Friday, December 7, 2018


William Barr Prioritized Illegal Immigration Crackdown in 1990s–Similar to Sessions

Combo photo of William Barr and Jeff Sessions, both smiling

President Donald Trump said former Attorney General William Barr was his “first choice since day one” to replace Jeff Sessions as his new attorney general, both men favoring pro-enforcement policies regarding immigration.

Barr served as attorney general for the late President George H.W. Bush’s administration between 1991 and 1993, bringing a hard-on-crime touch to the immigration issue and implementing a series of reforms to reduce illegal immigration to the United States.
At this time, border and immigration enforcement was managed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), a faction of the Department of Justice (DOJ). The agency was previously a part of the Department of Labor and in 2003 was absorbed by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
In February 1991, a year when illegal Southwest border crossings had peaked over a million, Barr announced a slew of new initiatives, including the hiring of 300 U.S. Border Patrol agents to stop illegal immigration and drug trafficking at the border.
Barr also sought to add 200 additional investigators to the INS, 150 of whom were tasked with locating and deporting criminal illegal aliens and working on street gang task forces in major cities such as New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Newark, and Miami.
The other 50 INS investigators were to go after U.S. companies hiring illegal aliens over American citizens, the largest driver of illegal immigration.
In 1992, Barr created the National Criminal Alien Tracking Center, devoting $1.5 million in INS funding to “permit law enforcement agencies to contact INS 24 hours a day to identify, locate and track criminal aliens.”
During an Appropriations Committee hearing in 1992, Barr requested increased funding to open a detention center near the U.S.-Mexico border to house illegal border crossers who were awaiting immigration hearings. In addition to the added detention space, Barr demanded millions in new funding to hire personnel to help mitigate what he called “the growing criminal alien problem.”
Barr, much like Sessions and Trump, advocated for more treaties between the U.S. and foreign countries to deport convicted criminal illegal aliens to their native nations. And when it came to the number of criminal illegal aliens in federal prison, Barr took great issue with the booming foreign population in prison.
During an April 1992 speech, Barr decried the increasing number of criminal foreigners taking up space in federal prisons, calling it a “major issue” facing the country.
“Twenty-five percent of the inmates in federal prisons are non-U.S. citizens, as are a substantial number of those in state prisons and local jails,” Barr said at the time.
“The problem is particularly serious in some states, such as California, Texas, Florida, New York, and Illinois,” Barr continued. “We could free up thousands of prison beds if we got rid of those criminals who are not citizens and who have no right to be in the country.”
Barr said the issue should be dealt with in four ways: stop illegal immigration at the U.S.-Mexico border; speed up the deportations of illegal aliens once they are out of prison; more quickly deport criminal illegal aliens with non-violent offenses and increase the illegal re-entry fines against them; and, lastly, send criminal illegal aliens to their native countries to finish their prison sentence.
At a luncheon in Los Angeles, California, Barr vowed tough penalties for illegal immigration:
“In our stepped-up efforts to deport those who crash our borders, criminal aliens will be the first to go,” Barr told a California Town Hall lunch in Los Angeles. “And even those who enter legally and then commit crime will forfeit their privilege to stay.
“We will not tolerate aliens who come here to prey on the American people,” Barr said in announcing that he is making criminal immigrants a priority target of the Justice Department.
Much of the reforms that Barr attempted to bring to the DOJ during his tenure overlap with Sessions’ goals.
Sessions made wide-sweeping reforms at the U.S.-Mexico border, tightening the country’s asylum laws to stem the flow of Central Americans arriving with ineligible claims, advocating tirelessly for a border wall while also building a legal wall against mass migration, and, most famously, going after sanctuary city jurisdictions that shield illegal aliens from deportation.
Barr praised those reforms in a Washington Post op-ed following the former Alabama senator’s resignation in November, calling Sessions’ tenure as attorney general “outstanding.”
“Sessions set four goals for his tenure: to reduce the rates of murder, violent crime generally, opioid prescription fraud and drug overdose deaths. He achieved all four,” Barr wrote in the op-ed with former Attorney Generals Edwin Meese III and Michael B. Mukasey.
“He attacked the rampant illegality that riddled our immigration system, breaking the record for prosecution of illegal-entry cases and increasing by 38 percent the prosecution of deported immigrants who reentered the country illegally,” Barr wrote of Sessions’ immigration crackdown.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.

This country may not survive many more pondscums looters like psychopath OBAMA, serial rapist CLINTON, charity fraudster and pay-to-play Hillary and TRUMPER, the ho chasing, tax evading, bankruptcy addicted used car salesman!

Breitbart News has extensively covered Sessions’ regulatory reform of migration law amid opposition from business-first Republicans and pro-migration Democrats:


The Mexican Army made two seizures in Ensenada on August 17 (1,036 pounds of meth, heroin, and fentanyl) and August 18 (1,653 pounds of meth, fentanyl, and marijuana).

The Mexican Army discovered an active drug lab on August 25 in Tecate and seized four tons of methamphetamine.

The Mexican Federal Police seized 350 pounds of methamphetamine in an active drug lab in Tijuana on August 26.
The Mexican Federal Police seized 20,000 fentanyl pills in an active lab in Mexicali on September 10.

The Mexican Federal Police seized 550 pounds of methamphetamine in Tijuana on September 12.

The Mexican Army seized 1,055 pounds of methamphetamine near the Arizona border on September 14.


"Vast popular hardship and suffering, on the one hand, and almost indescribable wealth and social indifference, on the other. Two parties of the corporate oligarchy, dedicated to war and political reaction. The impossible economic and political conditions must produce sooner rather than later the greatest social upheavals in American history."
"A series of recent polls in the US and Europe have shown a sharp growth of popular disgust with capitalism and support for socialism. In May of 
2017, in a survey conducted by the Union of European Broadcasters of people aged 18 to 35, more than half said they would participate in a 
“large-scale uprising.” Nine out of 10 agreed with the statement, “Banks and money rule the world.”


"GOP estb. is using the $5 billion border-wall fight to hide up to four blue/white-

collar cheap-labor programs in lame-duck DHS budget. Donors are worried that

salaries are too damn high, & estb. media does not want to know." 



British American Tobacco
Dow Chemical







“Open border advocates, such as Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, claim illegal aliens are a net benefit to California with little evidence to support such an assertion. As the CIS has documented, the vast majority of illegals are poor, uneducated, and with few skills. How does accepting millions of illegal aliens and then granting them access to dozens of welfare programs benefit California’s economy? If illegals were contributing to the economy in any meaningful way, CA, with its 2.6 million illegals, would be booming.” STEVE BALDWIN – AMERICAN SPECTATOR

Billionaires Demand Fast-Track Green Cards for 400,000 Visa Workers

Bezos sailed past Gates to top the Forbes billionaires list for the first time

Internet billionaire Marc Benioff is urging the GOP Congress and President Donald Trump to fast-track 400,000 foreign visa-workers — plus 400,000 family members — to green cards, the U.S. job market, and the ballot box.

“This is good for our economy,” Benioff said in a Tuesday tweet that was applauded by Silicon Valley lobbyists. “We need to grow our workers to grow our economy.” 
Benioff’s comment is a tautology: Expanding the population by importing more than 800,000 people would obviously grow the nation’s economy, retail sales, government taxes, company profits, and Wall Street stock options. 
But Benioff’s cheap-labor importation plan would also shrink the income and careers sought by millions of American college graduates, many of whom will vote in 2020 for or against Trump. 

I strongly support HR392 eliminating the per country visa cap. This bill must happen. The high skill visa provision has overwhelming bi-partisan support because this is good for our economy. We need to grow our workers to grow our economy. 

1,957 people are talking about this

The planned giveaway is in a pending House bill, dubbed H.R. 392. It is also hidden in the House version of the 2019 funding package for the Department of Homeland Security. If Trump accepts that funding package, he will help companies import more cheap visa-workers from India and China an inflict more economic and career damage to the nation’s professional-status workforce of at least 55 million American college-graduates.
The nation’s workforce now includes roughly 1.5 million foreign college-graduate contract-workers who are imported via the H-1B, L-1, OPT, O-1, J-1, and other visa programs. These outsourcing workers are not immigrants, but instead, they are contract workers hired for one to six years, at lower wages, to take jobs that would otherwise go to American graduates.

GOP Reps. are still pushing Rep. Yoder's middle-class outsourcing bill to put 600K Indian visa-workers & families on fast-track to US jobs/voting. It would help CEOs import more Indians for US college-grad jobs - w/o any benefit for US workers or even GOP. 

123 people are talking about this

This massive level of middle-class outsourcing has suppressed the wage growth needed by many American graduates to repay their college debts, get married, buy homes, and raise children. For example, the salaries for 21 million “professional and business services” employees rose by just roughly one percent after inflation from the second quarter of 2017 to the second quarter of 2018, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Their after-inflation pay was flat from 2o15 to 2016.
The Americans’ salary loss, however, would be a gain for the CEOs who see their profits rise and their stock options spike as middle-class salaries decline. 
The site shows that Benioff’s company asked for 1,063 H-1B visa workers in 2018, up from 880 in 2017. The site also shows job titles and work locations. 
Benioff also sought 1,071 green cards for his contract workers in from 2016 to 2018. 
The company’s stock price has doubled since Trump’s election, but Benioff and most of his employees have strongly supported Democrats, including Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. For example, only 5.2 percent of employee donations to candidates went to GOP candidates in 2018. 
Now Benioff and his fellow executives as asking Trump to raise their stock portfolios by fast-tracking green cards to roughly 400,000 foreign contract-workers — plus 400,000 family members — who sidelined hundreds of thousands of American college graduates. 
Benioff’s support for the visa workers was echoed by Todd Schulte, who is the director of a pro-migration lobbying group. The Democratic-aligned group,, was formed and funded by Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Microsoft’s Bill Gates and numerous other CEOs and investors who prefer to import visa-workers instead of hiring Americans.

Without irony, Schulte’s website declares that “We believe that when every person has the opportunity to achieve their full potential, our families, communities, and economy thrive.” 
Amazon is also urging Trump to approve the green-card giveaway. Amazon’s founder, Jeff Bezos, also runs the Washington Post and supported Clinton.

Amazon applauds @KevinYoder on the passage of his amendment to the @DHSgov appropriations bill, H.R. 392, that would remove the per-country limit on green cards. This is an important step towards green card reform, and Amazonians thank you for your leadership on this issue.

984 people are talking about this

In 2018, Amazon asked the government for almost 6,000 H-1B visa workers and almost 5,000 green cards. Facebook asked for almost 2,400 H-1B workers and 1,400 green cards. Those outsourcing requests add up to 15,000 white-collar jobs sought by U.S. graduates. 
Business lobbyists are trying to minimize publicity about their demand for a green-card giveaway and they are pressing GOP leaders behind closed doors to keep the giveaway in the 2019 DHS budget. 
But opposition is rising as Americans graduates have begun organizing to block the giveaway. For example, Protect US Workers helped defeat Rep. Kevin Yoder who used his authority as an appropriations chairman to insert the giveaway into the DHS budget. 

Enjoyed helping send @RepKevinYoder packing.

Yep, I helped fund these billboards and voted straight RED in FL. Yoder's love for foreign guestworker/Replacemnts sent him packing. No American should ever have to train their Foreign Replacements@NeilMunroDC @bseeker @Dawnnewyorker

View image on Twitter

33 people are talking about this

The American graduates are also using federal data to show U.S. legislators how many Americans’ middle-class jobs are being outsourced in their districts to the foreign workers. 

I clean homes for a living. These kind of policies undercuts my job because of cheap labor. The dems try to make excuses for their policies against American workers. They don’t care about Americans, they just care about non citizens. They need to be voted out on 2020.
Yep, been there, trained my foreign Replacements in '02. Awful experience. Went public with it, told Congress. The worst part was the disregard we got from our 2 Dem senators

My house testimony: 

See Michael Emmons๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ's other Tweets

The managing director of Thiel Capital, Eric Weinstein, tweeted to Benioff to highlight his report which shows that the federal officials created the H-1B visa program to lower salaries paid to American technology experts:

The mass outsourcing also adding pressure to the lives of many American technology workers, many of whom have already lost jobs to cheaper contract-workers. An informal survey of tech workers shows that almost four-in-ten say they are depressed.
One of the leading advocates for the green-card giveaway is Leon Fresco, an immigration lawyer who helped Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer pass the disastrous 2013 “Gang of Eight” amnesty through the Senate. The bill was so unpopular that the GOP gained nine Senate seats in 2014, preventing Schumer from becoming Senate Majority Leader.
On December 6, Fresco suggested there is only a small chance that the giveaway will get into the final DHS bill:

Many Indian contract workers are lobbying to help pass the green-card bill:

In the United States, the establishment’s economic policy of using migration to boost economic growth shifts wealth from young people towards older people by flooding the market with cheap white collar and blue collar foreign labor. That flood of outside labor spikes profits and Wall Street values by cutting salaries for manual and skilled labor that blue collar and white collar employees offer.
The policy also drives up real estate prices, widens wealth gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts kids’ schools and college education, pushes Americans away from high-tech careers, and sidelines at least five million marginalized Americans and their families, including many who are now struggling with fentanyl addictions.
Immigration also pulls investment and wealth away from heartland states because coastal investors can more easily hire and supervise the large immigrant populations who prefer to live in the coastal states.

The stakes are high. Once the treaty is ratified, it will be exponentially harder to roll back internet censorship. Unless you want the tech giants’ right to censor to persist for another 20 years (that’s how long NAFTA lasted), now is the time to make your voice heard.

The Washington-imposed economic policy of economic growth via mass-immigration shifts wealth from young people towards older people, it floods the market with foreign laborspikes profits and Wall Street values by cutting salaries for manual and skilled labor offered by blue-collar and white-collar employees. It also drives up real estate priceswidens wealth-gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts kids’ schools and college education, pushes Americans away from high-tech careers, and sidelines at least 5 million marginalized Americans and their families, including many who are now struggling with opioid addictions.

But not everything is great for all Californians, with Breitbart News reporting that Silicon Valley has the highest income inequality in the nation and the U.S. News & World Report naming California as the worst state for “quality of life,” due to the high cost of living.

USMCA Entrenches Tech Companies’ Right To Censor

USMCA tech

President Trump hailed the trade agreement he signed with Mexico and Canada last week as “great for all our countries.” Perhaps he doesn’t know that the NAFTA-replacing trade agreement, USMCA, gives tech giants in Silicon Valley a special legal privilege to censor his own supporters — and anyone else they find “objectionable.”

Facebook, Twitter, Google, and YouTube all engaged in pre-election censorship against Republicans and Trump supporters. Yet they’ve managed to sneak a liability protection into President Trump’s trade bill that would make it even easier for them to censor their own users.
USMCA entrenches the tech giants’ legal protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which grant them legal immunity for user-generated content. This is an important part of the law that allows tech platforms to host a wide variety of speech with light-touch moderation.
But USMCA also entrenches tech companies’ right to censor without liability. Article 19.17 of the trade agreement gives tech companies immunity from any lawsuits arising from actions taken to “restrict material it considers to be harmful or objectionable.”
Section 230 has a similarly problematic provision, which needs to be amended by the next Congress if the censorship of the internet is to be stopped. But the new, even broader censorship provision, will make it nearly impossible for the tech giants’ privilege of legal immunity from any lawsuit that arises out of their censorship practices to be taken away.
Whereas Section 230 can be amended by the U.S. congress, USMCA is a trade agreement – once ratified by all three nations (the U.S., Canada, and Mexico), it will take further agreement from the three nations to amend it. And only one of those countries has a First Amendment. Canada, with its wide-ranging hate speech laws and far-left Prime Minister, would see little reason to make it harder for tech companies to censor “objectionable” content.
That said, USMCA isn’t ratified yet. It must first be approved by both Houses of Congress. Although President Trump has threatened a rapid cancellation of NAFTA to force Congress to approve its replacement, he faces legal obstacles to doing so.
And he might also be reluctant to do so when he learns that his own trade bill protects the very same tech censorship that he has publicly denounced.
In August, the President warned that “we will not tolerate political censorship, blacklisting, and rigged search results.”
Yet USMCA protects tech companies right to do exactly that — to bury any content they subjectively consider “objectionable” or “harmful.”
Despite attempts by Democrats and the corporate media to frame concerns about tech censorship as a “conspiracy theory,” internal research from Google leaked exclusively to Breitbart News earlier this year confirmed that tech platforms have indeed “shifted towards censorship.”
Although it’s too late for Trump to amend USMCA himself (he’s already signed it!), but so long as he delays cancelling NAFTA, he can give Congress time to make changes to the bill.
By January, Democrats will control the House of Representatives and the Senate will feature two new Republican senators, Marsha Blackburn and Josh Hawley, who are no friends of Silicon Valley tech giants. That will create a negotiating environment favorable to making broad changes to USMCA.
It’ll also provide a window for the grassroots to voice its concerns and pressure Congress to remove the pro-censorship provision from USMCA.
The stakes are high. Once the treaty is ratified, it will be exponentially harder to roll back internet censorship. Unless you want the tech giants’ right to censor to persist for another 20 years (that’s how long NAFTA lasted), now is the time to make your voice heard.
Allum Bokhari is the senior technology correspondent at Breitbart News. You can follow him on and add him on Facebook. Email tips and suggestions to

Zuckerberg’s Investor Group Pushes for Pre-Election Amnesty

Getty/Saul Loeb

by NEIL MUNRO19 Apr 201819

Silicon Valley investors, including Facebook owner Mark Zuckerberg, are joining the Koch network’s push for a quick amnesty that would also keep the issue of cheap-labor immigration out of the November election.

But the push by Zuckerberg’s investor group quickly hit a roadblock Thursday when Majority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy denounced the “discharge petition” amnesty plan, which is fronted by California GOP Rep. Jeff Denham.
“I don’t believe discharge petitions are the way to legislate,” McCarthy said to The Hill. “I don’t believe members in the [GOP] conference believe that, either.”
McCarthy’s opposition — and the growing pressure for a quick exit by retiring House Speaker Paul Ryan — opens up room for GOP legislators to make the November election all about rising wages vs. cheap-labor immigration. Numerous polls show that more than 70 percent of Americans want companies to hire Americans before importing more cheap-labor immigrants, and numerous business groups say they need more imported labor as wages begin to rise.
But a quick Zuckerberg amnesty would prevent President Donald Trump or GOP leaders from running on an immigration reform platform in November — and would also deflate economic pressure that is delivering higher wages before the 2018 election. “It would be the dumbest thing possible for Republicans to do coming election which they already think they may lose — they would for sure lose with this,” said Rosemary Jenks, the director of governmental affairs at NumbersUSA. She continued: 
I don’t think they will [shift to immigration, but] … it would be a surefire way to keep the majority. People in Washington talk about [election-winning] ’70 percent issues’ … [and] this is it, this is the 70 percent issue.
Backed by Zuckerberg’s, Denham is collecting GOP signatures for a resolution that would urge a so-called “Queen of the Hill” debate on the House floor. In that very rare form of debate, legislators could debate several alternative immigration bills, and the most popular proposal would be sent to the Senate
Those rules would almost guarantee a big win for Zuckerberg and his allies because nearly all Democrats and many business-first Republicans — including many who are retiring this year — will support a no-strings “Clean Dream Act” amnesty for at least 1.8 million younger ‘DACA’ illegals.
Denham claims to have 50 GOP legislators backing his resolution, but those GOP members have not signed the needed “discharge petition” which allows 218 cooperating legislators to force the debate despite opposition from the Speaker of the House. Many of Denham’s supporters don’t recognize the impact of Denham’s plan, said Jenks, and “when they find out, they are not going to be happy and will certainly not sign the discharge.”’
Denham’s office did not respond to questions from Breitbart News.
McCarthy’s quick opposition to Denham’s push is critical because he is the likely replacement for exiting House Speaker Paul Ryan. Without McCarthy’s support for the immigration push, few of the GOP legislators on Denham’s resolution will sign the needed discharge petition — even though many will use their support for the resolution to ingratiate themselves with their donors and pro-amnesty voters.
Denham’s resolution is getting expensive media support from the various donors who are working under cover of the Koch advocacy network, which has at least 550 business donors. On April 17. Daniel Garza, the president of the Koch-funded LIBRE Initiative, told Business Insider:
The American people deserve a government that is effective and efficient in solving our nation’s problems.
Congress and the White House have spent a lot of time talking about DACA, but today our elected officials have yet to approve a permanent legislative solution. The Dreamers are among our best and brightest. They are students, workers, and men and women risking their lives in the Armed Forces. Washington must come together and approve a bipartisan solution that provides certainty for Dreamers and security improvements along our border.
Zuckerberg’s advocacy group is also providing direct support for the Denham push, and it touted Wednesday’s press conference where Denham was flanked by a few other cheap-labor Republicans — Texas Rep. Will Hurd, Colorado Rep. Mike Coffman and California Rep. David Valadao – as well as the Democratic head of the Hispanic ethnic lobby, new Mexico Democrat Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham.

NOW and NEW: 50 Republicans join over 180 Republicans for the “Queen of the Hill” Rule to try to force a debate/series of votes for Dreamers.
Zuckerberg’s group was founded a by a slew of information-technology investors who gain from cheap white-collar labor.
The group has endorsed multiple bills and amnesties which would raise the supply of white-collar labor and also block Donald Trump’s populist “Buy American, Hire American” policies, all of which will tend to raise Americans’ blue-collar wages and white-collar salaries. In February, joined with many other business groups to help the Senate block Trump’s popular immigration reforms.
Since Trump’s election, the group has used the relatively few college-grad ‘DACA’ illegals to shift the political focus from Trump’s very popular wages-for-Americans pitch. That diversionary tactic has worked, partly because most establishment reporters prefer to focus on the concerns of foreign migrants rather than the concerns of fellow Americans.
However, Republicans are facing a tough 2018 election and may decide to pick up the issue up the popular issue of immigration and wages, especially if McCarthy replacesHouse Speaker Paul Ryan before the election.
That shift to wages and immigration is made likelier by the spreading benefits of Trump’s anti-amnesty policies which is delivering higher wages and overtime to many employees, including black bakers in Chicago, Latino restaurant workers in Monterey, Calif., disabled people in Missouri, high-schoolers, the construction industry, Superbowl workers, the garment industry, and workers employed at small businesses.
Higher wages are strongly resisted by business groups, partly because they threaten to lower investors’ returns and stock values on Wall Street, including the founders of
Zuckerberg’s group has funded polls which tout the supposed popularity of immigration. These “Nation of Immigrants” polls pressure Americans to say they welcome migrants.
In contrast, polls which ask people to pick a priority, or to decide which options are fair, show that voters in the polling booth put a high priority on helping their families and fellow nationals get decent jobs in a high-tech, high-immigrationlow-wage economy.
Also, a series of 2018 polls and surveys show that GOP voters believe the immigration issue is far more important than celebrating tax cuts.
Four million Americans turn 18 each year and begin looking for good jobs in the free market. But the federal government inflates the supply of new labor by annually accepting roughly 1.1 million new legal immigrants, by providing work-permits to roughly 3 million resident foreigners, and by doing little to block the employment of roughly 8 million illegal immigrants.
The Washington-imposed economic policy of economic growth via mass-immigration shifts wealth from young people towards older people, it floods the market with foreign laborspikes profits and Wall Street values by cutting salaries for manual and skilled labor offered by blue-collar and white-collar employees. It also drives up real estate priceswidens wealth-gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts kids’ schools and college education, pushes Americans away from high-tech careers, and sidelines at least 5 million marginalized Americans and their families, including many who are now struggling with opioid addictions.
In the July/August version of the Atlantic, columnist Peter Beinart wrote an article titled, “How the Democrats Lost Their Way on Immigration.”

“The next Democratic presidential candidate should say again and again that because Americans are one people, who must abide by one law, his or her goal is to reduce America’s undocumented population to zero.”

Peter Beinart, a frequent contributor to the New York TimesNew York Review of BooksHaaretz, and former editor of the New Republic, blames immigration for deteriorating social conditions for the American working class: The supposed “costs” of immigration, he says, “strain the very welfare state that liberals want to expand in order to help those native-born Americans with whom immigrants compete.”

llustration by Lincoln Agnew*

The myth, which liberals like myself find tempting, is that only the right has changed. In June 2015, we tell ourselves, Donald Trump rode down his golden escalator and pretty soon nativism, long a feature of conservative politics, had engulfed it. But that’s not the full story. If the right has grown more nationalistic, the left has grown less so. A decade ago, liberals publicly questioned immigration in ways that would shock many progressives today.

Listen to the audio version of this article:Download the Audm app for your iPhone to listen to more titles.
In 2005, a left-leaning blogger wrote, “Illegal immigration wreaks havoc economically, socially, and culturally; makes a mockery of the rule of law; and is disgraceful just on basic fairness grounds alone.” In 2006, a liberal columnist wrote that “immigration reduces the wages of domestic workers who compete with immigrants” and that “the fiscal burden of low-wage immigrants is also pretty clear.” His conclusion: “We’ll need to reduce the inflow of low-skill immigrants.” That same year, a Democratic senator wrote, “When I see Mexican flags waved at pro-immigration demonstrations, I sometimes feel a flush of patriotic resentment. When I’m forced to use a translator to communicate with the guy fixing my car, I feel a certain frustration.”

The blogger was Glenn Greenwald. The columnist was Paul Krugman. The senator was Barack Obama.

Prominent liberals didn’t oppose immigration a decade ago. Most acknowledged its benefits to America’s economy and culture. They supported a path to citizenship for the undocumented. Still, they routinely asserted that low-skilled immigrants depressed the wages of low-skilled American workers and strained America’s welfare state. And they were far more likely than liberals today are to acknowledge that, as Krugman put it, “immigration is an intensely painful topic … because it places basic principles in conflict.”

Today, little of that ambivalence remains. In 2008, the Democratic platform called undocumented immigrants “our neighbors.” But it also warned, “We cannot continue to allow people to enter the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked,” adding that “those who enter our country’s borders illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of the law.” By 2016, such language was gone. The party’s platform described America’s immigration system as a problem, but not illegal immigration itself. And it focused almost entirely on the forms of immigration enforcement that Democrats opposed. In its immigration section, the 2008 platform referred three times to people entering the country “illegally.” The immigration section of the 2016 platform didn’t use the word illegal, or any variation of it, at all.“A decade or two ago,” says Jason Furman, a former chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, “Democrats were divided on immigration. Now everyone agrees and is passionate and thinks very little about any potential downsides.” How did this come to be?

There are several explanations for liberals’ shift. The first is that they have changed because the reality on the ground has changed, particularly as regards illegal immigration. In the two decades preceding 2008, the United States experienced sharp growth in its undocumented population. Since then, the numbers have leveled off.

But this alone doesn’t explain the transformation. The number of undocumented people in the United States hasn’t gone down significantly, after all; it’s stayed roughly the same. So the economic concerns that Krugman raised a decade ago remain relevant today.

What’s Wrong With the Democrats?A larger explanation is political. Between 2008 and 2016, Democrats became more and more confident that the country’s growing Latino population gave the party an electoral edge. To win the presidency, Democrats convinced themselves, they didn’t need to reassure white people skeptical of immigration so long as they turned out their Latino base. “The fastest-growing sector of the American electorate stampeded toward the Democrats this November,” Salon declared after Obama’s 2008 win. “If that pattern continues, the GOP is doomed to 40 years of wandering in a desert.”As the Democrats grew more reliant on Latino votes, they were more influenced by pro-immigrant activism. While Obama was running for reelection, immigrants’-rights advocates launched protests against the administration’s deportation practices; these protests culminated, in June 2012, in a sit-in at an Obama campaign office in Denver. Ten days later, the administration announced that it would defer the deportation of undocumented immigrants who had arrived in the U.S. before the age of 16 and met various other criteria. Obama, The New York Times noted, “was facing growing pressure from Latino leaders and Democrats who warned that because of his harsh immigration enforcement, his support was lagging among Latinos who could be crucial voters in his race for re-election.”
Alongside pressure from pro-immigrant activists came pressure from corporate America, especially the Democrat-aligned tech industry, which uses the H-1B visa program to import workers. In 2010, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, along with the CEOs of companies including Hewlett-Packard, Boeing, Disney, and News Corporation, formed New American Economy to advocate for business-friendly immigration policies. Three years later, Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates helped found to promote a similar agenda.
This combination of Latino and corporate activism made it perilous for Democrats to discuss immigration’s costs, as Bernie Sanders learned the hard way. In July 2015, two months after officially announcing his candidacy for president, Sanders was interviewed by Ezra Klein, the editor in chief of Vox. Klein asked whether, in order to fight global poverty, the U.S. should consider “sharply raising the level of immigration we permit, even up to a level of open borders.” Sanders reacted with horror. “That’s a Koch brothers proposal,” he scoffed. He went on to insist that “right-wing people in this country would love … an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don’t believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country.”
Progressive commentators routinely claim that there’s a near-consensus among economists on immigration’s benefits. There isn’t.Sanders came under immediate attack. Vox’s Dylan Matthews declared that his “fear of immigrant labor is ugly—and wrongheaded.” The president of accused Sanders of “the sort of backward-looking thinking that progressives have rightly moved away from in the past years.” ThinkProgress published a blog post titled “Why Immigration Is the Hole in Bernie Sanders’ Progressive Agenda.” The senator, it argued, was supporting “the idea that immigrants coming to the U.S. are taking jobs and hurting the economy, a theory that has been proven incorrect.”Sanders stopped emphasizing immigration’s costs. By January 2016,’s policy director noted with satisfaction that he had “evolved on this issue.”
But has the claim that “immigrants coming to the U.S. are taking jobs” actually been proved “incorrect”? A decade ago, liberals weren’t so sure. In 2006, Krugman wrote that America was experiencing “large increases in the number of low-skill workers relative to other inputs into production, so it’s inevitable that this means a fall in wages.”
It’s hard to imagine a prominent liberal columnist writing that sentence today. To the contrary, progressive commentators now routinely claim that there’s a near-consensus among economists on immigration’s benefits.(Illustration by Lincoln Agnew. Photos: AFP; Atta Kenare; Eric Lafforgue; Gamma-Rapho; Getty; Keystone-France; Koen van Weel; Lambert; Richard Baker / In Pictures / Corbis)There isn’t. According to a comprehensive new report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, “Groups comparable to … immigrants in terms of their skill may experience a wage reduction as a result of immigration-induced increases in labor supply.” But academics sometimes de-emphasize this wage reduction because, like liberal journalists and politicians, they face pressures to support immigration.
Many of the immigration scholars regularly cited in the press have worked for, or received funding from, pro-immigration businesses and associations. Consider, for instance, Giovanni Peri, an economist at UC Davis whose name pops up a lot in liberal commentary on the virtues of immigration. A 2015 New York Times Magazine essay titled “Debunking the Myth of the Job-Stealing Immigrant” declared that Peri, whom it called the “leading scholar” on how nations respond to immigration, had “shown that immigrants tend to complement—rather than compete against—the existing work force.” Peri is indeed a respected scholar. But Microsoft has funded some of his research into high-skilled immigration. And New American Economy paid to help him turn his research into a 2014 policy paper decrying limitations on the H-1B visa program. Such grants are more likely the result of his scholarship than their cause. Still, the prevalence of corporate funding can subtly influence which questions economists ask, and which ones they don’t. (Peri says grants like those from Microsoft and New American Economy are neither large nor crucial to his work, and that “they don’t determine … the direction of my academic research.”)Academics face cultural pressures too. In his book Exodus, Paul Collier, an economist at the University of Oxford, claims that in their “desperate [desire] not to give succor” to nativist bigots, “social scientists have strained every muscle to show that migration is good for everyone.” George Borjas of Harvard argues that since he began studying immigration in the 1980s, his fellow economists have grown far less tolerant of research that emphasizes its costs. There is, he told me, “a lot of self-censorship among young social scientists.” Because Borjas is an immigration skeptic, some might discount his perspective. But when I asked Donald Davis, a Columbia University economist who takes a more favorable view of immigration’s economic impact, about Borjas’s claim, he made a similar point. “George and I come out on different sides of policy on immigration,” Davis said, “but I agree that there are aspects of discussion in academia that don’t get sort of full view if you come to the wrong conclusion.”
None of this means that liberals should oppose immigration. Entry to the United States is, for starters, a boon to immigrants and to the family members back home to whom they send money. It should be valued on these moral grounds alone. But immigration benefits the economy, too. Because immigrants are more likely than native-born Americans to be of working age, they improve the ratio of workers to retirees, which helps keep programs like Social Security and Medicare solvent. Immigration has also been found to boost productivity, and the National Academies report finds that “natives’ incomes rise in aggregate as a result of immigration.”
The problem is that, although economists differ about the extent of the damage, immigration hurts the Americans with whom immigrants compete. And since more than a quarter of America’s recent immigrants lack even a high-school diploma or its equivalent, immigration particularly hurts the least-educated native workers, the very people who are already struggling the most. America’s immigration system, in other words, pits two of the groups liberals care about most—the native-born poor and the immigrant poor—against each other.
One way of mitigating this problem would be to scrap the current system, which allows immigrants living in the U.S. to bring certain close relatives to the country, in favor of what Donald Trump in February called a “merit based” approach that prioritizes highly skilled and educated workers. The problem with this idea, from a liberal perspective, is its cruelty. It denies many immigrants who are already here the ability to reunite with their loved ones. And it flouts the country’s best traditions. Would we remove from the Statue of Liberty the poem welcoming the “poor,” the “wretched,” and the “homeless”?
A better answer is to take some of the windfall that immigration brings to wealthier Americans and give it to those poorer Americans whom immigration harms. Borjas has suggested taxing the high-tech, agricultural, and service-sector companies that profit from cheap immigrant labor and using the money to compensate those Americans who are displaced by it.Unfortunately, while admitting poor immigrants makes redistributing wealth more necessary, it also makes it harder, at least in the short term. By some estimates, immigrants, who are poorer on average than native-born Americans and have larger families, receive more in government services than they pay in taxes. According to the National Academies report, immigrant-headed families with children are 15 percentage points more likely to rely on food assistance, and 12 points more likely to rely on Medicaid, than other families with children. In the long term, the United States will likely recoup much if not all of the money it spends on educating and caring for the children of immigrants. But in the meantime, these costs strain the very welfare state that liberals want to expand in order to help those native-born Americans with whom immigrants compete.
What’s more, studies by the Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam and others suggest that greater diversity makes Americans less charitable and less willing to redistribute wealth. People tend to  be less generous when large segments of society don’t look or talk like them. Surprisingly, Putnam’s research suggests that greater diversity doesn’t reduce trust and cooperation just among people of different races or ethnicities—it also reduces trust and cooperation among people of the same race and ethnicity.
Trump appears to sense this. His implicit message during the campaign was that if the government kept out Mexicans and Muslims, white, Christian Americans would not only grow richer and safer, they would also regain the sense of community that they identified with a bygone age. “At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America,” he declared in his inaugural address, “and through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other.”Liberals must take seriously Americans’ yearning for social cohesion. To promote both mass immigration and greater economic redistribution, they must convince more native-born white Americans that immigrants will not weaken the bonds of national identity. This means dusting off a concept many on the left currently hate: assimilation.
Promoting assimilation need not mean expecting immigrants to abandon their culture. But it does mean breaking down the barriers that segregate them from the native-born. And it means celebrating America’s diversity less, and its unity more.
Writing last year in American Sociological Review, Ariela Schachter, a sociology professor at Washington University in St. Louis, examined the factors that influence how native-born whites view immigrants. Foremost among them is an immigrant’s legal status. Given that natives often assume Latinos are undocumented even when they aren’t, it follows that illegal immigration indirectly undermines the status of those Latinos who live in the U.S. legally. That’s why conservatives rail against government benefits for undocumented immigrants (even though the undocumented are already barred from receiving many of those benefits): They know Americans will be more reluctant to support government programs if they believe those programs to be benefiting people who have entered the country illegally.
Liberal immigration policy must work to ensure that immigrants do not occupy a separate legal caste. This means opposing the guest-worker programs—beloved by many Democrat-friendly tech companies, among other employers—that require immigrants to work in a particular job to remain in the U.S. Some scholars believe such programs drive down wages; they certainly inhibit assimilation. And, as Schachter’s research suggests, strengthening the bonds of identity between natives and immigrants is harder when natives and immigrants are not equal under the law.The next Democratic presidential candidate should say again and again that because Americans are one people, who must abide by one law, his or her goal is to reduce America’s undocumented population to zero. For liberals, the easy part of fulfilling that pledge is supporting a path to citizenship for the undocumented who have put down roots in the United States. The hard part, which Hillary Clinton largely ignored in her 2016 presidential run, is backing tough immigration enforcement so that path to citizenship doesn’t become a magnet that entices more immigrants to enter the U.S. illegally.
Enforcement need not mean tearing apart families, as Trump is doing with gusto. Liberals can propose that the government deal harshly not with the undocumented themselves but with their employers. Trump’s brutal policies already appear to be slowing illegal immigration. But making sure companies follow the law and verify the legal status of their employees would curtail it too: Migrants would presumably be less likely to come to the U.S. if they know they won’t be able to find work.
In 2014, the University of California listed the term melting pot as a “microaggression.” What if Hillary Clinton had called that absurd? Schachter’s research also shows that native-born whites feel a greater affinity toward immigrants who speak fluent English. That’s particularly significant because, according to the National Academies report, newer immigrants are learning English more slowly than their predecessors did. During the campaign, Clinton proposed increasing funding for adult English-language education. But she rarely talked about it. In fact, she ran an ad attacking Trump for saying, among other things, “This is a country where we speak English, not Spanish.” The immigration section of her website showed her surrounded by Spanish-language signs.Democrats should put immigrants’ learning English at the center of their immigration agenda. If more immigrants speak English fluently, native-born whites may well feel a stronger connection to them, and be more likely to support government policies that help them. Promoting English will also give Democrats a greater chance of attracting those native-born whites who consider growing diversity a threat. According to a preelection study by Adam Bonica, a Stanford political scientist, the single best predictor of whether a voter supported Trump was whether he or she agreed with the statement “People living in the U.S. should follow American customs and traditions.”
In her 2005 book, The Authoritarian Dynamic, which has been heralded for identifying the forces that powered Trump’s campaign, Karen Stenner, then a professor of politics at Princeton, wrote:
Exposure to difference, talking about difference, and applauding difference—the hallmarks of liberal democracy—are the surest ways to aggravate those who are innately intolerant, and to guarantee the increased expression of their predispositions in manifestly intolerant attitudes and behaviors. Paradoxically, then, it would seem that we can best limit intolerance of difference by parading, talking about, and applauding our sameness.
The next Democratic presidential nominee should commit those words to memory. There’s a reason Barack Obama’s declaration at the 2004 Democratic National Convention that “there is not a liberal America and a conservative America … There is not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America” is among his most famous lines. Americans know that liberals celebrate diversity. They’re less sure that liberals celebrate unity. And Obama’s ability to effectively do the latter probably contributed to the fact that he—a black man with a Muslim-sounding name—twice won a higher percentage of the white vote than did Hillary Clinton.In 2014, the University of California listed melting pot as a term it considered a “microaggression.” What if Hillary Clinton had traveled to one of its campuses and called that absurd? What if she had challenged elite universities to celebrate not merely multiculturalism and globalization but Americanness? What if she had said more boldly that the slowing rate of English-language acquisition was a problem she was determined to solve? What if she had acknowledged the challenges that mass immigration brings, and then insisted that Americans could overcome those challenges by focusing not on what makes them different but on what makes them the same?
Some on the left would have howled. But I suspect that Clinton would be president today.


It will more likely come on the heels of economic dislocation and dwindling wealth to redistribute.”

"Between 2002 and 2015 annual earnings for the bottom 90 percent of Americans rose by only 4.5 percent, while earnings for the top 1 percent grew by 22.7 percent, according to the Economic Policy Institute. Under the Obama administration, more than 90 percent of income gains since the so-called “recovery” began have gone to the top one percent."
 “Our entire crony capitalist system, Democrat and Republican alike, has become a kleptocracy approaching par with third-world hell-holes. This is the way a great country is raided by its elite.” ---- Karen McQuillan THEAMERICAN

"A defining expression of this crisis is the dominance of financial speculation and 
parasitism, to the point where a arrow international financial aristocracy plunders society’s resources in order to further enrich itself."



the true cost of all that “cheap” labor is passed along to the middle class.


"This doesn't include the costs of illegal immigration to society, which provides health care, housing, education, child care, and legal services to illegal aliens.  Even though immigration advocates claim that illegal aliens do indeed pay taxes, the dollar amount pales in comparison to the cost of the many services they receive."


Meanwhile, despite the highest taxes in the nation, California is $1.3 trillion in debt – unemployment is at a staggering 11%.  California's wacko giveaways to illegals include in-state tuition, amounting to $25 million of financial aid.  Nearly a million illegals have California driver's licenses.  L.A. County has 144% more registered voters than there are residents of legal voting age.  Clearly, illegals are illegally voting

"Amazon is a massive wrecking machine consuming American retail. It's looting the economy and leaving behind rubble. " --- DANIEL GREENFIELD FRONTPAGE MAG

Amazon, the multinational online retail conglomerate, is importing more foreign workers to the United States to take coveted tech industry jobs than Facebook and Google combined. JOHN BINDER
"Amazon is a massive wrecking machine consuming American retail. It's looting the economy and leaving behind rubble. " --- DANIEL GREENFIELD FRONTPAGE MAG

"Today, each of the top 5 billionaires owns as much as 750 million people, more than the total population of Latin America and double the population of the US."

“A comprehensive new report released Sunday by the New York-based labor rights watchdog China Labor Watch (CLW) has shed new light on the barbaric and illegal practices that Amazon employs to boost its profits by driving down production costs on the backs of factory workers at the company’s electronics assembly plants in China.”

“A comprehensive new report released Sunday by the New York-based labor rights watchdog China Labor Watch (CLW) has shed new light on the barbaric and illegal practices that Amazon employs to boost its profits by driving down production costs on the backs of factory workers at the company’s electronics assembly plants in China.”
Amazon, the multinational online retail conglomerate, is importing more foreign workers to the United States to take coveted tech industry jobs than Facebook and Google combined. JOHN BINDER
"Amazon is a massive wrecking machine consuming American retail. It's looting the economy and leaving behind rubble. " --- DANIEL GREENFIELD FRONTPAGE MAG

The gains for employees are a novel pain for the investors and employers who have been able to hold down wages for decades because the federal government is trying to grow the economy via cheap-labor legal immigration.

Amazon, the multinational online retail conglomerate, is importing more foreign workers to the United States to take coveted tech industry jobs than Facebook and Google combined. JOHN BINDER

"Amazon is a massive wrecking machine consuming American retail. It's looting the economy and leaving behind rubble. " --- DANIEL GREENFIELD FRONTPAGE MAG

Retiring Paul Ryan Pushes Stealth Outsourcing, Amnesty for Irish Lobbies
Paul Ryan St. Patricks Day
Naomi O'Leary/Twitter

Retiring House Speaker Paul Ryan is quietly pushing a bill to outsource many thousands of U.S. college graduate jobs to Irish graduates and deliver amnesty to Irish illegals.

His Irish-only bill was quietly pushed through the House on November 28 without a recorded vote by legislators. It is now awaiting approval by the U.S. Senate — but the outsourcing and amnesty bill will be blocked if even one U.S. senator privately or publicly notifies GOP Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell that he or she will oppose the measure. 
The plan would provide the Irish — but not anyone else — with roughly 50,000 endlessly renewable work permits per decade.
In 2005, President George W. Bush signed a treaty offering 10,500 annual E-3 work permits to Australian college graduates. Lobbyists say roughly half of those visas are unused each year, so the Ryan plan would annually allocate the roughly 5,000 unused E-3 visas to Irish graduates so they can take jobs sought by American graduates.
Currently, about 1.5 million foreign contract workers are holding college graduate jobs in the United States. The foreign workers are allowed to get these jobs via the H-1B, L-1, and other visa programs, and they help suppress the salaries earned by millions of American college graduates who will vote for or against President Trump in 2020.
The beneficiaries of the Ryan plan would include many Irish who are working illegally in the United States, said Billy Lawless, a Chicago-based Irish politician who is responsible for representing the Irish diaspora in the United States. “The undocumented are number one in my mind … maybe more than I think might qualify for this,” he told a radio show on November 13. 
“More importantly, it is a stepping stone” to further reforms that could increase migration from Ireland, Lawless said. “Irish communities are suffering because we are not getting the young Irish out [to the United States] anymore.”
Lawless runs a restaurant in Chicago and is a member of the largely powerless Senate in the Irish Parliament. 
The Irish government has promised to repay Ryan’s huge gift of 50,000 extra jobs per decade by allowing older Americans to spend their retirement savings in Ireland.
This one-sided deal will give the Irish government two wins — the ability to get tens of thousands of U.S. visas for the Irish — including Irish illegals now living in the United States — as well as the ability to create more jobs in Ireland by importing retired Americans and their hugely valuable 401K retirement accounts. 
Lawless, however, insisted the plan is reciprocal because it would allow wealthier American retirees aged 55 and above to get to live in Ireland. “Here’s the real kicker: after five years, we will give them Irish citizenship if they want it,” he told the radio show. “It is a huge benefit … so it is not a one-way street, this bill.”
The government-funded Irish TV network reported on the November 28 vote:
Those [lobbying] efforts have been led by the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Irish Embassy in Washington and the government’s special envoy to the US Fine Gael [legislator] John Deasy.
Speaking in Washington following last night’s vote, Mr Deasy welcomed the passage of the bill in the House of Representatives but warned that there’s still some way to go.
“The bill will now be sent to the US Senate and it needs to be passed there by unanimous consent meaning that it will require the agreement of all 100 senators for this to be signed into law”, he said.
The second-ranking politician in Ireland applauded Ryan’s vote:
Deasy did not return calls from Breitbart News. 
American politicians, including Ryan, did not bother to win any gains for young Americans, such as the equal opportunity to get good jobs in Ireland.
Lawless said the outsourcing-and-amnesty plan is backed by White House chief of staff John Kelly, as well as Mike Mulvaney, the business-first, pro-migration director of the Office of Management and Budget. “And Speaker Ryan, Paul Ryan, of course,” he said.
Lawless also said President Trump proposed the outsourcing-and-amnesty plan when he met the Irish prime minister on St. Patrick’s Day in 2017.  
Ryan has repeatedly touted his ancestors’ Irish roots while covertly undermining Trump’s pro-American immigration reforms and Trump’s effort to build a barrier on the U.S.-Mexico border. 
In June, Ryan blocked the passage of the Trump-backed pro-American immigration reforms by splitting the GOP’s votes between two rival reform bills. “If it has been the only bill offered, it might have passed,” said Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the pro-reform chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, who authored the pro-American bill. “If we had gotten half of [the GOP ‘no’ voters] to join with us, we would have gotten there,” he said.
Ryan’s support for more Irish immigration and more outsourcing spotlights his career-long support for the “any willing worker” plan favored by President George W. Bush. The very radical policy would allow U.S. employers to hire anyone in the world for U.S. jobs when Americans decline to take the jobs at the offered minimal wage:
Ryan’s business-first ideology helped the GOP lose 40 seats and its House majority in November, leaving Trump to deal with investigations and hostility from the new Democrat majority.
Ryan is expected to take a job in the nation’s banking industry. The industry gains enormously when the government annually imports approximately 1.1 million new consumers and workers via legal immigration. 
Passage of the Irish-only outsourcing-and-amnesty bill would likely spur charges of racism against GOP legislators who wish to enforce the nation’s immigration laws and to protect Americans from Democrat calls for more cheap-labor migration:
Lawless owns restaurants in Chicago and is an appointed member of the largely powerless Senate in the Irish Parliament. In June, Lawless said in a speech in the Irish Senate that Trump’s prosecution of migrants who bring children over the border is a “horrendous policy”:
Since Trump withdrew that enforcement policy, the number of economic migrants getting through the border with children has risen dramatically. 
Lawless said the outsourcing-and-amnesty push has been aided by Irish ethnic groups in the United States, such as the Ancient Order of Hibernians. Bruce Morrison, a lobbyist and former representative who helped write the nation’s largest outsourcing program, the H-1B visa, has also aided the push. “Everybody has chimed in,” he said. 
The push to outsource U.S. jobs to Irish graduates comes as the Irish government also tries to import more foreigners into Ireland. 
Ireland’s progressive prime minister, Leo Varadkar, has accelerated plans to dramatically boost the nation’s population, even though a huge inflow of foreigners will drive up real estate prices, force down blue collar wages, and fragment civic solidarity.
Varadkar wishes to raise the nation’s population from 4.8 million in 2017 to 5.8 million in 2040. Varadkar is the son of an Indian immigrant and is increasingly popular among anti-national elites in European politics:
Also, pro-migration advocates are trying to provide birthright citizenship to illegal migrants in Ireland. The very unpopular policy practice was ended by a 2004 referendum.
In the United States, large numbers of rational foreigners have used the birthright legalization process since the 1970s to win citizenship.
This inflow has transformed California. For example, the once-economically equal state now has one of the largest wealth gaps between the rich and poor, as well as low-quality schools and high housing costs. Many children of California’s 1970s population have fledto other states, regardless of their politics. This year, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein faced a serious primary challenge from the son of an illegal immigrant:
The rising legal and illegal inflow of migrants, especially Asians, and the wealth created by the Internet economy are also pricing poor U.S. Latinos and blacks out of middle-class and coastal towns, such as Berkeley and Oakland. But this process has generated windfall profits for real estate owners.
Nationwide, the establishment’s economic policy of using legal migration to boost economic growth shifts wealth from young people towards older people by flooding the market with cheap white collar and blue collar foreign labor. That flood of outside labor spikes profits and Wall Street values by cutting salaries for manual and skilled labor that blue collar and white collar employees offer.
The policy also drives up real estate prices, widens wealth gaps, reduces high tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts kids’ schools and collegeeducation, pushes Americans away from high tech careers, and sidelines at least five million marginalized Americans and their families, including many who are now struggling with fentanyl addictions.
Immigration also pulls investment and wealth away from heartland states because coastal investors can more easily hire and supervise the large immigrant populations who prefer to live in the coastal states.

Europe Must Resist Third-World Migration

Bill Gates has recently commended Germany for allocating 0.7% of GDP for payments to fight poverty in less developed developing countries (LDDCs).  With his infinite browser wisdom, he asserts that the developed world, especially Europe, must increase these contributions or face a flood of migration from the LDDCs that will overwhelm the continent.  We all understand that by "overwhelm," he is referring to crime, housing, health care, education, and cultural viability of European identities.  In short, the Europe we know will be crushed.  Gates's vocabulary includes terms like "unfolding tragedy," "migratory pressure," and "development aid payments."  He is fixated on drama ("tragedy"), demography, and the tired category of development that has become a clichรฉ in use for the last 72 years since the end of WWII.  These terms out of the business and administrative glossary fail to capture the depth and danger of the situation Gates is referring to.
Gates thinks the migration can be stopped by an even greater effort to rehab (read: buy off) the LDDCs  under the decades-old rubric of development.  Again, according to the guilt-ridden, weakened leftist mindset, it's so sad to see those sub-Saharans and Arabs living in great poverty and under-development that we need to throw more money at the problem, and thereby save ourselves.  So Gates is not really changing his tune.  He's not worried about obliterating European identities or economies.  Rather, he is still singing the old liberal-left song.  Throw money at vast social problems, and your peace and stability will be assured.  
Building up the LDDC economies is not a new idea.  This has been the clichรฉd response since the end of WWII when the U.N., the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank were founded.  Going back to the 1960s, Walter Rostow, one of Harvard's eminent economists, projected his theory of the "take-off stage."  With economic development support through the three above-named institutions, the poorest countries would be subsidized and finally move to the take-off stage, where they could generate sufficient surplus capital to manage and grow their own assets and begin to develop viable economic projects and infrastructure without "development funds" and without the currency undergirding of the IMF.
These take-off stages never materialized.
Nevertheless, the United Nations has intensified its commitment to saving the LDDCs from self-destruction.  The latest round of this utopian vision is the formulation by the United Nations of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for the developing world.  For the purposes of this article, it is worth noting that their goal of the elimination or radical reduction of poverty acknowledges that despite the efforts of the United Nations for 72 years, there are 867 million people in the world living in poverty defined as income of less than $1.25 a day.
The implementation of programs in support of the U.N.'s SDGs involves providing the people in the least developed countries with welfare in every area of their lives.  It is projected as a global welfare system that will make the welfare systems of the U.S. or even Europe look like child's play.  Housing, food, health, employment, childbearing, childrearing, education, gender equality, etc. are areas for dedicated U.N. action.  Multiple sectors of third-world economies will be upheld by a vast global welfare bureaucracy.  Do you think we as taxpaying Americans (45% do not pay any tax) are burdened now?  Wait and see what is moving to the front burner!  Obviously, Bill Gates, former boy wonder, and now the richest man in the world, sees a speedup of the SDG implementation as essential for stemming the tide of migration.  But instead of talking about an explosion of economic support and world governance beyond anything ever dreamed of on planet Earth, he hides the horrific reality behind abstractions like "increasing the percentage contributions of national GDP by developed countries."
He says nothing about confronting the "small matters" of governmental corruption, governmental waste, and tribal conflict in the LDDCs.  Inter-tribal warfare is a norm in sub-Saharan Africa.  We give money despite the fact that genocide and civil wars in many countries is the norm.  Likewise in the Middle East.  We see Muslim against Muslim as well as Muslim against infidels for 1,400 years.  All they know is the fight for power.
Instead of increasing the amounts of "developmental assistance," there should be increased resistance to terrible third-world governance and to migration.  This resistance must be multi-pronged.  There must be pushback against the U.N.'s SDG Programs, there must be pushback against the corrupt World Bank and IMF, and there must be pushback against migration from Africa and the Middle East.
Europe is experiencing an invasion.  Powerful segments of political leadership in North America are attempting to open the doors to invasion.  What should be done?  There should be a lessening of welfare payments to refugees and migrants to Europe, Canada, and the USA as a disincentive to leave the home countries, and as an incentive for refugees and migrants to leave these wealthy areas and go back to their native lands.  Additionally, some boats will have to be turned away since the occupants do not have papers.  Extreme vetting of refugees from war-torn sub-Saharan and Middle Eastern countries must be instituted.
A massive campaign of literature should be dropped on those countries with high migration telling them that there are no facilities for them in their goal countries, and they will be turned back.  Matchbooks should be dropped by the millions (this matchbook technique has been used on other occasions, notably when they were searching worldwide for Ramzi Yousef, the bomber of the World Trade Center in the early 1990s) announcing that the immigration venues have been closed.  Get this message to the people.  The matchbooks could be in French, English, Arabic, and Swahili.   
Let us learn from history.  Migration of Germanic tribes was the undoing of the Roman Empire.  The Romans could not stem the tide.  Various strategies were undertaken, but they failed in the end.  The Vandals, Franks, Saxons, Angles, Ostrogoths, and Visigoths just kept coming.  Eventually, the migrants, called "barbarians" by the Romans, were brought into the military to help support the Roman defense against border crossing, but the Germanics who were in the Roman army coalesced and fought against that selfsame army...and won!  Embracing a threat, even a supposed controlled embrace, leads to an undesirable endgame.  Rome was sacked and destroyed in the 5th century.
We are facing a threat of this magnitude, whether Bill "The Genius" Gates realizes it or not.  His genius in business may not translate into wisdom or a grasp of historical realities.