Sunday, April 12, 2020

NANCY PELOSI AND CHUCK SCHUMER HOWL FOR AMNESTY OR CONTINUED NON-ENFORCEMENT TO BUILD THE DEMOCRATS' PARTY BASE OF "CHEAP" LABOR ILLEGALS

OF COURSE THESE POLS DO NOT GIVE A FUCK WHAT VOTING LEGALS THINK. ONLY THEIR PAYMASTERS ON WALL STREET MATTER!

BUILDING THE WALL AGAINST THE INVASION AND NARCOMEX DRUG CARTELS WOULD ONLY COST ABOUT TWICE THE AMOUNT THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA HANDS ILLEGALS IN "FREE" SOCIAL SERVICES TO KEEP THEM COMING AND VOTING DEM FOR MORE!

Open Borders Coalition Demands All Illegal Immigrants Freed from Custody Over Coronavirus


Judicial Watch Corruption Chronicles


https://www.judicialwatch.org/corruption-chronicles/open-borders-coalition-demands-all-illegal-immigrants-freed-from-custody-over-coronavirus/

Give Illegal Aliens Checks and Stop Building the Wall?

By Preston Huennekens
ImmigrationReform.com
. . .
https://www.immigrationreform.com/2020/04/07/illegal-alien-benefits-covid-19-immigrationreform-com/


As COVID-19 Paralyzes the Country, The Left Pushes Its Pro-Illegal-Alien Agenda

By Pawel Styrna


ImmigrationReform.com


https://www.immigrationreform.com/2020/04/08/covid-19-illegal-benefits-agenda-immigrationreform-com/


Rasmussen Poll: High Support for E-Verify, Low Support for Illegal Alien ‘Lifetime Work Permits’

By Ryan Foley


ImmigrationReform.com

https://www.immigrationreform.com/2020/04/08/immigration-reform-public-opinion-immigrationreform-com/




If America Must Be Shut Down, So Must Its Guest Worker Programs

By Dale L. Wilcox


American Thinker


https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/04/if_america_must_be_shut_down_so_must_its_guest_worker_programs_.html


Mass Unemployment in U.S. Once Eased by Immigration Pause65



Migrants Moving Toward US Stand in a Line
Photo: Spencer Platt, Staff / Getty Images
5:17

The Chinese coronavirus has brought unemployment to about ten million Americans in just three weeks. In past times of unemployment, such depressions have been met with record low legal immigration levels.
United States unemployment may reach 20 percent with 25 million jobs eliminated, JPM
organ economists predict, in the coming months as states issue stay-at-home orders that have forced mass layoffs and business closures.
At the same time, the U.S. has yet to lower legal immigration levels wherein about 1.2 million legal immigrants are awarded green cards every year. At current legal immigration rates, the U.S. will likely issue over a million green cards this year.
Previous times of high unemployment have been met with spiraling legal immigration levels. During the Great Depression throughout the 1930s, when unemployment hit nearly 25 percent, legal immigration shot down dramatically as millions were laid off.
Between 1920 to 1928, legal immigration admissions floated between 300,000 to more than 805,000 annually. In 1929, legal immigration admissions dipped into free fall with less than 280,000 admissions — the lowest annual level of immigration since 1919, when only about 141,000 legal immigrants were admitted to the U.S.
While the Great Depression left millions unemployed, between the late 1920s and through the 1930s, legal immigration levels went from 241,700 admissions in 1930 to century-low of 23,068 admissions in 1933 — the lowest annual level of immigration to the U.S. since 1831, when about 22,000 legal immigrants arrived.
For nearly 15 years, between 1931 and 1945, the U.S. stabilized its legal immigration admissions below 100,000 a year. By 1946, the U.S. had started admitting about 108,000 legal immigrants, and for the next 20 years, from 1947 to 196, annual admissions did not exceed 400,000.
In fact, legal immigration during those 20 years stayed mostly below 330,000 annual admissions and did not tick up to more than 360,000 admissions until 1967 — two years after the Hart-Celler Immigration Act of 1965 was signed into law by then-President Lyndon B. Johnson.
Since Johnson Hart-Celler, and President George H.W. Bush’s expansion of immigration in the 1990s, U.S. legal immigration admissions have averaged more than a million a year. Not since 1987 have annual legal immigration admissions dipped below 600,000, and 2013 was the last year annual admissions dropped below a million.
Polls and surveys have exhibited a longing for less immigration. The latest Harvard/Harris Poll found that about five-in-six Americans, or 83 percent, want to end all immigration from Mexico — one of the largest immigration-sending countries.
Rasmussen Reports releases weekly surveys on immigration issues. The latest findings, a survey conducted March 29 to April 2 of 1,250 likely voters, reveals decreasing overall immigration remains more popular among Americans than increasing or keeping immigration levels the same.
For example, a 47 percent plurality of Americans want legal immigration cut — including 32 percent who want less than 500,000 annual admissions. Working class Americans with no college education, those most likely to be forced to compete against foreign workers, are the most supportive of cutting annual legal immigration admissions down to below half a million.
The Rasmussen survey also finds that more than six-in-ten Americans say it is better that businesses raise wages to recruit American workers than to import foreign workers. Another 57 percent of Americans say the country already has enough talented people to take high-salary white-collar jobs and does not need more so-called “high-skilled” foreign workers.
Currently, the State Department has halted routine visa services at its embassies and consulates overseas. The agency, though, has said their goal is to return to standard visa services “as soon as possible,” but are unable to provide a specific date at this time.”
Despite mass unemployment, annual legal immigration admissions are expected to continue hovering around more than a million in 2020, unless President Trump’s administration executively halts most immigration to keep Americans from competing for scarce work against foreign nationals.
In June 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed the president’s control over legal immigration. In Trump v. Hawaii, the court stated that presidents have extraordinarily broad discretion to admit or exclude foreign nationals from the U.S. when they believe doing so is in the national interest.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.


This Pandemic Will Lead to Social Revolutions



Andreas Kluth





















(Bloomberg Opinion) -- The most misleading cliche about the coronavirus is that it treats us all the same. It doesn’t, neither medically nor economically, socially or psychologically. In particular, Covid-19 exacerbates preexisting conditions of inequality wherever it arrives. Before long, this will cause social turmoil, up to and including uprisings and revolutions.
Social unrest had already been increasing around the world before SARS-CoV-2 began its journey. According to one count, there have been about 100 large anti-government protests since 2017, from the gilets jaunes riots in a rich country like France to demonstrations against strongmen in poor countries such as Sudan and Bolivia. About 20 of these uprisings toppled leaders, while several were suppressed by brutal crackdowns and many others went back to simmering until the next outbreak.
The immediate effect of Covid-19 is to dampen most forms of unrest, as both democratic and authoritarian governments force their populations into lockdowns, which keep people from taking to the streets or gathering in groups. But behind the doors of quarantined households, in the lengthening lines of soup kitchens, in prisons and slums and refugee camps — wherever people were hungry, sick and worried even before the outbreak — tragedy and trauma are building up. One way or another, these pressures will erupt.
The coronavirus has thus put a magnifying glass on inequality both between and within countries. In the U.S., there’s been a move by some of the very wealthy to “self-isolate” on their Hamptons estates or swanky yachts — one Hollywood mogul swiftly deleted an Instagram picture of his $590 million boat after a public outcry. Even the merely well-heeled can feel pretty safe working from home via Zoom and Slack.
But countless other Americans don’t have that option. Indeed, the less money you make, the less likely you are to be able to work remotely (see the chart below). Lacking savings and health insurance, these workers in precarious employment have to keep their gigs or blue-collar jobs, if they’re lucky enough still to have any, just to make ends meet. As they do, they risk getting infected and bringing the virus home to their families, which, like poor people everywhere, are already more likely to be sick and less able to navigate complex health-care mazes. And so the coronavirus is coursing fastest through neighborhoods that are cramped, stressful and bleak. Above all, it disproportionately kills black people.
Even in countries without long histories of racial segregation, the virus prefers some zip codes over others. That’s because everything conspires to make each neighborhood its own sociological and epidemiological petri dish — from average incomes and education to apartment size and population density, from nutritional habits to patterns of domestic abuse. In the euro zone, for example, high-income households have on average almost double the living space as those in the bottom decile: 72 square meters (775 square feet) against only 38.
The differences between nations are even bigger. To those living in a shantytown in India or South Africa, there’s no such thing as “social distancing,” because the whole family sleeps in one room. There’s no discussion about whether to wear masks because there aren’t any. More hand-washing is good advice, unless there’s no running water.
And so it goes, wherever SARS-CoV-2 shows up. The International Labor Organization has warned that it will destroy 195 million jobs worldwide, and drastically cut the income of another 1.25 billion people. Most of them were already poor. As their suffering worsens, so do other scourges, from alcoholism and drug addiction to domestic violence and child abuse, leaving whole populations traumatized, perhaps permanently.
In this context, it would be naive to think that, once this medical emergency is over, either individual countries or the world can carry on as before. Anger and bitterness will find new outlets. Early harbingers include millions of Brazilians banging pots and pans from their windows to protest against their government, or Lebanese prisoners rioting in their overcrowded jails.
In time, these passions could become new populist or radical movements, intent on sweeping aside whatever ancien regime they define as the enemy. The great pandemic of 2020 is therefore an ultimatum to those of us who reject populism. It demands that we think harder and more boldly, but still pragmatically, about the underlying problems we confront, including inequality. It’s a wake-up call to all who hope not just to survive the coronavirus, but to survive in a world worth living in.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Andreas Kluth is a member of Bloomberg's editorial board. He was previously editor in chief of Handelsblatt Global and a writer for the E
conomist.


NANCY, IT WAS ALREADY A DEPRESSION FOR MIDDLE AMERICA!

40% OF CALIFORNIA LIVES BELOW 
THE POVERTY LEVEL. 40% OF CALIFORNIA 
ARE DEM VOTING ILLEGALS!



Pelosi: ‘We Could Have a Depression’

1:24
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said Thursday on CNBC’s “Mad Money” that the United States could slip into a depression as a result of the coronavirus pandemic shutdown’s impact on the economy.
Host Jim Cramer said, “You are a natural optimist. If we can get this additional money, which I think is certainly warranted, and we get some breaks in science, do you think, is it possible to say— I know you don’t want to put a date on it, but we can stay closed—is it possible that maybe enough people in May, enough younger people, enough people who have already had it, enough people who tested, tested, tested, get the country moving? I’m getting worried about not a recession, but a depression.”
Pelosi said, “We could have the depression because so many people are out of work. And that’s why we have to get the system really energized and working. Let’s get out those unemployment checks. Let’s get out those direct payments. Let’s get these loans freed up to let the banks about the friends to the whole system they are this is entrepreneurship like we’ve never seen before because of the challenge to small businesses let’s recognize what that is, that optimism is to America. I don’t think anybody can tell you what date unless you just take it a week at a time. Let’s be hopeful it will be soon.”
Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN


If America Must Be Shut Down, So Must Its Guest Worker Programs


America-Firsters were both perplexed and furious for most of last week as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appeared to be going ahead with its early March announcement to expand the H-2B unskilled guest-worker program to over 100,000 slots a year. With unemployment-benefit applications for March coming in at over 10 million, the last time the job market looked this bad—the Great Depression of the 1930s—immigration authorities sought to help, not hinder, the American worker by creating the nation’s first-ever illegal-alien-removal program. 
Late last week, however, due in part to activist pressures, DHS’s interim secretary, Chad Wolf, announced the increase would be paused “due to present economic circumstances.” It was a minor bit of respite for working Americans who were already struggling going into this crippling downturn. 
The H-2B guest-worker visa was created in 1986 as part of a congressional law that provided amnesty to over 3 million illegal aliens. Because that law also included a promise to finally put an end to illegal-alien hiring, businesses complaining of impending “worker shortages” were able to secure the right to import temporary foreign workers for a slew of low-skilled industries, including cattle farming, landscaping and hospitality. Agribusiness got its separate, far larger “H-2A” program for farmworkers. Nearly 35 years on, however, the problem of illegal labor is bigger than ever, and H-2B-using businesses still complain about worker shortages. 
The H-2B is one area where anti-borders groups and pro-American worker groups like mine actually come together on. Organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Economic Policy Institute, and the AFL-CIO all rightly criticize the program for being a modified version of colonial-era bonded servitude, due to workers’ visas being tied to their employers, their inability to unionize, and their wages and benefits being well below normal market expectations. 
It is certainly not outlandish to call programs like the H-2B, the H-2A, and its Big Tech cousin, the H-1B, throwbacks to the time when European peasants came here as indentured laborers. America has devolved back to its pre-independence days of immigrant-serf labor before. 
According to venerable U.S. historians Charles and Mary Beard, in their 1930 book The Rise of American Civilization, the Immigration Act of 1864 was “an extraordinary law which gave federal authorization to the importation of working people under terms of contract analogous to the indentured servitude of colonial times.”  
Key to their assessment was a section of the law in which emigrants first had to pledge up to a year of their wages to pay for their transportation, in effect, bonding them to their employer. Due to the public’s outrage (even Russia had abolished its serf system by this point), it was repealed four years later. However, the practice still went on for many decades, say the Beards, with “companies [being] organized to supply employers with European labor in any quantity, anywhere, at any time.” 
When it was initially announced as part of the Republican Party’s platform four years earlier (when Lincoln won the party ticket), the Beards described members both in- and outside the party as being in total shock. Pushing a policy that took the country back to the days of British colonial-era serfdom was only made possible, say the Beards, by a D.C. institution that was just then coming into its own: corporate lobbying. 
As they describe in their book, in this period there “evolved a reasoned scheme of political action” through which “the capitalists of the Northeast demanded from Congress a liberal immigration policy to assure an abundance of cheap labor.” This was part of “a heroic program which its sponsors could only realize by securing the possession of the executive and legislative branches of the federal government.” 
Particularly big sponsors of the Act were Northern mill owners who feared that free farmland out West would lure away local workers. “As a counter stroke, the danger of higher wages… [was] partially averted by the [Act]”, the Beards write. It was all part of the newfound “positive advantages… won by capitalists in the halls of Congress.” 
Created alongside the immigration lobby was another D.C. institution we still live with today: the cheap-labor, public-affairs industry. This wasn’t a coincidence. In order to mute the public outrage over the new law, the Beards describe how big business had to supplement its economic arguments with a moralizing narrative to be publicized by “orators”: 
And orators, applauded by these mighty friends, were fond of portraying America as the asylum for the oppressed of the world suffering from wars, revolts, pogroms, and persecutions of every kind. Seldom has economic gain and loft idealism coincided with such mechanical precision. 
Economic threats about “shortages” coupled with moral intimidation is, of course, a fixture of today’s immigration policy discourse. Even critics of guest-worker programs, like those mentioned above, frequently employ scare terms like ‘hateful’, ‘racist’ and ‘xenophobic’ to intimidate critics of mass amnesty and mass immigration.

As the Beards recount, later that century, the small immigration victories achieved by organized labor were particularly "hard-fought battles,” “for by this time the doctrine of ‘the asylum for the oppressed of every land’ had become intrenched in popular psychology.” ‘Intrenched’ it still is, and hard-fought battles must keep being waged if American workers are to gain the respect and dignity they deserve. 
In 1925 Calvin Coolidge famously said that “the business of America is business.” That is still true today, but what is best for business must be balanced with what is best for American citizens. When our nation is back to full employment, we can have a national debate about the wisdom of bringing in large numbers of foreign workers. Until then, this crisis demands the prioritization of the millions uprooted from their livelihoods and their health.  
Dale L. Wilcox is executive director and general counsel at the Immigration Reform Law Institute, a public interest law firm working to 



India Press: Government Links Hydro Medicine Delivery to Trump’s Support of India’s H-1B Visa Workers



A chemist displays hydroxychloroquine tablets in New Delhi, India, Thursday, April 9, 2020. Amidst concerns over domestic shortage, India has lifted the ban on some drug exports including hydroxychloroquine. President Donald Trump and his administration are promoting the anti-malaria drug not officially approved for fighting the new coronavirus, even though …
AP Photo/Manish Swarup
8:32


India’s president is linking the delivery of U.S.-purchased hydroxychloroquine medicine to his demand that President Donald Trump help India’s outsourcing workers stay past the expiration of their work visas, says a report in one of India’s leading newspapers.
The Hindustan Times reported on April 10:
The Indian government has asked the US to extend the validity of visas, including H-1B and other types of visas, held by Indian nationals who have been hit by the Covid-19-related economic slump, people familiar with developments said on Friday.
Foreign secretary Harsh Shringla took up the matter during his telephone conversation with US deputy secretary of state Stephen Biegun on Wednesday, when the two sides also discussed ways to enhance cooperation to counter the pandemic and ensure the availability of essential medicines [hydroxychloroquine] and equipment.
“We have been in touch with the US government, requesting them to extend the validity of visas of Indian nationals – H-1B and other types of visas – who are stranded in the US due to the pandemic,” said one of the people cited above, speaking on condition of anonymity. “We are closely monitoring related developments,” the person added, without giving details.
The demand is a tough sell for Trump, who has yet to implement his March 2016 promise to end the H-1B visa’s role as a cheap-labor program for many Fortune 500 companies in the United States.
But India’s government and economy rely on the wealth earned by “Non-Resident Indians” in the United States — and the coronavirus crash is sending hundreds of thousands back home during the next several months.
Still, the departure of hundreds of thousands of India’s college graduate visa workers would be a huge gain for many swing-voting, middle class American voters in 2020 — and for the politicians who needed their votes.
U.S. visa worker rules include a superstructure of many clever and complex exceptions and loopholes, all of which are designed to help U.S.investors and CEOs freely hire and fire large blocs of cheap, male, Indian visa workers. The set of complex rules also allows executives to bypass the many workplace rules and anti-discrimination laws that Congress adopted to help all American professionals win the jobs and careers needed for a middle class life.
But the system-wide, virus-induced, sudden economic crash has overwhelmed the clever complexity by causing a semi-hidden avalanche of layoffs, and pay cuts — and the underlying laws and regulations say that laid off visa workers must go home in 60 days and prevent companies from keeping a reserve army of visa workers on reduced pay or reduced hours.
The joint U.S.-Indian outsourcing group, NASSCOM, has already asked the Department of Labor to help U.S. and Indian companies rewrite the basic wage and job promises made to hundreds of thousands of visa workers, including about 900,000 resident H-1B workers:

Govt data shows 1 million Indian contract-workers get white-collar jobs in tech, banking, health etc.
The Indian hiring ignores many EEOC laws & is expanding amid gov't & media silence.
It is a huge economic & career loss for US college grads. http://bit.ly/2Sy3uw6 




Also, India’s Congress is demanding that Indian President Narendra Modi use his control over the hydroxychloroquine supply to protect the nation’s huge population of well-paid visa workers in the United States.
On April 10, India’s Economic Times reported:
Congress chief spokesperson Randeep Surjewala said after compromising the “India First” policy in the HCQ drug climb-down, the government is again failing to secure the safety and livelihood of Indians in the US.
“Time for the prime minister to ensure that our soft power of ‘Namaste Trump’ converts into fair treatment of H-1B visa holders in the US,” Surjewala said, noting that the US has put Americans on a temporary paid leave or allowed them to work for reduced hours in the wake of the pandemic.
But “the sword of H-1B visa job terminations” looms large over an estimated 75,000 Indians, with the United States giving them only a 60-day period to find a new job in case of a lay off, he said.
Trump called Modi on April 4 after India announced an export ban on the pills. “I called Prime Minister Modi of India this morning … and I said I’d appreciate it if they would release the amounts that we ordered,” Trump told reporters on April 4, adding:
They make large amounts of hydroxychloroquine — very large amounts, frankly.  They had a hold [on exports], because, you know, they have 1.5. billion people, and they think a lot of it.  And I said I’d appreciate it if they would release the amounts that we ordered
But we have already 29 million [dosesin stock].  That’s a big number.  Twenty-nine million doses.  And we’ve got millions of doses that are being made here and many millions of doses that are made elsewhere that are being shipped here, and it will be arriving…
But there’s a lot of very positive things happening with that.  That’s a game changer if that’s the case.  Obviously, we continue to work on the vaccines, but the vaccines have to be down the road by probably 14, 15, 16 months.
Two days later, Modi approved the export of many hydroxychloroquine pills.
On April 8, Foreign Secretary Harsh Shringla linked the offer of pills — “the availability of essential medicines” — to the H-1B visa issue, according to the Hindustan Times.
Trump cemented the deal by publicly thanking Modi on April 8, likely after the meeting between Shringla and Trump’s deputy, Biegun:

Extraordinary times require even closer cooperation between friends. Thank you India and the Indian people for the decision on HCQ. Will not be forgotten! Thank you Prime Minister @NarendraModi for your strong leadership in helping not just India, but humanity, in this fight!




Officials have not said if Trump will help the Indian visa workers before America’s college graduates vote in November — or if he will take minor steps to provide a face-saving excuse for Modi.
But a growing network of U.S. graduate groups is pressuring Trump to implement his campaign promise to protect graduates from the outsourcing business. In March 2016, after much zig-zagging, Trump declared:
The H-1B program is neither high-skilled nor immigration: these are temporary foreign workers, imported from abroad, for the explicit purpose of substituting for American workers at lower pay. I remain totally committed to eliminating rampant, widespread H-1B abuse and ending outrageous practices such as those that occurred at Disney in Florida when Americans were forced to train their foreign replacements. I will end forever the use of the H-1B as a cheap labor program, and institute an absolute requirement to hire American workers for every visa and immigration program. No exceptions.
The establishment media have ignored the visa worker issue for years — and throughout the many long press conferences that Trump is holding at the White House.
Breitbart News has extensively covered the impact of the outsourcing program on American graduates:

Census data shows how huge numbers of American software graduates have been replaced by Indian & Chinese visa-workers in N.J., California, N.C., Georgia, N.Y., Texas, Virginia, Florida, and other states. Next: Healthcare professionals. @S386 http://bit.ly/2o0X4cp 




This population of visa workers includes roughly one million Indians and roughly 270,000 Chinese graduates.
Many of the foreign workers are delivered in compliant blocs by Indian-run staffing companies. The deliveries are made via expensive contracts signed by many complacent U.S. business executives and by progressive H.R. managers who prefer not to hire free-speaking American professionals via individual interviews.
Many Americans are denied jobs by foreign hiring managers who expect secret cash kickbacks from often-unqualified fellow nationals, while U.S. managers and civil-rights officials look away.
Many foreign workers get hired because U.S. managers know they will work in exchange for the government-funded deferred bonus of green cards and citizenship, while American candidates need to be paid in dollars that reduce profit margins.
U.S. innovation declines as American professionals get isolated and replaced by ethnic coalitions of visa workers who are helping each extract as much money as they can before returning home.
This underground economy is made possible by Congress, corporations, and the establishment media, all of which ignore the routine violation of workplace laws, including the anti-discrimination laws that are designed to give diverse Americans fairness in hiring:

Health insurance execs discriminated against Americans by hiring more-costly Indian H-1Bs, says lawsuit.
The case spotlights the tech sector's preference for compliant Indian contractors over indep. US professionals.
So more H-1Bs = less tech innovationhttp://bit.ly/2vIHAOp 




Follow Neil Munro on Twitter @NeilMunroDC, or email the author at NMunro@Breitbart.com.



JUDICIAL WATCH:

America builds the La Raza “The Race” Mexican welfare state

Illegal Immigration Costs U.S. Taxpayers a Stunning $134.9 Billion a Year



IT’S MEXICO SUCKING THE BLOOD OF AMERICA…. HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS FOR WELFARE, “FREE” HEALTHCARE, HEROIN SALES, CRIME COST AND THEN THEY SEND TENS OF BILLIONS BACK TO NARCOMEX

“In the U.S. the remittances that come of illegal immigration drive down U.S. wages, particularly of those on the lowest-skilled parts of the ladder, and as money flows out from local communities, leaves them underinvested and run-down. Nobody can live two places at once. Illegal immigrants live here but their money lives in Mexico. And it's often untaxed.” MONICA SHOWALTER

WE CAN’T REBUILD THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS UNTIL WE PUSH MEXICO OUT OF OUR BORDERS AND PRO-AMENSTY POLITICIANS AND BILLIONAIRES OVER THE CLIFF!

THEY ASSAULT OUR BORDERS, JOBS, WELFARE LINES AND INSTITUTIONS.
He added, “Illegal immigration, in particular, drives down wages and inhibits job opportunities for legal residents, while bringing more low-skilled, low-wage workers to these states. In turn, this increases costs to state and local governments, and discourages investment by businesses seeking a skilled labor force and lower overhead.” PAUL BEDARD

Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $6.5K a year each: Report

VIDEO:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/report-illegal-immigrants-cost-taxpayers-6-500-a-year-each?utm_source=Washington%20Secrets_02/06/2020&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=WEX_Washington%20Secrets&rid=117930

Illegal immigrants in growing numbers are flooding into so-called sanctuary cities and states where they are consuming up to $6,500 in taxpayer-funded services, according to a new review of costs in 10 small states.
The surge is having an outsized effect on smaller states and is cutting funds for services to veterans, children, and disabled Americans, according to the report provided exclusively to Secrets from the Federation for American Immigration Reform.
The report said illegal immigration costs the 10 states $454 million. “To put that figure into context, that $454 million expenditure is more than 200 times what the state of Montana budgets for its entire Veterans Affairs program, and it is 2.5 times the total sum that West Virginia invests in its state university,” said the report.
And, it added, illegal immigrants cost between $4,000 and $6,500 annually above any tax benefit they provide.
“In many ways, the influx of immigrants into less populous areas of the country has an even greater impact on long-time residents than it does in larger and more urban areas,” said Dan Stein, president of FAIR. “These areas have neither the tax base, nor the economic and social infrastructure to accommodate the needs of the growing numbers of immigrants taking up residence.”
The 10 states analyzed in the study, Small Migrant Populations, Huge Impacts, were New Hampshire, Mississippi, Alaska, Maine, North Dakota, West Virginia, South Dakota, Vermont, Montana, and Wyoming.
“Many local officials tout immigration, including illegal immigration, as a remedy to economic stagnation. However, as this report reveals, the reality is precisely the opposite,” said Stein.
He added, “Illegal immigration, in particular, drives down wages and inhibits job opportunities for legal residents, while bringing more low-skilled, low-wage workers to these states. In turn, this increases costs to state and local governments, and discourages investment by businesses seeking a skilled labor force and lower overhead.”
The report comes on the heels of a key U.S. Supreme Court decision to let the Trump administration block entry to immigrants who are likely to burden taxpayers.
FAIR’s report also showed that sanctuary cities are a growing attraction for illegal immigrants, especially in smaller states where the costs of living can be lower.
The key findings from the report to Secrets:
  • In each of these states, each illegal immigrant resident carried a net tax deficit of between $4,000 and $6,500 annually.
  • Some 415,000 foreign-born reside in these 10 states, of whom about 88,000 (or 21%) are illegal immigrants. Additionally, there are about 35,000 U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants in these states.
  • Collectively, these illegal immigrants and their U.S.-born children cost taxpayers in the 10 states about $454 million each year for the provision of essential services such as education and healthcare.
  • Local schools struggle to provide educators and cover the costs of instruction for 50,000 K-12 students classified as Limited English Proficient.
  • A growing number of sanctuary jurisdictions (29 and counting, including the entire state of Vermont), and lower living costs are a magnet for illegal immigrants.
  • The growing immigrant population competes with legal residents for jobs in economically depressed areas.
“This report highlights the fact that the adverse effects of unchecked mass immigration, combined with an immigration selection process that does not choose people based on individual merit, job skills and education, are now being felt in all parts of the country. Americans, in every part of the nation, are being affected by antiquated and unenforced immigration policies, which is why it is at the top of the list of voter concerns heading into the 2020 elections,” said Stein.


Exclusive–Steve Camarota: Every Illegal Alien Costs Americans $70K Over Their Lifetime



Loren Elliott / AFP / Getty
JOHN BINDER
 11 Apr 20191,671
3:39

Every illegal alien, over the course of their lifetime, costs American taxpayers about $70,000, Center for Immigration Studies Director of Research Steve Camarota says.

During an interview with SiriusXM Patriot’s Breitbart News Daily, Camarota said his research has revealed the enormous financial burden that illegal immigration has on America’s working and middle class taxpayers in terms of public services, depressed wages, and welfare.
“In a person’s lifetime, I’ve estimated that an illegal border crosser might cost taxpayers … maybe over $70,000 a year as a net cost,” Camarota said. “And that excludes the cost of their U.S.-born children, which gets pretty big when you add that in.”
LISTEN: 
“Once [an illegal alien] has a child, they can receive cash welfare on behalf of their U.S.-born children,” Camarota explained. “Once they have a child, they can live in public housing. Once they have a child, they can receive food stamps on behalf of that child. That’s how that works.”
Camarota said the education levels of illegal aliens, border crossers, and legal immigrants are largely to blame for the high level of welfare usage by the f0reign-born population in the U.S., noting that new arrivals tend to compete for jobs against America’s poor and working class communities.
In past waves of mass immigration, Camarota said, the U.S. did not have an expansive welfare system. Today’s ever-growing welfare system, coupled with mass illegal and legal immigration levels, is “extremely problematic,” according to Camarota, for American taxpayers.
The RAISE Act — reintroduced in the Senate by Senators Tom Cotton (R-AR), David Perdue (R-GA), and Josh Hawley (R-MO) — would cut legal immigration levels in half and convert the immigration system to favor well-educated foreign nationals, thus relieving American workers and taxpayers of the nearly five-decade-long wave of booming immigration. Currently, mass legal immigration redistributes the wealth of working and middle class Americans to the country’s top earners.
“Virtually none of that existed in 1900 during the last great wave of immigration, when we also took in a number of poor people. We didn’t have a well-developed welfare state,” Camarota continued:
We’re not going to stop [the welfare state] tomorrow. So in that context, bringing in less educated people who are poor is extremely problematic for public coffers, for taxpayers in a way that it wasn’t in 1900 because the roads weren’t even paved between the cities in 1900. It’s just a totally different world. And that’s the point of the RAISE Act is to sort of bring in line immigration policy with the reality say of a large government … and a welfare state. [Emphasis added]
The immigrants are not all coming to get welfare and they don’t immediately sign up, but over time, an enormous fraction sign their children up. It’s likely the case that of the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, more than half are signed up for Medicaid — which is our most expensive program. [Emphasis added]
As Breitbart News has reported, U.S. households headed by foreign-born residents use nearly twice the welfare of households headed by native-born Americans.
Every year the U.S. admits more than 1.5 million foreign nationals, with the vast majority deriving from chain migration. In 2017, the foreign-born population reached a record high of 44.5 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.
Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Eastern.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder


///

Who's coming in and getting that instant customer service legal immigrants don't get? Well, people like Mirian Zelaya Gomez, a single mom with two kids and a fondness for Instagram luxury-life glamour shots who got her name in the news as "Lady Frijoles," the Honduran caravan migrant who disdained donated Mexican food in Tijuana, and who told the press she was migrating to the states to get free medical care for her kids. She's since been arrested for assaulting a relative who had given her housing in Dallas. Here she was, being booked:

 

 

DACA Amnesty Would Render Border Wall Useless, Cost Americans $26B


Eric Baradat/AFP/Getty- mages
11 Dec 20181,846
5:36

A deal in which President Trump accepts an amnesty for millions of illegal aliens enrolled and eligible for President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program in exchange for minor border wall funding would be counterproductive to the “America First” goals of the administration, depressing U.S. wages in the process ahead of the 2020 election.

As Breitbart News has extensively chronicled, Attorney General Jeff Sessions ended the DACA program last year, although it’s official termination has been held up in court by left-wing judges.
Since then, a coalition of establishment Republicans and Democrats have sought to ram an amnesty for up to 3.5 million DACA-enrolled and eligible illegal aliens through Congress, an initiative supported by the donor class.
CLOSE | X
Such a plan, most recently, has been touted in an effort to negotiate a deal in which Trump receives anywhere between $1.6 tand $5 billion for his proposed U.S.-Mexico border wall in exchange for approving a DACA amnesty for millions.
The amnesty would render the border wall useless, as it would not only trigger increased illegal immigration at the border — which is already set to hit the highest annual level in a decade next year — but increased legal immigration to the country.
Last year, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen admittedthat even discussion of a DACA amnesty increased illegal immigration at the southern border, as migrants surge to the U.S. in hopes of making it into the country to later cash in on the amnesty.
Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach previously predicted that a DACA amnesty would trigger an immediate flood of a million illegal aliens arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border. In 2014, when Obama enacted DACA by Executive Order, the temporary amnesty caused a surge at the southern border, as noted by the Migration Policy Institute.
In terms of legal immigration, a DACA amnesty would implement a never-ending flow of foreign relatives to the DACA illegal aliens who can be readily sponsored for green cards through the process known as “chain migration.”
According to Princeton University researchers Stacie Carr and Marta Tienda, the average number of family members brought to the U.S. by newly naturalized Mexican immigrants stands at roughly six. Therefore, should all 1.5 million amnestied illegal aliens bring six relatives each to the U.S., that would constitute a total chain migration of nine million new foreign nationals entering the U.S.
If the number of amnestied illegal aliens who gain a pathway to citizenship under an immigration deal were to rise to the full 3.3 million who would be eligible for DREAM Act amnesty, and if each brought in three to six foreign family members, the chain migration flow could range from 9.9 million to 19.8 million foreign nationals coming to the U.S.
At this rate of chain migration solely from a DACA amnesty, the number of legal immigrants arriving to the U.S. with family relations to the amnestied population would potentially outpace the population of New York City, New York — where more than 8.5 million residents live.
Should the goal of Trump’s proposed border wall be to reduce illegal immigration and eventually incentivize lawmakers to reduce legal immigration levels — where the U.S. imports 1.5 million immigrants every year — to raise the wages of America’s working and middle class, a DACA amnesty would have the opposite impact, increasing illegal and legal immigration levels.
The president has also touted the wall as a benefit to American citizens in terms of cost. A border wall is projected to cost about $25 million, a tiny figure compared to the $116 billion that illegal immigration costs U.S. taxpayers every year.
A DACA amnesty, coupled with a border wall, would have steep costs for American citizens — wiping out the cost-benefit to taxpayers of the wall.
For example, a DACA amnesty would cost American taxpayers about $26 billion, more than the border wall, and that does not include the money taxpayers would have to fork up to subsidize the legal immigrant relatives of DACA illegal aliens. And because amnesties for illegal aliens tend to be larger than initially predicted, the total cost would likely be even higher for taxpayers.
Additionally, about one in five DACA illegal aliens, after an amnesty, would end up on food stamps, while at least one in seven would go on Medicaid, the CBO has estimated.
The number of DACA illegal aliens who will go on Medicaid following an amnesty is likely to be much larger than what the CBO reports.
Previous research by the Center for Immigration Studies indicates that the average immigrant household in the U.S. takes 44 percent more Medicaid money than the average American household. The research also noted that 56 percent of households led by illegal aliens have at least one person on Medicaid.
Another study, reported by Breitbart News, indicates that the CBO estimate of DACA illegal aliens who would end up on Medicaid after an amnesty is the lowest total possible of illegal aliens who would go on the welfare program.
Meanwhile, a DACA amnesty would drag increasing U.S. wages down for the country’s working and middle class, delivering benefits to the business lobby while squashing the intended goals of the Trump administration ahead of the 2020 presidential election. The plan is also likely to hit the black American community the hardest, as they are forced to compete for blue collar jobs against a growing illegal and legal immigrant population from Central America.
On Tuesday, Trump said he would be willing to shut down the federal government in order to secure funding for his proposed border wall. Democrat leaders Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) have previously indicated that they would be willing to swap an amnesty in exchange for funding border “security measures.”
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder


THE INVASION THAT AMERICA INVITED
Simultaneously, illegal immigration next year is on track to soar to the highest level in a decade, with a potential 600,000 border crossers expected.
*

“More than 750 million people want to migrate to another country permanently, according to Gallup research published Monday, as 150 world leaders sign up to the controversial UN global compact which critics say makes migration a human right.”  VIRGINIA HALE

 

Census Confirms: 63 Percent of ‘Non-Citizens’ on Welfare, 4.6 Million Households 
By Paul Bedard 
Washington Examiner, December 3, 2018 

“Concern over immigrant welfare use is justified, as households headed by non-citizens use means-tested welfare at high rates. Non-citizens in the data include illegal immigrants, long-term temporary visitors like guest workers, and permanent residents who have not naturalized. While barriers to welfare use exist for these groups, it has not prevented them from making extensive use of the welfare system, often receiving benefits on behalf of U.S.-born children,” added the Washington-based immigration think tank. 

The numbers are huge. The report said that there are 4,684,784 million non-citizen households receiving welfare. 
. . . 
Their key findings in the analysis: 

* In 2014, 63 percent of households headed by a non-citizen reported that they used at least one welfare program, compared to 35 percent of native-headed households. 

*Compared to native households, non-citizen households have much higher use of food programs (45 percent vs. 21 percent for natives) and Medicaid (50 percent vs. 23 percent for natives). 
. . . 
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/census-confirms-63-percent-of-non-citizens-on-welfare-4-6-million-households 

 

Let’s Shrink Illegal Alien Population, Save Billions at Same Time



 By David North |


The usually discussed techniques for lowering the size of the illegal alien population are two in number:
  • Reducing the inflow of illegals, such as by building a wall; and
  • Mandating the departure of others through deportation.
There is a third variable, rarely discussed, that reaches the same goal without coercion and could be something that Democrats and Republicans might agree on: the subsidized and voluntary departure of some of the undocumented and other aging, low-income foreign-born. It probably would require an act of Congress.
I am thinking of a technique for selectively encouraging the emigration of those among the foreign-born who are most likely to become welfare users in the future. It would save billions and billions of federal dollars a year, and some state funds as well.
It is based on, among other things, the fact that most of the illegals are from warmer climates than our own, and reminds me of a conversation I had years ago on this subject with a Jamaica-born resident of the United States who told me of her fond memories of the warmth of that island: "Don't forget, old bones are cold bones."
Hence, the proposed Return to Warmth (RTW) program, which would directly subsidize the departure of numerous foreign-born persons, many of them here illegally, and would indirectly help the economies of the nations from which they migrated. That would be the genial face of the RTW program, which fits with its deliberately friendly name.
Meanwhile, it would prevent large numbers of these migrants from participating in our Medicare program and other (less expensive) income transfer programs, saving billions a year, and thus making RTW attractive to conservatives.
Let's look at some specifics.
In the following table, we show the roughly estimated 2017 per capita costs to the United States of the foreign-born Social Security beneficiaries while in the United States, and while in their home countries. It is drawn from government data easily available on the internet, such as the Medicare budget (which was $720 billion in 2017) and on similar sources for the numbers of beneficiaries.
The table is also based on the fact that many Social Security beneficiaries, including many of the foreign-born, can draw their checks in most of the rest of the world, but would not be able to participate in other programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, and Supplemental Security Income. All four require residence in the United States.
Given the information above, one might assume that virtually no one would want to take their Social Security benefits abroad. That is not the case.
More than 650,000 Social Security checks are mailed overseas each month and this number (and the percentage of retirees who do this) is slowly but steadily increasing, according to various issues of the of the Social Security Administration's Annual Statistical Supplement. Here are the totals and the percentages of all beneficiaries for three recent years:
During the early 1990s the percentage was about 0.75 percent.
Clearly this is an arrangement that is, slowly, growing in popularity. My suggestion is that we deliberately increase its size.
The evidence, incidentally, suggests strongly that most of these checks are notgoing to wealthy people who have decided to retire to the Riviera rather than Boca Raton. Average annual payouts of Social Security benefits were $15,208 nationally in 2017, and only $8,178 for those getting their checks abroad. Thus, the overseas checks were only 54 percent of the national average, reflecting the substantially lower lifetime incomes of those who retired abroad. This is not a rich population.
While I cannot document it, I learned some years ago, in a conversation with a SSA staffer, that more than 90 percent of those getting checks overseas were not born in the United States.
Proposal
The U.S. should create a new program (RTW) to encourage these movements back to the home countries, providing a range of new benefits to stimulate such returns, but designing them in such a way that the returnees will tend to stay returned once they have left.
If the United States can save $17,000 a year on each of hundreds of thousands of people, and all of them will stop making the impact that the rest of us do on the environment, this country will be making major progress, without using any coercion at all. And the savings of some $17,000 a year, per capita, means that it would be appropriate to offer some really enticing rewards to those thinking about leaving the country.
Who Would Qualify? Since a major part of the motivation is to reduce the illegal alien population, such persons would not be disqualified. I would limit it to foreign-born persons who qualify now, or will soon, for Social Security retirement, of whatever civil status, from illegal to citizen. It would only apply to people wanting to return to their native lands, and might not apply to a comparative few whose homes are within, say, 300 miles of the U.S. borders. (These people would be tempted to live secretly in the United States while collecting abroad.)
Dependents of the beneficiary could qualify, at any age, but the principals would have to be 61 years of age or older.
The Reward Package. This has to be enticing enough to encourage Social Security beneficiaries to seek it, despite the basic math outlined above (which many of them might sense, even without knowing the details.) Such a package might include:
  • Retirement benefits at the age of 61, instead of the usual 62;
  • A 10 percent bonus on the Social Security benefit while the beneficiary is abroad;
  • Free one-way plane tickets for the principal and the dependents; and
  • Checks totaling $5,000, half on arrival in the home country, and the other half a year later, but only paid in person, at a U.S. consulate or embassy.
Holy cow, some might say, you are going to be giving some illegals 10 percent more in Social Security for the rest of their lives! Isn't that an extravagant waste?
The 10 percent increase, based on current Social Security data, would mean that the overseas individual would get an additional $818 a year. That would be more than balanced by the Medicare savings of $10,778 a year; maybe we should set the Social Security benefit increase at 25 percent or more.
The monthly checks would have to be cashed in the home country, in person, by the beneficiary, and within 60 days of their issuance. Further, such checks would need to be endorsed by the beneficiary along with a thumb print of that person, and a note on the back of the check indicating the name of the cashier who accepted the check, and the date thereof. Banks that showed a pattern of check abuse would be barred from depositing these checks in the future.
All receiving any part of the bonus package would have to agree in writing to not seek to return to the United States under any circumstances for three or five years; if they did (or their checks were cashed in the United States), the government would halve the future benefit checks until the bonuses had been repaid. If they came back to the United States twice within those years, the beneficiary would be no longer be eligible for SSA retirement checks unless, perhaps, they were citizens, in which case a milder penalty would be exacted. (No one using the RTW benefits would be eligible to apply for naturalization, or any other immigration benefit.)
The benefit package suggested above is not set in stone; it could be altered, but it would have to offer the foreign-born a substantial benefit. Provisions should be made to use tax funds to compensate the Social Security system for its additional costs.
The benefits should be made available to those in deportation hearings, if they were otherwise eligible, thus reducing the backlogs in the immigration courts.
Someone who had received the rewards described above could ask to be excused from the program by voluntarily returning the extra moneys; but this would be rare, and would be available to only those who had been in the United States legally at the time of retirement.
Other Advantages of RTW. Other advantages to the government of RTW would be lowering pressure on energy assistance plans for the poor; on public housing, which in many cities includes special housing for the elderly; and on non-public food banks and the like. In addition, there would be the less obvious advantages of a lower population and less wear and tear on the built environment.
In the specific instance of shutting down Temporary Protected Status for people from some nations, it would ease the departure of the older ones. Perhaps some TPS beneficiaries within a year or two of the RTW minimum age could be given special dispensations.
As for the returnees, the principal advantage to them would be the lower costs of living in the homelands, as opposed to those costs in the United States. There would also be the previously cited warmer weather (for most), the ease of returning to a situation where everyone uses one's native language, and for many, losing the fear of deportation. In short, a win-win situation.
This suggestion takes a long view of the question of migrant utilization of our income transfer programs and would impose some short-term costs on the government (the reward packages) in exchange for steady savings in the future. It certainly would be subject to attempted abuse, but in the long run it would start saving us $17,000 a year times hundreds of thousands of people.
It would be a quiet program, in contrast to the wall and border skirmishes, but it would inevitably lead to fewer illegal aliens in the nation, and lower welfare costs.
Why not try it for a while?
David North, a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, has over 40 years of immigration policy experience.
Editor's Note: This piece was originally published by the Center for Immigration Studies.

 

No comments: