's stated position conflicts with the intent of federal law and undermines ICE's recent progress to enforce immigration laws."

Indeed.

287(g) Refunded in Proposed House Budget

The N&O is reporting that House budget writers are proposing "$1 million to help sheriffs enforce federal immigration law."

In short, the House seems set to refund the 287(g) program. Last year's budget, allocated $750,000 in nonrecurring funds for the program, which is now in place in several counties throughout North Carolina, with the ongoing assistance and support of the N.C. Sheriffs' Association.

Contrary to charges made by the ACLU, the 287(g) program in North Carolina is a detention model, not a field model. This essentially means that local law enforcement are not actively investigating immigration violations, but only cooperating with ICE when they discover such violations while investigating other crimes. Insofar as sheriffs take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, local law enforcement have both a right and a duty to take such immigration violations seriously. House budget writers should be applauded for recognizing this fact.

Are Illegal Immigrants Human?

In a previous post, I asked whether "illegal alien" is a hateful term, referring to the recent exchanges regarding this question in the News & Observer. Here, I want to respond to one letter, in particular. Written by the director of the Franciscan Coalition for Justice and Peace, the letter states:

In his May 18 column "The name game for immigrants," Public Editor Ted Vaden seemingly agonized over what to call people who enter the United States in violation of federal immigration law.

Illegal immigrant? Illegal alien? Undocumented worker? Unauthorized immigrant?

Here's one we could maybe consider: How about "human being"?

Insofar as the letter is written by a representative of the "Catholic Community of St. Francis of Assisi" of Raleigh, permit me to respond as one Catholic to another.

First, I wholeheartedly agree that illegal aliens are human beings. This is not up for debate. But, they are more than human beings, just as all of us are more than human beings. The human person, in fact, is never just a human being, but a human being who is always participating in several layers of relationships with other human persons. Generally speaking, these relationships are as follows: 1) a relationship with one's family (no human being is ever born outside of a family -- at least not yet); 2) a relationship with one's community, or country; 3) and a relationship to every other human being, characterized by John Paul II as the relation of "neighbor."

Questions related to illegal immigration are essentially related to this second relationship -- which is a political relationship. To use the language of Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas, the human being is a political being, which is also to say that he always has a particular connection to some political community or another -- in our case, the United States of America.

Indeed, even our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ was not known simply as Jesus -- son of God, currently a resident of Earth. But, as Pilate prophetically called Him, "Jesus the Nazarene, King of the Jews." Jesus' devotion to his own people, his own tribe and nation (cf. Luke 13:34 and Matthew 15:24), is a hallmark of his humanity.

All this is to say that to be a human being is to be in relationship with a family, as well as a political community, as well as all other human beings (who are undoubtedly our neighbors.)

Much of the confusion over illegal immigration comes from giving undue weight to the relation of neighbor or family over that of citizen. In truth, the integrity of the human person requires that each of these relationships coexist in a complementary fashion.

In the end, referring to any person as simply a "human being" is inadequate -- and, arguably, de-humanizing.

Jameson Taylor

Is Illegal Alien a Hateful Term?

This past Sunday, the N&O devoted its Sunday forum to illegal immigration. Many of the letters voiced opposition or support for a previous letter that characterized the term "illegal alien" as "hateful."

As our regular readers know, the term illegal alien is not hateful at all, but an innocuous legal term that refers to an alien (i.e., a foreign national) who is in the United States illegally.

The truth of the matter is that "illegal alien" is not a hateful term, but a term that the Left hates. Liberals hate the use of illegal alien because it reminds the public of what is at stake here ... that opposition to illegal immigration has nothing to do with race or, even immigration, but with respect for the law.

In the end, of course, liberals hate the law too. And, with the law, reason. Hence, all that is left is demonization of one's opponents -- and with this demonization, comes a dehumanization, as we saw with the Nazi regime (recall that the Nazis were socialists) and communist Russia.

Democrat Majority Leader Proposes Early Release for Criminal Illegal Immigrants

N.C. Senate Majority Leader Tony Rand (D) has introduced a new bill (SB 1955) that would release criminal illegal immigrants from North Carolina jails into the custody of ICE for theoretical deportation.

While Rand's bill might sound like a good idea, it contains one fatal flaw: criminal illegal aliens deported by ICE routinely return to the United States. Thus, Rand's bill amounts to granting early release to criminal illegal aliens. In fact, Rand is proposing that criminal illegal aliens eligible for early conditional release need only serve half! the time that a U.S. citizen convicted of the same crime would get.

While concerns over prison overcrowding are legitimate, Rand's bill is not the solution. Criminal illegal aliens need to do the full time they deserve. Under Senator Rand's bill, that won't happen.

It's the Law, Stupid

The N&O reported last week that the N.C. Center for Public Policy Research (have you seen their website?) will be releasing a report that claims that illegal immigrants are one of the keys to solving North Carolina's "looming worker shortage."

What shortage?

North Carolina's unemployment rate has increased three months in a row.

As of March 2008, 234,086 workers were unemployed in North Carolina. This number does not include thousands of working-age residents who are not counted as part of the civilian labor force because they are not looking for a full-time job. Many of these people would go back to work full-time if offered a suitable opportunity. Shouldn’t we find jobs for these people before we hand over their jobs to illegal aliens?

Moreover, economic historians have repeatedly found that during those periods when the U.S. labor supply contracted -– such as after the passage of the Immigration Act of 1924 –- tight labor markets stimulated capital investment and operating efficiencies that raised productivity by 40 percent.

This is not to say that the retirement of the baby boomers won't put tremendous pressure on our economy and society. It will. But what should the solution be? Illegally importing millions of low-skilled laborers? This is a recipe for disaster, to say the least because low-skilled immigrants pay less in taxes than they use in services.

Or, encouraging investment (by cutting the capital gains tax) and the state income tax and encouraging the legal immigration of high-skilled workers? Of course, if we really have a labor shortage, the best policy is to "grow" our own labor by: 1) training legal workers who are already here; and 2) making abortion illegal again.

What is most important here is that a strong economy must be based on the rule of law. Thus, this issue should not be framed as a zero-sum game between breaking the law and preserving the economy. We can choose both: to obey the law and to enact a labor policy that will better serve our economy.

Economic solutions based on breaking the law are short-sighted and just plain stupid. If we want to grow the economy, let's start by obeying the law.

Real ID: Small Price to Pay

Representatives Cole (D) and Coates (D) just filed a bill that would prevent North Carolina from participating in Real ID. The bill rightly refers to Real ID as an unfunded federal mandate, but then comically goes on to say that "compliance with the provisions of the REAL ID Act of 2005 will result in a fiscal cost that the State cannot afford."

Who are they kidding? The total cost to implement Real ID for North Carolina has been put at $20 million -- this represents 1/10 of the $200 million in pork barrel spending the General Assembly approved last session. Indeed, $20 million is 0.01 percent of the current state budget.

The Department of Homeland Security is providing $360 million to assist states in implementing Real ID. Moreover, identity theft costs U.S. citizens some $68 billion a year.

I encourage folks to have genuine dialogue over the merits of Real ID -- but saying the state can't afford the $20 million Real ID might cost is simply not true. What do you think? Is Real ID worth it?

How the Rest of the World Handles Illegal Immigration

Italian police arrested 400 illegal aliens in a raid today, immediately expelling 53 of them.

I would bet that ICE hardly made more arrests last year - before their recent "crack down."

What is most astonishing is that Italian authorities worked with Libyan officials to actually arrest hundreds of would-be illegal aliens before they even arrived in Italy.

Illegals and Community Colleges: What Voters Want

TBJ is running an informal poll on whether the community college system was right to bar illegal aliens from degree programs. 72 percent say yes.

Civitas' polling of actual voters arrives at a similar conclusion.

68 percent of voters believe illegal aliens should be prohibited from enrolling in community colleges and public universities in North Carolina (February 2008).

70 percent of voters oppose granting in-state tuition to illegal aliens (April 2007).

75 percent would be less likely to vote for a candidate who supports giving in-state tuition to the children of illegal immigrants (September 2005).

69 percent believe illegal immigrants should receive no educational benefits at all from the state of North Carolina (August 2005).

Illegals, Community College: Is it Over?

It wouldn't seem so from this piece by Taylor and Luebke.
-Max Borders

Community colleges prohibit illegals from enrolling

NCCCS President Scott Ralls announced today that community colleges will cease admitting illegal aliens to their degree-granting programs. The colleges will continue to admit illegal aliens to continuing education programs, such as the Basic Skills Program. The announcement came on the heels of a letter from the attorney general's office warning that the current NCCCS policy (CC 07-275) of forcing every college to admit illegal aliens is vulnerable to a legal challenge.

Why the change?

Simple. Rather than risk legislation that would definitively ban illegal aliens from attending community colleges, the system decided it was better to retreat and leave this issue for another day. During the last 7 years, NCCCS has changed its position on enrolling illegal aliens four times:

In 2001, NCCCS issued a memo (CC 01-271) confirming that federal law prohibits illegal aliens from attending community colleges.

In 2004, this policy was changed (CC 04-171) to permit each institution to decide for itself whether to admit illegal aliens.

In 2007, NCCCS began requiring all colleges to admit illegal aliens.

In 2008, NCCCS announced (CC 08-114) that it will return to the policy it originally implemented in 2001.

After session is over ... who knows? Perhaps they will change the policy again. What is really needed is legislation that will clarify that illegal immigrants are not eligible for higher education benefits and so should be prohibited from attending all public universities and colleges.

Easley: 'Ignore the Law'

With the election primary only a day over, Governor Mike Easley instructs the community colleges to ignore the law - as interpreted by Attorney General Roy Cooper. What does Easley II (Perdue) have to say about this now that she's got the primary in the bag? We'll see...My guess is she'll run from her succession line (i.e. to the right), which is where both the law and majority public sentiment lie on this issue.

One thing is for sure, however: Governor Easley is futzing around with the law like he's pardoning a guy on death row. Difference is, he's got the power to do the latter. Hey, Mike, I've got a few laws I'd like to ignore--particularly the ones that involve swat teams breaking into your house to protect you from your own vices. Oh, can I get a fiat-by-press-release on paying some of those ridiculous taxes? Can you help me ignore that pesky speed limit (I'm so often in a hurry)? Maybe you could wave your magic wand and let me drink a beer on the street, huh?
-Max Borders

AG Cooper Weighs in On Illegals and Community Colleges

Five months after being asked whether illegal immigrants should be permitted to attend North Carolina's community colleges, Attorney General Roy Cooper issued a statement today that the colleges should "follow standards set by federal law."

The ruling comes after a December 3, 2007, letter written by Senator Fred Smith asked Cooper to "review and clarify the legal standing of a November 7, 2007, memorandum (CC 07-275) issued by the North Carolina Community College System."

Cooper's opinion may lay the groundwork for a statewide ban prohibiting illegal immigrants from attending all public universities and colleges. A similar policy in Virginia has already been ruled constitutional. More on that tomorrow.

Deportation, Enforcement and Candidates on Immigration

As promised, here is an analysis of the N&O’s recent Q on immigration:

First, is a mass exodus possible? Along with Ford and Krikorian, I oppose mass deportation, if only because Americans simply don’t like such things. The entire question, though, is just a distraction. We don’t need to deport millions of illegal aliens. As Krikorian notes, they will begin to deport themselves as the jobs dry up and as enforcement becomes a priority. The thing most people don’t understand is that most illegal aliens don’t really want to be here. They would rather be with their families in their native country, just as do most Americans (whether it be in Kuwait or the North Sea) working abroad.

As for enforcement, the key is getting local government involved, as Krikorian notes. Toward this end, Civitas just had Sheriff Dan Beck down to discuss what he is doing as sheriff of Allen County, Ohio, to help enforce immigration law. As Sheriff Beck's work shows, Ford is absolutely wrong on this point.

To begin with, the states have always taken a leading role in enforcing immigration law. Prior to the late 1800s the states were primarily responsible for crafting their own immigration polices as regards alien entry, with Congress responsible for setting the terms of naturalization. This is provided for in the 9th and 10th Amendments, which reserve powers not delegated to the federal government to the states.

As Sheriff Beck indicated, all state and local law enforcement officers swear to uphold the law, this includes federal law. In 1996, a DOJ legal opinion confirmed that it is “well-settled” that local law enforcement officers are permitted to enforce federal statutes. This was a memo issued under the Clinton administration; more recent DOJ statements are closer to the Constitution when they confirm that as “sovereign entities” states and localities “have the inherent authority to enforce civil and criminal violations of federal immigration law.”

Local law enforcement have and always have had an inherent authority to enforce immigration law -– even civil violations. Thus as great as the 287g program is, it is not necessary for the sheriffs of North Carolina to wait the 2-3 years necessary to enroll in 287g before they start doing something about criminal illegal aliens.

Likewise, Krikorian is right about jobs and illegal immigrants. I've discussed this issue repeatedly. See here and accompanying links.

Finally, let me say a word about the candidates' views on immigration. First, the president of the United States, more than any other official, is responsible for setting the tone on immigration. Clinton and Obama are promising both amnesty and enforcement, yet both did not support a recent bill to strengthen border security. Until the border is secured, an amnesty will only encourage further illegal immigration. And, if we consider the impact of the 1965 Immigration Act, this is precisely what the Democrats need to rejuvenate a dying base. For some reason, the N&O completely fails to discuss McCain's views on immigration...

As for the gubernatorial candidates, in December all of the candidates came out against permitting illegal aliens to attend community colleges. Moore and Perdue are claiming they still support such a prohibition. This issue should be a touchstone, then, during the 2008 session. What we need is a vote on record so that we can see where the candidates -- if only those in the General Assembly -- really stand on immigration. More to the point, what we need is action and not mere rhetoric. The reality is that both Perdue and Moore have done absolutely nothing while in office to enforce U.S. immigration law or discourage illegal immigration. Expect more of the same if either is elected.

For more on the Republican gubernatorial candidates, see the video of the recent debate we sponsored.

Jobs Americans Will Do

Bill Kirby is on day 5 of a 10-part series on "downright dirty and disgusting" jobs that North Carolinians do.

These include picking up smelly carcasses for $14 hour.

Cleaning out porta-potties.

Fixing cars for $10 an hour.

Picking up trash for $12 an hour.

and digging maggots out of horse hooves.

I myself have done many jobs Americans supposedly won't do, whether it be cutting grass, bussing tables, washing dishes or painting boats in dry dock.

Send us your entries for tough, dirty jobs Americans will do

Candidates on Immigration

The N & O is running a piece that discusses the various -- presidential, gubernatorial, etc. -- candidates' views on immigration.

A few initial observations:

While immigration is one of the top concerns for voters, our polling indicates that concern over immigration has become less important as the economy has worsened. This indicates, of course, that voters aren't yet making the connection that immigration has a negative impact on jobs and the economy. More to the point, voters are most worried about the economy right now.

There are not 300,000 illegal immigrants in North Carolina, but at least twice this number. The N & O seems to be using old data from the Pew Hispanic Research Center here.

Let me explain:

Based on 2005 census data, the Pew Hispanic Research Center estimated there were between 300,000 and 400,000 illegal immigrants in North Carolina.

Hispanics are thought to account for 80 percent of illegal immigrants. FAIR estimates that as of 2005, there were 405,000 illegal immigrants in North Carolina.

According to the N.C. State Demographics office, from 1990 to 2000 the Hispanic population increased by 333 percent, or 33 percent per year (net migration). In the absence of specific data from the state demographer, we also presume a net migration rate of 1.5 percent for all other illegal immigrants.

Let us assume that Hispanic population growth has slowed as the overall Hispanic population has increased. We presume a drop off of about 25 percent. This means that Hispanic population growth is now at 25 percent per year (rather than 33 percent per year).

So, 80 percent of the illegal population of 400,000 is growing at 25 percent per year. 320,000 x .25 = 80,000 for 2006

480,000 x .25 = 120,000 for 2007.

This equals 600,000.

Of course, these calculations are just a very rough estimate. Moreover, I believe border apprehensions, as opposed to Census data, provide a more accurate predictor of the illegal alien population. Using this measure, there are probably well over 1 million illegal aliens in North Carolina.

In any case, the real problem here is that we simply don't know how many illegal aliens are in North Carolina. In our 2008 Blueprint, we recommend measures the state could implement that would help us get a more accurate count.

Other statistics used by the N & O are also either misleading or irrelevant. For instance, they assert that 3 percent of people in North Carolina don't speak English well. Consider, though, that from 2001 and 2006, Limited English Proficiency Enrollment (LEP) enrollment increased by 67 percent.

Finally, the article gives the impression that it is unconstitutional for localities to enact measures aimed at discouraging illegal immigration. If Hazelton's initial attempt at immigration enforcement was imperfect (the case is on appeal), the Immigration Reform Law Institute has since drafted model legislation that cities and towns can implement.

See, here, for additional examples of ordinances passed by several localities across the country.

... stay tuned for more analysis of the candidates' views on illegal immigration.

McCain Blocking Schuler's SAVE Act?

From Human Events:

A new wrinkle in SAVE Act politics occurred when Congressman Shuler, addressing a Rotary Club meeting last week, accused Senator John McCain of calling House Republicans and asking them not to sign the discharge petition. News reports say that McCain’s office denies those accusations, but Senator McCain’s office did not return calls for additional comment. ...

Senator McCain might believe that the passage of an immigration bill with strong enforcement provisions would be a net political negative for him, so it would not be a major surprise if he did indeed try to keep the SAVE Act stuck in the Congressional swamp. If John McCain is indeed opposing the bill (and for now I will accept his office’s denials), he’d do well to make sure he does it behind closed doors. If he thinks that conservatives are wavering about supporting him now, proven reports of his interfering in the passage of the SAVE Act could be politically devastating.

Follow the discharge petition here.

--Jameson Taylor

Immigration Reform Dies in South Carolina

South Carolina's comprehensive immigration reform bill is dead after a conference committee could not agree to eliminate the use of I-9 forms to verify legal status.

In short, the chambers of commerce killed this bill by claiming that verifying the legal status of employees is difficult, expensive, unreliable, and just downright mean-spirited. Permit me to respond to these claims:

1) South Carolina's proposed legislation would have required employers to use a state driver's license or the E-Verify system to run identification checks on potential employees. The first option sounds easy enough. The E-Verify system is a federal, Web-based system that employers can use for free. Checking immigration status takes seconds.

2) As for unreliable, this is an interesting charge given that I-9 forms, which is what the chambers of commerce want to use, are completely unreliable because the federal government does nothing to verify the names and Social Security numbers on these forms. Indeed, the Social Security Administration makes money every time an illegal alien uses someone else's Social Security number.

3) As for being mean-spirited, what is mean-spirited is the refusal to obey the law because doing so might cut into your profit margins. What is mean-spirited is rewarding law-breakers by not enforcing the law.

... To learn more about E-Verify, join us in Greensboro on Saturday afternoon, where Garrett Roe of IRLI will be discussing this issue.

Double Standard? Eve Carson vs. Marcus Lassiter

Various N.C. news outlets are reporting today that in the wake of Eve Carson's murder, the North Carolina Department of Correction has asked the National Institute of Corrections (an agency within the U.S. Department of Justice) to "review training and practices of probation offices in the state's urban areas." Apparently, similar reviews have been done in the past.

Now, if it is appropriate for the DOJ to review the training and practices of probation officers, why is it not appropriate -- as some have suggested -- for local law enforcement officers to be trained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials, as is currently being done via the 287g program in Mecklenburg, Alamance and Gaston?

Going one step further, permit me to pose a tough question: If Eve Carson had been murdered by an illegal alien -- instead of two young black men out on probation -- would the state be inviting ICE to review North Carolina's immigration enforcement policies -- or lack thereof?

I would bet not. Yet, just this past weekend we saw a 7-year-old black boy, Marcus Lassiter, killed by drunk driver Pollo Hernandez Rodriquez -- likely an illegal immigrant.

Will Marcus merely join the rolls of an ever-growing list of victims -- Scott Gardener, Lewis Fetterman, Hester Coleman -- or will his death be the tipping point that prompts real reform, as apparently Eve Carson's death has?

Want to Get Rid of the National Debt?

... close the border. A new study by Ed Rubenstein of ESR research has found that illegal immigration cost federal taxpayers $346 billion in 2007 alone - twice as much as the annual fiscal deficit.

Still think illegal immigration is good for the economy?

Lancaster Predicts Colleges Will Bar Illegal Aliens

Martin Lancaster, former president of the North Carolina Community College System, today acknowledged that “he fully expects legislators to pass a law barring illegal immigrants from the state’s colleges.”

As Civitas uncovered in November 2007, Lancaster’s office issued a memo requiring all community colleges in North Carolina to admit illegal aliens. The resulting firestorm led all of the gubernatorial candidates (with subsequent waffling from Perdue) to declare that they oppose giving in-state tuition to illegals.

But if illegals shouldn’t receive in-state tuition, they also shouldn’t receive out-of-state tuition. After all, tuition payments only account for 13 percent of total community college funding. Taxpayers, in other words, are still subsidizing the education of illegal aliens who pay the out-of-state rate.

More to the point, illegal aliens with a state-funded college education are no more eligible to work legally in the United States than are illegals who do not have a college education. So, why spend state funds to educate people who cannot legally work in North Carolina?

By contrast, neighboring Virginia has advised that its universities and colleges cease admitting illegal aliens. Currently, seven prominent VA schools do not admit illegals: the University of Virginia, Virginia Tech, George Mason University, James Madison University, the College of William and Mary, Virginia Commonwealth University, and Northern Virginia Community College. In September 2003, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund challenged this policy in federal court. The state’s position was upheld by Judge T. S. Ellis III of the Eastern District of Virginia, who confirmed that “the colleges and universities could deny admission to anyone they chose, without violating the Constitution or exceeding their authority.” In July 2004, Judge Ellis further held that the schools had used appropriate standards for determining immigration status. In March 2008, Virginia Attorney General Bob McDonnell issued another memorandum stating that the adult children (even those born in Virginia, up to age 24) of illegal aliens should be classified as out-of-state residents for tuition purposes.

There is no essential difference between giving in-state tuition or out-of-state tuition to illegals. In both cases, taxpayers are subsidizing and encouraging law-breaking. Banning in-state and out-of-state tuition for illegal aliens is both constitutional and makes logical sense.

Bipartisan Save Act in Trouble

Heath Schuler's SAVE (Secure America with Verification and Enforcement) Act is in trouble. For those of you who have not been following this legislation, Schuler's bill emphasizes workplace verification and border enforcement. In short, Numbers USA is a big fan; Nancy Pelosi is not.

Recent data from the Congressional Budget Office, however, is apparently scaring some Blue Dogs (read: folks who need a way to explain to their constituents why they are caving in to Pelosi) from supporting the measure. According to the CBO, implementing the legislation could cost some $40 billion over 10 years.

Schuler's response: Illegal immigration is already costing North Carolina alone at least $1 billion a year. That's a savings of $10 billion over 10 years -- not to mention the billions that would be saved by every other state in the Union.

As GOP spokesman Michael Steel (no, not that Michael Steel from last year's CLC ... You are going to this year's CLC, aren't you?) puts it:

“Democratic leaders are trying to avoid the fact that there’s a bipartisan consensus in support of a real border security bill without amnesty. Somewhere in a $3 trillion budget we can find the money to secure our border.”

Illegal Immigration and the Economy

I was gratified to hear gubernatorial candidate Fred Smith recently declare that illegal immigration is "the number one issue in this governor's race." Gratified ... because illegal immigration is an extremely important issue that affects every other policy area -- education, healthcare, even transportation and the environment. That being said, I don't think Smith or anyone else can run a campaign on immigration alone. Especially with the economy stalling, jobs and economic issues are going to become more important to voters. As this happens, support for controlling illegal immigration may slip.

Here at Civitas we have been polling on immigration since our inception. We have questions on in-state tuition for illegals (70 percent oppose (April 2007)); benefits for illegals (72 percent want to eliminate (January 2007)); and the 287(g) program (87 percent support) that permits local police officers to work with federal officials to deport criminal illegal aliens.

Over the past two years, we have seen illegal immigration become one of the top issues of concern to voters. In September 2005, when we asked what issues need the most attention from state government, respondents said: lower healthcare costs, improve public education, and create jobs, with control immigration in the 5th spot out of 7 categories. A year later, immigration was tied for first with improve public education. Two years later, immigration was holding steady, tied for second with healthcare. This past February, though, this trend changed. In our latest DecisionMaker Poll, immigration slipped to 4th place, just behind create jobs.

So, will we see support for controlling immigration begin to slip as the economy slows? Some folks -- both Republicans and Democrats alike who don't really mind illegal immigration -- would like to think so. I don't share this opinion, though.

The reality is that illegal immigration is bad for our economy. It costs native workers and recent legal immigrants jobs. It depresses wages for low-skilled legal workers and minorities. It also reduces long-term productivity. Indeed, according to the Center for Labor Market Studies, during the last recession (2000-2004) 100 percent of all net new jobs went to immigrants. During the same period, native workers lost jobs.

Voters (and candidates) concerned about the economy need also to be concerned about immigration. Again, this is not to say that most candidates can win on immigration alone (McCain, at least, has managed not to lose the nomination in spite of his support for an amnesty). But if voters can be made to understand that illegal immigration means fewer jobs and economic opportunities for legal workers, then immigration can certainly be brought to bear upon what is shaping up to be the top campaign issue (along with healthcare) for 2008.

Catholics and Immigration: The Changing Face of A Diocese

Earlier this week the News & Observer reported on the findings of the Pew Forum Survey on Religion and Public Life. The results were certainly worth reviewing and made for interesting reading.  Nevertheless, as I transplanted Catholic, I found the comments of Russ Elmayan, the chief operating officer of the Diocese of Raleigh far more interesting. In the article, Mr. Elmayan is quoted as saying there are approximately 210,000 registered Catholics in the diocese, and an estimated 225,000 unregistered Hispanic Catholics who attend mass weekly but do not fill out membership forms. Do we mean to say the number of unregistered Hispanic Catholics actually exceeds the number of registered Anglo-Catholics? No doubt the issue of illegal immigration is driving much of the numbers. While I know the diocese has an official policy of welcoming all illegal immigrants, the reality is the issue has divided those within the church as much as those outside of it. The figures speak of the great challenge facing the Church. Is there a better time for the Church and our communities to begin a public discussion on the issue of illegal immigration?

Spinning Illegal Immigration: PPP Style

Tom Jensen over at Public Policy Polling says one of our questions was "interesting" and that he would have worded it a "little differently". Our question:

DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE DECISION BY THE NORTH CAROLINA COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM TO REQUIRE LOCAL COMMUNITY COLLEGES TO ADMIT 18 YEAR OLD ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND CHARGE THEM OUT-OF-STATE TUITION RATES?

His wording, Jensen says, would have been:

"Do you think the children of illegal immigrants, who have attended North Carolina's public schools, should be able to attend the state's Community Colleges?"

Jensen's wording is a strange - if not seriously misleading - way of putting the question. After all, the policy in North Carolina has nothing whatsoever to do with whether an illegal immigrant has attended the public schools or not. The policy is that they be at least eighteen years of age, which is why we phrased it that way. If Jensen is genuinely interested in some irrelevant counterfactual, then so be it. But I think he's probably admitting that he's interested in spin. After all, most community college students have nothing to do with former public school students, rather are educating illegals -- mostly in their 20s and 30s (average age is 29).

But Jensen's right: He would have worded the question in a way that frames the issue and biases the outcome. But we already knew that's what PPP is up to most of the time. Still, if this is their only objection to the Civitas poll this month, I guess we shouldn't quibble too much.

(Ouch. I'm only just now seeing this PPP skewering from gubernatorial candidate Orr.)
-Max Borders

Arizona Law Goes into Effect Today

Today, Arizona's new employer sanctions law goes into effect. In anticipation of the new law, illegal immigrants are already "packing up and leaving Arizona." In short, illegals are either moving back home or moving to other states, such as North Carolina. The message: enforcement works. If you remove the incentives that encourage illegal immigrants to come to the United States, they will self-deport.

... and to belabor the obvious, as other Southeast states, such as Georgia and Virginia, begin to pursue immigration enforcement and reform, North Carolina will continue to be a magnet for lawbreakers.
--Jameson Taylor

Illegal Immigrants: 340 and Progressive Self-Delusion

I have a friend who, up until last year, taught for a few years at Wake Tech Community College. She taught English as a Second Language (ESL) to immigrants. Yesterday, I asked her: What percentage, if any, of your students would you estimate to be here illegally? This was her response--and I quote:

"I would estimate about 90% - 95% were here illegally.  But Wake Tech kind of caters to that population; the classes I taught were Basic Skills classes. It wasn't a problem for us.  Students had to have a tax id number, which is not hard to get (the IRS and INS don't really talk).

New guidelines came out a year or so ago that may restrict some students from getting into the program  - I think they have gotten tougher."   

I don't think m