Captain's Quarters -

Even The Gray Lady Notices Attrition Working

The New York Times has a growing reputation as a lagging indicator. Almost six months after the Arizona Republic noticed that a series of tough anti-illegal-immigration state laws had provided an incentive for noticeable attrition by illegal aliens, the Paper of Record has finally reported on the phenomenon. It's like the surge -- only on domestic policy, and it comes at an odd time:

The signs of flight among Latino immigrants here are multiple: Families moving out of apartment complexes, schools reporting enrollment drops, business owners complaining about fewer clients.

While it is too early to know for certain, a consensus is developing among economists, business people and immigration groups that the weakening economy coupled with recent curbs on illegal immigration are steering Hispanic immigrants out of the state.

The Arizona economy, heavily dependent on growth and a Latino work force, has been slowing for months. Meanwhile, the state has enacted one of the country’s toughest laws to punish employers who hire illegal immigrants, and the county sheriff here in Phoenix has been enforcing federal immigration laws by rounding up people living here illegally.

Arizona passed their laws three years ago, but had some obstacles in the courts in implementing them. Now that they have begun enforcement efforts, the results seem clear: enforcement works. They have taken away one of the magnets of illegal immigration, employment, and undocumented workers have found themselves with little reason to remain in the US.

Of course, this being the New York Times, the story has to include how enforcing laws creates pain and hardship. The story focuses on a legal immigrant who has lived in the US for 24 years but who may move to Mexico -- because his wife is here illegally. He has no family in Mexico, so he is at loose ends. No one apparently bothered to ask why he didn't have his wife straighten out her legal status years ago so the problem would have been resolved by now.

Another story gets a strange mention:

Elizabeth Leon, a legal immigrant and day care worker, said the families of two of her charges abruptly left, forcing the state to take custody of the children.

They abandoned their children on the way out of the US? This is supposed to make us sympathetic?

All of this serves as backdrop to the effort yesterday by Democrats to restart the immigration debate in the House. Once again, they want to provide temporary visas to any illegal immigrant that can prove they have a job. "Temporary" in this case means five years, but even that is secondary to the de facto legalization that will take place in the issuance of the visa. It will once again instigate a flood of illegal immigration across the still-unsecured southern border, prompting millions more to apply for the "temporary" visas and legalize their status in the US.

This probably has Democrats thinking they can embarrass John McCain, but it really just provides him an opportunity to shore up some conservative support by opposing it. McCain says he now will do nothing towards any legalization until the border is secured. If he opposes this new effort at amnesty by the Democrats, it will give him a significant argument towards showing he learned his lesson on immigration last year.

Enforcement Works, And Leaves Questions

Oklahoma passed one of the toughest laws on immigration enforcement in the nation, arguable tougher than an Arizona bill that has convinced illegal aliens to leave the state. Oklahoma's "1804" has had the same dramatic impact as its employment enforcement provisions have yet to take effect. Thousands of people have simply left their jobs, leaving some business owners struggling to adjust:

Autumn had arrived in eastern Oklahoma, and workers at the sprawling Greenleaf Nursery were prepping for deadly frosts. They needed to ship plants, erect greenhouses and bunch trees together to protect them against the cold.

But in late October, about 40 employees disappeared from the 600-acre nursery about an hour's drive from Tulsa. "Some went to Texas, some went to Arkansas," nursery President Randy Davis says. "They just left."

Why did the workers, all immigrants, flee? "Those states don't have 1804," Davis says.

In a matter of weeks, "1804" has become part of the Sooner State's lexicon. It refers to House Bill 1804, the Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007, arguably the nation's toughest state law targeting illegal immigrants.

The bill did what the legislature wanted even before the deadlines it imposed. Tens of thousands of people have left Oklahoma, perhaps as many as 25,000 from Tulsa alone. School registration has significantly declined, which constitutes part of the cost savings Oklahoma planned to reap from 1804. No one knows whether they have gone back to their home countries or simply moved to another state, but the presumption is that they have done both.

However, the economic impact has been mixed. The state may be saving some costs in education, health care, and law enforcement, but agriculture and construction businesses have been hard hit by the labor shortage. Oklahoma had almost full employment before 1804, so the seasonal work will be hard to fill when everyone already has full-year employment. Sales are off at retail stores, and the housing market will suffer another hit in a year that already portends dark days for residential real estate.

In order to make up for the labor shortage, these industries will have to raise wages, and therefore prices. Taxpayers may save some money and be able to absorb the inflation, but only if Oklahoma cuts taxes and spending to return the savings to the taxpayers themselves. Otherwise, it's going to get pricey in Oklahoma. One Republican legislator who opposed 1804 says it will be the worst economic event to hit the state since the Dust Bowl, while another says it will eventually show that the net economic impact of illegal immigration to be negative.

The legislature already wants to follow up 1804 with even tougher legislation. This, however, should concern even staunch conservatives. Oklahoma plans a confiscation scheme in which the state takes away property, including real estate, for those who violate the law. We've already seen abuses in confiscation penalties on a federal level, which usually precede a conviction.

At least this shows that proper enforcement of employer sanctions might be enough to resolve most of the issues with illegal immigration, and the more onerous proposals may not be needed. It also shows how difficult the transition could be for the entire nation as the process of purging illegal immigrants from our economy slowly proceeds.

Self-Deportation A Reality

While Congress tried to offer more and more legislation for immigration reform, a number of people wondered why the government didn't try harder to enforce the laws already on the books. Many suggested that employer enforcement would remove the incentives for illegal immigration and illegals would just return home. Reuters now reports that those predictions have proven accurate already (via Power Line):

The couple are among a growing number of illegal immigrants across the United States who are starting to pack their bags and move on as a crackdown on undocumented immigrants widens and the U.S. economy slows, turning a traditional Christmas trek home into a one-way trip. ...

The toughening environment has been coupled with a turndown in the U.S. economy, which has tipped the balance toward self deportation for many illegal immigrants left struggling to find work.

Remember the concern over anchor babies, those children born in the US who have American citizenship despite the illegal status of their parents? It turns out that no one wants to split families. The Mexican government reports a "spike" in requests for Mexican citizenship for children born in the US, so that they can attend Mexican schools instead. Requests to bring household items duty-free across the border have also increased, indicating that those returning have little desire to cross back into the US.

As it turns out, the declining dollar has provided even more incentive for the illegals to self-deport. The value of the money they sent back home has dropped, and combined with the perceived economic stagnation here in the US and the much tougher enforcement environment, the risk outweighs the potential gain. The economy grew at an annual rate of 4.9% in the last quarter, but perceptions in this case is reality.

Some have just decided to move elsewhere in the US from hostile states like Arizona. Reuters suggests that some may even come to Minnesota. If they come this week, they won't stay long; we're already having the coldest winter in at least 10 years. They may try California instead, just in time to see government go bankrupt and precipitate another push to shut illegals out from public services.

Tough enforcement of existing law can solve much of the problem; as long as we secure the border, we can then focus on a much smaller problem.

Honey, We Shrunk The Fence

Congress has apparently misinterpreted the call to shrink the federal government. While our Representatives and Senators have included over 9,000 earmarks in the omnibus spending bill under consideration today, and while they continue to add more and more federal spending, they have shrunk the border fence passed by the 109th Congress last year. It removes the requirements for specific construction and location, leaving the project in limbo (via Michelle Malkin and Memeorandum):

Congress last night passed a giant new spending bill that undermines current plans for a U.S.-Mexico border fence, allowing the Homeland Security Department to build a single-tier barrier rather than the two-tier version that has worked in California.

The spending bill, written by Democrats and passed 253-154 with mostly their votes, surrenders to President Bush's budget demands, meeting his spending limit with a $515 billion bill to fund most of the federal government and setting up votes to pay for the Iraq war. But Democrats reached his goal in part by slashing his defense and foreign-aid priorities to pay for added domestic spending.

The concessions promise to end a months-long budget standoff before Congress adjourns for the year and takes a Christmas break scheduled to start by Friday. In a rare two-step maneuver, the House first voted 253-154 to approve the bill to fund most of the civilian Cabinet agencies, and then voted 206-201 to add about $30 billion for Afghanistan war-spending to the measure. ...

The 2006 Secure Fence Act specifically called for "two layers of reinforced fencing" and listed five specific sections of border where it should be installed. The new spending bill removes the two-tier requirement and the list of locations.

This mostly came from the Democrats, although Kay Bailey Hutchison also contributed. She responded to landowners in Texas who resent the installation of the fence as an intrusion on their land. Her spokesperson also insinuated that Hutchison knows better than Duncan Hunter as to what will secure a Texas border, even though Hunter has shown how effective the double-barrier fence has been in San Diego.

Mostly, though, robbing the border fence allows the Democrats to pay back the White House for playing hardball on the budget. They resented his scolding over the budget-busting proposal the Democrats prepared earlier this month, and House Appropriations chair David Obey threatened to defund the administration's priorities -- as well as all of the earmarks. When Republican leadership mostly called his bluff (mostly) on the latter, Obey instead went after the fence.

It may make Democrats feel better, but they just handed the Republicans a very large bat for the 2008 Congressional elections. Polls have repeatedly shown that the electorate overwhelmingly wants the southern border secured. By deliberately undermining that process, the Democrats put a number of the seats they won in 2006 in primarily center-right districts at further risk. People were frustrated enough when all the 109th could do on immigration was pass that fence bill -- and they're not likely to respond well when the 110th's only action is to reverse course.

Spitzer's License Plan Runs Off The Road

New York Governor Eliot Spitzer has decided to withdraw his plan to offer drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. The decision comes too late for both his approval ratings and Hillary Clinton, who both defended and distanced herself from the plan within a two-minute span during the last Democratic presidential debate:

Gov. Eliot Spitzer is abandoning his plan to issue driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, saying that opposition is just too overwhelming to move forward with such a policy.

The governor, who is to announce the move formally on Wednesday, said in an interview Tuesday night that he did not reach the decision easily.

“You have perhaps seen me struggle with it because I thought we had a principled decision, and it’s not necessarily easy to back away from trying to move a debate forward,” he said.

But he came to believe the proposal would ultimately be blocked, he said, either by legal challenges, a vote by the Legislature to deny financing for the Department of Motor Vehicles or a refusal by upstate county clerks to carry it out.

“I am not willing to fight to the bitter end on something that will not ultimately be implemented,” the governor said, “and we also have an enormous agenda on other issues of great importance to New York State that was being stymied by the constant and almost singular focus on this issue.”

The issue has not received singular focus. New Yorkers have still debated Spitzer's staff's use of the state police to target political opponents. Since his election last November, Spitzer has provided his constituents with plenty of debating points.

It didn't help that Spitzer went off half-cocked on this proposal from the beginning. When he first announced his plan to issue licenses to illegal aliens, he hadn't bothered to consult with legislators from his party or even his DMV. When the state erupted with anger about diluting the value of their primary identification document, Spitzer abruptly modified his proposal to create three classes of license -- multiplying the costs of management and complicating enforcement. Two weeks later, he has to admit defeat.

Of course, Hillary Clinton has already gone on record supporting this proposal. Spitzer's retreat leaves her all alone on the front line of this battle. Spitzer tried to offer a last, desperate assist to Hillary by claiming that the debate had not been based on "thoughtful discourse", but in fact Chris Dodd had asked the question that neither Hillary nor Spitzer could answer in anything other than sound bites. If driving is a privilege, then why give licenses to people in the country illegally? Why give any government ID to people who do not legally belong in the US?

Neither Spitzer nor Hillary have any "thoughtful discourse" to explain that. No one has a right to drive; laws in every state make that perfectly clear. It's a privilege that one earns by passing a test, and maintains by obeying the laws and not being a menace to other drivers. People who have broken the law too often have the privilege withdrawn, such as with chronic DUI cases. They might still drive, but they don't have a license. Does the fact that they still drive -- the argument used by both Spitzer and Hillary -- mean the state should issue them licenses anyway? Of course not!

Spitzer could not bring himself to admit that he bombed, both substantively and procedurally, with his three-tier license plan. Hillary will almost assuredly issue the same kind of "You don't understand my genius" post-mortem on this plan. Neither will recover what they have lost in this debate as long as they refuse to acknowledge their basic error in supporting a plan to provide government documents to illegal immigrants.

A SAVE On Immigration?

A new proposal on border security and immigration control via employer sanctions has begun to make the rounds on Capitol Hill. Brian Bilbray (R-CA) and Heath Shuler (D-NC) have sponsored the SAVE Act, which would mandate operational control of the border and secure ID verification at employment as a strategy to curtail illegal immigration. They have won sponsors as diverse as Duncan Hunter and John Murtha, and the pair hopes to gain the attention of House leadership:

Two ardent proponents of border security are teaming up to introduce a bipartisan bill aimed at curtailing illegal immigration through employer sanctions.

Reps. Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), who were both elected after strongly criticizing President Bush’s approach to immigration reform, are unveiling a bill Tuesday that has already attracted the support of dozens of members. ...

The Secure America with Verification and Enforcement (SAVE) Act focuses on three areas: employment enforcement, interior enforcement and increased border security.

One of the more controversial provisions would make the so-called E-Verify program mandatory, a move that raises major concerns with industry officials.

Proponents of the E-Verify program say it allows employers an inexpensive way to ensure they are hiring legally documented workers. They maintain that the program has been successful, but is only being used by a small percentage of employers.

The mandate for e-Verify use will create some hurdles on the Republican side of the House. Business lobbyists have fought the requirement for employers to check each new hire against the Social Security database, claiming higher costs and inaccurate results. Immigration-control advocates point out that current methods of verification also have mandates (the I-9 requirement), and are also prone to error, more so than e-Verify.

SAVE does more than issue employer mandates. It adds another 8,000 Border Patrol agents, and it expands the investigative power of the ICE. SAVE would also mitigate data-sharing obstacles between the DHS, IRS, and the Social Security Administration. Those features may generate opposition not just from business interests but also from civil libertarians, depending on the nature and use of the data-sharing envisioned by SAVE's creators.

The latest bipartisan proposal is also noteworthy for what it does not include. SAVE says nothing about guest worker programs or normalization. It also doesn't propose any changes to the legal immigration process to make it easier for legal immigrants to enter the country. SAVE moves away from the comprehensive approach to immigration reform by addressing the critical issues first, and leaving the other components of comprehensive reform for another debate at another time.

Bilbray and Shuler have the right idea. Instead of ramming this through Congress without debate or study as the Senate attempted earlier this year, the House can prove itself the more contemplative body on this topic with a responsible legislative process. That will give Bilbray, Shuler, and their co-sponsors an opportunity to refine the bill and make its case to their colleagues and an American public that has waited for six years after 9/11 for Congress to take national security a little more seriously.

DREAM Act: 'Nightmare' UPDATE: DREAM Is Dead ... Again

Fred Thompson has jumped into the DREAM Act debate occuring as I write in the US Senate. Thompson, who just published his plan for immigration reform this week, calls the Dick Durbin-sponsored act a "nightmare" that will constitute a back-door amnesty. He urges its defeat:

After several false starts Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) continues to push the DREAM Act. What is the DREAM Act? A nightmare.

The act would allow any illegal immigrant who entered the country before the age of 16 to receive conditional residency, which could then be converted to a non-conditional residency. These illegal immigrants can apply for this form of amnesty so long as they are under 30 and they weren’t older than 16 when they came to the country. And, of course, there is no way of proving when they illegally entered our country. After all, they are undocumented. Aliens would qualify even if they received and ignored a removal order if that order was received before they were 16.

Essentially, the DREAM Act puts some illegal aliens in a better position for residency than legal aliens who have played by the rules.

In addition to this stealth amnesty, the DREAM Act, would repeal a portion of the 1996 federal immigration law that prohibits any state from offering in-state college tuition rates to illegal aliens unless the state also offers in-state tuition to all U.S. citizens. Thus, if the DREAM Act passes, any state could offer such a break to qualifying illegal aliens.

The Senate debate essentially is covering the same ground. Jeff Sessions, who opposed the comprehensive immigration reform proposed earlier this year, has just objected to granting amnesty to 1.3 million people as a consequence of the DREAM Act. Arlen Spector, who supported the reform bill this summer, objected to offering this piece of comprehensive reform outside of a bill that would also include enforcement and visa reform. Jim DeMint has just made essentially the same argument.

Dick Durbin, on the other hand, says "we're talking about children!" He's avoiding the issue that created the objections in the first place. The DREAM Act uses children as a means to grant amnesty to the entire families involved. He's holding up poster-sized pictures of college students. He tells the Senate that DREAM Act opponents will bear "the mark of Cain" for opposing educational subsidies for the children of illegal aliens that moves them ahead of legal immigrants and US citizens.

"The mark of Cain"? He thinks that opponents of DREAM Act are murderers? That's demagoguery at its worst.

UPDATE: King Banaian can't believe that students at his school haven't figured out that the DREAM Act means higher tuition for themselves. I think more of them need to take his economics classes.

UPDATE II, 11:50 AM CT: The measure has failed to achieve cloture, as a handful of Democrats join most of the Republicans in voting against the DREAM Act. Durbin fell short of the votes needed to proceed to a floor vote. Spector cast the 41st vote against cloture.

UPDATE III: Final vote is 52-44 for cloture, falling eight votes short.

Tone Deaf At The Border

The Department of Homeland Security has received loud criticism from border-security advocates for its snail's pace at building the wall on the southern border authorized in 2006 by Congress. Now it faces another round of criticism for the building materials the DHS bought for its construction. Instead of American steel for the reinforced border fencing, DHS imported it from China:

House members allied with the domestic steel industry blasted the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on Thursday for building a fence on the Mexican border with Chinese steel.

“By allowing the use of Chinese pipe [a type of steel], DHS is allowing the U.S. taxpayer to subsidize Chinese production at the expense of the American workers,” Rep. Phil English (R-Pa.) said at a press conference. “This is completely unacceptable.”

“This is outrageous, it’s offensive and it’s unacceptable,” charged Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.).

English displayed photos of a portion of the border fence from San Luis, Ariz., that shows pipes marked “China” holding the border fence in place. He said DHS’s Office of Congressional Affairs had indicated it had waived the so-called Buy American rules in order to use the Chinese pipe and tube. The rules normally require the use of U.S. steel in such projects.

How dumb can DHS be? This is a high-profile project with politicians crawling all over it. Duncan Hunter has practically set up his presidential campaign there, and besides the border, which issue has he highlighted in his campaign? Unfair trade with China. Did they think that this would simply go unnoticed?

Hunter didn't remain quiet after this came out. He noted that the DHS had $800 million in cash, and didn't have to go bargain-hunting for steel. Fortunately, Hunter noted, the DHS has only build five miles of the barrier in a year, so they have plenty of time to get refunds and start buying American. At that rate, American steelworkers will have 160 years of work supplying DHS on this project!

Normally, I prefer a free-market approach and think the government should get the best deal, just like any other consumer. However, if we're going to build a border barrier, having a "Made in China" label on it sends a curious message. National-security efforts should involve Americans to the greatest degree possible, and the DHS should have bought American in this case.

Judge Bars Government From Discovering Social Security Fraud

It's hard to imagine what Judge Charles R. Breyer had in mind when he issued a ruling that prevents the government from detecting identity fraud, but clearly it wasn't the law or the interests of the American community. The federal judge in Northern California issued an injunction against the issuance of "no-match" letters that inform employers of potential fraudulent employees, halting enforcement of employer sanctions for hiring illegal workers:

A federal judge barred the Bush administration today from launching a planned crackdown on U.S. firms that hire illegal immigrants, warning of the plan's potentially "staggering" impact on law-abiding workers and companies.

Issuing a firm rebuke of the White House, U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer of San Francisco granted a preliminary injunction against the government's plan to pressure employers to fire up to 8.7 million workers with suspect Social Security numbers starting this fall. ...

Breyer said the plaintiffs, an unusual coalition that included the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO and the American Civil Liberties Union, had raised such serious questions about the plan to mail Social Security "no-match" letters to 140,000 U.S. employers that it should be blocked from proceeding.

"There can be no doubt that the effects of the rule's implementation will be severe," Breyer wrote, resulting in "irreparable harm to innocent workers and employers."

The government letters were intended to warn employers that they must resolve questions about their employees' identities or fire them within 90 days. If they did not, employers could face "stiff penalties," including fines and even criminal prosecutions for violating a federal law that bars knowingly employing illegal workers, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said in announcing the plan Aug. 10.

So let's get this straight. Employers have a requirement to get Social Security information so that they can verify employment eligibility. When they attempt to verify the employee and the Social Security administration determines that the number is invalid, what is the government going to do? Ignore it, even though it's really identity fraud?

If the government insists on setting up SSNs as employment requirements, then the government has to protect the integrity of their use. If someone steals my SSN in order to defraud an employer, they will eventually use it to establish credit and damage my economic standing. At the least, it renders the entire system suspect. The government has a legal obligation to protect people that they force into this database.

Interestingly, Breyer based his ruling at least in part on the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, which forbids agency enforcement of law without careful consideration of the cost to small businesses. That act makes good sense when discussing issues that don't intrude on national sovereignty, national security, and fraud. The requirement for employers to provide reverification within 90 days of finding out that an employee either made a mistake or lied about their SSN does not seem overly burdensome, and the nation and its people have what should be an overwhelming interest in border enforcement and protection against identity theft. Most people would understand this, but apparently not Breyer nor the Chamber of Commerce, which joined in the challenge to the process.

I'd expect the appellate court to overrule this, but we're talking about the 9th Circuit. We'll have to wait for this to go to the Supreme Court for any reversal.

Why We Need The Fence, Once Again

In a war on terror where our enemies seek to infiltrate their way into our nation, why has Congress and the Bush administration failed to secure the border? The 9/11 Commission pointed out the problem three years ago, and despite two decades of promises, we have done little to resolve it. Texas's homeland-security chief confirmed yesterday that the lax controls have allowed terrorists to enter through the southern border (via The Corner):

Texas' top homeland security official said Wednesday that terrorists with ties to Hezbollah, Hamas and al-Qaida have been arrested crossing the Texas border with Mexico in recent years.

"Has there ever been anyone linked to terrorism arrested?" Texas Homeland Security Director Steve McCraw said in a speech to the North Texas Crime Commission. "Yes, there was."

His remarks appear to be among the most specific on the topic of terrorism arrests along the Texas-Mexico border. Local and elected officials have alluded to this happening but have been short on details.

Reasonable men and women can disagree on what to do with the illegal aliens already here in the country. Most agree, though, that our borders and visa-management system remain stuck in a 9/10 mentality -- and that we have allowed ourselves to remain unecessarily vulnerable to our enemies in the war on terror. We have known of this vulnerability for far too long, and our political class and both parties have failed the nation in resolving it.

And one of these days, we will pay a terrible price for it.

Where's the fence? Where is the visa-management system that was due over two years ago? Where are Congress and the White House, Democrats and Republicans? Who is minding the store?

Migrants Self-Deporting In Arizona

Yesterday's Arizona Republic reported on an interesting phenomenon taking place as a new workplace identification law approaches implementation. Those workers with no documentation -- in other words, illegal aliens -- have begun to sell off their property and leave the state:

Undocumented immigrants are starting to leave Arizona because of the new employer-sanctions law.

The state's strong economy has been a magnet for illegal immigrants for years. But a growing number are pulling up stakes out of fear they will be jobless come Jan. 1, when the law takes effect. The departures are drawing cheers from immigration hard-liners and alarm from business owners already seeing a drop in sales.

It's impossible to count how many undocumented immigrants have fled because of the new law. But based on interviews with undocumented immigrants, immigrant advocates, community leaders and real-estate agents, at least several hundred have left since Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano signed the bill on July 2. There are an estimated 500,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona.

Some are moving to other states, where they think they will have an easier time getting jobs. Others are returning to Mexico, selling their effects and putting their houses on the market.

The number departing is expected to mushroom as the Jan. 1 deadline draws closer. After that, the law will require employers to verify the employment eligibility of their workers through a federal database.

The immigration hard-liners appear to have proven one of their main arguments. Illegal immigrants who face a loss of employment due to strict employer sanctions will move elsewhere, and rather quickly. One talk-radio host that caters to what the Republic calls "undocumented immigrants" estimates that the departure rate has already hit 100 per day. It will likely increase until most of them depart before the end of the year, when their jobs will disappear.

Arizona passed employer sanctions with a particular bite. Rather than set up an escalating series of fines, which has been the federal approach, the state opted to put employers out of business. A first offense gets a ten-day suspension of the firm's business license, which would close the doors during that period. A subsequent offense revokes the business license permanently. Needless to say, that has provided an incentive to business owners to start checking identities through the federal database and terminating anyone who doesn't clear the system.

The Arizona Chamber of Commerce heads a coalition that wants the law repealed based on a Constitutional challenge, but it's hard to see how they can succeed. The state can impose sanctions on business licenses it issues, and it can insist that employers check for worker eligibility. The real issue for the ACC is labor shortages. The state currently has an unemployment rate of 3.7%, statistically full employment. Arizona employers will have to raise wages to compete for workers, which will cost consumers more but allow for more money in the market as well. It also might prompt business to push for automation where possible, using technology to fill the gaps.

However, the state does have around 9% of its workforce comprised by illegals. They rent houses and apartments, shop for food, and consume just like anyone else does in Arizona. When they disappear, the state will undoubtedly suffer a hit to the economy, especially in housing, which could depress real-estate values in some areas. Some of the immigrants own houses, and they have to sell them fast, which has glutted the resale market in the state. Secondary markets like furniture and home improvement have slowed considerably in Arizona, too.

Proponents of federalism often refer to states as laboratories for political experiments. Arizona's efforts on employer sanctions will prove an interesting test case for employer-based immigration sanctions.

Maybe The Bill Had Something To Do With It

The Project for Excellence in Journalism conducted a study to determine why the immigration-reform bill died on the floor of the Senate -- and readers can guess who gets the credit and the blame. Their exhaustive study, apparently completed and published in six weeks, claims that conservative talk radio set off a frenzied mob by using the word "amnesty":

Opposition from key talk radio and cable TV hosts helped kill the immigration bill in Congress, a study out today concludes.

“What listeners of the conservative talk radio media were hearing, in large part, was that the legislation itself was little more than an ‘amnesty bill’ for illegal immigrants, a phrase loaded with political baggage,” it says.

The study by the nonpartisan Project for Excellence in Journalism quantifies what White House and Capitol Hill phone lines and e-mail inboxes already indicated: Talk radio focused on the immigration debate more intensely than the mainstream media did from April to June.

Conservative hosts touched off a brushfire in the Republican base that President Bush and other party leaders were helpless to contain.

The study concluded that talk-radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Michael Savage devoted 16% of their second-quarter airtime to immigration. Liberal talk-show hosts only devoted 5% to the topic. Using this calculation, the study concludes that the talk-radio shows overpowered liberals who supported the bill, and therefore foiled passage of the bill.

Well, maybe. However, this sounds like the study's authors confuse correlation with causation. They don't study how all of this chatter actually affected the Senate vote. We assume it did -- on that much we can agree -- but that's all this study does as well. No one studied the use of the word "amnesty", either. Did that really affect listener comprehension of the bill, and was it fair or unfair to use it when describing the bill?

The authors also fail to consider that the bill was just a poorly-written piece of legislation. Its sponsors and Harry Reid did whatever they could to jam it down the Senate's throat quickly enough to avoid scrutiny and to keep any amendments that could actually fix its myriad issues from succeeding. That backroom process angered many voters on its own, as well as a good percentage of the Senators who had to vote on it. Talk radio didn't have much to do with any of that.

Liberals weren't thrilled with this bill, either. People on both sides of the divide opposed it, although the most passionate were the conservatives. And some center-right talk-show hosts didn't oppose the bill, at least not outright, Hugh Hewitt among them. Some of the talk-show hosts wanted to work in some amendments that would make the bill palatable.

Why didn't they catch that? Their sample only included two conservative talk shows per day. They only tracked Rush Limbaugh every day, and then alternated between Sean Hannity and Michael Savage. For liberal talk radio, their sample was even smaller; they sampled one show per day, alternating between Ed Schultz and Randi Rhodes. The rest of their radio study consisted of ABC's headline service and NPR.

This study reminds me of CBS polling. It fails at the sample, and then draws a lot of unsupported conclusions.

Elvira Arellano Deported

The government acted quickly to deport illegal alien-cum-immigration activist Elvira Arellano after her arrest yesterday. Within hours of her capture, after years of defying the order for her second deportation, American officials deported her to Tijuana. Supporters expressed outrage over her quick ejection:

Elvira Arellano was arrested Sunday afternoon outside Our Lady Queen of Angels church in Los Angeles. She was deported several hours later, said the Rev. Walter Coleman, pastor of Adalberto United Methodist Church in Chicago, where Arellano had taken refuge.

"She has been deported. She is free and in Tijuana," said Coleman, who said he spoke to her on the phone. "She is in good spirits. She is ready to continue the struggle against the separation of families from the other side of the border." ...

Arellano, 32, became a symbol of the struggles of illegal immigrant parents when she took refuge in the church to avoid being separated from her 8-year-old son Saul, who was born in the U.S. and is thus a citizen.

Arellano's odyssey began with her illegal entry into the US in 1997. Sho got deported for illegal entry, but then came back across the border illegally again and wound up working at Chicago's O'Hare International, cleaning planes. Unfortunately for Arellano, when she got the job, she committed Social Security fraud and got caught in 2002.

Arellano got prosecuted for her second illegal entry, but the immigration service did not detain her. Instead, Arellano got to remain free under the previous catch-and-release program. She was ordered to report back to authorities last summer, but instead took refuge in a Chicago church and refused to come out.

So did the government storm the church in an Elian Gonzalez-style raid, facing her down with automatic rifles, and drag her out of the place of worship? Not exactly. Arellano decided to drive to Los Angeles to take part in a planned protest against immigration policy. Authorities found out about it and arrested the fugitive, and immediately executed the deportation order, as required by law.

Naturally, to the protestors, this was the fault of the government. "How dare they arrest this woman?" one asked, apparently astonished that law enforcement actually takes their jobs seriously. I'd say the question should be more along the lines of why it took so long to arrest her. No one questions her illegal entry; no one questions her commission of Social Security fraud. Apparently the activists simply want the government to ignore the law as much as they do.

Well, one can hardly blame them. For years, the government did exactly that. However, when Arellano made it as obvious as she did, they had to expect some kind of reaction. Perhaps this means that the government has decided to take immigration enforcement a little more seriously, but we'll have to see whether that just applies to those who publicly thumb their noses at ICE or whether it applies to everyone who breaks the law.

The Raid Hotline In Southern California

Illegal immigrants are mad as hell, and they're not going to take it any more. Claiming that the government "terrorizes" illegal by arresting them, activists have set up a hotline in my old stomping grounds of Orange County, California to tip off illegals when and where the ICE will conduct raids on employers (h/t CQ reader Stoo):

Responding to a refusal by city leaders to declare the city a sanctuary for illegal immigrants, more than a dozen people gathered outside City Hall on Monday night to denounce recent immigration raids, accusing federal officials of "terrorizing" immigrant communities and breaking up families.

A coalition of local immigrant rights groups, including the Orange County Alliance for Immigrants Rights and the Front Against the Raids, announced a planned program to create a hot line that will notify people where and when immigration raids will take place. The program would also coordinate a support system for the families of deportee targets.

"We want to have a more organized effort to counter these attacks," said Jaime Conteras, a 20-year-old Filipino immigrant who now lives in Santa Ana. "We cannot let people trample on our rights."

During five days of raids in June, 175 people in Orange County were arrested on suspected immigration violations. The raids arrested 27 suspected criminals, including a man wanted for murder and a convicted child molester. Santa Ana was one of the targeted cities.

Out of 175 suspected illegals, a seventh of them turned out to be wanted on other criminal charges, including murder and child molestation. And this is bad ... how?

Conteras needs a little more instruction on what constitutes rights. People who enter the country illegally have the right to due process on deportation, but they do not have the right to not be arrested for breaking the law. People who break the law get arrested when and where they are found, and it is not "terrorism" to arrest them at home, despite what immigration "activist" Khang Tran believes. If parents want to protect their "small children" from feeling fear, they should not come into the country illegally.

Now these same activists want to warn people of impending raids by setting up a hotline and trolling for tips. That should constitute interference with law enforcement, but the Orange County Register -- which helpfully includes the phone number -- doesn't mention that in its report. If someone set up a hotline to tip off criminals about an ATF or DEA raid, you can bet your bottom dollar that it would get the attention of the local US Attorney lickety-split -- and this should be no different.

UPDATE: Of course, Michelle wrote about this yesterday! Be sure to read her excellent post.

Border Security Finally Gets Addressed (Update: 89-1 Approved)

The Senate finally decided to listen to their constituents and allocate funds for increased border security and visa tracking today, after an overnight compromise between Democrats and Republicans. The agreement puts the White House in a bind, as President Bush had already threatened to veto the homeland security bill for spending too much money:

Senate Democrats and Republicans came together Thursday to devote an additional $3 billion to gaining control over the U.S.-Mexico border, putting Congress on a path to override President Bush's promised veto of a $38 billion homeland security funding bill.

The deal resurrects a GOP plan launched Wednesday to pass some of the most popular elements of Bush's failed immigration bill, including money for additional Border Patrol agents and fencing along the southern border. ...

Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, resolved their differences overnight and announced agreement Thursday morning. Cornyn won a promise to have some of the money used to go after immigrants who had entered the United States legally but had overstayed their visas.

Yesterday, an amendment offered by Lindsey Graham on this very basis got rejected by the Democrats as non-germane to the underlying bill on a party-line vote. The Democrats apparently reconsidered overnight, after Harry Reid admitted that he misunderstood the thrust of the amendment. The Senate just voted on this amendment again, and it passed, although several Senators missed the vote and afterwards demanded recognition that they would have voted in its support.

This will put Bush in a tough position. He wanted to veto the bill on the basis of overspending, an action that would help assist the GOP on fiscal responsibility. Now, however, the Republican caucus would likely override a veto to ensure that the border-control funds get approved and the border fence extended. It kicks out a key piece of leverage out from under the White House on a pork-laden bill that probably should get reconsidered.

The amendment does move towards better border security and visa management, even it is just a start on both. It funds more fully the efforts approved in the last Congress, but it does more than that. It gives Congress an opportunity to build trust with the American public by actually securing the borders and plugging the obvious holes in our visa management systems. If Congress can deliver on their promises in those two areas, we can once again revisit the question of what we do with the existing illegals after we've blocked entry for any more illegal entries. It could put real reform on the plate for a future session of Congress -- assuming that the executive branch follows suit and fulfills the requirements now funded by Congress.

In all likelihood, the administration will probably wait for a more propitious opportunity to utilize a veto. The Democratic Congress will undoubtedly provide more such opportunities on future appropriations bills. Let's get started on real border security now.

UPDATE: The Graham amendment passed 89-1. The lone holdout? George Voinovich, R-OH. Ten Senators did not vote, including Norm Coleman for obvious reasons, but also presidential contenders John McCain and Barack Obama. Kent Conrad and Ron Wyden were the two Senators who complained that they did not get the opportunity to vote in support of the amendment.

Border security looks a lot more bipartisan than it did two months ago, doesn't it?