Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Bishops Take Clericalist Stance on Illegal Immigration

This article originally appeared in the Catholic "Crisis" magazine but was removed, presumbly at the instance of the American Catholic Bishops, who would seem to have a glass jaw when it comes to criticism.  A reader of "Crisis" was incensed at the suppression and wrote his own commentary on the matter, which appears second below

George Neumayr

The proper configurations of immigration law is clearly a matter on which Catholics can disagree. But one would never know that from the recent pronouncements of the U.S. bishops. What they call on their web page the “Catholic Church’s position on Immigration Reform” is not orthodox teaching but tired left-wing clericalism.

Blurring the line between real Church teaching and personal political opinions disguised as Church teaching undermines both orthodoxy and unity. But clericalist bishops don’t seem to care. They like that blurred line, as it allows them to play lobbyists for their pet political causes, from global warming to gun control to amnesty.

It is a scandal that the U.S. bishops feel entitled to use the faithful’s money to put together propaganda campaigns for disputed policy prescriptions. Were those policy prescriptions Republican rather than Democratic, liberals would be the first to object and bemoan the insidious influence of “religion in politics.” Imagine if the USCCB had a web page called taxjusticeforamericans.org and offered a “parish kit” that explains the “Catholic Church’s position on tax reform.” And what if it proposed an “intercessory prayer”(as it did for “immigration reform”) for the passage of a Flat Tax act? The cries of “clericalism” would be resounding.

But for what amounts to advancing the cause of amnesty, the bishops feel no qualms about using the faithful’s money to supply parishes with tools of propaganda, such as a “sample homily on migration related issues from Cardinal McCarrick,” which “may provide some insights on creating a homily related to immigration.”

Bishops who can’t even bring themselves to withhold Communion from abortion advocates lash out at “opponents of immigration” venomously, speaking of them as if they are apostates. By “opponents of immigration,” the bishops mean Americans who support existing law. What is contrary to Church teaching about that stance? Since when has opposition to illegal immigration constituted a sin against “justice for immigrants”?

Hectoring the American people about clinging too tightly to the rule of law seems an odd exercise of the Church’s moral authority. If anyone is on shaky ground in the illegal immigration debate, it’s the Cardinal Mahonys who encourage the breaking of just laws. What exactly is holy about that?

The irony is that the same bishops who won’t criticize Caesar when he is wrong will criticize him when he is right. Securing borders falls within the authority of Caesar. For the bishops to treat the performance of that legitimate duty as evidence of injustice does nothing to aid the advance of the Church’s teaching on the natural law.

At the very least, the bishops could temper their clericalism by acknowledging that supporters of existing law and secure borders hold a defensible view. Instead, they act like Democratic partisans who use sophistries and motive-mongering to shut down debate. It serves the political needs of the moment to cast opposition to their lobbying as opposition to “immigrants.” But that is completely dishonest. Does disagreeing with the bishops on something as technical and complicated as “earned citizenship” really make one less understanding of the true nature of justice? Is a Catholic “anti-immigrant” if he favors, say, legal residency rather than legal citizenship? There is no “Catholic teaching” on the precise form of a state’s regulation of legal immigration, much less on its handling of illegal immigration.

The specificity of their demands makes their clericalism look even more ludicrous. The other day leading bishops were urging that the already liberal immigration bill currently under consideration in the Senate be made even more liberal. It has too many “restrictions,” said Los Angeles Archbishop Jose Gomez.

Bishops have neither the authority nor the expertise to descend into the details of policy like that. By doing so, they just weaken the perception of their authority where it does exist. The Church in America appears to be gravitating back to the “Seamless Garment,” the attempt by clericalists in the 1980s to lump half-baked liberal opinions on trendy topics in with the Church’s official teachings. Out of that confusion came a stream of inane statements on subjects the bishops knew little to nothing about. This had the effect of making all the Church’s pronouncements look like feeble opining.

A glimpse of the garbled message to which Seamless Garment-style clericalism leads could be seen in Cardinal Sean O’Malley’s recent remarks after the Boston bombings. “The individualism and alienation of our age has spawned a culture of death. Over a million abortions a year is one indication of how human life has been devalued. Violent entertainment, films and video games have coarsened us and made us more insensitive to the pain and suffering of others,” he said. “The inability of the Congress to enact laws that control access to automatic weapons is emblematic of the pathology of our violent culture.”

So a million-plus abortions a year is “one indication” of a violent culture and another is the failure of a specific piece of gun-control legislation backed by the USCCB to pass. Can’t the bishops see how this dilutes the Church’s teachings? Can’t they see that in their desperate craving for political relevance they make the Church’s most important contribution to politics, the transmission of natural-law orthodoxy, irrelevant?

Clericalism ends up dogmatizing personal opinions and relativizing dogmas, making the Church just one more forgettable voice in the din of public life.


On the suppression of the Neumayr article

I really was looking forward to Mr. Neumayr's analysis of why U.S. Catholic bishops seem so Hell-bent (this faithful Catholic chooses the expression deliberately) to flood the United States with all-too-often incompatible foreign nationals, including those who have already entered the country illegally or remained illegally, and to have them all whose numbers we cannot remotely begin to estimate—granted U.S. citizenship as quickly as possible. I won't delve into analysis of who benefits from such nation-destroying folly except to note that it is not ordinary Americans, Catholic or otherwise. Good shepherds do not betray their flocks by agitating for their displacement in their own pastures, and I know of nothing in Christian tradition or Magisterial teaching that justifies U.S. bishops' strident support for effectively unlimited mass immigration. On the contrary, their advocacy of such an unquantifiable transformation is irresponsible imprudence.

If U.S. Catholic bishops should want a primer in intelligent immigration law—which I rather doubt—they would with great profit study the immigration laws of Mexico. Those are laws written in Mexicans' national interest, and the Mexican government actually enforces them.

Given their reprehensible collective weakness in addressing the homosexual scandals that have disgraced too many of our bishops and priests (one, of course, is already too many) and their unedifying timidity in the face of recalcitrant "Catholic" pro-abortion politicians, it takes chutzpah—if one may apply that term to our prelates—for such compromised shepherds to advocate a radical transformation of the United States, about which we may be sure only that the America most of us Americans grew up in will be destroyed, to be replaced by…what? A colder Brazil? A more libertine Iraq?

I have lived and worked in Mexico; I quite enjoyed it and I've spoken Spanish almost all my life. Despite my personally being quite comfortable among Mexicans in Mexico, one thing living in Mexico taught me is that I do not want America to become more like Mexico. And how may Americans prevent that when the federal government allows millions of Mexicans per year to settle in America in violation of U.S. law?

Of course, America's illegal demographic transformation includes far more than just Mexicans, and many who are anything but benign. Yet our bishops celebrate all of this entirely unnecessary social disruption, as did Pope John Paul II. At least the late Holy Father was far away from the mess, not that that is an excuse. I'm pretty sure most lay Catholic Americans do not share our bishops' enthusiasm.

One of the loudest of our transformer-bishops is Los Angeles' Archbishop José Gomez, a Mexican immigrant to America. While Archbishop Gomez is more palatable than his predecessor, Gomez's relentless advocacy of deluging America with his countrymen is a personal conflict of interest that cries to Heaven.

American Catholics are enduring an unprecedented time of weak and in several cases actively bad bishops. It is not disloyalty to the Church or the Faith for concerned Catholics to call their straying shepherds to account when they insert themselves so irresponsibly into secular political conflicts—at the expense of their American flock, the very people who should be their first concern. It is a matter of great sorrow, and anger, for this Catholic American to watch the bishops of his Church acting as a fifth-column against our country.

I don't know if any of the above echoes what George Neumayr had written that "might cause offense in some quarters," but they are things that need to be said.

And I must say that I am very sorry to learn that Crisis, a publication I have long respected, is being censored in this way. I would love to know who the "powers that be" to whom you refer are; you, of course, are under no obligation to disclose that.

I thank you for your explanation. And I'm very grateful to you for replying to my query. But I hope Crisis is not being force-marched into the pro-amnesty camp. I suppose we'll have an answer to that when we see what Crisis's powers-that-be consider addressing this topic "in a more acceptable manner" to be.


Rubio Claims Amnesty Needed to Identify Illegal Immigrants

But law already requires all aliens to register

Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) is claiming amnesty is necessary so that the United States can determine the identity of illegal aliens in the country. However, basic enforcement of existing immigration law is all that is necessary to acquire their identities. Instead of promoting amnesty, Sen. Rubio could demand that the Obama administration enforce 8 U.S.C.  1302, "Registration of Aliens," which makes it "the duty of every alien" to register their presence in the United States if they remain here 30 days or longer. Failure to do so results in a fine of up to $1,000 and/or imprisonment up to six months.

Rubio explained his support for amnesty and his flip-flop on border security, saying: "We don't want to wait on legalizing, and I'll tell you why. My original position was that we wanted to secure the border first, and then legalize. The problem is we have millions of people here now, by some estimates ten, eleven million. We want to know who they are and freeze the problem in place. I don't want that number to grow. It behooves us to know who they are as soon as possible, so it doesn't get worse."

More details here

The existing registration law applies to nearly all illegal aliens. The Department of Homeland Security's estimates of 11.5 million illegal aliens (as of January 2011) are on based the American Community Survey. The survey uses a two-month rule for calculating residency; those here for less than two months are not counted. This means that the 11.5 million illegal immigrants are by definition people who have been in the United States illegally for more than 60 days and running afoul of the 30-day registration requirement. There is simply no question that the illegal immigrant population is comprised of people who are violating this registration statute.

Sen. Rubio seems to have fallen into President Obama's trap: First, the Obama administration refuses to enforce immigration laws, and then the president points to all of the illegal immigration that results as a reason for amnesty. Rubio appears to have embraced the amnesty agenda as a means to correct a problem that has resulted from intentional non-enforcement.

View the Senate bill, CIS Senate testimony and commentary here

The above is a press release from from Center for Immigration Studies. 1522 K St. NW, Suite 820,  Washington, DC 20005, (202) 466-8185 fax: (202) 466-8076.  Email: center@cis.org. Contact: Marguerite Telford, 202-466-8185, mrt@cis.org.  The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent research institution which examines the impact of immigration on the United States.  The Center for Immigration Studies is not affiliated with any other organization

Monday, April 29, 2013


Ann Coulter

The people of Boston are no longer being terrorized by the Marathon bombers, but amnesty supporters sure are.

On CNN's "State of the Union" last weekend, Sen. Lindsey Graham's response to the Boston Marathon bombers being worthless immigrants who hate America -- one of whom the FBI cleared even after being tipped off by Russia -- was to announce: "The fact that we could not track him has to be fixed."

Track him? How about not admitting him as an immigrant?

As if it's a defense, we're told Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (of the Back Bay Tsarnaevs) were disaffected "losers" -- the word used by their own uncle -- who couldn't make it in America. Their father had already returned to Russia. Tamerlan had dropped out of college, been arrested for domestic violence and said he had no American friends. Dzhokhar was failing most of his college courses. All of them were on welfare.

(Dzhokhar was given everything America had to offer, and now he only has one thing in his future to look forward to ... a tenured professorship.)

My thought is, maybe we should consider admitting immigrants who can succeed in America, rather than deadbeats.

But we're not allowed to "discriminate" in favor of immigrants who would be good for America. Instead of helping America, our immigration policies are designed to help other countries solve their internal problems by shipping their losers to us.

The problem isn't just illegal immigration. I would rather have doctors and engineers sneaking into the country than legally arriving ditch-diggers.

Teddy Kennedy's 1965 immigration act so dramatically altered the kinds of immigrants America admits that, since 1969, about 85 percent of legal immigrants have come from the Third World. They bring Third World levels of poverty, fertility, illegitimacy and domestic violence with them. When they can't make it in America, they simply go on welfare and sometimes strike out at Americans.

In addition to the four dead and more than 100 badly wounded victims of the Boston Marathon bombing, let's consider a few of the many other people who would be alive, but for Kennedy's immigration law:

-- The six Long Island railroad passengers murdered in 1993 by Jamaican immigrant Colin Ferguson. Before the shooting, Ferguson was unemployed, harassing women on subways, repeatedly bringing lawsuits against police and former employers, applying for workman's compensation for fake injuries and blaming all his problems on white people. Whom he then decided to murder.

-- The two people killed outside CIA headquarters in 1993 by Pakistani illegal immigrant Mir Qazi. He had been working as a driver for a courier company. (It's nearly impossible to find an American who can drive.)

-- Christoffer Burmeister, a 27 year-old musician killed in a mass shooting by Palestinian immigrant Ali Hassan Abu Kamal in 1997 at the Empire State Building. Hassan had immigrated to America with his family two months earlier at age 68. (It's a smart move to bring in immigrants just in time to pay them Social Security benefits!)

-- Bill Cosby's son, Ennis, killed in 1997 by 18-year-old Ukrainian immigrant Mikhail Markhasev, who had come to this country with his single mother eight years earlier -- because we were running short on single mothers.

Markhasev, who had a juvenile record, shot Cosby point-blank for taking too long to produce his wallet. He later bragged about killing a "n*gger."

-- The three people murdered at the Appalachian School of Law in 2002 by Nigerian immigrant Peter Odighizuwa, angry at America because he had failed out of law school. At least it's understandable why our immigration policies would favor a 43-year-old law student. It's so hard to get Americans to go to law school these days!

-- The stewardess and passenger murdered by Egyptian immigrant Hesham Mohamed Hadayet when he shot up the El Al ticket counter at the Los Angeles airport in 2002. Hesham, a desperately needed limousine driver, received refugee status in the U.S. because he was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Apparently, that's a selling point if you want to immigrate to America.

-- The six men murdered by Mexican immigrant Salvador Tapia at the Windy City Core Supply warehouse in Chicago in 2003, from which he had been fired six months earlier. Tapia was still in this country despite having been arrested at least a dozen times on weapons and assault charges. Only foreign newspapers mentioned that Tapia was an immigrant. American newspapers blamed the gun.

-- The six people killed in northern Wisconsin in 2004 by Hmong immigrant Chai Soua Vang, who shot his victims in the back after being caught trespassing on their property. Minnesota Public Radio later explained that Hmong hunters don't understand American laws about private property, endangered species, or really any laws written in English. It was an unusual offense for a Hmong, whose preferred crime is raping 12- to 14-year-old girls -- as extensively covered in the Fresno Bee and Minneapolis Star Tribune.

-- The five people murdered at the Trolley Square Shopping Mall in Salt Lake City by Bosnian immigrant Sulejman Talovic in 2007. Talovic was a Muslim high school dropout with a juvenile record. No room for you, Swedish doctor. We need resentful Muslims!

-- The 32 people murdered at Virginia Tech in 2007 by Seung-Hui Cho, a South Korean immigrant.

-- The 13 soldiers murdered at Fort Hood in 2009 by "accused" shooter Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, son of Palestinian immigrants. Hasan's parents had operated a restaurant in Roanoke, Va., because where are we going to find Americans to do that?

-- The 13 people killed at the American Civic Association in Binghamton, N.Y., by Vietnamese immigrant Jiverly Wong, who became a naturalized citizen two years after being convicted of fraud and forgery in California. Wong was angry that people disrespected him for his poor English skills.

-- Florence Donovan-Gunderson, who was shot along with her husband, and three National Guardsmen in a Carson City IHOP gunned down by Mexican immigrant Eduardo Sencion in 2011.

-- The three people, including a 15-year-old girl, murdered in their home in North Miami by Kesler Dufrene, a Haitian immigrant and convicted felon who had been arrested nine times, but was released when Obama halted deportations to Haiti after the earthquake. Dufrene chose the house at random.

-- The many African-Americans murdered by Hispanic gangs in Los Angeles in the last few years, including Jamiel Shaw Jr., a star football player being recruited by Stanford; Cheryl Green, a 14-year-old eighth-grade student chosen for murder solely because she was black; and Christopher Ash, who witnessed Green's murder.

During the three years from 2010 through 2012, immigrants have committed about a dozen mass murders in this country, not including the 9/11 attack.

The mass murderers were from Afghanistan, South Korea, Vietnam, Haiti, South Africa, Ethiopia and Mexico. None were from Canada or Western Europe.

I don't want to hear about the black crime rate or the Columbine killers. We're talking about immigrants here! There should be ZERO immigrants committing crimes.There should be ZERO immigrants accepting government assistance. There should be ZERO immigrants demanding that we speak their language.

We have no choice about native-born losers. We ought to be able to do something about the people we chose to bring here.

Meanwhile, our government officials just keep singing the praises of "diversity," while expressly excluding skilled immigrants who might be less inclined to become "disaffected" and lash out by killing Americans.

In response to the shooting at Fort Hood, Army Chief of Staff Gen. George W. Casey Jr. said: "As horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse."

On "Fox News Sunday" this week, former CIA director Gen. Michael Hayden said of the Boston bombing suspects, "We welcome these kinds of folks coming to the United States who want to be contributing American citizens."

Unless, that is, they have a college degree and bright prospects. Those immigrants are prohibited


Home Office fury as drug dealer immigrant wins right to stay in UK

A judge's decision to allow a convicted drug dealer who abandoned his children the right to stay in Britain over his “human rights” is at the centre of mounting political protest.

Hesham Mohammed Ali won an appeal against moves by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, to deport him because of his crimes.

He convinced a judge he had a “family life” which had to be respected because he had a “genuine” relationship with a British woman – despite already having two children by different women with whom he now has no contact.

Ali also mounted an extraordinary claim that his life would be in danger in his native Iraq because he was covered in tattoos, including a half-naked Western woman – a claim which was only dismissed after exhaustive legal examination.

In his decision to let Ali stay, the immigration judge said he was not taking into account new guidelines introduced by the Home Secretary last week, in an attempt to stop spurious human rights cases being brought by criminals to prevent their deportation.

The Home Office has said it was “disappointed” by the ruling, while MPs said it showed there was an urgent need to stop abuse of human rights laws.

“Foreigners who commit serious crimes should be deported, regardless of whether they have family in the UK,” a spokesman said.

“We are disappointed with this judgment and that is why this Government will bring forward primary legislation to prevent foreign nationals remaining in the UK through abuse of the Human Rights Act.”

Dominic Raab, the Tory MP who is campaigning for human rights reform, said of the case: “It is bad enough a convicted drug dealer cheating deportation because he has a girlfriend.

“But it’s even worse that our elastic human rights laws consume government time and money fighting such ludicrous claims. The shifting human rights goalposts have encouraged a 'try it on’ culture at taxpayers’ expense.”

Priti Patel, the Tory MP, said: “The right to family life has been completely abused in this case. It’s clear this individual has no regard for proper family life and the upbringing of his children, as he has no relationship with either of the mothers let alone either of his children themselves.

“It is wrong for hard-working British taxpayers to be footing the bill for cases like this. It is further evidence that our human rights laws need to be reviewed immediately.”

The Home Office spent thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money trying to have Ali deported, fighting his initial appeal – which was eventually set aside – and a second hearing.

The two key elements of his claim were his “family life”, and the danger his tattoos would pose if he was deported to Iraq.

During that hearing the court went to great lengths to consider the issue of Ali’s tattoos, with Judge Jonathan Perkins describing the issue as “problematic”. He asked whether Ali, 36, had considered having the tattoos removed and heard evidence from an expert witness on whether Iraqi people were victimised for having body art.

Ali was brought to Britain “irregularly” by a people-smuggling gang in 2000, when he was 24, and has never been in this country legally. Two years after arriving he made an asylum claim which was refused, as was a subsequent appeal. However, for reasons which are unknown, he was not deported and continued to live in Britain.

He had a child with an Irish woman and then another son with a woman from Liverpool but has no contact with either child, the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber heard.

In November 2005 he was convicted of possessing Class A and Class C drugs, and fined.

Just over a year later he was convicted of another offence at Snaresbrook Crown Court in London but this time it was more serious – possessing Class A drugs with intent to supply – and he was jailed for four years. Under immigration laws any foreign national jailed for a year or more should be subject to automatic deportation.

Within months of his sentencing, the Home Office told Ali they would attempt to deport him but because there was confusion over his true nationality, the case was allowed to lapse.

The drug dealer was released on bail in January 2009. Deportation proceedings began again in 2010, and Ali again lodged an appeal. He told the court he would be in danger if he was returned to Iraq because he was so Westernised.

Allowing him to stay at the second hearing, Judge Perkins said he was impressed by evidence from Ali’s girlfriend, Cy Harwood, 31, a Londoner who has trained as a beautician. They met in 2005.

The judge ruled that Ali’s deportation would have a very damaging effect on her and would be a breach of the couple’s rights under Article 8.

“Destroying an important relationship in the light of a reformed criminal who was last in trouble over six years ago is, I find, just too much and I am satisfied that an exception is made out,” he said.

The judge also detailed the claim that tattoos, and Ali’s claim that he had become Westernised, would put him in danger in Iraq.

“He described himself as 'covered in tattoos’ including a half-naked Western woman on his chest, a sea horse and star on his arm and his fiancee’s name 'Cy’ surrounded by stars on his hand.

“He was asked if he could refer to any evidence to confirm his alleged fear that being tattooed would be a sign of the infidel in Iraq. His answer was vague. He referred to watching videos on YouTube. He said that people with tattoos get stoned or harmed.”

Alan George, a specialist on Iraq who appeared for Ali, told the court he was not aware of any examples of Muslims being persecuted because of their tattoos but he added that “tattoos would be considered un-Islamic and a tattoo of a semi-naked woman particularly objectionable”.

He suggested it would be difficult for Ali to pray because Muslim ritual requires him to bathe and expose his body.

Describing the issue as “problematic”, Judge Perkins said: “I have had to think carefully about this but the appellant had not given any indication that he had any objection to trying to conceal the tattoo or have it removed.

“[The tattoo on Ali’s hand] might prompt inquiry but as it is a central feature of the appellant’s case that he is now a devout Muslim I am not persuaded there is a real risk of a tattoo doing more than prompting curiosity which would be satisfied by his sincere explanation about the strength of his religious convictions.”

Ali said he worked as a wrestling promoter and had also been a professional dancer. At one stage he passed an audition to work for Simon Cowell, the music impresario, but “he was arrested before he was able to take advantage of that opportunity,” the court heard.

Judge Perkins added that he was deliberately not taking into account the Home Secretary’s changes to the immigration rules.

“I do not arrive at this conclusion by considering the rules in their amended form which purports to introduce aspects of Article 8 expressly into the rules,” he said.

“They do not assist me with the proper application of the appellant’s human rights. My decision is in accordance with binding jurisprudence.”

The case raises new concerns over the arguments sometimes put forward by foreigners who are seeking to stay in Britain, such as the Bolivian man whose case was first reported in The Sunday Telegraph in 2009.

Camilo Soria Avila argued that he should not be deported partly because he and his boyfriend had bought a pet cat, Maya, and joint ownership of the animal added weight to his case that he enjoyed the “right to family life” in Britain.

The immigration tribunal ruled that sending Mr Avila, 36, back to Bolivia would breach his human rights because he was entitled to a “private and family life”

with his British boyfriend Frank Trew, 49, and joint ownership of a pet was evidence that he was fully settled in this country.


Sunday, April 28, 2013

Why Haven't You Heard About The anti-illegal Victory In Georgia?

A reader writes:

"I just found out this morning that Governor Deal of Georgia signed SB 160 on April 25, 2013. I stumbled across the information on my Face Book page. I have heard nothing about this on the national media, not even on Fox..."

I don't see any national publicity either (rather like after last year's victory in Alabama, funny thing) but there's an excellent summary by Stand With Arizona's John Hill here:

"Gov. Nathan Deal yesterday signed S.B. 160 – a tough expansion of Georgia’s H.B. 87, the Arizona-style law cracking down on illegal aliens, which passed in 2011.

The La Raza lobby was left stunned and upset, believing Deal would bend to the prevailing GOP pressure for immigration appeasement in Washington, and veto it. They were sadly mistaken...

Martin Lopez, an illegal alien “immigrant rights activist” from Atlanta, was among those who demonstrated outside the state Capitol this month. He said many illegals have been using their foreign passports as a form of identification to get public benefits because the state’s 2011 law prohibits officials from accepting matricula consular cards when people apply. He said he doesn’t know “what they can do now”.

They can go back to their country, Mr. Lopez."


EU tells Britain: Make it easier for jobless migrants to find work

Brussels has demanded  that Britain makes it easier for the unemployed from other  European Union countries to find jobs here.

The EU Commission said that while some states suffer `much higher' levels of unemployment, the rest of the EU should open their doors and help.

It wants new rules to force the Government to better advise migrants about their rights. They would also make it easier for unions and migrant groups to launch legal action if they think foreign workers are suffering discrimination.

The intervention put the EU Commission on a collision course with David Cameron, who yesterday said the Government will legislate to make it harder for EU migrants to come to Britain and claim benefits.

Downing Street sources said the measure would be included in the Queen's Speech. Mr Cameron's aim is to prevent a sudden influx to the UK when EU migration restrictions for Romanians and Bulgarians are lifted in January.

In Britain, 4.8 per cent of the labour force - 1.4million people - is already made up of migrants from other EU nations. This compares with 4 per cent in Germany, and just 2.4 per cent in France.

Demanding greater help for migrant workers, the EU employment and social affairs commissioner Laszlo Andor said: `The free movement of workers is a key principle of the EU's single market.

`With much higher levels of unemployment in some member states than others at the moment, it is all the more important to make it easier for those who want to work in another EU country to be able to do so.'

He added that `there is no evidence that migrant workers take jobs away from host country workers'.
Mr Andor, a Hungarian economist, will now seek approval from the European Parliament and the EU's council of ministers for his plan.

A spokesman for the British government said: `This is just a proposal, but we will forcefully resist any attempt from Europe to load additional burdens onto countries like Britain.

`We are already taking action to stamp out the abuse of free movement, to protect our benefits system and public services; we will not allow this country to be a soft touch.'

Tory MP Philip Hollobone said: `The European Commission has shown once again how out of touch it is with popular opinion in this country. It seems the Commission now thinks one of its responsibilities is to share round Europe unemployment between member states - including to Britain, which is not a member of the euro.'

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of MigrationWatch UK, said the plans `pay no attention to the implications for the northern European countries, especially Britain, which already have historically high unemployment'.

The Commission's intervention comes at a time of soaring unemployment in the countries worst hit by the euro crisis. In Spain, the number of jobless this week increased to more than six million - or 27.2 per cent of the workforce.

This week the Mail revealed how Britain was leading a drive for the EU to tighten rules on free movement, warning that migrants from other member states are putting `considerable strain' on schools, healthcare and the welfare state. The EU Commission says migration has a positive impact on the economy of member states. It claimed that Britain opening its borders to eight members of the former Eastern Bloc, including Poland, had boosted GDP by 1.2 per cent between 2004-2009.

However, it stressed that `barriers and discriminatory practices' were still common for migrant workers.


Friday, April 26, 2013

99.5% of Deferred Action Applications Approved

Would Same Rubber-stamping Occur Under Senate Amnesty Bill?

Statistics from U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Service indicate that the agency is rubber-stamping the applications for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. They report that 99.5% of applicants have been approved, which appears to be well above approval rates for other legal programs, which have fraud and rejection rates in the double digits. The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) predicts the level of fraud could be significant in what is considered a test run for the much larger amnesty included in the Schumer-Rubio immigration bill.

In the first six weeks of the DACA program, only one out of every 5,000 applications was denied. These numbers are quite worrisome, considering prior CIS research estimated that one quarter of the applications during the 1986 amnesty were fraudulent. The 1986 program had an even tougher application review process that included routine face to face interviews. The question is whether such a limited review process would also occur under the sweeping amnesty bill currently being considered by Congress.

"USCIS should answer public concerns that DACA applicants are not required to prove their claims of eligibility, and that the agency is taking proper care to vet applicants so that unqualified and possibly dangerous individuals will be screened out and removed," stated Jessica Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies. "Moreover, given renewed concern over the national security risks of mass immigration, no large-scale legalization program should be implemented until a thorough quality control and fraud assessment of DACA has been conducted. The stakes for public safety are just too high for us to rush into sweeping reforms."

A CIS Backgrounder illustrating the lessons learned from 1986 amnesty can be found here

View the text, summary and status of the Sen. Schumer and Sen. Rubio amnesty bill, S.744: here

The above is a press release from from Center for Immigration Studies. 1522 K St. NW, Suite 820,  Washington, DC 20005, (202) 466-8185 fax: (202) 466-8076.  Email: center@cis.org. Contact: Marguerite Telford, 202-466-8185, mrt@cis.org.  The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent research institution which examines the impact of immigration on the United States.  The Center for Immigration Studies is not affiliated with any other organization

Immigration Law Hangs on Securing Rugged Nogales Frontier

The daily struggle along the rugged Nogales frontier, which the U.S. government ranks as the highest-risk sector of its border with Mexico -- a region where 120,000 people were caught crossing last year -- points to a security challenge central to enactment of any new immigration law. Senators are advancing a bill requiring that the Border Patrol show "90 percent effectiveness" in securing this and other high-risk border sectors -- areas where more than 30,000 people a year are caught crossing -- before legal rights are conferred on the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S.

The concern about border security, which Republican leaders call essential to a broader agreement on a path to citizenship for the undocumented, visas for guest-workers and farmworkers, and other elements of an immigration law rewrite, has only heightened following the April 15 Boston Marathon bombings. Two brothers whose family legally emigrated from Kyrgyzstan to the U.S. a decade ago and sought political asylum have been identified as the culprits.

"That's the No. 1 criterion," said Senator Ron Johnson, a Wisconsin Republican elected in 2010. "We want to treat the eventual problem with real humanity, but before that, we really do have to secure our border, not just because of the immigration issue, but also just for national security."

In the House, where the immigration bill faces long odds, Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, a Virginia Republican, calls border security "very crucial" to any plan -- "exactly how it works in conjunction with the rest of immigration reform, it has yet to be decided," he said.

Legislation filed by a bipartisan group of eight senators demands a border-control plan with fencing and surveillance assuring that 90 percent of those who attempt to cross into the U.S. are apprehended or turned back to Mexico in these high-risk sectors before other steps are taken on immigration.
Three Sectors

There are three such sectors: The area south of Tucson, Arizona, that includes Nogales; the border near Laredo, Texas; and Rio Grande River valley near Brownsville. The effectiveness of security last year, according to a Government Accountability Office report based on Border Patrol data, has ranged from 87 percent in the Tucson sector to 71 percent along the Rio Grande.

Senators say this makes the border-security in their plan obtainable, enabling the government then to move forward with citizenship for the undocumented and other measures.

"The border-security triggers are strong, but achievable," Senator Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat who has visited the Arizona border in negotiations over the bill, said at an April 18 Washington news conference announcing it.

In the desert region south of Tucson that alternates between rocky gulches and 7,000-foot peaks, part of a 262-mile stretch of an almost 2,000-mile-long border, the challenge is spelled out in numbers: In this sector alone, 124,363 people were caught trying to cross into the U.S. in 2011, the GAO reports. That's close to one-third of the 328,000 apprehensions along the entire Southwest U.S. border. Another 43,539 were turned back; an estimated 25,376 got away.

Manuel Padilla Jr., chief patrol agent of the Tucson sector, said calculating the effectiveness rate, which only applies in the border areas between ports of entry, is "not an exact science."

"In the urban areas, we have a very high effectiveness rate," he said. "Once you start getting into the rural environment, that's where it gets more difficult."

On Interstate 19 at the "19 Charlie" checkpoint between Tucson and Nogales -- a white, warehouse-sized, flood-lit canopy crossing three lanes about 20 miles north of the border -- agents with K-9 dogs scan a line of cars for suspicious behavior. They target shuttle vans, pulling over many.

"Every day, we have a seizure of some kind at this checkpoint," said Leslie Lawson, patrol agent in charge of the Nogales station.

Detection Devices

In the desert surrounding the checkpoint, cameras and infrared scopes detect illicit movement. In the days after footprints and other evidence of illegal crossing are discovered, agents work to match up the information with the immigrants they apprehend to determine their effectiveness rate.

Officials in Texas's Rio Grande valley haven't had as much success in stemming illegal entries. While they've raised the sector's effectiveness rate from 55 percent in 2006, it remains the major area where migrants are most likely to successfully enter the U.S., the GAO reported.

The calculation of how many may be getting away, compared with how many are caught or turned back, is the metric that will determine when any new immigration law will enable the undocumented already in the U.S. to start seeking legal status and eventually, a decade later, citizenship.

"It is doable," said Christopher Wilson, an associate with the Washington-based Woodrow Wilson Center's Mexico Institute. "When I first saw the 90 percent, that sounded really high to me, but the reality is, it is within reach."

Divided Community

It isn't only desert that toughens the task.

The Tucson-sector border slices through urbanized Nogales, where homes in Mexico and the U.S. stand a few dozen feet apart. In Nogales, 2.5 miles of rust-colored bollard fencing with iron posts sunk several feet deep divide a community in two. Even the sewage pipes must be patrolled, and tunnels filled.

Lawson, spotting a look-out on a Mexican hilltop, predicts a crossing soon. Within the hour, her truck radio crackles with an apprehension.

"It is a long, slow process, and it is not going to happen overnight," Lawson said of the battle against illegal immigration. "As we're gaining control in the urban areas, they move to the flanks."

Outside Nogales, the border dips and rises over the rolling landscape invisible to strategically placed cameras. To the west, in the Tumacacori Highlands, mountain peaks block vehicular access, limiting access even by all-terrain vehicles or horses and forcing agents to hike in on foot. Padilla said it will require an infusion of technology such as sensors and cameras to enhance enforcement in these outposts.

Barrier Limits

There's a practical limit to barriers that can be built. It costs $6 million a mile to fence flat land, Lawson said, and more on rougher terrain. "Is a 15-foot fence on top of a 5,000- foot peak going to make a difference?" she asked.

Overall, attempted border crossings are down since 2000, when 1.68 million people were apprehended on the Southwest border, according to the U.S Customs and Border Protection agency. Last year, the number was about 357,000.

In the last 20 years, the U.S. has boosted the number of agents along the Mexican border from just under 3,500 in 1993 to more than 18,500 in 2012, according to the agency. In the Tucson sector, that contingent has grown from 287 to 4,176.

"If you look at the Tucson sector right now, the achievements we've made are indisputable," Padilla said. "Are we finished? No, we still have work to do."


Thursday, April 25, 2013

Switzerland restricts EU immigration

Switzerland has announced that it will extend immigration limits to all European Union countries amid pressure from the political far-right.

Switzerland, which is not an EU member, already has a quota in place for eight Eastern European members that joined the bloc in 2004, as well as special, stricter regulations for the newest members Bulgaria and Romania, which joined in 2007.

The justice and police ministry said on Wednewsday that it would now limit resident permits to a maximum of 53,700 annually for citizens from the remaining 17 EU countries.

Under an agreement with the European Union, Switzerland can invoke this so-called safeguard clause if immigration rises above a certain level.

The decision drew criticism from EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, who said it ran counter to agreements between the 27-member bloc and the Alpine country.

"These measures disregard the great benefits that the free movement of persons brings to the citizens of both Switzerland and the EU," she added.

The government's step came after the far-right Swiss People's Party and the right-wing ecological group Ecopop launched initiatives for referenda to slow immigration.

The overall number of immigrants had exceeded those leaving the country by 60,000 to 80,000 over the past years, the ministry said.

"The government does not view the invocation of the safeguard clause as an unfriendly act towards the EU," Justice Minister Simonetta Sommaruga told reporters.  "It's a fact that there is unease among the population, and it's necessary to take this unease seriously," she added.


Recent posts at CIS  below

See  here for the blog.  The CIS main page is here


1. Asking for Trust, Evading Verification: A Chronology of Border Patrol and DHS Positions on Border Security Metrics

2. Dynamic Scoring of Immigration? A Critique of Douglas Holtz-Eakin's Analysis

3. Obama's Deportation Claims Disputed: Higher Immigrant Deportation Numbers, But Fewer Deportations

4. Enforcement Deceptive in Immigration Bill

5. Gang of 8 Bill Doesn't Reflect Reality of U.S. Labor Market


6. McCain and Napolitano Clash: The Battle of Border Metrics

7. Update: Most Terrorist Incidents in the Past Five Years Committed by Foreign-Born Individuals

8. Boston Bombers May Complicate Matters for the Gang of Eight

9. Immigration Reform in the National Interest: The Jordan Commission vs. the "Gang of Eight"

10. Was Bad News for Gun Control Good for Immigration Bill?

11. Immigration Reform in the National Interest: An Audacious and Unnecessary "Grand Plan"

12. Senate Bill: New Promised Land, or Son of IRCA?

13. The Complete Phoniness of the Gang of 8 Immigration Bill

14. Some Thoughts about the Waiting Periods for the Amnestied

15. Question for the Gang of Eight: What Color Is the Sky on Your World?

16. On the Side, Let's Have 4.7 Million More Extended Family Immigrants

17. Borjas Charted: Who Benefits Economically from Immigration?

18. Do We Really Need Huge Numbers of Foreign Workers?

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

Big lurch:  British Labour Party goes racist?

From one extreme to the other.  The vote for UKIP has got both sides of politics running scared

Labour was today accused of peddling 'xenophobic rhetoric' after a senior frontbencher complained about receptionists in hotels being foreign.  In controversial remarks, Labour’s shadow immigration minister Chris Bryant said it ‘would be nice’ to go into a hotel in this country which had a British receptionist.  He said he was ‘angry’ at employers for failing to train and employ Brits, relying instead on people from Latvia and Estonia.

But the Tories said the comments were proof that Ed Miliband's party was 'confused' on the issue of immigration and was 'cynically' trying to grab headlines.

Mr Bryant, the MP for Rhondda in south Wales, said local businesses had been unable to fill jobs with local people.  ‘I have very high levels of youth unemployment in my constituency; it has risen by some 200 per cent in the last year,’ he told BBC2’s Newsnight.

‘I do get quite angry with some British employers, who’ve decided not to bother train British youngsters to work in the hospitality industry or the construction industry.  ‘It would be nice sometimes when you go into a British hotel if the receptionist was British.

‘We need to give our young people to have the skills and the opportunities to get those jobs.

‘There is a hotel in my constituency quite often it’s not been able to employ locally, it has ended up employing people from Estonia and Latvia, often people from Estonia and Latvia have so much get up and go they’ve got up and gone.’

He was speaking during a debate on the impact of immigration in the UK, ahead of limits being lifted next year on the number of people from Bulgaria and Romania who can settle elsewhere in the European Union.

Conservative MP Nadhim Zahawi said: 'Chris Bryant's choice of words are irresponsible and unwise.  'His comments demonstrate how confused Labour are over the issue of immigration. Labour have gone from an "open door" policy leaving the country to cope with 2 million migrants, to cynically  peddling xenophobic rhetoric.'

Victor Ponta, the prime minister of Romania, admitted there is a problem with citizens of his country coming to Britain and committing crimes.

He said Roma gypsies, in particular, posed a 'huge challenge' to law enforcement by begging and stealing mobile phones.  And he backed Britain's moves to tighten up access to benefits for Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants.

It came as surverys suggested 150,000 Romanians and 200,000 Bulgarians are planning to move to Britain.

During the debate Mr Bryant apologised the immigration policy of the Labour government, in which he was a minister.  He said:’ In all situations where you have one country where wages are much lower than in another country, then people will be prepared, despite having very advanced skills and knowledge and qualifications, to work at much lower level in another country.

‘One of the things we have to take into consideration – absolutely – well, yes – can I do the apology on behalf of the Labour party.

‘I mean look, there was a very serious mistake that was made in 2004, which is that, all the main political parties believed in enlargement of the European Union.

‘The point is that we went out – Britain went out on a limb – Britain decided that unlike France and Germany and Italy that we would allow people to come to the UK, immediately from day one.’


Enforcement Deceptive in U.S. Immigration Bill

Exit-tracking system mandated since '96, but promise not kept;

Bill requires system only at sea and airports, not land borders

The public doesn’t believe Congress will enforce the kind of immigration enforcement measures included in the new Schumer/Rubio immigration bill. After decades of deliberate non-enforcement, the political class has undermined its credibility and created a major trust gap. A recent poll published by the Center for Immigration Studies shows that just 27% of Americans expressed confidence that immigration laws would be enforced in the event of a legalization, while 70 percent indicated that they were not confident immigration law would be enforced.

One provision in the newly released Senate immigration bill, S. 744, exemplifies the reasons for this trust gap. Sponsors of the bill tout its toughness on enforcement by pointing to its mandate to develop an exit-tracking system for foreign visitors. This is important because perhaps 40 percent of illegal aliens entered legally but remained beyond their allotted time, and only an effective check-out system can identify those who don't leave when they're supposed to. The completion of the exit system is one of the goals, or "triggers", that has to be met before an amnesty beneficiary can upgrade from “provisional” status to a full green card and then citizenship. Without it illegal immigration would simply resume after an amnesty, ensuring this same debate a decade from now.

But Congress mandated the development of such a system in 1996, and has reiterated that demand five more times over the past 17 years. Sponsors of the bill offer no explanation why the seventh promise to complete the system will be any more likely to be honored than the first six, especially since there is virtually no political incentive to do so, the illegal population having been amnestied within months of the bill's signing. What's more, the new bill mandates exit-tracking only at airports and seaports, even though the majority of foreign visitors come across our land borders.

"This is the kind of chicanery that justifiably feeds public skepticism," said Mark Krikorian, the Center's executive director. "A focus on keeping past enforcement promises, before arguing for amnesty, would be an important step toward regaining public trust."

See the report from a 2010 Center symposium on "The Politics and Practicalities of Exit Controls"  here.

The above is a press release from from Center for Immigration Studies. 1522 K St. NW, Suite 820,  Washington, DC 20005, (202) 466-8185 fax: (202) 466-8076.  Email: center@cis.org. Contact: Marguerite Telford, 202-466-8185, mrt@cis.org.  The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent research institution which examines the impact of immigration on the United States.  The Center for Immigration Studies is not affiliated with any other organization

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Winners & Losers from Immigration

As the Senate today begins considering legislation to amnesty the illegal population and substantially increase future immigration, it's important to keep in mind the effects this would have on the economic position of American workers.

Below is a graphical representation of numbers drawn from a recent Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder, "Immigration and the American Worker: A Review of the Academic Literature", by Harvard Professor George Borjas, who is generally recognized as the nation's leading immigration economist. They show only the non-fiscal economic impacts of international migration. Were tax and welfare balances to be shown, the picture would be even more dramatic, since immigrants are, on average, a low-income population.

For more information on Senate bill S.744 visit here

The above is a press release from from Center for Immigration Studies. 1522 K St. NW, Suite 820,  Washington, DC 20005, (202) 466-8185 fax: (202) 466-8076.  Email: center@cis.org. Contact: Marguerite Telford, 202-466-8185, mrt@cis.org.  The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent research institution which examines the impact of immigration on the United States.  The Center for Immigration Studies is not affiliated with any other organization

350,000 Bulgarians and Romanians 'looking for work in the UK

Nearly 350,000 Romanians and Bulgarians could be looking for work in the UK, a new poll has suggested.

Research for the BBC has found that 1 per cent of working age Romanians and 4.2 per cent of Bulgarians said they are currently looking for work in the UK in 2013 or 2014.

Work restrictions on people coming to the UK from the two countries are lifted from the end of the year, prompting concerns of a major influx of migrants to this country.

The BBC polled 1,000 people each in the two countries earlier this year and found that large numbers of people are considering leaving their homes for the UK in the next two years.

In Romania there are around 15.3million people of working age, meaning that the 1 per cent considering moving to the UK equates to around 153,000 people.

In Bulgaria there are around 4.67million people of working age, meaning that according to the BBC statistics, more than 196,000 could be considering moving to the UK to find a job.

According to the survey, however, far fewer Romanians and Bulgarians would actually end up coming to the UK.

The poll found that seven in ten of the Romanians who are thinking about moving to live in Britain would reconsider in the light of the restrictions to benefits being proposed by the Coalition.

The survey also said that of those saying they were considering coming to the UK, just 1.2 per cent of Bulgarians and 0.4 per cent of Romanians has indicated that they had started making concrete plans.

Large numbers also said they would only move to the UK if they had an offer of work from a UK company.

The survey found that when all of those polled were asked to pick their first choice of EU country to move to, 4.6 per cent of Romanians and 9.3 per cent of Bulgarians chose the UK.

According to a British Labour Force sample survey, there are currently 26,000 Bulgarians and 80,000 Romanians living in the UK.

Earlier this month study by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (Niesr), a research group, found the number of Romanians and Bulgarians who will come to live in this country next year is “not possible to predict”.

However, it also signalled that Britain is woefully unprepared for the ending of migration restrictions at the end of this year.

The report suggested that any influx of Romanians and Bulgarians could put a strain on schools and be made worse by the economic crisis in Italy and Spain.

The Foreign Office insisted the report showed that there was “no reason at all to panic” about the lifting of the restrictions on Romanians and Bulgarians from December 31.

Niesr was asked by the Foreign Office to examine the “potential impact” of migration from Romania and Bulgaria, who joined the European Union on 1 January 2007. Despite being paid £30,000 of public money and drawing on more than 100 research works, Niesr was not explicitly asked to produce any estimates of how many people might come to the UK.

However the same think tank suggested in 2011 that around 21,000 immigrants from Romania and Bulgaria a year - substantially more than the 13,000 a year predicted in a report for the last Labour government - will come here last year.

Earlier this year Migration Watch, a thinktank which has a good record of forecasting migration, published figures suggesting that 50,000 a year Romanians and Bulgarians will come here, although others suggest this estimate is too high.

Philip Hollobone, Conservative MP for Kettering, said: “The reality is that nobody has any clear idea about how many people will come to the UK from Romania and Bulgaria.

“The BBC figures only have to be a little bit out for the numbers to be huge and significant. The British public feel hugely let down that the Government has not published any meaningful statistics on possible numbers.”


Monday, April 22, 2013

Immigration Sophistry

 Thomas Sowell

Most laws are meant to stop people from doing something, and to penalize those who disregard those laws. More generally, laws are meant to protect the society from the law breakers.
But our immigration laws are different. Here the whole focus is on the "plight" of those who have broken the laws, and on what can be done to lift the stigma and ease the pressures they feel, so that they can "come out of the shadows" and "normalize" their lives.

Merely using the word "illegal" to describe their breaking the law is considered to be a sign of mean-spiritedness, if not racism. The Associated Press refuses to let their reporters refer to people who sneaked across the border into this country, in violation of American immigration laws, as "illegal immigrants."

On the other hand, if an ordinary American citizen breaks a law, no one cares if he has to live in fear for years -- "in the shadows," as it were -- worrying that his illegal act will be discovered and punished. No one bothers to come up with euphemisms to keep from calling what he did illegal.

No cities announce that they will provide "sanctuary," so that American shoplifters, or even jay-walkers, will be protected from the law. But, in some places, illegal immigrants are treated almost as if they were in a witness protection program.

What is even more remarkable about this special treatment is that you are not supposed to think about it as special treatment. When a new immigration law is proposed that simply overlooks violations of the old law, that is not supposed to be called "amnesty" -- even though the word "amnesty" has the same root as "amnesia." It is all about forgetting.

Why is it not supposed to be called "amnesty"? Because illegal immigrants must "earn" their citizenship. But if an ordinary American citizen gets a traffic ticket, the law is not going to just forget about it, no matter what good deeds he does afterwards.

People who come here perfectly legally have to earn their citizenship. Why is earning citizenship some special reason for ignoring the illegality of others?

Impressive feats of sophistry have become the norm in discussions of illegal immigration.

For example, we are told that there is no way that the government can find all the people who are in the country illegally and deport them. Does anyone imagine that the government can find all the embezzlers, drunk drivers or bank robbers in the country? And does anyone think that this is a reason why the government should stop trying to enforce laws against embezzlement, drunk driving or bank robbery? Or let embezzlers, drunk drivers and bank robbers "come out of the shadows" and "normalize" their lives?

Even if the government does not lift a finger to find illegal immigrants, many will come to the attention of law enforcement officials because of their violations of other laws. But, even then, there is no assurance that they will be deported -- and certainly not in "sanctuary" cities.

Why are there immigration laws in the first place? For the benefit of the American people -- not for the benefit of people in other countries who want to come here.

But political and media elites treat the American people as if they are the problem -- a problem to be circumvented with sophistry and pious promises about border security that have not been kept in all these years since the last amnesty, decades ago.

Making an irreversible decision to add millions of people -- and their dissimilar cultures -- permanently to the American body politic is something that should take months of careful examination and discussion, both inside and outside of Congress. But it is likely to get less time than you would take to decide whether to buy a house, or perhaps even a car.

What should American immigration policy be? It doesn't matter what any of us think that policy should be if the borders are not secure, because whoever wants to come across that border will come across anyway, in defiance of whatever the policy might be.

If legal benefits are conferred on illegal immigrants before the border is secured, we may as well give up any pretense that we have an immigration policy, because benefits conferred are never going to be taken back, no matter how porous the border remains.


New Data on Border Crossings Could Change Immigration Debate

There's a confrontation coming between the Obama administration and Republicans in Congress over the most basic question of immigration reform: How secure is the U.S. border with Mexico?

Not only does the administration not know -- and perhaps doesn't want to know -- but there are signs the border is less secure than some of the most skeptical Republicans thought.

Last year the Border Patrol began experimenting with a new drone-based surveillance system that had been developed for finding Taliban fighters in Afghanistan. Starting in the fall, officials used the radar-based system over a fairly small portion of the Arizona border. The results were striking.

"According to internal reports, Border Patrol agents used the airborne radar to help find and detain 1,874 people in the Sonora Desert between October 1 [2012] and January 17 [2013]," reported the Los Angeles Times last week. "But the radar system spotted an additional 1,962 people in the same area who evaded arrest and disappeared into the United States."

That means officers caught fewer than half of those who made the crossing in that part of Arizona. If those results are representative of other sectors of the border, then everything the administration has said about border security is wrong.

"These revelations are in stark contrast to the administration's declaration that the border is more secure than ever due to greater resources having been deployed to the region, and that lower rates of apprehensions signify fewer individuals are crossing," Rep. Michael McCaul, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, wrote in an April 5 letter to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

"Since the creation of DHS, Congress has provided significant funding increases in the number of Border Patrol agents, the building of nearly 700 miles of fencing and the deployment of advanced technologies to increase the nation's ability to monitor the border," the Texas Republican added. "However, we do not know if additional resources have produced better results."

For years, Napolitano and other officials at the Department of Homeland Security have pointed to the declining number of border apprehensions as proof that the total number of illegal crossings is also declining. Now, it could mean the administration just isn't catching most of the crossers.

"The results speak for themselves," says one GOP Hill aide involved in border security issues. "We can't really use apprehensions as an accurate measure when we're not even seeing half the people."

In light of the radar numbers, McCaul has asked Napolitano to provide data to back up her assertion that the border is more secure than ever. The answer could have a huge effect on the comprehensive immigration reform bills Congress will consider in coming weeks and months.

For example, there are reports that the Senate's bipartisan Gang of Eight negotiators have added a border security provision to their proposal to give immediate legalization to the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. Before that legalization occurs, Homeland Security would have to submit a plan that would, within a decade, result in the apprehension of 90 percent of those who cross the border illegally. The department would also have to have 100 percent of the border under surveillance.

That's not all. The Gang of Eight plan is then expected to call for greater border security measures -- and results -- before those newly legalized immigrants are placed on a path that eventually will lead to citizenship.

Both provisions will be met with a lot of skepticism, at least on the right. Will Republicans really agree to legalize 11 million currently illegal immigrants on the strength of Janet Napolitano's promise to secure the border sometime in the next 10 years -- especially after Napolitano claimed, on the basis of dubious evidence, that the border is already secure?

Some immigration reformers see the radar story as hopeful news, showing that there are new ways to use technology to secure the border. But of course it is the administration's job to enforce border security, and DHS has spent years resisting even assessing the situation.

McCaul and others are expected to introduce legislation that would require Homeland Security to come up with a comprehensive strategy to secure the border -- and then carry it out. The problem is that such demands have been made many times in the past, and the border is still not secure. Given the Obama administration's record, is there any reason to believe that things will be any different this time, no matter what promises are made?


Sunday, April 21, 2013

A good deal for the illegals

The Senate amnesty treats them better than the law-abiding

Everyone has heard the phrase, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” That’s precisely the predicament that Congress is in today with the Senate’s immigration proposal. Though perhaps well-intentioned, the Senate proposal repeats the mistakes of the past.

The Senate amnesty proposal is flawed for many reasons, but three in particular.

First, the Senate bill legalizes almost everyone in the country illegally before the borders are secure. It provides legalization first and enforcement later, if ever.

In 1986, Congress gave amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants. It was agreed to with the promise of increased immigration enforcement and enhanced border security. Though the amnesty was enacted, the enforcement never occurred.

Now, more than 25 years later, there are 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States. Clearly, the 1986 amnesty didn’t solve the problem of illegal immigration; it made the situation worse.

No matter how they try to spin it, the Senate bill is amnesty for 11 million illegal immigrants. When you legalize someone who is in the country illegally, that is amnesty. The Senate bill gives legal status and, eventually, citizenship to millions of individuals who have disregarded our immigration laws.

The Senate plan makes promises of enforcement, but a closer look raises serious questions. For example, under the Senate bill, the Obama administration must come up with a way to achieve a 90 percent apprehension rate at “high-risk” areas of the border.

Why not secure 100 percent of the entire border? Of course, by limiting the focus to only high-risk areas, the Senate proposal will just push illegal immigration to other parts of the border.

In 2010, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office found that only 6.5 percent of the southern border is under “full control” of the Border Patrol. Real border security would cover the entire border, not just high-risk areas that are determined by federal employees in Washington, D.C.

An administration that doesn’t want to enforce the law can easily game the system.

As we’ve seen in the past, amnesty without enforcement only leads to more illegal immigration. The Senate proposal issues an open invitation to enter the country illegally. Millions will do so before the border is secure.

Second, the Senate bill puts the interests of illegal immigrants ahead of American workers.

The proposal allows millions of illegal immigrants to work lawfully in the United States. That’s a great deal for those who came into the country illegally. It comes at a high price for American workers, though.

The proposal allows millions of illegal immigrants to compete with American workers for scarce jobs, displacing legal workers and depressing their wages. With millions of Americans and legal immigrants underemployed, why enable millions of others to compete with them?

Over the past few months, we’ve heard a great deal about what’s best for illegal immigrants. However, advocates of the Senate bill hardly ever mention two words: American workers.


Assimilation ain't what it used to be

We don’t know all the details of the lives of the Boston bombers, but a portrait is starting to take shape.

Presuming what we have seen reported is accurate, this pair came to Kyrgyzstan in 2000-2001 as refugees, and from there into the United States a year later.

The life of an immigrant is rarely easy, but for these two, life seemed to go quite well. They go to good schools and get an education. One went to UMass-Dartmouth. They’re involved in intramural soccer, boxing competitions and tournaments, and the like. One gets U.S. citizenship, and the other becomes a permanent resident on the road to citizenship. At some point, they get registered to vote (illegally for one, or both, depending upon whether they registered to vote before September 11, 2012).

You’re hearing some folks cite these bastards in discussing the immigration bill. While it may be premature, it isn’t insane to look at this horror before us and ask how someone can come to this country, be offered citizenship and then turn around and murder their fellow citizens – a child, a foreign student, a young woman, a cop – in the coldest of blood. Here’s a pair of young men — and who knows, perhaps others — who have every opporunity to assimilate, to live the American dream, to see this country as a home to love…

… and somehow, instead of coming to love the country whose citizenship they sought, instead of appreciating the rare opportunity that luck, fate, and our kind nation has offered, they become the kind of ghouls capable of placing a bomb, filled with nails, next to an eight-year-old boy in the middle of a cheering crowd, and then smiling.

Some will say “Islam”, or its radical version, explains their transformation; we’ll know more as we learn more about them.

Of course, only a small fraction of the 11 million illegal immigrants in this country mean us harm (those with ties to gangs, drug cartels, people smugglers, and the like), and perhaps none as coldly and ruthlessly as this pair. But our government chose to give the privilege of citizenship to the man who has effectively shut down the city of Boston today. This week, we have reason for great doubts in our culture’s ability to assimilate those who come here into good Americans, and our government’s ability to examine potential citizens and weed out those who would seek to harm us.


Friday, April 19, 2013

Dynamic Scoring on Immigration?

Holtz-Eakin ignores composition of immigrant population

Some advocates for the Gang of Eight immigration plan have argued that it will be a benefit public coffers based on the idea of “dynamic scoring” or “dynamic analysis”. Chief among them has been former McCain economic advisor and CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin. Mr. Holtz-Eakin lays out his argument in an opinion piece published by the American Action Forum, which he heads, and will testify on it before the Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow.

The Center for Immigration Studies critique of his opinion piece is  here. Among the findings:
*    The central point of Holtz-Eakin’s “dynamic analysis” is to argue that immigration-induced population growth by itself will have a positive indirect impact on per-capita GDP, thereby benefiting public coffers.

*   The biggest weakness of his analysis is that he ignores the actual characteristics of immigrants generally and illegal immigrants in particular, factors which bear directly on their fiscal impact. This includes relatively high poverty, welfare use, lack of health insurance, and their more modest tax payments.

*    Holtz-Eakin ignores the research indicating that the education level of immigrants at arrival has direct bearing on their income, tax payments, use of public services, and their result net fiscal impact.

*    Holtz-Eakin ignores the economic literature showing that immigration does not significantly increase the per capita GDP or income of the existing population.

*    He also ignores the research that has studied the impact of population growth in developing countries. In general this shows that by itself population does not increase per capita GDP.

*    He also assumes away any congestion and resulting inefficiencies that seem likely with the population growth he advocates.

*    Holtz-Eakin also argues that immigration can rejuvenate our aging population, even though there is a large body of research showing immigration's impact on this issue is quite modest at best.

The above is a press release from from Center for Immigration Studies. 1522 K St. NW, Suite 820,  Washington, DC 20005, (202) 466-8185 fax: (202) 466-8076.  Email: center@cis.org. Contact: Marguerite Telford, 202-466-8185, mrt@cis.org.  The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent research institution which examines the impact of immigration on the United States.  The Center for Immigration Studies is not affiliated with any other organization

Gang of 8 Bill Doesn't Reflect Reality of U.S. Labor Market

U-6 jobless rate for citizens without a high school diploma was 29.8% in the 1st Quarter of 2013

The Senate immigration bill formally unveiled at this afternoon's news conference does not reflect the realities of the U.S. labor market, according to data compiled by the  Center for Immigration Studies.

The employment situation remains bleak for less-skilled Americans. Yet the bill, S. 744, gives virtually all of the 11-12 million illegal immigrants work authorization. Prior research indicates that at least three-fourths of illegal immigrants have no education beyond high school. Further, the bill creates a new guestworker program and expands family-based immigration for a number of years, both of which will increase the arrival of less-skill immigrants.

"Looking at the jobless numbers for the first three months of this year, it's hard to exaggerate the disconnect between Washington politicians and the realities of the country outside the Beltway," said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies. "With so many American citizens looking for work or dropping out of the labor market altogether, the Senate immigration bill seems to come from a different time and place altogether."

In the first quarter of 2013 the standard measure of unemployment (referred to as U-3) shows that unemployment was 18.1 percent for American citizens without a high school diploma (all citizens, including naturalized immigrants). It was 10.3 percent for U.S. citizens with only high school education.

The broader measure of unemployment (referred to as U-6) was 29.8 percent for citizens without a high school education and 18.4 percent for those with only a high school education. The U-6 measure includes those who have had to settle for part-time jobs and those who want to work and have looked in the last year but not in the past four weeks.

All of these figures represent a massive deterioration in recent years. In 2007, U-3 and U-6 unemployment for less-educated citizens was roughly 5 to 10 percentage points lower.

The total number of less-educated citizens (ages 18 to 65) not working in the first quarter of this year is 27.8 million, up from 24 million in the first quarter of 2007 and 22.2 million in the first quarter of 2000. These individuals are either unemployed or out of the labor market entirely.

In total (for all education levels), there are 55.4 million adult citizens ages 18 to 65 currently not working, up from 44.4 million in same quarter of 2007 and 38.1 million in 2000.

All of the above figures come from the public use files of the January, February, and March Current Population Survey for 2013, 2007, and 2000. The files can be found at the Census Bureau’s Dataferret web site: http://dataferrett.census.gov/

The above is a press release from from Center for Immigration Studies. 1522 K St. NW, Suite 820,  Washington, DC 20005, (202) 466-8185 fax: (202) 466-8076.  Email: center@cis.org. Contact: Marguerite Telford, 202-466-8185, mrt@cis.org.  The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent research institution which examines the impact of immigration on the United States.  The Center for Immigration Studies is not affiliated with any other organization

Thursday, April 18, 2013

Rights chief says Greece can ban anti-immigrant party

The support for Golden Dawn is almost entirely because of its anti-illegal-immigrant stance.  Given their big economic problems, lots of Greeks don't feel like hosting a parasitical minority.  Calling them Nazis is just abuse

A TOP Europe rights official has warned of a surge in racist hate crimes in Greece, urging the country to ban extremist neo-Nazi party Golden Dawn, implicated in many of the attacks.

The Council of Europe's human rights commissioner Nils Muiznieks wrote in a report published on Tuesday after a recent visit to Greece that government had failed to take proper action over a rise in hate crimes, particularly targeting migrants.

The report hones in on the Golden Dawn political party, reminding government that it was "possible to impose effective penalties, and even prohibition if necessary" against the extreme far-right group.

"A number of the attacks have been linked to members or supporters, including parliamentarians, of the neo-Nazi political party 'Golden Dawn'", read the report.

Once a secretive group on the fringes of Greek politics, Golden Dawn picked up over 400,000 votes in a June election dominated by anti-austerity anger, winning 18 spots in a 300-seat parliament.
Digital Pass $1 for first 28 Days

Members of the party, including MPs, have been implicated in 17 violent attacks against immigrants between June and October 2012, the report says.

A few days before Muiznieks' visit to Greece, a Pakistani migrant worker in Athens was stabbed to death by two people, one of whom was later proved to be linked to Golden Dawn.

Muiznieks said it was clear that from its ideological documents that "Golden Dawn is a party that is against parliamentary democracy, and treats it with contempt".

The report also raises extensive concerns about reports of ill-treatment and torture of migrants and Roma, and the "disregard for human rights standards" by the Greek police.

He said reports of police colluding with the neo-Nazi party "have dealt an extremely damaging blow to public confidence not only in the police, but in the Greek state as a whole".

Muiznieks said it was "regrettable that the Greek parliament's reaction to hate speech has been weak".

In one example given, there was no strong reaction by parliament to "extreme hate speech" when Golden Dawn MP Eleni Zaroulia last year referred to migrants in Greece as "sub-humans who have invaded our country, with all kinds of diseases".


My shattering experience with America's immigration system

The system is as tough on highly skilled legal immigrants as it is easy on illegal unskilled laborers

By Sophie Cole

It’s been my dream for years to immigrate to the United States. Originally from the United Kingdom, I was attracted to America’s embrace of freedom, capitalism, and proud traditions of liberty sorely lacking in my native country. I wanted to defend those liberties in America. Like other immigrants, I do a job that most Americans don’t want to – defend the Constitution.

Recently, however, I found out that my American Dream is over. I will shortly have to leave the land I love and return to the United Kingdom.

What happened that put me in this position?

The Department of Labor (DOL) ruled that the American non-profit that wanted to hire me cannot.

I was offered a staff attorney position at a Washington, D.C. non-profit committed to advancing right to work laws. I went to university here and then law school at William and Mary and have called Virginia home for years.

As part of the application for the visa, the non-profit had to show that no American was available to do my job and that I was being paid wage similar to other attorneys in the city.

The DOL compared my anticipated wage at a non-profit to what lawyers make in private practice. Of course I would have made less at a non-profit, that’s how they work, but the government did not adjust its one-size fits all way of measuring wages.

Despite proof that my salary was going to be in line with other non-profit lawyer salaries in the city, the DOL rejected the paperwork and me along with it.

The DOL gave me no reason for why the visa application was denied. By law, they do not have to provide one.

I have no opportunity to appeal. There is no possibility to re-file for the visa because the government grants so few every year that they ran out weeks ago.

But my experience is just a microcosm of America’s disastrous immigration system. There is no immigration line. There is no Ellis Island. I can’t go down to the local post office and apply for a green card. I have lived here legally—studying and working hard—but under the law there is no way for me to stay .

An overly complex, tortuously slow, and arbitrary immigration system at the whim of unaccountable bureaucrats rules the day.

The laws that so many of my fellow Americans want to be enforced make it impossible for me – and many others like me – from living the American Dream. These laws also hurt our country in the process, burdening employers with expensive regulations for no conceivable end, and leaving positions unfilled.

I don’t want a hand out. I’ll gladly sign a piece of paper saying that I am ineligible for welfare, Social Security, and Medicare. I’ve always paid taxes, bought insurance, and played by all of the rules. I’ve never committed a crime nor do I intend to. All I want is a chance to legally live, work, and defend the Constitution of my country.

Highly-skilled immigrants have been voiceless in the debate over immigration reform. Illegal immigrants wanting legalization, immigration enforcement hawks, and guest workers have sucked all of the air out of the room.

I understand the concerns of all those groups and share many of them myself, but please do not forget the millions of highly skilled immigrants and potential immigrants who are trying to follow the laws.

My dearest friends have started a White House petition called “Let Sophie Stay.” I implore you, please visit it.

I will not commit fraud to get a green card through a sham marriage nor will I stay here illegally. I will not break the law no matter how unjust I think it is.

I feel American in every way that counts but the federal government and its laws think otherwise. In our knowledge economy, we need to attract the most talented and hard-working people as high-skilled immigrants.

This is crucial to our competitiveness and growth since it creates more jobs and provides a better quality of life for everyone. As a plea from one would-be American to the citizens of this great country, please change these immigration laws to include highly-skilled workers.


Wednesday, April 17, 2013

"Bipartisan" bill now on the table

Norquist goes to water

President Barack Obama on Tuesday embraced a sweeping overhaul of the nation's immigration system put forward by a bipartisan group of senators, saying it was "largely consistent" with his own principles for immigration reform.

Obama, who had said previously that he would submit his own bill if not satisfied with the Senate proposal, urged Congress to "quickly move" the bill forward and that he was "willing to do whatever it takes" to help.

The Democratic president spoke after meeting with two of the measure's chief sponsors, Senators John McCain, a Republican from Arizona, and Charles Schumer, a Democrat from New York.

The bipartisan support for the bill and the president's endorsement of it improves its chances of passage but by no means ensures it.

The four Democrats and four Republicans sponsoring the measure indicated on Tuesday they were preparing for a months-long battle over the bill, with the greatest challenge expected in the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives.

Some of that opposition surfaced Tuesday, even though many House members, including the Republican leadership, resolved to stay silent for the day because of the Boston Marathon bombing on Monday.

Republican Representative Lamar Smith of Texas slammed the Senators' plan and said it would encourage even more illegal immigration, favor foreign workers and treat illegal immigrants better than those who have played by the rules.

McCain, who lost the 2008 presidential election to Obama, warned that the defeat of any one of the key provisions of the complex legislation could jeopardize the whole effort.

He told reporters that it was "carefully crafted" to keep Republicans, Democrats and different interest groups on board and that if "certain things" were changed, "we would lose one side or the other."

For this and other reasons, Republican Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, another of the bill's sponsors, said the group planned on taking its time with the legislation.

"It's a complicated issue and I think people want to learn more about it," the Cuban-American lawmaker told reporters. "This will be a while. This is not going to be done in a week or quite frankly in a month."


Rubio's comment underscored the delicate construction of the proposal, which would create a new legal status for millions of undocumented immigrants, as urged by immigrant advocacy groups and large segments of the Democratic party.

But to lure Republican support, it conditions a path to permanent legal status - and ultimately a chance for citizenship - on the success of a multibillion-dollar effort to make U.S. borders less porous, using unmanned aerial surveillance, the construction of double and triple lawyers of fencing and the deployment of thousands of additional border patrol officers along with the National Guard.

To get business support, the bill would create a new system of visas for temporary agricultural workers and low-skilled laborers as well as expand the number of specialized, highly-trained foreigners allowed to enter the country to work for technology companies.

To avoid alienating fiscal conservatives in both parties, the proposal denies most federal benefits to the immigrants until they achieve permanent status in the United States, which could take 10 years.

Supporters insist that the bill would not provide an amnesty to illegal immigrants.

The eight senators are trying to pull together broad Republican and Democratic support in hopes that doing so will save the legislation from the fate of failed efforts to comprehensively reform immigration over the past three decades.

That strategy began to pay off Tuesday, even before the bill had been formally introduced.

Conservative anti-tax activist Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform, was among those who praised the immigration reform effort. He said he would attend a news conference later this week sponsored by the bipartisan group of senators backing the bill.

"They are doing serious border security. They are making sure that the 10 or 11 million who are here without papers can stay and work as long they are not criminals as long as they're working. So you're weeding out bad guys and allowing people who are good and decent and hard-working to be able to stay and work and get in line in questions of citizenship ..."

Rather than being a cost to the country, the bill would be a "boon" to the economy and would save taxpayers money because those with the provisional visas won't be eligible for federal benefits, Norquist said.


5 Roadblocks to Immigration Reform

Even with bipartisan support in the Senate, immigration reform could stumble on its way through Congress.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio appeared on all seven Sunday news shows to pitch the Gang of Eight immigration reform plan that will be unveiled this week.

For the first time since Congress' 2007 efforts to fix immigration, reform advocates are facing the very real prospect of passing bipartisan legislation. As the most public face of immigration reform advocates, Rubio made the case for the proposal on national television this weekend, offering cover to conservatives by arguing that a pathway to citizenship is not amnesty.

The Gang is expected to unveil its legislation this week and while supporters are cautiously optimistic, there are also plenty of reasons to be skeptical. Here is a look at five roadblocks immigration legislation could face.

1) Conservatives are worried about border security enforcement and the cost of reform. "Everyone understands that any proposal without real border security and robust interior enforcement is unacceptable to the American people," wrote GOP Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas in Politico today. Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama worried that immigration reform would be useless without federal enforcement. "And we have in this administration a failure to enforce," he said on ABC's This Week. There is also a concern about the costs associated with immigration reform, with a lively debate on the right between the Heritage Foundation, which argues reform will be costly because of the federal government benefits immigrants could receive, and the Cato Institute and American Action Forum, which argue reform could boost per capita GDP. 

Rubio preemptively made the case on the Sunday shows that such estimates are unreliable because they don't factor in the economic growth that immigrants' work provides the country. “Conservatives love dynamic scoring, which [is] a complicated way of saying you look at a budget issue not just for the costs but for the benefits associated with it," Rubio said on Fox News Sunday. "All I’m asking for is that for this plan to be reviewed through that standard - the same conservative dynamic scoring that we apply to tax cuts."

2) Congressional hearings could expose problematic provisions with a lengthy bill. That's why some senators supportive of immigration reform want to speed the legislation through committee. That's also why some House Republicans want the bill to go through regular order, which means the bill would work its way through the committee process and a number of hearings. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte of Virginia made the case on Sunday that any reform legislation should go through this lengthier process. Meanwhile, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont announced a hearing for this week, a move some Senate Republicans said amounts to rushing the proposal through the legislative process.

For his part, Rubio released a statement Monday afternoon declaring his support for a transparent process to allow all parties to review the bill. "As we go forward in this immigration debate, we need more openness and transparency that I firmly believe will only help improve this bill and earn the public’s confidence that it will truly establish the strongest border security and enforcement measures in U.S. history, modernize our immigration system to help create more jobs for Americans, and deal with our undocumented population in a tough but fair way," Rubio said in a statement.

3) President Obama's support of any plan could cost Republican support in both chambers of Congress. The president has been conspicously silent about immigration reform lately, primarily offering support for the overall process but remaining silent on the details.  But once the legislation is released, he's bound to weigh in. That could prove toxic for many House Republicans, conservative senators, and a handful of red-state Democratic senators facing reelection in 2014 because of Obama's unpopularity in their states.

4) The tea party caucus in the House is already fuming. Rep. Steve King of Iowa is meeting with other conservative members, who are frustrated the Senate-brokered deal will not reflect their input. “The meetings of the Gang of Eight and the secret meetings in the House of Representatives — the people who have been standing up for the Constitution and the rule of law haven’t been invited to those meetings,” King said, according to National Review.  This suggests there will be loud opposition from conservative opponents, and if history is any indication, that would make a bill tougher to pass in the Republican-controlled House.

5)  GOP senators aren't sold yet on the proposal either. Sessions called the bill bad for U.S. workers and made an economic case against the bill. "It's logical that if you bring in a massive supply of low-wage workers, you're going to pull the workers down," Sessions said on ABC's This Week. Meanwhile, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas worries about the fairness of a path to citizenship, which he suggested is unfair to the many immigrants who came to the U.S. legally. “It worries me, even if someone goes to the back of the line," Cruz said on Fox News. "It means you’re a chump for having stayed in your own country and followed the rules."