Las Vegas Review-Journal "reporter" Molly Ball offers "no woman is illegal" with "Obama rocks Vegas faithful/Candidate charms voters at union hall, school gym". In one of his statements, Barack Obama appears to have dissembled about the U.S. Constitution:

Obama took questions from the audience for more than half an hour. One person wanted to know what he would do about "anchor babies," the term for children of illegal immigrants who are automatically made citizens because they are born on U.S. soil and then serve as "anchors" for their families… He outlined his position on immigration, essentially the same as the bill that passed the Senate and died in the House last year that would beef up border security while providing avenues for existing illegal immigrants to get legal… But, he said, "I'm not going to change the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution says if you're born here, you're a citizen."

Well, not exactly. The fact that the children of illegal aliens are granted U.S. citizenship is an artifact of the way that the 14th Amendment has been interpreted. In fact, the original author of that clause didn't intend it to apply to "foreigners". I guess BHO was just in a rush to give his next stock speech and didn't have time to make such a fine point.

It's worth noting that he did take questions at this appearance, and if people would go to his appearances and ask tough, specific questions that he would have trouble answering - and then promoted his response - it would do a world of good for not just the presidential race but it might also shame the MSM into doing real reporting.

The Public Policy Institute of California recently released a study [1] claiming that immigration has raised wages for native-born workers (even if it might lower wages for previous immigrants). Put in context, this study - or at least the reaction to it - appears to be an attempt by some to push for "comprehensive immigration reform", aka a massive amnesty. [2] These promoters will concentrate on the study and refuse to acknowledge that there are non-economic factors that need to be considered, and that those factors are far more important than purely fiscal matters.

As an attempt to underline that, I sent an email to the author of the study, Giovanni Peri of UC Davis, asking him to answer some questions [3]. To his credit, he replied quickly and honestly. And, he did so with the expected answers, and ones that those who attempt to use this study to springboard to amnesty would do well to understand:

You are asking me to comment on things that I have no authority or specific knowledge of. I am an economist and do research, look at data and use the most advanced methods to address issues concerning immigration and the labor market. The report tries to make some of these results less technical and available to a broader public.

Illegal immigration is a very relevant problem that involves many different aspects. I hope informed policy makers will analyze it carefully and propose a solution. I am completely unqualified to discuss issues of corruption and interactions between the US and Mexican government.

Bolding added. Are those "policy makers" going to analyze everything involved in this issue, or are they simply going to wave this and similar studies around and use them to push the U.S. into something that will have disastrous consequences? Based on past events, the latter will probably be the case. When you see someone touting this study, point out that there are many other facets of this issue, and all of them need to be weighed when determining the best course of action.

[1] "Principal findings": (link)

1) There is no evidence that the influx of immigrants over the past four decades has worsened the employment opportunities of natives with similar education and experience, 2) There is no association between the influx of immigrants and the out-migration of natives within the same education and age group, 3) Immigration induced a 4 percent real wage increase for the average native worker between 1990 and 2004, 4) Recent immigrants did lower the wages of previous immigrants.

[2] Juliana Barbassa of the Associated Press offers "Immigration seen as boon to natives:Influx helps create jobs, study says":

The flow of immigrants into California has helped increase wages and job opportunities for native-born workers, said a study released Tuesday that challenges the long-held belief that newcomers take jobs from Americans… Immigrants don't compete directly with native workers for jobs, but tend to bring different skills to the workplace, said the Public Policy Institute of California report. This allows native workers with the same education level to take more specialized, better paying jobs… The report comes as lawmakers continue to debate immigration reform…

Susan Ferriss of McClatchy Newspapers offers "Study finds immigration raises wages of native-born workers"

In a surprising new study with national implications, a University of California economist found that immigration boosted the average wages of the native-born worker in California by at least 4 percent between 1990 and 2004… California's experience "makes a good economic case," Peri said, for reforming the U.S. immigration system to allow more immigrants to enter legally to perform work…

Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly offers "Immigration: Not the source of all our problems after all":

So are these studies legit? I can't say for sure, but the objections offered up by the immigration hawks at the Center for Immigration Studies were so transparently lame that it suggests they don't actually have any credible criticisms of the methodology. They just don't like the results. But perhaps they'll be able to come up with something better after they've cogitated on the matter for while.

kos from DailyKos offers "Studies: immigrants raise wages; are more law-abiding":

It sucks for the xenophobic wingnuts when their talking points are contradicted by the facts…

…So they raise wages and are incarcerated at dramatically lower rates than native born Americans.

So why are we supposed to hate them so much?

Marc Cooper offers "Back to the Border":

The second piece refers to a new study by researchers at UC Davis. Bad news for the shut-the-borderoids on both the right and left. The study finds that immigration has "boosted the average wages of the native-born worker in California by at least 4 percent between 1990 and 2004." Poof! There goes the favorite argument of the yes/but liberals (and neanderthals) on the subject.

[3]

Could you please answer the questions below for publication at my website immref.com? You don't have to go into detail unless you want.

1. You do realize your latest study is being used to support the agendas of those who profit from illegal immigration, right? Is there anything you're doing to counteract them using it in that way?

2. Could you put a rough dollar amount on the cost of massive political corruption in the U.S.? Hopefully you'll agree that one of the main reasons why there are so many illegal aliens in the U.S. is because of political corruption: politicians could have prevented a very large part of those illegal aliens from coming here, but they chose not to for one reason or another (campaign contributions, racial solidarity, business deals, etc.)

3. Could you put a rough dollar amount on the cost of giving the Mexican government political power inside the U.S.? If we have to factor what Mexico wants into our internal political decisions because some portion of our political leaders and similar have direct or indirect links to that government, doesn't that cost us money?

Yes, "earned legalization", a "path to citizenship", and all the other euphemisms are indeed an amnesty for illegal aliens. What they're called doesn't matter; what matters is how they're perceived by potential illegal aliens. Details in the page about the names for illegal alien amnesty.

This is just a partial list of the ways that the Bush administration or those over whom that administration has some control have encouraged illegal immigration. These are presented in no particular order and even more examples will be provided in the future:

1. In March 2005, Bush called the Minuteman Project "vigilantes" (link). That quote has been used endlessly by the media and others (search).
2. Not interceding in the Ramos/Compean case (two Border Patrol agents who appear to have been railroaded by the U.S. government.)
3. Working on the "Security and Prosperity Partnership" (spp.gov), which appears to be the precursor to the "North American Union" (the U.S., Canada, and Mexico joined into an EU-style union)
4. The Federal Reserve trying to profit from illegal immigration by taking a cut of the money ("remittances") that illegal aliens send from the U.S. back to Mexico. Major commercial banks will also be able to take a cut of that money, and may end up lobbying politicians to allow more illegal immigration. And, needless to say, it's extremely dangerous to allow a governmental entity to profit from illegal activity.
5. Fighting to allow banks to accept Mexico's ID card ("Matricula Consular"). That card is largely used by illegal aliens, and Mexico freely passes them out to their citizens who are here illegally.
6. The USDA working with Mexico to give benefits to their citizens in the U.S.
7. Bush enabling Mexico to move their citizens into New Orleans, displacing American hurricane victims and undercutting their wages.
8. George P. Bush - nephew of the president - was scheduled to speak at the Dallas pro-illegal immigration march on April 9, 2006 (link)
9. The FDIC working with Mexico to give home loans to illegal aliens in Chicago. That program began in 2003.
10. Karl Rove was a featured speaker at the National Council of La Raza convention (link). That group has issues with assimilation and patriotism, funds an extremist charter school, and has other issues.)

One of the cute tricks of illegal immigration supporters is to refer to those who want to enforce our immigration laws as "hard-liners" and those who want to open the door to 60 million or so legal immigrants over the next 20 years and declare a massive amnesty for more than 10 million illegal aliens as "moderates". Those who support the latter course - such as George Bush, Teddy Kennedy, John McCain and many others - are in actual fact radicals, proposing immigration levels that the U.S. has never seen before.

The latest example of this bias is offered in "In Porous Border, GOP Sees An Opening" by Jonathan Weisman:

But when the long-simmering issue of illegal immigration boiled over this year, Huffman lost his favored status in the Sept. 12 Republican primary in the 8th Congressional District and was gasping to keep up with anti-immigration firebrands in his party — and even with some in the other.

…There seems to be little doubt that a hard line against illegal immigration is the safer position in a GOP primary. But many Republicans believe, in a year when many national trends are not blowing their way, that it is also the safer position in a general election.

…Of course, Republicans also hope to snare independents and even some wayward Democrats with the immigration issue. But they plan to do it with hot words — not with the cool centrism that is more typical in districts where both parties have run competitively.

…But even some Democrats worry that immigration hard-liners may be accurately gauging the temper of the times — and that the GOP has found an antidote to its woes…

…the anger of the few diehard Democrats in the district may be nothing compared with the rage being stoked among the Republicans by the anti-immigration push…

Certainly, proposing shooting illegal crossers is extremist, but simply wanting to enforce our laws is not. Weisman doesn't draw the distinction, and it's also a bit odd how he manages to find reasonable Democrats clucking their tongues over those who want to enforce our laws, and opponents to illegal immigration who sound a bit or a lot extreme. Perhaps the Washington Post should consider hiring reporters who give off an "impartial" vibe or something.

Illegal immigration supporters seem to all be reading from the same script:

• "regulates the movement of people across our borders in a manner which is legal, safe and orderly" (Vicente Fox)
• "President Fox, what are the concrete measures that Mexico is implementing to guarantee this indispensable security so as to have a legal, safe, and orderly migration?" (an unnamed possibly Mexican reporter at a press conference: whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060331-4.html)
• "We have discussed for a long time with Mexico the need for a more humane, safe, orderly migration policy" (former White House press secretary Scott McClellan)
• "[Mexican workers] would obviously prefer to enter the country in a safe, orderly, legal process through an official port of entry" (from Dan Griswold)
• "Migration should be safe, orderly and humane." (White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan)
• "we need to find a middle ground that protects national security and makes immigration legal, safe, and humane." (Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez whitehouse.gov/ask/20060601.html)
• "On May 4, Senator Kennedy (D-MA) and Representatives Menendez (D-NJ) and Gutierrez (D-IL) introduced a comprehensive immigration reform plan, the Safe, Orderly Legal Visas and Enforcement (SOLVE) Act of 2004."
• [Mexico's ambassador to the United States, Carlos de Icaza] praised growing cooperation that has allowed increased trade and security efforts between Mexico and the United States while encouraging U.S. lawmakers to approve reforms that allow "legal, safe and orderly human migration." (at the third annual Border Security Conference at UTEP)

The Washington Post and other sources frequently use the term "immigrants rights" when they're in fact refering to the rights of either illegal aliens together with legal immigrants, or simply illegal aliens. This abuse of the language goes hand in hand with, for instance, refering to those who want to enforce the law as "hard-liners" and refering to those who want to bring in sixty million legal immigrants - and countless illegal aliens - over the next twenty years as "moderates".

A case in point is the article "Immigrant Rights Groups Split Over Senate Bill" by Anushka Asthana.

Various groups are refered to as "pro-immigrant rights groups", "liberal immigrant rights advocates", "pro-immigration groups", "liberal, pro-immigrant rights advocates", or "Immigrant rights groups". The ILRC is a "San Francisco-based organization that aims to advance immigrant rights".

Read up on the groups quoted and see if they fit the WaPo's definitions or not:

National Immigration Forum

National Council of La Raza

Rick Swartz

Immigrant Legal Resource Center

National Immigration Forum

One of those quoted is Michele Waslin. Here's more about her:

Consider this e-mail from Michele Waslin, La Raza's director of Immigration Policy Research, to her members denouncing Sen. Lamar Alexander's proposal to provide government grants to immigrants who want to learn English and American history and to organizations offering those courses. (I'd be happy with a law that simply trained new immigrants not to be "offended" all the time.)

Even though this potentially meant free money for La Raza, Waslin — of the Guadalajara Waslins — ominously warned that while the amendment "doesn't overtly mention assimilation, it is very strong on the patriotism and traditional American values language in a way which is potentially dangerous to our communities."

Can you really trust whether the Washington Post is telling you the truth?

Reuters' Jon Hurdle offers "Rights groups sue Pennylvania town on immigrant law." The "rights groups" in question are, among others, the far-left, illegal immigration-supporting ACLU and PRLDEF.

Let's take a look at the first paragraph:

A Pennsylvania town that passed one of the toughest immigration laws in the United States this week overstepped its authority, said a civil-liberties group which announced plans on Friday to sue.

I guess calling the ACLU a "civil-liberties group" is faily accurate, but only because that's in their name. In this case, they are not only trying to protect civil liberties, since those only apply to citizens. They are also specifically trying to protect the rights of illegal aliens.

And, since illegal immigration is, obviously, illegal, and there are already various federal laws on the books relating to it, one wonders whether calling it "tough" is completely accurate. Perhaps "similar to federal laws" might be more accurate. And, while all laws dealing with illegal immigration are "immigration laws", the use of that phrase might give the false impression that legal immigration is involved.

Minor points? Not really, since this is how pro-illegal immigration propaganda worms its way into news coverage, through this slight manipulation of the facts and the language.

Further on, we're informed that the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund "represents U.S. Latinos on immigration issues". Obviously, their far-left orientation does not represent the thoughts of all "U.S. Latinos". While they might style themselves as doing that, in actual fact that's incorrect.

On July 26, 2005 the Clinton-affiliated think tank Center for American Progress released a study entitled "Deporting the Undocumented: A Cost Assessment":

[The study] provides the first-ever estimate of the costs of a policy designed to deport all undocumented persons currently in the United States and those who successfully crossed the border (approximately 10 million people). Using publicly available data, we estimate the costs of a mass deportation effort to be at least $206 billion over five years ($41.2 billion annually), and could be as high as $230 billion or more. Spending $41.2 billion annually would exceed the entire budget of the Department of Homeland Security for FY 2006 ($34.2 billion) and more than double the annual cost of military operations in Afghanistan ($16.8 billion).

This paper helps illustrate the false allure of deportation as a response to our broken immigration system. Our nation needs comprehensive immigration reform, not unrealistic and costly ideas that drain the Treasury with no benefit to our security.

The study discredits those involved (including CAP and its author, "Senior Domestic Policy Analyst Rajeev Goyle. David A. Jaeger, Ph.D., associate professor of economics at the College of William and Mary, conducted the data analysis") in several ways:

1. It assumes there are only 10 million illegal aliens here; there are most likely many more.
2. It assumes that the choice is between mass deportations and an amnesty.
3. It assumes that it wouldn't be worth it to spend a relatively small amount of money to deport all the illegal aliens here, if that were possible.
4. They appear to have inflated the cost using highly questionable assumptions.

Regarding #4, see this:

…they estimate that it will cost a whopping $17,603 per apprehension to find one illegal alien. This may seem a little high to anyone who has ever been to Home Depot.

So how was this highly scientific estimate arrived at? By assuming that the current rate of workplace enforcement represents a best effort by the Federal Government. In 2003, they note, a grand total of 445 illegal aliens were arrested at worksites in America. No, you read right, 445 total. This figure is a clear indictment of the current corrupt system, in which the field agents are under orders to enforce the law as little as possible. But the Center for American Progress takes it as an accurate predictor of the efficiency of an earnest future effort.

The cost was then determined as: 445 worksite arrests, divided among the 90 agents involved in these arrests (yes, it apparently took 90 agents one year to find 445 illegal aliens), multiplied by an annual cost of $175,714 per agent. When inexplicably averaged with the figures from the year 1999 (240 agents arresting 2849 illegal aliens at worksites) the accuracy-minded fellows at the Center for American Progress came up with their figure of $17,603 per arrest. Perhaps the Washington Post missed the math part of the report?

The last is a reference to the WaPo article "$41 Billion Cost Projected To Remove Illegal Entrants":

…The study assumed that tougher enforcement would induce 10 percent to 20 percent of undocumented residents in the United States to leave voluntarily. But Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates stronger enforcement of immigration laws, argued that as many as half would leave voluntarily if the government were to aggressively seek them out and crack down on businesses that hire them illegally.

"We do need to know what enforcement would cost," he said, "but [the study] is a cartoon version of how enforcement would work."

The study estimates that it would cost about $28 billion per year to apprehend illegal immigrants, $6 billion a year to detain them, $500 million for extra beds, $4 billion to secure borders, $2 million to legally process them and $1.6 billion to bus or fly them home.

Goyle said that he conducted the study, in part, to respond to conservative officials who have advocated mass deportations, in some cases immediately. Earlier this year, former House speaker Newt Gingrich advocated sealing U.S. borders and deporting all illegal immigrants within 72 hours of arrest.

Unlike the Washington Post, the reader will no doubt have noted that there's a difference between deporting all new detainees and deporting all illegal aliens who are here now.

Will Adams, a spokesman for Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), an outspoken advocate of stronger immigration laws, called the study an "an interesting intellectual exercise" by liberals that is "useless . . . because no one's talking about" employing mass deportation as a tactic.

"No one's talking about buying planes, trains and automobiles to get them out of the country," Adams said. "The vast number of illegal immigrants are coming for jobs. Congressman Tancredo wants to go after the employers."

The Washington Post's Dan Balz offers a superficial analysis of the issues here. It seems to be discussing the WaPo/ABC News December 2005 poll in this PDF file, but some of the questions he talks about aren't in that document. When I find the full poll I'll post more information, but for now consider this:

The Post-ABC poll asked whether illegal immigrants who are working here should be given the opportunity to keep their jobs and eventually apply for legal status, or be rounded up and deported to their native countries.

And this:

Conservative anti-immigration advocates controlled the debate last month in the House

And this:

Bush has tried to satisfy those who want to tighten the borders without alienating Hispanic voters, the nation's fastest-growing voting bloc.

UPDATE: Balz uses "rounded up and deported" above, but the actual question asked is a bit more reasonable:

Do you think illegal immigrants who are living and working in the United States now (should be offered a chance to keep their jobs and eventually apply for legal status), or do you think they (should be deported back to their native country)?

It's still a bit of a false choice since another alternative or a component of either choice would be to encourage many of those here to deport themselves. I'll bet if they had asked a question like that they would have gotten a good deal of "strongly agrees".