Schumer Destroys Top GOP Talking Point Against Immigration Reform

By Igor Volsky/Think Progress

On Thursday, as the Senate Judiciary Committee took up a comprehensive immigration reform bill that allows the nation’s 11 million undocumented immigrants to earn a path to citizenship, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) shot down Republican claims that the measure will allow 30 million new immigrants to enter the country and take away jobs from American workers.

In a tense and lengthy exchange with Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Schumer argued that most of the individuals and families who would attain legal status under the bill are already working in the U.S. economy illegally or are currently in the backlogs of the immigration system. “I await your amendment on what we do with the people who are not here legally now, okay?” Schumer said. “If you believe that they should all be self-deported or whatever else, I’d like to hear,” he added, before accusing Republicans of throwing out estimates of new immigration without comparing those figures to the cost of doing nothing:

SCHUMER: There is some simple math here. You’re adding 11 million, they’re already here. By the way, they’re competing for jobs right now. I ride my bicycle around Brooklyn early in the morning. I see people gathered on street corners, okay? I see a guy in a truck who comes over and says, ‘I’ll pay you $10 dollars if you work all day.’ They’re competing with Americans who wouldn’t accept $10 a day to work in those jobs…. We do allow family re-unificaiton it is the humane and right thing to do. But many of those people would be allowed to be unified under present law… But third, I would say to my colleague, if the economy goes very well here and the economy goes very badly in Mexico and we do nothing the number of illegal immigrants will increase and could be far beyond what this bill is. So again, my main point here is this, the system is broken… To simply point who we allow to work here and who we allow to come here does not take into account who would be coming here and be allowed to work here if we do nothing.

Watch the exchange:

Immigration policy experts tell ThinkProgress that as many as 10.6 million unauthorized immigrants could earn legal status under the Senate’s immigration bill, most of whom are already living in the United States. But it is unlikely that this legalized population will bring in many other family members since millions of unauthorized immigrants already live in mixed-family households (and nearly two-thirds have lived in the U.S. for at least a decade). Younger immigrants are also unlikely to have spouses or children abroad who would qualify for reunification under the bill.

Once the bill is fully operational and the backlogs are cleared, the government will issue approximately 1.5 million green cards per year, some estimates show. Currently, approximately 1.05 million green cards are made available each year. But the bill is unlikely to bring in many of new immigrants from outside the country since it would shift what has been an unauthorized flow of 688,000 people per year into legal channels.

Heritage Study Author: ‘Hispanic Immigrants Will Have Low-IQ Children’

By Zack Beauchamp/Think Progress

The Heritage Foundation’s analysis of the economic consequences of immigration reform uses absurd methodology to come to conclusions entirely at odds with the organization’s own findings in 2006. Perhaps one explanation for this incoherence is that one of the paper’s coauthors, a new hire, opposes Hispanic immigration because he thinks Latinos are stupid.

Jason Richwine joined Heritage in 2010, after finishing his PhD in Public Policy in 2009. The Washington Post’s Dylan Matthews dug up Richwine’s dissertation, which was titled “IQ And Immigration.” In it, Richwine argues that Hispanics have and will always have lower IQs than whites. Matthewssummarizes:

Richwine’s dissertation asserts that there are deep-set differentials in intelligence between races. While it’s clear he thinks it is partly due to genetics — ‘the totality of the evidence suggests a genetic component to group differences in IQ’ — he argues the most important thing is that the differences in group IQs are persistent, for whatever reason. He writes, ‘No one knows whether Hispanics will ever reach IQ parity with whites, but the prediction that new Hispanic immigrants will have low-IQ children and grandchildren is difficult to argue against.‘

Richwine concludes from this that American immigration policy should encourage high IQ individuals to immigrate, but limit low IQ immigration: as he puts it, “I believe there is a strong case for IQ selection, since it is theoretically a win-win for the U.S. and potential immigrants.” Since this eugenic language is politically toxic, Richwine advocates dressing it up in the language of “high skill” and “low skill” immigration. As Matthews details, the Heritage report does exactly that.

The study of race and intelligence has long been a problematic area for conservatives. In 1994, conservative pundit Charles Murray wrote a book called The Bell Curve, whose argument that blacks are on-average less intelligent than whites kicked off a critical firestorm. Conservatives since have generally defended Murray (who currently works at the American Enterprise Institute), occasionally citing him to get to some unsavory conclusions. Recently published research does not support the idea that there is an identifiably racial IQ gap, and the difficulty in defining “race” as a biological term makes it hard to pin down an appropriate methodology for studying the question in the first place.

Richwine is not the only author of the Heritage report with questionable views. Robert Rector, the paper’s lead author, was the source for then candidate Romney’s racially charged attack on President Obama’s welfare policy, and has spent his career dismissing the idea that poverty hurts people. On Tuesday, Rector admitted he hadn’t read the whole immigration bill before coauthoring his analysis of it with Richwine.

UPDATE

Heritage Vice President of Communications Mike Gonzalez released a statement to ThinkProgress disowning Richwine’s dissertation:

This is not a work product of The Heritage Foundation. Its findings in no way reflect the positions of The Heritage Foundation. Nor do the findings affect the conclusions of our study on the cost of amnesty to the U.S. taxpayer.

Ingraham pushes for an end to all Muslim immigration

By Stephen C. Webster/Raw Story

Right-wing radio host Laura Ingraham announced on her program Monday that she’s long believed the United States should shut down all immigration from central Asia and any nation with a majority Muslim population.

Going even further, Ingraham said she’s not sure why the U.S. allows people from central Asia either, particularly ethnic Chechnens, two of whom have been identified as the Boston bombing suspects.

“I would submit that people shouldn’t be coming here as tourists from Chechnya after 9/11,” Ingraham said. “Dagistan, Checnya, Kergystan, uh-uh. As George Bush would say, ‘None of them stans.’”

Because the Boston Marathon bombing happened right as the Senate prepares to take up immigration reform, some conservatives who want the immigration system to become more restrictive have cited the incident as cause for a rethink.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) in particular said on Friday that the attack is reason enough to put immigration reform on hold.

“How can individuals evade authority and plan such attacks on our soil? How can we beef up security checks on people who wish to enter the United States?” he asked. “How do we ensure that people who wish to do us harm are not eligible for benefits under the immigration laws, including this new bill before us?”

Grassley later backed off the implication that he was using the Boston bombings to jam up immigration reform, insisting, “I didn’t say that!” during a committee hearing on Monday.

This audio is from “The Laura Ingraham Show,” aired Monday, April 22, 2013, snipped by Mediaite.

Republicans With Influence On Immigration Debate Are Top Recipients Of Private Prison Contributions

By Nicole Flatow/Think Progress

As the immigration reform debate heats up, private prison executives have made it clear that they are monitoring how it will affect their rates of incarceration. During a call with investors last week, Corrections Corporation of America CEO assured investors that there will “always be demand for beds”, reflecting concern that incarceration rates will actually go down. With many elements of reform left on the negotiating table, the Columbia Journalism Review is showing just how much money the two major private prison companies, Corrections Corporation of America and GEO Group, have invested in the outcome:

Some of the politicians who have benefited most from this largesse are influential Senators who are now playing key roles in shaping proposed immigration reform legislation.

Among members of Congress, the top two recipients of contributions from CCA are its home-state senators, Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker of Tennessee. The Republican lawmakers, each of whom has received more than $50,000 from CCA according to data compiled by the Sunlight Foundation, represent important swing votes for advancing a reform bill through the Senate. Another top CCA recipient is Arizona Republican John McCain, who has gotten $32,146 from CCA and is a member of the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” that is working to draft legislation. His fellow Gang of Eight member, Marco Rubio, ranks among the top recipients of contributions from the Florida-based GEO Group,receiving $27,300 in donations over the course of his career.

In recent years, each of these senators has sponsored bills that would have increased the detention and incarceration of immigrants. Legislation put forward by Alexander in 2009, for example, would have provided for “increased alien detention facilities.” And a 2011 bill cosponsored by McCain and Rubio sought to expand Operation Streamline, a federal enforcement program that makes illegal entry a criminal offense in some jurisdictions.

Skyrocketing immigration detention numbers are attributable in part to programs like Operation Streamline and Secure Communities, which link criminal activity to immigration status. But they are also linked to record deportations, as many facing removal subject to mandatory detention while proceedings are pending, leaving judges no discretion to decide whether to release them.

A McCain spokesman told CJR that McCain stands by Operation Streamline, and that he expects it to continue whether or not comprehensive immigration is implemented “because it works.” According to ColorLines, Democratic staffers are concerned that negotiations will lead to an expansion of Operation Streamline and other programs that detain and criminalize immigrants in exchange for support on other core elements of reform.

Immigration detention has more than doubled private prison profits since 1995, and these corporations have not been shy about using their influence to lobby for incarceration-friendly policies, despite claims from both Corrections Corporation of America and GEO Group that they do not take official positiions on issues. Those sentenced for immigration offenses make upone of the fastest-growing segments of the United States’ overflowing federal prison population.

3 Republicans Who Emphasized Rush Limbaugh's Role In 2007 Immigration Reform Effort

ZACHARY PLEAT/Media Matters For America:

Rush Limbaugh attacked President Obama for his comments  on Limbaugh's influence over Republican lawmakers. But in 2007, Republicans on both sides of the immigration reform debate highlighted Limbaugh's influence on Republican attitudes towards the bill, which they eventually defeated.

After the president told The New Republic that it's easier to pass bipartisan legislation if a Republican lawmaker "isn't "punished on Fox News or by Rush Limbaugh for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest," Limbaugh responded by saying that Obama was "trying to goad [him] into saying something extreme." But Limbaugh soon proved the president's point by declaring that it was up to him to stop the new comprehensive immigration reform effort anddebating the issue with one of its sponsors, Republican Senator Marco Rubio.

Obama isn't the only one who has pointed out Limbaugh's ability to persuade Republican lawmakers from cooperating with Democrats on bipartisan legislation -- several Republicans singled Limbaugh out for his role in the previous attempt to pass comprehensive immigration reform in 2007.

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), who opposed immigration reform in 2007, touted Limbaugh's role in its defeat,saying that right-wing talk radio was "a big factor" in opposing the bill and that the Senate was trying to pass it "before Rush Limbaugh could tell the American people what was in it."

Republican supporters of the bill also called out Limbaugh's influence. A May 27, 2007, Los Angeles Timesarticle reported that then-Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL) "directed his criticism squarely at Limbaugh" when he said: "He has emotion on his side, but I think I have logic on mine." And on May 16, 2007, President George W. Bush's White House Press Secretary Tony Snow -- who had previously guest hosted Limbaugh's show during his talk radio career -- appeared as a guest on The Rush Limbaugh Show to sell the radio host on comprehensive immigration reform:

LIMBAUGH: [O]ne of the things happening in the Senate right now that's of extreme interest to people in the White House and out is this immigration bill, and I've heard a couple of things about it and I want you to tell me if what I'm hearing is right or wrong. One thing is that the Senate's trying to push this thing through without senators having a chance to read the whole thing. It's 600 pages. They're trying to move a procedural vote forward to get a vote going without debate on this much, because there's so much in it that is confusing and, I mean, 600 pages is a lot of things, and a lot of people are upset that anybody would sign a bill that they haven't read, even though that's more common than people know.

SNOW: (laughs) Well, a couple things first. We're still in negotiations on this. But the fact is, folks are going to have time to read this, and they're going to have time to look at the fine print. The other thing is, you gotta keep in mind one of the guys who's leading the charge on the Senate side is Jon Kyl, who himself has been skeptical of immigration reform in some senses. So I think for conservatives, they ought to feel a certain level of comfort that a guy who has been with them -- and let's face it, Jon Kyl is not the kind of guy who ever backs away from principle. So this is the kind of thing that ought to be inspiring confidence.

Romney Campaign Co-Chair: Romney Would ‘Rescind’ Obama Immigration Directive

By Judd Legum/Think Progress

A week ago, Obama announced that the Department of Homeland Security was halting deportations for up to 1.4 million young undocumented immigrants. Since that time, Mitt Romney has been repeatedly asked whether, if elected, he would undo Obama’s directive or leave it in place. Romney has steadfastly refused to answer.

But Ray Walser, a co-chair of Mitt Romney’s campaign for issues pertaining to Latin America, finally spilled the beans:

…Mr Walser, told The Daily Telegraph: “My anticipation is that he would probably rescind this directive were he to be elected in November.”

Mr Walser, a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation and veteran US diplomat, said such a decision would be in line with the “very tough” stance taken on illegal migration by Mr Romney so far.

After Walser’s comments to The Daily Telegraph, the reporter followed up with the Romney campaign. It refused to repond to his inquiry. But Walser got back in touch with the reporter and begged not to be quoted: “I’ve now had a little conversation with people from the campaign and they are concerned… They would really prefer that if you’re going to quote the Romney position, you get it from someone other than me.”

UPDATE

Greg Sargent follows up with Walser, who stands by his comments and claims they are consistent with what Romney has been saying.

UPDATE

Via Greg Sargent the Romney campaign responds: “Ray Walser does not advise nor speak for the campaign on immigration policy. Gov. Romney has been clear he will put in place a long-term solution that will supersede President Obama’s stop-gap measure.” Walser is listed as the campaign’s co-chair for Latin America.

VIDEO: How Romney Avoids Direct Questions On Obama’s Immigration Policy

By Jeff Spross/Think Progress

President Obama’s recent decision to protect many undocumented young people from deportation has put Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney in a bind. A poll of likely voters found that only 30 percent disapprove of the President’s new policy. At the same time, Romney has explicitly stated he would veto the DREAM Act, legislation that would enshrine into law a policy very similar to what President Obama has been able to temporarily achieve with his directive.

So when Romney has been repeatedly asked whether he would continue Obama’s policy as president, he’s done everything possible to avoid answering the question. Watch it:

House Republicans Want To Strip LGBT, Immigrant and Native American Protections From Violence Against Women Act

By Annie-Rose Strasser/Think Progress

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is facing another struggle to stay intact, this time in the House of Representatives. The House GOP looks likely to rewrite the domestic violence prevention bill, whichpassed the Senate last week, with the aim of stripping provisions for Native Americans, undocumented people, and the LGBT community — the same provisions that Senate Republicans tried to remove from the bill.

But despite the Senate’s ultimate passage of the bill — which included the support of 14 Republican senators, including all of the female Republicans — the House is ready to fight these provisions again. Their version of VAWA also removes the protections for marginalized communities. According to Congressional Quarterly, a watered-down bill, of which Rep. Sandy Adams (R-FL) is the lead sponsor, is likely to pass in the House:

The House bill also would eliminate Senate language that supporters say would do more to help victims of domestic violence including gays and lesbians, immigrants and American Indians. Adams considers those provisions unnecessary, a spokeswoman said. “The grants are available to all victims, and there is no evidence to conclude that victims are being turned away,” said spokeswoman Lisa Boothe in an email.

The backing of Smith, of Texas, and California’s McCarthy signals the House measure is on a fast track to passage — and a showdown with the Senate.

While Adams may think the provisions are unnecessary, there is ample proof that she is mistaken. Cases of LGBT domestic violence increased 38 percent from last year. Seven people died from domestic abuse. And of those who sought it, 44 percent of LGBT victims were turned away from traditional shelters. As for Tribal victims, Native American women face the highest rate of domestic violence in the US — three and a half times higher than the national average — and can currently not seek any protection if the perpetrator is non-Tribal.

And undocumented victims? Maybe they aren’t “turned away” in Adams’s definition, but that’s because they fear that if they call the police, they will be deported.

Members of Congress have already seen heated debate around VAWA, with one member even recounting her own experience of being raped as a girl. With the attempt to strip out provisions for particularly vulnerable communities, the fight is likely to get even more difficult.

Romney takes beating on immigration as Supreme Court hears Arizona challenge

By Stephen C. Webster/Raw Story

As the U.S. Supreme Court finally takes up a lawsuit over Arizona’s restrictive immigration law, there are some leading immigration reform activists who are calling Mitt Romney’s stated position of supporting policies that encourage “self-deportation” nothing more than “fantasy.”

Romney has previously called Arizona’s immigration policies “a model” for the country, and said he favors the state’s law because it provides incentive for “self-deportation” by making life for undocumented immigrants more miserable than it was in their country of origin.

While the Romney campaign has since clarified that he did not call the law itself a “model” but was instead endorsing the state’s electronic citizenship verification system, his carefully worded positions on how to deal with undocumented immigrants have not sat well with leading advocates. Throughout his campaign, Romney has repeatedly advocated Arizona’s verification system, but when he speaks about the subject he always neglects to note that a virtually identical system is already in place nationally.

“We need a humane solution for the undocumented,” Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, explained to Raw Story. “That means they have to be able to acquire legal status, go through a background check, learn English, pay a fine and get on the path to citizenship… Self-deportation is a fantasy. People are here to work and here to help America prosper. If America is not prospering, immigrants do not want to come here.”

That claim would seem to be borne out by recent data from both Mexico and the U.S., compiled by the Pew Hispanic Center and published this week in a wide-ranging study on immigration trends. The study found that immigration from Mexico to the U.S. has hit “net zero” in the last five years, largely due to growth in the Mexican economy and a lack of jobs in the U.S.

“These state laws we’re seeing that make life unbearable for these immigrants — they make life unbearable for more than just the immigrants,” Clarissa Martinez-De-Castro, director of immigration and national campaigns for the National Council of La Raza, told Raw Story on Tuesday. “I think the notion of self-deportation, according to the premise of those who espouse it, is a fantasy.”

She added: “That notion is based on the idea that you can make life terrifying difficult for people in their communities, and that would force them to leave. The strategy those folks are espousing, I don’t think are the ones that are driving the stabilization of immigration flow, let alone the consequences of those policies on the states where they’ve been adopted, which is billions of dollars in losses for the states, and not just to the population they’re trying to root out.”

“The fact is that the Obama administration has deported 1.2 million people over the last three and a half years,” Noorani said. “There’s no getting around that. But based on the data, it’s clear that people are not coming to the United States because the economy is not presenting a lot of job opportunities right now. Frankly, our question is, when our economy comes back, will we have a functioning legal immigration system to make sure we have the workers and workforce that’s necessary?”

“At the end of the day, that’s what our nation wants: to create jobs, to create growth and serve as a beacon to the best and the brightest in other countries,” he concluded.

For Romney, the political heat from leading immigration activists comes at a crucial moment in his campaign, just as he’s looking to seal the deal with Republicans and pivot to more moderate positions on immigration to begin drawing in some of the Latino vote. He’s already been making campaign stops with Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), a potential choice for vice president whose parents are Cuban, and Rubio has of late been advocating a more conservative version of the Democrats’ DREAM Act, which would enable the children of undocumented immigrants to stay in the U.S.

President Obama, meanwhile, continues to promise that his administration will prioritize immigration reform, which has thus far been entirely shut out by congressional Republicans. Polling last year  (PDF) found that about three in four Americans support creating a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants that does not require their deportation — a position the Obama administration appears to favor.

In spite of that poll, a clear majority of Americans also support Arizona’s immigration law, which would require police to check the citizenship of individuals they suspect may be undocumented immigrants.

In Stammering Interview, Romney Refuses To Say Whether He Will Deport Undocumented Immigrants

By Faiz Shakir/Think Progress

At the last GOP presidential debate, Newt Gingrich asserted his support for an immigration planthat would accord an undocumented immigrant “red card” status — that is, give them a legal right to be here without providing a path to citizenship. Mitt Romney then seized a political opportunity to engage in a false attack against Gingrich, slamming the former Speaker for embracing “amnesty.”

Earlier this week, Bloomberg news reported that, in 2006, Romney “took a nearly identical position” as Gingrich, arguing undocumented immigrants living in the United States should not be “rounded up and box-carred out,” and that they should “get in line” to apply for citizenship.

During his interview with Fox News tonight, Bret Baier asked Romney about this hypocritical stand. Romney affirmed that he does believe undocumented immigrants should indeed be given a pathway to citizenship by being placed “in the back of the line.” Baier astutely noted, “Isn’t that what Gingrich is saying?” Romney incorrectly responded that Gingrich’s plan allows them to “become citizens” and provides “amnesty.”

When Baier asked whether Romney was going to send undocumented immigrants home as they apply for legal status, Romney uncomfortably stammered for a few seconds. He then circled around the issue: “Whether they apply here, whether they apply by going home — I think I’ve said in the past I think it makes more sense for them to go home, if we set up a system for them to apply here…” Baier cut him off and asked again what Romney planned to do immediately with undocumented immigrants who are already here. Again, Romney had no response. Watch it:

In 2008, Romney took the view that every undocumented immigrant had to leave. “Under the ideal setting, at least in my view, you say to those who have just come in recently, we’re going to send you back home immediately, we’re not going to let you stay here,” Romney explained. “You just go back home. For those that have been here, let’s say, five years, and have kids in school, you allow kids to complete the school year, you allow people to make their arrangements, and allow them to return back home. Those that have been here a long time, with kids that have responsibilities here and so forth, you let stay enough time to organize their affairs and go home.”

In a recent interview, one Romney adviser explained that his boss’s current position is essentially to make an undocumented immigrant’s life so unbearable here in the United States that the individual decides to pick up and leave voluntarily.

For an understanding of all the GOP presidential candidates’ views on immigration, check out our compilation here.

Asked 7 Times To Explain Romney’s Immigration Plan, Adviser Concedes It’s To Make Immigrant Lives Unbearable

By Amanda Peterson Beadle/Think Progress

 During last night’s national security debate, emerging GOP presidential frontrunner Newt Gingrich explained that he would support giving undocumented immigrantslegal status without offering citizenship. “If you’ve been here 25 years and you got three kids and two grandkids, you’ve been paying taxes and obeying the law, you belong to a local church, I don’t think we’re going to separate you from your family, uproot you forcefully and kick you out,” he said.

Former frontrunner Mitt Romney’s campaign immediately saw a chance to present their candidate as the anti-immigrant candidate to an increasingly nativist GOP electorate. After the debate, Romney advisor Eric Fehrnstrom said Gingrich was setting up a plan to offer amnesty to undocumented immigrants like the 1986 amnesty act. But while attacking Gingrich for supposedly supporting amnesty, Fehrnstrom couldn’t explain what Romney’s plan would be— beyond creating a hostile environment, that is:

I followed up by asking Fehrnstrom whether Romney believed in deporting those immigrants who are already here illegally.

“He doesn’t believe in granting them amnesty,” Fehrnstrom responded. [...]

Finally, after I asked the question for a seventh time, Fehrnstrom responded by emphasizing employer enforcement as a way to get illegal immigrants to leave through attrition.

“Well, if you cut off their employment, if they can’t get work, if they can’t get benefits like in state tuition, they will leave,” he said. [...]

Just to be clear, I wanted to know about those that still could remain under such a scenario.

“I just answered your question Phil, and you keep hectoring me about it,” he snapped. “You turn off the magnets, no in state tuition, no benefits of any kind, no employment. You put in place an employment verification system with penalties for employers that hire illegals, that will shut off access to the job market, and they will self retreat.They will go to their native countries.”

Surprisingly, this is actually a significant move to the left for Romney. In 2008, Romney actually suggested that he could support mass deportations so long as undocumented immigrants with deep roots in this United States are given “enough time to organize their affairs and go home.” Nevertheless, Romney’s newest position still aligns him very closely with the far right. At the end of the day, Romney’s immigration plan boils down to the Alabama plan under HB 56: create conditions so terrible that they’d have to leave.

The top 5 Republican hypocrites on immigration

By Stephen C. Webster/Raw Story

With the 2012 election on the horizon and Republicans scrambling to prove their conservative credentials, it can't be long until at least one of them jumps on immigration as the hot, new issue to capture right-wing voters.

But for some top Republicans, tackling immigration has a downside: their own hypocrisy.

From sitting governors to rising stars and even presidential aspirants, there are more than a few undocumented skeletons in Republican closets. Here are the top five Republican hypocrites on immigration.

#####

5. Former Colo. Rep. Tom Tancredo

For a time, Tom Tancredo was one of the nation's leading anti-immigrant politicians. He founded the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus, ran multiple political action committees (PACs) solely focused on opposing illegal immigration and called for a three-year freeze on all immigration, legal or not. As a Republican presidential candidate in 2008, he also made cracking down on immigrants his top issue, but his candidacy was largely overlooked. Tancredo opted against running for reelection a year later, but has since returned to the immigrant-bashing business with a new super PAC devoted to supporting candidates who want to make it tougher to come to the U.S.

Those concerns didn't occur to him in 2001, however, when Tancredo hired a company to renovate his Colorado mansion. Only two members of the crew spoke English, but he didn't bother to ask about their immigration status. He'd previously bragged about reporting a 14-year-old honors student to immigration authorities after reading a profile that mentioned his undocumented status. When the construction workers found out about his views, two of them went to the press with the intent of exposing his hypocrisy. Mission accomplished.

4. Former Calif. Gov. candidate Meg Whitman

Meg Whitman, the former CEO of online auction site eBay, had a hard-line stance against immigration in 2009, when she called for every illegal immigrant in California to be prosecuted. Throughout the campaign she held fast to her vow to crack down on illegal immigration and emphasized penalties for employers who hire illegal immigrants.

Unfortunately for Whitman, reporters soon learned that she had kept an illegal immigrant as a housekeeper for nine years. While the woman did have falsified documents, one of Whitman's former campaign staffers claimed that she had known exactly who she was hiring, noting that the Social Security administration had continually hounded her for more information about the woman but never received a reply. Whitman claimed she did not receive the letters, and her longtime housekeeper was fired.

3. Fla. State Sen. JD Alexander

JD Alexander, one of Florida's most powerful lawmakers, has tended to be more moderate on immigration reform than his Republican colleagues, but a lawsuit filed in late August may just reveal what's behind that.

Alexander, whose family grows citrus, is being accused of firing U.S. citizens and legal immigrants working on his farm, and hiring guest workers instead. Guest workers get their green cards after their employer vouches for them, and face deportation if they get fired or quit. For employers, that means a guest worker is more likely to work even harder than others because they could easily be returned to abject poverty on the mere whim of a manager.

In the Florida Senate earlier this year, Alexander also helped block a Republican amendment to an immigration reform bill that would have required employers to check the immigration status of all potential new workers. Speaking to members of the press, he waffled on the issue and said, "I should have probably voted for it. ... I think it's good policy that we put forward; I hope the House will take it."

2.  New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez

As the nation's first Latina governor, Martinez's very presence gave hope to immigrant communities in New Mexico. Unfortunately, that was short-lived, as she quickly launched into anti-immigrant campaign rhetoric, promising policies that would prevent illegal immigrants from obtaining driver's licenses -- a state policy that helps boost the number of insured drivers on the roads.

When her first attempt to use the state's taxation mechanism to ensnare immigrant and foreign national drivers in New Mexico was blocked by a district judge, she ordered the legislature to take up a bill to accomplish the same ends during their ongoing special session, which was originally meant to determine the state's redistricting plans. The New Mexico Senate has previously rejected her plan.

Surprisingly enough, Martinez is herself a product of illegal immigration. She would not have been born in the United States if it were not for her grandparents, who came to the country illegally -- a detail she revealed just last month. Martinez has insisted that detail is "irrelevant" to her position, but immigration activists remain determined to not let her forget it.

1. Former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney

The former Republican governor of liberal Massachusetts, Romney has been dogged by accusations that he is willing to change his positions based on polling alone -- and on immigration, this has proven particularly true. In 2005 he favored a plan by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) that would have let immigrants stay in the country after paying a fine. Just one year later, when Republicans began whipping up an anti-immigrant frenzy to support their 2006 mid-term reelection efforts, Romney changed his position, blocked his state's version of the DREAM Act and ordered troopers to begin cracking down on immigrants. Two years later, facing McCain in the 2008 Republican presidential primaries, Romney assaulted the plan he once supported, calling it an "amnesty" proposal.

Yet, despite his seemingly hard-line stance, Romney has a little open-secret about his dealings with illegal immigrants. The Boston Globe reported in 2006 that a landscaping company Romney hired to tend his mansion's lawn was employing illegal immigrants. In spite of that report, Romney did not fire them. Over one year later, a Globe photographer snapped photos of illegal immigrants raking Romney's lawn. He tried to explain that he wasn't aware of the situation, and his aides later said he'd fired the landscapers.

Still, a year is a long time to keep illegal immigrants working on one's lawn -- especially considering that as governor, Romney called for the deportation process to take place in 90 days or less. Now that he's planning on quadrupling the size of his $12 million mansion in Calif., it leaves one to wonder how many of those construction workers will be U.S. citizens.