Flood of Mexicans applying for "asylum" in the US, who can possibly make a deal with Obama on immigration?

Big surprise.  Obama tells Mexicans to simply ask for asylum and they are allowed to become a US resident.  How can anyone trust anything Obama will do on immigration after this?  Why would he do this while the immigration bill is being debated?  Is he trying to make sure that it doesn't pass so that he can use it as a campaign issue?  From My Fox Phoenix:

A loophole is allowing hundreds of immigrants across the Mexico border in to the United States.
Immigrants are being taught to use "key words and phrases" to be allowed to enter and stay in the country.
Just this past Monday, Border Patrol agents say about 200 people came through the Otay Crossing claiming a quote: "credible fear" of the drug cartels.
So many were doing this that they had to close down the processing center and move the overflow by vans to another station.
"They are being told if they come across the border, when they come up to the border and they say certain words, they  will be allowed into the country," said a person who did not want to be identified on camera.  "We are being overwhelmed."
Pete Nunez, former U.S. Attorney and immigration expert says, "This will swamp the system." . . .

So much for Senator Rubio supporting immigration reform, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden would both crush him among Hispanics

I am not sure why this polling doesn't include Ted Cruz for a comparison.  It would be very interesting to see if Cruz did as well a Rubio despite his opposition to the immigration reform plan.  From Politico:

. . . The survey, by Latino Decisions, also revealed Republican candidates continue to significantly trail among Hispanic voters, with even champions of immigration reform like Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush significantly behind top Democrats.That deficit could again prove significant in 2016, when the pollsters estimate that the Hispanic vote will approach 12.5 million. In 2012, exit polls suggested 71 percent of Hispanic voters broke for President Obama.
According to the survey, Clinton remains the most popular candidate among the Hispanic electorate, mirroring other recent national surveys. The former first lady is seen positively by 73 percent of likely Hispanic voters, while 17 percent have a negative view. . . .
Rubio, unsurprisingly, would begin with a major deficit in a head-to-head matchup with Clinton. According to the poll, Clinton would win Hispanic voters 66-28 percent, with 6 percent remaining undecided. Biden fares nearly as well, holding a 60-28 percent advantage over Rubio with 12 percent undecided. . . .

Even Cornyn's amendment to Immigration Bill keeps troublesome measure of 90 percent apprehension rate

We are in trouble when even the best Senators don't understand the problems with how the apprehension rate is measured.

Republicans argue that Cornyn’s RESULTS amendment to secure the border is not radically different from language already in the bill. Both Cornyn’s proposal and the broader bill call for 100-percent monitoring and a 90-percent apprehension rate of illegal entrants along the Southern border. The crucial difference is that Cornyn’s amendment would require these goals be met before an estimated 11 million immigrants receive permanent legal status in 10 years. . . . .

My discussion on the problems with this 90 percent measure is available here.

Newest piece in the New York Post: The real hole in the border bill

My newest piece starts this way:

As the Senate begins to debate immigration-overhaul legislation today, skeptics of the bill are focusing on the wrong problem. 

Under the bill, illegal aliens already in the country could start obtaining “probationary” legalization once the Homeland Security Department submits a plan for catching 90 percent of the illegals trying to sneak in. 

Critics focus on whether that legalization is truly “probationary.” The real issue is: How do we measure the rate of apprehending illegals? 

Catching 90 percent of those trying to enter the country illegally sounds impressive. But, if measured as it is by the US Border Patrol, we’re almost already there, supposedly apprehending 86 percent of illegals. . . .

Democrats misleading argument for health care benefits for illegal aliens

From ABC News:

Bipartisan meetings in the House of Representatives on a comprehensive immigration reform bill have failed, and the congressmen will meet for the last time today without reaching an agreement on a House bill, ABC News has learned. 

The stumbling block is GOP insistence that newly legalized workers now working in the shadows have no access to government-sponsored health care during their 15-year pathway to citizenship, according to two sources with access to the secret house “Gang of 8″ meetings. 

Democrats say that since these newly legalized immigrants would be paying taxes they should be eligible for benefits. . . .

Yes, these former illegal aliens will be paying taxes, but the problem is that they will still be massive net beneficiaries of government subsidies even without the government health care.  Lower income people get benefits that greatly exceed their taxes.  Lower income individuals actually don't pay income taxes, they get money back from the government.  The amount that they get back covers their Social Security taxes.  But even if they paid Social Security taxes, the benefits that they get later in life greatly exceed their taxes.  Social Security is set up to transfer money from higher to lower income individuals.  You don't want a lot of people coming across the border just to get government subsidies.

Democrats know all this.  The question is why Democrats have pushed this, and my guess is that they wanted the immigration bill to fail.  Possibly they wanted it to fail in the House so that they could use it to push for Democrats taking over the House next year.

Democrats don't want to stop immigrants voting, but they want to make it difficult for them to own guns

So will anyone be pushing for background checks on voters?  I don't actually think that is going to happen.  From Politico:

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), one of the Senate’s most ardent gun control advocates since the Newtown school shootings in his home state, is looking at offering a pair of amendments aimed at restricting immigrants’ access to guns.
One amendment would broaden an existing ban on certain immigrants buying guns to those who came into the U.S. on visa waivers. The other would require the attorney general to notify Homeland Security officials if undocumented immigrants or immigrants on temporary visas try to buy firearms, which is illegal. . . .
“Certainly, a number of my colleagues have encouraged me to move ahead and I’m very seriously considering offering them,” Blumenthal said in a recent interview. “To be very realistic, they were an uphill climb in committee and they’ll be equally uphill on the floor, but I feel so strongly about stopping gun violence that I am hoping to take every opportunity to move the debate forward.” . . .
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), another Judiciary member, also sponsored a gun-related amendment that ultimately didn’t get a vote during the markup. The measure would allow the attorney general to deny transferring firearms or issuing such licenses to “known or suspected dangerous terrorists.” Whitehouse said he hasn’t decided whether to offer it on the floor. . . . 

Oprah goes political in commencement speech, but doesn't know what she is talking about

I just don't see why anyone would think that it is appropriate to go political, let alone heavy handed political, in a commencement speech.  One is presumably supposed to give a talk about life's lessons.  Yet, Oprah seemed to think her role at a commencement speech at Harvard was to give a political speech.  The fact that she doesn't know what she is talking about almost seems besides the point.

Oprah Winfrey fired some political shots during a commencement speech at Harvard University on Thursday. . . .
Winfrey went on to address gun control, arguing that “the vast majority of people in this country believe in stronger background checks.”
“Because they realize that we can uphold the Second Amendment and also reduce that violence that is robbing us of our children,” she said, referencing the Sandy Hook shooting last year. . . .
Moving on to immigration, the talk show host endorsed “a clear path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants who reside in this country.” . . .

A discussion on the problems with background checks is here and a discussion on the political support for them is here.  At least if one is going to go heavily political at a university, one hopes that the speaker has something deep to say, not warmed over generalities.

Senator Rubio says border security "linchpin" of immigration bill, problem is with how we measure border security

The video is available here.
Hannity: "When are we going to get the border secure for sure?"
Rubio: ". . . It doesn't just say you can come up with a plan but not do it.  You have to substantially complete that plan.  You have a fence plan, it has to be substantially completed.  You have to have a border plan, it has to be substantially completed."

A copy of the original bill and that amended by the Senate judiciary committee is available here and here.  The minor problem in my reading of this bill is that it calls for a "strategy [to be] established," though at other times it does say "If the Secretary certifies that the Department has not achieved effective control . . . ."  The "commission" that is set up if the 90 percent rate isn't certified merely says: the commission must set "forth specific recommendations for policies for achieving and maintaining."   Setting forth plans is a lot different than saying those plans are met.  In any case, the big problem is how the "effectiveness rate" is measured.  I have an op-ed piece that will hopefully be coming out next week that explains that the "total number of illegal entries," which is the number of apprehensions and turn backs plus counted successful crossings.  The problem is that counted successful crossings, only gets a tiny fraction of actual crossings.

Some parts of the bill that came out of the Senate Judiciary committee.

COMPREHENSIVE SOUTHERN BORDER SECURITY STRATEGY.—The term ‘‘Comprehensive Southern Border Security Strategy’’ means the strategy established by the Secretary pursuant to section 5(a) to achieve and maintain an effectiveness rate of 90 percent or higher in all high risk border sectors.
(3) EFFECTIVE CONTROL.—The term ‘‘effective control’’ means the ability to achieve and maintain, in a Border Patrol sector—
(A) persistent surveillance; and
(B) an effectiveness rate of 90 percent or higher.
(4) EFFECTIVENESS RATE.—The ‘‘effectiveness rate’’, in the case of a border sector, is the percentage calculated by dividing the number of apprehensions and turn backs in the sector during a fiscal year by the total number of illegal entries in the sector during such fiscal year. . . .

If the Secretary certifies that the Department has not achieved effective control in all high risk border sectors during any fiscal year beginning before the date that is 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, not later than 60 days after such certification, there shall be established a commission to be known as the ‘‘Southern Border Security Commission’’ (referred to in this section as the ‘‘Commission’’). . . .

REPORT.—Not later than 180 days after the end of the 5-year period described in subsection (a), the Commission shall submit to the President, the Secretary, and Congress a report setting forth specific recommendations for policies for achieving and maintaining the border security goals specified in subsection (c). The report shall include, at a minimum, recommendations for the personnel, infrastructure, technology, and other resources required to achieve and maintain an effectiveness rate of 90 percent or higher in all high risk border sectors. 

The Judiciary Committee amendments are available here.

More than 100 "Conservative" Economists Urge Immigration Overhaul? I don't think so.

A letter released by 109 economists urges Congress to pass a sweeping immigration overhaul, claiming that it will help the economy and reduce the deficit.  It has been getting some attention at the WSJ and Politico.  I am dubious that they are right.  But what is clear is that not all these signers are "conservatives" by any means.

Take June O’Neill, who served as OMB director for President Clinton.   

John Makin may be at AEI, but I know him and he is a Keynesian economist.

Note also some of the mistakes.  Steven Davis from the University of Chicago and Davis Steven from the University of Chicago are obviously the same person (I do know the real Steven Davis).  John Makin  at AEI is listed twice.  The 109 number removes these two double counting from the total.  Compare that to the 353 who signed a letter supporting McCain in 2008 or the 784 who supported Mitt Romney.  Here are nine economists who signed the immigration letter but who did not sign the letter supporting Romney (the six in italics signed the letter for McCain, though many more didn't sign the letter for McCain).

Antony Davies, Duquesne University 

James Forcier, Hult International Business School 

K.C. Fung, University of California, Santa Cruz 

William Gissy, KIMEP University 

Claudio Gonzalez-Vega, Ohio State University 

Stuart Hoffman, PNC Financial Services Group 

Philip Rothman, East Carolina University 

Scott Sumner, Bentley University 

William Trumbull, West Virginia University 

A promise that will be impossible to fulfill: Gun control bill passed this month

Despite the promise to pass gun regulations this month, that would be difficult anyway, but with immigration and the debt ceiling, it seems impossible.  So why does the Obama administration keep making these promises?  Add to this Obama's promise that the gun control bill will be comprehensive.  Still, Obama has said that he is willing to spend all his capital on this and it is possible that bad gun control legislation could get through.  Republicans have just a narrow majority in the House and Democrats have control of the Senate.  It might not go as quickly as Biden promises, but there is still a risk it could get passed.

Boston’s mayor says that Vice President Biden “guaranteed” him that President Obama will pass new gun control laws by the end of January. 

In an interview with the Boston Herald, Mayor Thomas Menino said that the Obama administration is going to “get it done.” 

“(Biden) said, ‘Tommy, I guarantee you, we’ll get it done by the end of January,’” Menino told the Herald. “They’re going to get it done.” 

Menino, who co-chairs Mayors Against Illegal guns with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, fiercely criticized National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre’s comments following the Dec. 14 Newtown school shooting that left 26 dead, including 20 children. . . .

Of course, Obama is also planning on moving forward with illegal immigration reforms this month.

An Obama administration official said the president plans to push for immigration reform this January. The official, who spoke about legislative plans only on condition of anonymity, said that coming standoffs over deficit reduction are unlikely to drain momentum from other priorities. The White House plans to push forward quickly, not just on immigration reform but gun control laws as well. 

The timeframe is likely to be cheered by Democrats and immigration reform advocates alike, who have privately expressed fears that Obama's second term will be drowned out in seemingly unending showdowns between parties. The just-completed fiscal cliff deal is giving way to a two-month deadline to resolve delayed sequestration cuts, an expiring continuing resolution to fund the government and a debt ceiling that will soon be hit. . . . 

Copy of Arizona ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS Bill is Available here

Unlike bills coming out of Washington DC this bill is not thousands of pages long. It is only 18 pages, and a copy of it is available here.

US-Mexico Fence Almost Built

Homeland Security reports this:

The Homeland Security Department says the fence along the U.S.-Mexico border is mostly finished.
Customs and Border Protection spokesman Lloyd Easterling says that 601 miles of the project had been completed as of a week ago.
Easterling says 69 miles of the fence still must be built to meet the goal set during the Bush administration. . . .

Immigrants changing the US

14 percent of those living in the US were born in a foreign country and this rate has gone up dramatically in recent years. That was true for fewer than 4 percent in 1970.

31% of adult immigrants have not completed high school
33% of adult immigrants receive welfare