Leading
2020 Dems Unified to Turn Red States Blue with More Immigration
AP Photo/David J. Phillip
14 Oct 2019345
6:19
Despite efforts to draw distinctions between each other, the
leading 2020 Democrat presidential primary candidates are unified to bring more
immigration, and thus more labor market competition for American workers, to
the United States if elected.
Though polling among all U.S. voters, and particularly with swing voters, finds campaigning for immigration, illegal and legal, is the
most unpopular policy position, leading candidates like former Vice President
Joe Biden, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) have
gone above and beyond past Democrat candidates in their vows to drive a large
migration to the country.
That increase in immigration would
likely have significant consequences for states like Arizona, Florida,
Michigan, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Virginia. As research by the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Axios, experts, and demographers has repeatedly discovered, an increase in the foreign-born
population via immigration inevitably translates to an increase in likely
Democrat voters.
At current legal immigration levels,
the U.S. is already on track to bring at least 15 million new foreign-born voters to the country in the next decade.
These voters’ swing towards Democrats has already been realized in the 2016 presidential election, where despite winning
almost 50 percent of native-born Americans, Trump lost foreign-born voters to
Hillary Clinton by 64 percent.
Elizabeth Warren
Warren has portrayed her run for president as a populist
movement, similar to that of Sanders’ and Trump’s campaigns in the 2016
presidential election, but her immigration platform is a carbon copy of the
donor class’s and Washington, D.C. beltway’s longtime effort to force down
wages for Americans by increasing legal immigration levels.
Aside from promising to
decriminalize illegal immigration and provide free taxpayer-funded healthcare to
all 11 to 22 million illegal aliens, Warren is seeking to gift the big business lobby with a massive increase in legal
immigration — levels which are already historically high, as at least 1.2
million legal immigrants are added to the U.S. population every year.
That increase in legal immigration,
Warren has said, will include an increase in chain migration, whereby newly
naturalized citizens are allowed to bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives to the U.S. Today, chain migration
makes up more than 70 percent of all legal immigration, and in the last decade
the process has brought almost 10 million foreign nationals to the U.S.
Like her legal immigration agenda,
Warren plans to surge refugee resettlement to the country by at least 700
percent. As Breitbart News has chronicled, mass fraud is prevalent in the refugee system, with African refugees often
fraudulently obtaining refugee status.
Joe Biden
Like the majority of 2020 Democrats,
he has endorsed providing free taxpayer-funded healthcare to illegal
aliens, a plan that healthcare experts have said will drive a migration of illegal aliens with “serious
health problems” to the country.
Biden’s strategy to increase
immigration, though, has been to provide green cards to all foreign students who graduate from American
universities and to bring as many legal immigrants to the country as feasibly possible —
regardless of its impacts on U.S. citizens and workers.
Biden said in August:
We could afford to take in a heartbeat another two million
people. The idea that a country of 330 million people cannot absorb people who
are in desperate need … is absolutely bizarre … I would also move to increase
the total number of immigrants able to come to the United States.”
In 2013, while speaking to the financial industry, Biden touted
a plan to increase the number of H-1B foreign visa workers that corporations
are allowed to import to replace American workers.
Every year, more than 100,000
foreign workers are brought to the U.S. on the H-1B visa and are allowed to
stay for up to six years. There are about 650,000 H-1B
visa foreign workers in the U.S. at any given moment. Americans
are often laid off in the process and forced to train their foreign
replacements, as highlighted by Breitbart News. More than 85,000 Americans annually
potentially lose their jobs to foreign labor through the H-1B visa program.
Bernie Sanders
Sanders has on occasion denounced the idea of open borders,
calling such a policy a “Koch brothers proposal” to drive down the wages of
American workers by forcing them to compete against the world’s workforce.
“It would make everybody in America
poorer,” Sanders said in 2015 of open borders. Sanders has revisited that sentiment in his 2020 presidential campaign — even calling for more detention space for border crossers to end Catch and Release — but his
broader immigration plan reflects that of the open borders lobby.
For example, Sanders’ latest plan ends
deportations of illegal aliens and border crossers, decriminalizes illegal
immigration, and promotes the DREAM Act, which would provide amnesty to the
majority of illegal aliens currently living in the U.S., creating a new flood
of legalized foreign labor that American workers would be forced to compete
against.
Where Sanders has differed from his two top contenders is on his
plan to make subtle changes to the H-1B visa system and prevent American
workers from having to compete against illegal aliens for U.S. jobs.
Like Trump, Sanders has warned against corporations using the
H-1B visa program to import cheaper foreign workers instead of hiring qualified
and job-ready Americans.
Out of all the 2020 Democrats
running for president, Sanders is the only candidate who earns a “mixed” review from NumbersUSA’s scorecard, the organization that tracks
the records of politicians on whether or not they support less immigration to
boost wages and job opportunities for Americans.
Sanders is the only 2020 Democrat that has mostly endorsed
nationwide mandatory E-Verify to ban U.S. companies from hiring illegal aliens
over American citizens. Nonetheless, Sanders’ support for mass amnesty, critics
have said, will mean that those illegal aliens currently in the country would
be able to eventually compete against Americans in the workforce and pass
through the E-Verify system.
John
Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.
NANCY PELOSI GOT RICH OFF ELECTED OFFICE AND SERVICING THE “CHEAP” LABOR LOBBIES - Jim Gilchrist asked the question about Nancy Pelosi’s ethics that should be on the minds of every law-abiding American – including those immigrants who are following the law to become citizens here the proper way: “Do we really need a House Speaker whose every action is calculated to enhance her own financial interests, instead of focusing on how porous borders will affect the security of everyday American citizens?”
SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI HIRES ILLEGALS AT HER NAPA WINERY
CALL LA RAZA NANCY TODAY! PUT THE HEAT ON HER!
EMAIL: NANCY PELOSI
CALL NANCY PELOSI Washington , DC - (202) 225-4965 San Francisco , CA - (415) 556-4862
EMAIL NANCY PELOSI sf.nancy@mail.house.gov
Gilchrist was reacting to my report several weeks ago in FrontPage Magazine that Pelosi – who owns non-union vineyards in Napa Valley where grape-picking depends chiefly on the availability of cheap foreign labor – is doing everything she can to help open the floodgates to more illegal immigration. And she wants the American taxpayers to pay their way. As even more proof of this
than I previously reported, Pelosi does not
want employers like her to be required to pay
the cost of illegal aliens’ hospital care. She voted against a bill that would make employers liable for the reimbursements if an undocumented employee seeks medical attention. And she voted in favor of rewarding illegal aliens from Mexico with Social Security benefits.
Pelosi's Stake in Illegal Immigration
________________________________________
The Minuteman Project, founded by Jim Gilchrist (who is also the co-author of the book Minutemen: The Battle to Secure America’s Borders), is made up of citizen volunteers who watch our border with Mexico and report illegal entry to the border patrol. For performing that thankless task in full compliance with the law, Gilchrist and his colleagues have been falsely maligned as fascists, racists, and even murderers. They have been driven off the speaker’s platform at Columbia University and vilified by Leftist politicians and their handmaidens in the liberal press.
So it was no surprise that the mainstream media chose to ignore a recent press release, issued by his publisher, in which Gilchrist asked the question about Nancy Pelosi’s ethics that should be on the minds of every law-abiding American – including those immigrants who are following the law to become citizens here the proper way: “Do we really need a House Speaker whose every action is calculated to enhance her own financial interests, instead of focusing on how porous borders will affect the security of everyday American citizens?”
Gilchrist did not stop there. He demanded an investigation into Pelosi’s “economic stake in just the kind of illegal alien exploitation that we deplore in Minutemen.” But you would never know it from the liberal media, who - while ignoring this demand - have had no compunctions in calling for Speaker Hastert’s head in the wake of the Foley page controversy.
Gilchrist was reacting to my report several weeks ago in FrontPage Magazine that Pelosi – who owns non-union vineyards in Napa Valley where grape-picking depends chiefly on the availability of cheap foreign labor – is doing everything she can to help open the floodgates to more illegal immigration. And she wants the American taxpayers to pay their way. As even more proof of this than I previously reported, Pelosi does not want employers like her to be required to pay the cost of illegal aliens’ hospital care. She voted against a bill that would make employers liable for the reimbursements if an undocumented employee seeks medical attention. And she voted in favor of rewarding illegal aliens from Mexico with Social Security benefits.
At the same time, Pelosi has led the Democratic opposition to any effective border controls or documentation requirements. She opposed the Secure Fence Act of 2006, signed into law by President Bush, and voted against final passage of a border security and enforcement bill in 2005 which required that all businesses must use an electronic system to check if all new hires have the legal right to work in this country. She voted against a bill to bar drivers' licenses for illegal aliens in 2005. This year she opposed legislation requiring presentation of a legitimate government-issued photo ID to prove eligibility to vote, claiming that “there is little evidence anywhere in the country of a significant problem with non-citizen voters.” She is dead wrong. For example, an accused terrorist by the name of Nuradin Abdi was just recently reported to have illegally registered to vote at the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles. Nuradin Abdi was indicted earlier this year as part of a conspiracy to blow up the Columbus Mall.
How many other terrorist suspects may have slipped through the system because Leftists like Pelosi oppose any meaningful screens? Instead she continues to advocate our recognition of the flimsy, non-validated ID card that the Mexican consulates provide to illegal aliens before they cross over our border, called the “matricula consular”, which gives them phony documentation to set up bank accounts, apply for jobs, obtain social benefits, board airplanes, identify themselves to police, enter buildings that require IDs, obtain drivers’ licenses and then perhaps use those drivers’ licenses to try to illegally register to vote in our elections.
Pelosi also believes in giving sanctuary to illegal aliens. She opposed legislation to deny federal homeland security funding to state and local governments who refuse to share information they learn about an individual's immigration status with Federal immigration authorities. Pelosi’s hometown of San Francisco is one of the sanctuary cities she voted to protect for the benefit of illegal aliens. Pelosi even voted against strengthening our immigration law with regard to the deportability of alien terrorists.
Jim Gilchrist cut to the chase with this devastating observation that the mainstream media does not want you to read:
"As we’ve shown again and again in ‘Minutemen,’ the Democrats aren’t just hypocrites, but are working actively to subvert our legislative system to their own ends. Their only goal is votes, votes and more votes, no matter where they come from, no matter if they’re cast legally, no matter whether the person casting them is dead, alive, a citizen or an illegal alien."
Pelosi sees Jim Gilchrist’s Minutemen Project as a threat to her pro-illegal alien agenda. More illegal aliens mean more votes for the Democrats and more grape-pickers for Napa Valley vineyards like hers. So she even voted against a measure that would have cut off the use of U.S. taxpayers’ funds to tip off illegal aliens as to where the Minutemen citizen patrols may be located! She obviously wants to see the Minutemen put out of business – permanently. She can count on the liberal press to distort the work of the Minutemen and to keep out of the public eye Gilchrist’s pointed questions about her motivations for helping illegal aliens during the run-up to the mid-term elections that may make her the next Speaker of the House.
Gilchrist, of course, is accustomed to being vilified and prevented by the Left from getting his message out. In early October, he was prevented from finishing his speech at the "Minutemen Forum" sponsored by the Columbia College Republicans. Gilchrist had spoken for just a few minutes and managed to utter the words “I love the First Amendment” when a group of radical protestors took the stage and interrupted him, displaying a big banner saying "There are no illegals." More protestors then stormed the stage. Chaos erupted and the audience members who had come to hear Gilchrist speak never got the chance, which was precisely the protestors’ objective. As reported online by the staff of Columbia’s undergraduate newspaper, “a mosh pit of triumphal students and community members danced and chanted outside, "Asian, Black, Brown and White, we smashed the Minutemen tonight!" They also put out a statement declaring:
“The Minutemen are not a legitimate voice in the debate on immigration. They are a racist, armed militia who have declared open hunting season on immigrants, causing countless hate crimes and over 3000 deaths on the border. Why should exploitative corporations have free passes between nations, but individual people not? No human being is illegal.” (Emphasis added)
We have come to the point in this country where a bunch of radical protestors get to decide who is and who is not a legitimate voice in the debate on as critical a public policy issue as immigration. Such Leftists think that migration in a borderless world is a basic human right. They want no barriers, no guards, and no proof of lawful residency. They certainly do not want the Minutemen watching the border and reporting illegal entry to the authorities.
Leftist slogans like “no human being is illegal” are red herrings. It is not the human being who is illegal; it is what the human being does that may be illegal. One’s conduct is the test, not simply who one is. Immigrants who follow our rules are welcome here. Those who do not abide by our laws have no right to be here. A person who breaks into your house without your permission does not deserve room, board and a job as a reward, even if the intruder may be much poorer than you. He has broken the law and deserves to be punished for what he has done. Our country’s boundaries and rules for entry and residency similarly define who is permitted to be here and how we choose to protect ourselves. We are a land of immigrants, but we are also a land of laws with certain core values. Those seeking to enter our country and remain here must learn to accommodate to our laws and values, not the other way around. That is the way prior generations of immigrants did it, including those who passed through Ellis Island. Why should the law be thrown aside now?
What we are witnessing is a frontal challenge to our nation’s sovereignty. Mexico’s Foreign Secretary wants to drag us before the United Nations for intending to build a fence on our side of the border with our money to keep out aliens who seek to enter our country illegally. They will probably get a sympathetic ear as some UN bureaucrats believe there should be no such thing as “illegal” immigrants in the first place. For the first time in our history, Americans are being asked to cede the right to decide how we define ourselves as a nation and protect our own borders to a globalist governance body. Will Pelosi lead her liberal loyalists as House Speaker to support the UN against America’s right to control its own borders? Do we really want to risk finding out?
It is high time, as Jim Gilchrist demanded in the press release ignored by the mainstream media, that Pelosi come clean under oath as to her personal stake in the illegal immigration issue before she can do even more damage as House Speaker.
A group of illegal aliens is processed by Border Patrol agents after crossing from Mexico into Yuma, Ariz., on April 13, 2019. (Charlotte Cuthbertson/The Epoch Times)
Health Care for Illegal Immigrants Could Cost Up to $23 Billion a Year: Report
October 14, 2019
WASHINGTON—During a June 27 Democratic debate, all 10 presidential candidates raised their hands when asked who among them would provide government-subsidized health care benefits to illegal immigrants.
The Washington-based think tank Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) has since crunched the numbers on the potential costs and released a report on Oct. 10.
Under current law, illegal aliens aren’t allowed to participate in the health insurance exchange established by the Affordable Care Act, also called Obamacare. They’re also not eligible for Medicaid; although all immigrants can receive emergency services, regardless of status. And U.S.-born children with illegal immigrant parents are eligible for all benefits.
CIS calculated its numbers based on an illegal population of about 10 million people, half of whom they estimate would be eligible for Obamacare subsidies or Medicaid.
“Now, you might say that’s surprising, but I think there’s a pretty high degree of consensus that very roughly half of illegal immigrants have health insurance,” said report author Steven Camarota, director of research for CIS. “Many either have higher incomes so they couldn’t get the subsidies or, for the most part, they are insured by employers.”
If all 5 million of those illegal immigrants signed up for Obamacare, it would cost an estimated $22.6 billion per year, Camarota said. But, he said, it’s more likely that just fewer than half of those would sign up, for an estimated cost of $10.4 billion annually.
“Now, another way to think about that is for every 1 million uninsured illegal immigrants who sign up for [Obamacare] and get the subsidy, the cost to taxpayers is about $4.6 billion,” Camarota said.
The report also estimated the cost based on an Obamacare/Medicaid hybrid approach. With 100 percent enrollment, it would cost about $19.6 billion per year, or $10.7 billion with about half-enrollment.
“One important caveat about these estimates is, we make no assumption about how giving free or subsidized health care to illegal immigrants might significantly increase the flow of new illegal immigrants into the country,” Camarota said. “If low-income people in other countries can come here free and get health care, it seems very likely that that could spur at least some additional illegal immigration.”
He said there would likely be a major push to give low-income guest workers and non-immigrant visa holders free or subsidized care. And the current five-year waiting period for green card holders could also be challenged.
“If we gave Medicaid to illegal immigrants … legal immigrants certainly would have to get it, and that’s many millions of people,” he said.
Jason Richwine, a public-policy analyst based in Washington, said the two factors contributing most to being on Medicaid—for Americans and immigrants alike—are a low level of education and larger families. He said 42 percent of immigrant families had at least one member enrolled in Medicaid, compared to 26 percent of native families.
2020 Candidates
The 2020 Democratic candidates have shown an eagerness to provide not only government-subsidized health care to illegal immigrants, but also a pathway to citizenship.
Former Vice President and current Democrat frontrunner Joe Biden said on July 24, “Here’s the deal: We have 11 million undocumented people in the United States of America—I would provide a path to citizenship.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said she would expand legal immigration, decriminalize illegal border crossings, and provide amnesty to those here illegally.
“We need a pathway to citizenship for the people who are here and here to stay,” Warren said on Sept. 29. “We need a path, not just for DREAMers, but also a path for grandmas and for little kids and for people who came to work here on farms, and for students who overstayed their visas.”
Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) says on his campaign website that he would also provide a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens, as well as “dismantle cruel and inhumane deportation programs and detention centers.”
Taxpayer Burden
Health care has become the largest burden on taxpayers by a mile.
Chris Pope, a senior fellow in health policy for the Manhattan Institute, said Congressional Budget Office data shows that health care was 52 percent of means-tested federal programs in 2008.
“By 2028, it’s going to be 71 percent,” he said.
Prior to Obamacare, Pope said the Medicaid program was mainly used for low-income disabled people, low-income families, and sometimes as an elderly supplement to Medicare.
“Really for able-bodied working-age adults, the Medicaid program didn’t really do that much,” he said, aside from a few states that tangentially covered some people.
“The Affordable Care Act really changed that. The Affordable Care Act ensured that the Medicaid program was expanded to able-bodied, working-age adults … earning less than 138 percent of the federal poverty level—which is probably about $15,000 for an individual. And then, for a family it increases … so it could be $20,000, 30,000, $40,000, depending on household size.
“These days, when you’re talking about burdens on taxpayers, it’s really all about health care that we’re talking about.”
No comments:
Post a Comment