In a little-noticed interview Friday, Mr. Dobbs told Spanish-language network Telemundo he now supports a plan to legalize millions of undocumented workers, a stance he long lambasted as an unfair "amnesty."
"Whatever you have thought of me in the past, I can tell you right now that I am one of your greatest friends and I mean for us to work together," he said in a live interview with Telemundo's Maria Celeste.
Over the past two decades or so, Congress has tightened the rules regarding criminal acts committed by non-citizens. These changes had the result of increasing the likelihood that a criminal conviction would make a non-citizen eligible for deportation and reducing the discretion of immigration judges and immigration agencies in making a decision against deportation.
One of the basic general rules of criminal procedure is that defense counsel have the obligation to advise defendants about the direct consequences of a plea of guilty and that courts have an obligation to make sure that defendants are aware of those consequences when pleading guilty. Traditionally, direct consequences are those potential consequences which are in the control of the court and flow from the plea. It includes things like potential fines and sentences. Normally neither the court nor defense counsel have any obligations regarding collateral consequences -- things like registration requirements, the possibility of parole, etc.
Mr. Padilla had been a resident of the U.S. for over 40 years, having served in the U.S. military, but was still just a resident alien when he was caught transporting over five pounds of marijuana in 2001. After he lost an attempt to suppress the evidence in his case, he entered a plea of guilty. According to Mr. Padilla, prior to the plea, his attorney advised him that he would not be subject to deportation as a result of this plea. Immigration authorities, apparently, disagreed with that reading of immigration statutes and did not release an immigration detainer which had been lodged against Mr. Padilla. As a result, Mr. Padilla filed a post-conviction motion asking to set his plea aside on the basis of misadvice by his plea counsel. The trial court, and ultimately the Kentucky Supreme Court, ruled that Mr. Padilla had not stated a claim that would support allowing him to withdraw his plea.
Next week the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments over whether or not Mr. Padilla has stated a claim, that if true, would entitle him to relief. There are two separate parts to the argument pending before the court -- and thus how the case could be decided.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So, of course, there's some Republican that wants to change it. Nathan Deal is a current Congressman (GA - 9) who is running to be Governor of Georgia. He plans to re-introduce his 2007 bill to deny citizenship to those people born in the United States unless at least one of the parents is:
a citizen or national of the United States;
an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States whose residence is in the United States; or
an alien performing active service in the armed forces (as defined in section 101 of title 10, United States Code).
Last time, it was referred to the House Judiciary Committee, and it never got past there. Generally because you can't pass a law (and expect it to stand) if it directly contravenes the Constitution. What he actually needs is a Constitutional Amendment.
There are arguments to be made on both sides. Personally, I think we leave the 14th amendment alone, but that's just one girl's opinion. What's yours?
Reports are out this morning that the White House will push for immigration reform. Over on the left coast, the LA Times has as one of their lead articles information on Americans who are detained, sometimes for months, by ICE. These folks ARE American citizens, but can't necessarily prove it to the ICE's satisfaction.
If you were swept up, now, today, in an immigration raid, could you prove that you were an American? Having a driver's license on you does not prove citizenship. Believe it or not, neither does a Social Security card. Having a passport on you might help, although ICE would backcheck it, and if your identity had been compromised, perhaps it would work out for you, perhaps not. Do you carry your birth certificate with you? Probably not, and if you do, the likelihood is that it's a copy, not the original.
And while you're waiting for ICE to check your name, it will probably be disquieting to recall the number of names the government has spelled close-but-no-cigar on immigration records, the no-fly list, and other government databases.
Thomas Warziniack was born in Minnesota and grew up in Georgia, but immigration authorities pronounced him an illegal immigrant from Russia.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement has held Warziniack for weeks in an Arizona detention facility with the aim of deporting him to a country he's never seen. His jailers shrugged off Warziniack's claims that he was an American citizen, even though they could have retrieved his Minnesota birth certificate in minutes and even though a Colorado court had concluded that he was a U.S. citizen a year before it shipped him to Arizona.
And that's if you're a natural born citizen. Things can be even tougher for Americans born abroad, as well as natrualized citizens.
On the up side, last year ICE pointed out that they provide excellent medical care to all detainees: American or not.
Last night, President Obama was asked about immigration reform at the Town Hall in Costa Mesa. His response was that immigration reform had to be comprehensive. He said that it is important for longtime illegal immigrants to have a path to citizenship so they can join unions and get protection from employers who exploit them. He says those illegal immigrants could earn U.S. citizenship if they pay a fine, learn English, and get in the back of the line behind those who apply to come here legally.
What do we do in the meantime?
One train of thought says that we undertake a lot of raids because if illegal immigrants don't have work, they'll leave the country. The logic is that this enforces current law, as well as keeps jobs for Americans. Turns out that immigration raids actually end up raising wages:
[A] report by Jerry Kammer of the Center for Immigration Studies looked at the aftermath of six immigration raids at Swift & Co. meat-packing plants in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Texas, Colorado, and Utah. About 1,300 undocumented workers were arrested, and another 400 without authorization to work in the United States were detected around the same time through better company screening.
"At the four facilities for which we were able to obtain information, wages and bonuses rose on average 8 percent with the departure of illegal immigrants."
Kammer says that Swift used pay increases and signing bonuses to staff the plants after the raids, but bringing up wages wouldn't necessarily correlate to a hike in consumer prices.
On the other hand, there is the argument that these people are just here working, living quiet lives, and we should leave them alone.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently told a group of both legal and illegal immigrants and their families that enforcement of existing immigration laws, as currently practiced, is "un-American."
"Who in this country would not want to change a policy of kicking in doors in the middle of the night and sending a parent away from their families?" Pelosi [said].
Do you remember when illegal immigration was an actual issue? Think back - Hillary Clinton and drivers licenses. How John boy's positions would play in his home state. The fence. Lou Barletta and Lou Dobbs.
Well, it appears that the number of illegal immigrants is falling. A lot. We know anecdotally that there are fewer immigrants in the US based on proceeds sent to Mexico. The LA Times wrote back in April that 1,000,000 fewer Mexican families are receiving funds from their family members in the US.
According to the USA Today (29 December, page A1) the number of apprehensions this year fell to about 700,000 down from 1.6 million in 2000. (You remember 2000, the Clinton economy, jobs and investments. Sorry, I digress, and yes I remember the tech bubble.) This is the lowest number since 1976. The apprehension number is used to calculate how many people are attempting to enter the US illegally.
Years ago, I used to argue with people about illegal immigration. I know people who said "fence, enforecement, send them back." I contended that it was wasted money, much like the failed "war on drugs". A specious idea. My thought was that if, instead, the US administration (and I had this argument through a number of them) put pressure on the Mexican government to increase living standards, and build their economy, and the two economies had more parity, there would be less illegal immigration, since these folks come for jobs. Further, if Mexico had more money, they could buy OUR stuff and we could therefore ship products down there in lieu of underpaying jobs.
Unfortunately, my idea was raising the standard of living in Mexico, not watching the implosion of the US economy. Seems parity works either way.
Do you remember when illegal immigration was an actual issue? Think back - Hillary Clinton and drivers licenses. How John boy's positions would play in his home state. The fence. Lou Barletta and Lou Dobbs. 
