CNN

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Census takers in 2010 won't be allowed to ask people if they are U.S. citizens. That's because Senate Democrats have blocked a Republican attempt that would have required census forms to inquire about citizenship.

Louisiana Republican Senator David Vitter had introduced the measure... meant to exclude illegal aliens from the population count. Vitter says including illegals in the census is "wrong" and goes against the idea of the Congress as an institution that represents citizens.

The Census carries a lot of weight - it's used both as the basis for apportioning congressional districts for the following 10 years; and it serves as a guide for distributing billions of dollars in federal aid.

Critics say the plan would discourage immigrants from participating in the Census... they insist the law states congressional seats are determined by the number of people living in each state - regardless of whether they're citizens.

The Census Director also opposes the proposal... he says asking about U.S. citizenship is "just not doable" and would mean delaying the census.

Not counting illegal aliens in the census could potentially hit states like California and Texas the hardest when it comes to apportioning Congressional districts. Those two states are where there's a high concentration of undocumented immigrants. It's estimated there are 12 million illegal aliens in the U.S.

Here’s my question to you: Should the U.S. Census Bureau be allowed to ask if you're a citizen?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Homeland Security ought to be embarrassed by the way its spending stimulus money... with the administration even coming under fire from fellow Democrats on this one.

Turns out they're not following their own internal priority lists when deciding which border checkpoints get money for renovations. Instead - they're using a secretive process potentially influenced by politics. Just like President Obama promised during the campaign, right?

This translates to spending millions of dollars at tiny checkpoints... and skipping over busier, high-priority areas. One example is a $15-million dollar project in Whitetail, Montana where only 3 people cross a day.

This is insane. President Obama continues to promise transparency when it comes to the spending of economic stimulus dollars, but this is far from the openness the American people were promised.

Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota says the department is treating the stimulus plan like a "bottomless pit" of taxpayer money, and that with the country deep in debt "this is not a smart investment."

Now, of course, since this all came out, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is promising not to start any new border construction projects, and review how the projects were chosen. She says once the review is done, she'll make "all information, not involving national security concerns, public."

But it's kind of late for that. Even if she releases some information, it probably won't change much, since the department has already signed many construction contracts - like the $15-million dollar one in Montana. She should be fired.

Here’s my question to you: What does it say about transparency when Homeland Security has secretly approved $15 million for a border checkpoint where only three people cross a day?

Tune in to the Situation Room at 5pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.

And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

When it comes to the health care debate - many Americans are fired up about what reform could mean for illegal aliens. One Blue Dog Democratic congressman says the issue comes up at every town hall meeting he holds.

Many constituents at Congressman Allen Boyd's events have been opposed to the idea that illegals would get any benefits under the new bill. Boyd insists that won't happen. He quotes directly from the House Bill:

"No federal payment for undocumented aliens; nothing in this subtitle shall allow federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."

But here's the problem: The way the system works now, illegal aliens - who often don't have health insurance and don't pay taxes - can go to a hospital emergency room and get treated for free... and nothing that's in this bill would change that.

Supporters of the president's plan mostly dismiss the impact of illegal aliens on our health care system... while critics argue that illegals are part of the reason costs are so high.

Since hospitals don't collect immigration figures... it's unclear how much people who are in this country illegally add to health care costs - but it's probably a pretty significant chunk of change.

Consider this: There are about 46-million people without health insurance in the U.S. Of those, the Pew Hispanic Center estimates that there are about six-million uninsured adults who are illegal; and 700,000 uninsured children.

Here’s my question to you: How should health care reform address the issue of illegal aliens?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

Immigration advocates say they don't think reform will be as tough as the White House imagines; they'd prefer for the president to act sooner.

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

President Obama says he has a lot on his plate and that immigration reform will have to wait until next year.

At a summit with the leaders of Mexico and Canada, the president repeated his commitment to providing a legal pathway to citizenship for those who are in the U.S. illegally. This is called amnesty.

But first, he wants Congress to finish work on health care, energy and financial regulation. The president says his administration is meeting with members of Congress and working on an immigration bill that would get bipartisan support, but doesn't expect anything to pass until 2010.

And even then, Mr. Obama acknowledges that that he will face tough opposition, what he calls "demagogues" who say any pathway to legalization is unacceptable. It's not just "demagogues." The American public has repeatedly expressed broad based opposition to granting amnesty to illegal aliens.

Last week in the Cafferty File we reported on a recent Gallup Poll that showed Americans are taking a tougher stand on immigration than they have for several years.

Not everyone is happy with the president's new timetable. Immigration advocates say they don't think reform will be as tough as the White House imagines, they'd prefer for him to act sooner.

But with rising unemployment and dwindling tax revenues with which to provide services to our own citizens, let alone millions of illegal aliens, expect the debate to rival the intensity of the one we're currently having over health care.

SO HERE'S THE QUESTION: Is it a good idea to put off immigration reform until next year?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Americans are not as open to immigration as they have been in recent years. A new Gallup poll shows half of those surveyed say immigration should be decreased - that's up from 39-percent who felt that way last year.

32-percent say levels should be kept the same, down from 39-percent; while 14-percent say immigration should be increase - down from 18-percent a year ago.

Today's attitudes are similar to how the public felt in the first few years after the 9/11 attacks - beliefs that had softened since 2006. This poll also shows 58-percent of Americans say immigration is a good thing for the country; that's the lowest percentage who feel that way since 2003.

When it comes to party differences - it's no surprise that Republicans are more likely than Democrats to want immigration decreased; but nearly half of Democrats and Independents feel the same way. Americans in the South are more anti-immigration than other regions, although all parts of the country are moving in this direction.

Meanwhile a group of Illinois congressmen recently wrote a letter to President Obama asking him to work on immigration reform this year. They want a law to help keep immigrant families together, protect workers and provide safe migration opportunities.

Considering the mood of the country right now - and the fact that millions of Americans are out of work - it might be a tall order to gin up a lot of sympathy for the millions of illegal aliens in this country.

Here’s my question to you: Why are Americans tougher on immigration now than they were a year ago?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

(PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Three illegal aliens have been awarded a total of $3.85 million in damages for accidents on New York City construction sites.

The lawyer for the men says all these cases involved "terribly unsafe working conditions" and he re-emphasizes to all undocumented workers that they have the same rights once they're on the job as any New York citizen.

In one case - An undocumented plumber from Mexico was scalded by an exploding pipe at a Wall Street construction site; he settled his damage claim for $2.5 million.

Another undocumented Mexican worker suffered severe injuries when a steel beam fell on his lower body; he settled for $750,000.

And a third laborer from Ecuador settled a damage claim for $600,000 after being injured when three large trusses collapsed onto him.

One immigrant advocacy group says while construction work is often dangerous - undocumented workers are likely to work at sites that lack safety equipment and don't meet regulations.

Of course, it is illegal for an employer to hire an undocumented worker; but according to New York City law - if an illegal alien is hired by an employer he then has the right to be paid minimum wage and overtime, the right to health protection and workplace safety and the right to organize to improve labor conditions.

That is - even though these workers are in the United States illegally in the first place... and should have never been hired.

Here’s my question to you: Should illegal aliens collect damages for injuries sustained while working in this country?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

As President Obama travels to Mexico, the U.S. continues to grapple with the spill over violence from Mexican drug cartels and the enormous problem of illegal immigration. So - in typical government style - the administration has decided to add another layer of bureaucracy in the hopes of solving these problems.

The Obama administration has appointed former federal prosecutor Alan Bersin to fight illegal immigration and deadly drug violence along the Mexico/U.S. border.

They've named a so-called "border czar" to oversee the efforts of ending drug cartel violence that killed almost 7,000 people last year; and slowing the tide of people illegally crossing north into the U.S. A border czar. Why don't they just close the damn border?

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano named Alan Bersin to be the czar. He's a former Justice Department official who worked on cracking down on illegal immigration in the 1990s. And judging by the number of illegal aliens in the country, that wasn't exactly a home run.

The Obama administration has promised to target border violence and work with Mexican officials to stop drug and gun trafficking. They've already committed $700 million in aid to Mexico and are sending hundreds of federal agents along with high-tech surveillance gear and drug sniffing dogs to the region.

If we want to get serious about fixing these issues, the answer is to secure the border, which remains open almost eight years after the 9/11 attacks; and enforce the laws that are already on the books regarding illegal immigration. And don't forget the huge appetite for illegal drugs in the U.S., which is fueling the Mexican drug wars.

More government bureaucracy is hardly the solution.

Here’s my question to you: Is a "border czar" the answer to our illegal drug and immigration problems with Mexico?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

It's not like he doesn't already have a lot on his plate. Now President Obama says he wants to tackle immigration reform; and do it this year. In fact, he says he plans to begin as soon as next month.

Tackling immigration reform: Where should the White House begin?

The president says he will rely on a bipartisan and diverse group of experts to frame the legislation. But officials say that immigration won't be "on the same track" as other key initiatives like health care and energy, and "nobody's promising legislation or a vote this year."

Nonetheless, it looks like the president will try to make good on yet another campaign promise by working to fix the nation's broken immigration system during his first year in office. There are an estimated 12 million illegal aliens in this country. The White House apparently wants to look for a path for illegal aliens to become legal - that's called amnesty and a lot of folks in this country are rabidly opposed,including immigrants who took the time and trouble to come here legally.

The president also wants to remove incentives to enter the country illegally, beef up border security and work with Mexico to cut down on illegal immigration. This is all stuff we've heard before and at the end of the day none of it gets done.

Note to our new president: The economy is in the toilet. Is now the time to give millions of illegal aliens permanent access to American jobs when millions of our own citizens are out of work? If you want to begin to squander your incredibly high approval ratings with the American public, this might be a the way to do it.

Here’s my question to you: The White House wants to start tackling immigration reform this year. Where should they begin?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

With more and more Americans out of work - the government is putting up roadblocks for companies that want to hire foreign workers. And that includes higher and lower skilled workers; everyone from dude ranchers and fruit pickers to lifeguards and computer programmers.

Are there really jobs Americans can't or won't do?

The Wall Street Journal reports that at least three avenues of legal immigration have been cut back. For starters, companies getting federal bailout money must prove they've tried hiring American workers for highly skilled positions before they can hire guest workers.

Also, the State Department is calling on some sponsors of seasonal employers - like hotels, golf resorts and summer camps - to voluntarily stop hiring as many foreign workers. And the Labor Department is considering suspending an agricultural guest worker program.

It's a bit of a sticky situation for the Obama administration - which insists it doesn't want to become protectionist when it comes to goods and services. However, with an 8.1 unemployment rate, there are millions of Americans out of work who don't want to see jobs filled by foreigners.

Critics say it's hypocritical to be protectionist when it comes to hiring practices. One immigration lawyer tells the Journal, "You don't abandon regulations because you have one bad year."

But many seem to finally be questioning the idea that there are certain jobs that Americans can't or won't do. Some employers say they are now getting more U.S. applicants for positions that were normally filled by guest workers; while others say they still can't find Americans who want to do certain jobs.

Here’s my question to you: As more Americans lose their jobs, what restrictions should the government place on hiring foreign workers?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Nancy Pelosi doesn't think enforcing some of our immigration laws is a good idea. I guess we don't need the Justice Department; just ask Pelosi what laws she thinks we should enforce.

The House Speaker was condemning raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents at an immigration event in San Francisco last weekend. Here's what she said: "Who in our 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? It must be stopped… What value system is that? I think it's un-American. I think it's un-American."

In case you had trouble understanding her, Nancy Pelosi was telling a largely Hispanic audience that enforcing America's immigration laws is un-American. This is called pandering.

Yesterday Pelosi said she was standing by her statement. She added that we have to enforce our laws, control our borders, protect our workers and create a path to legalization for those who aren't fully documented; but repeated that doesn't mean kicking in doors in the middle of the night. Pelosi said what we really need is comprehensive immigration reform.

Here's my question to you: Nancy Pelosi says enforcing our immigration laws is "un-American." Is she right?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »