Immigration Bill 2010 as Administration Lays Yet Another Faulty Claim
I can’t even hold in my rage for this administration at this point. I came across an article in the Washington Times Friday:
Declaring success in border security and immigration enforcement, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Friday that the federal government has done its work and now it’s time for Congress to pass a broad bill to legalize illegal immigrants.
Her speech signals President Obama will make good on his promise to push Congress to pass an immigration bill next year – adding yet another hot-button issue to an already long and contentious list.
Ms. Napolitano said members of Congress and voters who balked at an immigration bill two years ago, fearing a repeat of the 1986 amnesty that only made the problem worse, can be assured this time is different. She said in those two years, the flow of illegal immigrants across the border has dropped dramatically and the government is doing more to catch fugitive aliens inside the U.S.
“The security of the southwest border has been transformed from where it was in 2007,” she said in a speech to the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. “The federal government has dedicated unprecedented resources to the Mexican border in terms of manpower, technology and infrastructure – and it’s made a real difference.”
Who are they trying to kid? Once again, they are living in some alternative reality. If, in fact, illegal aliens are coming across the border fewer in number, it is because there are no jobs here – hello??? The U.S. looks more and more like Mexico every day. Why bother?
Who’s to say there are fewer, though? If they know exactly how many illegal aliens are coming over than why can’t they stop them? Obviously, they don’t want to. It doesn’t meet with their agenda. Neither did it meet with the agenda of Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, etc…. I am sick of it!
This administration has done nothing to foster border security. The only “work” it’s done is to push for more free benefits for illegals on the backs of hard working LEGAL citizens who don’t qualify for the same free handouts. Redistribution of our so-called “wealth” to those of foreign lands is becoming the norm for this administration and according to their agenda will continue as long as progressives are allowed control.
According to Federation for American Immigration Reform (F.A.I.R), if the administration was serious about advancing national security, it would:
* Reverse course and welcome the assistance of local jurisdictions that aggressively identify illegal aliens for deportation.
Instead they are going after Sheriff Joe Arpaio
* Push for the E-Verify system to be adopted as a national requirement for all employers and all workers. In the meantime, implementation of the “no-match” letter screening system would represent a significant deterrent to the mass illegal immigration that compromises border security.
E-Verify was to go into effect in January, then the Obama administration delayed implementation until June, then again until September. They wanted more time to review the program. Yeah, right. They didn’t want to alienate millions of potential future voters. And, of course with groups like ACORN around, they won’t even need to prove citizenship in order to vote.
* Withdraw support for an amnesty for illegal aliens and, thereby, convey the message abroad that the United States is serious about enforcing its immigration laws.
An article in the Washington Times clearly recalls the President’s words recently during the health care debate:
- President Obama said this week that his health care plan won’t cover illegal immigrants, but argued that’s all the more reason to legalize them and ensure they eventually do get coverage.
- He also staked out a position that anyone in the country legally should be covered – a major break with the 1996 welfare reform bill, which limited most federal public assistance programs only to citizens and longtime immigrants.
* Rapidly pursue implementation of a comprehensive electronic database that matches entry and departure of foreign visitors, and expand the special tracking database for students to include all long-term visitors.
*Reverse the recent expansion of the Visa Waiver Program that allows the entry of nationals of 35 countries to enter without consular screening and gradually eliminate it.
*Tighten the criteria for admission of nationals of countries with active terrorist organizations in the refugee and asylum programs.
Not to mention a porous border allows anyone to walk right in. Although the massacre at Fort Hood was done by a natural born citizen, it does remind us there are segments of the population, legal or otherwise who are out to get us.
Today, Saturday, November 14, 2009, at least 53 cities are holding teaparty protests:
Tea Parties Against Amnesty and Illegal Immigration held in over 53 cities and towns tomorrow, Saturday, Nov. 14, 2009.
These events are designed to unify Americans of all races, faiths, and political parties who represent the 78% found in a recent Pulse Opinion poll who oppose any path to citizenship or any form of Amnesty for illegal immigrants currently in the United States.
New details are being added to our listing of these events online each hour.
Event times, locations, details, and organizer contact information can be found on our EVENT LOCATIONS page at www.AgainstAmnesty.com
F.A.I.R. presents the following facts for your consideration:
The general public overwhelmingly favors immigration reform. Poll after poll shows that Americans want well-enforced, sensible, and sustainable immigration laws.
- 68% oppose the creation of sanctuary cities (jurisdictions that have a policy of not enforcing immigration law) with only 13% in favor (Rasmussen, October 2009).
- 73% of Americans want to see a decrease in illegal immigration, while only 3% believe there should be an increase (CNN, October 2009).
- 56% of Mexicans believe that granting amnesty to illegal aliens in the United States would make it more likely that people they know would attempt to illegally migrate to United States. Only 17% think it would make people less likely to migrate illegally to the United States (Zogby, October 2009).
- 65% of Mexicans who have a member of their immediate household in the United States said that amnesty would make people they know more likely to attempt to illegally migrate to America (Zogby, October 2009).
- 55% of Mexicans who expressed a desire to migrate to the U.S. said they would attempt to enter the U.S. illegally (Pew Hispanic Center, September 2009).
- 56% of U.S. voters believe that the policies of the federal government encourage illegal immigration (Rasmussen, October 2009).
- 83% of U.S. voters say that citizenship verification should be part of any health care reform legislation (Rasmussen, September 2009).
- 78% of likely U.S. voters believe that mass immigration has adversely impacted the quality and cost of the U.S. health care system (Pulse Opinion Research, August 2009).
- 78% of likely U.S. voters oppose amnesty, with 19% in favor. 88% of African-Americans oppose amnesty. (Pulse Opinion Research, August 2009).
- 70% of American voters feel that increased border control should be the most important priority in immigration reform. Only 22% prioritized legalization of illegal aliens (Rasmussen, August 2009).
- 50% of American think immigration to the U.S. should be decreased, while only 14% want to see an increase in immigration to the U.S. (Gallup, August 2009).
- 68% of adults think limiting care to illegal aliens is a good to excellent way to reduce overall health care costs (Zogby, July 2009).
- 80% of likely voters oppose healthcare coverage for illegal aliens (Rasmussen, June 2009).
- 67% of liberals and progressives believe that the level of immigration into the U.S. is too high (Pulse Opinion, April 2009).
- 68% believe that employers who hire illegal aliens should be punished (Rasmussen, March 2009).
- 79% of voters say the military should be used along the border with Mexico (Rasmussen, March 2009).
- 73% believe law enforcement officers should check immigration status during traffic stops (Rasmussen, March 2009).
- Only 32% of Obama voters considered his support for amnesty as a factor in their decisions to vote for him (Zogby, November 2008).
|Summary Demographic National Data (and Source)|
Population (2008 CB est.):
|Population (2000 Census):||281,421,906|
|Foreign-Born Population (2008 FAIR est.):||38,110,000|
|Foreign-Born Population (2000 Census):||31,107,573|
|Share Foreign Born (2008 FAIR est.)||12.5%|
|Share Foreign-Born (2000 Census)||11.1%|
|Immigrant Stock (2000 CB est.):||55,890,000|
|Share Immigrant Stock (2000 est.):||20.4%|
|Naturalized U.S. Citizens (2000 Census):||12,542,626|
|Share Naturalized (2000):||40.3%|
|Immigrant Admissions (DHS 1997-2006):||9,105,162|
|Illegal Alien Population (2008 FAIR est.):||13,010,000|
|Projected Population – 2025 (2006 FAIR):||364,237,000|
We pay for immigration through federal taxes
Much of the cost for immigration is paid by the states and municipalities, but a lot is paid for by the federal government too. Illegal immigrants receive taxpayer support for their U.S.-born children, immunizations, subsidized public health and other programs. Legal immigrants are eligible for almost all federal programs with the exception of welfare, which generally is not available for the first five years in the country. In many areas, such as education, the federal government gives matching grants for state expenditures, which means paying twice for those costs of immigration. When states hand a bill to the federal government for the costs of immigration (as is provided for by law in the case of incarceration of illegal immigrants, emergency medical expenditures, or welfare programs for the illegal aliens who were given amnesty in 1986), it is you who will pay regardless of where you live.
The United States is a vast country; it is easy to be deceived into thinking that what goes on in other states does not affect us. But, directly or indirectly, the impact of mass immigration on our country hits us all and hits us hard. For that reason, all Americans should demand that their elected representatives reduce the price they are paying for immigration. The best way to cut those costs is deter illegal immigration and to reduce immigration itself back towards a more moderate level.
The Tyranny of Change: America in the Progressive Era, John Whiteclay Chambers, 1992.
Why Today’s Immigration is a Worse Problem than the Great Wave
Supporters of today’s mass immigration like to claim that we should not be concerned about it, because it is no worse than the Great Wave of immigration at the turn of the last century. But in fact, because times have changed greatly in the last one hundred years, immigration now is much more out of sync with our country’s needs than it was at the turn of the last century.
Today We Need Skilled Workers
In the economy of the Gilded Age (rapid industrial expansion), low-skilled workers were highly employable. New mechanical devices and processes were being introduced that did away with the need for workers with special industrial skills and know-how. As the U.S. Industrial Commission pointed out: “The fact that machinery and the division of labor opens a place for the unskilled immigrants makes it possible not only to get the advantages of machinery, but also to get the advantages of cheap labor.” However, modern technology requires skilled workers, not unskilled ones. Yet, in 2001, only 16 percent of legal immigrants were admitted as skilled workers.
Today’s Immigrants are Permanent and Create Net Costs
Before 1900, there may have been some marginal fiscal gain from immigration. Today, the estimated annual net cost of each immigrant, on average, is $2700. Then, immigrants’ stay in the U.S. was often temporary; today’s immigrants are here to stay. The Immigration and Naturalization Service estimates that the rate of return from 1900 to 1904 was over 37 percent; in the 1990s, the rate of immigrants’ return to their homelands was a much lower 15 percent.
Today Assimilation is Held Back
Ethnic ghettoization and its retardation of assimilation is more serious now than a hundred years ago. At that time, only rarely did a single ethnic group dominate an area of several city blocks, and even then many immigrants moved out of such areas. Now, ethnic enclaves are huge and growing; in the city of Miami, for example, nearly half of the population speaks English poorly or not at all, and 73 percent speak a language other than English at home.
Even at the turn of last century, it was known that the era of needed expansion in the U.S. was at an end. At the 1893 meeting of the American Historical Society, Frederick Jackson Turner began his paper on “The Significance of the Frontier in American History” by noting that the Bureau of the Census had just announced that there was no longer a continuous lie of free unsettled land visible on the U.S. map. The American “frontier” had closed…
Alien Nation, Peter Brimelow, 1995.
Today Our Country is No Longer Empty
During those frontier days, we had a vast empty country and states actively recruited immigrants. Now, our country is increasingly congested and communities pass ordinances to limit the growth of their populations. In 1900, the number of people per square mile in the United States was 25.6; in 2002, it was 82 people per square mile—a more than three times greater population density.
Today We Have Chain Migration
At the turn of the last century, having relatives in the United States made it logistically easier to immigrate here; it did not, however, guarantee that you would be admitted. At the turn of this century, having near relatives in the United States makes you legally eligible to immigrate and guarantees you eventual admission. In 2001, 64 percent of legal immigrants were admitted simply because they had a relative here. Due to the eligibility of the foreign relatives of immigrants, there is a line of several million aliens waiting and eligible for admission as immigrants to the United States.
A bill to amend the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 to permit States to determine State residency for higher education purposes and to authorize the cancellation of removal and adjustment of status of certain alien students who are long-term United States residents and who entered the United States as children, and for other purposes.
This bill would give states the authority to repeal the denial of an unlawful alien’s eligibility for higher education benefits, which have been previously tied state-residency. Additionally, it allows for the adjustment from status of alien to conditional permanent resident and outlines the criteria for such an adjustment by the Secretary of Homeland Security. The bill and its equivalent in the House, H.R.1751, is just as controversial as most other immigration related bills, such as, H.R.1868, the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009.
At my last count, 10 states allowed for in-state tuition for illegal aliens and three even allowed for them to receive financial help with that tuition. Does this seem fair to you? To me it seems as if this is another benefit not given to legal citizens of this country.
In any other country, including Mexico, there are strict penalties for illegal entry, but yet, those of us in favor of halting illegal immigration are called unreasonable. More suicidal progressive initiatives dressed up as political correctness.