Should citizens feel reassured to learn that unmanned surveillance planes are now keeping watch over hundreds of miles of America’s southern perimeter? Or is the automation a signal that fewer humans will be doing the job of the Border Patrol in the near future?
A curious part of Obama’s ten-point executive amnesty scheme is a pay raise for Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, to “increase morale.” (Apparently Obama has a sense of humor about destroying America.) Of course, if the automation of border surveillance reduces the number of human officers, then a pay raise can be easily budgeted with no extra dollars.
The U.S. government now patrols nearly half the Mexican border by drones alone in a largely unheralded shift to control desolate stretches where there are no agents, camera towers, ground sensors or fences, and it plans to expand the strategy to the Canadian border.
It represents a significant departure from a decades-old approach that emphasizes boots on the ground and fences. Since 2000, the number of Border Patrol agents on the 1,954-mile border more than doubled to surpass 18,000 and fencing multiplied nine times to 700 miles.
Under the new approach, Predator Bs sweep remote mountains, canyons and rivers with a high-resolution video camera and return within three days for another video in the same spot, according to two officials with direct knowledge of the effort on condition of anonymity because details have not been made public.
The two videos are then overlaid for analysts who use sophisticated software to identify tiny changes — perhaps the tracks of a farmer or cows, perhaps those of immigrants who entered the country illegally or a drug-laden Hummer, they said.
About 92 percent of drone missions have shown no change in terrain, but the others raised enough questions to dispatch agents to determine if someone got away, sometimes by helicopter because the area is so remote. The agents look for any sign of human activity — footprints, broken twigs, trash.
About 4 percent of missions have been false alarms, like tracks of livestock or farmers, and about 2 percent are inconclusive. The remaining 2 percent offer evidence of illegal crossings from Mexico, which typically results in ground sensors being planted for closer monitoring.
The government has operated about 10,000 drone flights under the strategy, known internally as “change detection,” since it began in March 2013. The flights currently cover about 900 miles, much of it in Texas, and are expected to expand to the Canadian border by the end of 2015. Continue reading this article
Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Chicago) has been an enthusiastic amnesty cheerleader for a long time. He appeared on MSNBC on Thursday and responded to Joe Scarborough’s question about what would be the “sensible middle” on Obama’s unconstitutional amnesty (aka the work permit holy grail) for millions of foreign lawbreakers:
GUTIERREZ: The President should act in a bold manner, in a generous manner, and he should act quickly and swiftly. I’ve always said the blessings of Thanksgiving should be bountiful this year for millions of immigrants who have been waiting for the Congress to act.
Like all liberals, Gutierrez is generous with things that don’t belong to him, like other people’s jobs. The Thanksgiving mention is a swell sicko touch, given the continuing high level of unemployment among Americans and the fact that many new jobs tend to go to foreigners because they work cheap. (See CIS’ June report, All Employment Growth Since 2000 Went to Immigrants.)
Below, Marxist foreign lawbreakers demand amnesty in Spanish.
As an example of the jobless recovery, on Thursday the Wall Street Journal had a front-page story about the growing number of Americans who struggle with getting by on part-time jobs because they can’t find full-time work. There are various reasons for the dismal job growth, including increased regulation, ObamaCare and automation, but whatever the cause, America certainly doesn’t need millions of illegal aliens instantly transformed into legal workers to compete with citizens.
Economists Puzzle Over Trend’s Roots—Cyclical or Structural—as 7 Million Remain Stuck in Jobs They Don’t Want
Nearly 7 million Americans are stuck in part-time jobs that they don’t want.
The unemployment rate has fallen sharply over the past year, but that improvement is masking a still-bleak picture for millions of workers who say they can’t find full-time jobs.
Martina Morgan is deciding which bills to skip after her hours fell at Ikea in Renton, Wash. Sandra Sok says she’s been unable to consistently get full-time hours after she transferred to a Wal-Mart in Arizona from one in Colorado.
In Chicago, Jessica Davis is frustrated by her schedule dwindling to 23 hours a week at a McDonald’s even though her location has been hiring. “How can you not get people more hours but you hire more employees?” the 26-year-old Ms. Davis said.
The situation of these so-called involuntary part-time workers—those who would prefer to work more than 34 hours a week—has economists puzzling over whether a higher level of part-time employment might be a permanent legacy of the great recession. If so, it could force more workers to choose between underemployment or working multiple jobs to make ends meet, leading to less income growth and weaker discretionary spending.
Employers added some 3.3 million full-time workers over the past year, but the number of full-time workers in the U.S. is still around 2 million shy of the level before the recession began in 2007. Meanwhile, the ranks of workers who are part time for economic reasons has fallen by 740,000 this year to around 4.5% of the civilian workforce. That is down from a high of 5.9% in 2010 but remains well above the 2.7% average in the decade preceding the recession.
“There’s just less full-time jobs available than there used to be,” said Michelle Girard, chief economist at RBS Securities Inc. Continue reading this article
Does Adolf Balbuena, pictured below, look 18 or does he look considerably older?
As a result of the young man being considered a minor, he is being treated differently for running down and killing a child in Porterville, California, with the age mentioned offhandedly in the video report below. But he has no drivers license, so how can authorities know his true age?
TRACE GALLEGER: Balbuena just turned 18 years old, so any criminal record in the past is sealed. But critics note the Obama administration has cut back enforcement of immigration laws against illegal immigrants with DUI convictions or identity theft convictions. A customs and immigration attorney has even filed a discrimination lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security. In it she alleges that she and her colleagues were told to use prosecutorial discretion when it comes to criminal aliens who had old DUI convictions. She says when she challenged her boss about an alien with a criminal record, she was told to quote, let it go.
An illegal immigrant driving drunk and without a license crashed through a fence Sunday, hitting and killing a 3-year-old girl as she was waiting in line for ice cream in Porterville, California.
Adolf Balbuena, 18, mowed down the toddler, Angeles Moreno, as she and several others, including an 8-year-old boy, were waiting line at an ice cream truck.
After hitting Moreno, Balbuena backed up and drove away. He was arrested at his home around an hour later, the Fresno Bee reported.
Initial reports did not state Balbuena’s immigration status, but KMPH reported on Tuesday that he is an illegal immigrant from Mexico. Though the local district attorney is handling the case, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will ultimately decide whether he will be tried in the U.S. or deported back to Mexico, the TV station reported. [. . .]
Following is a story about the lawsuit mentioned above:
The Obama administration told federal immigration lawyers to release illegal immigrants with “old” drunken-driving convictions and those found guilty of stealing other people’s identities, according to a lawsuit filed by one of the lawyers at the center of the operation.
Patricia M. Vroom, a top attorney for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Arizona, filed a 67-page discrimination complaint that details repeated battles with agency higher-ups who told her to close cases and not deport people whom President Obama deemed low-priority.
Federal officials were particularly dismissive of identity theft convictions from Arizona, arguing that the state’s laws were too strict and stealing an ID to get a job wasn’t a serious enough offense to get kicked out of the country.
“This was a very significant development, as generally, criminal aliens, particularly convicted felons, are, under the [prosecutorial discretion] memos, ‘priority’ cases that should be aggressively pursued,” Ms. Vroom said in her complaint.
But she said her superiors deemed the identity theft felons low-level offenders “since the typical alien defendant convicted under these provisions of Arizona criminal law had simply been using a fake I.D. to get and keep employment.”
Homeland Security officials said the department, of which ICE is a part, was looking over the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Arizona.
“We are reviewing the allegations in the complaint, which largely refer to events from 2012 and 2013 concerning workplace environment and various personnel decisions taken by key officials, some of whom have since left the department,” spokeswoman Marsha Catron said.
“The leadership of both [the Department of Homeland Security] and ICE take these allegations seriously and, when founded, will always take the appropriate disciplinary action,” she said.
Ms. Vroom, who filed the complaint Nov. 6, declined to comment through her attorney.
In her complaint, she detailed a September conversation in which top ICE lawyers told staff to ignore “old” DUI convictions if immigrants had enough “equities,” such as ties to the community or family responsibilities in the U.S., that would outweigh their criminal behavior.
ICE officials and Mr. Obama have defended their prosecutorial discretion, saying they have enough resources to deport only about 400,000 immigrants a year, so it makes sense to go after the most serious criminals, recent border crossers and those who have violated immigration laws repeatedly.
“We’re misallocating resources. We’re deporting people that shouldn’t be deported. We’re not deporting folks that are dangerous and need to be deported,” Mr. Obama said Sunday on the CBS program “Face the Nation.”
Mr. Obama has promised to expand his nondeportation policies by the end of the year, potentially granting tentative legal status and work permits to millions of illegal immigrants.
Deportations, though, have dropped by about 20 percent over the past two years, suggesting the administration is having trouble finding enough cases that meet its definition of “high priority.”
The recent guilty verdict in the trial of a convicted terrorist bomber for immigration fraud is another reminder of how inept the feds are at barring the entrance of dangerous people into America. Numerous war criminals have been admitted to this country because of plain sloppy investigation of immigrants’ backgrounds by an unconcerned bureaucracy.
The case is hardly a confidence builder for the idea that the government could responsibly handle an amnesty for millions of lawbreaking foreigners that would still protect public safety.
Anyway, today’s criminal terrorist alien is Rasmieh Odeh (pictured), a Palestinian who was imprisoned in Israel for a bombing that killed two students in 1969. Israel released her from incarceration in a prisoner swap with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, not because she was thought to be rehabilitated. Odeh was convicted in Detroit for omitting her criminal terrorist record when she applied to enter the United States.
A Detroit jury today found a Palestinian immigrant guilty of not disclosing that she had been convicted in a 1969 Israel bombing when she was applying for U.S. citizenship.
Rasmieh Odeh, 67, was accused by prosecutors of being a terrorist who killed Israelis in 1969 and then lied about it when trying to become a U.S. citizen. Odeh used to live in Michigan and is now in Chicago, where she works for the Arab American Action Network. She was not charged with any terrorism crime, but with immigration violations.
Odeh could face up to ten years in prison for her conviction and be stripped of her U.S. citizenship. After the verdict, Odeh said outside the courthouse: “We have to bring the justice together..I’m strong & I ask all of you to be strong…We are the strongest people, not the government…We are stronger.”
In a statement, her supporters called today’s verdict “a travesty of justice,” saying that Odeh did “not get a full and fair trial.”
The Rasmea Defense Committee claimed that “the immigration charge was nothing but a pretext to attack this icon of the Palestine liberation movement.”
They said Odeh’s attorneys will appeal the decision.
But a jury agreed today with federal prosecutors who said that Odeh checked “no” on immigration and citizenship forms she filled out in Detroit when asked whether she had ever been convicted of a crime. Odeh concedes that she was convicted in Israel, but maintains that she was forced to confess after being tortured. She also claims that she thought the questions on the forms referred only to convictions in the U.S.
The trial has drawn national attention, with up to 100 protesters rallying outside the courthouse every day last week and today. Rallies also have been held in Florida, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Illinois. Odeh, associate director of the Arab American Action Network in Chicago, is being supported by a network of pro-Palestinian groups, which have launched online campaigns on Twitter and Facebook to bring attention to her cause. The group that she works for is part of the Dearborn-based National Network for Arab American Communities. Continue reading this article
Here in the San Francisco Bay Area, visa mill “universities” have been a popular way for the criminal entrepreneur to make piles of money from gullible or nefarious foreigners looking to break in to the American economy. The rip-off consists of selling fake educations to colleges with sketchy or nonexistent accreditation to foreigners so they can acquire student visas to worm their way into the US. (See my 2011 examination of these immigrant-focused schemes: Visa Mills Scam Profitably in Silicon Valley.)
One of the more notorious visa mills has been Pleasanton’s Tri-Valley University. The President of TVU was a Chinese woman, Susan Xiao-Ping Su (pictured), who made over $5 million during her tenure, quite a trick when you consider the school was founded in 2008 and shut down by the authorities in 2011. Authorities may have figured out the school was a scam when students were “scattered across the country” in convenience store jobs and such (‘Sham’ University Case One of Biggest, Official Says, Pleasanton Patch, May 4, 2011).
For some diversity fun, you can see the sentencing story explained in a foreign language, perhaps Telegu, at this link, showing interest in TVU’s fate extends far beyond English-speaking California.
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A San Francisco Bay Area woman was sentenced to more than 16 years in prison for running what prosecutors said was a sham university that served as a front for an immigration scam.
Susan Xiao-Ping Su, founder and president of the phony Tri-Valley University in Pleasanton, was accused of charging hundreds of foreigners, mostly Indian nationals, tuition and other payments for visa-related documents that allowed them to live and work in the U.S. while she purported that they were here legally to study. She made more than $5.6 million and used the money to buy commercial real estate, a Mercedes Benz and multiple homes, including one at a golf club, federal prosecutors said Monday.
U.S. District Court Judge Jon S. Tigar sentenced Su, 44, on Friday after she was convicted in March of visa fraud and other charges. She was also ordered to forfeit $5.6 million and pay more than $900,000 in restitution to two companies that processed payments from students, authorities said. Su’s attorney, John Jordan, said he has filed a notice of appeal with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
“Student visas are intended to give people from around the world a chance to come to this country to enrich themselves with the vast learning opportunities available here,” Tatum King, acting special agent in charge for Homeland Security Investigations, San Francisco, said in a statement. “But in this case, the defendant was interested in a different kind of enrichment, her own.” Continue reading this article
Bodies have been found, although they are unidentifiable except perhaps by DNA because the remains were burned for hours for maximum destruction. What’s really astonishing, even for Mexico, is that apparently the local mayor ordered the students (who were engaging in a political demonstration) to be deep-sixed by the the town’s police who then handed them over to local gangsters for final disposal.
What a country! Let’s have more diverse immigrants from that society!
Many Mexicans are affected by the level of crime that appears to be the norm. An interesting poll was published last year, asking in what situations Mexicans felt uncomfortable, and over two-thirds were uneasy at ATMs, at banks and on the street (pictured).
(CNN) — The 43 Mexican students who disappeared in southern Mexico in September were abducted by police on order of a local mayor, and are believed to have been turned over to a gang that killed them and burned their bodies before throwing some remains in a river, the nation’s attorney general said Friday.
This is the conclusion that investigators have reached, Attorney General Jesus Murillo Karam said, though he cautioned that it cannot be known with certainty until DNA tests confirm the identities.
This will be a challenge, he said, as the badly burned fragments make it difficult to extract DNA.
Do schools still teach the basic concept of supply and demand, in particular that when a labor market is flooded, then wages fall? It often seems not, since news coverage of unemployment almost never mentions the effect of importing millions of foreign workers on wages and job availability.
Democrats wail about income inequality and advocate for an increase in the minimum wage while they worsen the problem with their open-borders policies. The Dems say their party supports the working class guy and gal, but their immigration positions are a stab in the back to ordinary people who work for a living. As Senator Jeff Sessions has said, America needs less immigration rather than more, particularly when 20 million Americans are unemployed.
Investor Charles Payne nailed the idea in his usual plain-spoken style on a Saturday Fox business show:
“Think about a president like Obama and his wing of the party if you will that always talks about income inequality and a higher minimum wage, but we’re going to open up the door for people who will work for peanuts. I mean, people who work in this country have no chance. It’s nuts.”
When it comes to elections clarifying the opinions of voters, nothing tops an initiative because there are no personalities muddying up the subject. Tipp O’Neill famously said all politics is local, which is true up to a point, but really, politics is highly personal. Voters are drawn to candidates with an appealing, trustworthy character even more than perceived perfection on issues.
But an initiative is all about the issue.
In that vein, liberal Oregon’s overwhelming vote to rescind drivers licenses for illegal aliens by a two-to-one margin was quite a victory for law over open-borders chaos. The Protect Oregon Driver Licenses group ran their campaign on a shoestring compared to the powerful forces supporting cheap labor. The vote shows what can be done by a group of determined people.
It also shows that the whining of illegal aliens that they need a driver’s license to get to the jobs they have stolen from citizens is losing its power, even over a liberal electorate.
Voters in Oregon overwhelmingly rejected a law passed in 2013 that would grant driver’s license cards to illegal aliens. (Oregon Live, Nov. 5, 2014) Ballot Measure 88, which put Senate Bill (“S.B.”) 833 up for voter approval, was defeated by a landslide of 68% of voters in favor of vetoing S.B 833, with only 32% in support of the law. (Id.) The defeat of Measure 88 marks a huge victory for true immigration reformers in Oregon and nationwide. Currently, eleven states grant driver’s licenses to illegal aliens. However, activists in Oregon were the first state to hold their elected representatives accountable and put the question on the ballot.
Opposition against Measure 88 was entirely a grassroots effort. Oregonians for Immigration Reform, a local group whose mission is to support enforcement of immigration law, initiated the referendum of the law by working tirelessly to gather over 71,000 signatures in just a few months to get Measure 88 on the ballot. (Breitbart, Oct. 21, 2014) Supporters for the Measure included illegal alien lobby groups, labor unions, and businesses that profited off of the availability of cheap, illegal labor. (Oregon Live, Nov. 4, 2014) True immigration reformers raised only $37,000 to fight Measure 88, compared to the $421,000 raised by the illegal alien lobby to support it. (Breitbart, Oct. 21, 2014) Continue reading this article
Senator Sessions appeared on Fox News Thursday night to lay out strategy to defend the integrity of Congress and the Constitutional separation of powers, which are threatened by Obama’s long-pledged amnesty for millions of foreign lawbreakers.
In answer to Megyn Kelly’s question about a possible impeachment of the would-be king, Sessions answered,
“We have plenty of tools and we have to use every one of them. Look, the American people have pleaded with congress and presidents for 30 years — they’ve asked pleaded and demanded, really, a lawful system of immigration that serves the national interest. President Obama is decimating law enforcement in a host of ways; this is just one of them.”
Sessions observed also that “People who supported the Gang of Eight bill, Senator McCain and others, have condemned roundly the President’s executive amnesty proposal. He pleaded with the President not to do it and others have said the same thing.”
Kelly spouted the amnesty talking point that the Senate bill provided increased enforcement along with a path to citizenship for millions of foreigners, to which Sessions responded:
“It would double the number of workers coming into the country to take jobs. It would have gone from 10 million people getting permanent legal status in America over the next 10 years to 30 and would not be an effective enforcement tool as we demonstrated and that’s why the House said it was dead on arrival when it arrived over there. It did not do the job. The talking points they put out were good and sounded wonderful, but when you read the bill, it did not do what they promised.
So we’ve got to write a bill that will work. Yes, we can do that, but the biggest part of the problem is that they won’t enforce the laws that are on the books. They won’t do the job now. We’ve got a lot of laws that simply are not being enforced, encouraging more and more people to come unlawfully, putting extreme pressure on working Americans, whose wages are down and whose employment prospects are down.”
Part of the discussion centered on a letter from several concerned Republican senators to current Majority Leader Harry Reid, which follows:
Dear Leader Reid:
We write to express our alarm with President Obama’s announced intention to take unilateral executive action by the end of this year to lawlessly grant amnesty to immigrants who have entered the country illegally. The Supreme Court has recognized that “over no conceivable subject is the power of Congress more complete” than its power over immigration. Therefore, President Obama will be exercising powers properly belonging to Congress if he makes good on his threat. This will create a constitutional crisis that demands action by Congress to restore the separation of powers.
As majority leader of the Senate, you have the responsibility of not only representing the voters of your State, but also of protecting the Constitution through vigilant exercise of the checks and balances provided under the Constitution. Therefore, we write to offer our full assistance in ensuring expeditious Senate debate and passage for a measure that preserves the power of Congress by blocking any action the President may take to violate the Constitution and unilaterally grant amnesty; however, should you decline to defend the Senate and the Constitution from executive overreach, the undersigned Senators will use all procedural means necessary to return the Senate’s focus during the lame duck session to resolving the constitutional crisis created by President Obama’s lawless amnesty.
Ted Cruz (R-Texas)
David Vitter (R-La.)
Mike Crapo (R-Idaho)
Mike Lee (R-Utah)
Pat Roberts (R-Kan.)
Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.)
On Wednesday, Senator Jeff Sessions (pictured) issued a press release stating his continued resistance to Obama’s promise of an unconstitutional executive amnesty for millions of lawbreaking foreigners. “Americans do not want their borders erased,” he noted.
Senator Sessions has already explained that he plans to use Congress’ control of spending to throttle Obama’s amnesty. He is well positioned to do so, given that he will be Chair of the Senate Budget Committee in the next legislative session starting in 2015.
[. . .] McConnell pledged to use government spending bills to rein in Obama’s immigration actions, telling TIME magazine after the election that “the way that you push back on executive overreach is through the funding process.”
While McConnell expressed wariness of allowing a government shutdown, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has called on Republicans to fight it with every weapon in their arsenal. Thickening the plot is Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), who has set up an active war room dedicated to undermining Obama’s plans on immigration, and is next in line to chair the Budget Committee. From that perch, he would have the power to set spending parameters that undermine the president’s moves. [. . .]
WASHINGTON—U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee and senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, issued the following comments after President Obama reiterated his plans to issue a unilateral executive amnesty:
“Last night, the American people rebelled against the President’s executive amnesty and rallied behind GOP candidates who promised to put the needs of the American people first. It is shocking then that the President would declare that the only way ‘those executive actions go away,’ is to ‘send me a bill that I can sign.’ Otherwise, the President warned, he would ‘act in the absence of action by Congress.’
Of course, Congress has acted, and so have the American people. Republicans, and the voters who sent us here, rejected the Obama-Democrat legislation to give work permits to illegal immigrants and to surge already-record immigration rates. The President cannot, having had his policies defeated at the ballot box, impose them through executive decree.
A Republican Congress will defend itself and our citizens from these lawless actions. Surrendering to illegality is not an option. Democrats will have to choose sides: protect the President’s agenda, or protect your constituents.
Americans do not want their borders erased. What they have asked for is an agenda that promotes higher wages, reforms government, eliminates failed programs, balances the budget, increases energy production, and protects their sovereignty.”
With the epic battle for the Senate taking up media space, one might have missed a less publicized victory for the position of Kansas Secretary of State even though liberals brandished their long knives against the incumbent Republican, Kris Kobach (pictured).
The successful pursuit of those two issues has earned Kobach uber-enmity from the far left, since lefties like open borders and frequent voting by ineligible persons. Liberals additionally claim that voter fraud is a non-existent problem (wrong) and therefore should not be prevented.
After being elected Kansas Secretary of State in 2010, he remarked in an anti-Democrat two-fer, “I am going to be using my spare time trying to stop illegal immigration instead of playing golf.”
Secretary of State Kris Kobach fended off a tough challenge from Wichita Democrat Jean Schodorf on Tuesday night in a race that served as a referendum on the state’s proof-of-citizenship voting requirement.
With most of the state’s precincts reporting, Kobach held a comfortable lead over Schodorf.
“We’re going to continue to have the toughest security laws in the country to make sure our elections are fair,” Kobach said in his victory speech at the Capitol Plaza Hotel in Topeka. “Because you know, at the end of the day if any of these races are close, you’re going to want to know, you’re going to want to have the confidence that every single vote was cast by a legitimate voter. And he we have the confidence in Kansas.”
Kobach, who was joined by his daughters, Lillian and Reagan, thanked his volunteers for donating their time and shoe leather to knock on doors in the tough campaign.
“It’s very satisfying,” Kobach said afterward. “My opponent had some pretty harsh words for me, and in a race like this, it’s emotionally taxing and tiring. And it’s good when you come out on top.”
Schodorf, who watched the results privately, had not shown up at the Democratic Party watch party at Loft 150 over the River City Brewing Co. in Old Town before supporters began trickling out at about 9:45 p.m. She expected a long night, said her political and field representative, Marcus Williamson.
“We still have a lot of precincts that haven’t been officially reported,” he said. “We’re going to be watching those throughout the night.”
Kobach carried Sedgwick County – Schodorf’s home county – with 54 percent of the vote, according to final unofficial results.
In the coming legislative session, Kobach plans to push for prosecutorial power for the secretary of state’s office to enable him to prosecute suspected cases of voter fraud.
A former state Republican chairman and a prominent attorney, he was criticized for requiring proof of citizenship in order to register to vote, a policy that had left more than 21,000 prospective voters in suspended status ahead of Election Day.
Kobach has vigorously defended the policy, arguing that every time a noncitizen votes, it robs citizens of their votes. He also says that those on the suspended list can be removed from it as long as they provide the necessary documents, such as a birth certificate or passport, to their county election office. Continue reading this article
What an odd thing to say two days before an important election. Voters don’t want to elect a new crew who will merely legitimize the hated Obama amnesty. Citizens want their immigration laws to be enforced, not ignored.
Fortunately, Senator Sessions has the right idea about a strategy to benefit American workers, not lawbreaking foreigners:
A nation’s first loyalty must be to its own citizens.
But the immigration policies of President Obama and Congressional Democrats help only billionaire special interests, amnesty activists, and the citizens of other countries – while reducing jobs and pay for our own.
Every single Senate Democrat voted for the Obama-backed plan to provide immediate work permits to 12 million illegal immigrants – allowing them to compete for any job in America. This legislation would also double the rate at which low-wage guest workers are brought into the U.S. to fill jobs throughout the economy.
Further, the legislation would triple the rate of permanent immigration, giving lifetime work permits and citizenship to over 30 million immigrants over the next ten years.
America already has the world’s most generous immigration policy. The foreign-born population is at record levels, quadrupling since 1970. Since 2000, the U.S. has issued nearly 30 million lawful visas to foreign guest workers and permanent immigrants. During that time, all net employment gains among the working-age went to immigrant workers.
This large surplus of labor has also pulled down wages –- family incomes are down more than $3,000 since 2009 alone.
Harvard Professor Dr. George Borjas estimates that our current high immigration rates result in a wage loss of $402 billion every year for competing American workers.
Imagine then what will happen if we double the supply of foreign labor. For many Americans, who will be pushed out of the workforce altogether, their wages will be reduced to zero.
Democrats running for Senate pour millions into ads complaining special interests have too much influence. And yet every Senate Democrat candidate has voted for the crown jewel of the corporate lobbyist agenda: mass amnesty and uncontrolled immigration. Continue reading this article
Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues related to culture and mass immigration. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html. In order to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.