{"id":2576,"date":"2013-02-26T16:14:29","date_gmt":"2013-02-26T20:14:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/live-immigrationreform.pantheonsite.io\/?p=2576"},"modified":"2015-07-30T15:48:35","modified_gmt":"2015-07-30T19:48:35","slug":"report-shows-senior-administration-official-has-no-interest-in-enforcement","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/2013\/02\/26\/report-shows-senior-administration-official-has-no-interest-in-enforcement\/","title":{"rendered":"Report Shows Senior Administration Official Has No Interest in Enforcement"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>A report written by President Obama\u2019s top domestic policy advisor more than 20 years ago, when she served as a senior immigration policy analyst for the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), ought to raise some serious red flags with members of Congress.<\/p>\n<p>In 1990, Cecilia Mu\u00f1oz <a href=\"http:\/\/www.fairus.org\/DocServer\/NCLR.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">published a report<\/a> that was sharply critical of the 1986 IRCA amnesty because it failed to maximize the number of illegal aliens who \u201cwere theoretically eligible for legalization.\u201d Of course, there is virtual universal acknowledgement that the 1986 was widely abused and that many illegal aliens obtained amnesty fraudulently.<\/p>\n<p>Mu\u00f1oz was also highly critical of the employer sanctions provisions of IRCA, claiming that they were ineffective in preventing illegal aliens from working in the U.S. and resulted in discrimination against certain minorities. Employer sanctions were ineffective because groups like NCLR and others fought efforts to make them effective. Allegations that employer sanctions resulted in discrimination were never proven.<\/p>\n<p>This <a href=\"http:\/\/www.fairus.org\/DocServer\/NCLR.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">dusty old report<\/a> from 1990 is extremely relevant to the Obama administration\u2019s effort to enact amnesty in 2013. As director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, Mu\u00f1oz would play a critical role in implementing any legislation passed by Congress. She would have a hand in writing key regulations that are as important, if not more so, than what Congress writes into a bill.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Mu\u00f1oz\u2019s complaints about the 1986 amnesty: <\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>\u201cEmployer sanctions are inherently discriminatory.\u201d <\/li>\n<li>\u201c\u2026the first stage of legalization failed to maximize participation from the pool of eligible applicants.\u201d <\/li>\n<li>\u201cIn the wake of this \u2018one-time-only\u2019 program, the nation appears to be left with a least as many undocumented people as when it first considered these proposals.\u201d\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Mu\u00f1oz\u2019s 1990 recommendations for a future amnesty:<br \/>\n<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The U.S. should complete, and expand, amnesty for illegal aliens. <\/li>\n<li>Should focus on border enforcement, rather than worksite enforcement. <\/li>\n<li>\u201cCongress should repeal employer sanctions.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>\u201cCongress should reject proposals to develop any type of identity card.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>A report written by President Obama\u2019s top domestic policy advisor more than 20 years ago, when she served as a senior immigration policy analyst for the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), ought to raise some serious red flags with members of Congress. In 1990, Cecilia Mu\u00f1oz published a report that was sharply critical of<\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/2013\/02\/26\/report-shows-senior-administration-official-has-no-interest-in-enforcement\/\" title=\"Read More\">Read More<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":10,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0},"categories":[5,3,6,4,10,7],"tags":[778,873],"yst_prominent_words":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2576"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/10"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2576"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2576\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2674,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2576\/revisions\/2674"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2576"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2576"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2576"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=2576"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}