Obama Calls Republican Senators on Immigration

Tom Tancredo Disavows Rand Paul, Calls Him ‘Softer’ Than Obama on Immigration

Mar 222013

(WASHINGTON) — Former Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., regrets his previous endorsement of Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., disavowing the former ally because he has “flip-flopped” on immigration.

“Rand Paul began his speech in Spanish and it went downhill from there,” Tancredo wrote in an op-ed titled “Why I No Longer Stand with Rand Paul” in the Christian Post. “His speech was filled with virtually every single discredited pro-amnesty cliché you could imagine.”

On Tuesday, Paul gave a speech to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in Washington calling for comprehensive immigration reform, including allowing undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States, work legally, and eventually become citizens. Paul, however, never used the word “citizenship” or “pathway to citizenship” in his address.

Tancredo said he even regretted the contribution he gave to Paul’s campaign. He actually praised Mitt Romney’s “self-deport” stance, saying there are not just two options available: legalization or deporting all 12 million undocumented immigrants.

“The problem is that not one congressman or major commentator has called for deporting all 12 million illegal immigrants,” Tancredo wrote. “Rather, we argue that strict enforcement of employer sanctions and allowing local police to cooperate in immigration enforcement will encourage most illegal to, in Mitt Romney’s words, ‘self-deport.’”

Tancredo, who has spent most of his career calling for stricter immigration enforcement, goes on to write that Paul is “softer” than President Barack Obama on immigration for his proposal.

“Both Obama and the Gang of 8 say that the illegal immigrants must pay a penalty for legal status, while Rand Paul told reporters after his speech he is not ‘not as big a stickler’ on these items, because the illegals would not be able to afford the fines,” Tancredo said.

Paul’s speech this week had a welcoming tone and he peppered his address with Spanish phrases as well as calling Hispanic voters “natural” Republicans, something the RNC also said this week in their “autopsy report,” which pledged to open up the party to more Hispanic voters and use more welcoming language. Tancredo doesn’t believe it.

“Rand Paul said that the only reason why the GOP is losing the Hispanic vote is because we have turned them off with ‘harsh rhetoric over immigration,’ Tancredo writes. “Paul doesn’t give a single example of what that ‘harsh rhetoric’ was. Presumably it could have included his pre-flip flop position on immigration.”

Tancredo goes on to call Paul a RINO (Republican in Name Only) and “just another politician” saying he doubts “the grassroots conservatives who elected Rand to Senate and whose support he expects if he runs for president in 2016 feel the same.”

“When I endorsed Rand Paul, I did not expect to agree with him on every issue,” Tancredo wrote. “I respect people with strongly held beliefs regardless of what they are. Most importantly, I felt that I could trust him to maintain his campaign promises. I was wrong. Oh how I long for a Republican leader who exhibits true courage and integrity. That’s the stuff leaders are made of.”

During his time in Congress, Tancredo tried to establish English as the official national language, as well as many other legislative efforts to try and restrict immigration. He left Congress in 2009 after making a failed bid for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008, where he also focused on immigration.

Poll: Large Racial Gap Marks Trust on Immigration

Mar 132013

John Gurzinski/Getty Images(NEW YORK) — Slightly more Americans trust Barack Obama than congressional Republicans to handle immigration, but neither side garnered a majority between whites and nonwhites in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll.

Americans overall divide by 45-39 percent between Obama and the Republicans in Congress in trust to handle the issue; the rest are undecided or trust neither side. Whites favor the GOP over Obama on immigration by 47-36 percent, while nonwhites (blacks, Hispanics and others) prefer Obama by a broad 71-16 percent.

See a PDF with full results here.

There also are sharp partisan and ideological differences in trust on immigration in this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates. Democrats and Republicans each prefer their side’s approach by an identical 66 percentage points; independents divide closely between Obama and the GOP, 41-36 percent.

Very conservative Americans favor the Republicans on immigration by 65 points and those who say they’re somewhat conservative do so by 33 points. Moderates take Obama’s side by a 21-point margin, liberals by 61 points.

Obama has made immigration reform a second-term priority, having beaten Mitt Romney in last year’s election by 61 percentage points among the growing proportion of nonwhites overall and by 44 points among Hispanics, while losing whites by 20 points.

In step with the president’s policy direction, majorities in recent ABC/Post polls have supported a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. His approval rating on the issue in February, while just 49 percent, was the highest of his presidency and up 11 points since the summer.

Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano Regrets Timing of Immigrant Release

Feb 282013

Alex Wong/Getty Images(WASHINGTON) — Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano had no part in a decision by underlings to release low-risk illegal immigrant detainees as a way to save money before the sequestration, and was surprised to learn about it, Napolitano told ABC News in an exclusive interview.

“Detainee populations and how that is managed back and forth is really handled by career officials in the field,” Napolitano said.

Napolitano added that the release, which has been criticized by congressional Republicans, was poorly timed.

“Do I wish that this all hadn’t been done all of a sudden and so that people weren’t surprised by it? Of course,” she said.

When asked why the detainees were in jail in the first place, Napolitano replied, “That’s a good question. I’ve asked the same question myself…so we’re looking into it.”

With the sequestration deadline looming over the country Thursday, ABC News asked Napolitano if Americans should feel safe waking up in the morning. She said sequestration will have an effect on border security and safety.

“We are always going to put safety first, and that’s why we’re not going to be abbreviating our safety procedures or any of that,” Napolitano said. “But, by way of example, the number of Border Patrol hours that will need to be reduced equates to the equivalent of 5,000 Border Patrol agents.”

The cut, she said, would mean “the large narco traffickers, human smugglers,” and other bad players could have easier access to the U.S.

“We deal with a lot of bad actors and we will have fewer agents to do that with,” she said. “We’ll have fewer hours that the Coast Guard is going to be patrolling along our maritime shores.”

The secretary stressed that the department will keep safety first but the effects of the sequester are not to be taken lightly.

“Sequestration is a pretty tough nut,” she said.

And, she insisted, it is not crying wolf to warn citizens they will see longer TSA lines at the airport and longer lines at the border.

“I think a citizen is going to notice. If there’s citizens that are trying to go back and forth to Mexico and Canada, to the land ports of entry, where we already have some problems with long lines at very busy times, you’re going to see those lines really grow,” she said.

This wait increase will also apply to those coming through international airports and needing to go through customs.

“Those lines are going to grow significantly at some of the larger airports,” she said. “We’re going to have fewer people to do the checks we do. The checks are going to have to be the same. We do those for security reasons. But we’re going to, over time, have fewer people to do them.”

And while the effects won’t be seen the first Saturday following sequestration, the impact could be felt as early as the following week and should be seen as more of an inconvenience than a security concern.

“From this department’s standpoint, the longer lines at the ports, the reduction of Border Patrol hours and Coast Guard operations, those are the things that will be most visible,” she said.

ACLU: US Too Tough on Undocumented Immigrants

Feb 222013

Scott Olson/Getty Images(WASHINGTON) — The American Civil Liberties Union says United States border security treats people crossing the border illegally to look for work as criminals instead of as desperate people trying to feed their families.

Border security continues to be a central point of the ongoing immigration reform debate, with Republicans saying they won’t move forward without it and Democrats arguing the borders are already secure.

Now, a 2005 Bush policy known as Operation Streamline, currently in effect, is slowly making its way back into the conversation. Religious, civil rights and legal groups say the program should be reexamined for its civil and human rights impact before any more policies on border security are put into place.

“Before we push for border security we need to evaluate existing measures,” Joanne Lin, ACLU legislative counsel, told the media Thursday. “Does it make sense to use an expensive program to indiscriminately prosecute migrant workers, people trying to reunite with families and people fleeing violence.”

However, Mark Krikorian, executive director for the Center for Immigration Studies, said calling the program a human rights issue is “not legitimate adjective to use.”

“Two administrations’ Justice Departments have done this for years now,” Krikorian said. “I’m pretty confident when weighing the propriety of this kind of action, the consistent, years-long [involvement by] two separate Justice Departments, from two separate parties … this is not a violation.”

Operation Streamline, currently in place in Arizona, Texas and New Mexico, is a partnership between the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security that orders federal criminal charges brought against every person who illegally crosses the border.

Because of the volume of cases, judges often conduct hearings with as many as 80 people at a time, some sitting in the jury box to fit everyone in the room, all pleading guilty in a matter of hours.

“It seriously undermines the American values of due process,” said Vicki Gaubeca, director of the ACLU-N.M. Regional Center for Border Rights. “There is no jury because they all plan to plead guilty. That’s when you realize it’s a rubber-stamp process, a true masquerade of justice. … Do we really want a justice system that treats people not as individuals with families, jobs and dreams, but as just another unit in a legal assembly line?”

In 2010, in a report to the Human Rights Council, the Vatican came out against the policy, saying, “The Holy See noted that ‘Operation Streamline’ against irregular migrants should be suspended,” until the U.S. finalizes rules on immigration policy.

“From our view, immigrants who cross the border looking for a job, looking for work or trying to reunite with their families are not criminals and they shouldn’t be treated as criminals,” said Kevin Appleby, director of the Office of Migration Policy and Public Affairs for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Proponents of the policy, like Krikorian, say criminal prosecution discourages folks from trying to illegally enter the United States.

“They should have started it [Operation Streamline] a long time before they did as it is an essential part of deterring illegal immigration,” he said. “It really is a crime to sneak into the United States, and we almost never prosecuted illegal entry before Operation Streamline.”

Krikorian added that the policy is “essential for making sure that the border’s taken seriously,” adding, “This is a real law that you are violating.”

Opponents argue that reason doesn’t hold, because the pull to work is greater than the threat of prosecution.

The ACLU said the debate over the safety and security of American borders is coming at time when Southwest border apprehensions are at their lowest levels in four decades and net migration from Mexico is at zero.

The non-partisan group Pew Hispanic found in a 2012 survey that many factors contributed to the decline, including, “the weakened U.S. job and housing construction markets, heightened border enforcement, a rise in deportations, the growing dangers associated with illegal border crossings, the long-term decline in Mexico’s birth rates and broader economic conditions in Mexico.”

According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Tucson, Ariz., had the most apprehensions of illegal immigrants, with an all-time high in 2000 of more than 600,000, Fiscal year 2011 saw the lowest numbers since 1971, with 123,285 apprehensions.

The Department of Homeland Security has also seen a steady decline in the number of arrests, with more than 1,043,863 in 2008 and 641,633 in 2011. Illegal reentry is the most prosecuted federal crime in the country.

Obama Calls Republican Senators on Immigration

Feb 192013

Official White House Photo by Pete Souza(WASHINGTON) — President Obama made his first direct overture to Republicans on immigration Tuesday night, placing calls to the three key GOP players on the issue in the Senate: John McCain (Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and Marco Rubio (Fla).

The calls followed a remark by Rubio calling a White House immigration plan that leaked over the weekend “half-baked and seriously flawed.”

Rubio says he appreciated the call (though he may have been roused from bed to take it; he’s in Israel):

“Senator Rubio appreciated receiving President Obama’s phone call to discuss immigration reform late tonight in Jerusalem,” according to a statement from Rubio’s office. “The Senator told the President that he feels good about the ongoing negotiations in the Senate, and is hopeful the final product is something that can pass the Senate with strong bipartisan support.”

Earlier Tuesday, Rubio’s office told reporters there had been no immigration policy discussion between the senator and the White House.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney disputed that, however.

“We have been in contact with everybody involved in this effort on Capitol Hill,” he said.

Older Entries