Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 04, 2015, 03:05:47 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
87313 Posts in 2281 Topics by 1069 Members
Latest Member: ctelerant
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Immigration issues
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] Print
Author Topic: Immigration issues  (Read 171455 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33863


« Reply #900 on: April 22, 2015, 04:53:50 PM »

TPP = Mass Immigration
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on April 21, 2015
Under the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a proposed free-trade agreement, Congress could lose the power to control immigration policy. We could find ourselves back in the era before there were restrictions on immigration and anyone from anywhere could come to our shores. And Republicans, from leaders Mitch McConnell and John Boehner on down, are unwittingly helping President Obama achieve this goal.

The TPP, generally supported by pro-free-trade Republicans but opposed by labor-union Democrats, reportedly contains a barely noticed provision that allows for the free migration of labor among the signatory nations. Patterned after similar provisions in the treaties establishing the European Union, it would override national immigration restrictions in the name of facilitating the free flow of labor.

The draft treaty, now under discussion among 12 Pacific Rim nations, including the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Vietnam and Japan, makes provision for needed labor to move across national boundaries without restraint. While much of the commentary on the deal has been focused on high-skill, white-collar migration, it could easily be interpreted as allowing farm workers and others to flow back and forth without legal regulation.

In seeking approval of the TPP, the Obama administration has proposed giving it fast-track authority to conclude trade deals -- a power that would restrict Congress's ability to amend the deal, allowing only an up-or-down vote. Led by Republicans, the Senate is moving toward passage of the fast-track authority as a precursor to ratification of the TPP treaty, immigration provisions and all.

Democrats are staging a last-ditch stand against the bill, which their labor allies condemn as the worst trade deal since the North American Free Trade Agreement of the 1990s, pointing to the potential loss of jobs. But Republicans are using their majorities to grant Obama fast-track authority.

It is odd, indeed, to see Republicans falling all over themselves to reward this president with more power while voluntarily reducing congressional oversight. At the very least, one would assume the TPP would give the GOP-led Congress bargaining power to force Obama to backtrack on amnesty for illegals and possibly on ObamaCare. But far from forcing concessions, Republicans are lining up in support of fast-track and, by implication, the TPP.

Because foreign treaties are the "law of the land," according to the U.S. Constitution, any provision governing our borders and the flow of immigrants could not be overridden or even modified by Congress. A new president would be able to reverse Obama's amnesty plan but not the open-border provisions of the TPP. The treaty could lead to the effective repeal of the specifically enumerated power granted to Congress in Article I of the Constitution to regulate immigration and naturalization.

While the treaty is still being negotiated, the current focus on white-collar immigration would be sufficiently elastic to allow open borders. For instance, what is white collar compared to blue collar? Are we going to set an income limit on immigration?

Curtis Ellis, executive director of the American Jobs Alliance, calls the trade deal "a Trojan horse for Obama's immigration agenda" on The Hill's Contributor's blog. He notes that "one corporate trade association says bluntly that 'The TPP should remove restrictions on nationality or residency requirements for the selection of personnel.' "

In his seventh and eighth year, every president worries about his legacy and tries to control events in the future. But here Obama is enshrining in a treaty -- that cannot be repealed or amended -- an open-border immigration policy for all time.

Those who say he would never carry the treaty's provisions that far have only to ask themselves this question: Would Obama extend his powers to their maximum limit? Of course he would. Don't give him the power.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4530


« Reply #901 on: April 22, 2015, 07:26:33 PM »

"It is odd, indeed, to see Republicans falling all over themselves to reward this president with more power while voluntarily reducing congressional oversight. At the very least, one would assume the TPP would give the GOP-led Congress bargaining power to force Obama to backtrack on amnesty for illegals and possibly on ObamaCare. But far from forcing concessions, Republicans are lining up in support of fast-track and, by implication, the TPP."

Not odd at all.  Jeb is no different.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6595


« Reply #902 on: May 27, 2015, 11:03:30 AM »

“Although prosecutorial discretion is broad, it is not ‘unfettered.’” Declining to prosecute does not convert an act deemed unlawful by Congress into a lawful one and confer eligibility for benefits based on that new classification."

http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/Texas%205th%20Circuit%20deny%20stay%20NLJ.pdf
« Last Edit: May 27, 2015, 07:14:45 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6595


« Reply #903 on: June 03, 2015, 02:07:32 PM »

Our ccp is proven right - again.

I have been on the WSJ side of this, believing LEGAL immigration is mostly good - good for the country, good for the economy, and completely unrelated to illegal immigration.  Not so, according to this new bool.

Ann Coulter is often a flame thrower, but when she gets things right, she can do that with amazing wit, persuasion and clarity.

Only one chapter of this book is on illegal immigration, but the main point is to examine and expose what is happening on the legal side.

"You know I am a ferocious researcher", she said in an interview, and then went on to tell how the federal government with all its demographics, data and record keeping will not give out any information that ties statistics like crime or welfare to immigration.  So she relentlessly went through local crime stories from across the country looking for keywords like "translator" as it applied to criminal charges and other things and found out things that are not otherwise reported.

Here is a link: http://www.anncoulter.com/    I haven't read the book but her point is that these immigrants are not like those immigrants.  Generalizing, they are not coming here for the same reasons as the immigrants of the past.

Legal immigration SHOULD be a good thing because we have needs and should decide who comes in - the right people from the right places for the right reasons.  In this politically correct world, that type of analysis is never going to happen

The Pamela Geller piece posted today in 'Islam in America' about Somali immigration is relevant here too. I went to school there on the west bank of the Univ. of Minnesota and knew that neighborhood that is now called "Little Mogadishu".  Arguably we took in refugees from a region with brutal civil war and we have done that before with other people from other regions.  But why are these people here - legally - if they don't accept basic foundations of our society like free speech.  Besides the right to remain silent, to an attorney, etc., in Minneapolis you also have the right to a free, competent and "culturally sensitive" interpreter, no matter your language and not just for criminal matters.  http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/www/groups/public/@clerk/documents/webcontent/convert_280287.pdf

More later when people have time to read the book and cite her facts, but her main point in my words is that these people, Hispanic and others, are coming from failed cultures and bringing their failed ways with them causing more problems and societal costs here.  Liberals and Democrats are conspiring to get them here, all set up on welfare programs and dependent on government from the moment they arrive and lock them in as reliable voters.  If true (and it IS true) that should drive every remaining, hard working, blue collar Democrat out of the party.  

Signing up for free everything isn't how it worked when other groups in the past came here and successfully assimilated over time and contributed greatly to our country.  Don't confuse the greatness of these people with the results of what is happening now.  Critics of course call that line of inquiry racist, but what are the facts?  No one else will say.

Whatever comes out of this, there should be a serious discussion about what legal immigration should be, in addition to solving the illegal problem.  You can look at Sweden for another example, but you can't mix open borders with a massive entitlement system and then be surprised to learn people are coming for the wrong reasons and causing problems.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2015, 02:12:27 PM by DougMacG » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12618


« Reply #904 on: June 04, 2015, 04:36:42 AM »

I know of a small city in my region where Somali gangs are going head to head against Mexican gangs with cartel affiliations.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33863


« Reply #905 on: June 04, 2015, 12:23:09 PM »

The Somali gangs are seeking to enter the drug biz?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12618


« Reply #906 on: June 04, 2015, 07:34:18 PM »

The Somali gangs are seeking to enter the drug biz?

They are in it. Human trafficking as well.


http://www.businessinsider.com/12-gangs-on-the-fbis-radar-2014-3?op=1

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33863


« Reply #907 on: June 05, 2015, 10:31:35 PM »

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/last-task-after-layoff-at-disney-train-foreign-replacements.html?_r=1
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4530


« Reply #908 on: June 06, 2015, 02:18:14 PM »

"They said that over all, the company had a net gain of 70 tech jobs."

Sure.  Just all to people not born here. 

Hey this is good for us were told.

Only those that say that aren't the ones who wind up being hurt by this.

Or, they are the ones hiring the cheap labor and benefiting screwing Americans.

As a doctor in NJ where more than half the doctors are born elsewhere I have first hand experience with this. 

Hey so what?  It is good for all.  We have a doctor shortage don't we?

No main stream Republican will care about this.  You know what?

We should start importing our politicians from other countries.  Start replacing the goons we have now.  I would love to see this and hear how much they like it.

Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4530


« Reply #909 on: June 09, 2015, 12:04:09 PM »

My only disagreement is she tends to focus on Latinos a bit too much.  Surely they make up a large portion of the illegals, but what about those coming here from other countries?   From the Caribbean, Europe, Africa, Asia?

*****IMMIGRATION ADVOCATES FRIGHTENED BY 99-POUND BLONDE
June 3, 2015

Third World immigration advocates Frank Sharry, Ali Noorani and Marc Andreessen aren't shy about rushing to the press with pabulum quotes about how wonderful immigration is, but they don't want to debate me, even to lie about all those benefits.


They don't want you to think about immigration at all.


Although you will miss the lush analytical context of the full case made in my smash new book, Adios, America: The Left's Plan to Turn Our Country Into a Third World Hellhole, here are some more startling facts from my book that the anti-American crowd doesn't want you to know:


-- If an illegal alien drops a baby on American soil, the entire family can access welfare programs that were supposed to be for U.S. citizens -- in addition to the government assistance illegal aliens can collect right away, such as food stamps and housing subsidies, free medical care and free schooling.


-- The Constitution did not make U.S. citizenship a game of "Red Rover" with the Border Patrol. Haha! Too late -- I had the baby! The 14th Amendment confirmed the citizenship rights of former American slaves -- not 21st-century freeloaders from China.

-- Our ludicrous "anchor baby" policy was invented out of whole cloth by Justice William Brennan and slipped into a footnote in a Supreme Court opinion in 1982.


-- On average, college graduates in the United States pay about $30,000 more in taxes each year than they get back in government services, while those without a high school degree get back about $35,000 more in government services than they pay in taxes.



-- Only about 7 percent of Americans do not have a high school diploma, but more than a third of legal immigrants under the post-Kennedy immigration act and about 75 percent of illegal aliens do not have a high school diploma.


-- Mexican immigrants send $20 billion back to Mexico every year -- more than the U.S. sends to that country in direct foreign aid.


-- The New York Times was saved from bankruptcy by one of the richest men in the world, Mexican Carlos Slim, whose fortune comes from illegal aliens' sending money -- most of it from the U.S. taxpayer -- back to Mexico.


-- Anything the Times says on immigration ought to be treated like a press release from a tobacco company about the low risk of disease from smoking.


-- Contrary to repeated assertions that fences don't work (by the Times, as well as a slew of Republicans, such as former Texas governor Rick Perry), after Israel completed a fence along its border in 2013, the number of illegal aliens entering the country dropped to zero.


-- The country that put men on the moon can't seem to build a wall like the one the Chinese built 700 years before Christ.


-- Fully half of the fires on federal or tribal land investigated by the Government Accountability Office, where a cause could be determined, were set by illegal immigrants. (For suggesting as much, Sen. John McCain was denounced as a racist on MSNBC and in The Washington Post.)


-- Illegal immigrants from Mexico planted a huge pot farm right in the middle of Sequoia National Forest, dumping pesticides and refuse within a few miles of the world's tallest tree.


-- The Sierra Club, which took a $100 million donation from hedge fund billionaire David Gelbaum to be pro-illegal immigration, never said a word about it. Nothing the Sierra Club says about immigration -- or the environment -- can be believed.


-- The government refuses to say how many foreign-born residents have been sentenced to prison in America. There is no attempt to count naturalized citizens at all, or legal immigrants in state prisons. Even illegal immigrants are counted only if the states have requested reimbursement from the federal government for those inmates.


-- Instead, the government issues reports with its wild guesses about the number of aliens who are imprisoned in America. The Department of Justice relies on immigrants' self-reports. The GAO goes by Bureau of Prisons data. The U.S. census simply guesses the immigration status of inmates.


-- In 2010, New York state prisons held more than 4,000 inmates from 10 Latin American and Caribbean nations, and fewer than 150 inmates from all of Western Europe (most of whom were probably Muslims).


-- There are already more Hispanics than whites in two states, New Mexico and California, and Hispanics are the largest minority group in Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wyoming.

How about letting these facts "come out of the shadows"?


COPYRIGHT 2015 ANN COULTER****

Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 162


« Reply #910 on: June 10, 2015, 10:28:05 PM »

I know of a small city in my region where Somali gangs are going head to head against Mexican gangs with cartel affiliations.

Big difference between going against someone affiliated and the real deal.
Logged

Singing in the rain...
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33863


« Reply #911 on: June 25, 2015, 10:08:08 AM »

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/062215-758485-mexican-flag-waving-illegal-has-had-a-cushy-ride.htm

Education: An illegal immigrant who graduated from UC San Diego thanked taxpayers for her free ride by waving the Mexican flag at commencement. Seems that illegals get a better deal in education than citizens. Why else would she flaunt it?

The shameless ingratitude provoked public outrage. Indira Esparza, an illegal alien who took a coveted slot at the taxpayer-funded University of California, milked the system for aid and then marched up to the podium waving the flag of the country she would do anything to avoid being sent back to, couldn't have been surprised by the angry reaction.

After all, activist groups have cautioned illegals since the illegal immigrant marches of 2006 to wave the U.S., not the Mexican, flag. Esparza was clearly confident that she could get away with it despite the offense it caused to the public.

It stands in stark contrast to the criticism that the Confederate flag is drawing following a terrible massacre of black churchgoers by a white supremacist in South Carolina. The Confederate flag will come down, but the Mexican flag still waves, despite the offense.

People with Esparza's chutzpah don't float in out of nowhere. As we suspected, there was a massive support network behind this poster child for arrogant, over-rewarded illegals, putting the lie to her victimhood claims of living in the shadows.

First, she won a coveted place at UCSD's cushy La Jolla-based Preuss charter school, displacing a legal resident in an elite, taxpayer-funded school. After that, she was showered with resources for illegals.

"She received a scholarship from the Patricia and Christopher Weil Family Foundation to help support her undergraduate studies at U.C. San Diego," the UCSD public relations website reads. Still better, she got $10,000 cash from the Chancellor's Associate Scholars program launched in 2013.

"The program essentially provides a full-ride and loan-free UC San Diego financial aid package to eligible students from several underserved high schools," UCSD said.

Esparza called it "ridiculously awesome" in a 2013 interview with the San Diego Union-Tribune. "I don't have to worry so much about my finances. I always have money for books. I have money to buy my parking pass. I have gas money."

Unusual? Not really. Just this month, Facebook billionaire Mark Zuckerberg donated $5 million for college tuition for 400 illegals through the TheDream.US foundation.

Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles gives illegals free rides, too. Students like Esparza are free to take gut majors like political science and even minors like educational studies because it costs them zero.

The Union-Tribune reports that Esparza helped found UCSD's Undocumented Student Services Center, part of a $5 million plan by President Janet Napolitano to "help students in the country illegally obtain access to taxpayer-funded financial aid and other benefits," The College Fix reports.

With U.S. students paying tens of thousands for student loans and being unable to find jobs, why are illegals handed tuition, living expenses and more on a silver platter? And they show their gratitude for that largesse by waving the Mexican flag at their graduations.

Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/062215-758485-mexican-flag-waving-illegal-has-had-a-cushy-ride.htm#ixzz3e5RVmJJo
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6595


« Reply #912 on: July 01, 2015, 10:13:26 AM »

This could go under housing...  I rented a house yesterday to a nice Spanish speaking couple with 3 adorable children.  

We hear about better identification and stronger employer sanctions as being part of the solution.  I haven't had to deal with the question of legal status much in housing; most of the influx of people to north Minneapolis come from the southside of Chicago, Detroit, Gary, IN, etc.  I am not clear whether it is illegal to rent to an illegal.  I am pretty sure it is illegal not to.  

In this case, the man who doesn't speak a word of English showed his Driver's License - I don't know if illegals get those here.  He also has a good bank account; I don't know the rules there either, but good enough for me.  The wife speaks English as a second language but didn't want her name on the lease.  I told her it has to go on the lease.  The kids were great translators and pretty soon I had them talking on the phone with my daughter in Spanish to sharpen her language skills.

I went with 'don't ask, don't tell' on legal status and made a business decision that I liked this family and had no reason to turn down their application.  

Whether they are legal or illegal, I'm sure they know people affected by the words used (cf. Donald Trump) and issues negotiated in "immigration reform".  

But what if both parents are illegal and their children are legal, and that we want to make new law going forward that emphasizes control over our border?  We should be able to argue that anyone who came here some time ago illegally, who has set up a life, a residence, a family, a job here, can stay but will not ever vote, and that by making ours a sovereign nation (e pluribus unum) with good, enforceable laws in the best interests of our nation is what is in the best interest of their children's interests also, and that policies that grow our economy are best for their family and their children - all without permanently driving away everyone of their heritage from our side of politics.

It is a very delicate argument to say that we don't want to become the place they left without insulting the people and losing them forever politically.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2015, 12:38:28 PM by DougMacG » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33863


« Reply #913 on: July 06, 2015, 10:54:14 AM »

http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/barack-obama-is-a-liar-he-deports-900000-illegal-aliens-they-never-leave-the-u-s/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12618


« Reply #914 on: July 11, 2015, 09:00:50 AM »

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/trump-is-right-illegal-alien-crime-is-staggering-in-scope-and-savagery?f=must_reads
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12618


« Reply #915 on: July 13, 2015, 08:35:53 PM »

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-silence-on-kathryn-steinle-killing-is-deafening/2015/07/13/06f5730e-2959-11e5-a5ea-cf74396e59ec_story.html

I'm sure the credentialed journalists will be sure to ask Obama about this, right bigdog?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12618


« Reply #916 on: July 13, 2015, 08:39:31 PM »

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/07/illegal_aliens_murder_at_a_much_higher_rate_than_us_citizens_do.html

Reliable.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2015, 09:06:34 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33863


« Reply #917 on: July 24, 2015, 07:34:27 AM »

https://www.facebook.com/CSPAN/videos/10153686119710579/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4530


« Reply #918 on: July 29, 2015, 03:19:50 PM »

I don't see how winning 40% of the vote is a big win for Republicans when they are coming here by the tens of millions and 60% or more will vote for the Democrats.  Good luck ever winning California again.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2958571/posts
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33863


« Reply #919 on: July 29, 2015, 06:59:52 PM »

If I am not mistaken if Romney had matched Bush's 40% he would have won.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6595


« Reply #920 on: July 30, 2015, 11:10:49 AM »

If I am not mistaken if Romney had matched Bush's 40% he would have won.

Winning an even slightly greater share of any and all of these demographic groups matters.  Black, Hispanic, gay, Jew, Catholic, single mom, soccer mom, urban dwellers, media people, academia, (martial artists?), etc. etc., we have to convince them that there are other viewpoints and it is okay to choose one that is not what everyone else you know is choosing.  Each time they see one more person slip over to the other side they face the possibility of being curious about what they are not seeing.

We have former liberals right here on the board...
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4530


« Reply #921 on: July 30, 2015, 01:15:54 PM »

Roughly 23 million "Latinos" voted in 2012.  So if we take 13 % of that and add that to Romney's total and subtract from Brock's maybe that would have made up the 5% overall difference.  Not enough time right now to figure it out.   That said it is only 40% of a population that is expanding exponentially - by design.

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2013/06/03/inside-the-2012-latino-electorate/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33863


« Reply #922 on: July 31, 2015, 10:58:03 AM »

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/?utm_source=e_breitbart_com&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Breitbart+News+Roundup%2C+July+31%2C+2015&utm_campaign=20150731_m126776469_Breitbart+News+Roundup%2C+July+31%2C+2015&utm_term=Big+Government
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4530


« Reply #923 on: August 03, 2015, 09:16:47 AM »

I know the immigrants are good for us....   I know if the Republicans just win their hearts and minds....we can win them over.... (just look at all the immigrants who vote for Republicans now)  The Asians the Middle Easterners, the South of the border ones, the Africans, the Caribbean ones etc.....

I know they help industry which helps us all...
I know the mow our lawns and fix our sidewalks....
I know they all do jobs US born Americans won't do....
I know they are just hard working wonderful people who "dream"...

Yet JEB wants to let them know we all love them.....  while they walk all over us:

*******Exclusive — USA to Issue More Green Cards Than Populations of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina Combined
by Breitbart News2 Aug 20155,123
Breitbart News has exclusively obtained text and a chart from the Senate’s Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, chaired by Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)

concerning America’s ongoing policy of massive legal immigration:

The overwhelming majority of immigration to the United States is the result of our visa policies. Each year, millions of visas are issued to temporary workers, foreign students, refugees, asylees, and permanent immigrants for admission into the United States. The lion’s share of these visas are for lesser-skilled and lower-paid workers and their dependents who, because they are here on work-authorized visas, are added directly to the same labor pool occupied by current unemployed jobseekers. Expressly because they arrive on legal immigrant visas, most will be able to draw a wide range of taxpayer-funded benefits, and corporations will be allowed to directly substitute these workers for Americans. Improved border security would have no effect on the continued arrival of these foreign workers, refugees, and permanent immigrants—because they are all invited

The most significant of all immigration documents issued by the U.S. is, by far, the “green card.” When a foreign citizen is issued a green card it guarantees them the following benefits inside the United States: lifetime work authorization, access to federal welfare, access to Social Security and Medicare, the ability to obtain citizenship and voting privileges, and the immigration of their family members and elderly relatives.

Under current federal policy, the U.S. issues green cards to approximately 1 million new Legal Permanent Residents (LPRs) every single year. For instance, Department of Homeland Security statistics show that the U.S. issued 5.25 million green cards in the last five years, for an average of 1.05 million new legal permanent immigrants annually.

These ongoing visa issuances are the result of federal law, and their number can be adjusted at any time. However, unlike other autopilot policies—such as tax rates or spending programs—there is virtually no national discussion or media coverage over how many visas we issue, to whom we issue them and on what basis, or how the issuance of these visas to individuals living in foreign countries impacts the interests of people already living in this country.

If Congress does not pass legislation to reduce the number of green cards issued each year, the U.S. will legally add 10 million or more new permanent immigrants over the next 10 years—a bloc of new permanent residents larger than populations of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina combined.

This has substantial economic implications.

The post-World War II boom decades of the 1950s and 1960s averaged together less than 3 million green cards per decade—or about 285,000 annually. Due to lower immigration rates, the total foreign-born population in the United States dropped from about 10.8 million in 1945 to 9.7 million in 1960 and 9.6 million in 1970. 

These lower midcentury immigration levels were the product of a federal policy change: after the last period of large-scale immigration that had begun in roughly 1880, immigration rates were lowered to reduce admissions. The foreign-born share of the U.S. population fell for six consecutive decades, from 1910 through 1960.

Legislation enacted in 1965, among other factors, substantially increased low-skilled immigration. Since 1970, the foreign-born population in the United States has increased more than four-fold—to a record 42.1 million today. The foreign-born share of the population has risen from fewer than 1 in 21 in 1970, to presently approaching 1 in 7. As the supply of available labor has increased, so too has downward pressure on wages.

Georgetown and Hebrew University economics professor Eric Gould has observed that “the last four decades have witnessed a dramatic change in the wage and employment structure in the United States… The overall evidence suggests that the manufacturing and immigration trends have hollowed-out the overall demand for middle-skilled workers in all sectors, while increasing the supply of workers in lower skilled jobs. Both phenomena are producing downward pressure on the relative wages of workers at the low end of the income distribution.”

During the low-immigration period from 1948-1973, real median compensation for U.S. workers increased more than 90 percent. By contrast, real average hourly wages were lower in 2014 than they were in 1973, four decades earlier. Harvard Economist George Borjas also documented the effects of high immigration rates on African-American workers, writing that “a 10 percent immigration-induced increase in the supply of workers in a particular skill group reduced the black wage of that group by 2.5 percent.” Past immigrants are additionally among those most economically impacted by the arrival of large numbers of new workers brought in to compete for the same jobs. In Los Angeles County, for example, 1 in 3 recent immigrants are living below the poverty line.  And this federal policy of new large-scale admissions continues unaltered at a time when automation is reducing hiring, and when a record share of our own workers here in America are not employed.

President Coolidge articulated how a slowing of immigration would benefit both U.S.-born and immigrant-workers: “We want to keep wages and living conditions good for everyone who is now here or who may come here. As a nation, our first duty must be to those who are already our inhabitants, whether native or immigrants. To them we owe an especial and a weighty obligation.”

It is worth observing that the 10 million grants of new permanent residency under current law is not an estimate of total immigration. In fact, the increased distribution of legal immigrant visas tend to correlate with increased flows of immigration illegally: the former helps provide networks and pull factors for the latter. Most of the countries who send the largest numbers of citizens with green cards are also the countries who send the most citizens illegally. The Census Bureau estimates 13 million new immigrants will arrive, on net, between now and 2024—hurtling the U.S. past all recorded figures in terms of the foreign-born share of total population, quickly eclipsing the watermark recorded 105 years ago during the 1880–1920 immigration wave before immigration rates were lowered. Absent new legislation to reduce unprecedented levels of future immigration, the Census Bureau projects immigration as a share of population will continue setting new records each year, for all time.

Yet the immigration “reform” considered by Congress most recently—the 2013 Senate “Gang of Eight” comprehensive immigration bill—would have tripled the number of green cards issued over the next 10 years. Instead of issuing 10 million green cards, the Gang of Eight proposal would have issued at least 30 million green cards during the next decade (or more than 11 times the population of the City of Chicago).

Polling from Gallup and Fox shows that Americans want lawmakers to reduce, not increase, immigration rates by a stark 2:1 margin. Reuters puts it at a 3:1 margin. And polling from GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway shows that by the huge margin of nearly 10:1 people of all backgrounds are united in their belief that U.S. companies seeking workers should raise wages for those already living here—instead of bringing in new labor from abroad.*****
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!