From the AP:

Barack Obama’s aunt, a Kenyan woman who has been quietly living in public housing in Boston, is in the United States illegally after an immigration judge rejected her request for asylum four years ago, The Associated Press has learned.

Not only is his aunt - his own blood relative - an illegal immigrant, but she’s receiving taxpayer assistance to live in a public housing project.  I must say I am impressed with Obama’s nerve.  He is willing to stand up day after day after day and demand that rich people - a group he belongs to - involuntarily give more so that it can be passed along to others against their wishes while he chooses not to voluntarily give to his own aunt who lives in public housing.

Oh, and his illegal immigrant aunt has also illegally contributed $260 to Obama’s campaign.  According to the FEC:

Foreign nationals are prohibited from making any contributions or expenditures in connection with any election in the U.S. Please note, however, that “green card” holders (i.e., individuals lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the U.S.) are not considered foreign nationals and, as a result, may contribute.

I wonder how Obama would protect our borders when he can’t even keep his own family from coming here illegally.

Parker Griffith is attempting to run for Congress as a Republican with a “D” beside his name.  He is making every effort to sound like a conservative, but his background, including his time in Alabama’s senate, suggests otherwise.

On the topic of illegal immigration Griffith boasts on his campaign website that he “co-sponsored the toughest illegal immigration bill this session.”

“In the State Senate I co-sponsored SB 426 as introduced by Senator Beason to address illegal immigration in Alabama. The goal of this legislation is to make Alabama a less attractive place for illegal immigrants to live, protect taxpayers who should not foot the bill for services for those here illegally, and preserve Alabama jobs for our citizens. It is my hope that this legislation can be used as a starting point to address this growing problem.”

There is a tiny little problem, though.  Griffith actually actively impeded Scott Beason’s bill despite being a co-sponsor.  He also opposed attempts to pass individual portions of Beason’s bill.

Griffith Skips Committee Hearing

The Beason bill, SB426, (read it here) is modeled after the Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007.  It was one of a handful of bills in the Alabama legislature pertaining to illegal immigration and was the most comprehensive.  The first challenge that the bill faced in the Senate was getting through the Fiscal Responsibility and Accountability Committee (FRAC).

The FRAC is composed of eleven senators.  Six members are required to be present in order for the committee to vote.  On Wednesday, March 6th the Beason bill was on the committee’s agenda.  When the meeting started there were only five senators present, not enough for the group to vote.  The absences did not appear to be accidental and there were reports about pro-illegal immigrant lobbying interests warning certain senators before they entered the room.  At one point a senator left the meeting and another promptly entered - they weren’t there simultaneously, so there was not a quorum.  It was quite obvious that it was part of a conscious attempt to block the bill’s progress by not having enough members present to vote on it.  (Read my previous post about this sham of a meeting here.)

One of the six senators on the committee who failed to show up was none other than Parker Griffith.  He was in a meeting with business groups from Huntsville and said that he couldn’t leave to attend even a portion of the hour plus meeting.  But Rep. Sue Schmitz was at the same meeting with Huntsville business leaders and said that she stepped out to attend to her legislative duties.  If Griffith really supported Beason’s bill wouldn’t he have briefly left the glad handing session and gone to the FRAC meeting long enough for them to vote and move the bill along?

The next day a columnist from The Huntsville Times called Griffith to ask him about the situation.  Griffith told the Times that he had “no position on the bill yet.”  With co-sponsors like that who needs opponents?!  Of course, all this happened the first week of March, more than a week before Bud Cramer announced his retirement and Parker Griffith opportunistically decided to pretend to be a conservative Republican with a “D” beside his name.  After sharply negative feedback about the skipped meeting and Cramer’s retirement announcement Griffith abruptly decided he was going to support the bill and he voted to move it through the FRAC.

But the skipped FRAC meeting wasn’t Griffith’s only attempt to stand in the way of illegal immigration legislation.

Griffith Does Not Vote for the Beason Bill

On April 30th the senate was considering another illegal immigration bill, SB226.  This bill was sponsored by Arthur Orr and was much more narrow in its focus, only dealing with public benefits.  Scott Beason offered a substitute for Orr’s bill (with Orr’s hearty support).  The substitute he offered was word-for-word identical to his own bill, SB426.  It was an attempt by Beason and other Senate Republicans to circumvent the Democrat majority that was holding up his bill.  This occurred after Parker Griffith miraculously became a self-proclaimed conservative and supposed supporter of Beason’s bill, so you might expect him to enthusiastically support the substitution.  You would be wrong, though.

Griffith voted “Present” (Roll Call 357) during a vote to determine whether or not to table (i.e. kill) the substitution.  That is the equivalent of saying, “I don’t want to go on record supporting or opposing this bill.”  If Griffith really supported SB426, and didn’t just sign on as a co-sponsor so that the could brag about it in his campaign literature, then he would have voted “no” to tabling the substitution.

Griffith Votes Against Portions of the Beason Bill

Beason also offered amendments to Orr’s bill, again with Orr’s approval and support, that were word-for-word excerpts from his own bill - the bill Griffith now claims to be an avid supporter of:

• Amendment 102231-1 dealt with harboring or transporting illegal aliens.  Griffith voted to table the amendment (Roll Call 358).
• Amendment 102232-3 stipulated that when individuals are charged with a felony or DUI that a “reasonable effort” be made to determine their legal status.  The amendment passed 26-4 with Griffith voting yes (Roll Call 359).
• Amendment 102244-1 would have restricted illegal aliens from receiving “any postsecondary education benefit, including, but not limited to, scholarships or financial aid.”  In Roll Call 360 Griffith voted to table the amendment.
• Amendment 102247-1 would have dealt with the sale and distribution of fraudulent identification documents.  Griffith voted to table this amendment as well (Roll Call 361).
• Amendment 102249-3 required that authorities attempt to confirm the legality of persons in custody for a crime that required bail.  Griffith voted to kill the amendment (Roll Call 362), but the motion to table the bill failed by a vote of 12-11.  It then passed 21-4 (Roll Call 363), with Griffith changing his position and voting in favor along with other Democrats who supported tabling it just moments before.  (He voted against it before he voted for it!)
• Amendment 102254-2 required that motorists have a valid drivers license in their possession.  The amendment passed 25-4 with Griffith voting yes (Roll Call 364).
• Amendment 102240-1 would have required employers to verify the work eligibility status of all employees.  Griffith also voted to table this amendment (Roll Call 365).

Griffith voted to block five amendments that were direct excerpts from Beason’s bill.   If Griffith is such a big supporter of Beason’s bill then why did he prevent its substitution and why did he then vote against five amendments to another bill that were taken word-for-word from Beason’s bill?

That last question is somewhat rhetorical because the answer is obvious.  Parker Griffith does not really support Scott Beason’s illegal immigration bill.  He is a supporter in name only solely for political benefit.  He realizes that he is running for Congress in a conservative district and that his real position on such legislation, which is manifestly obvious based on his actions, would not be popular.  So he signed on as a cosponsor in order to boast about it on his website, while assuming you would never know the truth.  Don’t be fooled.

A handful of talk radio hosts from around the state organized a rally in Montgomery yesterday to urge the state Senate to pass a bill aimed at curbing illegal immigration.  Citizens from all over the state, including here in Huntsville (a three hour drive), attended the rally and Senate committee meeting afterward.  For their trouble the Alabama Senate put on a civics lesson as only they could.  The committee couldn’t even muster enough members for a quorum so that the bill could go before the full senate.

Whether the bill, Senate Bill 426 sponsored by Scott Beason (R-Gardendale), is virtuous or not is beside the point of this post.  Maybe we’ll debate it on its merits here another time.  What is truly shameful is that five senators did not even bother to attend the hearing and another two senators engaged in a bit of choreography so that neither would be in the room at the same time and cause the committee to meet the quorum requirements.

Here is a list of the committee members and their status during the meeting:

• Ted Little - conducted the hearing and was present.
• Wendell Mitchell - left a few minutes before the hearing was completed.
• Scott Beason - was present until very near the end of the hearing when he left the hearing room for a few minutes, to look for other members of the committee.
• Kim Benefield - absent
• Ben Brooks - present
• Linda Coleman - absent
• Parker Griffith - absent
• Myron Penn - absent
• Bobby Singleton - arrived just before the hearing ended, but after Senator Mitchell had left the room.
• Zeb Little - absent
• Jabo Waggoner - present

Now I distinctly remember our illustrious legislature, including many names on that list, passing themselves a 62% pay raise last year.  And for what?  So that they cannot even attend a significant, highly anticipated committee meeting.  What the hell are we paying them to do?  Is it really too much to ask that our elected officials actually do their jobs?  Seriously, they only have to meet in regular session for 30 days over the course of the entire year.

I’m not sure which is worse, the ones who didn’t have the cojones to show up and vote up or down for all to see or the pair (Mitchell and Singleton) that did show up, but orchestrated their movements so they wouldn’t have to vote.  Mitchell and Singleton will try to use their partial attendance to deflect criticism, but don’t be fooled.  They might as well have stayed home since their actions prevented a vote.

According to WVNN’s Dale Jackson, there were representatives of business interests physically present to dissuade senators from even going in to the hearing lest they succumb to the will of the people and vote to allow the full senate to consider the bill.

The one senator whose absence is explicable, though not justified, is Parker Griffith.  You know, the guy who thinks Alabamians are too independent minded.  He choose to attend a meeting with Huntsville big wigs.  The meeting was planned for some time in advance and I don’t doubt that he will use that as an excuse, but, again, don’t be fooled.  Rep. Sue Schmitz - yes, that Sue Schmitz - was an attendee at the same meeting and she left to take care of legislative duties.  Parker Griffith could have left as well.  He chose not to.  He chose to schmooze with people he has ample opportunity to talk to most of the year while he is in Huntsville instead of performing his legislative duties that he was elected and is paid to do.

What is truly depressing is that 74% of the senate is signed on as a sponsor or co-sponsor of the bill.  One might think that would insure passage, but one would be wrong.  This is just another example of our legislature, at least just the senate in this case, putting on a dog and pony show.  I wonder how many senators will point out their sponsorship of this bill to their constituents in order to placate them while actively working to subvert its passage.  They know that most voters won’t pay attention to how the bill got killed, they will just be glad their senator had his name on it.

I hope that voters in this state will remember actions like this and like the 62% pay raise next time they go to the polls.  I’m afraid I’d have better odds wishing for world peace, though.

Related content:

• Sen. Rusty Glover discusses the issue at Doc’s
• Montgomery Advertiser
• AL.com
• WSFA

Mo Brooks couldn’t get another Madison County Commissioner to second his resolution punishing Cinram for legally bringing in foreign workers.

I’m a big fan of Mo - I had a Mo Brooks for Lt. Gov. sign in my yard when he ran for that office - but he was on the wrong side of this issue.

Related:

• Cinram upsets locals by hiring foreign workers
• Mo Brooks goes after Cinram

Sounding a lot like a populist protectionist, Madison County Commissioner Mo Brooks has released a resolution aimed at punishing Cinram for bringing in 1,350 foreign workers.  The resolution implores the legislature to rescind tax abatements that Cinram currently enjoys, force the company to pay for health care costs of the employees, and also force the company to compensate American citizens who are harmed by any of the immigrant workers.

Brooks’ resolution was met with hearty praise on AL.com’s Huntsville forum, but I can’t say I’m a big fan.  First of all, demanding that companies that legally hire foreign workers must pay for health care costs sounds a lot like, well, it sounds a lot like mandatory, “universal” health care that all the modern day socialists love - except Mo wants to guarantee that benefit for foreigners instead of Americans.  I haven’t asked him personally, but I’m quite confident that Mo isn’t a closet John Edwards supporter.

I believe that government shouldn’t be in the business of picking winners and losers in the market place.  In this case the government crafted laws that Cinram is presumably following and offered tax abatements without strings attached.  Cinram is simply playing by the rules that the government established for them.

I believe that my commissioner, Jerry Craig, understands the true dynamics that are at work here.  We have a tight labor market in Madison County it is hard for Cinram to find workers at the price point they can afford.  I understand the laws of supply and demand, but just because higher demand results in higher prices (wages in this case) doesn’t mean that Cinram has the latitude to pass the cost increase on to its customers.  If Cinram were forced to pay higher wages, as Brooks wants to force them to do, then the calculus becomes clear: they will shutter their factory in Madison County and relocate to where labor costs are lower, most likely south of the border.  That would not only cost the jobs of the 1,350 temporary foreign workers, but also a significant number of local workers.

My defense of Cinram is tepid at best.  I would guess that Cinram is only a couple of short steps away from modern day slavery.  An article in today’s Huntsville Times (print only so far) by Challen Stephens summarized the bleak, but predictable, financial situation most of the workers are in.  Many will be lucky to break even due to a combination of their meager wages and fees they had to pay for the opportunity to work here.  Low wages are one thing, presumably the workers were at least informed as to what the pay would be.  But the situation is troubling for other reasons.  The workers seem to be dramatically overcharged for housing.  At least one worker claims to not being paid the promised $8 an hour.

Cinram certainly isn’t being a saint or even a good member of the community, but as long as they are following the applicable laws then they should be allowed to conduct their operations.  The alternative of seeing them leave and taking away jobs currently filled by Americans rather than allowing them to supplement their workforce with foreigners is not extremely attractive.  Of course, that would help soften our labor market.

The decision by Madison County employer Cinram to legally bring in 1,350 foreign laborers to pack DVDs has caused quite a dust up in these parts.  Here are the necessary background articles and editorials from the Huntsville Times:

• Cinram importing, housing labor
• Foreign workers raise ire here
• Seeking a better life
• Cinram fallout may be risky business for us all
• U.S. Rep. Bud Cramer wants Huntsville to monitor influx of immigrants

If you don’t feel like investing the time to read through the articles I’ll give you the Reader’s Digest version.  Cinram is going to legally bring in 1,350 unskilled, temporary workers using H2B visas.  The workers will come from Jamacia and other third world countries and will be payed around $8 an hour plus overtime.

Politicians and others are decrying the move and demanding that Cinram hire local workers.

“We have enough people in our community that would do the work for decent pay,” said City Councilman Glenn Watson. “Eight dollars an hour won’t cover lunch.”

He said instead of looking overseas for cheap labor, Cinram ought to pay $10 or $12 per hour for the same work. “I think what Cinram is doing is detrimental to the city of Huntsville and the nation.” He said Cinram’s practice ought to be illegal. 

Even Bud Cramer has weighed in:

If a sudden influx of 1,350 foreign workers recruited to work at a Huntsville plant becomes a problem, the federal government will need to rethink the temporary visa program that allowed them into the country, U.S. Rep. Bud Cramer, D-Huntsville, said Monday.  

The unemployment rate in Madison County is around 3%, which is right around what economists call full employment.  That means that the 3% constitute mainly people who are virtually unemployable and people who are transitioning from one job to the next.  Also, Cinram’s work is seasonal in nature.  Hiring mass numbers of local workers - who may not even exist - would also result in mass lay offs when the predictable downturn in business comes.

I’ve been watching the righteous indignation with a faint sense of irony.  Everyone has been hearing about illegal immigration for the past year or so, but this is a case where the immigrants and the employer are purportedly doing everything according to the letter of the law.  If the problem was really the fact that the immigrants were illegal, then why get so upset over legal immigrants?

The complaints have come in three general flavors:

1. Why foreigners?
2. You should pay more!
3. Great - more poor people burdening our welfare system.

I disagree with the first one on general principle.  Variety, as they say, is the spice of life.

The second one is a sign of the “world owes me a living” mentality that many have in this country today.  People think that businesses should be obliged to pay a “living wage” - whatever the hell that is.  The fact is that any business, big or small, pays according to the job that is done.  We’re talking about people putting DVDs into boxes here.  I cannot think of a job with lower qualifications.  If Americans can’t (or don’t want to) compete with these lean and hungry employees then too bad.  That is the American way: people coming to our land of opportunity in search of a better life, making sacrifices, and working hard.  I don’t begrudge anyone for trying to legally improve their lot in life.

The third complaint, however, is valid and is my secondary reason for opposing illegal immigration (the first being a flagrant subversion of our laws).  As long as the government takes money from my paycheck and distributes it directly to others I won’t support bringing in more of those poor people who will place a bigger strain on my tax bill.

While I suspect that Cinram will follow the law if I were a slimy lawyer I would be on those workers like stink on a monkey.  There is always a good potential for an overzealous employer to mislead these temporary workers.  Such cases could represent a gold mine.

From AL.com:

Huntsville City Councilman Bill Kling will hold a public meeting today to discuss his district’s rising illegal immigrant population.

The meeting is open to anyone and starts at 5 p.m. on the seventh floor of City Hall, 308 Fountain Circle.

Kling, who represents southwest Huntsville, said illegal immigration is a hot topic with many of his constituents. At a town hall forum Monday night, several people complained about undocumented residents speeding, causing wrecks and littering, he said.

“It just seems like there’s a lot of pent-up frustration,” Kling said Wednesday. “This meeting is not to single out any nationality. It’s just dealing with illegal immigrants in general.”

There are “thousands” of undocumented aliens living in southwest Huntsville, said Kling, who noted that a popular package store near the corner of Triana Boulevard and Drake Avenue was recently converted into a Mexican market.

Public Safety Director Rex Reynolds, Community Development Director Jerry Galloway and a representative from the city’s legal department are expected to attend tonight’s meeting, Kling said. They will answer questions and talk about what local governments can and can’t do about illegal residents.

“One of the biggest complaints I’ve had,” Kling said, “relates to car accidents where illegals are at fault. There seems to be very little the police department can do legally.”

So this is basically an opportunity for everyone to get together and be told about how our law enforcement officials cannot (or refuse to) do anything about individuals who are here illegally.  “Thanks for coming folks.  If an illegal alien wrecks your car all you can do is stomp your feet in frustration then go home and kick the dog.”

I happened to pause briefly in front of a TV at work today and had to laugh when I saw this ad, sponsored by Grassfire.org.  A coworker was walking by and we talked for a few minutes about illegal immigration.  He told me about a relative of his who lives in southern Arizona.  She tells him about the problems associated with the “thousands” of aliens who illegally cross the border near her town every month.

One of the big ones that I haven’t heard before is litter - lots of litter.  Apparently the illegals simply discard water bottles, clothing, and whatever else they no longer want to burden them as they make their way through the desert.  She claims that it is a massive problem.  Where’s Greenpeace when you need them?!

From WAFF: 

A soccer game ended in gunfire Monday evening.

One man was shot in the neck and two others were stabbed. 

All of them are being treated at Huntsville Hospital.

…

Their injuries are not life threatening.

The group of men, all illegal Hispanics, were playing soccer on University Place School property when the fight broke out.

If I said it once… Lax policies and enforcement allow people to come here illegally.  Many live “off the grid” without paying taxes.  Others claim a lot of dependents and pay little or no taxes.  Then when they get into trouble - I’m not arguing that they are disproportionately more likely to do so - we foot the bill to prosecute and possibly incarcerate them.

Standard caveat: I do not oppose illegal immigration because I hate foreigners (I don’t).  Rather it is because I respect the rule of law.  There are a number of laws in this country that I think should be changed: immigration regulations need to be relaxed and drugs and prostitution should be legalized (with some modest degree of regulation).  Despite my thoughts on what should and should not be legal, I will not support anyone knowingly subverting laws on the books.  Additional caveat: I don’t personally approve of drug use or prostitution - it’s a freedom thing.

Headline from the Decatur Daily: Farmers, business don’t consider illegals a problem.

[F]armers told Mr. Cramer, D-Huntsville, that they depend on immigrant labor to work in cotton gins, nurseries and poultry houses.

…

The farmers told Rep. Cramer immigrants do work that U.S. citizens turn down while taking welfare benefits. Rep. Cramer’s response was that the government must get tougher on enforcing existing immigration laws, but he realizes the impact that doing so would have on farm labor.

Sen. Sessions said he agrees with the statement that allowing illegal immigration to flourish is a policy of importing poverty.

If you were a business would you have a problem with a hard working undocumented worker that you could mistreat with near immunity?

It’s interesting how the farmers noted that our nation’s generous welfare programs discourage able bodied Americans from going out and working hard.