Senate Immigration Bill Would Allow 100 Million New Legal Immigrants over the Next Twenty Years

(Update: On Tuesday, May 16, the Senate passed Sen. Jeff Bingaman's (D-NM) amendment to S. 2611 that significantly reduced the number of legal immigrants who could enter under the bill's "guest worker" program. As a result of this change, our estimate of the number of legal immigrants who would enter the country or would gain legal status under S. 2611 falls from 103 million to around 66 million over the next 20 years.)

If enacted, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA, S.2611) would be the most dramatic change in immigration law in 80 years, allowing an estimated 103 million persons to legally immigrate to the U.S. over the next 20 years—fully one-third of the current population of the United States.

Much attention has been given to the fact that the bill grants amnesty to some 10 million illegal immigrants. Little or no attention has been given to the fact that the bill would quintuple the rate of legal immigration into the United States, raising, over time, the inflow of legal immigrants from around one million per year to over five million per year. The impact of this increase in legal immigration dwarfs the magnitude of the amnesty provisions.

In contrast to the 103 million immigrants permitted under CIRA, current law allows 19 million legal immigrants over the next twenty years. Relative to current law, then, CIRA would add an extra 84 million legal immigrants to the nation’s population.

The figure of 103 million legal immigrants is a reasonable estimate of the actual immigration inflow under the bill and not the maximum number that would be legally permitted to enter. The maximum number that could legally enter would be almost 200 million over twenty years—over 180 million more legal immigrants than current law permits.

To understand the provisions of CIRA, largely based on a compromise by Senators Chuck Hagel (R–Nebraska) and Mel Martinez (R–Florida), it is useful to distinguish between the three legal statuses that a legal immigrant might hold:

1. Temporary Status: Persons in this category enter the U.S. temporarily and are required to leave after a period of time.

2. Near-Permanent, Convertible Status: Persons in this category enter the U.S. and are given the opportunity to “adjust” or convert to legal permanent residence after a few years.

3. Legal Permanent Residence (LPR): Persons in this category have the right to remain in the United States for their entire lives. After five years, they have the right to naturalize and become citizens. As naturalized citizens, they have the constitutional rights to vote and to receive any government benefits given to native-born citizens.

A key feature of CIRA is that most immigrants identified as “temporary” are, in fact, given convertible status with a virtually unrestricted opportunity to become legal permanent residents and then citizens.

Another important feature of both CIRA and existing immigration law is that immigrants in convertible or LPR status have the right to bring spouses and minor children into the country. Spouses and dependent children will be granted permanent residence along with the primary immigrant and may also become citizens. In addition, after naturalizing, an immigrant has the right to bring his parents into the U.S. as permanent residents with the opportunity for citizenship. There are no numeric limits on the number of spouses, dependent children, and parents of naturalized citizens that may be brought into the country. Additionally, the siblings and adult children (along with their families) of naturalized citizens and the adult children (and their families) of legal permanent residents are given preference in future admission but are subject to numeric caps.

Four key provisions of CIRA would result in an explosive increase in legal immigration.

Amnesty for Current Illegal Immigrants: CIRA offers amnesty and citizenship to 85 percent of the nation’s current 11.9 million illegal immigrants. Under the plan, illegal immigrants who have been in the U.S. for five years or more (60 percent of illegals) would be granted immediate amnesty. Illegal immigrants who have been in the country between two and five years (25 percent of illegals) could travel to one of 16 “ports of entry,” where they would receive amnesty and lawful work permits.[1] In total, the bill would grant amnesty to 85 percent of the current illegal immigrant population, or some 10 million individuals.

After receiving amnesty, illegal immigrants would spend six years in a provisional status before attaining LPR status. After five years in LPR status, they would have the opportunity to become naturalized citizens and vote in U.S. elections. As well, the spouses and dependent children of current illegal immigrants would have the right to enter the U.S. and become citizens.[2] There would be no numeric limit on the number of illegal immigrants, spouses, and dependents receiving LPR status; under the amnesty provision, such individuals would not be counted against any other cap or limit in immigration law.[3]

The New “Temporary Guest Worker” Program: CIRA creates an entirely new “temporary guest worker” (H-2C) program. There is nothing temporary about this program; nearly all “guest workers” would have the right to become permanent residents and then citizens.

Foreign workers could enter the U.S. as guest workers if they have a job offer from a U.S. employer. In practical terms, U.S. companies would recruit foreign workers to enter the guest worker program and immigrate to the U.S. Most likely, intermediate employment firms would specialize in recruiting foreign labor for U.S. employers.

Guest workers would be allowed to remain in the U.S. for six years.[4] However, in the fourth year, the guest worker could ask for LPR status and would receive it if he has learned English or is enrolled in an English class.[5] There are no numeric limits on the number of guest workers who could receive LPR status. Upon receiving LPR status, the guest worker could remain in the country permanently. He could become a U.S. citizen and vote in U.S. elections after just five more years.

The spouses and minor children of guest workers would also be permitted to immigrate to the U.S.[6] When guest workers petition for LPR status, their spouses and children would receive it as well. Five years after obtaining LPR status, these spouses could become naturalized citizens. The bill sets no limit on the number of spouses and children who could immigrate under the guest worker program. After workers and their spouses have obtained citizenship, they would be able to bring in their parents as legal permanent residents.

The bill does provide numeric limits on the number of guest workers who can enter the country each year, but the number starts high and then grows exponentially. In the first year, 325,000 H-2C visas would be given out, but if employer demand for guest workers is high, that number could be boosted by an extra 65,000 in the next year. If employer demand for H-2C workers continues to be high, the number of H-2C visas could be raised by up to 20 percent in each subsequent year.

The 20 percent exponential escalator provision allows the number of H-2C immigrants to climb steeply in future years. If the H-2C cap were increased by 20 percent each year, within twenty years the annual inflow of workers would reach 12 million. At this 20 percent growth rate, a total of 70 million guest workers would enter the U.S. over the next two decades and none would be required to leave. While it is unlikely that so many workers would enter, the program does have the potential to bring ten of millions of immigrants to the U.S.

The “guest worker” program, then, is an open door program, based on the demands of U.S. business, that would allow an almost unlimited number of workers and dependents to enter the U.S. from anywhere in world and become citizens. It is essentially an “open border” provision.

Additional Permanent Visas for Siblings, Adult Children, and their Families: The permanent entry of non-immediate relatives—such as brothers, sisters, and adult children—is currently subject to a cap of 480,000 per year minus the number of immediate relatives (the parents, spouses, and minor children of U.S. citizens) admitted in the prior year. CIRA eliminates the deduction for immediate relatives from the cap.[7] This effectively increases the number of non-immediate relatives who could attain LPR status by 254,000 per year.

Additional Permanent Employment Visas: The U.S. currently issues around 140,000 employment-based visas each year. Under CIRA, the U.S. would issue 450,000 employment-based green cards per year between 2007 and 2016.[8] After 2016, the number would fall to 290,000 per year.[9] Under current law, LPR visas going to the spouses and children of workers with employment-based visas are counted against the cap. Under CIRA, these spouses and children would be removed from the cap and given legal permanent residence without numeric limits.[10] Historically, 1.2 dependent relatives have entered the U.S. for each worker under employment-based immigration programs.[11] This means that some 990,000 persons per year would be granted LPR status until 2016 and, after that, 638,000 per year.

Most provisions of CIRA are straightforward; in many categories, the number of future immigrants allowed is either directly stated or can be easily calculated from the law’s provisions. In some areas, however, the law’s impact is uncertain. To estimate future legal immigration under the bill, three assumptions have been used in this paper:

* Spouses and children of workers: Dependent spouses and children represent a major component of current immigration. In the current employment-based visa program, 1.2 dependents enter for each incoming worker.[12] This paper assumes this ratio will continue in the employment-based program and will also apply to those entering under the new guest worker program. This is a conservative assumption: guest workers are likely to have lower education levels and thus to have larger families. Finally, many current illegal immigrants who would receive amnesty under the bill already have families in the U.S.; therefore the ratio of incoming spouses and children to amnesty recipients is assumed to be only 0.6, or half the ratio of the employment-based program.

* Parents of naturalized citizens: Parents of naturalized citizens currently make up eight percent of all new legal immigrants. This paper assumes that half of all adult immigrants will naturalize after five years of LPR status and that 30 percent of the parents of these naturalized citizens will immigrate in the three years after their children’s naturalization.

* Growth in the guest worker program: The number of immigrants in the guest worker program will be driven by employer demand. The bill allows the number of H-2C visas to increase by 20 percent per year; this level of growth would result in an extraordinary 60 million guest workers in the U.S. over the next twenty years. This paper assumes that the number of immigrants in the guest worker program would increase at a more moderate rate of 10 percent per year. Alternative estimates for 20 percent growth and zero growth in the program are also presented.[13]

Under CIRA, immigrants could enter the country or attain lawful status within the country through eight channels. In each channel, immigrants would be granted permanent residence and the right to become citizens. The first channel represents immigrants who would have entered under current law; the second channel represents illegal immigrants who are currently in the country and would be given legal permanent residence under the bill. The other six channels represent new inflows of legal immigrants that would occur as a result of the bill. The total number of new legal immigrants over a twenty year period would be as follows: (See Charts 1 and 2.)

1. Visas under current law: Roughly 950,000 persons receive permanent residence visas under current law each year. Over 20 years, the inflow of immigrants through this channel would be 19 million. This represents the status quo under existing law.

2. Amnesty: The bill would grant amnesty to roughly 10 million illegal immigrants. These individuals are currently living in the U.S.; amnesty would allow them to remain legally and to become U.S. citizens.

3. Expanded family chain migration: The number of family-sponsored visas for secondary family members, such as adult brothers and sisters, is currently limited to 480,000 per year minus the number of visas given to immediate family members (spouses, minor children, and parents of U.S. citizens). The bill changes the law so that the total quota on secondary family members would be 480,000 without deductions for immediate family members. The net increase in the number of immigrants under this provision would be around 254,000 per year, or 5.1 million over 20 years.[14]

4. Employment-based green cards: The bill would increase the number of employment-based visas from 140,000 to 450,000 per year. For the first time, it would also exempt the spouses and children of workers from the cap. Total annual immigration under this provision is likely to be 450,000 workers plus 540,000 family members annually. The net increase above current law over 20 years would be around 13.5 million persons.[15]

5. The guest worker (H-2C) program: CIRA would allow 325,000 persons to participate in the guest worker program in the first year. This number could rise by 65,000 in the next year and then by 20 percent per year. Assuming 10 percent annual growth in the annual number of guest workers entering the country (well below the bill’s maximum), the total inflow of workers under this program would be 20 million over 20 years.

6. Spouses and children of guest workers: Guest workers could bring their spouses and children to the U.S. as permanent residents; the added number of entrants would be 24 million over 20 years.

7. Spouses and children of illegal immigrants given amnesty: Illegal immigrants who received amnesty could bring their spouses and children into the U.S. as legal permanent residents with the opportunity for full citizenship. The number of spouses and children who would enter the U.S. as a result of amnesty would be at least six million.

8. Parents of naturalized citizens. The bill would substantially increase the number of naturalized citizens. Naturalized citizens would have an unlimited right to bring their parents into the U.S. as legal permanent residents. Over twenty years, the number of parents who would enter the U.S. as permanent legal residents as a result of CIRA would be around five million.

Overall, the bill would allow some 103 million persons to legally immigrate over the next twenty years. This is roughly one-third of the current population of the United States. All of these new entrants would be permanent residents and would have the right to become citizens. This would be a 84 million person net increase over current law.

All of the immigration discussed to this point would be legal immigration. If illegal immigration continued after enactment of S.2611, the inflow of immigrants would be even greater. Although illegal immigration is considered a major problem, the proposed legal immigration under CIRA would dwarf it numerically. The net inflow of illegal immigrants into the U.S. population is around 700,000 per year.[16] Legal immigration under CIRA would exceed five million per year, seven times the rate of the current illegal immigration flow. Annual legal and illegal immigration together now equals about 1.7 million; future legal immigration alone under CIRA would be three times this amount.

The figure of 103 million new legal immigrants is based on the assumption that immigration under the guest worker program would grow at 10 percent per year. If guest-worker immigration grows at the maximum rate permitted by the bill, 20 percent per year, the total number of new immigrants coming to the U.S. over the next twenty years would be 193 million. On the other hand, if immigration under the H-2C program did not increase at all for two decades but remained fixed at the initial level of 325,000 per year, total legal immigration under CIRA would be 72 million over twenty years, or more than three times the level that would occur under current law. (See Chart 3.)

The tables in the Appendix show annual inflows of total legal immigrants in each of the eight channels mentioned above over the next twenty years. The tables show the estimated yearly rate of immigration under three scenarios for the H-2C program: zero growth, ten percent growth, and twenty percent growth.

Between 1870 and 1920, the U.S. experienced a massive flow of immigration known as the “great migration”. During this period, foreign born persons hovered between 13 and 15 percent of the population.[17]In 1924, Congress passed major legislation greatly reducing future immigration. By 1970, foreign born persons had fallen to 5 percent of the population.

In the last three decades, immigration has increased sharply. The foreign born now comprise around 12 percent of the population, approaching the levels of the early 1900’s. However, if CIRA were enacted, and 100 million new immigrants entered the country over the next twenty years, foreign born persons would rise to over one quarter of the U.S. population.[18] There is no precedent for that level of immigration at any time in U.S. history.

If enacted, CIRA would be the most dramatic change in immigration law in 80 years. In its overall impact on the nation, the bill would rival other historic milestones, such as the creation of Social Security or Medicare.

The bill would give amnesty to 10 million illegal immigrants and quintuple the rate of legal immigration into the U.S. Under the bill, the annual inflow of immigrants with the option of becoming legal permanent residents would rise from the current level of one million per year to more than five million per year. Within a few years, the annual inflow of new immigrants would exceed one percent of the current U.S. population. This would be the highest immigration rate in U.S. history.

Within 20 years, some 103 million new immigrants would enter the U.S. This number is about one-third of the current U.S. population. All of these immigrants would be permanent residents with the right to become citizens and vote in U.S. elections. CIRA would transform the United States socially, economically, and politically. Within two decades, the character of the nation would differ dramatically from what exists today.

Robert Rector is Senior Research Fellow in Domestic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

[6] See S.6211, Section 403 (m)(1). Some might argue that the number of guest workers who would be permitted to attain LPR status would be subject to the overall caps on employment-based permanent visas elsewhere in law. But Section 408(h) of the bill, which deals with the right of guest workers to convert to LPR status, clearly states that “employment-based immigrant visas shall be made available to an alien having nonimmigrant status described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(c) [the H-2C program] upon the filing of a petition for such a visa.” In other word, LPR status shall be granted to any guest worker upon his filing of petition; there is no mention of any numeric cap or other mechanism limits the number of such status adjustments. If the bill’s authors intend to limit the opportunity of guest workers to obtain legal permanent residence with a numeric cap, then the bill should explicitly state that fact.

[11] Ruth Ellen Wasem, “U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions,” CRS Report for Congress, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, May 12, 2006, p. 18.

[13] Several factors have not been included in the estimates. The paper ignores future levels of illegal immigration. The paper assumes that there are some 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S.; this widely used figure rests on the assumption that nearly all illegal immigrants are counted in annual Census surveys. In fact, the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. may be much larger; this would mean that the number of immigrants eligible for amnesty would also be higher. The paper also assumes that there will be no successful fraud in applications for amnesty; in fact, the standards for proving prior residence and employment in the U.S. are very flimsy. Fraud may be prevalent, further boosting amnesty numbers. Finally, there is no attempt to estimate return to native countries or reverse migration by new immigrants. In effect, the paper assumes that returns will be matched by a corresponding increase in new entrants under the H-2C program.

[14] This number is the net increase in immigration due to the legislation and does not include the secondary family members who would have immigrated under current law.

[15] This number is the net increase in employment-based immigration and does not include persons who would have immigrated under current law.

[16] Jeffrey Passel Unauthorized Migrants: Numbers and Characteristics, Pew Hispanic Center, Washington, D.C, June 14, 2005, p.6.

[17]National Research Council, The New Americans: Economic, Demographic and Fiscal Effects of Immigration, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 1997, p. 35

[18] Currently there are around 35.7 million foreign-born persons in the U.S. (Passel, op.cit., p.3). With a new influx of 103 million immigrants, the total foreign-born population would reach around 124 million (adjusting for deaths in the interim.) Given the massive projected immigration, the population of the U.S. would have swollen to around 449 million by 2027. This would be up from a base projection of around 355 million. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004, “U.S. Interim Projections by Age, Sex, Race and Hispanic Origin,” at http.://www.census.gov/ipc/www/usinterimproj/. The foreign born would comprise around 27 percent of the total population.

We're answering different questions. I'm talking about human motivations more than the economy itself. There are still millions of dirt poor people in Mexico and Central and South America. The U. S. still provides far and away the best opportunity for these people. They'll keep coming until that changes.

Physical barriers will slow them; the more effective the barriers, the more it will slow them. But they will keep coming, as long as the opportunity is better here.

Some will come for legitimate jobs, some for drug-related activities, some for the welfare state, and some will come for terrorism. I didn't quantify any of those factors, though.

But to respond to your question abvout the unemployment rate, I'd remind you that it's not a universal, equal-across-the-country thing. And it doesn't measure everyone with a job, nor does it measure everyone without a job.

When low-bidders enter the work force in a given geographical area, they tend to displace other workers. The displaced workers either find other jobs, accept unemployment benefits (for a period of time), become self-employed, or move to a different area to find work.

Once they move off the unemployment roles or become self-employed, they are not counted in the guvmint's unemployment figures.

But we need to return to the title of the thread to see the balance in this issue. The Senate bill would ALLOW up to 100 million new immigrants during the next 20 years. It doesn't say we would HAVE 100 million new immigrants, only that the bill would allow that many, based on calculations derived from the language of the bill.

The article itself is filled with lots of conditional phrases. "If demand for workers is high", "If demand remains high."

So, I think the thread has jumped the tracks a bit, but the title is still true, as stated.

There is some evidence that unskilled and semi skilled wages have stagnated due in part, and only in part (cheap imports is a more important factor in many industries) to low skilled and semi-skilled immigration. There is no evidence that it has increased the unemployment rate. Immgrants who come in and work hard, do not increase the overall unemployment rate, among those already here. The economy does not work that way. The economy is a supple and dynamic thing, and productivity feeds off productivity. Trust me.

"The GOP is a very different than the Dims on one point - the Dims are not trying to insure their electoral defeat in 15 years due to a massive, Dim-inspired demographic shift. That is a purely Republican brand of idiocy. I honestly believe the Dim leadership just has to be laughing their a$$es off behind closed doors at the prospect of guaranteed, California-style control in the 2020 elections."

Well said.

This legalization, aka amnesty-that-dare-not-admit-what-it-is, is bad public policy. It burdens taxpayers with billions in costs and liabilities; it is an insult to legal immigrants who have played by the rules; it will fail to stem illegal immigration flows but instead, like the failed 1986 amnesty, will make it worse. It is a surrender, not a solution.

Bad policy like that is never good politics, and the GOP RINO wing's pursuit of legalization/amnesty is also political suicide: It splits the GOP down the middle; it delivers a Democrat majority for the next generation made up of the 10 million illegal aliens, low-wage earning welfare and EITC eligible urban voters, that will be citizens in 10 years. Just as the 1986 amnesty made California a solid Democrat state in the mid 1990s, amnesty now means a Democrat majority in the country by 2016.

It's staring us RIGHT IN THE FACE. There is a reason the Democrats are for amnesty or no bill at all ... Screw 'em!

Anyone who stands up and says "it must include legalization/amnesty or nothing at all" is a real opponent of immigration law reform. We can only clean up this mess gradually, but NOT repeating the amnesty/legalization mistake is the first and most important rule to follow in whatever legislation we craft.

We got into this mess because of a failed amnesty in 1986 and 20 years of non-enforcement of immigration law. The only way out of this hole, in terms of both politics and policy, is a gradual, step-at-a-time approach to recover to a position of lawful immigration.

A TRUE compromise would NOT include amnesty/legalization at all, but would secure the border, get employment verification working 100%, and create enough legal avenues for employment-sponsored immigration so we can wean employers off illegal immigrant labor.

Let that be the 'compromise' from the House and Senate - leaving out the third rail of legalizing millions of illegal immigrants - and put it up for a vote in both houses. The only political victory for the GOP can be if we are united, and most conservative Republicans will never support a massive amnesty. Never. So drop it. Quit trying to 'compromise' around a Kennedy bill that gets a 'yes' vote from Schumer and "no" votes from 40 GOP Senators, and get serious about writing legislation that conservatives can rally around.

See here also for the RINOs who voted for amnesty...

This week, the Senate voted on many amendments, but the most important vote was the Vitter Amendment, which attempted to removed the amnesty/legalization provisions of the bill. Sixty six Senators went this dangerous and radical route to give citizenship to close to 10 million illegal immigrants.

http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com/2006/05/66-senators-who-voted-for-amnesty.html

HERE ARE THE GOOD GUYS - THE REST ARE WORTHLESS...

Roll Call: Grouped By Vote Position YEAs voted AGAINST amnesty/legalization---33 Allard (R-CO) Allen (R-VA) Bennett (R-UT) Bond (R-MO) Bunning (R-KY) Burns (R-MT) Burr (R-NC) Byrd (D-WV) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cornyn (R-TX) Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC) Dole (R-NC) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Grassley (R-IA) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Kyl (R-AZ) Lott (R-MS) McConnell (R-KY) Nelson (D-NE) Roberts (R-KS) Santorum (R-PA) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Talent (R-MO) Thomas (R-WY) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA)

Do you have that same type of break-out for down ballot races? A Spanish-speaking ex-Texas governor with a Mexican sis-in-law, who advocated the very same open-borders policy that he's pushing now did just a well as I assumed he would.

How did that same 44% vote when it came to Senators and Reps? How does the 44% break down by generation (1st, 2nd, 3rd and so forth)? By nation of origin (Mexican, Cuban, etc.)? Also note that Latinos make up 13% of the population, so the difference between the 8% that represents citizens and the remaining 5% that will benefit from the amnesty and new citizenship are the key - will they vote R or D? As they are economically weighted on the lower end of the scale, a traditional Dim base for support regardless of race, wouldn't this indicate a heavy favoring of the Dims?

"The consensus seems to be that, if there were no illegals being hired for jobs, illegal immigration would dry up to a trickle.

Is the consensus wrong?"

Depending on what 'trickle' means, it's probably wrong.
Eliminating the jobs magnet is probably about 70-80% of the problem, but there is significant non-job-based illegal immigration.

There are millions of illegal immigrants who do NOT work, only 2/3rds to 3/4ths of illegal immigrants are here working. The rest are dependents, in families etc., and some on taxpayer dime in various forms.
Example: someone I know personally, a recent legal immigrant, has a parent here illegally, visa overstay situation ... they are applying for papers, but in the interim the illegal immigrant is here. there are many many cases where legal and illegal immigrants are in the same household. There are many cases like that, where the illegal immigrants is a dependent or non-worker.

Point #1 objecting about was "they are coming for welfare". Well in the case I know, he's not getting services as an illegal, but once he gets the papers, he will be on Medicaid... thank you taxpayers for helping subsidize the health care of foreigners coming to America! What this means is the welfare magnet draws them, and they will come, legal or illegal.

The solution is to dry up not just the jobs, but ALSO the Government services. This means doing "mean-spirited" things like actually CHECKING the immigration status of people getting Government services. It also suggests that the GOP was right in the mid-1990s to look at services to even legal immigrants. Immigrants use welfare at twice the rate of native-born Americans.

"
When low-bidders enter the work force in a given geographical area, they tend to displace other workers. The displaced workers either find other jobs, accept unemployment benefits (for a period of time), become self-employed, or move to a different area to find work.

Once they move off the unemployment roles or become self-employed, they are not counted in the guvmint's unemployment figures. "

One need only look at more specific numbers, like falling male labor participation rate, like 50% plus unemployment among blacks aged 18-25 without post-HS education, or the falling wage levels of the least skilled Americans ... to see the devastating impact on the lowest rungs in our society of excessive immigration.

The fact that our economy is strong enough to absorb these levels in aggregate does NOT imply that at the personal level or community level, these are absorbable levels. Nor does it mean these levels are good for our country.
We are generating about 1.5 million jobs a year, and have inflows of 1.5 million people a year. The Heritage study is telling us that legal inflows can be estimated to be 3-4 million a year under the radical Senate Hagel-Martinez bill (even with amendments that cut the original proposals back), qunituplying legal immigration. This is 'open borders' immigration.

The term 'race to the bottom' comes to mind.

How did that same 44% vote when it came to Senators and Reps?

[From what I can tell, the Bush numbers tended to go down ballot]

How does the 44% break down by generation (1st, 2nd, 3rd and so forth)?

[From what little data I have seen, there does not seem to be much difference, when it comes to Latinos]

By nation of origin (Mexican, Cuban, etc.)? [ Sure there are differences. Cubans are very GOP, although that is eroding (regression to the mean), and so are Nicaraguans (sp), and Puerto Ricans are very Dem, and Philipinos are too, but now swinging strongly to the GOP (maybe they don't count as Hispanic. But Bush ran close to even with Hispanics, which are almost all Mexican, in Arizona, Texas, and New Mexico, losing 3-2 in Nevada and Colorado, while losing 2-1 in California.]

Also note that Latinos make up 13% of the population, so the difference between the 8% that represents citizens and the remaining 5% that will benefit from the amnesty and new citizenship are the key - will they vote R or D? [I assume they will vote about the same as those who do vote, when they get the vote]

As they are economically weighted on the lower end of the scale, a traditional Dim base for support regardless of race, wouldn't this indicate a heavy favoring of the Dims? [No, because there does not seem to be much partisan movement vis a vis Hispanic upward mobility. The thing is, is that most Hispanics come to the US to work, not to game the welfare system. I know many on this site think otherwise, but that is consistent with the date, and with my own little beady eyes.]

I always respected Kudlow, but he really has drunk the open borders cheap-labor-lobby KoolAid there!

So to save social security we need 60 million immigrants, low wage workers and their families of welfare-eligible families (all eligible for SocSec of course?!?
Yeah, that'll help our deficit (NOT!)

The estimates are that the amnesty impact on the Federal budget alone is negative $50 billion or more, including impacts on Medicare, Medicaid, and EITC. Not to mention the schools, and state-level health programs etc., taxpayer-subisidized because the cheap labor employers arent providig health care and the Govt will sock it to taxpayers.

... and not to mention the political impact, which will be very bad for the free market side of the aisle.

"Michael D. Antonovich said Tuesday that he will tell Congress that close to 100,000 children of illegal immigrants in the county collect $276 million in annual welfare benefits. ... "What I want to make clear is the children we aid are legally eligible to be aided," Christensen said. "They are the children of undocumented parents, but they themselves are not undocumented. They were born in this country.""

Thanks for the information.

It certainly makes sense for the Government to check the immigration status of everybody who is receiving benefits. It is unjust to legal immigrants and citizens to continue this.

This also points out the necessity of ending 'birthright citizenship', because it becomes a magnet for illegal immigration. Apparently, the legislative language for such a change is sponsored by Sen Chambliss, but Sen Frist would let the Senate vote on it in this bill as an amendment. :-(
I'm disappointed in how Frist is handling this.
We are NOT solving illegal immigration if we include amnesty/legalization in it.

I am sure that is true, but it doesn't seem to impact partisan choices much, although the data is tentative in that regard. I think what is more more true, is that over time, Hispanics tend to blend into their local landscape, as they assimilate, and thus 3rd generation Hispanics in San Antonio probably vote GOP, and 3rd generation Hispanics in the Bay area are heavily Dem. My tentative thesis is that over time, Hispanics when it comes to partisan preferences, tend to be camelions as time goes by. I might add, that the GOP runs much stronger with Hispanics in the Central Valley in California, than anywhere else in California. Rubbing shoulders with all those right wingers must have some impact.

As a sidebar, there was an article about the 8 Castro brothers in Calexico or somewhere in the Imperial valley. They were a bit browner than your average red neck, but otherwise blended right in, and had American flags on their trucks. They were thinking about voting against the liberal Anglo congressional district incumbent, in the Dem primary, for the more conservative Hispanic challenger.

Where are they all going to work? There can't be that many jobs created in 10 years... I guess that is when they expect the straight Anglo Christians to move to Mars?

Currently is our booming economy, we are adding around 100,000-200,000 jobs per month. That is just enough for the workers entering the workforce.

More people will have to take themselves out of the job pool and go into drug dealing, one type of fraud or another, or become underemployed and receive "easy money" (welfare - food stamps, Medicaid, government housing, etc). Most people will take the latter, the legal way of making money without much work.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.