Immigration: Up vs. Down, Not Republican vs. Democrat

National Review ^ | Feb 19 2015 | by Mark Krikorian

[11th_VA]

My colleague Jon Feere appeared on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal this morning opposite Crystal Williams of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, and what struck me was the callers.

C-SPAN offers three call-in numbers, for Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, and I’d guess on issues like taxes or guns or abortion that yields a variety of views.

But whatever you might think from watching the Senate battle over funding of Obama’s lawless amnesty decrees — where every Democrat has been voting for amnesty and against enforcement — out in the real world support for enforcing our immigration laws is not a partisan issue.

So whatever phone line people use to call in to C-SPAN, my experience from being on the show has been that most callers are pro-enforcement. On today’s show every caller was pro-enforcement (except one who was off-topic and another who was unintelligible).

Some samples:

A Black American Democrat from Los Angeles: If you want to see how negative the impact of illegal immigration has been on a community, come to Los Angeles. The black community has been pretty much overrun by illegals. . . . I’ve been a Democrat all my life but I’m seriously considering becoming an independent if the trend continues in the Democratic party the way it’s going and I know a lot of other African Americans who feel the same way. . . . I listen to C-SPAN every day and I hear African Americans calling in complaining about illegal immigration, and it seems to be that it’s falling on deaf ears.

An African immigrant calling in to the Independents line: I used to be a Democrat but I’m very disappointed by the Democrat party. . . . When the president said more than 20 times that it wasn’t his constitutional prerogative to give amnesty to the illegals, and all of the sudden he changed, it makes me really think that he’s not enforcing the Constitution that he was elected to enforce. . . . The president is also saying they cannot enforce the border. . . . Let’s just imagine that right now we gave [garbled] to all the illegals, and one year later we have the same problem because our border is not secure. What will we have achieved? I think the border should be secured first. We are the United States of America — we send people on the Moon, we have the most powerful military in the world and you are telling me that we cannot enforce our own border?

A Democratic woman from Georgia: I still work at 77 to pay my insurance and when these people [illegal aliens] go to a hospital and they don’t have insurance I feel like they are charging me extra if I go to a hospital to pay for these people that don’t have insurance.

A Black American from Miami on the Republican line: It’s already hard enough to find a job . . . now Obama and you guys are trying to legalize people to come here to take jobs that we need. . . . You guys are more concerned about the illegal aliens, people from other countries, than you are about your own citizens, and that’s concerning. . . . What are you guys trying to do, destroy the foundations of our country?

An Independent from Ohio: Why is it more important to protect illegal aliens than innocent Americans by not going ahead and just passing the budget and stopping the executive action of the president?

Another Democratic woman: These people are committing felonies and so are their employers. C-SPAN callers may not be a cross-section of Americans in general, but they are probably a pretty good sampling of likely voters. Republican presidential hopefuls might want to take notice.

[11th_VA]

I can see some RATs in Congress starting to bail ship soon ...

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

The first thing is to repeal Teddy Kennedy’s repulsive “immigration reform” of 1965.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965

“The Hart-Celler Act abolished the national origins quota system that was American immigration policy since the 1920s, replacing it with a preference system that focused on immigrants’ skills and family relationships with citizens or U.S. residents.”

The truth of the matter is that before, the US promoted immigrants who were educated, financially viable, and friendly to democracy, who were from nations that were US allies with similar values.

Kennedy’s nightmare turned off the preference for these people, in favor of the uneducated, poor, and primitive, from impoverished third and fourth world nations, who disliked democracy and western values, and were often from nations that saw the US and the western nations as enemies to be attacked and destroyed.

At the time this act was passed, for example, the annual immigration from Africa could be counted on two hands. Immigrants were screened for communicable diseases, and if they wanted citizenship, they had to earn it.

[Sybeck1]

The pols are owed by the corporations who want cheap labor. So cheap labor is so important? I am just trying to figure out who has money to buy the products they sell?

[stilloftyhenight]

Any Republican could win the election simply by coming down on the citizen’s side of this issue. He would be a shoe-in.

[TigersEye]

• Deport illegal aliens on contact with LE.
• Vigorously enforce the law on employers of illegal aliens.
• Build a border fence, use high-tech surveillance and fund adequate personnel to maintain security.
• Eliminate entitlements for illegal aliens.
• End the "anchor baby" policy.

Do those things and illegal aliens will deport themselves and pay for the trip.

[Lurkinanloomin]

Absolutely correct. That’s why The Cheap Labor Express has spent so much money to make sure we can’t.

[SharpRightTurn]

BTTT

Of course, even if 98.4% of poll respondents said to close the border and kick illegals out, McCainiac, Grahamnesty, Jebbie, Rubio, et al. would insist on “comprehensive immigration reform.” That’s because, like Zero, they want to “fundamentally transform America.”

[Lurkinanloomin]

Both parties are wholly owned by the Cheap Labor Express. Those profiting from cheap labor have been paying enormous sums of money to make sure the border stays open and the laws are not enforced. They have made sure that we can't elect a President who actually would. As long as idiots will vote for Jeb because he's not a Democrat (when he really is) we have no chance. There will be a strong third party run if it is Clinton/Bush. Let go of your nose and vote to save your country.

[Gasshog]

Current policies make it a cakewalk for the wetbacks to live in the US.

Make them show proof of citizenship to buy groceries.

The population of Old Mayheeco would skyrocket in a month.

Everyone of these criminal invaders have somewhere to go back to in their own country.

[kabar]

You seem to miss the point on immigration. Yes, illegal aliens are a problem, but the bigger problem is LEGAL IMMIGRATION. We cannot continue bringing in 1.1 million legal immigrants a year plus over 600,000 "temporary" guest workers annually.

Government data collected in December 2014 show 18 million immigrants (legal and illegal) living in the United States who arrived in January 2000 or later. But only 9.3 million jobs were added over this time period. In addition, the native-born population 16 and older grew by 25.2 million. Because job growth has not come close to matching immigration and population growth, the share of Americans in the labor force has declined dramatically — a clear indication there is no labor shortage. Despite this, Congress is considering proposals to increase legal immigration even further; and during the last Congress the Senate actually passed the Schumer-Rubio bill (S.744), which would have doubled legal immigration and legalized illegal immigrants.1 Congress's disregard for the absorption capacity of the U.S. labor market has profound consequences for American workers.

In December 2014 there were 18 million immigrants (legal and illegal) living in the country who had arrived since January 2000.2 But job growth over this period was just 9.3 million — half of new immigration.

Between two-thirds and three-fourths of the new arrivals are estimated to be legal immigrants. Of the new arrivals 89 percent were potential workers 16 and older.

The share of native-born Americans 16 to 65 in the labor force was 77 percent in December 2000, 75 percent in December 2007, and 72 percent in December 2014.6

The number of working-age natives not in the labor force (neither working nor looking for work) increased by 13 million from December 2000 to December 2014.

[TigersEye]

Make them show proof of citizenship to buy groceries.

Like we should all be chipped to buy and sell?

[TigersEye]

I disagree completely.

[Sherman Logan]

The first thing is to repeal Teddy Kennedy’s repulsive “immigration reform” of 1965.

Nope. The first thing is to enforce existing law.

Then we can talk about changing the law, which I do think is a good idea. If the laws aren't going to be enforced, what good will it do to change them?

[generally]

Great list.

I’d add a few more:

Repeal citizenship for anchor babies.
New Constitutional amendment: If you did not spend the vast majority of your formative years in the US, you are not eligible for federal office. (0vomit would not qualify. A year of study abroad is no problem, but being raised overseas is.)

[Gasshog]

no. Everybody knows what a wetback looks like. ; )

[kabar]

Disagree about what? Do you think we take in too many legal immigrants a year? 20% of them lack even a high school degree. 87% are minorities and vote two to one Democrat. We are being colonized. The last two decades have been the largest decades of immigration in history.

Over 27 million legal permanent immigrants have entered this country during the period 1990-2010. In 1970 one in 21 was foreign born; today it is one in 8, the highest in 90 years; and within a decade it will be one in 7, the highest in our history. Demography is destiny.

[Pelham]

“The first thing is to repeal Teddy Kennedy’s repulsive “immigration reform” of 1965.”

Worth repeating and repeating.

[TigersEye]

First of all I didn’t bring up the subject of immigration you did. That said; I disagree that legal immigration is more important than illegal aliens, border security and amnesty which is the subject of the thread.

[moehoward]

"The truth of the matter is that before, the US promoted immigrants who were educated, financially viable, and friendly to democracy, who were from nations that were US allies with similar values."

And probably more likely to vote a GOP ticket.

[kabar]

Legal immigration has far more of an impact on this country than illegal aliens. FYI: 40% of the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens came here legally and overstayed their visas. Border security only solves part of the problem.

There are 41 million foreign born in this country and that does not include their US born children. Three quarters of the foreign born are here legally. They use welfare to a greater extent than the native born. They are taking jobs from the native born and depressing wages. Our immigration policies bear no relation to our job needs.

In many ways, illegal aliens are a distraction. The real problem is our legal immigration policies, which are destroying the country and have been ever since the 1965 Immigration Act. Even if were able to eliminate illegal immigration entirely, the country would still be on course for eventual economic collapse and Balkanization. And the Dems are well on their way to becoming the permanent majority party.