Friday, September 30, 2011

The Farce Of Case-by-Case Review

John Morton, head of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), has claimed repeatedly and has had his PR flacks repeatedly claim that illegal aliens in removal proceedings will have their cases reviewed in an orderly and systematic manner as part of the Obama Regime Administrative Amnesty. The particular phraseology is "case-by-case" review. As with the rest of the Regime's amnesty, it is a lie. What is really being done is a fumbling reaction to case advocacy in the press. To wit Nadia Habib and Miguel Gulfin. Both are long time illegal aliens who have been in removal proceedings for years. Both were literally hours from deportation, but as of today have received reprieves from ICE officials.

First the very suspicious case of Habib on September 29 from the New York Daily News running an advocacy piece:

The New York Daily New September 29, 2011 (morning)

"I've always considered myself as American as anyone else," Habib said.

Her suitcase is packed, but a Queens teen facing deportation Thursday spent what could be her last hours in America hoping she doesn't have to go.

"I know it's real," said Nadia Habib, 19, a Stony Brook University junior and Bronx High School of Science grad who came to the U.S. as a baby.

"It's been really hectic and nerve-racking with my family," she said. "The past three weeks I feel like I've had to grow up a lot."

Habib was set to report with her mom, Nazmin, to Federal Plaza by 11 a.m. this morning to be deported to Bangladesh, leaving behind her dad, a green card holder, and her three siblings, who were born here and are U.S. citizens.

"I could be literally leaving everything I know," Habib said. "Leaving would mean being separated from my brothers, my baby sister and my Dad."

She and her mother each can bring just one piece of luggage, weighing only 50 pounds.

"There's no way I can fit everything," said Habib, who said she just threw in some clothes and shoes - finding it impossible to pack up her whole life to go to a country she never knew. She doesn't even speak Bengali. [Ed. Note: Lie]

"I've always considered myself as American as anyone else," she said.

The family's Woodside home was full of neighborhood friends, trying to calm her mother and praying that the two will be able to stay.

"I have never seen her [my mom] crying so much as in this past week," Habib said.
For a decade, Habib's mom has been trying to reopen their bid for asylum. But on Sept. 10, the pair got a letter from the feds saying they had to leave.

Their lawyer, Aygul Charles, put in a request on Monday with Immigration and Customs Enforcement to stop the deportation - and asked that Habib and her mother be allowed to stay for humanitarian reasons.

"There has not been an official response," Charles said. "It's coming down to the wire."

The Habibs' case is especially compelling, Charles said, because the feds recently said they would follow new deportation priorities and focus on booting immigrants with criminal records.

Officials are reviewing 300,000 pending deportations and plan to let some law-abiding immigrants with ties to the U.S. stay temporarily and get permission to work.

An ICE spokesman would not comment on the specifics of the Habibs' case but said deportation priority decisions are made on a "case-by-case basis."

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand's (D-N.Y.) office has been talking with ICE on the family's behalf, said spokeswoman Angie Hu.

"We expect that ICE will fully and fairly consider the family's request," said Hu.

Just a few days ago, Habib, who is studying psychology and wants to be a drug researcher, was trying to focus on midterms. But during a weekend drive around Stony Brook with friends, she broke down and cried.

"I thought, this could be the last time I see this certain part of sky," she said.

And then later the same day:

The New York Times September 29, 2011

Nadia Habib and her mother, Nazmin Habib, are not being sent back to Bangladesh just yet.

At an immigration hearing in Federal Plaza on Thursday, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agreed to review the Habib's case and decide whether to reopen it, their lawyer said.

The women, who live in Woodside, Queens, are to report back to the immigration agency in three months and remain under an order of supervision requiring them to notify immigration authorities if they intend to leave the state for more than two days, their lawyer, Aygul Charles, said.

Ms. Charles said the Habibs “could still be deported any day,” but she added that she thought the director of the New York office of ICE, Christopher Shanahan, “recognizes that it’s a sympathetic family.”

Officials at the immigration agency said they could not comment on an individual case without a privacy waiver from the Habibs, which was not immediately available.

Nadia Habib, 19, and her parents came to the United States in 1993 when she was 20 months old. Her father now has a green card and her three younger brothers, all born here, are citizens, but Nadia and Nazmin Habib overstayed a tourist visa and have been trying to reopen their case and press a political asylum claim since 2000.

All morning in front of Federal Plaza, friend and supporters had held up signs and protested for the Habibs not to be deported and the family split up. Nadia, a psychology major at Stony Brook University, was swarmed when she left the court building.

“I’m very excited, nervous,” she said. “I’m just going home to chill out.”

In less than 24 hours, the Habibs obtained amnesty for their obviously fraudulent asylum application, only filed by the way when they were identfied as illegal aliens. If they really were fleeing Bangladesh because of persecution, they would not have applied as a family for tourist visas, they would have filed for refugee status that the American Embassy in Bangladesh.

But it is clear that there was no systematic case-by-case review by attorney's at ICE and the Department of Justice. Here the Field Office Director (FOD) for ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) Christopher Shanahan just decided not to deport these two illegl aliens because they were sympathetic, or were able to apply pressure through the press or a Senator's office.

Then the very similar case of Gulfin, also set to be deported as September 30:

The New York Daily News September 20, 2011

Pulitzer Prize winner Jose Antonio Vargas is one of the most famous undocumented immigrants in the country - but the feds have made no move to kick him out.

Like Vargas, Miguel Gulfin came to the United States from the Philippines as a child and has built a life here. The two men even have the same lawyer.

Unlike Vargas, Gulfin is embroiled in a deportation fight and could be sent back to a country he left when he was just 7.

"He [Vargas] is too hot an item to handle," said Jose Teodoro Mallonga of the Filipino American Legal Defense and Education Fund, who represents both men.

"But they're quietly trying to deport this young boy."

Vargas, 30, a former Washington Post reporter who lives in New York, wrote about his illegal entry into the U.S. in a splashy New York Times Magazine essay.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement has left him alone.

"Unlike Miguel, I'm not in deportation proceedings," Vargas said. "How do I feel about that? In many ways, it underscores just how broken the system is."

Gulfin, 27, an auto mechanic, learned he was undocumented in October 2005, when he and his parents were rounded up in an ICE raid and held for six months.

He and his parents are under a Sept. 30 final deportation order.

"I'd have to start all over. I don't know anyone there," said Gulfin, who recently got an associate's degree from Brookdale Community College.

"I just want to live my life. I'm just a guy from Tinton Falls, N.J."

The journalist and the repairman met last week at the Manhattan launch of an interfaith campaign backing the federal DREAM Act, which would give green cards to immigrants who came here as kids and attend college or join the military.

Though the bill is stalled in Congress, the Obama administration recently outlined new rules prioritizing deportations.

It said some immigrants - such as students who would qualify under the DREAM Act and other law-abiding residents with ties to the U.S. - should be allowed to stay temporarily and work.

The feds are reviewing 300,000 pending cases - but it isn't clear if the Gulfins will be

Mallonga filed an appeal with New Jersey's ICE legal adviser, but has not received a response.

The new guidelines don't apply to Vargas. Only those facing deportation can apply for work permits - and he's avoided contact with authorities and doesn't have an active case.

"These are all mixed signals," Vargas said.

He said he and Gulfin are part of the older generation of "dreamers" who came to the U.S. as children and were students when the DREAM Act was introduced a decade ago.

"We represent just how old the problem is with immigration," he said.

ICE spokesman Ross Feinstein declined to comment on Gulfin's case, saying the agency is deciding priority "on a case-by-case basis."

Mallonga said there is an obvious "disconnect" between what the feds are saying and what they're doing.

"We're going to fight this," he said.

And days after a little advocacy journalism, presto chango:

The New York Daily News September 27, 2011

Miguel Gulfin, who came from the Philippines as a child and shares a lawyer with Pulitzer-winning journalist Jose Antonio Vargas, was rounded up in a 2005 home raid.

A New Jersey mechanic - who shares a back story and lawyer with high-profile undocumented immigrant and journalist Jose Antonio Vargas - has been given a one-year reprieve.

The feds postponed the deportation of Miguel Gulfin, 28, and his parents, which was set for Friday.

"It felt like a weight lifted off my shoulders," Gulfin said. "We have a chance to fight after all."

Vargas, a Pulitzer-winning former Washington Post reporter, revealed he is undocumented in a celebrated essay - but the feds have not tried to deport him.

Gulfin, who also came from the Philippines as a child and shares a lawyer with Vargas, was rounded up in a 2005 home raid.

"The Gulfins are at least temporarily safe from deportation," said the lawyer, Jose Teodoro Mallonga of the Filipino American Legal Defense and Education Fund.

Mallonga had asked Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials to consider closing the Gulfins' case under new priority rules that allow some law-abiding undocumented immigrants with ties to the U.S. to stay.

Instead, ICE Newark field office director John Tsoukaris simply postponed deportation of the Tinton Falls, N.J., family for a year.

Gulfin said he'll take it. "I'm learning to count my blessings," he said.

As in the case of Habib, it was not serious review by a committee of ICE and DOJ attorney's, but the decision in the face of relentless pressure from the left-wing press, on the responsible ICE ERO FOD, in this case, John Tsoukaris. No "case-by-case" review, but succumbing to political pressure. So much for an apolitical Federal Civil Service.

FOD Shanahan can be contacted here and reminded that he is subject to impeachment for his unconstitutional usurpation of the authority of Congress:

26 Federal Plaza

Rm. 1105

New York, NY 10278

Phone: (212) 264-4213

FOD Tsoukaris can be contacted here and reminded of the consequences of his actions:

614 Frelinghuysen Ave

3rd Floor

Newark, NJ 07114

Phone: (973) 645-3666

And then there is the suspicious and fraudulent nature of the Habib's immigration odyssey:

NEW YORK — The deportation letter arrived just as Nadia Habib was starting her junior year at Stony Brook University, its message straightforward and scary: Please report to our offices on Sept. 29, and be prepared to leave the country.

Habib, who moved to the U.S. from Bangladesh when she was a toddler, had known that she was an illegal immigrant since she was a teenager, her attorney says. But the knowledge that she would have to leave the country where she grew up — the place she calls home — was a horrible shock.

“It’s a crazy situation to be in for someone like her,” said her attorney, Aygul Charles. “To just kind of go through the motions and do the things that a normal college student would do, then have this letter sent to you that says ‘pack your bags.’”

Habib and her mother, Nazmin Habib, were granted a temporary reprieve Thursday as immigration officials postponed a final decision on their case, allowing them to stay in the U.S. for now. The two women arrived at a federal courthouse in lower Manhattan for their deportation meeting prepared to say goodbye to their family and board a plane. But instead, they emerged from the courthouse smiling as about 100 supporters cheered and chanted “education not deportation!”

“We still have a lot of waiting and hoping to do,” Nadia Habib told supporters. “I’m just nervous. Tomorrow’s my birthday, so this is kind of a great birthday present.”

Immigration officials fingerprinted them, confiscated the Habibs’ passports and put them under an order of supervision, which requires them to meet periodically with an immigration officer while their case is being reviewed. They weren’t told when a decision would be made, though immigration officers said it was a high-priority case, Charles said.

And clearly not a "case-by-case" review.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who has been working with immigration officials on behalf of the family, released a statement praising the decision not to deport them.

“I am thrilled that Nadia will be celebrating her 20th birthday tomorrow at home with her family and will be continuing her studies in the only country she’s ever known,” Gillibrand said.

Here is the understatement of the year:

The Habib family has taken a confusing legal path toward citizenship ever since they arrived in the U.S. in 1993 from Bangladesh with baby Nadia. Some details of the legal proceedings remain murky, as they have switched lawyers several times over the years.

Charles was brought onto the case only a week ago, when Nadia Habib filled out an online form seeking help from the New York State Youth Leadership Council, an advocacy group that quickly took up her cause.

And this clear lie:

The problem began when Nazmin Habib became ill and missed a scheduled hearing in U.S. Immigration Court on April 26, 2000, according to a court document. The judge proceeded to conduct a hearing in absentia and denied her request for asylum based on past persecution in Bangladesh, Charles said.

The most important event in your life, your chance to tell of your woeful story of persecution in a third world hell-hole. And you had a cold? And could not get a real note from a real doctor?

It is more likely that the claim was so full of holes that the best strategy was not to be found out as the liar.

When the Habibs tried to reopen the case by providing a doctor’s note, the judge said the note was not credible because the doctor was not found in the court’s registered list of physicians. Charles said this was a clerical error that was never corrected.

And then how did Habib pere get residency without wife and child?

Nadia Habib’s siblings were born in the U.S. and are thus citizens, while her father successfully applied for his green card based on his relationship with his children, Charles said.

More likely placing two other illegal aliens on the application might bring more questions. Even more curious minor children cannot sponsor a parent for legal permanent residency. Clearly he was in removal proceedings and claimed that there would be serious and irreperable harm to his U.S. citizen children, the only relief available to him.

His attorney at the time told him that he shouldn’t include his wife or Nadia in the application,” Charles said. “I’ve been told by other attorneys that that’s nonsense.”

Clearly this attorney is not an immigration law practitioner. She has to be advised by others that lying on an application is bad.

Many immigrant children like Nadia Habib don’t learn that they are illegal until their teens, when they’re applying for a driver’s license or to college, Charles said.

The most famous example in recent memory was Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Jose Antonio Vargas, who discovered he was an illegal immigrant in high school after emigrating from the Philippines in 1993. Vargas lied about his immigration status to employers for years until he wrote about his struggles in a magazine story earlier this year. He lost his driver’s license after the story was published, but has not been deported.

“This goes on throughout the country,” Charles said. “There’s so many kids in Nadia’s shoes.”

The family was not available for interviews on Thursday, and Charles was unable to provide the names of their prior attorneys. Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesman Luis Martinez said the agency can’t discuss the case without a privacy waiver.

Sara Martinez, 22, was among those who came out to support the family.

“The immigration system is broken and flawed,” said Martinez, whose own family immigrated to the U.S. from Mexico when she was a baby.

Habib, who previously attended the prestigious Bronx High School of Science, told reporters that she would be returning to class Monday at the state university on Long Island.

“Obviously, it’s a roller coaster. I’m just really grateful to be able to stay here longer,” she said. “I’m just gonna continue doing what I’ve been doing, living my life as I have. And wait for an answer.”

Importantly the attorney and the family are refusing to give the back story to their immigration problem. They give out bits and pieces that they think will pull heart strings of people like Rick Perry, but don't give the full story.

So here is the timeline as given in the press:

1993, the Habib family, pere, mere and enfante, come to the U.S. on tourist visas.

2000, Habib mere and enfante have an asylum claim denied.

Such cases usually only are come to a hearing years after the application, so perhaps in 1995 or thereabouts two of three Habibs apply for asylum.

Why doesn't Habib pere apply for asylum?

How did he obtain residency?

Why did he not place his epouse et fille on his application? Bad advice? Hard to believe. Probably because he was gaming the system in some manner.

Why was his application for residency approved and was it in removal proceedings?

If in removal proceedings, was this before or after the asylum application by epouse et fille?

Did Habib pere separately apply for asylum then gain residency by falsely claiming that there would be irreparable harm to his U.S. citizen children since born after the fraudulent entry on a tourist visa?

Now, if the Habib family were on the up and up? Well, they would have filed for refugee status while living in Bangladesh. Instead they applied for a tourist visa with the clear intent of remaining in the United States. They committed fraud.

After arriving they should have all applied for asylum. In such a case, the person suffering from persecution applies and lists dependants. Of interest, the press never inquires into the reason the Habib mere et enfante apply for asylum. Clearly they don't want that looked at for an obvious reason. And why, at the hearing, did their attorney just say, I am sorry, my client is ill, can we postpone? That happens all the time. Clearly the attorney did not have confidence in his clients' claim.

As a supervisor at the legacy INS once said, the more you kick a turd the shitier it gets. And this Habib story is a great stinking pile of it.

Thursday, September 29, 2011

Confirmed: Onyango Obama Received Amnesty

As predicted, Onyango Obama has been granted amnesty by his step-nephew, Barak Obama. Onyango Obama appeared in court recently on his drunk driving charge and his attorney informed reporters that Onyango Obama is back at work.

Boston Herald September 29, 2011

A giggling Onyango Obama — the president’s illegal alien half uncle — made a brief appearance in Framingham District Court today on charges he was drunk when he nearly struck an unmarked police cruiser last month.

Obama, 67, was visibly amused at the media spectacle, stifling laughter several times before his 30-second court appearance where a judge set a Nov. 17 pre-trial conference.

Obama did not acknowledge a Herald reporter’s question upon arrival at Framingham District Court and neither he nor his lawyer made any comment on his way out where they were followed to the parking lot by a horde of media.

His attorney, P. Scott Bratton, did, however, tell the Herald that Obama, who has been living illegally in the United States for nearly 20 years, has returned to work at Conti Liquors in Framingham.

He has. He’s doing well,” Bratton said.

Obama was accompanied in court today by two attorneys and an unidentified male supporter. He and his friend giggled in the front row of the court at the media assembled for the hearing. The courtroom was packed, but mostly with other defendants hauled in for the usual round of arraignments at the county court located in suburban Boston.

Onyango, who had a valid driver’s license and Social Security card when he was arrested last month, was in the U.S. illegally having already faced a 1992 deportation order. Immigration officials have ordered him to “check in” with them.

When he was arrested by Framingham police on suspicion of drunken driving Aug. 24, he suggested his first call should be to the White House. A spokesman for the president told the Herald that call was never made. He actually called his boss at Conti’s Liquors.

Middlesex District Attorney Gerard T. Leone has also vowed to prosecute Obama to the fullest extent possible on the OUI charge.

Of course, it is possible that Onyango Obama is back to working illegally, but that is not likely, or at least his attorney would not acknowledge it. Nor would his employer risk sanctions unless Onyango Obama returned from jail to his employment with a brand new Employment Authorization Document, Form I-765. Of course, given his giggling as well, perhaps the fix is in besides on employment authorization. Perhaps the OUI charge will not be as vigorously pursued as is claimed. Interestingly, Onyango Obama was accompanied by "a male friend." Perhaps he will be qualifying based on the Obama Regime's overturning of DOMA. Uncle might be on the down low.

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Lies, Damn Lies, And Rick Perry

Comrade Rick Perry, he who wants as many Demoncrat voters allowed into the United States as possible has a modified limited walk back of his heartless complaint against patriotic Americans. He, of note, did not walk back his snide remark that some people have an objection to the sound of certain persons last names. Of course that was similar to the standard Obama complaint concerning his detractors whom he and the left consider racist.

Notably, most of Perry's walk back is itself filled with lies, misstatements, and distortions:

The Hill September 28, 2011

Rick Perry said Wednesday that he was sorry for saying at last week's Republican debate that those opposed to providing an in-state tuition break to the children of illegal immigrants “did not have a heart.”

Yeah, sorry he got called out on it and dropped in the polls.

“I was probably a bit over-passionate by using that word and it was inappropriate,” Perry said in a interview with Newsmax. “In Texas in 2001 we had 181 members of the legislature — only four voted against this piece of legislation — because it wasn’t about immigration it was about education.”

Inappropriate? It was inaccurate and out of the Alinsky playbook of the radical left. So-called conservatives should not be accusing fellow conservatives of racism. That is the complaint-du-jour of the Demoncrat Party.

But Perry stood by his argument that building a fence along the entire Mexican border was unwise. The Texas governor said that the fence would likely be expensive, ineffective and violate the property rights of those who owned land on the border.

This from the same governor who wanted to build a the Trans-Texas Corridor, a toll-superhighway through the heart of Texas. Yeah, that would also certainly violate the property rights of some people. And that was not for a public purpose, but for a private purpose, as in Kelo; a privately owned roadway that charged tolls. A fence would be built for a governmental purpose only, to limit illegal immigration. And that is what Perry is concerned about.

It is the effectiveness of a fence that Perry and the radical left are concerned about. Of course Perry wants a low wage compliant work force as David Frum described and similar to the objections that Alan Greenspan has to American workers; overpaid, over here, and white. A fence would interfere with that plan. His plan for Texas is the same as Chipotle's business plan: Hire illegals to assist businesses in profitability and growth by driving down wages. A little bit of China in the heart of the United States.

“In the metropolitan areas where the fencing actually can play a positive role, absolutely,” he said. “But you have to have boots on the ground … having an obstacle without observation is no obstacle at all. So just the idea of building a fence and saying, ‘That will take care of it, let’s just build a fence,’ has never worked in the history of mankind.”

Here Perry is dishonestly implying that advocates of the fence want to build it and then abandon it. I haven't heard anything of the sort. A fence to be effective has to be patrolled. But patrols without a fence is pointless.

Other candidates seized on Perry's support of the tuition credits — and arguments against a fence — in an attempt to discredit him during the debate. Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann argued that taxpayer dollars shouldn't benefit those in the country illegally, while Jon Huntsman suggested his position on the fence might be "treasonous." But while Perry walked back his "heartless" comment, he insisted that his experience as governor of a border state best prepared him to handle immigration issues.

"As Texas governor, a border governor, you have to deal with these issue, you can’t just talk about them and say, ‘Oh, let’s build a wall from Brownsville to El Paso and that will take care of it.’ We have to live with reality," Perry said.

His reality is accepting illegal immigration, hence the necessity to educate the illegals already here.

He also reiterated criticism of the federal government for what he considers a failure to protect the southern border.

"We wouldn’t be having these conversations today, whether it’s about in-state tuition for illegal immigrants or whether it’s the Arizona law or whether it’s voter-ID which we passed in Texas, or sanctuary cities and the banning of those. … None of those would come up if the federal government had simply done its job through the years to secure our borders," Perry said.

True enough. But rewarding illegal aliens is not going to aid enforcement of Federal law. Arizona's laws were in support of Federal law. Perry's in opposition to Federal law. And Perry continued to defend the in-state tuition for illegal aliens as a States Rights issue:

ABC's The Note September 28, 2011

“It is a state’s sovereign right to decide that issue for themselves. In Texas in 2001, we had 181 members of the legislature. Only four voted against this piece of legislation because it wasn’t about immigration. It was about education,” Perry said. “The bigger issue is that the federal government has failed in its constitutional duty to secure our borders.”

Again, wrong on the facts. Texas, nor any other State, may make its own immigration policy. Nor may Texas aid, abet and assist illegal aliens to remain in the United States in violation of Title 8 United States Code Section 1324, Bringing In And Harboring Certain Aliens, no matter how many State legislators voted for it or, in the words of Texas, agin it. I would much rather see Governor Perry reject Federal control of Texas schools, or the Federal government prohibiting Texas, in Plyer v. Doe, from lawfully and Constitutionally prohibiting enrollment of illegal aliens in Texas schools. There he should be making his 10th Amendment stand. But he is not and that is because Rick Perry, the Demoncrats, Barak Hussein Obama, and the Communist Party USA have the same position on in-state tuition for illegal aliens.

The RINO Surrender Continues Apace

Congress is again considering waiving requirements that immigrants not abuse the Supplement Security Income (SSI) system. It is little known that SSI is the main cash welfare program for many groups of immigrants, especially the elderly, as well as so-called refugees and asylees. Since the 1996 Act, Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, that required refugees and aslyees, as well as regular immigrants, to obtain citizenship to remain eligible for SSI, there have been continuous waivers of the requirement. Why, because it was so effective. But it was not to be, as this, like most other restrictions on welfare use by immigrants has gone by the wayside.

One year ago, Congress gave a temporary lifeline to thousands of older and disabled refugees. It extended for another 12 months their eligibility for cash assistance under the Supplemental Security Income program, which, for many, was their only source of income. That Congress had to do this was an unfortunate side effect of a 1996 law that placed strict time limits on benefits for refugees who did not become citizens within seven years.

Those limits were intended to persuade refugees to naturalize — well-meaning but mistaken. Thousands who had fled to the United States from places like Iran, Somalia, Cuba and Russia were simply unable to meet the deadline. Some of these men and women were very old and sick, blind or mentally disabled. Some were homebound and too poor to pay for English lessons or administrative fees, unable to understand or complete the paperwork or were caught in processing backlogs.

They were — and remain — an unusually vulnerable population. As refugees, they are all survivors of persecution, torture or warfare. Many have no relatives here. Too old or disabled to work, they rely on government aid for basic food and housing needs.

Since 2008, Congress has passed a series of stopgap bills to keep the aid flowing. The latest extension expires Friday when at least 2,195 refugees will immediately lose their benefits. Another 400 to 500 are expected to be cut off from aid each month as their eligibility runs out. The money is small — about $674 a month for an individual, $1,011 for a couple — and the total needed is a microscopic fraction of the federal budget. Supporters estimate it would cost $178 million for a two-year benefit extension and have identified offsetting spending cuts to pay for it. But generosity and bipartisanship are in eclipse on Capitol Hill, and passage is not certain.

Congress should quickly do what is right and pass the extension. Then, the link between naturalization and life-saving benefits for the old, sick and disabled should be severed. An offer of solace and shelter to victims of war and torture should be real and permanent, not subject to political whims and yearly rethinking.

Of course, what the NYT does not tell the reader is that these elderly supposed refugees and asyless are not the victims of some oppressive government, but did, in fact, derive their status from another person, sometimes a child, sometimes an in-law, but they almost never obtained refugee status based on any persecution of them. They were just related to someone who claimed it. And in most cases, even that was a lie. The main source of refugees to the U.S. who are living on welfare are Russian Evangelicals or Jews who left Russia after the collapse of Communism, usually well after, including from the late 90s to the present. Yes, to this day Russian Evangelicals and Jews are still as oppressed as they were under Communism. That, obviously, is not true.

Some years ago, these Russian refugees were notorious for arriving in the U.S., registering for welfare, SSI, etc. but then returning to Holy Mother Russia to live, as the dollar went further there and they were more comfortable in their own culture. Of course the U.S. government refused to revoke their refugee or asylee status even though they had, as the law says, availed themselves of the protection of the government from which they were supposedly oppressed by.

The political asylum system in the U.S. is just another manner of immigration remarkably similar to the standard immigration system based on family relationships.

Priority Three is similar to the P-2 in that it is a group category for which only certain nationalities are eligible. However, P-3 is reserved for certain family members of refugees already in the US. In FY 2004, the US expanded the number of nationalities eligible for P-3 status, but in doing so also narrowed the immigration status and qualifying relationships of the so-called "anchor relatives" in the United States. As it stands now, eligibility for P-3 status is reserved for spouses, unmarried children under 21, and parents of persons already lawfully admitted to the US as asylees or refugees (or those who have adjusted from those statuses).

And it is not just the Russians who are abusing it, the Somalis are other notorious abusers of the system. But unlike the Russians, who are mostly welfare abusers and common criminals, the Somalis also add terrorism to what they bring to the United States.

Another aspect of this is that USCIS has been fraudulently naturalizing many of these immigrants by failing to apply the English and civics test to these immigrants. Most pass the testing with a wink and an nod. But in any event after the age of 55 immigrants don't have to know English and can easily obtain a waiver for the civics portion of the test.

So in the end, we have RINOs surrendering again on welfare reform. The 96 Act was supposed to end welfare abuse by immigrants, but since then welfare use by immigrants has only expanded as the Congress and the President slowly repealed the restrictions or failed to enforce the laws concerning public charges.

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

The Disturbing Intersection Of Lies, Fraud, Homeland Security, And Asylum

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) states on its website stopping terrorists is the agency's top priority:

CBP is one of the Department of Homeland Security’s largest and most complex components, with a priority mission of keeping terrorists and their weapons out of the U.S. It also has a responsibility for securing and facilitating trade and travel while enforcing hundreds of U.S. regulations, including immigration and drug laws.

However, like the alleged priorities of John Morton at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, it is a lie. Probably not from the line employees, but a lie none the less, intimately connected with the Obama Regime Administrative Amnesty.

A lie as reported by Pajamas Media:

Two Bangladeshis who were caught by Customs and Border Protection illegally crossing the border in June 2010 admitted under questioning that they were members of a designated terrorist organization that signed on to a fatwa by Osama bin Laden pledging to wage war against Americans.

But amazingly, after one of the men requested asylum, he was released on bond. And now one Homeland Security official tells me, concerning the released terror operative, “We don’t have the slightest idea where he is now.”

The two men, Muhammad Nazmul Hasan and Mirza Muhammad Saifuddin, were intercepted near Naco, Arizona, not long after they had crossed the border on June 25, 2010. During their interrogation, one of the men admitted that they were members of Harakat-ul-Jihad-i-Islami Bangladesh (HuJI-B), which was designated a
terrorist organization by the United States in February 2008. Earlier this month the group claimed responsibility for a bombing a courthouse in New Delhi. That attack killed 11 and wounded at least 45 others.

A 2006 State Department report described HuJI-B’s goals and connections to other terrorist groups, including al-Qaeda:

The goal of HUJI-B is to establish Islamic rule in Bangladesh. The group’s core membership consists primarily of Bangladeshi veterans of fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. The Bangladeshi Government arrested a senior HUJI-B leader, Mufti Abdul Hannan, in October. HUJI-B has connections to the Pakistani militant groups Harakat ul-Jihad-I-Islami (HUJI) and Harakat ul-Mujahedin (HUM), which advocate similar objectives in Pakistan and Jammu and Kashmir. The leaders of HUJI-B and HUM both signed the February 1998 fatwa sponsored by Usama bin Ladin that declared American civilians to be legitimate targets for attack.

Capturing two terrorist operatives illegally crossing the border would appear to be a big win for the Border Patrol. But in a stunning move, one of the men was released on
bond after claiming asylum.

A Homeland Security official I met with last week in Washington, D.C., who was familiar with the case says that no government agency is tasked with monitoring those that are released pending asylum hearings, and that the terror operative’s whereabouts now are unknown.

That this guy was allowed out on bond is criminal. We don’t have the slightest idea where he is now. If he sets off a car bomb in Tucson or Phoenix, or shoots up a shopping mall or elementary school somewhere, there will be a lot of finger-pointing. But nobody seems that concerned about it now. And this is not the first time something like this has happened.

Back in March I reported here exclusively at PJMedia on a Department of Justice memo submitted in a court case of Ahmed Muhammed Dhakane, who ran a human smuggling ring out of Brazil on behalf of the Somali Al-Shabaab terrorist organization. Dhakane was nearly granted asylum, but was eventually charged with lying about his terrorist associations based on his conversations with a jailhouse informant. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

Dhakane’s case was representative of the surging wave of Somalis who have been intercepted crossing the border over the past two years. And now some officials are worried that the case of Hasan and Saifuddin might be the tip of the iceberg of extremist Bangladeshis who are leaving their country under pressure from authorities there cracking down on HuJI-B and setting up terror-support operations in the United States. And the preferred transit route into the U.S. appears to be illegally entering over the southern border — the route taken by the two Bangladeshi terror operatives.

What it tells us that Catch-and-Release continues unabated and combined with asylum fraud, the bad old days before 9/11 are back. Just as the Bush Administration did nothing to catch the 9/11 terrorists in the months before the attack, it continued Catch-and-Release on the border, as well as the interior, despite claims that it had ended the policy. It no more ended Catch-and-Release than it build the border fence.

What also continues is asylum fraud, where captured illegal aliens are released upon a claim of asylum, given employment authorization, and are free to continue a life of crime or terrorism, like Ramzi Yousef, or Alex Sanchez.

On the face of it, any one attempting to enter the United States illegally, asylum claim is fraudulent. A real claimant would have first applied overseas for refugee status, second a real claimant would not have to enter the U.S. illegallly to make the claim as the person need only appear at a Port-of-Entry, such as those on the U.S.-Mexican border, and make a claim. An asylum claim by an illegal entrant is only designed to buy the alien time and, more importantly, release and employment authorization.

For a short time, such applicants for asylum spent time in custody until an Asylum Officer at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services adjudicated their claim. Apparently not any more. But it really was not that important, as USCIS routinely approves fraudulent asylum claims, especially those of Brazilian homosexuals for example. USCIS never met a lie it did not believe. And these Bangladeshi terrorists were in no danger of being ferreted out by USCIS. But it is clear that the Obama Regime Administrative Amnesty includes a return of Catch-and-Release as well as credulity in the area of asylum claims. Though one can say these two aspects were also part of the Bush Administration Administrative Amnesty as well.

But it is clear that CBP has been lying to the public for years, claiming that preventing terrorism is one of their policy goals. That clearly is not the case. If so, why release a terrorist? Of course their argument would be that ICE released the terrorist, since it takes custody of asylum applicants as a general rule when they are arrested by CBP. But it certainly also tells us that ICE does not think much of its anti-terrorism responsibilities:

ICE's primary mission is to promote homeland security and public safety through the criminal and civil enforcement of federal laws governing border control, customs, trade, and immigration.

So much for the much tauted Homeland Security Investigations. They just lost a terrorist, much like the FBI could not find the missing 9/11 terrorists in the months before 9/11. I wonder if Catch-and-Release is part of promoting homeland security?

Monday, September 26, 2011


The Federal government is working hard at making compliance with immigration laws difficult for employers. The treason bar has a lot of complaints, but this one is justified. What will be described is the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices, and the Social Security Administration are working hard at cross purposes to prevent employers from ferreting out illegal aliens.

Worksite compliance is complicated enough on the immigration front with the various agencies within Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Now, with the I-9 audit process, employers and attorneys deal directly with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), but the requests from ICE require that we review many ancillary legal issues that could arise from providing requested information and documentation to ICE. Specifically, requests by ICE requiring employers to provide any and all Social Security Administration’s “No-Match” Letters brings into question compliance issues with SSA, as well as potential discrimination issues overseen by the Department of Justice’s Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC). We would like to address a few of the issues that we have encountered and which we believe need to be raised.

Should an Employer Copy and Retain Completed “No-Match”

Has anyone really looked at everything printed on a Social Security “No-Match” Letter? The letter actually states “Do Not Copy” at the top. At the time of an I-9 audit an ICE subpoena may demand that an employer turn over any and all “No-Match” letters. What if an employer complied with the SSA “Do Not Copy” directive? ICE has stated that employers should make copies of the “No-Match” letters so that they may be provided in response to an I-9 audit request. However, several ICE agents are unaware that the “No-Match” letters specifically state that they are not to be copied and thus may be suspicious of an employer that did not make copies. We have brought this to the attention of individual ICE agents but the subpoena requests for such copies continue. But isn’t copying in violation of SSA’s “no copy” rule? Well, there does not seem to be any SSA penalty for copying the “No-Match” letters and on the ICE side, we have not yet seen any penalties for failing to provide copies of the “No-Match” letters if the employer did not in fact make copies. But then how will the employer prove to ICE that they responded to the “No-Match” letters? Employers and attorneys need to weigh the potential ramifications of the actions if the “No-Match” letter is copied versus if it is not copied as unfortunately there is no correct answer to the question of “to copy or not to copy”.

Another question that stems from this issue is that once copied, how long should an employer retain copies of the “No-Match” letters? There is no SSA retention requirement (which we have confirmed by calls to SSA) because the letters should not even be copied in the first place. How about for purposes of preparing for an I-9 audit by ICE — Should the employer maintain copies of the letters for one year? Three years? Five years? Should the requirement be to retain copies of the letters for as long as required by law to retain the I-9 Form (i.e., 3 years after hire or one year after termination, whichever is later)?

With all of this uncertainty, we recommend that employers, together with their attorneys, determine what should be the best policy for their company and then implement such policy consistently throughout the organization. If the policy is to not make copies, the written policy should be turned over to ICE in response to an I-9 audit request for any and all copies of “No-Match” letters. Given that there is no retention requirement either with SSA or ICE, it is feasible that an employer could shred any “No-Match” letters it has received in the past. But, would this be obstruction of justice? Of course – the answer is yes if such documents are destroyed during the course of a government audit but otherwise, no.

What Are an Employer’s Obligations Upon Receipt of a No-Match Letter?

Now that the “No-Match” letters are being issued again, what are employers required to do with them? Is it okay to terminate the employment of an individual who has received a “No-Match” letter? The “No-Match” letters specifically state the following: “It is not a basis, in and of itself, for you to take any adverse action against the employee, such as laying off, suspending, firing, or discriminating against the individual…Moreover, this letter makes no statement about your employee’s immigration status.” ICE seems to view these “No-Match” letters as notice to employers that an individual may in fact not have valid authorization to work in the United States. In fact, ICE has publically commented that the receipt of these letters gives an employer “knowledge”. However, for years no guidance was ever provided about how employers should address issues of immigration status when a “No-Match” letter was received.

ICE finally addressed this issue in its August 15, 2007 regulations that provided employers with a specific process to follow when they receive a “No-Match” letter, but the regulation was rescinded on October 7, 2009. SSA’s issuance of “No-Match” letters was suspended during this time and resumed just recently in April 2011. So, now what should employers do? ICE has stated at various conferences that although the regulation has been rescinded, the best practice for employers is to create a policy that follows the regulation process (i.e., checking records, contacting employee, etc.) after receipt of an SSA notification. Unfortunately, whether or not an individual possesses valid work authorization may possibly not be resolved within the time period provided in the rescinded regulation (93 days). In fact, the SSA has all but admitted this in the E-Verify context, where they note that tentative nonconfirmations (TNCs) can be put “in continuance” for up to 120 days in order to resolve these same types of discrepancies. The rescinded regulatory process also ends with an employer having to obtain a new I-9 from an employee unable to resolve the name/number discrepancy.

Employers should establish a procedure/policy to address “No-Match” letters at the time they are received by the company. So, does an employer whose policy allows for more time than the proposed regulation risk liability? What are the employer’s obligations for continuing to follow up with the employee? Answers have not been provided by ICE which continues to believe that such an individual may in fact not have valid immigration status. We also have to remember that OSC is involved and termination of the employee may lead to a discrimination charge filed against the employer. Attorneys at OSC have recently commented that if an employer chooses to proceed with a policy similar to the one provided in the regulation, the employer must be careful to provide employees with sufficient time to resolve any discrepancies as the SSA does not always provide “speedy” resolution to issues. So, while the SSA states that a “No-Match” letter is not indicative of an immigration status issue, ICE takes the view that it puts an employer on notice of a potential immigration issue and OSC cautions employers to tread lightly when responding to a “No-Match” letter so as to avoid discrimination.

SSNVS – Useful or Problematic?

Finally, we would like to discuss the Social Security Number Verification Service (SSNVS). This SSNVS allows registered users (i.e., employers) to verify the names and Social Security Numbers of employees against SSA records. The rescinded “No Match” regulation required employers to use the SSNVS as part of the “No-Match” process. Previously, the IMAGE (ICE Mutual Agreement between Government and Employers) program required all participants to sign up for and run all of a company’s employees through the SSNVS verification process. Now, IMAGE merely suggests that employers may use SSNVS as one of its tools
to ensure that its employees are authorized to work in the United States. But, SSA states that an employer may use SSNVS for payroll purposes only, not to determine whether or not an individual is authorized to work in the United States and for either new hires or the entire workforce. OSC has commented that although an employer may use SSNVS, it should do so for new hires only. So, can/should employers run all employees or just new hires thorough SSNVS if they choose to use the verification system? And what happens if there is a discrepancy? Are employers put on notice that an individual may in fact not be authorized to work in the United States? Are employers then in a worse situation by signing up for SSNVS if they cannot do anything with the results? What process must an employer then follow? Is it the same as in the case of when a “No-Match” letter is issued by SSA? Lots of questions, but no real answers because there is no clear consensus amongst the various agencies.


Unfortunately no concrete guidance exists to address the issues raised here today. The Federal government agencies appear to be operating in a vacuum and not communicating with each other in order to provide clear guidance to employers and their counsel. With the increase in Federal worksite compliance audits, attorneys and employers cannot operate in a vacuum either and must consider how one issue affects another in the compliance arena so as not to get burned!

So, kudos to the treason bar. A legitimate issue has been raised. Why are different government agencies deliberately sabotaging immigration enforcement. The DOJ OSC's motivation is obvious, they love illegal aliens and want to sabotage the enforcement process. ICE management has the same attitude, especially given the Bush Administration's abject surrender on No Match regulations. But ICE will not forgo IMAGE and other workplace enforcement techniques, even given how little they are being used now. SSA just doesn't seem to care that it is the key to ending illegal employment in the U.S. It appears that this is a policy of deliberate indifference to the employment of illegal aliens.

The solution is clear, OSC should end its ridiculous campaign against employers seeking to comply with the law and concentrate on employers who discriminate against Americans, legal permanent residents, refugees and asylees. There is a crime wave of employers who use illegal alien labor and non-immigrant labor (H-1 and L-1 visa holders) in preference to American and legal immigrant labor.

Social Security should actively cooperate with ICE and use its data bases to support employers, not threaten them with sanctions if they use a data base to verify the lawful status of a potential or current employee.

And ICE should re-issue its "No-Match" regulations, especially if they are informing employers that while the regulations were withdrawn, they remain the basis for ICE enforcement action.

Saturday, September 24, 2011


And exposed by this blog. As usual, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is deliberately throwing the expensive and time consuming fraud investigations that its Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) office is touting. And someone, cough, cough, David North, should be reading this blog.

Earlier this blog exposed the wasteful and apparently useless fraud investigations that HSI is conducting. They are wasting millions investigating fraudulent universities in the U.S. who are selling admission to post-secondary education to foreigners, mostly Chinese and Indians, then not arresting the illegal aliens students who are enrolled at said universities, such as Tri-Valley University and University of Northern Virginia.

But North has served a purpose, he has brought to attention that Indian journalists have done what the failures at ICE HSI either have not uncovered or were deliberately ignoring; the supposed innocent victims of fraudulent universities were precisely not. They knew what they were getting into, as I predicted, and specifically enrolling in fraudulent universities as the quickest way to obtaining employment authorization.

Varsity Blues Did they make an educated choice?

Indian students who chose Northern Virginia and Tri-Valley to study may have known about institutes’ shoddy pasts

Yogendra Kalavalapalli & Malia Politzer September 14, 2011

Hyderabad/ New Delhi: When US federal authorities raided the University of Northern Virginia (UNVA) in a Washington suburb on 28 July for suspected visa fraud and slapped a notice of intent to withdraw its licence to admit foreigners, its predominantly Indian student community was portrayed in the media as innocent victims of an unscrupulous, profit-pursuing institution. UNVA, 90% of whose 2,400 students were Indians and mainly from Andhra Pradesh, was the second American university with a large concentration of Indian students to be raided this year.

In January, California-based Tri-Valley University (TVU), another unaccredited school where a majority of students were Indians, was raided and shut down by immigration and customs enforcement officials for alleged immigration fraud. Federal officials forced Indian students of TVU to wear radio-tracking devices on their ankles to monitor their movements—a move that raised outrage back home.

Yet, inquiries by Mint show that far from being innocent victims, Indian students may have known what they were letting themselves in for, even if they committed no crime, according to some experts.

Interviews with former UNVA and TVU students, and postings on the Internet and social networking sites and forums, indicate that students may have intentionally selected these universities, preferring schools known to be lax in marking attendance, with extensive online coursework, and questionable use of “curricular practical training”, or CPT, a form of work authorization available in select programmes of study that enabled them to work longer hours in off-campus, part-time jobs.

In UNVA community discussion forums on the social network Orkut, students were more inquisitive about the varsity’s leniency in allowing students to work full-time outside the campus—an activity prohibited on a US student visa.

A closer look at similarities between UNVA and TVU, and additional evidence unearthed during investigations by US newspapers, indicate that rather than being exceptions, such schools may be part of a growing number of unaccredited, for-profit colleges of questionable educational quality that make money from international student demand to work full-time in the US by exploiting loopholes in regulations governing student visa use.

“I don’t think these guys were misled or they didn’t know such kind of stuff,” said Narayanan Ramaswamy, executive director, education services, at KPMG Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd.
“It’s this fascination for US, US education and the peer pressure that it creates that led them to this situation. If somebody is knowledgeable enough to go to foreign universities for studying, they would definitely know how to check the background of an institute and check with multiple people,” he said.

A growing racket?

In the official complaint filed against TVU, the Department of Homeland Security accused Susan Xiao-Ping, the school’s founder, of participating in an “illegal scheme to defraud the United States” by obtaining permission to sponsor and admit foreign students and “fraudelently issuing visa-related documents to aliens in exchange for tuition and fees”.
Additional transgressions included the alleged falsification of student attendance records and transcripts, submitting false information regarding students’ residences, means of support and courses of study.

The Student Exchange Visitor Programe (SEVP) certification of UNVA that was temporarily put on hold on 28 July was, however, restored on 11 August, according to a document posted on the university’s website. UNVA officials did not respond to telephone calls and emails from this newspaper.
Central to the business model of TVU was its apparent misuse of CPT, a form of temporary work authorization issued to F-1 (student) visa holders under certain circumstances.
Such students are permitted to take full-time paid internships, cooperative education, and paid practicum so long as these are an “integral part of an established curriculum and... directly related to the student’s major area of study”.

Students in mainstream universities generally only qualify for CPT after they have completed one full year of study in programmes that require hands-on, for-credit work experience for graduation—such as nursing and medical programmes, teachers’ certification programmes or courses in clinical psychology.

However, many of the students from both TVU and UNVA were using CPT soon after enrolment, according to student interviews and discussions by students on online forums.
One online consulting company, StudyAbroadPlus, advertises a vast array of “paid internships” for various US Master’s programmes in positions with titles such as “retail clerk”, “cashier”, and “retail sales”, at Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Macy’s Inc., RadioShack Corp., Baskin-Robbins and grocery chain FoodForLess among others.

The number posted on the website for StudyAbroadPlus connected to a company that refused to identify itself, and claimed never to have heard of the organization. StudyAbroadPlus did not reply to Mint’s emails.

Two recent investigations published by the Chronicle of Higher Education, a US publication, and the San Jose Chronicle, a Silicon Valley newspaper, identified several other schools across the US that have similar business models to TVU and UNVA. They included Herguan University (the former employer of TVU’s founder, Susan Xiao Ping), and the International Technological University (ITU). In a telephone call from the US, one student said both Herguan University and ITU have since become stringent with their academic process.

Online postings by Tri-Valley students indicate that many students were aware of the situation they were getting into. In fact, many selected the university not for its educational value, but the opportunities for off-campus work. Some students even became recruiters, accepting payment for each new student they brought to the school. On 7 January, days before the swoop by federal authorities on TVU, a person who goes by the handle Guru Guru posted this on an Orkut forum: “University name is Trivalley university, it is located at pleasanton, california. here classes are online so you don’t have to relocate, university offers CPT so you can work legally 40 hrs as full time. they charge only $100 (`4,700) for CPT... you don’t have to worry about the course work, they will give you good grades. By using CPT you can work full time so we will help you in your desired software technology.”

Earn while you learn

Orkut user Vinod Babu, claiming to represent a firm named Lorvin Overseas, tried to entice prospective students in a thread in August 2010.

“As you know that most of the Universities in USA give legal permission of 10-20 working hours per week, so Students looking for part time jobs in gas stations and motels they hardly earn $6 to $7 per hr. But there are few Universities like UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN VIRGINIA which gives legal permission to work 40 hrs a week,” he said. “So that u can work full time in IT firm we can help u in getting Free Admission in the University and job assistance... Earn while you learn.”

Other postings indicate that students were paid $400 for every successful referral made. “hey guyz we get money ($400) if we refer a frnd to this university,” S.K.N. Reddy wrote in a June 2010 posting. “If you guyz who know abt the university and transfering with out any reference jsz keep my name. we can share the money. $100 for me $300 for you,” he wrote.
One consultant, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said only about 100 of the 1,500 Indian students who attended TVU actually secured a visa based on direct admission offers by the univesity. The rest obtained F-1 visas based on I-20 student forms from other, accredited universities, and then transferred.

The drive to enrol in programmes that offer such questionable “work-study” opportunities seems to be particularly strong in Andhra Pradesh, which was recently named a “visa fraud hub” of India by the US Consulate, along with Gujarat and Punjab, according to a WikiLeaks cable released in April to The Hindu. In the cases of both TVU and UNVA, the bulk of the students came from Andhra Pradesh—some 1,500 and 2,000, respectively.

Ashwini, who recently graduated from a university in the US and wants to be identified by only his first name, says the accreditation status of a university isn’t always the top priority for students from Andhra Pradesh.

“Here in the US, it is very different from India. Nobody bothers about your degree here. All they care about is your work experience,” he said over the telephone. “Basically, there is not much difference between a good university and an average university,” he explained. “They (employers) give you the same salary regardless of where you come from, and most people go through consultancies for the same jobs. What is the point in going to big universities and paying such huge fees,” he said.

According to Ashwini, the reason some Indian students opt for universities such as TVU and UNVA was because they can pay their own fees. As few employers check on the accreditation of US institutions, their alumni still manage to find jobs.

And the money quote:

I think it is us (Indians) who are taking advantage of the loopholes in their (US) system,” said Ashwini.

And worst of all, ICE has reinstated UNV and it is currently issuing Form I-20, Certificate of Eligibility for Nonimmigrant (F-1) Student, to international students and authorizing employment. More of the much touted HSI total fail.

Much Ado About Nothing

The war against immigration enforcement continues. No More Deaths, an organization with the explicit mission of ending immigration law enforcement has published a report created by its own interviewers of sad tales of depravity committed against illegal aliens by Border Patrol Agents. The litany of complaints is itself laughable as not returning shoe laces is one of the major concerns reported by illegal aliens. One only has to go to the No More Deaths website and see their graphic of a illegal alien holding a sign "Migra Hands Off Of Our Community." Of course, that needs a comma somewhere, but what do you expect from those with less than a command of English? And, more tellingly, an agenda.

Our findings include the following:
• Border Patrol agents denied food to 2,981 people and gave insufficient food to 11,384 people. Only 20 percent of people in custody for more than two days received a meal.
• Agents denied water to 863 people and gave insufficient access to water to 1,402 additional people. Children were more likely than adults to be denied water or given insufficient water. Many of those denied water by Border Patrol were already suffering from moderate to severe dehydration at the time they were apprehended.

• Physical abuse was reported by 10 percent of interviewees, including teens and children. The longer people were held in custody, the more likely they were to experience physical abuse.

• Of the 433 incidents in which emergency medical treatment or medications were needed, Border Patrol provided access to care in only 59 cases—86 percent were deported without necessary medical treatment.

• The most commonly reported forms of inhumane processing center conditions were overcrowding (5,763 reports), followed by unsanitary conditions (3,107), extreme cold (2,922), and extreme heat (2,349).

• We recorded 2,926 incidents of failure to return personal belongings: 398 cases of failure to return shoes or shoelaces, 211 cases of failure to return money, 201 cases of failure to return identification, 191 cases of failure to return important documents, and 125 cases where no personal belongings were returned at all. People deported without money or key personal belongings are at heightened risk of exploitation and physical harm.

What they don't tell you is that the Border Patrol does not hold aliens for any longer than that time necessary to process an arrest then relocate the arrestee to Mexico. All aliens held more than 24 hours are turned over to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, either for formal removal proceedings or criminal prosecution. Arrestees are sent immediately back to Mexico. There is no need for medical treatment beyond an immediate need. NMDs has a cute photo of an illegal alien's blister on his foot. A blister is of no immediate medical need and can easily be treated in Mexico. There is not much need for food during the few hours aliens are held at Border Patrol Stations. In any event, they do receive snack packs and water. If NMDs had actually done their research, aliens routinely are deported with their food uneaten and in their possession.

All USBP holding cells have water, so this complaint can only be either lies, or the fact that Border Patrol Agents do not carry much water with them while patrolling. Any water an agent carries would quickly be depleted after the arrest of a large group. In that situation, only a few arrestees would get water. But once back at the Border Patrol station, they would get all the water they want. In any event, an alien suffering from advanced heat induced illness would be unable to walk across the border during removal and therefore would remain in custody. Those able to walk to Mexico at the Port-of-Entry would therefore be not suffering from any immediate medical necessity. In any event, once across the border, the Mexican government is responsible for the necessities of daily life and any medical treatment.

A member of the treason bar describes the physical abuses as: " Forms if [sic.] physical abuse reported by interviewees included being punched, kicked, bitten by Border Patrol dogs, pushed down hills or into cacti, and being shoved forcefully against walls or vehicles."

That sounds like an episode of Cops. Such "abuse" is just the routine use of force by any law enforcement officer confronting a resisting arrestee. In fact it is quite amusing to see that being "shoved forcefully" is any serious complaint.

Arrestees also complain of extreme heat and cold. Well, it is the desert. A vehicle transporting prisoners can only run the air conditioner so much before it is overwhelmed by the outside temperature and a vehicle full of bodies giving off heat.

Also of interest is that NMDs is creating fiction using a template from the abuses at Abu Ghraib:

Increasing reports of psychological abuse included threatening detainees with death; depriving them of sleep; keeping vehicles and cells at extremely hot or cold temperatures; playing traumatizing songs about people dying in the desert (migracorridos) loudly and continuously; and forced holding of strenuous or painful positions for no apparent reason other than to humiliate.

Clearly they are taking points from the Al Queda playbook and making up complaints. Stress positions? What a joke. Border Patrol agents are much too busy processing the hundreds of thousands of arrestees to single out individual aliens for such sport.

Migracorridos were played over the loudspeakers 24 hours a day at high volume. Every two hours, guards would come in shouting at the detainees and requiring them to line up for inspection. These measures prevented the detainees from sleeping and Gerardo regarded them as forms of psychological torture. He reported substandard conditions that included inadequate food, overcrowding and excessive cold.

And this is obviously a lie as any one who has been in the detention area of a Border Patrol Station can attest to. There is no manner in which music an be played over any public address system, much less play such music while Border Patrol Agents are working processing the detainees. One must understand that the cells and processing are in the same area. There is no way that any agent would accept such treatment in a work area, nor would they want to listen to migracorridos in any event. It would also result in a workplace complaint from the union and a lawsuit from the same union.

What we have then is a work of fiction or exaggeration. Clearly the illegal aliens and their handlers at NMDs have an agenda, and that is ending enforcement by hook or by crook.

NRO, RINOs, Illegals And Amnesty

National Review has surrendered to the radical left and is slowly adopting the Obama Regime Administrative Amnesty. It all centers around the ratchet effect, abject surrender, and much ignorance on immigration law.

NRO's resident illegal alien Kevin Williamson, while officially claiming to be "agnostic" on the in-state tuition for illegal aliens, Rick Perry's DREAM Act assistance to illegal aliens, in fact is a big supporter of illegal aliens, and always looking for a reason not to enforce immigration laws, or build fences. Perhaps that would keep out too many illegals, like himself.

I’ll have something to say about “binational health insurance” in a bit, but first, college tuition: Under a Supreme Court mandate (Plyler vs. Doe), Texas and every other state is obliged to provide K-12 education for illegal immigrants. What Texas has decided, under Rick Perry, is to treat Texas high-school graduates like Texas high-school graduates for the purposes of calculating college tuition, including those who were brought here illegally by their parents, with a couple of provisos: They have to have been in school in Texas for three years prior to graduating from a Texas high school, and they have to be on their way to becoming legal permanent residents of the United States. About 1 percent of Texas’s college students fit the bill.

Actually, none of them fit the bill. The bill states that the student must make a claim in writing that they are pursing American citizenship, not legal permanent residency. And they satisfy this provision by making a legally binding claim with the State of Texas that they are doing so. However they are not required to provide any evidence that they are pursuing American citizenship. It is not certain why there is this provision, as it is both not enforced in any meaningful way, but it is also impossible for an alien unlawfully present to pursue citizenship, except in one very narrow exception. The alien in question must have fraudulently enlisted in the Armed Forces of the United States, usually by falsely claiming citizenship, then admitted that fraud to the military and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). After that, and the policy of the military is not to court martial the soldier, sailor, Marine, or Coast Guardsman for false statements, but to allow him to remain in the service while USCIS then processes his citizenship application, which is always approved. Quite a number of illegal aliens have obtained citizenship by this ruse.

Otherwise, illegal aliens cannot pursue citizenship. They may under certain circumstances apply for legal permanent residency, but they must have an application on file with USCIS, but under the Texas law, that is not accepted for DREAM Act benefits. What is accepted is the fiction of a claim that they are pursuing citizenship. None are and to repeat the claim that illegal aliens are pursuing citizenship is just a dishonest rationalization.

I’m mostly agnostic on in-state tuition. On the one hand, you want to draw a bright line in the sand regarding illegal immigration; on the other hand, it’s hard to blame the kids for their parents’ wrongdoing, and the fact is that they’re here — some have spent practically their whole lives here — and we have to decide what to do with them. (I was once an illegal immigrant myself, so maybe I’m biased by experience.) In either case, it seems to me a pretty small thing compared to the robust border-security measures that are needed.

Here Williamson is just surrendering. They're here, but not necessarily queer, so just ignore the problem. And he wants "robust" security measures, but not a fence, and does not deal with the magnet of jobs, welfare, and a free education. That is why they come.

Deciding what kind of tuition to charge illegal immigrants who have graduated from high school and who meet the criteria for university admission is a very nice, rich-nation problem to have. (Seriously, you’re pretty well-off when your “problems” include college students.) That being said, in Texas the relevant question isn’t what we charge illegals for tuition, but whether we admit them to state universities at all. That’s because tuition in Texas is modest, even at the flagship universities, covering something on the order of one-fourth of the cost of operating the schools. Tuition and direct state funding together amount to about half, and then there’s the Permanent University Fund: Early in the 20th century, the state of Texas gave the universities a whole bunch of land, which turned out to have a whole bunch of oil on it, and West Texas is full of wells bobbing up and down and pumping grade-A education out of the ground. That, too, helps keep the professors in tweed.

The University of Texas System and the Texas A&M System like having that tuition cash flow — and rely on it, to be sure — but they really use tuition as an expedient tool of enrollment control. It is politically difficult to raise admission standards at public universities, but they can only take so many students. Once you’ve decided to admit an illegal on any terms, you’ve decided not to admit somebody else: The number of university seats is limited, and that is a more binding constraint than raw dollars, of which there are many billions in the Permanent University Fund.

But here we have the crux of Williamson's argument: They're here, so let's do nothing. Then make a silly argument that foreign students here on a student visa, and paying out of state tuition, should also be deported:

I wonder how many of those lambasting Texas for its tuition practices would support banning illegals from the universities full stop — especially after the state has had to pay for a K-12 education for them? And, if so, why stop at illegals? The University of Texas, my alma mater, is home to a very large number of non-U.S. students (here legally), a tenth of the student body or more...

Of course, Williamson does not seem to understand, or more likely care, that illegal aliens, despite age or student status, are still illegal aliens subject to removal. He also conflates university students with children. University students are adults. And illegal aliens are, in fact, prohibited from attending universities in the United States, as are most aliens present legally in the U.S. in non-immigrant status. The law states quite clearly that only certain classes of non-immigrants may legally attend post-secondary educational institutions. In fact the law prohibits aliens, most non-immigrants and all illegal aliens, from attending public primary and secondary educational institutions. Plyer v. Doe only prohibited States from enforcing federal law in their primary and secondary educational institutions by expelling or refusing to enroll illegal aliens. It is clear the illegal alien Williamson thinks that illegal aliens have some immunity from enforcement action once they are here long enough, or attending school, or whatever reason he makes up for nothing to be done.

There may be a reason for that, from the first Bush Administration forward, the legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and now Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have refused to enforce laws against illegal alien minors and have had an ongoing administrative amnesty for illegal aliens attending universities. It is clear that an illegal alien like Williamson is not a rule-of-law conservative, but a RINO. Illegal aliens are his people. But he is clearly dishonest when he hyperbolicly asks if we should prohibit all illegal aliens from attending universities. Well, they cannot attend legally and they are subject to removal. Why not remove them? Why would we keep them around in an illegal status since they can't work when they graduate? Is Williamson arguing for a more formal amnesty? Yeah, obviously, but just can't make it honestly.

Which leads us to the real concern of Williamson, it is the Chipotle Business Model:

...and Texas’s main concern for many years has been keeping those overseas students in Texas post-graduation: Dell and Freescale Semiconductor and Whole Foods have the help-wanted sign out most of the time. Likewise, if you have a student who has graduated from a Texas high school and who has lived for years in Texas, who isn’t going back to Mexico any time soon, and who qualifies for admission to a Texas university — it is not obvious to me that the most intelligent course of action is to make it more difficult for that student to go to college, rather than less.

Aside from his sympathy for his fellow illegals, Williamson's other concern is to be driving down wages by encouraging employers to use illegal alien labor. Now it is clear that Dell and Whole Foods will not be hiring all these illegal aliens that are graduating from UT and Texas A&M. Dell, Whole Foods, and Freescale are more or less technically in compliance with hiring standards, at least they don't openly hire illegal aliens like Chipotle and Chuy's. I am certain they are playing games with H-1Bs and L-1s, but they don't hire DREAMers. It appears that Williamson does not understand that Dell does not hire illegal aliens. Once these illegals graduate, they don't have much opportunity other than cleaning rooms at hotels and working dead end jobs in a restaurant. That is certainly not a productive use of a UT or Texas A&M degree. A degree that they should not be obtaining nor assisted by taxpayers to obtain. And given that Texas admits to universities by the 10% rule rather than absolute standards, those who do enter who are illegal aliens are of low potential anyway. They will contribute little and certainly not in technical fields required by Dell and Freesquare. The illegals who graduate will have useless degrees in Ethic Studies, law, or Mexican-American Studies. Useless when competing with the Chinese, Japanese or Europeans.

And frankly, Texas has no interest in the issue of legal foreign students and how they get hired by Dell or whatever. That is a function of the Federal government. Williamson is either ignorant or dishonest here. Texas doesn't issue green cards or H-1B visas.

If you want to neutralize the magnet that draws illegals to the United States, I think you’d be better off putting handcuffs on a half a dozen Tyson Foods plant managers than worrying about what the Aggies charge their undergrads. That’s my theory, anyway.

Sure, but that ain't happening either, especially given the ongoing Obama Regime Administrative Amnesty. And Williamson knows that. He clearly sympathizes with and supports the Obama Regime on the amnesty, as an amnesty is the logical next step from in-state tuition for illegals, since they need to get legalized to make use of their education.

Another RINO is Christian Schneider who endorses the Obama Regime Administrative Amnesty wholeheartedly:

Kevin covered last night’s Perry-Romney colloquy regarding illegal immigrant tuition well here. A couple of years ago, my organization conducted a poll that showed that 86 percent of Wisconsin residents opposed giving illegal immigrants in-state tuition, and 46 percent disapproved of “illegal immigrant children” attending public schools. Obviously, it makes sense for Romney to make this an issue, since opposing tuition for illegals is about as popular as opposing the guys at the mall who squirt lotion on you when you walk by.

But as Kevin points out, the issue is more nuanced than Perry’s opponents make it out to be. And it doesn’t help that Perry’s “heartless” response was woefully inadequate. (It also doesn’t help that Perry’s reasonable “DREAM Act” shares a name with President Obama’s less reasonable one.) Of course, children of illegal aliens born in America are American citizens, and therefore entitled to whatever tuition their state of residence permits for in-staters. Perry’s law dealt with the children of illegal immigrants who were brought here after their birth, making them just as illegal as their parents.

In most cases (and pursuant to the Plyler case cited by Kevin), these kids are already going to the same high schools as our kids (in the case of Texas, for at least three years of school). They have the same teachers. They play on the same sports teams. They take the same tests, and get the same high-school degree. They are indistinct from any other high-school students. By the time an undocumented child makes it from first grade to graduating high school, taxpayers have already sunk over $100,000 into that child’s education. To pull the plug on those children because of the actions of their parents would be unfair, and would nullify the investment taxpayers have already made in the kid.

Contrast that with a kid who goes to high school in, say, Georgia, then moves to Illinois, lives there for a year, and becomes eligible for in-state tuition. Even if the family of the immigrant had been paying state taxes (sales, property, and even income) for 18 years, the student from another state is granted the full state subsidy after only living there (and likely not attending school) for a year.

Detractors of Perry’s plan would say that such benefits constitute a “magnet” that draw illegals across the border. But the notion that families will risk their lives to cross the border in the hopes that their children will one day be able to pay in-state tuition seems far-fetched. In fact, a far more enticing inducement is simply the fact that if they try to cross the border, they will likely succeed.

Consequently, we should have strict immigration policies that keep people from entering our country illegally. But people who think the federal government is going to start rounding up law-abiding undocumented families and deporting them anytime soon are living in a dream world. (Criminals, on the other hand, should be banished immediately.)

So while they’re here, our state would be better off giving these kids the chance to make our country better, rather than sentencing them to a second-class existence. It’s not their fault.

No clearer explanation of the Obama Regime position could be written. " undocumented families..." Ain't no such thing. They are illegal aliens, both adult and child, and should be removed. To reward them with status is not only amnesty, but certain to attract more. That is the position of the Democrat Party and the Spanish speaking racial grievance industry. RINO to the core. Why have a Stupid Party if they are only going to adopt the positions of the Evil Party?

In fact even Mark Krikorian and Marc Thiesson don't seem to understand the law or why we are in this situation. It is not about insulting voters or compassionate conservatism, it is about Perry having contempt for Americans, the rule of law, and the Constitution, much like Obama. Though one must say that Perry's statement about those who oppose illegal immigration as having no heart is eerily similar to Obama's hateful filled pastor Jeremiah Wright's bitterness for America.

Just as Obama is at odds with the Constitution with his administrative amnesty, as governor, Perry is doing the same thing, illegally and unconstitutionally claiming the right to aid, abet and assist illegal aliens to remain in the United States. There is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the Governor of Texas, or any other governor, or a State legislature to so assist illegal aliens to remain in the United States. Perry's action was quite illegal, in violation of Title 8 of the United States Code, Section 1324 which prohibits assisting illegal aliens to remain, which the Texas DREAM Act did. Its not about insulting Republican primary voters, it is about the Constitution. The State of Texas can no more amnesty illegal aliens than the President can. Both are restrained by both law and the Constitution.