legal immigration

New High in U.S. Say Immigration Most Important Problem

Story Highlights

  • 23% mention immigration as most important problem, highest in Gallup trends
  • The government is the most commonly mentioned problem, at 26%
  • Most Americans still say immigration a good thing for the U.S.

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Americans' concern with immigration continues to be heightened, as 23% name it the most important problem facing the country. This is by one percentage point the highest Gallup has ever measured for the issue since it first began recording mentions of immigration in 1993.

Line graph. Americans’ mentions of immigration as the country’s most important problem reached a high of 23% in June.

The June 3-16 poll was conducted as the U.S. continues to grapple with how to handle a surge of Central American immigrants at the U.S.-Mexican border. Gallup has previously found spikes in mentions of immigration as the most important U.S. problem at other times when the immigration debate intensified, including:

  • 22% in July 2018 amid controversy over a U.S. policy to separate children and parents who were trying to enter the U.S. illegally
  • 17% in July 2014, when a wave of young immigrants from Central American countries crossed the U.S. border illegally
  • 19% in April 2006 as the Senate worked toward passage of a comprehensive immigration reform bill it later passed but ultimately was not considered by the House of Representatives

Mentions of immigration have been higher on average in 2019 than in any prior year. The 20% average to date compares with 14% in 2018, and no more than 10% in any other year.

Yet immigration has typically finished behind the government as the nation's top problem over the past three years, and did so again this month, when 26% of Americans named the government. Government has finished ahead of immigration in all but two months since February 2017 (July and November 2018). This included a record 35% naming the government in February.

Concern about the government is broadly distributed across the three major partisan groups, with 32% of Democrats and 23% of both Republicans and independents currently identifying it as the most important problem. In contrast, immigration mentions are far more common among Republicans (42%) than Democrats (7%). Twenty-one percent of independents name it.

One in Three Want Immigration Levels Decreased

Asked their preferences for U.S. immigration levels, 37% of Americans say it should be kept at its present level, while more say it should be decreased (35%) than increased (27%). The percentage wanting immigration reduced is higher than the average 30% holding this view in Gallup's two prior surveys, in January 2019 and July 2018. However, in the past, many more Americans have called for a reduction than do so now, including 41% in June 2014, 58% in October 2001 (after 9/11), and a record 65% in the mid-1990s during a surge of illegal immigration in California.

In recent years, there has been an uptick in the percentage who want immigration to the U.S. increased. Before 2012, the percentage never reached 20%, but it has been above that mark since, including a record 30% in January.

Line graph. Among Americans, 37% want immigration kept at current levels, 35% would prefer it decreased and 27% increased.

As their differences in perceptions of immigration as the most important problem would suggest, partisans have divergent views on U.S. immigration levels. A slim majority of Republicans, 54%, want them decreased, while 31% want them kept the same and 13% increased. Democrats are about equally likely to prefer increased immigration (43%) as to want current levels maintained (42%); just 13% want immigration cut. Independents' views essentially match those of all U.S. adults.

Public Mixed in Assessment of Immigration's Effects

Even as they acknowledge immigration as one of the nation's most pressing problems, Americans still view immigration positively in general, with 76% describing it as a good thing for the country today and 19% as a bad thing. Since Gallup first asked this question in 2001, no fewer than 52% have affirmed immigration's value, with the current year's figure the highest to date by one point.

Line graph. Three-quarters, 76%, of Americans say immigration is good for the country, 19% say it is bad for the U.S.

Notably, two-thirds of Americans who identify immigration as the most important problem still believe it is a good thing for the country.

Democrats (87%) are much more likely than Republicans (62%) to say immigration is a good thing, with 78% of independents holding that view.

Americans' assessments of the effect of immigration on six aspects of U.S. society are mixed. In two areas -- the economy and food, music, and the arts -- more believe immigration has made the situation better than made it worse. The public is divided as to immigration's effects on social and moral values and job opportunities for their family, but more evaluate immigration's effect on crime and taxes negatively than positively.

Americans' Views of Immigration's Impact Mixed
For each of the following areas, please say whether immigrants to the United States are making the situation in the country better or worse, or not having much effect. How about -- [RANDOM ORDER]?

 

Better

Worse

No effect

Net (% Better - % Worse)

 

%

%

%

pct. pts.

Food, music and the arts

The economy in general

Social and moral values

Job opportunities for you and your family

Taxes

The crime situation

Gallup, June 3-16, 2019
57 10 32 +47
43 31 25 +12
31 28 39 +3
19 25 56 -6
20 42 37 -22
7 42 50 -35
 

Americans' opinions on the impact immigration has on these aspects of society have shifted in a more positive direction over the past two decades. Specifically, the public is much more positive today about immigration's effect on the economy and job opportunities than they were in 2001, when Gallup first asked the question. While still negative overall today, Americans are less negative about immigration's effect on taxes and the crime situation than they were 18 years ago.

Probing further on immigration's impact on the economy, the poll asked Americans whether immigrants "mostly help the economy by providing low-cost labor" or "mostly hurt the economy by driving down wages for many Americans." For the first time, a majority of Americans say immigrants mostly help the economy, with 55% holding this view, compared with 37% who see immigrants as harming the economy. In 1993 and 2004 surveys, large majorities of Americans saw immigrants as detrimental to the economy.

Line graph. More than half, 55%, of Americans see immigrants as mostly helping the U.S. economy; 37% see them as hurting it.

Republicans disagree with Democrats and independents on the effect of immigration on the economy. Whereas 60% of Republicans see immigration as hurting the economy, 72% of Democrats and 58% of independents believe it helps.

Implications

At a time when Americans are more likely to name immigration as the most important problem facing the country than any in recent memory, they hold mixed views about it. They still see immigration as a good thing for the country, and more believe it benefits than harms the economy. About one-third want to see immigration levels reduced, but that is a lower proportion than in past surveys, including times when fewer Americans viewed immigration as a pressing U.S. problem.

The issue continues to challenge U.S. lawmakers, as Congress and Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump have been unable to enact meaningful legislation to stem the flow of illegal immigrants to the country and develop a plan for immigrants living in the U.S. illegally. As such, the issue promises to remain a major one in the coming presidential election.

View complete question responses and trends.

Learn more about how the Gallup Poll Social Series works.

 

Alert on HB 2932, to provide privacy protection for criminal aliens

Alert date: 
2019-05-13
Alert body: 

HB 2932 is a bill protecting illegal aliens charged with crimes.  It “prohibits courts from inquiring into defendant's immigration status or requiring defendant to disclose defendant's immigration status at time of plea or at any other time during criminal proceeding.  Requires court to allow defendant, upon request, additional time for plea decision after informing defendant about possible adverse immigration consequences of plea. Declares emergency, effective on passage.”

This bill, which legitimizes illegal immigration, opening our borders to the world without limit, is being sped through the legislature now.  A hearing was held by the House Judiciary Committee on March 18, and several OFIR members spoke against it or sent written testimony to the Committee.  But the Committee passed the bill, as did, on April 16, the full House.

The Senate Judiciary Committee held a Hearing on April 25 and will hold a Work Session to vote on the bill on May 13This Work Session is the last chance we have to voice objections to the bill, which is dangerous because it shelters criminal illegal aliens and encourages the acceptance of illegal immigration generally, threatening the sovereignty of our country.

If you can send a written statement of opposition to the Senate Judiciary Committee, please do.

HOW TO EMAIL A STATEMENT TO THE COMMITTEE

Visit the website of the Senate Judiciary Committee at https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Committees/SJUD/Overview

Scroll down to near the bottom of the page and see a line starting with “To Submit Testimony.” There is a link there to use for sending your statement directly to the Committee.

OR you can use this email address displayed at top of the PDF version of the Agenda pagesjud.exhibits@oregonlegislature.gov

Remember that your statement is considered testimony and will be part of the official legislative history of the bill, viewable online by anyone.  You need only to give your name and your county in your statement.  It’s recommended that individuals not include their full addresses.

In the email subject line, please identify the bill number (HB 2932), the name of the committee (Senate Judiciary Committee) holding the meeting, and the date of meeting (May 13).  The statement must arrive before meeting time, 8:30 a.m, May 13.

THEY ASK THAT YOU SEND YOUR STATEMENT IN PDF FORMAT IF POSSIBLE, but that it is not a requirement.

You can view statements previously sent on HB 2932 here.

HB 2932, sanctuary for criminal aliens

Alert date: 
2019-03-22
Alert body: 

A hearing on HB 2932 was held on Monday, March 18, by the House Judiciary Committee.  Several OFIR Board members attended and testified in opposition, submitting written testimony also.

OFIR has posted the testimonies at:  http://www.oregonir.org/immigration-topics/sanctuary-bill-2019-legislature.

A videotape of the Hearing can be viewed at: http://oregon.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?clip_id=26213

We encourage citizens to express their views of this bill to their state Representatives.  To identify your state Representative and get phone number/email address, click here:  https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/FindYourLegislator/leg-districts.html.  After entering your address in the format requested, see the address card and click the tab labelled House.

Democrats Winning 90% Congressional Districts with Large Foreign-Born Populations

Mass legal immigration is driving Democrats towards full electoral dominance, with left-wing politicians winning nearly 90 percent of congressional districts with larger than average foreign-born populations, analysis finds.

The Atlantic senior editor Ronald Brownstein analyzed Census Bureau statistics for the 2018 midterm elections, finding that the country’s admission of more than a million legal immigrants every year is set to hand over electoral dominance to House and Senate Democrats.

Among Brownstein’s findings is that nearly 90 percent of House congressional districts with a foreign-born population above the national average were won by Democrats. This concludes that every congressional district with a foreign-born population exceeding 14 percent had a 90 percent chance of being controlled by Democrats and only a ten percent chance of electing a Republican.

“After the 2018 result, Democrats now control more than 80 percent of the House seats in which minorities exceed their national share of the population, and nearly 90 percent of the seats with more immigrants than average, according to Census Bureau figures,” Brownstein writes.

Likewise, less than one-in-ten House Republicans represent a congressional district that has a foreign-born population larger than 14 percent.

It is not just congressional districts that are being driven towards Democrats through mass legal immigration. Entire states have been transformed, not only demographically, but electorally by the country’s current legal immigration levels....

Brownstein expects Democrats to largely target the remaining Senate Republicans in states with large foreign-born populations in the 2020 elections.

“Several of the remaining Republican Senate seats in that grouping (including Colorado, Arizona, Georgia, and perhaps Texas) will be among the top Democratic targets next year,” Brownstein writes.

Even the New York Times admits that continued legal immigration at its current rate of importing more than 1.2 million residents a year will transform the U.S. towards electoral dominance for Democrats.

This is most recently evident in Orange County, California — once a Republican stronghold — that has become entirely controlled by Democrats. The dominance of Democrats in Orange County has coincided with the county’s booming foreign-born population (Screenshot via the New York Times)...

Currently, the U.S. admits more than a million legal immigrants annually, with the vast majority deriving from chain migration, whereby newly naturalized citizens can bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives to the country. In 2017, the foreign-born population reached a record high of 44.5 million.

The U.S. is on track to import about 15 million new foreign-born voters in the next two decades should current legal immigration levels continue. Those 15 million new foreign-born voters include about eight million who will arrive in the country through chain migration.

University of Maryland, College Park researcher James Gimpel has found in recent years that more immigrants to the U.S. inevitably means more Democrat voters and thus, increasing electoral victories for the Democrat Party.

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.

 

OFIR leader speaks to Republican Women

“Every nation has the right to set immigration policy,” Jim Ludwick declared as he began an address to the Yamhill County Republican Women’s Club last week. “Every citizen has the right to advocate” for what he considers the right policy.

Those aren’t just words to Ludwick, president of the state’s largest immigration reform group.

The McMinnville resident believes too many immigrants are coming into the U.S., and far too many of those are doing so illegally. The 2010 Census showed that U.S. population grew by 27 million in 10 years. That much growth, he said, “is unsustainable and a terrible burden for our children and grandchildren.”

He wants to stop illegal immigration entirely and limit legal arrivals to 230,000 per year — the average number that came in annually during the period in which “we grew into the strongest nation,” he said.

“We’re got to do something about the immigration issue,” he repeated, saying he’s an “advocate for reforms to protect our citizens.”

To achieve those goals, Ludwick founded Oregonians for Immigration Reform, or OFIR, in 2000. 

Ludwick is a longtime McMinnville resident. He helped found the Mac Club to support McMinnville High School athletics, and served as president of Friends of Yamhill County, a land use group.

He graduated from Long Beach State College in 1964.

“I grew up in Southern California. It was diverse, but no one had a hyphenated name, like African-American or Italian-American,” he said. He and his neighbors were simply “Americans,” he said.

He said he isn’t a hater or a racist. He said he and other OFIR members simply want to protect the country from people who shouldn’t be here.

“What part of ‘illegal’ don’t they understand?” he asked.

Oregonians for Immigration Reform has sponsored several initiatives aimed at cracking down on illegal immigration.

In 2018, it sponsored Measure 105, which would have ended Oregon’s sanctuary laws. Voters turned it down, 64.5 percent no to 36.5 percent yes.

In 2014, OFIR led a successful effort to defeat Measure 88, which would have allowed illegal immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses.

OFIR has been labeled “anti-immigrant” by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a nationwide group that says it monitors and exposes “hate groups and other extremists.”

As a result of the label, Ludwick, who calls the SPLC listing “arbitrary” and without evidence, has received numerous calls and letters disagreeing with the organization’s efforts and threatening him personally, as well.

While talking about OFIR to the Yamhill County Republican Women, Ludwick displayed a map of the U.S. It was mostly red, which he said indicated counties that voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election. It included several spots of blue, mostly in densely populated areas such as Los Angeles and New York, indicating Hillary Clinton voters.

The denser the population, he said, the more residents feel they need laws to protect them and, therefore, the more willing they are to “turn their lives over to central government.”

As immigration causes population to grow, he said, the more likely voters will be to vote for the type of government advocated by “Democrats, Socialists and Marxists.” He later added “Communists” to the list.

Those groups, in other words, want to bring in more immigrants. If Republicans don’t stand up for their beliefs, “lots of those Trump counties will change” in the next election, he said.

Ludwick said he doesn’t believe immigration proponents who claim that immigrants commit fewer crimes than U.S. citizens. Rather, he said, evidence disputes that.

For instance, he said, the percentage of illegal immigrants in the Oregon State Prison is much higher than the percentage of legal residents who are locked up.

He claimed 137 illegal aliens are serving time for murder and 179 for rape. Illegal immigrants incarcerated for all crimes, he said, represent 18 percent of the prison’s population, but only 4 percent of the state population.

OFIR’s website cites a recent report stating as of Jan. 1, 6.15 percent of total Oregon Department of Corrections inmates have ICE detainers, denoting illegal immigrant status. Calls for further information requested from the DOC were not returned by press time.

Ludwick noted a 2008 Yamhill County case in which a 31-year-old illegal immigrant, Gustavo Mercado-Murillo, received 75 years in prison for abusing five children younger than 10.

Incarcerating this man is costing taxpayers much more than the average of $30,000 per year, Ludwick said, since the inmate, now 42, is on kidney dialysis. Taxpayers are paying for his treatment, and for the care of his wife and four children, too, he said.

“The cost just doesn’t end,” he said.

Ludwick also mentioned a Multnomah County judge who released illegal aliens from court so they wouldn’t be picked up by immigration agents. He filed a complaint, but the judge went unpunished.

“I bet every illegal hopes she’ll be the judge” for his or her case, he said.

Closer to home, Ludwick said, “the McMinnville police chief doesn’t want illegals to be afraid to report crimes, so he won’t turn them over to ICE.” He countered, “I don’t want people here who won’t report crimes.”

Ludwick said OFIR has sponsored speakers like a border patrol agent who served during the Obama administration. Back then, the speaker told OFIR members, it was a “catch and release” program where parents who tried to cross illegally were issued tickets and sent south.

But agents discovered that the same children kept showing up with different adults. “They were renting out little girls to accompany drug or human smugglers,” Ludwick said.

Illegal immigrants also raise the cost of education, Ludwick said. He said each undocumented student costs McMinnville High School $15,000, plus another $3,500 if the student is enrolled in English Language Learner programs.

Actually, the McMinnville School District receives state funding in the amount of $8,060 per student in every grade, according to Susan Escure, director of finances for the district. Citizenship makes no difference in the per-student allotment.

For each student in the ELL program, the district receives an additional $3,931, an amount determined by subtracting the transportation funding from the total per-student amount, then multiplying by one-half. That means the district receives a total of $11,991 for each student who is still learning English to offset the cost of the ELL program.

How "Illegal Immigrant" Amnesty Could Destroy American Liberty

by Trevor Loudon

There is no issue that will more decisively spell the end of American liberty than that of amnesty for this country's millions of illegal aliens.

Illegal immigration and the societal changes it will bring with it are more than an economic issue, a public health issue, a law enforcement issue, or even a national security problem—it is an existential threat to thee survival of the United States as a constitutional republic.
 
It comes down to simple math.
 
For years, the generally accepted estimate of illegal aliens living in the United States has been around 11 million.
A study released by MIT's Mohammad Fazel-Zarandi, a senior lecturer in the operations research and statistics group, and his colleagues, Edward Kaplan and Jonathan Feinstein, both from Yale School of Management, in September 2018 gave cause to re-visit that figure.
According to MIT's Sloan School: The research found that the number of undocumented immigrants living in the country is about 22.1 million, nearly twice the most prominent current estimate of 11.3 million. Even using extremely conservative parameters, the study estimates a population of 16.7 million undocumented immigrants, nearly 50 percent higher than the widely accepted population figure.
 
If given citizenship and voting rights (which Hillary Clinton promised to initiate within a hundred days of taking office), 11 to 22 million eventual new voters will have a huge impact on future U.S. elections.
This fact is not lost on the left-wing activists in the United States, who seek to use the illegal alien population to secure a "permanent progressive majority" for the Democratic Party and their allies.

More Voters

Communist Party USA (CPUSA) leader Emile Schepers wrote a paper on immigration amnesty for the party's 2014 national Convention in Chicago.
 
"For decades, the CPUSA has been involved in the struggle for the rights of immigrant workers and their families. … A central focus has been gaining legal rights for the 11 million undocumented," Schepers wrote.
"We call for progressive legislation which legalizes as many people as possible as quickly as possible. … We are for ease of access too U.S. citizenship."
 
Former Illinois Congressman Luis Gutierrez was, for more than 20 years—the main champion of illegal alien amnestty in the House of Representatives. He is a former leader of the Marxists' Leninist Puerto Rican Socialist Party (PRSP) and an ally of both the United States largest Marxist organization—the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)—and the pro-China League of Revolutionaary Struggle (LRS).
In July 2015, Rep. Gutierrez addressed the House of Representatives on the power of the Latino vote and the political left.
 
"If millions of people naturalize, become citizens, and if we add to that the million Latino citizens who this year will turn 18, plus all our allies in the African-American community, LGBT voters and younger voters, environmental voters, women voters, Asian voters, union voters … coonstitute a majority of Americans. Together, we are the New American Coalition that will dominate politics for decades to come."
 
Gutierrez's good friend, former SEIU International Executive Vice President Eliseo Medina, is the undisputed leader of the “amnesty” movement in this country. Medina is a long-time member of the DSA, a CPUSA ally, and was an informal adviser to former President Barack Obama on immigration and amnesty issues.
At the America's Future Now! conference in Washington, D.C. on June 2, 2009, Medina addressed "progressive" attendees on the need for urgent illegal alien amnesty.
Speaking of Latino voters, Medina said: "When they [Latinos] voted in November, they voted overwhelmingly for progressive candidates. Barack Obama got two out of every three voters that showed up. …
 
"If we are to expand this electorate to win, the progressive community needs to solidly be on the side of immigrants. That we'll solidify and expand the progressive coalition for the future. …
[If] we reform the immigration laws, it puts 12 million people on the path to citizenship and eventually voters. Can you imagine if we have, even the same ratio, two out of three?
"If we have 8 million new voters who care about …. and willl be voting. We will be creating a governing coalition for the long term, not just for an election cycle."
Medina exhibits no compassion for the plight of illegal aliens or sympathy for families being torn asunder. Medina does not speak of a "nation of immigrants"or the "American Dream."
 
This is all about hard numbers and raw power.  It's very clear that the left wants illegal immigrant amnesty for one reason only—votes.

One-Party State

The 2012 Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney lost his election by around 2.5 million votes. President Donald Trump actually lost the popular vote by around 3 million ballots. He won by about 200,000 votes through the Electoral College. Thank God for the wisdom of the Founding Fathers who gave America a system to temper the dangers of raw "majority rule" and political dominance by large population centers and ethnic or religious blocs.
 
Many states with high illegal alien populations, such as Arizona, Georgia, Florida, and North Carolina are only marginally inside the Republican camp. Illegal alien amnesty would almost certainly send those states permanently "blue."  Virginia—once "red"”would also be lost for the Republicans. Even Republican-stronghold Texas is very vulnerable. Losing only one or two of these states would doom the Republican Party to minority party status, and eventual oblivion.
 
How can the Republicans hope to counter 10 to 20 million new Democrat voters, possibly as soon as the 2022 election cycle?
Today's Democratic Party is no longer the party of Harry Truman or John F. Kennedy. It is now a party of the far-left. At least 30 percent of the current Democratic senators and congressmembers have ties to the CPUSA, DSA, Freedom Road Socialist Organization, Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, or other revolutionary organizations. Many congressmembers also have ties to China, Iran, Venezuela, and especially Cuba.
Illegal alien amnesty would give the Democrats permanent control of the United States. This means a "one-party state" soon to be dominated by the far left. Think California nationwide, with no hope of a turnaround.
 
No political party should ever be given permanent unchallenged power.
As British history statesman Lord Acton famously said: "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." "Amnesty" would give the far left in the United States the absolute power they have so long craved.
Illegal alien amnesty is the left's road to the American "one-party state." For the sake of our children and grand-children, for the sake of the remaining free world, this cannot be allowed to happen. It must be fought with every fiber of our being by those who love liberty.
 
America, you must say no to amnesty.
 
Trevor Loudon is an author, filmmaker and public speaker from New Zealand. For more than 30 years, he has researched radical left, Marxist and terrorist movements and their covert influence on mainstream politics.

Read the original article.

Whatever happened to the “Hire American” promise?

Trump supporters and others were shocked to hear Pres. Trump ad lib, in the State of the Union address, his wish to bring in immigrants in record-breaking numbers.  Worse, he repeated the idea again the next day!

It seems that along with bringing American-run businesses back to the U.S., employers want to continue using foreign workers instead of U.S. citizen workers, and they’re lining up the President to assure they can keep on using cheap foreign labor in the U.S. at the expense of U.S. citizens.

Abuses of the H-1 visa program have been going on for many years, especially in the computer technology field, but also in other fields.

Here’s a good summary of the current situation: 

Do we really need so many foreign tech workers?

By Froma Harrop, syndicated columnist, Feb. 7, 2019

Americans don't usually think of technical professionals as "guest workers," yet at any one time, there are more than a half-million foreigners holding tech jobs in the U.S. They are here thanks to the H-1B visa program. H-1B, so the official spiel goes, addresses an alleged shortage of "highly skilled" Americans to fill jobs "requiring specialized knowledge."

Growing evidence, however, points to companies' using the program to replace perfectly qualified American workers with cheaper ones from elsewhere. A new report published by the Atlantic Council documents the abuses. The authors are Ron Hira, a political scientist at Howard University, and Bharath Gopalaswamy, director of the Atlantic Council's South Asia Center.

Among their criticisms:

—Virtually any white-collar job can be taken by an H-1B visa holder. About 70 percent of them are held not by what we consider tech workers but by teachers, accountants and salespeople, among others.

(Denver Public Schools employs teachers on H-1B visas. During a strike, the district actually threatened to report participating foreigners to immigration authorities. It later apologized.)

"By every objective measure," Hira and Gopalaswamy write, "most H-1B workers have no more than ordinary skills, skills that are abundantly available in the U.S. labor market."

U.S. colleges graduate 50 percent more students in engineering and in computer and information science than are hired in those fields every year, according to a study by the Economic Policy Institute.

—Employers don't have to show they have a labor shortage to apply. They don't even have to try recruiting an American to fill the job.

Cutting labor costs is clearly the paramount "need." In Silicon Valley, computer systems analysts make on average just over $116,000 a year. But companies can hire H-1B workers at a lower skill level, paying them only about $77,000 a year to do the same work, the report says.

And it's not unheard-of for companies to ask American workers to train the H-1B workers taking their jobs. "60 Minutes" featured Robert Harrison, a senior telecom engineer at the University of California, San Francisco Medical Center. Asked whether training his replacement felt like digging his own grave, Harrison responded:

"It feels worse than that. It feels like not only am I digging the grave but I'm getting ready to stab myself in the gut and fall into the grave."

Apparently, the argument that "tech jobs need filling" has, in many cases, oozed to "we want cheaper foreigners." The H-1B program demands a major overhaul.

Read the entire article at:  https://www.jacksonsun.com/story/opinion/2019/02/07/do-we-really-need-so-many-foreign-tech-workers/2801047002/

Trump Administration Aims to Sharply Restrict New Green Cards for Those on Public Aid

WASHINGTON — Trump administration officials announced Saturday that immigrants who legally use public benefits like food assistance and Section 8 housing vouchers could be denied green cards under new rules aimed at keeping out people the administration deems a drain on the country.

The move could force millions of poor immigrants who rely on public assistance for food and shelter to make a difficult choice between accepting financial help and seeking a green card to live and work legally in the United States.

Older immigrants, many of whom get low-cost prescription drugs through the Medicare Part D program, could also be forced to stop participating...

The move is not intended to affect most immigrants who have already been granted green cards, but advocates have said they fear that those with legal resident status will stop using public benefits to protect their status. The regulation, which the administration said would affect about 382,000 people a year, is the latest in a series of aggressive crackdowns by President Trump and his hard-line aides on legal and illegal immigration.

Federal law has always required those seeking green cards to prove they will not be a burden and has taken into consideration the acceptance of cash benefits. But the government has never before considered the use of other public benefits, like assistance for food.

Now, the new regulation — announced on the Department of Homeland Security website — will require that immigration caseworkers consider the use of public benefits to be “heavily weighed negative factors” for those who are applying to remain legally in the country on a permanent basis. Those who are deemed likely to become dependent on government assistance will probably be denied.

The rule would affect people seeking to immigrate to the United States permanently and others who are in the country on temporary visas — including students and workers — who seek to stay permanently...

In a news release, the Department of Homeland Security said the new rule would “ensure that those seeking to enter and remain in the United States either temporarily or permanently can support themselves financially and will not be reliant on public benefits.”...

Pro-immigrant activists predict that poor immigrants will immediately begin withdrawing from public assistance programs...

“This is an attack on immigrant families and an attempt to make our immigration system a pay-to-play system where only the wealthy need apply,” said Jackie Vimo, a policy analyst with the National Immigration Law Center...

Stephen Miller, the president’s top immigration adviser, has long believed that being tough on immigrants is a winning tactic for Republican candidates...

But the breadth of the effect on immigrants could also energize liberal voters to support Democratic candidates. In New York, for example, city officials estimated that under an earlier draft of the regulation, which was leaked to the news media, nearly one million people could be hurt.

They said the children of immigrants who are in the United States legally could be the most vulnerable. Indeed, immigrant parents who work low-wage jobs and rely on assistance may need to remove their children from the programs to keep their families together in the United States. Unauthorized immigrants are ineligible for nearly all public benefits.

Trump administration officials say the rule is intended to promote fiscal responsibility.

“Self-sufficiency has been a basic principle of United States immigration law since this country’s earliest immigration statutes,” the proposal says. It remains United States policy that “the availability of public benefits not constitute an incentive for immigration to the United States.” (emphasis added)

The government has traditionally considered someone who relies on government cash assistance for more than half of his or her income a public charge. Now, however, officials will take into account whether an individual or a family has received any of an assortment of noncash public benefits, such as aid from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps; the Section 8 program, which provides housing assistance; or the Medicare prescription drug program for older adults.

“This is long overdue,” said Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, whose research supports decreased immigration. “This country has defined public charge in a fictional way in order to facilitate high levels of low-skilled immigration. But this is simply a 21st-century definition of what public charge is.”

Officials said that the new rule did not apply to refugees or asylum seekers who enter the country, or to legal immigrants who serve in the military. Cash or other assistance given to the immigrant victims of natural disasters would not be counted against them.

Critics of the new rule argue that it deviates from longstanding precedent and from Congress’s original intent for the public-charge statute...

Nearly 20 million children in immigrant families could be affected by the policy changes, according to a report by the Kaiser Family Foundation that examined a draft of the new rule that was even broader than the one announced on Saturday. Almost nine in 10 of those children are United States citizens.

“The proposal is clearly intended to deny basic supports like food, health care and housing to lawfully present immigrants and their families — including millions of children and U.S. citizens — who pay taxes, work, go to school and contribute to our country’s economy,” Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington wrote in April in a letter to Mick Mulvaney, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, the agency that reviews proposed rules before they are published. The mayor of Seattle wrote a similar letter expressing concerns...

“It’s a bit like the creation of a castelike system,” Mr. Fremstad said. “Unless you’ve had an ‘American dream’ going for you in your home country, you’re going to have a hard time earning it here. It’s really screening those people.”

Mr. Krikorian does not contest that view.

“This isn’t a moral issue,” he said. “A Honduran with a sixth-grade education level isn’t morally flawed, but he works three jobs and still can’t feed his family. Immigrants with low levels of skill are a mismatch for a modern society like ours.”

The complex web of technicalities surrounding the new rule are difficult to understand, said Charles Wheeler, a legal expert at the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, so the number of immigrants who withdraw from programs could exceed even the number who are subject to the rule.

 

Big swindle on U.S. workers

The “Optional Practical Training” program -- what a benign-sounding name for a program that has devastating consequences for job-hungry citizens!

“OPT” is a program that’s legal, thanks to colluding bureaucrats and ignorant or corrupt elected officials.  It gives employers the legal right to hire foreign workers instead of citizens for mostly computer-related jobs, and not only gives employers the right, it incentivizes them to do so by excusing them from paying the Social Security taxes they would have to pay if they hired a citizen for the same job.

Then business and politically-correct media fudge the truth about the program, keeping the public in the dark about it.

David North, of the Center for Immigration Studies, exposes the Wall Street Journal and other media in his blog:  Wall Street Journal Describes Foreign 'Student' Work Program, but Omits $2 Billion Taxpayer Subsidy.

“There's a government program that rewards American employers for not hiring American college grads — for hiring foreign alumni instead — by draining about $2 billion a year from the government trust funds for the elderly (Medicare and Social Security) to pay those employers.

“It is the Optional Practical Training program.”

Read the rest of the blog here.

In a detailed history of how this program developed, John Miano, of CIS and co-author of the book, Sold Out, writes:

“OPT is an example of the administrative state run amok. Instead of law coming from Congress, we have law coming from bureaucrats working hand-in-hand with lobbyists. OPT also illustrates the slippery-slope problem of regulation. Work on student visas started innocently as an integral part of a course of study to give foreign students an experience not available in their home country, but eventually was transformed into a full-blown guestworker program whose stated purpose is to provide labor to American business.

“Congress's definition of student visa status cannot possibly encompass aliens who are either working full-time or are unemployed years after they have graduated.”

“The question now is whether the courts will ever make a decision on OPT or whether the Trump administration will realize that OPT is an unlawful program that should be terminated.”

See the history at: https://cis.org/Report/History-Optional-Practical-Training-Guestworker-Program

Dick Durbin: It's unlikely we'll reach a DACA deal, but 'I don't see a government shutdown coming'

Sen. Dick Durbin said Sunday senators are unlikely to reach an immigration deal before government funding expires later this week, and there won’t be another partial government shutdown over the issue.

“There is not likely to be a DACA deal, though we're working every single day on telephone calls and person to person to try to reach this bipartisan agreement,” said Durbin, D-Ill., the second-ranked Democrat, in an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union." "I don't see a government shutdown coming.”

Durbin said he is encouraged about negotiations occurring between moderate Democrats and Republicans...
 
Trump announced last year that he would end the DACA program, and he gave Congress until March 5 to address the status of the immigrants, known as “Dreamers.”
 
Durbin said lawmakers are unlikely to reach a deal before Feb. 8...

Parts of the government temporarily shut down last month...

The government shutdown ended when Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, of New York, said he received a promise from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., to allow debate and a vote on an immigration bill.

“We're making real progress,” Durbin said. “I want to salute the moderates in both the Republicans' and Democratic caucuses in the Senate. I do see a promise by Sen. McConnell to finally bring this critical issue that effects the lives of hundreds of thousands of people in America, finally bringing it to a full debate in the Senate. That's what we were looking for when there was a shutdown. We have achieved that goal. We're moving forward.”

The White House has said President Trump won’t sign an immigration bill unless it also funds a border wall and changes other parts of the immigration system, such as ending the visa lottery program and limiting family-based immigration.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - legal immigration