Friday, May 10, 2013
White House Staffer Tried to Undermine Enforcement in ’86 Amnesty
Will former La Raza lobbyist bring same agenda to Schumer-Rubio bill?
History shows us that for the most part, advocates of “comprehensive” immigration bills are only after the legalization portion and will do everything in their power to undermine the enforcement provisions as soon as the bill becomes law. A report published only a few years after passage of the 1986’s Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) proves this. The amnesty had only started to roll out, and yet La Raza produced a report calling for an end to workplace enforcement — the central enforcement provision of IRCA. The author of the La Raza report was Cecilia Munoz, currently the Obama administration’s chief immigration advisor. (Munoz was recently profiled in the New York Times).
In the report, “Unfinished Business: The Immigration Reform & Control Act of 1986” Munoz (then, a Senior Policy Analyst for La Raza) wrote that “Congress should repeal employer sanctions” and that Congress has a “moral obligation” to do so. She argued that workplace enforcement is “uneven and inconsistent” and “inherently discriminatory”. The full La Raza report is available here (PDF). Interestingly, in her report Munoz admits that mass legalization programs lead to increases in illegal immigration. She wrote:
“[The National Council of La Raza] estimates that the size of the undocumented population today , perhaps three to four million persons, equals that of the early 1980s, when the debate over IRCA took place. ... In the wake of this ‘one-time only’ program, the nation appears to be left with at least as many undocumented people as when it first considered these proposals.”
Munoz called for yet another amnesty in this report — only four years after IRCA — to legalize the newly arrived illegal aliens. The Schumer-Rubio proposal is reportedly already encouraging illegal immigration, despite the fact that the bill would not offer amnesty to aliens arriving after December 31, 2011. It is likely that this new wave of illegal immigration will result in calls for additional amnesties in the future. If Munoz’s past is any guide, it is likely that the bill’s workplace enforcement provisions would be put on the back burner the moment it is signed into law.
“The Obama administration’s track record on immigration coupled with an apparent lack of support for critical provisions in the Schumer-Rubio bill necessitates that legalization is conditioned on all enforcement provisions being up and running and fully litigated,” said Jon Feere, Legal Policy Analyst for the Center for Immigration Studies. “Only until after E-Verify is in place, the border secured, and an Exit system fully functioning should the discussion on what to do with 11 million illegal immigrants begin.”
View the Senate bill, CIS Senate testimony and commentary here
The above is a press release from from Center for Immigration Studies. 1522 K St. NW, Suite 820, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 466-8185 fax: (202) 466-8076. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org. Contact: Marguerite Telford, 202-466-8185, email@example.com. The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent research institution which examines the impact of immigration on the United States. The Center for Immigration Studies is not affiliated with any other organization
The foreign rioters Britain cannot deport because of their 'right to family life'
Two foreign criminals jailed for their part in English riots have been allowed to stay in this country because of their "right to family life" under the Human Rights Act.
The Telegraph can reveal for the first time how the two rioters - who were both made an example of by the criminal courts for their roles in the 2011 disorder - have since overturned the Home Office’s attempts to have them sent home.
One was convicted of violent disorder after rampages involving attacks on shops and cars by a gang in two Home Counties towns, while the other was convicted of burglary for his part in the London riots.
The successful appeals by the rioters - under the "right to family life" - demonstrate how the immigration courts’ leniency sharply contradicts the determination of politicians and the criminal justice system to have exemplary action taken against those who caused £200 million damage in an orgy of violence.
Two senior immigration judges, Henry Latter and Andrew Grubb, even granted anonymity to one rioter in his immigration case even though the criminal courts had allowed him to be named.
Concern over the apparent abuse of human rights legislation has now prompted Theresa May, the Home Secretary, to draw up new laws to stop foreign criminals avoiding deportation. The measures will be in a new Immigration Bill which will be announced in this week’s Queen’s Speech.
The move is a victory for our End the Human Rights Farce campaign. The Bill will aim to tackle head on the abuse of Article Eight of the Human Rights Act, which guarantees a right to “family life”, but which has been used by criminals to beat rules which automatically deport any offender sentenced to more than 12 months in prison.
Under rules introduced last July by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, they should only be able to use Article Eight in “exceptional circumstances” - a move backed unanimously by the House of Commons, but these have been largely ignored by judges. Ministers believe that they will be unable to ignore the new legislation.
Last night Mark Harper, the immigration minister, spelled out the Home Office’s deep concern at the judgments.
“Any foreign national who abuses the privilege of coming to the UK by committing a serious offence should face the consequences,” he said.
“Many of those convicted of involvement in the 2011 summer’s riots are still behind bars - that’s where they belong. We are pursuing deportation in scores of cases and wherever possible we will remove them from the UK – regardless of whether they have family here.”
The cases of the rioters illustrate the depth of Home Office frustration. One rioter, a Zimbabwean who terrified passers-by as he rampaged through two Buckinghamshire towns in a gang of 30 to 50 youths, can only be identified as “TS”.
He left a woman bus driver “frightened for her life” after being part of an attack on her vehicle, which was kicked and hit as she attempted to get away. He was convicted of violent disorder and sentenced to 15 months in prison.
The second rioter, Ubong-Luke Nkanta, a Nigerian from Thamesmead, south-east London, was jailed for 18 months for burglary during the London riots.
Each succeeded in arguing that their family life in Britain gave them a “human right” to avoid deportation, which had been demanded by Mrs May for all foreign-born rioters.
Writing for The Telegraph today Dominic Raab, the Conservative MP who has campaigned for a change in the law, said: “These cases warp the moral balance of British justice, endanger the public and make human rights sound like dirty words to many people.”
It was “disturbing” the courts had agreed to grant anonymity to TS, he added, because the decision appeared to “cosset” violent criminals.
TS was hunted by police for his role in a 90-minute rampage through Bletchley and Milton Keynes in “copycat” riots on August 9, 2011, three days after the first night of disorder took place in Tottenham, north London.
The gang, later described in court as a “mindless mob”, destroyed dozens of shopfronts including a charity hospice shop, and the owners of the Golden Palace Chinese takeaway in Bletchley were punched and robbed of their takings.
TS was identified as one of the main criminals involved in an attack on a bus, which was kicked and pelted with objects while the terrified female driver tried to escape. She was described as “distressed and frightened for her life”. He was also one of four rioters identified in an attack on a shop where £4,000 of damage was caused.
An innocent motorist also had her vehicle kicked and hit as she tried to drive through the crowd. The rioters, many wearing hoods and scarves, were tracked down from CCTV images.
TS, who had already been cautioned for carrying an offensive weapon in 2007 when he was 17, pleaded guilty at Aylesbury Crown Court to violent disorder and was jailed for 15 months.
One of TS’s co-accused Lewis Nicholls, then 15, attended one court hearing in his school uniform. The judge lifted reporting restrictions which normally prevent juveniles from being named so three of the gang, including Nicholls, could be named and shamed, in an indication of how seriously criminal courts viewed the offences.
Despite this, TS has since been granted anonymity by the immigration judges even though he was already an adult at the time. They did not explain in their judgment why they had done this.
TS brought an appeal after the Home Office began deportation proceedings and was allowed to stay in Britain on two grounds, that he has been with a girlfriend for three years, although they have never lived together, and he came here as a child.
The Home Office appealed to the Upper Tribunal, saying the new tougher rules had not been taken into account, but judges upheld the earlier decision. They did, however, say: “Another tribunal might well have come to a different view.”
Vincent Kong, who manages the Chinese takeaway targeted by TS’s gang, said: “If you come to this country you should behave. It’s not right to come and cause trouble. If you do that, you should leave the country.”
Ebenezer Markose, 23, from India, who works at Sai Supermarket in Bletchley which was also targeted by TS’s gang, said: “He should be punished and he should be deported.”
TS’s 47-year-old father, who also cannot be named because of the anonymity order, said: “I don’t want to say anything about it. As his parent I will say he shouldn’t say anything.”
In the second case Nkanta, 25, was jailed for 18 months in November 2011 for committing a burglary during the London riots.
He entered a building while looting was taking place but did not steal anything, he told the court, because “there was nothing left to take”.
As he was approaching his release from prison last summer, the Home Office began deportation proceedings and Nkanta appealed, claiming he should stay in Britain under his “right to family life”.
He said his relationship with two biological children - by two mothers - as well as his new partner’s children meant he should not be deported.
The court ruling said: “It was submitted [by the Home Office] that this appellant has had plenty of opportunities to provide evidence of his relationship with his child with his current partner."
The Home Office claimed he had failed to prove his family life and submitted to the court that "most of his partner’s children do not live with his partner”.
However, the lower immigration tribunal found Nkanta had proved his family circumstances and his relationship with the children, and that his human rights would be breached if he was deported.
The Home Office appealed, claiming the lower court had failed to take proper account of Mrs May’s new immigration rules, and questioned whether Nkanta had been entitled to claim “family life”.
The Home Office claimed in court: “This is not a family whose family members all live together. Most of the children do not live with their mother.”
However, Upper Tribunal Judge Isabel Murray upheld the original decision and allowed his appeal under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights which is enshrined in British law by Labour's Human Rights Act.
Last week The Telegraph disclosed how drug dealer Hesham Mohammed Ali was able to claim family life despite abandoning two children, after arguing he coudl not be sent back to Iraq because of his tattoos.
Posted by jonjayray at 8:16 AM