Promoted from the Ricochet Member Feed by Editors Created with Sketch. La Raza the Big Winner in Immigration Reform Bill

 

The immigration bill passed by the Senate is supposed to provide a “path to citizenship” in exchange for stronger enforcement measures. But, as M. Stanton Evans writes at Investor’s Business Daily, “buried deep within the immigration bill are hidden multimillion-dollar slush funds for left-wing nonprofit groups to provide services to the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants now in the U.S. Once enacted, the slush funds would total almost $300 million over three years and grow over time.”

The 1,100-page proposal is a network of legal requirements and protections, waivers and exceptions, including a new “provisional immigrant” status (the first phase of legalization for illegals), appeals of adverse rulings, stays of deportation, applications for work visas, and countless other such guarantees.

Within this thicket of new rights are features that would vastly increase the flow of immigrants to perhaps 30 million or 40 million over the next decade. One is a set of “chain immigration” clauses, legalizing the spouses and children of illegals.

Another is the Dream Act, fast-tracking legal status for aliens of any age who came here before they were 16 (how this would be proved is not clear). A third is a “blue card” temporary visa that could be converted to permanent status and used by future illegals to get legal in a hurry.

Of course, a Spanish-speaking immigrant would likely know nothing of this maze of loopholes, benefits and protections and would on his own be unable to exploit them. So the bill sets up a fund of $50 million to aid illegals seeking “provisional” status, filing appeals, blocking efforts at deportation, obtaining naturalization, and so on.

The groups receiving the $50 million would be nonprofit “immigrant-serving” organizations whose agents would be paid by the government to guide illegals through the process.

The nonprofit groups aren’t named in the bill, but, according to Evans, they can be deduced.

Foremost among such groups is the National Council of La Raza (meaning “the race,” or alternatively, “the people”), a group that opposes current U.S. immigration laws, defends illegals, and long promoted amnesty measures. It’s also an organization with significant leverage at the Obama White House and its former senior executive helped draft the Senate bill.

La Raza is already a recipient of federal grants and contracts — running at $8 million to $10 million per year — and would arguably be at the head of the line to receive new funding.

A second, allied group, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, says it receives no federal money but would likely qualify for subsidies under this legislation.

The bill’s immigration enforcement features includes provisions concerning drunk driving and other violations. According to the bill, two prior convictions of drunk driving would not disqualify an immigrant for legalization. However, a third offense might disqualify the individual from citizenship.

Similar rules apply to counterfeiting or altering passports: three such instances are forbidden, meaning two would be permitted. As to selling or forging materials used in making passports, the bill says 10 such instances are verboten, that nine won’t be a problem.

Another provision would protect aliens who have been “ordered excluded, deported or removed” from the country. Such aliens, under the bill, “may apply for registered provisional status,” and, by this one step, avoid removal.

Pending approval of their applications, the aliens “shall not be considered unlawfully present” unless the Secretary of Homeland Security says so. This is unlikely, at best.

The secretary, or an immigration judge, could stop deportation of illegals on humanitarian or family-unity grounds or simply in “the public interest” if they decide to do so. “Public interest” is essentially undefined in the legislation.

As Senator Jeff Sessions said, “Such open-ended waivers could all but ensure mass litigation and the end of immigration enforcement.”

Evans explains that the bill goes beyond amnesty and guarantees sanctuary and safe havens for illegals. It also provides ways for illegals who get arrested to be released. “Detainees, who cannot get a bond, can be turned over to ‘secure alternative’ providers until they get a hearing.”

These “secure alternatives” turn out to be, once more, “non-governmental community-based organizations” that would provide “community-based supervision programs” for detainees. So the nonprofits that get the federal funding could also get custody of their clients.

The legislation also creates a “New Immigrant Council” that includes representatives of nonprofits “with legal and advocacy experience working with immigrant communities,” to “introduce and integrate” new immigrants “into the state.”

The bill authorizes an additional $100 million — $20 million a year for five years — to finance these efforts. Thus a second slush fund is created.

A third grant program appears in a later section, funding an outreach “campaign” to inform immigrants and the public about employee “rights, responsibilities and remedies” in the legislation. This recruitment project too would be contracted to nonprofits, at a cost of $120 million — $40 million a year over a three-year span.

Evans points out that “while the Senate bill is advertised as a ‘tough, conservative’ measure, the largely unnoticed sanctuary funding and La Raza clauses may be the real point of the legislation.”

In light of what is in this bill, how could any Republican vote for this?

There are 16 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Aaron Miller Member
    Aaron Miller Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Millions? How quaint.

    • #1
    • July 19, 2013, at 8:20 AM PDT
    • Like
  2. The Mugwump Inactive

    I had a personal run in with representatives from La Raza a few years back that nearly came to fisticuffs. I have never experienced such visceral hatred in my life. They are racist thugs. 

    • #2
    • July 19, 2013, at 8:24 AM PDT
    • Like
  3. Lash LaRoche Inactive
    ~Paules: I had a personal run in with representatives from La Raza a few years back that nearly came to fisticuffs. I have never experienced such visceral hatred in my life. They are racist thugs. · 9 minutes ago

    This is absolutely true. And I say that as someone of Hispanic heritage who was born and raised on the Texas-Mexico border. La Raza deserves no respect or credibility.

    • #3
    • July 19, 2013, at 8:37 AM PDT
    • Like
  4. Bob Wainwright Member

    The Republicans who support this kind of thing are always saying something like “Look, we have de facto amnesty now with all these millions of illegals here… We need to do something about that.”

    So, if de facto amnesty is bad, then legal amnesty will be better? That’s about as non sequitur as you can get. It’s like saying you want to bring crime down by making crime legal. And all the craziness in the post above just shows that legal amnesty is even worse than de facto.

    • #4
    • July 19, 2013, at 8:43 AM PDT
    • Like
  5. Aaron Miller Member
    Aaron Miller Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Living in San Antonio for a couple years opened my eyes to the rampant racism of the mexican Southwest. My university’s attendance was over 90% hispanic, the city overwhelminly hispanic as well, yet hispanic organizations abounded as if they were a forgotten or oppressed minority.

    They have been completely suckered by the Left’s grievance culture.

    • #5
    • July 19, 2013, at 8:50 AM PDT
    • Like
  6. Bob Wainwright Member

    America’s uniqueness or greatness is a result of the combination of the English tradition of law with the frontier experience, mixed with the protestantism hailing from northwestern Europe. That combination created a sublime ethos in which the worldview of the Declaration and Constitution took root. Any displacement of this ethos will almost certainly result in the lessening of America’s greatness or uniqueness.

    The deep irony is that part of what makes the American ethos sublime is precisely that, unlike so many others, it is capable of openness to the “other”. It is capable of questioning the identification of the good with one’s own. Virtually all other cultures–and certainly all non-western cultures– are ethno-centric. But this openness to the other carries within it the seeds of its own destruction, because it can easily transorm into a prideful rejection of the unique worth of the American ethos itself. Openness to the other becomes an end in itself, and any attempt to preserve it in the face of unrestricted importation of other cultures is seen as nothing but primitve xenophobia.

    • #6
    • July 19, 2013, at 9:09 AM PDT
    • Like
  7. Brasidas Member

    I’d suspect that La Raza would be an interesting subject for a Breitbart/James O’Keefe-style hidden camera report. I wonder how much of the citizenship preparation and social services they provide imbue their recipients with a love of and respect for the country in which they live.

    • #7
    • July 19, 2013, at 9:21 AM PDT
    • Like
  8. Jan-Michael Rives Inactive

    I am far more pro-immigration than the average person, even the average liberal, but I have to admit, this bill is a disaster. It should be taken out back and shot.

    • #8
    • July 19, 2013, at 9:45 AM PDT
    • Like
  9. Duane Oyen Member
    Duane Oyen Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Of course no sensible person should vote for this monstrosity, absent a conviction that there will be a way to reform the ugly provisions in Conference. The money in an authorization is always subject to the appropriations process. If we screw up, half the time it is because we are not doing our homework, as opposed to looking for TV cameras. The refreshing thing about Paul Ryan is that he actually does his homework and doesn’t come off as a yahoo (Inhofe does a decent job of knowing his stuff on “climate change” as well, as does Corker on banking).

    But it is incumbent on our side to propose something sensible, instead of just yelling “NO! NEVER!’ and “NO AMNESTY!” every time the subject comes up. The House actually has a good strategy on this, I hope we will not get too much fervid posturing before it can be executed.

    • #9
    • July 19, 2013, at 9:58 AM PDT
    • Like
  10. Bob Wainwright Member

    The question that’s never answered is, What purpose is served by legalizing these people en masse by a special law? That is, how does it help America as a whole, not some particular constituency? Especially since there’s no end to it. It will just happen again and again. In 10 or 20 years we’re back at square one. And especially since ,as the main post shows, the negative effects of all these illegals being here are just amplified by legalization.

    It’s almost as if some people have some kind of OCD tic: the existence of illegals annoys their sense of “tidiness” so they just want to waive a wand and presto! everything is tidy again, when in reaity nothing has changed and actually may get worse.

    • #10
    • July 19, 2013, at 10:06 AM PDT
    • Like
  11. Duane Oyen Member
    Duane Oyen Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member
    Bob Wainwright: The question that’s never answered is, What purpose is served by legalizing these peopleen masse by a special law? That is, how does it help America as a whole, not some particular constituency? Especially since there’s no end to it. It will just happen again and again. In 10 or 20 years we’re back at square one. And especially since ,as the main post shows, the negative effects of all these illegals being here are just amplified by legalization.

    It’s almost as if some people have some kind of OCD tic: the existence of illegals annoys their sense of “tidiness” so they just want to waive a wand and presto! everything is tidy again, when in reaity nothing has changed and actually may get worse. · 3 hours ago

    Bob, I hear you- but explain to me how we are not providing amnesty right now, especially given the fact that we know not who or where anyone is and the case law on this has us losing virtually every test, starting with Plyler v. Doe?

    • #11
    • July 20, 2013, at 2:15 AM PDT
    • Like
  12. Lash LaRoche Inactive

    The present amnesty bill privileges foreign criminals over law-abiding American citizens, and that alone makes it – or amnesty in any form – immoral and unacceptable.

    As for the federal courts, when they issue their ridiculous and unconstitutional decisions barring immigration and border enforcement, ignore them.

    • #12
    • July 20, 2013, at 2:19 AM PDT
    • Like
  13. Duane Oyen Member
    Duane Oyen Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member
    Mike LaRoche: The present amnesty bill privileges foreign criminals over law-abiding American citizens, and that alone makes it – or amnesty in any form – immoral and unacceptable.

    As for the federal courts, when they issue their ridiculous and unconstitutional decisions barring immigration and border enforcement, ignore them. · 1 hour ago

    That works really well.

    But you still didn’t answer my point. We have amnesty now. There are much better ways to effect it than in the Senate Bill- but we should address it, not turn off the lights and pretend that because we can’t see it there is nothing there.

    • #13
    • July 20, 2013, at 4:02 AM PDT
    • Like
  14. Lash LaRoche Inactive
    Duane Oyen
    Mike LaRoche: The present amnesty bill privileges foreign criminals over law-abiding American citizens, and that alone makes it – or amnesty in any form – immoral and unacceptable.

    As for the federal courts, when they issue their ridiculous and unconstitutional decisions barring immigration and border enforcement, ignore them.· 1 hour ago

    That works really well. 

    But you still didn’t answer my point. We have amnesty now. There are much better ways to effect it than in the Senate Bill- but we should address it, not turn off the lights and pretend that because we can’t see it there is nothing there. · 0 minutes ago

    Yes, it would work well because the unelected and unaccountable judiciary lacks the constitutional authority to override such laws.

    As for amnesty, no, we do not have it now. What we have are spineless politicians unwilling to enforce the law while the lives, security, and property of American citizens are put at risk. The problem should be addressed by enforcing said law, which our supposed “leaders” took an oath to do. That is not turning off the lights and pretending nothing is there, that is confronting the problem head-on.

    • #14
    • July 20, 2013, at 4:18 AM PDT
    • Like
  15. Profile Photo Member
    Umbra Fractus: I refuse to call the National Council of the Race by their Spanish name. Let them be exposed as the racists they are.

    I think if the Republican party had a lick of sense they would do this as a matter of policy.

    Instead we have RNC chairman Reince rhymes with Heinz Preibus sucking up to The Race in a boneheaded attempt to win Hispanic votes.

    Hilarious.

    And now it turns out the GOP is pushing an immigration bill that will provide government funding for the people working to defeat the GOP.

    Incredible. You couldn’t make this up. No one would believe a political party could be that gobsmackingly stupid.

    Except for actual Republican voters, that is. We’re used to it.

    • #15
    • July 21, 2013, at 3:00 AM PDT
    • Like
  16. Umbra Fractus Coolidge
    Umbra Fractus Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    I refuse to call the National Council of the Race by their Spanish name. Let them be exposed as the racists they are.

    • #16
    • July 21, 2013, at 4:08 AM PDT
    • Like

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.