Here’s a question all liberal, open border politicians must answer as it relates to the refugee crisis: if wealthy Arab and Muslim countries are concerned about the security, fiscal, and cultural problems associated with admitting mass numbers of Syrian refugees, why should America be the guinea pig?
Following the widely viewed picture of the dead toddler washed up on the shore of Turkey, liberal NGOs dealing with refugee resettlement feel they have their bloody shirt moment in their relentless quest to flood the country with tens of thousands of additional refugees from the Middle East. But anyone who follows the Middle East can appreciate that prudent policy is a lot more complex than heartrending images of individual babies dying while fleeing an Islamic Civil War. For one thing, most of the migrants appear to be adult males. And the story of the drowned boy also appears to be more complex than initially thought.
Certainly the images of gruesome torture of Christian minorities in Syria should conjure up just as much righteous indignation and calls to admit refugees, yet we have only admitted 28 Christians from Syria this year – just 2% of all refugees from that country – according to State Department data. Likewise, of the 11,164 refugees admitted from Iraq this year, just 193 were Yazidi. Why have we admitted 70,000 refugees from around the world this year but have taken in just 28 individual Christians from Syria and 193 Yazidis from Iraq – the most persecuted people of our time?
Why has the refugee program ostensibly become a Muslim resettlement program and why is it the western, predominantly Christian countries that are tasked with taking in so many Muslim refugees when the Gulf States, which share the same language and religion, turn a blind eye?
I know what you’re thinking – with all the persecution of Christians transpiring in this country, maybe this is not the last remaining asylum for persecuted Christians. And evidently, liberals believe that those who peacefully decline a service while asserting Christian beliefs should be thrown in jail but are clamoring to bring in tens of thousands of fervent Sharia adherents who, let’s just say, don’t always express their religious convictions peacefully. But I digress.
A number of NGOs and sitting Democrat senators are calling for the admission of as many as 200,000 refugees next year, including 100,000 Syrians. You won’t get this perspective from the mainstream media, but take a look at this chart of the top host countries to refugees worldwide and you will see that we are, by far, the most generous. Americans don’t need sanctimony from the open borders crowd.
As you can see, the U.S. admitted 73% of the world’s refugees in 2014. Now, obviously, that will change in the final tally for 2015, as European countries such as Germany are being flooded with record numbers of refugees. But America has been the leading host country for years, accepting 448,463 refugees since FY 2009. With all the security risks and the public charge we are forced to incur, it’s more than high time for other countries to do their fair share.
Also, in addition to refugees, no other western country has admitted so many immigrants from indigent countries over the past decade. As the Center for Immigration Studies shows, this has resulted in a massive strain on our welfare system, representing a huge break with 100 years of past immigration policy that avoided those who were likely to become a public charge. In total, as of 2010 the U.S. was the destination of 20% of the world’s migrants even though we account for just 4% of the global population. America also has its own migrant crisis from Central America. Americans don’t need lectures on compassion.
Notice how few refugees are taken in by Latin American countries or East Asian countries. And as we mentioned before, what happened to countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Emirates? The five richest Gulf nations have yet to admit a single refugee from Syria this year!
What do they know about security policy that some western liberals do not?
America has taken in over 100,000 Somali refugees since 1993. We are paying for it to this day with growing radicalism in the areas they settled – to the extent that the U.S. Attorney from Minnesota said they have lost control over many individuals in the local Somali community who’ve connected with foreign fighters. And although the public charge is certainly not as grave as the security issues, it is still important nonetheless. Among refugees from the Middle East, 91.3% received Food Stamps and 73.1% received Medicaid.
On Wednesday, the Obama administration will “consult” with Congress on the number of refugees they plan to admit for the next fiscal year and from which parts of the world. Conservatives should gird for battle.
As we approach another anniversary of 9/11, let’s not forget that immigration is the front line in the defense against terror. (For more from the author of “What the Media Isn’t Saying About the Refugee Crisis in the Middle East” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-09-08 21:59:092015-09-08 21:59:09What the Media Isn’t Saying About the Refugee Crisis in the Middle East
Siddharth Jaganath wanted to return to India after earning his master’s degree at Texas’ Southern Methodist University. Instead, he built a new life in the U.S. over a decade, becoming a manager at a communications technology company and starting a family in the Dallas suburb of Plano . . .
His path is an increasingly common one: Immigrants from China and India, many with student or work visas, have overtaken Mexicans as the largest groups coming into the U.S., according to U.S. Census Bureau research released in May. The shift has been building for more than a decade and experts say it’s bringing more highly skilled immigrants here. And some Republican presidential candidates have proposed a heavier focus on employment-based migration, which could accelerate traditionally slow changes to the country’s ever-evolving face of immigration.
Mexicans still dominate the overall composition of immigrants in the U.S., accounting for more than a quarter of the foreign-born people. But of the 1.2 million newly arrived immigrants here legally and illegally counted in 2013 numbers, China led with 147,000, followed by India with 129,000 and Mexico with 125,000. It’s a sharp contrast to 2000, when there were 402,000 from Mexico and no more than 84,000 each from India and China. Experts say part of the reason for the decrease in Mexican immigrants is a dramatic plunge in illegal immigration. (Read more from “Immigration Shift Shows India, China Outpacing Mexico” HERE)
The Mexican government is warning that Texas’ denial of birth certificates for U.S. children born here to undocumented immigrants stands to imperil the relationship between Mexico and the Lone Star State.
The concern was raised in an amicus brief filed Monday evening to lend support to immigrants parents who sued Texas after being denied birth certificates for their U.S.-born children, even after showing their “matrículas,” the ID cards issued by the Mexican consulate to undocumented immigrants.
Mexico says the practice stands in stark contrast to the historical practice among countries to accept passports or other forms of ID to issue birth certificates.
[It] not only jeopardizes their dignity and well-being, but could threaten the unique relationship between Mexico and Texas, the Mexican government said in a brief tied to a lawsuit filed against the state by Texas Civil Rights Project and Texas Rio Grande Legal Aid.
The lawsuit, the Texas Tribune reported, was filed on behalf of six U.S. citizen children and their undocumented parents, who came from Mexico, Honduras and Guatemala. Other groups since have joined the suit. (Read more from “Mexico Warns Texas Not to Refuse Its Immigrants’ Babies U.S. Birth Certificates” HERE)
Consider the following injustice: the sheriff of the fourth largest county in the country, which is located just miles from the southern border, lacks standing to sue Obama for burdening his county with illegal immigration due to his unconstitutional amnesty programs. Yet, illegal aliens are granted standing to sue for a full array of rights paid for by the American taxpayer.
On July 24, Central California District Judge Dolly Gee essentially ruled that the federal government must release from detention all illegal aliens who come here with a minor child (Jenny L. Flores, et al. v. Jeh Johnson, et al.). Americans are forced to foot the bill for thousands of indigent illegal immigrants flooding the southern border who are now able to use our own court system against us. Despite the fact that 84% of family units from Central America that received a notice to appear before an immigration judge absconded and disappeared into the population, the court feels that none of them can be detained.
Just last week, an illegal alien from San Luis Obispo County, California failed to appear for his first court hearing after being charged with beating a two-year-old girl to near-death. So why was he released in the first place?
According to Cal Coast News, Chavez is a “Mexican national with an extensive criminal history that includes convictions for drug trafficking and assault with a deadly weapon.” After being deported once and returning to California to commit more crimes, Chavez was released from jail following his arrest for the heinous beating. Here was the sheriff’s explanation:
Following Chavez’s release, Sheriff Ian Parkinson said the law prohibits sheriffs from holding inmates on ICE detainers unless federal authorities issue warrants for them. Parkinson appeared on a Fox News broadcast last week in which the interviewer reported that Parkinson said he would have gotten sued by the ACLU had he honored the ICE detainer for Chavez.
Not only is this another example of Obama’s amnesty allowing yet another violent criminal alien to disappear into the population, it is a vivid illustration of how the court system is dismantling our immigration enforcement. The courts and their cohorts who represent illegal aliens pro bono are deterring law enforcement from detaining these violent criminals and are endangering the lives of all Americans.
So where are the bleeding hearts rushing to the defense of Americans? The refusal to detain, deport, and enforce is the most heartless policy of this administration. And with 350,000 known criminal aliens on the loose, the courts are determined to invalidate all efforts to maintain our sovereignty and protect the American people.
With this outrageous injustice fresh in your mind, note that the federal courts have already invalidated Arizona’s law denying bail to illegal aliens. Those who come here illegally have no constitutional rights and represent the consummate flight risk in our criminal justice system, yet the courts have ensured on multiple fronts that there is no recourse to detain violent criminal aliens.
At the same time, these courts denied Sheriff Joe Arpaio standing to sue Obama for his illegal implementation of DACA and DAPA. Last week, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s ruling that his grievances were speculative, thus denying him standing to fight Obama on the merits of the amnesty. A massive surge in illegal immigration for a border county is just a speculative grievance?
The same thing happened to a group of ICE agents who are being threatened with punishment if they enforce existing law instead of Obama’s illegal amnesty. In August 2012, 10 ICE officers, led by ICE Union president Chris Crane, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas against the administration’s policies of suspending deportations against those illegals who would qualify for the Dream Act – a law the never passed Congress.
On April 4, 2013, Judge Reed O’Connor ruled that the Obama administration’s DACA program was in clear violation of Section 1225(b)(2)(A) of the INA, which requires ICE agents to place all illegal aliens into removal proceedings. However, he said the agents lacked standing for the lawsuit and referred them to an administrative court. After being ping-ponged back and forth between the administrative court and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, nobody wanted to grant these ICE agents standing to redress this immediate and profound grievance.
A number of figures in the conservative legal community have expressed concern about my idea of stripping courts of jurisdiction over immigration enforcement. They contend that we need the courts to help us against Obama. But it’s clear that the radical courts are a one-way street and a dead end for constitutionalists. Illegal aliens have standing to sue for rights, but law enforcement has no standing to block lawlessness. As Janice Rogers Brown wrote in her concurring opinion in the Arpiao case where she reluctantly accepts the precedent on standing issues, “if an elected Sheriff responsible for the security of a county with a population larger than twenty-one states cannot bring suit, individual litigants will find it even more difficult to bring similar challenges.” Cleary, the courts will never serve as an avenue for restoring our sovereignty.
Likewise, some conservatives have expressed doubt about closing the birthright citizenship loophole for illegal aliens out of fear that the courts will overturn any statutory fix. They contend that we should focus on other enforcement mechanisms. What they fail to understand is that if nothing is done about the courts, they will overturn many other enforcement laws.
Mark Levin sounded the alarm years ago on the courts dismantling immigration enforcement with his detailed analysis of Plyler v. Doe in his book Men in Black. In 1982, William Brennan and four other justices mandated taxpayer-funded education for those who come here illegally. The courts have never turned back since issuing this perverse judgment, yet conservatives have not heeded Levin’s warning and have refused to take up the cause of jurisdiction stripping.
Conservatives must remember that even if the most conservative candidate is elected president and every senator suddenly supports the enforcement bills sponsored by Jeff Sessions, none of it will matter if the courts are not stripped of their jurisdiction over immigration. A handful of unelected judges have the perceived power to overturn every state and federal immigration law at the behest of illegal aliens. And now we learn that the courts won’t even overturn Obama’s lawlessness at the behest of the very law enforcement agents tasked with executing these laws.
In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote of the Judiciary, “It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment.” Over two hundred years later, this same branch of government now has the force to side with foreign invaders and the will to deny our law enforcement officials their constitutional right to defend their own borders. (Re-posted with permission from the author, “Court Ruling on Immigration Endangers Americans Again” HERE)
“If making it easy to be an illegal alien isn’t enough, how about offering a reward for being an illegal immigrant? No sane country would do that, right? Guess again. If you break our laws by entering this country without permission and give birth to a child, we reward that child with US citizenship and guarantee a full access to all public and social services this society provides, and that’s a lot of services. Is it any wonder that two-thirds of the babies born at taxpayer expense in county-run hospitals in Los Angeles are born to illegal alien mothers?”
No, these are not recent comments from Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Steve King (R-IA) or even Donald Trump. These were the words of Harry Reid in 1993 when he introduced an immigration enforcement bill, which, among other things, reaffirmed the original and proper reading of the 14th Amendment and qualified the birthright citizenship clause to exclude those born here from illegal alien parents.
That was 10 million illegal immigrants ago, at a time when the problem of incentivizing illegal aliens was not nearly as grave and consequential as it is today. Yet, even the leaders of the Democrat Party understood that no sane country would diminish the value of U.S. citizenship and use it to blatantly encourage illegal immigration and the growing birth tourism scam.
Fast-forward one generation, and the costs of not fixing this loophole have been incalculable. And yet not only have Democrats eschewed sanity as it relates to this issue, most of the pseudo-conservative talking heads are balking at proposals—most recently from Donald Trump—to fix this loophole.
In anticipation of the endless handwringing and misinformation from the conservative intelligentsia and the thumb sucking class, here is a fact sheet on the details behind birthright citizenship and the proposed fix to disincentivize illegal immigration and the birth tourism scam.
Myth: Unconditional birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Constitution under the 14th Amendment.
Fact: Actually, the prevailing interpretation of the citizenship clause—now used to grant automatic citizenship to children of both parents who are illegal aliens—is unconstitutional. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Everyone agrees with the basic concept of birthright citizenship as plainly stated in the first part of this clause. But in addition to the requirement that a child be born on American soil, the plain reading of the citizenship clause adds another requirement: “…and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” As we all know, there are no superfluous clauses in this tightly drafted document we call the U.S. Constitution. Clearly, the framers were drawing some limitation beyond simply being born on American soil.
Fortunately we need not speculate about their intent. The intent of the framers was crystal clear. The purpose of this amendment was to overturn the Dred Scott case and ensure guaranteed citizenship to all former black slaves born in American, and likely living here for generations. At the same time they wanted to limit citizenship to those subject to our jurisdiction, which excludes those who are not legal permanent residents of this country and certainly illegal aliens.
The 1866 Civil Rights Act, which was the forerunner to the 14th Amendment, reads as follows: “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” Anyone who is here illegally or on a temporary visa is still subject to the jurisdiction of his or her own country of origin.
Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, the principle author of the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment, explicitly said that candidates for citizenship must be born here AND not owe allegiance to another authority. He made it clear that allegiance “will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States.” If we can be sure that even children of Indian tribes were excluded from automatic citizenship, certainly temporary visitors from foreign countries were meant to be excluded as well.
The notion that the framers of the 14th Amendment desired to include illegal aliens in birthright citizenship is not only contrary to the explicit language and context of the amendment, it is patently absurd. It’s as absurd as the notion that the due process and equal protection clauses of that same amendment were designed to mandate the recognition of homosexual marriage.
Myth: You must amend the 14th Amendment in order to change the citizenship law.
Fact: As noted above, requiring that one parent be a legal permanent resident, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” is exactly what the 14th Amendment means. No case law has ever determined this to mean anything else. In Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884), the Court denied a bid for citizenship from an individual who was born on an Indian Reservation and moved to non-reservation territory in the U.S. Law Professor John Eastman has an impressive and concise analysis of the case law on the citizenship clause and proves incontrovertibly that any limitation on birthright citizenship (such as requiring that one parent be a permanent resident) would not need be enacted through a constitutional amendment.
Although an activist court in 1898 seemed to apply the birthright citizenship principle found in English Common Law in United States v Wong Kim Ark, which in itself was a reversal of previous precedent and against the plain interpretation of the 14th Amendment, the case only applied to a child of parents who were legal permanent residents. Liberals wrongly apply this ruling to children of illegal aliens, even though English Common Law explicitly excluded children born to those who illegally occupied territory, as noted by Professor Lino Graglia at a recent House Judiciary Committee hearing.
Sure, a statutory fix would be challenged in the courts, but it doesn’t mean the original meaning of the amendment shouldn’t be clarified and defended.
Myth: Upholding the law in this regard means stripping citizenship from those already deemed Americans.
Fact: Those promulgating this myth are either ignorant or willfully promoting misinformation. Nobody is proposing stripping citizenship retroactively. This change would merely ensure that future waves of illegal immigrants are not rewarded with citizenship. In fact, supporting birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants is even more radical than supporting amnesty. While the debate over amnesty is about those already here illegally, the debate over unqualified birthright citizenship is about future waves. Those who oppose this fix are essentially preemptively condoning (to say nothing of inviting) future waves of illegal immigration. Supporters of amnesty should be the most fervent opponents of birthright citizenship so that their amnesty doesn’t, once again, grow legs and incentivize a new wave of illegal immigration. What opposition to this fix really shows is that this is not merely a disagreement over what to do with those already here illegally; it’s a debate over whether we are entitled to sovereign borders.
Myth: Changing birthright citizenship is radical and uncalled for.
Fact: According to the Center for Immigration Studies, only 30 of the 194 countries in the world grant unqualified birthright citizenship (among western nations, Canada is the only other country to offer this status). No other developed country suffers from the effects of illegal immigration like we do, yet we are the last to debate this issue, lest political correctness render us “radical.” The true radical view is the one encouraging future waves of illegal immigration despite the past few decades of disaster. Nearly one in every 10 births in this country is to a mother here illegally. Why would we continue to incentivize this?
Moreover, nothing undermines the fabric of America and attenuates the value of our citizenship more than the practice of “birth tourism”–a trend most recently seen played out in so-called “maternity hotels” located in Southern California, hosting pregnant Chinese women coming to the U.S. for the sole purpose of giving birth in America to secure automatic citizenship and the benefits that come along with it. There is something fundamentally wrong when known drug lord El Chapo Guzman can openly send his wife here to give birth to American citizens.
A 2011 survey showed that Americans support closing the birthright citizenship loophole by a margin of 61-28. The position of the political class and the media is the only radical view on this issue.
Myth: Citizenship is then limited to children of citizens.
Fact: Wrong. All we are asking is that one parent be a legal permanent resident. As long as one parent is a green card holder, even if the other parent is an illegal alien, the child would still be recognized as a citizen under the proposed change to the erroneous but prevailing interpretation of the 14th Amendment. This would welcome all children of immigrants as automatic citizens while weeding out children of illegal aliens and those here on tourist visas. Many countries have stricter threshold requirements for citizenship.
As for children of those residing here on guest worker or student visas, most countries do not recognize them as citizens because they are not real immigrants. Germany grants citizenship to those born to parents on temporary visas who were living in the country for many years. Either way, this is a point that can easily be negotiated and compromised on so long as citizenship for illegal aliens and birth tourism scammers is terminated.
Myth: You are a racist if you support a fix of the birthright loophole.
Fact: Merely requiring that one parent be an LPR would prevent illegal immigration from all countries and ethnicities and it would stop the birth tourism from a variety of countries. This targets nobody in particular. In reality, it is those who misinterpret the 14th Amendment, which was designed to guarantee citizenship to African-Americans, who are racists because they are abusing the original civil rights efforts and misapplying them to birth tourist scammers.
Myth: Birthright Citizenship is a red herring to stir up the masses.
Fact: Birthright citizenship stands at the nexus of any true immigration reform that cuts off illegal immigration and makes our legal immigrations system merit-based, disposing of the chain migration model. These are two stated goals of most politicians (at least publicly). The only way to move in that direction is by ending unqualified birthright citizenship.
At a clip of 300,000-400,000 babies born in the U.S. each year to parents of illegal status, Pew estimated there are about 4 million “birthright” children in 2009, meaning there are likely over 5 million to date. Having American-citizen children allows illegal immigrants, a very indigent population, to benefit from the full smorgasbord of welfare programs, as noted by Harry Reid in 1993. In turn, these children can petition to bring in their relatives when they turn 18, perpetuating the untenable cycle we have helped create. Hence, unqualified birthright citizenship places the keys to our future legal immigration and our welfare system in the hands of illegal immigrants. Again, as Harry Reid said, no sane country would do this. (Re-posted with permission from the author, “Fixing the Birthright Citizenship Loophole: Myth vs Fact”, originally appeared HERE)
By Randy DeSoto. As promised, Donald Trump released a comprehensive immigration reform plan over the weekend. In it, the presidential candidate lays out how he would have Mexico pay for a wall along the border. He also calls for an end to birthright citizenship for the children of those in the country illegally.
In discussing the topic of illegal immigration on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday, Trump told Chuck Todd that he would rescind President Obama’s executive orders on immigration and send illegal immigrants back to their home countries.
“We’re going to keep the families together…but they have to go,” he said . . .
Trump’s plan, entitled, Immigration Reform that Will Make America Great Again, offers three guiding principles from which the policies are derived:
1. A nation without borders is not a nation. There must be a wall across the southern border.
2. A nation without laws is not a nation. Laws passed in accordance with our Constitutional system of government must be enforced.
3. A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation. Any immigration plan must improve jobs, wages and security for all Americans.
(Read more from “Trump Pulls Ahead, Just Announced the Game-Changing Plan Everyone’s Been Waiting for and People Are Going Crazy” HERE)
__________________________________________
Trump Pulls Far Ahead in Latest Poll
By Jennifer Agiesta. Donald Trump has won his party’s trust on top issues more than any other Republican presidential candidate, and now stands as the clear leader in the race for the GOP nomination, according to a new CNN/ORC poll.
The survey finds Trump with the support of 24% of Republican registered voters. His nearest competitor, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, stands 11 points behind at 13%. Just behind Bush, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson has 9%, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker 8%, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul 6%, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, former tech CEO Carly Fiorina and Ohio Gov. John Kasich all land at 5%, with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee rounding out the top 10 at 4%.
Trump is the biggest gainer in the poll, up 6 points since July according to the first nationwide CNN/ORC poll since the top candidates debated in Cleveland on Aug. 6. Carson gained 5 points and Fiorina 4 points. Trump has also boosted his favorability numbers among Republicans, 58% have a favorable view of Trump now, that figure stood at 50% in the July survey.
These nationwide findings follow recent polling in Iowa and New Hampshire showing Trump also leads the Republican field in those two key early states. (Read more from “Trump Pulls Ahead” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-08-18 03:03:462015-08-18 03:03:46Trump Pulls Far Ahead in Latest Poll, Just Announced the Game-Changing Plan Everyone’s Been Waiting for and People Are Going Crazy [+video]
The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) has published another blockbuster report on immigration numbers, and their analysis foreshadows a troubling trend of growing illegal immigration. Using the most up-to-date census data, they have uncovered a trend that has been lost from some of the traditional immigration-related data published by the Department of Homeland Security, which tends to lag behind the most recent trends.
To begin with, this report reaffirms the known reality of record high levels of immigration across the board and from Latin America, and the trend is only growing. Among the highlights of the report are the following:
The nation’s immigrant population has grown 4.1 million from the second quarter of 2011 to the second quarter of 2015, with roughly 2.1 million of the growth coming from Latin America, of which 1 million are from Mexico.
Over the past year alone (second quarter of 2014 through second quarter of 2015), the immigration population has grown by 1.7 million. Seventy-one percent of this growth has come from Latin America (1.2 million) and 44% (740,000) from Mexico alone.
Overall, there are 42.1 million immigrants in the country, 13.3% of the nation’s total population, which is the largest share in 105 years. As I noted in my immigration report in June, that trajectory is projected to explode. By 2060, the immigrant population will grow to 78.2 million – 18.8% of the total population.
Record Legal Immigration, Particularly from Latin America
First, this report demonstrates, once again, that the record high levels of legal immigration are continuing to spike. Moreover, the largest increases continue to be from the very countries that send us the most illegal immigrants. As the report’s authors, Steven Camarota and Karen Zeigler, note, an estimated eight out of 10 illegal immigrants are from Latin America. According to DHS, as of 2012, 59% were from Mexico alone.
Liberals and many faux conservative supporters of amnesty defend illegal immigration as a natural consequence of “a broken legal immigration system” where it is impossible to come here legally. The problem is that the period of illegal immigration has overlapped with the most protracted period of legal immigration expansion and has originated from the countries that have had a monopoly on our legal immigration. According to Pew, 50% of all immigrants since 1965 have come from Latin America – 29% from Mexico alone. What this new CIS report shows is that the trend has continued, and in fact, over the past year there has been a massive spike – with 44% of our entire growth in the immigrant population originating from just one country – Mexico – and 71% coming from Latin American overall.
If anything, it is clear that the liberal premise is antithetical to the reality – that the more we hand over the keys to immigration to a particular area, the more people will come through all available channels – both legal and illegal – to join their friends, families, and communities.
The Likely Resurgence of Illegal Immigration from Mexico
Camarota and Zeigler rightly concludes that “while the impact of illegal immigration is often the subject of intense national debate, the much larger flow of legal immigrants has seen almost no discussion, even though its impact on American society is much larger.”
However, there is another disturbing trend parsimoniously dealt with in this report that hints towards a new massive increase in illegal immigration both from Mexico and Central America over the past year. Apologists for open borders have long promoted the talking point that net migration from Mexico has gone down to zero since the Great Recession and that most of the new illegal immigration is only from Central America. It is now clear that this trend has completely reversed itself and it is incontrovertibly due, in part, to Obama’s policies and the national push for the Gang of 8 bill (promoted and cheered on by many presidential candidates) that sent the message to the world that if they come here now – either through the border or by overstaying a temporary visa – they are home free and will eventually reap the windfall of mass amnesty.
The presentation of the CIS immigration data by the inimitable Camarota is eye opening because it appears that the recent spike in immigration from Mexico is even more than indicated by the raw numbers counting green cards. The numbers that are typically cited throughout the web are 1 million immigrants overall per year and roughly 135,000-145,000 from Mexico alone – almost twice the second highest recipient country of U.S. green cards. These numbers come from the Department of Homeland Security, but the most recent year with full data is 2013.
Although these numbers are huge, the CIS report (using census data) reveals that there have been 1.7 million new immigrants over the past 12 months, 740,000 from Mexico alone – much higher than the 135,000 green cards granted to Mexican nationals the previous year (calendar year 2013). Camarota notes that the number of immigrants from Mexico grew 449,000 in just the first 6 months of 2015! How can this be?
Remember, the census numbers already account for the fact that a number of people have left or died (unlike the numbers from DHS that measure raw admissions and issuance of documents). Which means that if the net increase in immigration from Mexico was 740,000, the number of new arrivals could easily be 900,000-1,000,000. That trajectory appears to be growing even from last year based on the first half of 2015. Moreover, less than half of the 135,000 green cards for Mexican nationals (as well as the 1 million overall green cards) reflect new arrivals; they are adjustments of status for those already here on non-immigrant visas or other temporary legal categories.
Included in the survey are also student visas and work visas. For the most recent academic year, 14,779 student visas were granted to Mexican nationals. During fiscal year 2014, which already overlaps a few months with the year we are studying (July 2014-June 2015), roughly 140,000 H guest worker visas were given to Mexicans, the highest number on record. In totality, this should mean that if the number of immigrant and non-immigrant visas issued over the past 12 months held stable at the pretty consistent trend from the previous few years; roughly 215,000 new Mexican foreign nationals arrived in the country legally this past year.
How then does the census data indicate that there has been a 740,000 net increase in migration from Mexico in just 12 months, which would likely reflect a reality of up to 1 million new arrivals? There could have been a spike in more legal immigrants and guest workers (and we won’t know until DHS publishes the data in late 2016), but only within the margins because the existing trend is already close to the statutory caps.
Clearly, if the census data is anywhere close to being accurate, there has been a massive surge of illegal immigration from Mexico alone that has been covered up by the Administration and most media outlets. The complete suspension of enforcement and all of the sundry amnesties, particularly for relatives of the millions of Mexican American citizens and LPRs, has likely encouraged hundreds of thousands more to either cross the border or come here on tourist visas and disappear into the population. This seems to jive with reports of a new border surge this summer.
Of course, it’s hard to imagine that there were 600-800k illegal aliens from Mexico alone last year. As Camarota demonstrates in table 1 of his report, the margin of error in the CPS for Mexico is about ±200,000 (both the start date and end date), which could theoretically mean there are 400,000 fewer Mexican immigrants than indicated in the survey. Nonetheless, it’s very possible that upwards of 400,000-500,000 illegal aliens entered the country from Mexico.
Why this Matters
The reason this report is so important is that we have very little data from this administration that can be used to accurately measure the damage of his dismantlement of our immigration enforcement over the past two years. While we are painfully aware of the epidemic of 360,000 known criminal aliens roaming the streets, what is less evident is how many new illegal immigrants are arriving because of the public incentives that are being made to illegal aliens and their relatives.
The last year of full administrative data on legal immigration is 2013 and the last year of full data on illegal immigration is 2011. If there is a massive surge of illegal immigration – over and beyond the tidbits reported in the conservative media – we will not find out for quite some time.
At that point it will be too late to stop the flow and we will be entreated to the same sanctimonious arguments in favor of granting yet another wave of illegals rights that Americans enjoy. Armed with this report, it’s time for Congress to do some digging and add this as reason number 12 million to defund Obama’s amnesty, lest we be saddled with yet another endless wave of illegal immigration. (Re-posted with permission from the author, “New Report: Massive Immigration Surge From Mexico”, originally appeared HERE)
By Timothy M. Phelps. Arizona Sheriff Joseph Arpaio lost another round Friday in his long battle against the Obama administration over immigration.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled unanimously that Arpaio, whose Phoenix-area department has been aggressive in trying to deport immigrants in the country illegally, did not have standing to sue.
Arpaio had complained that the administration’s deferred-deportation program — allowing up to 5 million immigrants to stay in the country — would serve as a magnet for others to cross from Mexico into his jurisdiction in Maricopa County. He contended that those crossing the border illegally would stay in his area and commit crimes.
But in her opinion for a three-judge panel, Judge Nina Pillard, a controversial Obama appointee approved by the Senate only after a change of rules, said Arpaio’s contentions are “unduly speculative” . . .
“The court correctly recognized that the constitution does not permit federal courts to hear lawsuits that rest on baseless speculation,” said White House spokesman Eric Schultz. “We will continue to work toward resolving the legal challenges so that the administration can move forward with implementing all of the president’s commonsense immigration policies.” (Read more from “Sheriff Joe Arpaio Loses Another Round in Court in Immigration Fight” HERE)
By Ian Hanchett. Maricopa County, AZ Sheriff Joe Arpaio reacted to a federal appeals court throwing out his lawsuit against President Obama’s executive actions on immigration by vowing “we’re going to the Supreme Court” on Friday’s “Your World with Neil Cavuto” on the Fox News Channel.
Arpaio said, “we’re going to Supreme Court. We knew it was a tough battle in that appellate court down in Washington, DC, but we’re way ahead of the judge in south Texas, when all those governors joined, and I guess the judge put that on hold. So, we’re already in the appellate court, and now going to Supreme Court on this very important issue.” (Read more from this story HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-08-15 01:22:462015-08-15 01:22:46Sheriff Joe Arpaio Loses Another Round in Court in Immigration Fight
Texas Sheriffs, the Lieutenant Governor, and experts in immigration related issues met at the State Capitol on Wednesday to discuss the federal government’s creation of a sanctuary state for criminal aliens through its Priority Enforcement Program (PEP).
Jackson County Sheriff Aj (Andy) Louderback, immediate past president of the Sheriff’s Association of Texas, told Breitbart Texas that the federal government’s PEP program “has created a sanctuary state for criminal aliens because it has gutted the immigration system.”
A press conference was held on the crisis facing Texas that was created by the new immigration policies of the federal government. The sheriffs complained that aliens are being brought into the criminal justice system in Texas but are being released into the community because of the federal policies.
In the past, ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) could place a 48-hour hold on illegal immigrants when they were wanted on immigration related issues. The PEP program replaced the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Secure Communities plan and now that is no longer possible.
The policy was released by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson in November, 2014. In January, the program went into effect and Breitbart Texas Managing Director Brandon Darby exclusively reported leaked training documents detailing how the program would be implemented. Darby dubbed the program, “Catch and Release 2.0.” (Read more from “Texas Sheriffs Decry Federal Policies: Criminal Aliens Have Free Reins” HERE)
Kelly Osbourne probably thought she was raising a liberal point. Instead she raised a stink — and the libs were letting her have it.
The British-born boor — who missed out on inheriting the talent from either side of her parentage — tried to contribute her thoughts on America’s illegal immigration problem on “The View” Tuesday, and ended up causing a firestorm all her own when she implied the only thing Hispanic workers are good for is cleaning America’s commodes.
“If you kick every Latino out of this country,” she asked, “then who is going to be cleaning your toilet, Donald Trump?”
Did anyone expect Kelly Osbourne to say something brilliant? Was someone like "Watch this, Kelly is about to disprove String theory."?
It was meant as a jab at the billionaire Republican who’s made illegal immigration a signature issue. But it didn’t come out right at all. (Read more from “Kelly Osbourne’s Immigration Comment on The View Sends Shockwaves” HERE)
Here’s a question all liberal, open border politicians must answer as it relates to the refugee crisis: if wealthy Arab and Muslim countries are concerned about the security, fiscal, and cultural problems associated with admitting mass numbers of Syrian refugees, why should America be the guinea pig?
Texas Sheriffs, the Lieutenant Governor, and experts in immigration related issues met at the State Capitol on Wednesday to discuss the federal government’s creation of a sanctuary state for criminal aliens through its Priority Enforcement Program (PEP).