Monday, January 29, 2018



The draft amnesty will also serve as complete proof in November that Trump’s voters’ wrongly placed their trust in his August 2016 promise to block any amnesty: (SEE LINK).

"But the taxpayers’ costs also act as a $26 billion stimulus for business which will provide the migrants with medical services, apartments, entertainment, food, and transport. The continued inflow of the 4 million chain-migrants, however, is a vastly greater benefit for business and burden for American workers." NEIL MUNRO


But the business community will have little reason to defend Trump, partly because they have gotten their double-shot of tax cuts and cheap labor. In fact, the legislation does not sunset the amnesty, meaning it can be quietly expanded with a few legal tweaks that can be attached to any of the myriad obscure bills annually passed by Congress.


 “According to the Centers for Immigration Studies, April '11, at least 70% of Mexican illegal alien families receive some type of welfare in the US!!!”

 Will Trump Preside Over Largest Amnesty Ever Seen in This Country, The World?MAGA: "My Amnesty Give-Away"

How Did We Get Here?

By Dan Cadman on January 26, 2018
In past weeks, there has been an increasingly strident debate over immigration "reform", particularly in the Senate, which has repeatedly exhibited paralysis (because of self-imposed filibuster and cloture rules requiring 60 votes to get anything done, rather than a simple majority). The impasse has led to inability to pass a budget for the fiscal year that's now half over, and the Democratic minority has used the opportunity to engage in fiscal hostage-taking to demand an amnesty for illegal aliens. A select number of Republicans, whose views on immigration mirror those of the Democrats, have joined in the effort.
The shape and size of the amnesty is amorphous, with the proposals growing ever larger, though the nucleus was supposedly to legalize the 700,000 or so aliens who benefited from the constitutionally questionable Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program instituted by the Obama administration.
Donald Trump on the campaign trail said he would end DACA because it was clearly an example of executive overreach. His position shifted as president: Instead, DACA was to be phased out over a period of many months, with two-year renewals being given in the interim. Trump then opened Pandora's box by inviting Congress to legislate the problem away (they had considered and rejected such legislation in the past, which is one reason Obama took matters into his own hands by implementing the equivalent of an imperial decree).
Trump went so far as to say that he would consider reopening the program if Congress failed to act – a threat he has repeated in recent days, despite earlier acknowledgements that the program was illegal and unconstitutional, and despite the fact that he is undercutting his own Justice Department, which is litigating the DACA shutdown in federal court.
How did we get here? The answer to that lies in the mid-1980s.
It was Republican president Ronald Reagan who firmly stood behind, and ultimately signed into law, the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986, which contained a massive amnesty that forgave and provided lawful status to roughly 2.7 million illegal aliens from nations all over the world.
The legalization provisions were billed as a one-time, never-again amnesty, because IRCA was a "great compromise" that included enforcement measures which would ensure no more massive build-ups of aliens living illegally in the United States.
IRCA was a massive failure. The enforcement provisions were pretty much prospective in nature, providing for a gradual phase-in, and IRCA didn't in fact appropriate funds for resources needed at the border, in the interior, or in the workplace, to make it a success.
In fact, funding never came. Despite promises made to garner amnesty, once it was in place, enforcement suffered absolute neglect. In the out years following IRCA, there was a failure of political will in the legislative and executive branches; the capital and human resources weren't sought and weren't apportioned to interior or worksite enforcement efforts, and those given the border were too little, too late. I recall many years while employed at the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) when there were fewer than 1,000 investigators. At the time, there were more Capitol Police officers guarding Congress than there were INS agents charged with conducting all enforcement work in the interior of the entire United States.
Even the amnesty provisions were of questionable value, and became the source of nearly 30 years of litigation by applicants who appealed denials of legalization. What is more, the program was overwhelmed with fraud at giant regional processing centers where examiners labored endlessly without any personal interaction with the applicants, for instance to determine credibility or press questions about documents or affidavits submitted. They became the equivalent of diploma mills, in this case the "diploma" being a green card to the happy recipients.
The result of IRCA's failure, and the unwillingness to fund and support viable immigration enforcement, is in front of our eyes: instead of diminishing through attrition and compliance, the illegal population ballooned after the IRCA amnesty "reset" to its present level of 11 or 12 million. What's more, about half of the illegal-alien population of the U.S. consists of visa overstays, not border jumpers. Yet our visa-issuing policies and port inspection processes remain ossified and ineffectual.
We are beset with intractable issues involving parents who over the years smuggled their children here in the hundreds of thousands, with no effective effort to put a stop to this dangerous, parentally negligent practice; and the border is as wild and unpoliceable as ever. In fact, enforcement statistics from Fiscal Year 2017 show that nearly half of all border apprehensions involved minors and family units. This should be a wake-up call to anyone who thinks that an amnesty today won't be needed again in a few short years. On the contrary, calls for amnesty act as a beacon to others to begin their trek northward in hopes of cashing in, by fair means or foul.
Into this mix strode Donald Trump, riding a wave of populist sentiment to the White House. His rallying cry was Make America Great Again (MAGA), and his popularity was based in large measure on his promise to restore the rule of law to immigration enforcement. Then came his public DACA turnaround, which no doubt came as a great surprise to his supporters and, as surely as night follows day, we are now witnessing the inevitable fallout from that utterance.
It has led to a hue and cry that Congress and the president must again hit the amnesty re-set button, although this time around one doesn't hear the "just this time, then never again" promise made so vociferously in the past. Advocates don't think they need to make it, and politicians who purport to be in favor of amnesty only in return for enforcement trade-offs aren't quite so eager to put their reputations on the line with such assurances, though they plod doggedly forward as if they must pass legislation, however poorly crafted.
In response to a plaintive call from members of Congress (mostly senators), the White House has now issued a set of principles that form its framework for what would be acceptable before the president would be amenable to signing immigration legislation that includes an amnesty. The framework is, in a word, disappointing.
By the White House's own estimates, the amnesty would cover nearly two million aliens. There are substantial reasons to think this is a significant underestimate, based on the nation's experience with IRCA. Fraud alone could increase that estimate by 20 or 30 percent. Then there are the methodologies used to arrive at the figure – like those used by the Congressional Budget Office, there is likely a "fudge factor" based on aliens who will not apply, or will be denied, that in the hard light of day won't hold up, which in turn means that the figure is pretty much an unreliable lowball.
One begins to wonder whether MAGA still stands for Make America Great Again, or has instead morphed into "My Amnesty Give-Away".
It would appear that this president, who campaigned on promises to restore integrity to the immigration system, is quite possibly set to preside over the largest amnesty ever seen in this country, perhaps even the world.

Trump’s Draft Amnesty: Citizenship for Illegal Alien Population Six Times the Size of Obama’s DACA

President Trump’s amnesty plan would potentially give a pathway to U.S. citizenship to an illegal alien population that is roughly six times the number of illegal aliens that were given temporary amnesty under former President Obama.

An almost final draft of the White House’s expansive amnesty plan obtained by Breitbart News reveals that the Trump administration would be expanding Obama’s federal, temporary amnesty—known as the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program—to six times the number of illegal aliens who are enrolled in the DACA.
Former Koch brothers executive Marc Short, who previously led the failed “Never Trump” effort inside the pro-mass immigration billionaires’ network, helped craft the White House amnesty plan, along with Chief of Staff Gen. John Kelly, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, and senior adviser Stephen Miller.
The White House amnesty plan estimates that about 1.8 million illegal aliens will be eligible for a pathway to U.S. citizenship under their proposal. But, based on estimates from the 1986 amnesty, citizenship for 1.8 million illegal aliens would only be the starting point of the White House amnesty.
The 1986 amnesty was designed to give 400,000 illegal alien agricultural workers amnesty. After being enacted, though, about 1.1 million illegal aliens ended up getting amnesty, implying that 700,000 illegal aliens fraudulently received amnesty, as noted by the Center for Immigration Studies.
Should this pattern be the same for the White House’s amnesty plan, the low estimate of 1.8 million illegal aliens receiving a pathway to U.S. citizenship will quickly and likely become 4.5 million illegal aliens eventually obtaining citizenship.
Currently, there are nearly 800,000 illegal aliens enrolled in Obama’s DACA program. The White House amnesty plan would potentially sextuple this number of illegal aliens receiving amnesty and a pathway to citizenship.
Likewise, as Breitbart News reported, it is plausible for the White House plan to become entirely open-ended and thus never-ending, much like the 1986 amnesty, critics and experts say.
A copy of the White House amnesty obtained by Breitbart News reveals that the DHS secretary would have nearly all control over the size and implementation of the amnesty with no end date for when illegal aliens can no longer apply for the pathway to citizenship.
The expansive amnesty attempts to contain the amnesty population by requiring education, good moral character, and time period constraints and provisions. But, the expansive amnesty’s requirements are low and not rigorous, leaving the amnesty open to massive amounts of fraud, like the 1986 amnesty.
Also included in the White House amnesty draft:
  • A more than 10-year wait before legal immigration levels are reduced to provide much-needed relief and wage increases to America’s working and middle class
  • No immediate end to the wage-crushing importation of blue-collar and white-collar foreign workers
  • A repurposing of the 50,000 visas that currently import foreign nationals through the Visa Lottery
  • $25 billion to fund the construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border
  • No provisions to enact mandatory E-Verify, which would ban employers from hiring illegal aliens
  • No provisions to end or punish sanctuary cities, which protect and harbor criminal illegal aliens
  • No provisions to deal with the issue of ending birthright citizenship, where at least 4.5 million children have received U.S. citizenship despite their parents being illegal aliens
The amnestying of 4.5 million illegal aliens under the White House amnesty would mean an instant depression of American workers’ wages and an enormous increase in the number of now-legalized foreign workers that Americans will have to compete for jobs against in the workforce.
Every year, the U.S. admits more than 1.5 foreign nationals, with the vast majority deriving from family-based chain migration, whereby newly naturalized citizens can bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives to the U.S. In 2016, the legal and illegal immigrant population reached a record high of 44 million. By 2023, the Center for Immigration Studies estimates that the legal and illegal immigrant population of the U.S. will make up nearly 15 percent of the entire U.S. population.
Mass immigration has come at the expense of America’s working and middle class, which has suffered from poor job growth, stagnant wages, and increased public costs to offset the importation of millions of low-skilled foreign nationals.
Four million young Americans enter the workforce every year, but their job opportunities are further diminished as the U.S. imports roughly two new foreign workers for every four American workers who enter the workforce. Even though researchers say 30 percent of the workforce could lose their jobs due to automation by 2030, the U.S. has not stopped importing more than a million foreign nationals every year.
For blue-collar American workers, mass immigration has not only kept wages down but in many cases decreased wages, as Breitbart News reported. Meanwhile, the U.S. continues importing more foreign nationals with whom working-class Americans are forced to compete. In 2016, the U.S. brought in about 1.8 million mostly low-skilled immigrants.
For white-collar American workers, mass immigration has become a tool for the big business lobby, cheap labor industry, and Silicon Valley elites to replace U.S. citizens with cheaper foreign workers. For example, as Breitbart News reported, 71 percent of tech workers in coveted high-paying, white-collar Silicon Valley jobs are foreign-born, while the tech industry in the San Francisco, Oakland, and Hayward area is made up of 50 percent foreign-born tech workers.
The White House amnesty plan was crafted despite recent Harvard-Harris polling revealing the massive popularity of Trump’s pro-American immigration agenda, including reducing legal immigration levels, building a border wall, and ending the mass importation of naturalized citizens’ foreign relatives.
For example, 85 percent of black Americans, who have been disproportionately impactedby mass immigration to the U.S., want Trump’s merit-based legal immigration system that would cut current legal immigration levels in half to raise Americans’ wages and bring English-proficient, highly-educated immigrants to the U.S., rather than low-skilled foreign nationals who put downward pressure on black Americans’ wages.
The White House amnesty plan does not immediately reduce mass legal immigration levels, allowing more than 1 million immigrants to continue arriving in the U.S. over the course of potentially two decades. This portion of the amnesty plan is particularly not in-line with what American voters say they want in a legal immigration system.
The Harvard-Harris poll found that more than 80 percent of Americans want legal immigration levels curbed, while previous polling by Pulse Opinion Research found that 60 percent of Americans say they prefer a legal immigration system that admits 500,000 legal immigrants a year or less.
If the U.S. does not reduce current legal immigration levels in the next two decades, between seven and eight million foreign-born voters will be added to the American electorate, as Breitbart News reported, potentially making states like Texas, Florida, and Virginia solid Democrat voting blocs, as immigrants are vastly more likely to vote for Democrats over Republicans.
The Hispanic vote in Texas will continue to increase. By 2024 Democrats can win Texas, Arizona and Florida. A big blue wall of 78 electoral votes. 
Democrats like the former Mayor of San Antonio, Julian Castro, now openly admit that mass immigration to the U.S. is a Democrat-voter initiative.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder

Are We Heading for an Immigration Sellout?

If I’d told you 2 years ago journalists would scramble to “report” on the allegation President Donald Trump wanted to fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller seven months ago like it A) just happened, and B) actually happened (as in he was fired), you would’ve thought I was lying to you. But it’s all too real, and someone will likely win a journalism award for it.
But in an age of frantic reporting over rumors, lies, and non-stories, the pearl-clutching class chose a faux-scandal over some real news – that the White House is open to selling out on immigration. Oh, they mentioned it, but it wasn’t nearly as important as the alleged prospect of the President wanting to fire someone he has every Constitutional right to fire.
It deserves more than a mention. 

No comments: