Study: More than 7-in-10 California Immigrant
Welfare
As Breitbart News reported, the majority of the more than 1.5 million foreign nationals entering the country every year use about 57 percent more food stamps than the average native-born American household. Overall, immigrant households consume 33 percent more cash welfare than American citizen households and 44 percent more in Medicaid dollars. This straining of public services by a booming 44 million foreign-born population translates to the average immigrant household costing American taxpayers $6,234 in federal welfare.
Already, taxpayers are forced to subsidize about $18.5 (THIS FIGURE IS GROSSLY UNDERESTIMATED. CA ALONE HANDS ILLEGALS NEARLY $50 BILLION PER YEAR IN 'SOCIAL SERVICES'. LOS ANGELES COUNTY HANDS LA RAZA ANCHOR BABY BREEDERS $1.5 BILLION YEARLY!) billion of yearly medical costs for illegal aliens living in the U.S., according to estimates by Chris Conover, formerly of the Center for Health Policy and Inequalities Research at Duke University.
The Democrats and their allies in Big Tech (THINK BIDEN'S MINISTER OF PROPAGANDA AND OPEN BORDERS MARK ZUCKERBERG) and the media regularly work to make this happen by subverting election integrity laws like requiring an ID, pushing for unregulated and unmonitored mail-in voting, providing support for one-sided ballot harvesting initiatives, repealing or fighting laws intended to allow states to revise voter rolls, and pouring enormous sums of money into Democrat districts to pay for election officials and ballot drop boxes.
“Pennsylvania may be two thousand miles from Mexico, but a massive number of
illegal immigrants are flooding into our communities,” McCormick told Breitbart
News. “And President Biden is doing far worse than simply allowing it; he’s
actually facilitating it. Right before Christmas, a plane with over 100 illegal
immigrants on board landed in Scranton in the middle of the night. They have
flown at least 11 planeloads into Philadelphia alone. But it’s not just the planes;
they’re coming by any means necessary. They’re often released into our
commonwealth with orders to show up to court, but most will never show.
Extremely conservative estimates say that Pennsylvania is already home to over
150,000 illegal immigrants. Over 50,000 of them live in Philadelphia, welcomed by
the radical left city government that has made it a sanctuary city. We’ve got to
enforce the law.”
Back on December 7, 2021 I wrote about my concerns about Alejandro Mayorkas, who is now the Director of the DHS. My article was, Biden's DHS: Department of Homeland Surrender; Alejandro Mayorkas, architect of DACA, picked by Biden to head DHS.
Maine Overwhelmed by Asylum Seekers
Every state is now a border state.
The alien invasion across America’s porous southern border has turned every state into a border state – and every Fake News editor into an agent and a cheerleader for a foreign occupation army.
Here in Maine, 2400 miles northeast of the Texas border, we are the final destination for thousands of illegal immigrants who are being resettled here at taxpayer expense, to the applause of all the really smart people in both political parties.
When I attempted a few weeks ago to push back against a fellow Republican’s praise for the invasion and the invaders, I was confronted once again by the cowardice and ignorance that are the rule rather than the exception in Maine’s lamestream newsrooms.
My dealings with the imbeciles who work in these propaganda mills often remind me of the cheering that erupts at Trump rallies when The Donald derides the Fake News media as the enemies of the American people.
Trump’s characterization fits the Kennebec Journal in Augusta, Maine, and its editorial page editor Ben Bragdon, to a tee. In fact, Ben’s loathing for his native country is so deep-seated he’s convinced himself that the burst of inflation we’re experiencing is the result of TOO FEW immigrants coming to America.
Bragdon flat-out refused to publish my op-ed about the alien invasion, and falsely accused me of making many previous “bigoted and untruthful remarks about immigrants.”
To top it off, the lame excuse he invoked for banning me from the op-ed page was a political cartoon created by my brother John Lockman that I published at my website.
Expedited work permits for asylum seekers won’t fix immigration crisis
At the risk of being instantly labeled a hard-hearted xenophobe, I have to dissent from the chorus of voices calling for a relaxation of the work rules that govern the many hundreds of asylum seekers who have settled in Maine during the past few years.
With all due respect to Shawn Moody for his entrepreneurial spirit and decades-long record as a job creator, his March 31st op-ed column touting more federal legislation as a possible solution to Maine’s workforce shortage not only misses the mark, it muddies the water.
Maine certainly has a workforce problem, but it pales in comparison to Maine’s immigration crisis.
And make no mistake, it is a crisis.
It was three years ago this summer when an estimated 500 foreign nationals, most of them from central Africa, crossed the southern border in Texas and boarded buses for Portland, where they were housed at the Portland Expo while state and local officials scrambled to find permanent housing for these asylum-seeking “new Mainers.”
Over the past year, another 1,000+ non-citizen newcomers have made their way from the southern border to Portland, overwhelming the city’s homeless shelters. Many are being housed at taxpayer expense in hotels across Cumberland and York Counties. One hotel in South Portland houses more than 400 non-citizens, half of them children, many of whom are now enrolled in local public schools.
Moody supports legislation introduced by Senators Susan Collins and Angus King that would make asylum seekers eligible for work permits starting 30 days after filing their asylum claims.
As Sen. Collins noted: “Under current law, asylum seekers must wait extended periods of time after filing their applications before they are allowed to apply for work permits. These long waiting periods were originally adopted by the Clinton administration – and then extended to a full year by the Trump administration – out of concern that some migrants might apply for asylum primarily as a means of getting a work authorization.”
Exactly.
Asylee status was never intended as a fast track to getting a job in the United States while your application is pending. Statistics from the US Department of Justice indicate that out of every 100 aliens who claimed a credible fear of persecution between 2008 and 2019, only 14 were granted asylum.
Given that history, the waiting period for work permits made perfect sense under the Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations. And it makes even more sense today under the Biden administration, with tens of thousands of non-citizens entering the country every month across America’s wide-open southern border.
Moody, to his credit, wants to match the newcomers to available jobs and job-training. But even if large numbers of the so-called “new Mainers” went to work tomorrow for good wages, where are they going to live?
Maine currently has 25,000 households on its joint Section 8 waitlist for subsidized housing that covers most of the state. Many of these families wait years for needed assistance. In addition, more than 11,000 seniors are on Avesta Housing’s waitlist for senior housing projects across the state.
Anyone who’s paying attention knows that Maine has a monumental shortage of affordable housing. So why would we want to encourage poor people who aren’t citizens – and most likely entered the country illegally – to settle here by making it easier for them to take entry-level jobs?
And what happens if, after several years, their pending asylum applications are among the 86% that are not granted? Even if a mere 50% of them turn out to be ineligible for asylee status, does anyone seriously believe they will voluntarily self-deport?
The inconvenient truth is that Maine people cannot afford to provide housing, health care, and education for wave after wave of non-citizen newcomers, whether they came here legally, or as many have done, waded across the Rio Grande and filed a defensive asylum application before getting on a bus to Portland.
Mainers have no legal or moral obligation to facilitate the invasion across our southern border. So let’s not pretend that we do.
Lawrence Lockman served four terms (2012-2020) in the Maine House of Representatives. He is Co-founder & President of the conservative non-profit and school of political warfare, Maine First Project. He may be reached at larrylockman22@gmail.com.
State and Local Politicians Move to Grant Coronavirus Relief to Illegal Aliens
By Matthew Tragesser
ImmigrationReform.com
https://www.immigrationreform.com/2020/04/08/illegal-alien-benefits-states-immigrationreform-com/
Study: More than 7-in-10 California Immigrant
Welfare
More than 7-in-10 households headed by immigrants in the state of California are on taxpayer-funded welfare, a new study reveals.
The latest Census Bureau data analyzed by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) finds that about 72 percent of households headed by noncitizens and immigrants use one or more forms of taxpayer-funded welfare programs in California — the number one immigrant-receiving state in the U.S.
Meanwhile, only about 35 percent of households headed by native-born Americans use welfare in California.
All four states with the largest foreign-born populations, including California, have extremely high use of welfare by immigrant households. In Texas, for example, nearly 70 percent of households headed by immigrants use taxpayer-funded welfare. Meanwhile, only about 35 percent of native-born households in Texas are on welfare.
In New York and Florida, a majority of households headed by immigrants and noncitizens are on welfare. Overall, about 63 percent of immigrant households use welfare while only 35 percent of native-born households use welfare.
President Trump’s administration is looking to soon implement a policy that protects American taxpayers’ dollars from funding the mass importation of welfare-dependent foreign nationals by enforcing a “public charge” rule whereby legal immigrants would be less likely to secure a permanent residency in the U.S. if they have used any forms of welfare in the past, including using Obamacare, food stamps, and public housing.
The immigration controls would be a boon for American taxpayers in the form of an annual $57.4 billion tax cut — the amount taxpayers spend every year on paying for the welfare, crime, and schooling costs of the country’s mass importation of 1.5 million new, mostly low-skilled legal immigrants.
As Breitbart News reported, the majority of the more than 1.5 million foreign nationals entering the country every year use about 57 percent more food stamps than the average native-born American household. Overall, immigrant households consume 33 percent more cash welfare than American citizen households and 44 percent more in Medicaid dollars. This straining of public services by a booming 44 million foreign-born population translates to the average immigrant household costing American taxpayers $6,234 in federal welfare.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.
DHS Mayorkas OK’s Citizenship for Migrants Who Rely on Welfare
President Joe Biden’s deputies are rewriting the
“public charge” regulations to let very poor
migrants get both welfare and citizenship, and also
to let Wall Street get more low-wage workers and
welfare-funded consumers.
“This administration thinks that it’s okay for taxpayers to have to [economically] support any legal immigrant,” said Jessica Vaughan, the director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies. The administration’s progressives believe “immigration is a humanitarian and a social assistance program — the priority is ‘What can we do for immigrants?’ not ‘How does immigration help our country?'”
The public charge rule was mandated by Congress to help deny residency and citizenship to legal and illegal migrants who cannot work enough to stay out of poverty. The resulting regulation was adapted to exclude migrants who rely on government-delivered welfare and other forms of taxpayer charity, which was then described as being a “public charge.”
But the public charge regulation was rarely enforced on migrants and their U.S. sponsors. So President Donald Trump’s deputies issued a regulation that instructed immigration officers on how to decide when particular migrants were dependent on the government’s increasing variety of aid and welfare programs.
Biden’s deputies at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) quickly blocked the Trump rule. The replacement rule will help the officials provide green cards and citizenship to the huge inflow of poor illegal and legal migrants, including to the growing number of global migrants who are too uneducated, old, or ill to support themselves.
“Under this [new] proposed rule, we will return to the historical understanding of the term ‘public charge’ and [migrant] individuals will not be penalized for choosing to access the [taxpayer-funded] health benefits and other supplemental government services available to them,” Alejandro Mayorkas, the pro-migration chief of homeland security said February 17.
The new rule cannot eliminate Congress’s Public Charge law. So it creates many exceptions that essentially make the law meaningless.
For example, the draft regulation exempts many welfare programs from the definition of “public charge.”
DHS proposes that it not consider noncash benefits such as food and nutrition assistance programs including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the Children’s Health Insurance Program, most Medicaid benefits (except for long-term institutionalization at government expense), housing benefits, and transportation vouchers. DHS would also not consider disaster assistance received under the Stafford Act; pandemic assistance; benefits received via a tax credit or deduction; or Social Security, government pensions, or other earned benefits.
The draft regulation also exempts many categories of migrants from the public charge rule:
By law, many categories of noncitizens are exempt from the public charge ground of inadmissibility and would not be subject to the proposed rule. Some of these categories are refugees, asylees, noncitizens applying for or re-registering for temporary protected status (TPS), special immigration juveniles, T and U nonimmigrants, and self-petitioners under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).
GOP legislators in Congress, and elected officials in the states, may try to stop the Mayorkas rules by filing a lawsuit.
These easy-migration rules are a huge subsidy for business and Wall Street, Vaughan added:
Business will no longer have to worry about whether the wages they’re offering [to migrant workers] are enough to support an immigrant. The expectation is that taxpayers will cover the difference between the [company’s] low wage and the [workers] ability to survive …. so business can now get away with keeping wags low.
The lax rules also deliver more taxpayer-funded consumers to retailers and other vendors, she said. “It’s like printing money [for companies]… this is a prop and subsidy” for retailers, she said.
In January 2020, Breitbart reported on a lawsuit by companies against Trump’s update of the public charge rule. The investors’ lawsuit complained that:
Because [green-card applicants] will receive fewer public benefits under the Rule, they will cut back their consumption of goods and services, depressing demand throughout the economy …
The New American Economy Research Fund calculates that, on top of the $48 billion in income that is earned by individuals who will be affected by the Rule—and that will likely be removed from the U.S. economy—the Rule will cause an indirect economic loss of more than $33.9 billion … Indeed, the Fiscal Policy Institute has estimated that the decrease in SNAP and Medicaid enrollment under the Rule could, by itself, lead to economic ripple effects of anywhere between $14.5 and $33.8 billion, with between approximately 100,000 and 230,000 jobs lost … Health centers alone would be forced to drop as many as 6,100 full-time medical staff.
The Trump rule would have denied companies the ability to import replacement workers, the lawsuit complained:
American businesses depend upon an efficient immigration system to ensure that they have access to the talent that they need to grow and succeed … The Rule, however, would restrict American businesses’ ability to hire foreign-born workers, because, under the Rule, many skilled workers who would otherwise have been eligible for permanent residency would now be barred from receiving it.
…
the talent pool— of both citizens and noncitizens—available to American employers is likely to be drastically reduced, with far-reaching consequences for American competitiveness
Mayorkas’s policy of extracting more foreign
workers and consumers from poor countries is just
part of the White House’s economic strategy.
The economic strategy was outlined on January 21 by Treasury Secretary Janet Yellon in a speech to the “Virtual Davos Agenda” which was organized by the globalist World Economic Forum.
The administration’s economic policy is a “modern supply side approach” that boosts economic growth with more workers, productivity gains, and tax reforms, she said:
My thanks to Klaus [Schwab] and to the World Economic Forum for hosting me.
[…]
Labor supply has been a concern in the United States even before the pandemic, in part due to an aging population and in part due to a labor force participation rate that has trended downward over the past 20 years. Now COVID and declining immigration have further reduced the workforce …
A second focus of the Biden agenda is to enhance productivity. Over the last decade, U.S. labor productivity growth averaged a mere 1.1 percent—roughly half that during the previous fifty years. This has contributed to slow growth in wages and compensation, with especially slow historical gains for workers at the bottom of the wage distribution.
Many of Biden’s deputies — including his chief of staff, Ron Klain — are entwined with the coastal investors who want more imported cheap workers, high-occupancy renters, and government-aided consumers.
But Biden and some of his East Coast deputies — such as his appointees at the National Economic Council — seem to want a high-wage, high-tech economy.
In a January 22 press event, Brian Deese, who chairs the National Economic Council at the White House, stressed policies that would help unemployed Americans — not migrants — get into the workforce. Government-funded childcare “would be a big benefit to the labor market by allowing more people to work as productively as they — as they choose to,” Deese said. He continued:
The typical people who are working and thinking about their household budgets, for many of them, they’ve never seen a labor market that offers as many job opportunities as they have right now … What we’ve seen over the course of 2021, is that as that — as that tax cut was delivered to families, we actually saw labor force participation and the employment-to-population ratio increase, meaning that we saw more people get into the workforce.
However, Deese’s effort to get more Americans into work is undermined by Mayorkas’s regulatory effort to extract more migrants from poor countries. “The 2019 public charge rule was not consistent with our nation’s values,” said Mayorkas, a Cuban immigrant who insists that the United States must be a “nation of immigrants.”
Mayorkas’s deputies are now arguing that the United States is a “nation of welcome” to global migrants, even as they allow a mass migration across the southern border. In 2021, for example, Mayorjkas and his deputies allowed roughly 1.5 million migrants across the southern border — or roughly one migrant for every two American births.
Migration moves money, and since at least 1990, the federal government has tried to extract people from poor countries so they can serve U.S. investors as cheap workers, government-aided consumers, and high-density renters in the U.S. economy.
That economic strategy has no stopping point, and it is harmful to ordinary Americans because it cuts their career opportunities and their wages while it also raises their housing costs.
Extraction migration also curbs Americans’ productivity, shrinks their political clout, and widens the regional wealth gaps between the Democrats’ coastal states and the Republicans’ Heartland states.
The economic strategy also kills many migrants, separates families, and damages the economies of the home countries.
An economy built on extraction migration also radicalizes Americans’ democratic, compromise-promoting civic culture and allows wealthy elites to ignore despairing Americans at the bottom of society.
Unsurprisingly, a wide variety of little-publicized polls do show deep and broad opposition to labor migration and the inflow of temporary contract workers into jobs sought by young U.S. graduates.
The opposition is growing, anti-establishment, multiracial, cross-sex, non-racist, class-based, bipartisan, rational, persistent, and recognizes the solidarity that Americans owe to each other.
Study: Amnesty Will Cost ‘Hundreds of Billions’
President Joe Biden’s amnesty plan will spike Social Security spending by “hundreds of billions” over the next few decades, according to a forecast by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS).
The February 22 report, titled “Amnesty Would Cost the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds Hundreds of Billions of Dollars,” says:
The new taxes paid by the average amnesty recipient amount to only half of the $94,500 noted above. The net effect of amnesty is therefore $140,330 [in Social Security benefits] minus $47,250 [in paid taxes], which is about $93,000 per recipient. In any large-scale amnesty, in which millions of illegal immigrants gain legal status, it is easy to see how the net cost could reach into the hundreds of billions of dollars.
The predicted $93,000 per person cost would be a financial burden for taxpayers — but would be a giveaway to business groups because the Social Security payments will be converted into purchases of consumer products, healthcare services, medical drugs, apartments, and food.
At least 11 million people — perhaps 20 million — are living illegally in the United States. The number rises as people overstay their visas, evade deportation orders, or sneak over the border — but it also falls as some migrants get deported, leave, or find ways to get green cards via the rolling “Adjustment of Status” process.
But taxpayers’ expenses are also economic gains for business groups and investors. In January 2020, a coalition of business groups sued deputies for President Donald Trump after he reduced the inflow of poor migrants into the U.S. consumer market, saying:
Because [green-card applicants] will receive fewer public benefits under the Rule, they will cut back their consumption of goods and services, depressing demand throughout the economy …
The New American Economy Research Fund calculates that, on top of the $48 billion in income that is earned by individuals who will be affected by the Rule—and that will likely be removed from the U.S. economy—the Rule will cause an indirect economic loss of more than $33.9 billion … Indeed, the Fiscal Policy Institute has estimated that the decrease in SNAP and Medicaid enrollment under the Rule could, by itself, lead to economic ripple effects of anywhere between $14.5 and $33.8 billion, with between approximately 100,000 and 230,000 jobs lost … Health centers alone would be forced to drop as many as 6,100 full-time medical staff.
CIS promised a more detailed report:
This is just a rough estimate. We are currently working on a detailed model that will provide more precise costs for both Social Security and Medicare. Again, however, any reasonable calculation will produce a large cost, simply because amnesty will convert so many outside contributors into actual beneficiaries.
For years, a wide variety of pollsters have shown deep and broad opposition to labor migration and to the inflow of temporary contract workers into jobs sought by young U.S. graduates.
The multiracial, cross-sex, non-racist, class-based, intra-Democratic, and solidarity-themed opposition to labor migration coexists with generally favorable personal feelings toward legal immigrants and toward immigration in theory — despite the media magnification of many skewed polls and articles that still push the 1950’s corporate “Nation of Immigrants” claim.
The deep public opposition is built on the widespread recognition that migration moves money from employees to employers, from families to investors, from young to old, from children to their parents, from homebuyers to real estate investors, and from the central states to the coastal states.
However, Biden’s officials have been broadcasting their desire to change border policies to help extract more migrants from Central America for the U.S. economy. On February 19, for example, deputies of DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas posted a tweet offering support to migrants illegally working in the United States and to migrants who may wish to live in the United States.
We'll get 1 million-plus Biden migrants this year, warns ex-Obama/DHS official now at Harvard.
The warning includes a weak criticism of the ethnic lobbies & open-borders progressives who are undermining an Ivy League giveaway in the amnesty bill.#H1B https://t.co/RqZBEGcxKO
— Neil Munro (@NeilMunroDC) February 22, 2021
Biden’s HHS Nominee Does Not Rule Out Taxpayer-Funded Healthcare for Illegal Aliens
President Joe Biden’s nominee to lead the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, dodged a question on whether he would push to provide American taxpayer-funded healthcare benefits to illegal aliens.
This week, during a hearing before the Senate Finance Committee, Becerra was asked by Senator Steve Daines (R-MT) about his previous support for decriminalizing illegal immigration and providing illegal aliens with taxpayer-funded healthcare benefits.
Becerra, though, dodged the question by saying he would follow the parameters of the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare, which he said allows “very rare” cases of illegal aliens to receive benefits.
The exchange went as follows:
DAINES: You’re on record for pushing for allowing illegal immigrants to receive taxpayer-funded healthcare and for decriminalizing illegal entry into the United States. This coupled with President Biden’s radical plan for granting citizenship to those who are here illegally would potentially lead to hundreds of thousands, if not potentially millions, more people flooding into our country. [Emphasis added]
As you know, in 2016, California passed a law requiring covered Californians to apply for … waivers to allow illegal immigrants to purchase health insurance in the marketplace. This waiver was withdrawn after President Trump’s election. [Emphasis added]
My question is this: Will you attempt to use the waiver authority contained in the Affordable Care Act to grant healthcare benefits to illegal immigrants? [Emphasis added]
BECERRA: Senator, I can tell you that where the law, as it stands now as I see it, it does not allow those who are unauthorized in this country to receive taxpayer-paid benefits except in very rare circumstances and it will be my job to make sure that we are following and enforcing the law. And I can commit to you that that is what we will do. [Emphasis added]
In a letter to Biden, 11 Senate Republicans and 64 House Republicans asked the president to withdraw Becerra’s nomination to be HHS Secretary, citing his support for taxpayer-funded healthcare benefits for illegal aliens, among other issues.
“Mr. Becerra seeks to decriminalize illegal immigration, which would extend expensive government benefits like Medicaid to anyone who illegally crosses our borders,” the letter states.
A Politico report this week suggested Becerra is eyeing plans to provide illegal aliens with taxpayer-funded healthcare benefits should he lead HHS.
“He’s one of those individuals that had exceedingly deep convictions about the need to cover the undocumented individuals in all of our communities,” former Rep. Charles Gonzalez (D-TX) told Politico of Becerra.
Should Becerra become HHS Secretary, he could let illegal aliens onto Obamacare exchanges while pressuring states to pursue similar policies to those in California. Likewise, Becerra could open Obamacare exchanges to particular subgroups of illegal aliens, like those enrolled in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.
As Breitbart News reported, forcing taxpayers to provide healthcare to all illegal aliens would cost citizens anywhere between $23 billion to $66 billion every single year — potentially a $660 billion bill for taxpayers every decade, without adjusting for inflation and the increasing number of illegal aliens.
Cost is only the first issue facing taxpayers. Medical experts have admitted providing healthcare to illegal aliens would ensure a never-ending flood of illegal aliens arriving at the southern border with “serious health problems” and local hospitals would have to cover the costs.
Already, taxpayers are forced to subsidize about $18.5 (THIS FIGURE IS GROSSLY UNDERESTIMATED. CA ALONE HANDS ILLEGALS NEARLY $50 BILLION PER YEAR IN 'SOCIAL SERVICES'. LOS ANGELES COUNTY HANDS LA RAZA ANCHOR BABY BREEDERS $1.5 BILLION YEARLY!) billion of yearly medical costs for illegal aliens living in the U.S., according to estimates by Chris Conover, formerly of the Center for Health Policy and Inequalities Research at Duke University.
When U.S. voters were polled by CNN on the issue in July 2019, nearly 6-in-10 said they were opposed to such a policy, including 63 percent of swing voters and 61 percent of self-described “moderates.”
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Email him at jbinder@breitbart.com. Follow him on Twitter here.
For the Biden Administration, National Security is 'Mission Irrelevant'
USCIS Mission Statement underscores dangerous priorities.
The term “Mission Statement” has been defined as: a formal summary of the aims and values of a company, organization, or individual.
In other words, the mission statement concisely establishes the goals and priorities of an organization for both the general the public and for the employees of that organization.
The organization we will consider in my commentary today article is United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). This agency operates under the aegis of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and is charged with adjudicating applications for various immigration benefits that include the permitting aliens to change immigration status in the United States to acquire political asylum, lawful immigrant status (signified by being issued a “Green Card”), and United States citizenship.
I have come to think of USCIS as “America’s locksmith” because aliens who has been granted lawful status may easily enter the United States through ports of entry and remain in the United States permanently. For such aliens border walls are irrelevant.
The February 10, 2022 Epoch Times report, US Immigration Agency Changes Mission, Removes Key Phrases, began with this excerpt:
A key federal agency on Feb. 10 changed its mission statement, removing several key phrases.
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) “upholds America’s promise as a nation of welcome and possibility with fairness, integrity, and respect for all we serve,” the new mission statement says.
Under the old statement, the agency was described as “administer[ing] the nation’s lawful immigration system, safeguarding its integrity and promise by efficiently and fairly adjudicating requests for immigration benefits while protecting Americans, securing the homeland, and honoring our values.”
USCIS, with approximately 19,000 employees, oversees legal immigration to the United States.
Ur Jaddou, the agency’s director, said the new statement “reflects the inclusive character of both our country and this agency,” adding, “The United States is and will remain a welcoming nation that embraces people from across the world who seek family reunification, employment or professional opportunities, and humanitarian protection.”
The clear difference between the two missions statements issued by the Trump administration, versus the Biden Administration is extremely worrying and helps to clearly delineate the stark contrasts between the two administrations.
The Biden Administration’s goals and priorities in many areas stand in stark contrast with the goals and priorities of the Trump administration that it replaced. Arguable the greatest differences concern border security and immigration law enforcement.
President Trump understood that border security is synonymous with national security and our immigration laws are essential to protect America and Americans from threats to public health, national security and public safety while Biden and his administration have charted a very different and perilous course that utterly ignores these threats.
Under Trump the mission statement of USCIS took a balanced approach- maintaining America’s tradition as a welcoming nation, but prioritizing the need to protect Americans and the homeland. Under Biden, there is no mention in that mission statement about protecting America or Americans but is all about welcoming everyone with no thought being given to implications that this may have for national security public safety.
For most folks immigration law enforcement is synonymous with the notion of border security and the Border Patrol which is charged with interdicting those who would enter the United States by evading the vital inspections process conducted at ports of entry by the Inspectors of CBP (Customs and Border Protection) the same element of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under which the Border Patrol operates.
However, as I have noted on my prior occasions and during my testimony before numerous Congressional hearings, the United States is a nation of 50 border states and therefore the enforcement of our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States, the mission of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) is at least as important as is the need to secure our borders from the unlawful entry by individual who seek to evade the inspections process.
One of the critical responsibilities of ICE is to not only identify, investigate and arrest illegal aliens and aliens who are engaged in other criminal activities, but to conduct investigations into those who defraud the immigration system administered by USCIS, to seek lawful status by lying and/or concealing material facts that would prevent them from acquiring lawful status through the immigration benefits program such as political asylum, lawful immigrant status (as signified by being issued a “Green Card”) and ultimately, United States citizenship. Many of these critical investigations are generally predicated on requests by USCIS when fraud is suspected.
As I noted in an extensive article I wrote some time ago, Immigration Fraud: Lies That Kill - 9/11 Commission identified immigration fraud as a key embedding tactic of terrorists:
The official report, 9/11 and Terrorist Travel - Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States focused specifically on the ability of the terrorists to travel around the world, enter the United States and ultimately embed themselves in the United States as they went about their deadly preparations.and carry out an attack. The preface of this report begins with this paragraph:
It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country. Yet prior to September 11, while there were efforts to enhance border security, no agency of the U.S. government thought of border security as a tool in the counterterrorism arsenal. Indeed, even after 19 hijackers demonstrated the relative ease of obtaining a U.S. visa and gaining admission into the United States, border security still is not considered a cornerstone of national security policy. We believe, for reasons we discuss in the following pages, that it must be made one.
Page 46 and 47 of this report noted:
Once terrorists had entered the United States, their next challenge was to find a way to remain here. Their primary method was immigration fraud. For example, Yousef and Ajaj concocted bogus political asylum stories when they arrived in the United States.
The following paragraph is found on page 98 under the title “Immigration Benefits”:
Terrorists in the 1990s, as well as the September 11 hijackers, needed to find a way to stay in or embed themselves in the United States if their operational plans were to come to fruition. As already discussed, this could be accomplished legally by marrying an American citizen, achieving temporary worker status, or applying for asylum after entering. In many cases, the act of filing for an immigration benefit sufficed to permit the alien to remain in the country until the petition was adjudicated. Terrorists were free to conduct surveillance, coordinate operations, obtain and receive funding, go to school and learn English, make contacts in the United States, acquire necessary materials, and execute an attack.
Nevertheless, the Epoch Times report I cited above also includes this disturbing excerpt about the new mission statement:
Michael Knowles, president of AFGE Local 1924, said the union supports the statement.
He told The Epoch Times in an email that it “reflects the views of many of the employees who do this important work.”
The union represents USCIS and Immigration and Customs Enforcement workers. Both agencies sit inside the Department of Homeland Security.
Under Biden the entire workforce at USCIS, that should be dedicated to protecting America and Americans, have been indoctrinated to completely disregard their responsibilities to seek to uncover fraud and the threats such fraud might create.
Consider that on October 22, 2022 I wrote the article, Biden Administration Plans To Protect Immigration Fraudsters.
Long after Biden is gone, these employees will remain at USCIS.
Members of Congress who are concerned about national security and public safety should be demanding to be given, for review, the curriculum being taught to the USCIS employees at the academy and the critical elements of their job descriptions and their evaluations.
This insanity at USCIS should not come as a surprise, however. There is a Yiddish expression that says, “When the fish goes bad, it smells from the head.”
Back on December 7, 2021 I wrote about my concerns about Alejandro Mayorkas, who is now the Director of the DHS. My article was, Biden's DHS: Department of Homeland Surrender; Alejandro Mayorkas, architect of DACA, picked by Biden to head DHS.
Mayorkas was the Director of USCIS under the Obama administration.
On March 20, 2013 I testified before the United States Senate Judiciary Committee at a hearing on the topic, Building An Immigration System Worthy Of American Values.
My prepared testimony concluded with these two paragraphs that are even more pertinent today:
Law enforcement is at its best when it creates a climate of deterrence to convince those who might be contemplating violating the law that such an effort is likely to be discovered and that if discovered, adverse consequences will result for the law violators. Current policies and statements by the administration, in my view, encourages aspiring illegal aliens around the world to head for the United States. In effect the starter's pistol has been fired and for these folks, the finish line to this race is the border of the United States.
Back when I was an INS special agent I recall that Doris Meissner who was, at the time, the commissioner of the INS, said that the agency needed to be “customer oriented.” Unfortunately, while I agree about the need to be customer oriented what Ms Meissner and too many politicians today seem to have forgotten is that the “customers” of the INS and of our government in general, are the citizens of the United States of America.
The Democrats and their allies in Big Tech and the media regularly work to make this happen by subverting election integrity laws like requiring an ID, pushing for unregulated and unmonitored mail-in voting, providing support for one-sided ballot harvesting initiatives, repealing or fighting laws intended to allow states to revise voter rolls, and pouring enormous sums of money into Democrat districts to pay for election officials and ballot drop boxes.
Can the Democrats Undermine the Midterms?
In late January, President Biden told a national TV audience that he was not prepared to say that the coming midterm elections would be legitimate. This startling admission was quickly walked back, but it shone a white-hot spotlight on Democrat efforts in Congress to federalize elections. The 2022 election promises to be one of significant change in the dynamic in Washington D.C. despite the efforts of Democrats to do more than just cast doubts on the election's integrity.
The Democrats have a demonstrated history of trying to make elections as one-sided as possible and thus enthrone themselves for perpetuity as they have done in cities throughout the country. The Democrats and their allies in Big Tech and the media regularly work to make this happen by subverting election integrity laws like requiring an ID, pushing for unregulated and unmonitored mail-in voting, providing support for one-sided ballot harvesting initiatives, repealing or fighting laws intended to allow states to revise voter rolls, and pouring enormous sums of money into Democrat districts to pay for election officials and ballot drop boxes. The Democrats and their allies make no secret that they intend to use these efforts to cement their place in government because they tell us. You only need to look at the Molly Ball Time Magazine article of February 4, 2021 or writings of the lawyer Mark Elias, arguably the Democrats’ most effective litigant against election integrity laws, in his article "Four Pillars to Safeguard Vote by Mail" to see this. Or perhaps turn on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and NBC at any time of the day or night or peruse the pages of the Washington Post, New York Times, or LA Times to see how the Democrats’ media allies beat the drum of “disenfranchisement” to speak openly about using the power of government to suppress the Rights of Americans and silence Republicans.
Congress' efforts to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights and the Freedom to Vote Acts are really thinly veiled efforts by the Democrats to give them the one-party rule they so desperately desire. Among other things, these acts are particularly nefarious in the way they use the potential for voter disenfranchisement, which they have yet to demonstrate, to resurrect oversight of elections and meddling in election laws in Red states that have not been necessary for 30 or more years. Thankfully, these travesties are stalled in Congress.
The frustration Democrats must be feeling because two members of their own party will not support their efforts to impose one-party rule will only increase in the coming months. Voter sentiment is surging against the Biden Administration and its mishandling of, well, everything. Americans are sick and tired of woke and socialist policies and the actions of big tech and academia that support them. They are increasingly frustrated with a domineering and tyrannical, unaccountable administrative state. And the anger and frustration over COVID mandates and restrictions pushed by Democrats is reaching a boiling point. So, what can we expect from the Democrats in the coming months to prevent the collapse of their initiatives?
I believe the Democrats are going to begin to behave even more erratically than they have been, much like a fish out of water thrashes about fighting for its life, gasping for air. They will pull out all the stops to undermine the coming election and we can expect to hear an increase in the screeching, irrational wail of "racism," "fascism," "terrorism," “white supremacy” and accusations that Republicans are opposed to Democracy, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act. They will accuse Republicans of the very things that Democrats are trying to achieve through their lawsuits and passage of their voting rights acts in a demonstration of projection on a massive scale designed to stoke fear in the voting public.
But there is one more thing I believe we can expect, and it will represent the very height of dissembling and lying on the part of the Democrats who see their majority and support for their inane policies evaporating. Specifically, Congress' 
January 6 Commission will release a report accusing key Republicans, including current officeholders and members of the Trump administration, of crimes and will even go so far as to brand some as treasonous. The report will be full of dubious examples that they claim will demonstrate conclusively that what happened on January 6 was an insurrection and that elected Republicans and members of the Trump administration are guilty of sedition and treason. These statements will completely ignore the role of the Capitol Police, the FBI and other organizations that include Mayor Muriel Bowser's office and Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office. It will ignore accusations that they have tampered with evidence and denied access to exculpating information. It will be malfeasance of the highest order.
The focus will be entirely on branding specific Republican officeholders and all Republicans in general as white supremacists supporting an insurrection against a duly elected president. There will be immediate motions pushed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to remove select Republicans from their committee assignments. The Capitol Police and Sergeant at Arms will be told to deny elected officials access to the Capitol and their offices. A great cry will go out to big tech to censor and deplatform Republicans or all stripes. Financial institutions will be told to scrutinize the transactions of anyone associated with the Republican party or having contributed to it in the past. Given the inability to pass their sham voting rights acts, all normal congressional business will cease, and investigative committees will convene to remove so-called seditionists in the Capitol that threaten the very foundation of Democracy. Directives will fly like rockets from the Speaker and Majority leaders’ offices that will demand that Attorney General Merrick Garland and the Department of Justice begin to prosecute the so-called insurrectionists and seditionists. The major networks will all engage to perpetuate the false narrative and voices of sanity will be drowned out unless you happen to listen to Fox News, watch Joe Rogan, read Substack or visit the pages of American Thinker, among others.
The level of invective and vituperation directed at Republicans will eclipse the hysteria at the height of Trump Derangement Syndrome. It will be ugly. It will be incessant. And it will all be a lie. I will also predict that most Americans will not be swayed by the frenzy of madness the Democrats will fabricate to undermine their inexorable fate in the midterm elections. Americans have lived through five years of claims by Democrats that have all proven to be lies: the Russia Hoax, the masking and vaccine lies, the Russian bounties on American soldiers lie, and many, many others. Americans no longer believe the media, as can be seen by the collapse in ratings at CNN and MSNBC, and have no faith in the government institutions we used to believe had Americans’ best interests at heart.
In the end, Americans will reject the Democrats’ false narratives in a resounding way, but the Democrats and their media and big tech allies will put us all through months of misery as they attempt once again to undermine our elections in their quest to enthrone themselves as tyrants.
Robert LaBella is a retired corporate executive of the small business he founded serving the DoD and Intelligence community and is passionate about America’s Founding Principles. You can find him on GETTR.
Image: Pixabay
Michael Lind: Migration Is All About Cutting Americans’ Wages
1
Photo by John Moore/Getty Images
16 Feb 20220
3:35
“So-called ‘immigration reform’ is all about profits,” says Michael Lind, a professor at the University of Texas at Austin.
The Yale-educated author wrote:
… do low-wage immigrants—regardless of whether they are legal or illegal—actually suppress wages and/or take away jobs? This brings us to what I think of as the borscht belt theory of immigration. The best-known joke identified with the borscht belt—the region of hotels and resorts in the Catskill Mountains that once served a heavily Jewish immigrant clientele—involves a typical patron who complains that “The food in this place is really terrible, and the portions are so small!”
The borscht belt theory of immigration goes like this: “Immigrants do not suppress wages—and without more immigrants, wages will go up and everything will be more expensive!”…
Both statements cannot be true. It cannot be the case that immigrant competition does not suppress wages in a particular occupation, and at the same time also [be] true that employers in the absence of immigration would be forced to raise wages to attract workers and pass the costs along to consumers.
Lind is the author of The New Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial Elite, which “debunks the idea that the [populist] insurgencies are primarily the result of bigotry.” The book:
… traces how the breakdown of mid-century class compromises between business and labor led to the conflict, and reveals the real battle lines.
On one side is the managerial overclass—the university-credentialed elite that clusters in high-income hubs and dominates government, the economy and the culture. On the other side is the working class of the low-density heartlands—mostly, but not exclusively, native and white.
The two classes clash over immigration, trade, the environment, and social values, and the managerial class has had the upper hand. As a result of the half-century decline of the institutions that once empowered the working class, power has shifted to the institutions the overclass controls: corporations, executive and judicial branches, universities, and the media.
Lind’s new article in Tablet magazine emphasizes how migration is used to sneak wages out of employees’ pay packets, and then sent to Wall Street where it inflates stock investors’ wealth:
When the intellectual apologists for cheap-labor immigration policies in journalism, the academy, and libertarian and progressive think tanks claim that there are entire categories of jobs that American citizens and legal immigrants already here refuse to do, they really mean that workers refuse to do those jobs in bad conditions for low wages.
Scholars have documented many industries and occupations in which employers have used low-wage legal or illegal immigrants or guest workers to break unions and keep wages low, from janitorial services to meat-packing. In tight labor markets, like the one caused by the tech bubble in the late 1990s, the recovery just before the COVID-19 pandemic, and the present period of supply disruptions, employers find that they have to raise wages and lower requirements to attract employees. That’s good for workers, even if it’s painful for employers and some consumers.
Breitbart News has extensively covered the role of money, wages, and stock values in migration politics. Journalists at corporate media outlets only cover the family dramas of struggling migrants.
JOE BIDEN AND HIS SEC. OF OPEN BORDERS HAVE USHERED MORE THAN 2 MILLION ILLEGALS OVER THE BORDERS AND THEN QUICKLY SCATTERED THEM ACROSS AMERICA. HOW MANY WILL GET WELFARE AND AMERICAN JOBS? HOW MANY WILL BE HOUSED FOR 'FREE' IN JAILS AND PRISONS?
“Pennsylvania may be two thousand miles from Mexico, but a massive number of illegal immigrants are flooding into our communities,” McCormick told Breitbart News. “And President Biden is doing far worse than simply allowing it; he’s actually facilitating it. Right before Christmas, a plane with over 100 illegal immigrants on board landed in Scranton in the middle of the night. They have flown at least 11 planeloads into Philadelphia alone. But it’s not just the planes; they’re coming by any means necessary. They’re often released into our commonwealth with orders to show up to court, but most will never show. Extremely conservative estimates say that Pennsylvania is already home to over 150,000 illegal immigrants. Over 50,000 of them live in Philadelphia, welcomed by the radical left city government that has made it a sanctuary city. We’ve got to enforce the law.”
The viewpoint also represents a departure from the business and corporate-backed pushes for more immigration overall, and seems to further indicate an ongoing shift among Republicans away from special interests toward the interests of American workers—a trend that has rapidly intensified in recent years.
No comments:
Post a Comment