Gov. Jerry Brown, on a trip to Mexico, seeks to position
California as a more
welcoming place for immigrants... $25 BILLION PER YEAR IN
WELFARE
NOT WELCOMING ENOUGH?!?
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2014/07/la-raza-jerry-brown-special-interests.html
We’ve got an even more
ominous enemy within our borders
that promotes “Reconquista of Aztlan” or the
reconquest of
California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas into the country of
Mexico.
(THE TRAGEDY FOR LEGALS LIVIING IN MEX-OCCUPIED CA IS THAT
THERE ARE NEARLY 15 MILLION LOOTING MEXICANS AND THEY’RE BREEDING LIKE CATHOLIC
BUNNIES. NOW DO THE MATH!)
LA RAZA-OCCUPATION and LOOTING in
MEXIFORNIA…. shocking!
Californians
bear an enormous fiscal burden as a result of an illegal alien population
estimated at almost 3 million residents. The annual expenditure of state and
local tax dollars on services for that population is $25.3 billion. That total
amounts to a yearly burden of about $2,370 for a household headed by a U.S.
citizen.
THE ENTIRE REASON FOR THE AMNESTY HOAX TO
LEGALIZE MEXICO’S LOOTING IS TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED!
AMNESTY: THE PLOT TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED WITH
ENDLESS HORDES OF
HEAVY BREEDING ILLEGALS
STORMING OUR BORDERS, JOBS AND VOTING BOOTHS!
June 2, 2016
Illegal
Immigration and the Wage Gap
There
is a close long-term correlation between low-skill
wages and illegal immigration. An influx of low-skilled labor drives down wages
at the bottom of the income scale, aggravating the wage gap and social
divisions, providing fodder for left wing demonization of the prosperous and
successful.
The
normal equilibrating capacity of a market economy is short circuited when the
influx of low-skill illegal immigrants is nationwide. If American workers could
easily escape to another country offering higher wages, then wages in the USA
would quickly recover from a surge of immigrant workers, and employers would
gain only a short-lived benefit. So, it might not be worth paying off
politicians to import cheap labor from poor countries.
The
Mariel Boatlift event provides a demonstration of
this. Wages were hammered down in a local economy (Miami) by a flood of
refugees and then recovered as workers scattered to surrounding areas with
higher wages. The whole process took 10 years.
Miami Wages after the Mariel Boatlift
Harvard
professor George J. Borjas has been called
"America’s leading immigration economist" by BusinessWeek and The
Wall Street Journal. The good professor recently surprised himself
and outraged many of his pro-immigration colleagues with a study measuring the dive in wages for low-skill
natives in Miami after the Mariel boatlift of 1980.
Private
boats brought more than 100,000 Cubans to Miami within 5 months. The data displayed in the graph below shows what
happened.
In
1980, Miami low-skilled wages (blue line) were already trending at 94% of those
in the rest of the USA. (orange line). Then Miami wages were hammered
down by the Mariel boatlift. If that event had not occurred, Miami wages
presumably would have followed the gold line (Reference), which is 94% below
wages outside of Miami. If so, we get the following wage gap (Gap)
between the gold (Reference) and blue (Miami) lines:
Gap
= (Miami - Reference) / Reference
The
wage gap (Gap, blue line) hits -0.35 in 1986, which means wages dropped 35%
below where they would have been if the Mariel event had not happened.
Then the Gap closes back up near zero by 1990.
The
red line is the output of my Gap predictor, which I described in a previous article. Also, see my notes. The simple Gap predictor assumes an
immediate reaction in wages, but in reality the reaction takes several years to
occur (6 years in this case). The predictor also assumes almost all the resident
low-skilled workers will take a 39% pay cut without moving out of the job
market. That is not going to happen for long in an American city like
Miami, surrounded by higher-paying job markets.
The
Gap predictor works fairly well for the US as a whole because there is no
foreign country where a low-skill worker can get enough of a pay raise to make
it worth the move. So, the wages stay depressed for about 40 years, until
the immigrant workers retire.
It
is easy to say that immigrants can upgrade their schooling and training and
thus reduce the surplus of low-skill labor. In practice, it is usually
very difficult, especially while raising kids. For example, Senator Marco
Rubio’s father spent his career mostly as a hotel bartender. He was also a street
vendor, security guard, apartment building manager and crossing guard. Rubio’s
mother worked as a maid and Kmart store clerk.
They
stayed in low-skill jobs over their entire working careers. Their
children did very well, however. If the children of immigrants do as well
as the children of natives, then the depression of low-skill wages goes away
unless more low-skill workers are brought into the country.
If
the children and grandchildren of a large class of immigrants remain
low-skill workers like their parents, then my simple Gap predictor no longer
works and we are left with a persistent underclass of people who continue to
cause a surplus of low-skill workers and thus continue to depress low-skill
wages.
Unfortunately,
this is the case for most of the illegal immigrants that are continuing to pour
into the country.
Another Permanent Underclass?
If
the illegals are allowed to stay, the effects will be dire, according to the
findings of Gregory Clark, Professor of Economics at the
University of California, Davis. “Immigration to the United States …
rarely changes one’s social status,” he concludes after extensive study and many
published works. His recent book is about the tendency of descendants within
a family to stay in the same social class as their ancestors.
“... the social status of Latinos, even those born in the United
States, is persistently low… they are often the people who found themselves in
such desperate economic circumstances at home that they preferred to live as
illegal immigrants in the United States. (Latinos constitute nearly half of the
foreign born in the United States, but four in five of illegal migrants.) The
effects have been dire: there can be no doubt that immigration is widening
social inequality in the United States.”
Professor
Clark suggests a less disastrous immigration policy:
“To avoid having a substantially poorer and less educated Latino
underclass for many future generations, [the US] should considering policies to
increase the number of highly educated Latino immigrants.”
But
if current immigration policy is continued, the “United States is likely to
soon have the unprecedented situation of fostering a semi-permanent
underclass.” This lack of social mobility from one generation to the next
is a result that no government uplift program has been able to erase, according
to Clark’s study of government efforts in Sweden, the US, and elsewhere.
This
means that my simple wage formula will underestimate the negative wage effects
of illegal immigration, because the formula assumes that the effect is limited
to the 40-year career of immigrants but not their descendants. A society
over-loaded with low-skill workers will have lower wages in that category until
the surplus disappears, which in this case might be generations away.
I
estimate that enforcing the law and deporting all illegals would raise real
low-skill wages by about 20% to 40% within 6 years, providing immediate relief
to the oppressed low-skill citizens of our country. (See my notes.) Allowing in more high-skill people
and few low-skill people would have long-term benefits that would eventually
tower over this short-term benefit. A more skilled population would
increase the historical trend of economic growth in this country. We might
even become the richest per capita country in the world.
There
is a close long-term correlation between low-skill
wages and illegal immigration. An influx of low-skilled labor drives down wages
at the bottom of the income scale, aggravating the wage gap and social
divisions, providing fodder for left wing demonization of the prosperous and
successful.
The
normal equilibrating capacity of a market economy is short circuited when the
influx of low-skill illegal immigrants is nationwide. If American workers could
easily escape to another country offering higher wages, then wages in the USA
would quickly recover from a surge of immigrant workers, and employers would
gain only a short-lived benefit. So, it might not be worth paying off
politicians to import cheap labor from poor countries.
The
Mariel Boatlift event provides a demonstration of
this. Wages were hammered down in a local economy (Miami) by a flood of
refugees and then recovered as workers scattered to surrounding areas with
higher wages. The whole process took 10 years.
Miami Wages after the Mariel Boatlift
Harvard
professor George J. Borjas has been called
"America’s leading immigration economist" by BusinessWeek and The
Wall Street Journal. The good professor recently surprised himself
and outraged many of his pro-immigration colleagues with a study measuring the dive in wages for low-skill
natives in Miami after the Mariel boatlift of 1980.
Private
boats brought more than 100,000 Cubans to Miami within 5 months. The data displayed in the graph below shows what
happened.
In
1980, Miami low-skilled wages (blue line) were already trending at 94% of those
in the rest of the USA. (orange line). Then Miami wages were hammered
down by the Mariel boatlift. If that event had not occurred, Miami wages
presumably would have followed the gold line (Reference), which is 94% below
wages outside of Miami. If so, we get the following wage gap (Gap)
between the gold (Reference) and blue (Miami) lines:
Gap
= (Miami - Reference) / Reference
The
wage gap (Gap, blue line) hits -0.35 in 1986, which means wages dropped 35%
below where they would have been if the Mariel event had not happened.
Then the Gap closes back up near zero by 1990.
The
red line is the output of my Gap predictor, which I described in a previous article. Also, see my notes. The simple Gap predictor assumes an
immediate reaction in wages, but in reality the reaction takes several years to
occur (6 years in this case). The predictor also assumes almost all the
resident low-skilled workers will take a 39% pay cut without moving out of the
job market. That is not going to happen for long in an American city like
Miami, surrounded by higher-paying job markets.
The
Gap predictor works fairly well for the US as a whole because there is no
foreign country where a low-skill worker can get enough of a pay raise to make
it worth the move. So, the wages stay depressed for about 40 years, until
the immigrant workers retire.
It
is easy to say that immigrants can upgrade their schooling and training and
thus reduce the surplus of low-skill labor. In practice, it is usually
very difficult, especially while raising kids. For example, Senator Marco
Rubio’s father spent his career mostly as a hotel bartender. He was also a
street vendor, security guard, apartment building manager and crossing guard.
Rubio’s mother worked as a maid and Kmart store clerk.
They
stayed in low-skill jobs over their entire working careers. Their
children did very well, however. If the children of immigrants do as well
as the children of natives, then the depression of low-skill wages goes away
unless more low-skill workers are brought into the country.
If
the children and grandchildren of a large class of immigrants remain
low-skill workers like their parents, then my simple Gap predictor no longer
works and we are left with a persistent underclass of people who continue to
cause a surplus of low-skill workers and thus continue to depress low-skill
wages.
Unfortunately,
this is the case for most of the illegal immigrants that are continuing to pour
into the country.
Another Permanent Underclass?
If
the illegals are allowed to stay, the effects will be dire, according to the
findings of Gregory Clark, Professor of Economics at the
University of California, Davis. “Immigration to the United States …
rarely changes one’s social status,” he concludes after extensive study and many
published works. His recent book is about the tendency of descendants within
a family to stay in the same social class as their ancestors.
“... the social status of Latinos, even those born in the United
States, is persistently low… they are often the people who found themselves in
such desperate economic circumstances at home that they preferred to live as
illegal immigrants in the United States. (Latinos constitute nearly half of the
foreign born in the United States, but four in five of illegal migrants.) The
effects have been dire: there can be no doubt that immigration is widening
social inequality in the United States.”
Professor
Clark suggests a less disastrous immigration policy:
“To avoid having a substantially poorer and less educated Latino
underclass for many future generations, [the US] should considering policies to
increase the number of highly educated Latino immigrants.”
But
if current immigration policy is continued, the “United States is likely to
soon have the unprecedented situation of fostering a semi-permanent
underclass.” This lack of social mobility from one generation to the next
is a result that no government uplift program has been able to erase, according
to Clark’s study of government efforts in Sweden, the US, and elsewhere.
This
means that my simple wage formula will underestimate the negative wage effects
of illegal immigration, because the formula assumes that the effect is limited
to the 40-year career of immigrants but not their descendants. A society
over-loaded with low-skill workers will have lower wages in that category until
the surplus disappears, which in this case might be generations away.
I
estimate that enforcing the law and deporting all illegals would raise real
low-skill wages by about 20% to 40% within 6 years, providing immediate relief
to the oppressed low-skill citizens of our country. (See my notes.) Allowing in more high-skill people
and few low-skill people would have long-term benefits that would eventually
tower over this short-term benefit. A more skilled population would increase
the historical trend of economic growth in this country. We might even
become the richest per capita country in the world.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/06/illegal_immigration_and_the_wage_gap.html#ixzz4BNLTOo9p
ON THE STATE LEVEL ALONE, CA HAND
ILLEGALS MORE THAN $30 BILLION IN
SOCIAL SERVICES. COUNTIES HAND OUT
EVEN MORE WITH MEX-OCCUPIED LOS
ANGELES HANDING MEXICO'S ANCHOR
BABY BREEDERS FOR 18 YEARS OF
GRINGO WELFARE MORE THAN A BILLION
DOLLARS!
MEXICANS ALSO LOOT PRIVATE
HOSPITALS AND CLINICS IN MEXIFORNIA
MORE THAN $1.5 BILLION FOR HEALTH
CARE THEY ARE LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO
HAND THE INVADERS.
California Could Become the First State to Expand Coverage to Illegal Immigrants Under Obamacare
A bill sent to California Gov. Jerry Brown's desk would move the state one step closer to allowing illegal immigrants to purchase health insurance through Covered California, its Obamacare exchange. To do so, the state first needs permission from the federal government. (Photo: Lucy Nicholson /Reuters/Newscom)
California state lawmakers are one step closer to expanding coverage under Obamacare to illegal immigrants, sending a bill to Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk that would allow those living in the state illegally to buy health insurance on the exchange with their own money.
The California Legislature passed a bill last week setting in motion a process to eventually allow illegal immigrants living in the state to purchase private health insurance through its state-run exchange, Covered California.
Illegal immigrants cannot and would not qualify for federal subsidies available to lower-income Americans under Obamacare.
The bill requires the state to request permission from the federal government to waive a provision of the Affordable Care Act prohibiting illegal immigrants from participating in Obamacare’s exchanges.
Thank you!
f Brown, a Democrat, decides to sign the legislation and receives the government’s blessing,
California would become the first state to offer health insurance to illegal immigrants through Obamacare.
Though the health care law prohibits illegal immigrants from participating in Obamacare’s exchanges, California officials can seek approval from the Department of Health and Human Services through a Section 1332 “State Innovation Waiver” to bypass that prohibition.
California’s bill instructs the state to pursue a State Innovation Waiver from the federal government. Section 1332 of the health care law allow states to request five-year waivers from key aspects of the Affordable Care Act, including the individual and employer mandates, beginning next year.
To attain a State Innovation Waiver, a state must “pursue innovative strategies” to provide residents with health insurance, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The plan must not only ensure residents have access to “comprehensive and affordable” health care, but it also must provide coverage to either the same number of or more people covered under Obamacare.
Last, for the Section 1332 to be granted, the state’s strategy cannot add to the federal deficit.
The legislation, sponsored by state Sen. Ricardo Lara, a Democrat, was passed last week, and groups opposing illegal immigration are sounding off against the measure.
“With a legislature writing bills for people in our state illegally, this is incentive for the world to come to California illegally,” Robin Hvidston, executive director of the California grassroots group We the People Rising, told The Daily Signal. “California is in the United States of America, and our legislators should be focused on legislating for our U.S. citizens.”
Though illegal immigrants aren’t eligible for subsidies under Lara’s bill, Hvidston worries that in the future, more changes to the law will come.
“It is historically a progression in our state where the bill starts at a certain level, then increases the next year with a new benefit, and on and on,” she said.
BLOG: THE EVER EXPANDING LA RAZA MEXICAN WELFARE STATE
Like Hvidston, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR, too believes the legislation on Brown’s desk is simply a first step.
“This follows a pattern in California. [The bill] is kind of being framed innocuously as ‘We’re not going to subsidize illegal immigrants and just give them an opportunity to buy insurance through the exchanges,’” Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for FAIR, told The Daily Signal. “Of course, there are few who are going to be able to buy coverage without subsidies. This is the first step in the process.
“First, you make it possible for them to buy policies through the exchange, and when nobody can do that because it’s too expensive, you say we have to give them subsidies.”
Regardless of how California’s policy could progress in the future, groups in favor of the bill argue the state should be working to ensure all Californians have access to quality coverage.
“People who have different viewpoints on immigration policy can come together in recognition that it is everyone’s interest to connect as many Californians with coverage, and prevent the health and financial issues for not just uninsured families, but the community as a whole,” Anthony Wright, executive director of Health Access California, told the Washington Examiner.
The group did not return The Daily Signal’s request for comment.
California has the largest population of illegal immigrants—2.6 million—in the country. Covered California puts expected enrollment in private health insurance coverage through the exchange at 50,000 enrollees.
Other estimates place the number of illegal immigrants who would be able to head to the exchange at 390,000.
Lara proposed the legislation initially in 2014, and it recently earned a nod of support of Covered California board members.
According to the Los Angeles Times, the Democratic lawmaker is hoping the state sends the waiver to the Department of Health and Human Services for consideration while President Barack Obama is still in office.
If Brown signs the bill, the departments of Health and Human Services and Treasury can take up to 225 days to respond to the waiver.
Because the decision to determine if Lara’s bill qualifies for a Section 1332 waiver, which outlines specific provisions for proposals that pass muster, would ultimately fall to the federal government, Ed Haislmaier, a Heritage Foundation senior fellow in health policy studies, said it’s likely the legislation amounts to an “empty gesture,” in part because of the high cost of unsubsidized health care on the exchanges.
“I think it’s more symbolic than anything else because to the extent that people in the U.S. illegally are being treated, they’re either paying out of pocket, which some probably are, or they’re relying on charitable and publicly funded providers such as hospitals and federally qualified health centers to obtain their care,” he said.
“Given that the government is having difficulty getting legal, U.S. citizens in the same demographic to actually buy insurance even though it’s heavily subsidized, I don’t know how much success they’ll have,” Haislmaier continued.
However, Mehlman with FAIR, said the Obama administration’s actions regarding illegal immigration indicate they would be in favor of granting the waiver.
“Given the inclinations of this administration and the policies they’ve carried out over the past seven and a half years, you have to suspect they would really want to do this,” he said. “Whether they will do it, I don’t know. I suspect that if the opportunity presented itself and they thought it wouldn’t harm them and their party politically, they probably would do it.”
During a speech before a joint session of Congress in 2009, Obama attempted to debunk claims that under Obamacare, illegal immigrants would receive health insurance, which prompted a now-infamous “You lie,” from Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C.
“There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants,” he told lawmakers. “This, too, is false. The reforms that I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.”
Though California is the only state to consider a proposal expanding coverage to illegal immigrants under Obamacare, Colorado residents are considering a proposal that would require state officials to attain a Section 1332 waiver.
The proposal, which Colorado residents will vote on on the November ballot, would create a government-run health care plan in the Centennial State called ColoradoCare.
OBAMA’S HISPANICAZATION of AMERICA – The rise of the Mex welfare state in America
WASHINGTON, DC (May 31, 2016) — An analysis of new government data by the Center for Immigration Studies shows more than 3 million new legal and illegal immigrants settled in the United States over the course of 2014 and 2015 – a 39 percent increase over the prior two-year period. (The Census Bureau groups data like this to preserve anonymity.) The number of arrivals fell to a low in 2010-2011, but has dramatically rebounded and is now above pre-recession levels. The Center estimates that 1.1 million of the arrivals are new illegal immigrants and 2 million are new legal immigrants. Cutbacks in enforcement, an improved economy, and the expansive nature of our legal immigration system likely have all contributed to the rebound.
The Center for Immigration Studies’ Director of Research and the lead author of the report, Dr. Steven Camarota, observes, “The numbers show that Mexican immigration has rebounded somewhat and there has been a dramatic rise in immigration from Asia and the rest of Latin America.” Camarota also points out that, “Given the enormous number of immigrants settling in the country, it is certainly understandable that immigration levels are a central issue in the presidential election.”
View the entire report at: http://cis.org/New-Data-Immigration-Surged-in-2014-and-2015.
Among the findings in the new study:
- New data collected by the Census Bureau shows that 3.1 million new immigrants (legal and illegal) entered the country in 2014 and 2015, an average of more than 1.5 million annually.
- In 2012 and 2013, 2.3 million immigrants arrived, or about 1.1 million annually. In 2010-2011, 2.1 new immigrants arrived, or about 1 million annually.
- All of these numbers are based on publically available information in Census Bureau data; no adjustments have been made for those missed by the bureau. But even without adjusting for undercount, the scale of new immigration is enormous.
- The big increase in new arrivals in the last two years was driven by a rise in immigration from Latin America (particularly countries other than Mexico), South Asia (e.g. Pakistan and India) and East Asia (e.g. China and Vietnam).
- Of the 3.1 million immigrants who arrived in the last two years, we estimate about one-third – 1.1 million, or 550,000 annually – were new illegal immigrants, a 57 percent increase from the 700,000 (350,000 annually) who entered in 2012-2013.
- The above estimate of illegal immigration represents the flow of new illegal aliens surreptitiously crossing the border or overstaying a temporary visa or released into the country after a short detention, such as families from Central America. The numbers do not represent the net increase in the total illegal immigrant population.
The available evidence also indicates that the number of new legal immigrants arriving from abroad has increased, both temporary and permanent. Our best estimate is that the arrival of legal immigrants increased about 30 percent, from 1.6 million in 2012-2013 to 2 million in 2014-2015.
We’ve got an even more ominous enemy within
our borders that promotes “Reconquista of Aztlan”
or the reconquest of California, Arizona, New
Mexico and Texas into the country of Mexico.
THE LA RAZA MEXICAN CRIME TIDAL WAVE half the prison population in CA and half the murders are by MEXICANS
The Narrative Collapse on Immigration
The numbers of arrivals, legal and illegal alike, are rising, not falling.
By Mark Krikorian
National Review Online, June 2, 2016
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436138/immigration-rising-legal-illegal-2016-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-republicans?target=author&tid=982
‘The immigration crisis that has roiled American politics for decades has faded into history.”
That was the lede of a New York Times op-ed four years ago that neatly summarized the preferred narrative of supporters of amnesty and unlimited immigration. This was reinforced by a Pew study that found “More Mexicans Leaving Than Coming to the U.S.” (though it arrived at that headline only by counting the U.S.-citizen children of the immigrants as “Mexicans”).
The storyline was that mass immigration was a phase we’d now finished with. Thus any continued agitation about amnesty or border enforcement or job competition could only be naked racism.
Oops.
The newest data from the Census Bureau show a surge in total immigration over the past two years. In 2014 and 2015, 3.1 million new foreign-born people moved here, or about 1.5 million per year. This is up from the 2.3 million in the prior two-year period, and 2.1 million in 2010–2011.
Of the 3.1 million who immigrated over the past two years, about a third were illegal aliens — about 550,000 per year (up from 350,000 illegals entering per year in 2012–13). Two-thirds, or 1 million a year, were legal, up from about 750,000 a year in the prior two-year period.
(The total number of immigrants grows inexorably, but not by as much; new arrivals are always partly offset by departures and deaths, and the number of specifically illegal immigrants is also checked by the number who attain legalization.)
One element of the narrative remains true: Mexican immigration is way down. From a million new arrivals from Mexico, legal and illegal, in 2004–05, the number for the past two years has fallen to about a third of that. But that hasn’t translated into a drop in immigration overall, because there’s a whole world of potential migrants beyond Mexico; the number of arrivals from the rest of Latin America has more than doubled since 2010–11, and the number from Asia has risen nearly 40 percent.
The Census Bureau data doesn’t tell us why immigration has increased so dramatically, but it’s probably been caused by the combination of modest improvement in the U.S. economy and Obama’s dramatic cutback in enforcement.
Several conclusions flow from these new numbers. First, the illegal-immigration problem isn’t magically going away on its own. The assumption that it was led to the argument for tying up the remaining loose ends with an amnesty and forgoing enforcement measures such as border fences, E-Verify, and the rest. The claim was never plausible to begin with, but a lot of amnesty-pushers seem to have actually believed it. Even the slowdown in immigration from Mexico isn’t necessarily permanent; it’s up about a third from the low point of 2010–11 and will probably jump a lot more the next time there’s an economic crisis there, unless we put in place the necessary preventive measures now.
Second, immigration is not a purely economic phenomenon driven simply by the business cycle. The weakest recovery in generations, with record numbers of Americans having dropped out of the labor market altogether, is still accompanied by dramatic growth in new immigration. As Europe is also discovering, there are hundreds of millions of people abroad who want to get to the civilized world regardless of the state of the economy there.
Finally, a related myth that is debunked is the claim by supporters of increased immigration that, if only legal admissions were increased, illegal ones would drop. The new numbers show that illegal settlement rose dramatically in 2014–2015 at the same time as the number of legal arrivals did. Legal and illegal immigration are complements, not competitors. The only way to really get rid of illegal immigration is to abolish immigration limits altogether — that way, everyone who wants to come will be able to do so. This scenario, unlimited immigration, is implicit in all “market-driven” immigration proposals, but their backers won’t admit to it because they know that the public would recoil. In fact, there is no plausible level of legal immigration that can eliminate illegal immigration.
These numbers suggest how narrow the debate over immigration is in the presidential campaign. While Trump’s written immigration platform is pretty sophisticated, in his public appearances he focuses almost exclusively on the “wall,” when most immigration is actually legal, and even most of the new illegal immigration comes from visa overstays, not border jumpers. Hillary, of course, is hopeless, embracing what amounts to Angela Merkel’s immigration platform by explicitly saying that she would deport no one who hasn’t been convicted of a violent crime.
Whatever the outcome of the campaign, these immigration numbers make clear that we can never “put the issue behind us” or “get it off the table” or whatever cliché timorous Republican politicians turn to next. As much as tax policy and foreign policy, immigration policy is a permanent feature of political debate. 40% of Federal Criminal Cases in 2013 Were in
Districts on Mexican Border
Border Surge Solution: Send ‘Em to Camp
David!
By Michelle Malkin
Human Events Online, February 17, 2016
. . .
As Brandon Judd of the National Border Patrol Council testified on Capitol Hill recently: “The cartels understood that the unaccompanied minors would force the Border Patrol to deploy Agents to these crossing areas in order to take the minors into custody. I want to stress this point because it has been completely overlooked by the press,” he told the House Judiciary Committee. The unaccompanied minors could have walked right up to the port of entry and requested asylum if they were truly escaping political persecution or violence. “Why did the cartels drive them to the middle of the desert and then have them cross over the Rio Grande only to surrender to the first Border Patrol Agent they came across?” Judd challenged.
“The reason is that it completely tied up our manpower and allowed the cartels to smuggle whatever they wanted across our border.”
This is just another maddening example of Obama’s warped priorities at work. Instead of building effective walls and enforcing our borders to prevent the coming illegal immigration waves manufactured by criminal racketeers, this administration rushes to build welcome center magnets that shelter the next generation of Democrat voters.
. . .
U.S. Failed Three Times to Deport Illegal
Alien Who Murdered Woman
Judicial Watch Corruption Chronicles,
February 18, 2016
. . .
Here’s what we already know from local media reports in Norwich, the city of about 40,000 residents where the murder occurred; the DHS agency responsible for deporting illegal immigrants, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), failed to remove Jacques at least three times dating back to 2002. As if this weren’t atrocious enough, Jacques spent 17 years in prison for attempted murder before authorities released him—instead of deporting him—in January of 2015, the Norwich Bulletin reports. Six months later the 41-year-old illegal alien convict stabbed 25-year-old Casey Chadwick to death. Police said Chadwick died of sharp forced injuries to the head and neck. Jacques is being held on a $1 million bond.
Unfortunately, this is not an isolated case. In the last few years illegal immigrants with lengthy criminal histories have been allowed to remain in the U.S. despite being repeat offenders. Judicial Watch has investigated several of the cases and obtained public records from the government. For instance, back in 2008 JW launched a California public records request with the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department to obtain he arrest and booking information on Edwin Ramos, an illegal alien from El Salvador who murdered three innocent American citizens. Ramos was a member of a renowned violent street gang and had been convicted of two felonies as a juvenile (a gang-related assault on a bus passenger and the attempted robbery of a pregnant woman) yet he was allowed to remain in the country.
. . .
JUDICIAL WATCH
DHS Quietly Moving, Releasing Vanloads of Illegal Aliens Away from Border
The Obama administration is a menace to the rule of law and our nation’s sovereignty. A strong statement but, arguably, a charitable one in light of today’s exclusive report on the border chaos from our Corruption Chronicles blog:
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is quietly transporting illegal immigrants from the Mexican border to Phoenix and releasing them without proper processing or issuing court appearance documents, Border Patrol sources tell Judicial Watch. The government classifies them as Other Than Mexican (OTM) and this week around 35 were transferred 116 miles north from Tucson to a Phoenix bus station where they went their separate way. Judicial Watch was present when one of the white vans carrying a group of OTMs arrived at the Phoenix Greyhound station on Buckeye Road.
(The pictures are available
here. )
The OTMs are from Honduras, Colombia, El Salvador and Guatemala and Border Patrol officials say this week’s batch was in custody for a couple of days and ordered to call family members in the U.S. so they could purchase a bus ticket for their upcoming trip from Phoenix. Authorities didn’t bother checking the identity of the U.S. relatives or if they’re in the country legally, according to a Border Patrol official directly involved in the matter. American taxpayers pick up the fare for those who claim to have a “credible fear,” Border Patrol sources told JW. None of the OTMs were issued official court appearance documents, but were told to “promise” they’d show up for a hearing when notified, said federal agents with firsthand knowledge of the operation.
A security company contracted by the U.S. government is driving the OTMs from the Border Patrol’s Tucson Sector where they were in custody to Phoenix, sources said. The firm is called
G4S and claims to be the world’s leading security solutions group with operations in more than 100 countries and 610,000 employees. G4S has more than 50,000 employees in the U.S. and its domestic headquarters is in Jupiter, Florida. Judicial Watch is filing a number of public records requests to get more information involving the arrangement between G4S and the government, specifically the transport of illegal immigrants from the Mexican border to other parts of the country. The photo accompanying this story shows the uniformed G4S guard that transported the OTMs this week from Tucson to Phoenix.
Outraged Border Patrol agents and supervisors on the front lines say illegal immigrants are being released in droves because there’s no room to keep them in detention. “They’re telling us to put them on a bus and let them go,” said one law enforcement official in Arizona. “Just move those bodies across the country.” Officially, DHS denies this is occurring and, in fact, earlier this year U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner R. Gil Kerlikowske blasted Border Patrol union officials for denouncing this dangerous catch-and-release policy. Kerlikowske’s scolding came in response to the
congressional testimony of Bandon Judd, chief of the National Border Patrol Council, the labor union that represents line agents. Judd told lawmakers on the House Judiciary Committee that illegal immigrants without serious criminal convictions can be released immediately and disappear into the shadows. Kerlikowske shot back,
telling a separate congressional committee: “I would not stand by if the Border Patrol was — releasing people without going through all of the formalities.”
Yet, that’s exactly what’s occurring. This report, part of an ongoing Judicial Watch investigation into the security risks along the southern border, features only a snippet of a much broader crisis in which illegal aliens are being released and vanishing into unsuspecting American communities. The Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest addressed this issue just a few weeks ago in a hearing called
Declining Deportations and Increasing Criminal Alien Releases – The Lawless Immigration Policies of the Obama Administration. Judd, the Border Patrol Union chief, delivered alarming figures at the hearing. He estimated that about 80% of apprehended illegal immigrants are released into the United States. This includes unaccompanied minors who are escorted to their final destination, family units and those who claim to have a credible fear of persecution in their native country. Single males that aren’t actually seen crossing into the U.S. by Border Patrol agents are released if they claim to have been in the country since 2014, Judd added.
The rule of law has collapsed on our border and the Obama administration, along with a do-nothing Congress run by Republicans, is responsible for it. Innocent Americans, taxpayers, the victims of human trafficking, and our nation’s sovereignty all suffer as a result. Through our investigations, lawsuits, and independent journalism, your Judicial Watch will continue to stand for the rule of law and for honest Americans who want the government to enforce the law, not to subvert the law.
I estimate that enforcing the law and deporting all illegals would raise real low-skill wages by about 20% to 40% within 6 years, providing immediate relief to the oppressed low-skill citizens of our country. (See my notes.) Allowing in more high-skill people and few low-skill people would have long-term benefits that would eventually tower over this short-term benefit. A more skilled population would increase the historical trend of economic growth in this country. We might even become the richest per capita country in the world.