A frequent touch in sob stories is the excessive use of emotive adjectives and [...]]]>
A frequent touch in sob stories is the excessive use of emotive adjectives and descriptive images to portray the increasing presence of foreign aliens as acceptable, seen here in phrases like “vibrant immigrant community.”
Another distraction from facts is the complaint about the president who characterizes “undocumented immigrants in particular as killers, rapists, drug smugglers and job stealers.”
That approach was bad timing on the day when illegal alien Wilbur Ernesti Martinez-Guzman was arrested in Nevada for the murder of four Americans. That case illustrates that the body count of preventable illegal alien murders continues to mount because the Congress refuses to enact basic public safety on the border.
Below, the Chron pictured an illegal alien described as a “grape picker” preparing Mexican food in her Lodi home to feed her three anchor kids.
It’s rather unlikely that the taxes (assuming any) from the “grape picker asylum seeker” cover the education and other services that California taxpayers fund for her three anchor offspring — say $11,495 per-pupil in 2016 just for schooling x 3 = $34,485 annually. And why would California take seriously her asylum claim from Mexico when so many Central Americans resettle there because it is safer than their homelands?
In a non-sanctuary state, Floricel Ramos would have already been deported.
Notice how President Trump is presented throughout the article as the problem, not the lawbreaking presence of the Mexican grape picker and others of her ilk.
]]>Amid push for border wall, many Latinos distressed by Trump’s tone, by Tatiana Sanchez, San Francisco Chronicle, January 20, 2019
As a soft rain fell in the Mission District on a recent morning, marking the start of another workday, dozens of the district’s Latino residents shuttled to bus stops while business owners opened up shop, carefully setting up jewelry displays, carting out fresh batches of sweet bread and unpacking fruit along the sidewalk. Mothers carried bundled-up toddlers. Friends met for coffee, speaking freely in Spanish.
This is the vibrant immigrant community that Carmen Sanchez wants President Trump to see. These are the people she wants highlighted in his prime-time speeches, spontaneous tweets and trips to the border.
But since his 2016 election, Trump has often painted a much darker picture of people crossing the border into the United States, characterizing undocumented immigrants in particular as killers, rapists, drug smugglers and job stealers. Trump — who proposed Saturday to extend protections for immigrants who arrived as children or were displaced by disasters in their home countries, in exchange for funding for a border wall — has leaned on that profile heavily in his push for the barrier, saying Saturday, “The lack of border control provides a gateway — a very wide and open gateway — for criminals and gang members to enter the United States.”
But his strategy has come at a cost, immigrants and advocates say. They say the heightened rhetoric has translated into hostility and violence directed at immigrants — whether or not they entered the country illegally — and Latinos in particular. The effects have been profound in diverse regions like the Bay Area, where there are an estimated 1.7 million Latinos, according to census data.
“If the president of the United States is speaking this way of Latinos, then of course some people are going to look at us like garbage, as if we bring in drugs, live off welfare and come here to do bad things,” said Sanchez, 58, a retired waitress who immigrated to the U.S. from Nicaragua in 1981. “That’s not the case. In the barrio of the Mission there are lots of people who came here to work and who own their own businesses.”
Floricel Ramos, an undocumented immigrant from Mexico who has been in the United States for two decades and worked the fields in Lodi (San Joaquin County) picking grapes, said she is apprehensive about leaving her home at times.
“We come here to work and to give a better future to our kids. We want to live in peace,” said Ramos, 39, who has three U.S.-born children. “It’s frustrating that people like the president criminalize us for being here.” (Continues)
So now he is back, flacking a book. Harper Collins’ book page headlines, “Whether you were born in the U.S., just recently immigrated, are a Dreamer or undocumented citizen, we are all Americans.”
Obviously, he is still unclear on the concept of American citizenship, just as he was when Time chose him as the magazine’s illegal alien cover boy in 2012:
Jose the Filipino is certainly one of the media’s favorite illegal aliens, since he has no violent crimes to cover up (that we know of), only the ubiquitous job and benefits theft.
Harper Collins also shows a book tour scheduled at least through the end of September, so there is an opportunity for ICE to easily catch and deport him, an action that would be a great service for the nation.
The New York Times apparently remains fond of Vargas, as shown by its review of the book:
Not every day that a writer who happens to be undocumented gets a review in the @nytimesarts section of @nytimes #DearAmerica pic.twitter.com/roC50Bp4rV
— Jose Antonio Vargas (@joseiswriting) September 20, 2018
Here’s that review, reprinted elsewhere:
]]>Living the American Dream — in Hiding, New York Times, September 19, 2018
Jose Antonio Vargas comes from a family of gamblers, and in his new book, “Dear America: Notes of an Undocumented Citizen,” he’s upping the ante — or maybe, given the current executive’s predilection for travel bans and family separations, he’s going all in. Vargas recalls the enormous wager his family made 25 years ago, when his mother brought him to Ninoy Aquino International Airport in Manila and put him on a flight to California. He was 12 years old, and he would go to America first. Mama, as he calls her throughout his memoir, promised to follow.
Twenty-five years later, Mama is still in the Philippines, and Jose is still in the United States — no longer based in Mountain View, Calif., where he was sent to live with his maternal grandparents, but traveling around the country as an activist filmmaker and a writer, without a fixed address where he might be apprehended.
In 2011, he was a young journalist with an enviable résumé when he published an essay in The New York Times Magazine that revealed his undocumented status. Immigration lawyers warned him against going public; one called it “legal suicide.” In “Dear America,” Vargas writes that talking to lawyers “made me feel like I was carrying an incurable disease.”
Filipinos living in the United States have a Tagalog term for the undocumented immigrants who go to their churches, live in their communities or reside in their homes: tago ng tago, “hiding and hiding” — T.N.T. for short, like a secret waiting to explode. Vargas’s grandparents, both of them naturalized citizens, expected him to keep hiding until he didn’t have to. The plan was for Jose to find under-the-table work, like cleaning bathrooms at the flea market, so he could save enough money to pay an American woman to marry him. Maybe, his grandmother hoped, he wouldn’t even need to pay anyone, because he would fall in love.
But he wasn’t about to toil in the shadows to marry an American woman; Vargas is gay, and he’s also extremely, exuberantly ambitious. The constant dissembling was unbearable, he explains; he feared losing sight of who he was.
Vargas came out as gay when he was 16. Coming out as undocumented took longer. He wanted to dream big, even when his family was telling him that a life out in the open was not only fanciful but dangerous. “You are not supposed to be here,” his grandfather would remind him.
“The dream that Mama, Lolo and Lola had for me was dictated by their own realities, by their own sense of limitations,” he writes, using the Tagalog words for grandpa and grandma. “The America they dreamed for me was not the America I was creating for myself.”
The moments when Vargas describes how profoundly alienated he feels from his own family are the most candid and crushing parts of the book. He admits that he felt much closer to what he calls his “white family” — the caring grown-ups who mentored him in high school; the seasoned journalists who gave him career advice; the generous benefactors who offered him material support — than to the blood relatives who made extraordinary sacrifices in order to bring him to the United States. As a teenager, he could barely bring himself to call Mama in the Philippines. “I couldn’t talk to my own mother while I was collecting mother figures,” he says, in one ruthlessly honest line.
His grandmother and grandfather raised him, but they couldn’t see him. They warned him against taking up too much space, telling their cub-reporter grandson he was “getting fancy now.” In 2008, when Vargas was cited as part of a team for The Washington Post that won a Pulitzer Prize, his grandmother called to say how worried she was. “What will happen if people find out?” she asked.
“Dear America” covers some of the same ground as Vargas’s essay for The Times Magazine, as well as his 2013 film, “Documented.” He details the fake papers his grandfather purchased for $4,500. He recalls how the local library enabled his teenage self to become a connoisseur of ’90s pop culture on the cheap. (What truly mystified him were the cartoons in The New Yorker: “Were they supposed to be funny?”) He briefly recounts the colonial history of the Philippines, first under the Spanish, then under the Americans, as well as the stark betrayal of the 1946 Rescission Act, which reneged on the American promise to offer citizenship and veterans’ benefits to Filipino soldiers who fought on behalf of the United States in World War II. (Continues)
According to a February report from CNBC, “the average student loan borrower has $37,172 in student loans, a $20,000 [...]]]>
According to a February report from CNBC, “the average student loan borrower has $37,172 in student loans, a $20,000 increase from 13 years ago.” Seventy percent of today’s college students graduate with significant debt, and the average monthly loan payment for borrowers aged 20 to 30 in 2016 was $393. This indebtedness puts them years behind in important investments in a home or start-up business, even family formation.
Yet illegal alien college students get a big financial cushion from the taxpayers in nine states:
Naturally California was an early adopter of freebies for illegal alien moochers, where Gov Jerry Brown signed the California Dream Act into law in 2011, a measure that opened state financial aid at public universities and colleges to illegals. In 2013, 20,000 illegal alien college students applied for taxpayer-supplied state aid.
And the lawbreaker foreigner privilege continues today: the University of California regents voted in March to raise tuition for out-of-state students by nearly $1,000, but that increase did not apply to illegal alien students.
But back to New Jersey — the state’s largesse to foreign lawbreakers is expected to cost taxpayers nearly $5 billion annually. Wouldn’t taxpayers prefer that substantial cash be spent on legal citizens?
A Rutgers student recently discussed the unfairness of the system to him and other American citizens.
ED HENRY: This week New Jersey became the ninth state to allow illegal immigrants to apply for and receive financial aid at state colleges beginning this fall, but is this fair to American students who themselves are struggling to pay for college? We read about this, hear about this all the time. Our next guest says yes. Nick Knight is a CampusReform.org correspondent student at Rutgers University in New Jersey.
So what is the deal with this? Give me an idea of your situation, without all the details or any personal information, how much are you struggling? And when you see that illegal immigrants now in New Jersey can get aid, what does that do?
NICK KNIGHT: Sure, well it’s just absurd that we’re giving illegal immigrants more and more incentives to break the law. As a Rutgers student and as a college student who has loans and has taken out loans, I’m going to be paying for that debt after college, and it doesn’t make sense to me that we give the same benefits to people who come over here illegally as the people who come over here legally and follow the process.
Knight went on to explain that he was borrowing around $10,000 per year to attend Rutgers, while illegal aliens just get “free money” as Ed Henry put it — which is totally unfair.
A couple days later, Aviv Khavich, another student from CampusReform.org appeared on Fox News to discuss “a long series of Rutgers privileging illegal aliens over natural-born citizens and legal immigrants like myself.” He found the favoritism toward illegals to be “enforcing this lack of respect for the rule of law” and a worrying trend on campus generally.
Why would anyone immigrate legally to the United States? The incentives are all on the illegal side — no wonder you almost never hear the US called a “nation of laws” any more.
]]>And isn’t that THE question? The aim of leftists is to destroy traditional America by dumping in tens of millions of foreigners who are culturally disposed to prefer big government, making them perfect voters for the Democrat [...]]]>
And isn’t that THE question? The aim of leftists is to destroy traditional America by dumping in tens of millions of foreigners who are culturally disposed to prefer big government, making them perfect voters for the Democrat party. A 2012 paper from Pew Research indicates a majority of hispanics continue to want bigger government even after three generations of residing in the United States.
And of course the numbers have kept growing since the 2010 Census, because Washington seems incapable of finding an Off switch.
Coulter was previewing Thursday’s Republican Presidential debate, and got into the numbers with Fox talking-head Megyn Kelly:
COULTER: The question should be, “Does this help America?” and and I’d like to ask them, “How many immigrants are enough?” We already have 42 million immigrants in this country. These guys all talk about how they want to go back to the era of Reagan and they’d be Reagan. Well in the eighties when Reagan was elected, one of every sixteen people residing in America was was foreign born; today it’s one in seven. One in seven. Okay, we have 42 million now — a hundred million, 200 million — how many is enough?
KELLY: The other side says for the 11 to 12 million who are here now it is impractical if not impossible to talk about deporting them.
COULTER: Well, I liked Romney’s answer about enforcing e-verify and they’ll go home the same way they came. I mean everyone made fun of Mitt Romney for saying they’d self deport and oh, it’s so impractical — and there aren’t 12 million there are least thirty million. Okay, say there are 30 million; how are 30 million going to self-deport? Are you going to round them up? We didn’t round them up to get them here. They’re gonna go home the same way they came.
Megyn Kelly’s smirky efforts to belittle Coulter and the issue were tiresome, as if discussing the plot to destroy America via immigration is a big yuck. Kelly continued the segment with self-proclaimed illegal alien activist Jose Vargas, who got much more respectful treatment. He made the ridiculous assertion that America couldn’t get along without all the illegal alien workers, noting “half of the construction workers in the state of Texas are undocumented.”
Actually, construction was a decent-paying occupation until the illegal aliens drove wages down to a pittance. Furthermore, America has enormous unemployment when a record 92 million citizens are not participating in the workforce — another reason not to leave mass immigration on autopilot.
Vargas is a con man promoting himself as the alien too charming to deport, but he has stolen jobs and a college slot that should have gone to Americans. Yet Megyn Kelly treats the thief with great courtesy and Ann Coulter gets the dismissive chuckle.
Below, Vargas (right) likes to promote open borders with amnesty advocating richies like Facebook billionaire Mark Zuckerberg.
The present Secretary is no ordinary political suit; he is a one-man brain room [...]]]>
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 present Secretary is no ordinary political suit; he is a one-man brain room for authoring immigration enforcement legislation and policy strategies like voter ID to combat voter fraud.
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.”
Because of his concerns about the threat to national sovereignty, Kobach has been attacked by the left with their sharpest poison pens. The New Republic called him “America’s Worst Republican” in September, while the Daily Kos dubbed him merely the “worst secretary of state in the nation”. In 2011, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote, “When Mr. Kobach Comes to Town: Nativist Laws and the Communities They Damage”.
These people really hate law and borders!
Nevertheless, Kobach prevailed, with 59 percent of the vote versus his opponent’s 41.
]]>Kris Kobach fends off challenger Jean Schodorf to win secretary of state race, Wichita Eagle, November 5, 2014
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.
“There’s not a single of one of those people that can’t register to vote. The fallacy that the Democratic Party is putting out there is that there’s any barrier,” Kobach said last week.
Schodorf voted for the policy as a member of the Kansas Senate, where she served as a Republican before losing her state Senate primary in 2012, but has criticized Kobach’s implementation and promised to make reducing the number of voters on the suspension list her top priority if elected.
“I want to make it as easy as I can for citizens to vote,” Schodorf said at a forum for black and Latino voters in Wichita last month. “I have plans so that (Kansas) will be number one (in the country) for voter turnout.”
Kobach’s impartiality as the state’s chief election officer has sometimes been questioned. His political action committee, the Prairie Fire PAC, sent out mailers attacking moderate Republicans ahead of the primary, and his controversial decision to keep Democrat Chad Taylor on the ballot for U.S. Senate despite his submission of a withdrawal letter was seen by some observers as an attempt to help U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts, who is in a tight race against independent Greg Orman.
Kobach says his PAC spends money in support of candidates who support secure elections and has continued to defend his handling of the Taylor matter even after the Kansas Supreme Court ordered that his name be removed in a ruling that chastised Kobach for overstepping his bounds as secretary of state.
Russell Fox, a political scientist at Friends University, called Kobach a political lightning rod “for people to say, ‘Yeah, it’s this particular kind of conservatism, it’s this particular type of extremism, it’s this particular type of uncompromising purity that is ruining the party.’ ”
However, Kobach has led Schodorf in most polls – albeit by a narrow margin – and Fox expected him to keep his position even if Gov. Sam Brownback and Roberts lose their races. He said that many Republican voters who go for Orman or Democrat Paul Davis in the governor’s race will continue to check Republican boxes further down on the ticket.
“If there’s anyone in this state who should have this biggest target on his back and should be able to be beaten by his own party’s abandonment, you’d think it would be Kobach, and yet it’s not,” said Chapman Rackaway, a professor of political science at Fort Hays State University.
“Now some of that may simply be that the profiles of the other races, the high attention that’s been paid to the governor’s and Senate races, has pushed the secretary of state down in people’s minds,” Rackaway said.
The reasoning of the California Supreme Court is that the legislation does not discriminate against Americans of other states because the requirement is based on attending a California high [...]]]>
The reasoning of the California Supreme Court is that the legislation does not discriminate against Americans of other states because the requirement is based on attending a California high school for three years and graduating.
So are Nevada parents expected to send their 15-year-old to live in California to attend high school for 3 years? Ridiculous. Americans ARE disadvantaged by this ruling.
Furthermore, the court decision defies federal law which prevents illegal aliens from getting benefits unavailable to citizens, and is therefore a reversal of the principle that federal law is supposed to decide, as has been the argument against Arizona.
Court: In-state college tuition OK for illegals, KABC News, November 16, 2010
DAVIS, Calif. (KABC) — The state supreme court ruled Monday that some illegal immigrants are entitled to the same tuition breaks offered to in-state high-school students to attend public colleges and universities.
The California Supreme Court said the law dictating in-state and out-of-state tuition does not treat American citizens worse than undocumented residents. Therefore, certain illegal immigrants can continue paying in-state tuition.
The case originated from a class action lawsuit in 2005.
Numerous University of California students from out of state felt it was unfair to be charged out-of-state tuition when certain illegal immigrant students from California were allowed to pay much lower in-state tuition.
Monday’s ruling was a disappointment to the plaintiffs, many of whom are now pursuing careers out of state.
“Giving folks in-state tuition when they don’t have citizenship, while denying it to folks who are citizens is kind of weird,” said plaintiff Suzanne Byrd. “I don’t know exactly what they can do with this degree once they’ve got it because most places are going to ask for them for their citizenship and proof and this kind of thing.”
The state legislature approved the law allowing illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition as long they attended a California high school for at least three years and graduated from it.
About 10 states have the same rules.
In the ruling, the justices felt this case wasn’t about immigration. It was about the rights of states and legislatures to impose restrictions on public university eligibility.
UC was part of the fight to keep the state law intact.“We are educating undocumented immigrants in our schools and we’re investing in them,” said Kevin Johnson, dean of the UC Davis School of Law. “They’re part of our economy. They’re part of our future and some of them may be legalized and become U.S. citizens in the end.”
An estimated 25,000 illegal immigrants receive in-state tuition rates in California. The out-of-state students’ attorneys say that costs taxpayers $208 million a year, not to mention slots at UC that would otherwise go to students with citizenship.
The Chron included remarks from attorney Kris Kobach who has been a part of the lawsuit.
In-state tuition upheld for illegal immigrants, San Francisco Chronicle, November 16, 2010
Attorney Kris Kobach, who represents the plaintiffs, called the ruling a “very weak opinion.” He said he will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.
Kobach, recently elected Kansas secretary of state, co-wrote Arizona’s immigration law requiring police to question anyone they suspect of living in the country illegally. He said California’s taxpayers lose millions of dollars each year because the state doesn’t require undocumented students to pay the out-of-state rate.
But UC Berkeley sophomore Uriel Rivera, who entered the United States illegally at age 14, said taxpayers lose nothing because students like him have enough trouble paying the in-state rate.
At UC, state residents pay $11,300 in tuition a year; nonresidents pay $34,000. State and federal law prohibit illegal residents from receiving public grants or scholarships.
So Rivera and other undocumented students scramble for private scholarships. He wants to become a history teacher.
Today, however, Rivera is so far behind on tuition that the campus library won’t even let him take out books.
Nice of the UC system to maintain illegal alien deadbeats on our tax dollars!
]]>The Obama administration insists that it is prioritizing its immigration enforcement to go after the dangerous foreigners first, which sounds reasonable enough. But the August 1 death of Sister Denise Mosier from a crash with a previously arrested drunk-driving illegal alien showed the system is still as criminal-friendly as ever.
The accused killer, Bolivian Carlos Montano, had earlier been handed over to ICE for deportation (twice!) but instead was released onto American streets. He had spent 20 days in jail for two drunk-driving convictions, so was clearly a bad crash waiting to happen. An obviously dangerous illegal alien was released with deadly consequences.
It’s a tale of malfeasance that is all too familiar to Ray Tranchant: Alfredo Ramos, the alien later found guilty of killing Tessa Tranchant and her friend Alison Kunhardt, had been convicted twice of alcohol-related crimes but was not deported.
]]>After My Daughter’s Death — A Father’s View of the Immigration Debate, By Ray Tranchant, Fox News, August 11, 2010
My 16-year-old daughter, Tessa, was killed by an illegal immigrant in Virginia Beach three years ago while sitting at a stop light. Her friend Ali Kunhardt, 17, also perished instantly. […]
Alfredo Ramos, a previous DUI offender and alcoholic, seemed invisible in a system that was good at looking the other way. Virginia Beach and Chesapeake were being accused of being “sanctuary cities” as Bill O’Reilly and Geraldo Rivera screamed at each other during the national news hour. O’Reilly was right.
I know what sanctuary means more than most ever will.
Ramos was actually smug at the trial and took his lumps: 40 years in prison. There was nothing I could do but forgive him; forgiveness cleanses the soul. He was an uneducated foreigner patronized by local merchants who needed cheap labor.
Hundreds of thousands of illegals in Virginia do the same. We don’t share a border with Mexico, so the awareness here isn’t as great as Arizona or California.
But the dilemma in Arizona is more important to Virginians than it seems. Last Monday, Sister Denise Mosier was killed in Prince William County. An illegal immigrant from Bolivia with two previous drunken-driving convictions is charged with killing her and critically injuring two other nuns while driving drunk.
As with me, her friends say they have forgiven him and hold no grudges.
Later in the week, in response to this tragedy, the Secretary of Homeland Security said she would get to the bottom of why the illegals are not deported when they are repeat offenders.
Here’s what I would like to tell the Secretary: Ms. Napolitano, ICE was not there in 2007 when my daughter and her friend died. And, though ICE picked up the man who hit Sister Mosier, he wasn’t kept in custody and was sent back out the streets.
This problem is not new.
We know it’s not the people but the system that fails Americans again and again. There have been hundreds of similar stories in America since Tess and Ali died.
Rep. Luis Gutierrez from Illinois reminded me personally in a Congressional hearing that the solution lies with a comprehensive plan that includes amnesty. After all, he said, “they pick your grapes, clean your hotels and are then victimized.” Luis should worry about protecting U.S. Hispanics and instead of counting on prospective Hispanic votes.
But waving a magic wand over 12 million people will not solve this immigration problem. It worries me that we would even consider giving foreigners legal rights to Social Security, health care and school in a time of $14 trillion dollar deficits.
Consider that when 12 million get citizenship, 10 million of their relatives will migrate legally. Of course citizenship will make them pay into the system, but the amount won’t be realized for many years.
I don’t believe the current system can process this many people and verify that some are not criminals or terrorists, let alone pay benefits to new Americans.