If there were any doubts that the oft-used term “comprehensive immigration reform” is a stalking-horse for amnesty, a new Senate proposal unveiled yesterday should dispel them. The measure, touted as a way to fix our “broken” immigration system, will do the opposite. Not only will it demean U.S. citizenship and rule of law, it also likely will produce adverse economic effects. The main feature of the 844-page bill is that it would allow millions of illegal immigrants to apply for legal residency and eventual citizenship. Significantly, the bill bears a strong union influence. And labor officials aren’t bashful about it. Ana Avendano, AFL-CIO director of immigration, declared last week: “Politicians know that if they stand in the way of citizenship we will steamroller them.” The bill, worked out in secret by a bipartisan group of senators known as the “Gang of Eight,” amounts to getting rolled over.
When Congress last November approved $1.15 billion to settle residual claims of racial discrimination by black farmers against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), supporters lauded the vote and President Obama's signature the following month. This, they said, was justice belatedly done. Yet critics justifiably have argued that the class-action suit rests on an edifice of fraud. One of them, a member of Congress, Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, is taking action. He's lined up a pair of unnamed witnesses, one a black farmer and the other a longtime USDA employee, willing to tell all. Early this month, Rep. King announced these individuals indicated a willingness to reveal to Congress that plaintiffs' attorneys engaged in an unscrupulous campaign to sign up co-plaintiffs, many of whom never farmed in their lives. The issue now is whether he can persuade his colleagues to hold a hearing.
National Legal and Policy Center more than once has called it a shakedown. Now three members of Congress are suggesting as much. Yesterday Reps. Steve King, R-Iowa, Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., and Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., held a press conference to call for a Justice Department probe of an out-of-court class-action settlement against the U.S. Department of Agriculture initiated by black farmers during the late Nineties. The suit, known as Pigford v. Vilsack, or simply “Pigford II,” alleges the USDA starting in the early Eighties had discriminated on the basis of race in administering various grant and loan programs. Yet the details of the case strongly suggest that the evidence of willful discrimination was at best was fragmentary and often fraudulent.
It’s a familiar story: official capitulation to accusations of racial discrimination, minus any systematic evidence. This past February, lawyers for the Agriculture Department and thousands of black farmers …
Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV) has been under investigation for more than three years after NLPC exposed his cozy relationships with the recipients of earmarks that he sponsored. Yet, as chairman of an Appropriations subcommittee, he has jurisdiction over the budget of the Justice Department, which includes the FBI, the very entity that is investigating him.
Mollohan claims he recused himself in a January 2007 letter to the full Committee Chairman David Obey (D-WI) but he refuses to release the letter. Republicans say they have never seen it.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is AWOL on the issue, having said nothing since she forced Mollohan out as ranking member of the Ethics Committee in 2006. At the time, she blamed NLPC for Mollohan’s problems.
The controversy flared on June 17 during a debate on the $64 billion Commerce, Justice and Science appropriations bill. Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) accused Mollohan of a continued …