April 19, 2007
by William Gheen
President, Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC)
Posted 12/07/2010 06:59 PM ET
Immigration: Congress is expected to vote on the Dream Act on Wednesday, providing a path to citizenship to millions of illegal immigrant youth. It's a bad precedent that uses kids, costs taxpayers and invites new amnesties.
After years of failing to sell mass amnesty to voters, the open-borders lobby has turned to tugging at Americans' heartstrings, presenting treacly stories of illegal immigrants brought here as children who then bettered themselves here.
Somehow legalizing this group ahead of all the other people awaiting immigration visas legally is supposed to specially benefit all of us, even though the most obvious beneficiaries are the individuals themselves. But out of guilt, or because we "owe" them "justice," the case is being made for passing the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act.
That act provides a path to citizenship for some 2.1 million illegals who have lived here continuously for five years, avoided felony convictions, came to the U.S. before they turned 16 and completed two years of college or U.S. military service within six years.
Now, in the lame-duck session of Congress, the open-borders lobby has lawmakers right where it wants them. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has filed Senate cloture to bring the Dream Act to a vote as soon as Wednesday, and the House may vote even sooner.
It's a scam, using children unethically to achieve an open-borders political agenda that opens the door to perverse incentives.
The Dream Act is an effort to mimic the benefits illegals derive from having anchor babies in the U.S., a tactic used by millions as an "insurance policy" to avoid deportation and achieve legal status.
The awfulness of that incentive can be seen in the case of Edgar Jimenez Lugo, the 14-year-old U.S. "citizen" who was arrested in Mexico after a rather spectacular career beheading rivals and innocent people for $2,500 each on behalf of a Mexican cartel enforcer.
Cronica, a Mexican newspaper, reported that the throwaway kid was born in San Diego and then spent his life with Mexican parents who took him back to Morelos, Mexico, and "wandered around." Apparently the child's birth in San Diego was the same gambit millions of other immigrants use to game the system for U.S. entry. And he's only facing three years in jail in Mexico, so he'll soon become our problem — not Mexico's.
The Dream Act makes every baby an anchor baby, commodifying children, as young Jimenez seems to have been. It extends the incentive for parents to use their kids to beat immigration laws.
Under the Dream Act it may take 10 years for an illegal to achieve full U.S. citizenship, but there's little doubt he will. And as soon as he does achieve citizenship, he will sponsor the parents who brought him into the country illegally — thus achieving the original intention of the law-breaking parents.
This bill is really an amnesty bill. The 1986 amnesty signed by President Reagan provided amnesty to 2.7 million illegals. Now, 24 years on, we have 12 million illegals to amnesty.
Columnist Michelle Malkin points to six successive amnesties since the 1986 act. Each has raised anticipation of new ones for illegals. For them, no need to hurry for the amnesty train — the next one will be along in just a moment.
Worse, the Dream Act will cost a lot. By some estimates it's a $6.2 billion bill for taxpayers, but it may be even more. Judges over the years have already ruled that children of illegals are entitled to "free" U.S. public education through the 12th grade, plus "free" medical care, bankrupting hospital emergency rooms.
The Dream Act will give them even more.
With a treasured U.S. green card as motivation, all they have to do is clog up community college enrollments with no minimum performance standards, crowding out legitimate students who are interested in learning, or else sign up for diploma-mill trade schools with government loans they aren't under any obligation to repay.
For every Harvard valedictorian the illegal immigration lobby presents as a poster boy, there will be thousands of gang members who will qualify because the cops haven't caught them yet.
Worst of all is the entitlement mentality this bill creates.
Suddenly the U.S. taxpayer "owes" all this, as the brazen illegal students parading around in graduation robes for cameras without fear of apprehension make clear. This entitlement mentality is no success ethic. And it won't stop at the Dream Act.
It just underscores the disgusting ethic of special interests playing grievance and identity politics by using children as pawns.
The only good answer to this is no.
The DREAM and the Nightmare
In California, students are better off being illegal immigrants than legal.
30 March 2012
Here is an example of why hiring illegal aliens is not economically productive for the State of California...
You have 2 families..."Joe Legal" and "Jose Illegal". Both families have 2 parents, 2 children and live in California.
"Joe Legal" works in construction, has a Social Security Number, and makes $25.00 per hour with payroll taxes deducted...."Jose Illegal" also works in construction, has "NO" Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash "under the table".
Joe Legal...$25.00 per hour x 40 hours $1000.00 per week, $52,000 per year
Now take 30% away for state and federal tax
Joe Legal now has $31,231.00
Jose Illegal...$15.00 per hour x 40 hours $600.00 per week, $31,200.00 per year
Jose Illegal pays no taxes...
Jose Illegal now has $31,200.00
Joe Legal pays Medical and Dental Insurance with limited coverage
$1000.00 per month
$12,000.00 per year
Joe Legal now has $19,231.00
Jose Illegal has full Medical and Dental coverage through the state and local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year
Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00
Joe Legal makes too much money is not eligible for Food Stamps or welfare
Joe Legal pays for food
$1,000.00 per month
$12,000.00 per year
Joe Legal now has $ 7,231.00
Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for Food Stamps and Welfare
Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00
Joe Legal pays rent of
$1,000.00 per month
$12,000.00 per year
Joe Legal is now in the hole... minus (-) $4,769.00
Jose Illegal receives a $500 per month Federal rent subsidy
Jose Illegal pays rent
$500.00 per month
$6,000.00 per year
Jose Illegal still has $25,200.00
Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after work.
Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.
Joe Legal's and Jose Illegal's children both attend the same school. Joe Legal pays for his children's lunches while Jose Illegal's children get a government sponsored lunch.
Jose Illegal's children have an after school ESL program. Joe Legal's children go home.
Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same Police and Fire Services, but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay.
Don't vote/support any politician that supports illegal aliens...
Its WAY PAST time to take a stand for America and Americans!
La Raza Demands Obama's Health Reform Plan Cover Illegal Aliens
On Monday, June 15, the National Council of La Raza (La Raza), an open borders advocacy group, issued a statement calling upon Congress to ensure that illegal aliens are given health benefits if and when Congress considers health care reform.
La Raza's statement "strongly urge[d] President Obama and Congress to make every effort to ensure that health care reform reaches all communities" in the United States, and stressed that "one out of every three uninsured persons and roughly 40% of all uninsured children [in the United States] are Latino," and demanded "health care reform that makes coverage affordable and accessible for everyone — all families and all children."
La Raza President and CEO Janet Murguía used the statement to emphasize that "everyone in the U.S. should contribute to a new health system," and that "Latinos [would] accept their responsibility" to contribute to a new health care system and "will pay their fair share for the health coverage they need." While the statement does not reference illegal immigration specifically, or distinguish between legal and illegal aliens, it does express concern that adding new, expensive verification and documentation procedures for immigrants would "severely restrict access to health care coverage." (La Raza Press Release, June 15, 2009).
Specific research has shown that many illegal aliens lack health insurance and represent a disproportionate share of the United States' uninsured population. The Pew Hispanic Center's recent report, A Portrait of Unauthorized Immigrants in the United States, found that 59% of illegal aliens in the United States had no form of health insurance in 2007, and that 45% of illegal alien children were also without health coverage in 2007. It also found that even the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens were insured at the low rate of 25%, and that there was a significant disparity between the volume of uninsured illegal aliens and the volume of uninsured U.S. citizens and other legal residents. (Pew Hispanic Center Report, April 14, 2009).
Pew's information has support in federal statistics: data collected by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Census Bureau for the same time frame show that approximately 33.2% of the foreign-born population in the United States (a category which does not differentiate between newly naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents, and illegal aliens) were uninsured in 2007, and that almost 10 million foreign-born non-citizens lacked health insurance in 2007. (DHS Fact Sheet, February 2009).
(For more information on how illegal immigration is financially impacting the U.S. health care system, see FAIR's Legislative Updates for April 13, 2009, and April 20, 2009).
Democrats on House Approps Committee Kill Another E-Verify Amendment
Last week, during a House Appropriations Committee mark-up for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration Appropriations spending bill, Committee Democrats rejected an amendment to require federal contractors to use E-Verify if they received federal contracts funded by the bill. (Appropriations Summary).
The week before, Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) had offered a similar amendment to the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations spending bill. His amendment was subsequently rejected by the Appropriations Committee. (FAIR's Legislative Update, June 15, 2009). This week, Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA) offered the amendment to the Agriculture Spending bill. Calvert's amendment was rejected entirely on a party-line basis with 23 Republicans supporting and 34 Democrats rejecting the amendment.
The Agriculture spending bill spends almost $23 billion in taxpayer dollars. Over $4 billion dollars alone will be allocated to the Food and Drug Administration and Food Safety and Inspection Service, two important organizations in protecting America's food and drug supply. In addition, the bill provides billions more for programs like the Nutrition for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and International Food Aid. The bill will also provide funding for rural development, conservation projects, and oversight and enforcement.
With so many American jobs and tax dollars at stake, many Americans are frustrated that Congress refuses to demand that federal contractors use E-Verify. (To learn more about E-Verify, see FAIR's Fact Sheet.). This vote marks the third time in two weeks that Democratic Leadership has rejected amendments requiring federal contractors to use E-Verify.
Pressure Mounting on Obama to Extend TPS Status to All Haitians, Including Illegal Aliens
The Haitian community and other open borders advocates are engaging in a full-court press to have the Obama Administration extend Temporary Protected Status to all Haitians in the United States, including extending legal status to nearly 30,000 illegal aliens, under the premise that environmental and economic conditions in Haiti mandate such a policy.
Under § 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS) may extend Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to individuals — including illegal aliens — from specific nations if that nation is experiencing conditions that create serious risks to health or safety, including armed conflicts, disasters, or other extraordinary but temporary circumstances. TPS, by its nature, was never intended to create a permanent immigration status change, but rather only a temporary one, with DHS making the final decision about when TPS ends. (USCIS Fact Sheet, April 30, 2009).
The Bush Administration rejected appeals by the Haitian government to extend TPS to Haiti as recently as January 2009. Since then, several members of Congress have continued to seek a reversal of that decision including Reps. Eliot Engel (D-NY) and Gregory Meeks (D-NY). Engel and Meeks have been working with international organizations to lobby for TPS status for Haitians. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) has introduced legislation during the 111th Congress that would formalize TPS for Haitians. Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) have also expressed support for the idea. (Washington Times, March 18, 2009; Dominica News Online, May 26, 2009; South Florida Caribbean News, June 19, 2009).
DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano had initially rejected the idea of extending TPS to Haitians, but Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton recently commented that the Administration is contemplating the idea. (Associated Press, May 28, 2009). Lobbying groups have seized upon the Obama Administration's indecision, and have made themselves seen and heard in Washington in an effort to force the change in policy. (Id.). These groups include the Haitian Coalition for TPS, the Haitian Citizen United Task Force, the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. These groups have reached out to the White House and federal officials to press for the policy shift, arguing that the United States has a humanitarian obligation to do so. (Dominica News Online, May 26, 2009; South Florida Caribbean News, June 19, 2009).
Advocates for extension of TPS to Haitians point to recent economic and weather-related devastation in the small Caribbean nation as justification for the change in policy. (Palm Beach Post, May 21, 2009; Miami Herald, May 26, 2009). AFSC recently declared in a statement that "TPS is the most immediate form of humanitarian assistance the United States government can provide" in light of the current "devastating and overwhelming conditions in Haiti." This same AFSC statement stated that it was not unusual for the United States to extend TPS to foreign nationals of countries experiencing "significant hardship and suffering." (Id.).
Critics of TPS say that the U.S. government has a poor track record of terminating the temporary status, even long after the original justification for TPS existed and despite conditions having improved in the TPS country. For instance, TPS was first extended to Salvadoran nationals in March 2001, but since then TPS status has been extended seven times and still remains in effect. Likewise, Honduras was originally designated for TPS status in January 1999 but has since been extended 13 times with TPS still in effect. Somalia and Sudan were both designated for TPS in the mid-1990s and are still under TPS. (U.S. House Judiciary Committee Hearing, March 4, 1999; DOJ Virtual Law Library).
The idea of extending Temporary Protected Status to Haiti raises the concern that such a move would create an unmanageable wave of refugees coming from Haiti to the United States. In an effort to discourage this possibility, a DHS spokesman said in March: "let me be clear: No one living in Haiti right now should be attempting to come to the United States in hopes that they will be granted TPS." (Washington Times, March 18, 2009). Daniel Erikson, of the Washington think tank Inter-American Dialogue has said TPS "what Haiti needs most is a long-term nation-building effort, not short-term stop-gap measures [like TPS]." (Id.). Erikson also said that: "Granting TPS to Haiti is merely a Band-Aid that cannot heal a deeply wounded country and may raise the risks of a new wave of migration." (Id.).
Senators introduce Legislation to Weaken Secure Driver's License Standards
Last week, Senator Daniel Akaka introduced legislation entitled PASS ID (S. 1261), a bill that would gut the REAL ID Act. Congress passed the REAL ID Act in the wake of the September 11th Terrorist Attacks in order to improve the security of U.S. issued driver's licenses. (Bill Text).
After the 9/11 attacks, the 9/11 Commission found that lax security standards had enabled the hijackers to obtain "13 driver's licenses (two of which were duplicates) and 21 USA or state-issued identification cards (usually used for showing residence in the U.S. or a state)." (9/11 Fact Sheet).
With these findings, the Commission recommended that Congress enact requirements for secure identification, stating: "Secure identification should begin in the United States. The federal government should set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification, such as driver's licenses.... At many entry points to vulnerable facilities, including gates for boarding aircraft, sources of identification are the last opportunity to ensure that people are who they say they are and to check whether they are terrorists." (Commission Report, p. 390). Congress responded to the Commission's recommendation by passing the REAL ID Act, a law that takes steps towards a secure form of identification in the United States.
REAL ID's provisions include the following: (1) a requirement that individuals present proof of lawful presence when applying for a driver's license or ID card; (2) a requirement that states "verify" the documents presented by an applicant to prove his or her identity; and (3) a requirement that driver's licenses expire on the same date as an alien's immigration status expires.
Since the enactment of REAL ID, however, illegal alien advocates have sought to undo the law in order to allow illegal aliens to obtain driver's licenses. Akaka's bill scales back the purposes for which a secure ID will be needed in the U.S., thereby undermining security. The PASS ID Act also strips the requirement that states "verify" the identification presented, thereby making it easier for illegal aliens, identity thieves and criminals to fraudulently obtain driver's licenses. Finally, PASS ID also dramatically expands eligibility for persons who may obtain a secure ID. For example, under the bill, an illegal alien need only file an application for asylum and receive temporary work authorization in order to be eligible for a secure ID. (Section 242(c)(2)).
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano has endorsed the Akaka bill, stating: "Today's introduction of Pass ID… in the U.S. Senate brings us closer to greater compliance with federal standards for secure driver's licenses…. I am committed to supporting this important bill and it is my hope that Congress will pass it into law as quickly as possible." (DHS Press Release).