What You Don't Know About the Immigration Bill (Allows 40 Million Immigrants in Next 20 Years)

Washington Post ^ | May 31, 2006 | Robert Samuelson

[nj26]

The Senate passed legislation last week that Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) hailed as "the most far-reaching immigration reform in our history." You might think that the first question anyone would ask is how much it would actually increase or decrease legal immigration. But no. After the Senate approved the bill by 62 to 36, you could not find the answer in the news columns of The Post or the New York Times. Yet the estimates do exist and are fairly startling. By rough projections, the Senate bill would double the legal immigration that would occur during the next two decades from about 20 million (under present law) to about 40 million.

One job of journalism is to inform the public about what our political leaders are doing. In this case, we failed. The Senate bill's sponsors didn't publicize its full impact on legal immigration, and we didn't fill the void. It's safe to say that few Americans know what the bill would do because no one has told them. Indeed, I suspect that many senators who voted for the legislation don't have a clue as to the potential overall increase in immigration.

Democracy doesn't work well without good information. It is interesting to contrast these immigration projections with a recent survey done by the Pew Research Center. The poll asked whether the present level of legal immigration should be changed. The response: 40 percent favored a decrease, 37 percent would hold it steady and 17 percent wanted an increase. There seems to be scant support for a doubling. If the large immigration projections had been in the news, would the Senate have done what it did? Possibly, though I doubt it.

But if it had, senators would have had to defend what they were doing as sound public policy.

[gpapa]

The first sentence of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution -- often called the "citizenship clause" -- reads as follows:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

The original intent of this provision was to guarantee citizenship to the former slaves and their descendants following the Civil War. However, the Supreme Court held in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) that the "citizenship clause" applied to anyone born in the US, of any ethnicity or national origin -- and, in Afroyim v. Rusk (1967) and Vance v. Terrazas (1980), that the clause prevented Congress from revoking a person's US citizenship without evidence of his or her intent to give up said citizenship.

[TheCrusader]

"Then Bush followed up with his hints about opponents being "uncivil" and hinting at their possible racism."

He did the same thing in the ports scandal; suggested that anyone who stands against the UAE operating our ports were racists. He is taking a page from Al Sharpton's diary.

[TheCrusader]

"Tell us. Don't be coy. Is there something behind the curtain, that the masses can't see, but you can?"

I can't speak for Churchillbuff, but everything the President has said about illegal immigration, (er, pardon me, "temporary guest workers"), certainly indicates that he not only supports the Senate bill, but could have personally drafted it.

[backhoe]

Depends on where you look for the numbers:

---

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005259.htm

THE MOST IMPORTANT DEBATE OF THE YEAR

By Michelle Malkin   ·   May 25, 2006 11:32 AM

An extraordinary exchange just took place on the Senate floor over the last 40 minutes. It's the most important debate of the year, in my opinion.

The questions are these: Who do we let into this country and how many?  Under the Senate bill.... There would be, in effect, no limits.  If the current legal immigration level (950,000 a year for 20 years or 18.9 million over 20 years) is excluded from the total, according to Sessions, the Senate bill could be described as increasing legal immigration by 59 million to 198.2 million over 20 years.

You've got to watch the exchange for yourselves. We'll have video at Hot Air shortly. (1213pm EDT: Video of first exchange between McCain and Bingaman is up here.) In the meantime, re-read Sen. Sessions' analysis:

Senate Immigration Bill Would Allow 100 Million by 2020 (updated numbers)

How Many Illegal Aliens are in the US?--Here is the most careful estimate of the number of illegal aliens in the country that I have seen. The current estimate is about 29 million and is updated daily.--The Tucson sector Border Patrol union local 2544 on the number of illegal aliens in our nation: "There are currently 15 to 20 million illegal aliens in this country by many estimates, but the real numbers could be much higher and the numbers increase every day because our borders are not secure (no matter what the politicians tell you - don't believe them for a second)". (Visit the local's website).

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014100.php

Reconquista, Here We Come!

The Heritage Foundation and Senator Jeff Sessions try to blow the whistle on the Senate's compromise immigration "reform" bill, via the Washington Times:The Senate immigration reform bill would allow for up to 193 million new legal immigrants -- a number greater than 60 percent of the current U.S. population -- in the next 20 years, according to a study released yesterday.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican who conducted a separate analysis that reached similar results, said Congress is "blissfully ignorant of the scope and impact" of the bill...

Take a look at the numbers:

Take a look at the numbers:

[clawrence3]

There is NO law that we "fully enforce" - there are always limited resources for instance. That doesn't means Senators are not interested in securing the border - you simply disagree about how best to do that. Also, you are going to have to explain how you think REPUBLICAN Senators are "buying votes" especially if said votes are presumably going to be Democratic "with a decidedly leftist tilt favoring more and bigger government."

[clawrence3]

O.K., so there is, in effect, some limit - 193 million, right? I think it will be much lower - I mean, come on, there are only 100 million left in Mexico. 60 million is a much more reasonable estimate:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1641076/posts

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Why is George Bush supporting this legislation?

Cheap labor for corporate supporters?

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Actually, the first 300 pages of the Senate bill are enforcement provisions.

The bone they throw to the conservatives...

[clawrence3]

The over 6 million illegal aliens expelled from the U.S. since Bush took office is also a "bone"?

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

The over 6 million illegal aliens expelled from the U.S. since Bush took office is also a "bone"?

And there's still 10 to 12 million left. Some enforcement. If there was actually a political will in this government to send them home, most of these folks would be gone, too.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark

That only dealt with legal immigrants. There has never been a case to my knowledge that was specifically ruled on as it related to illegals. In any event since Congress has legislative authority over immigration matters they could write a law around the jurisdiction clause denying automatic citizenship then let the USSC hear it when it's challenged.

[BellStar]

especially if said votes are presumably going to be Democratic "with a decidedly leftist tilt favoring more and bigger government."

presumably going to be Democrat with a decidedly leftist tilt ............ ...sorry its a pet peve ...

[Gritty]

come on, there are only 100 million left in Mexico. 60 million is a much more reasonable estimate:

This Bill is not just about Mexico.

There are billions of people in the Third World. How many do you think would come to the USA if they could? This Bill opens wide the door.

Muslims from Islamic countries alone would probably stream in by the boat load. Do you think they would assimilate nicely - or peacefully?

[LM_Guy]

Like the great wave (Horde) of migrants begin !!!

It is time for the South Western States (California, Arizona, New Mexico, Colrado, Texas etc.) to share the fun with the rest of the country !!!

[LM_Guy]

I live in Texas we have millions of illegals, try more like 20+ million is really here in the USA. Just look at Texas population growth since 1990, it is most entirely (80-90%) from Illegal immigration.

[LM_Guy]

I disagree here in Texas our Taxes are skyrocketing becuase of - Free Schooling & Free Medical care if you show up at any County Hospital !!!!

Just look at the the numbers in the last four years.
Population, 2004 estimate Texas-22,490,022, USA- 293,655,404,
Population, percent change, April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2004 Texas-7.9%, USA-4.3%.
Population, 2000 Texas-20,851,820, USA-281,421,906

We have about 1-1/2 million new illegals in Texas since April 2000.

[kabar]

I have no doubt that you are paying for the lack of control over our borders. My point is that the long term impact of the Senate bill's significant increase in legal immigration will affect us more than the current impact of illegals already here, presuming we can gain control over our borders.

[backhoe]

Some new numbers:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/007096.php

What The Senate Didn't Tell You About Immigration

Robert Samuelson explains to his Washington Post readers what the Senate failed to communicate when it passed its Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA) last week. Many people wrote about the Heritage Foundation's analysis of the proposal, which estimated that 100 million people would emigrate to the US over the next twenty years under CIRA's provisions. Robert Rector adjusted that figure to 66 million after CIRA passed with several new amendments which provided some limitation to entry.

Samuelson points out that the White House and the CBO actually have similar numbers... 

[curiosity]

There is NO law that we "fully enforce" - there are always limited resources for instance.

Of course not, but no one is going to tell me that reducing the flow of illegals from over 1 million per year to less than 100k per year is going to be prohibitively costly.

That doesn't means Senators are not interested in securing the border

If they're so interested in securing the border, why have they waited this long to act? It's not as if this problem is new, and it's not as if everyone's been ignoring it until recently.

Large numbers of congressmen have been attempting to call their attention to it for over a decade. Border state voters have been attempting to do something about it on their own since 1994, only to be foiled by the courts. For crying out loud, the Senate and our panderer in chief ignored it even in the face of 9-11. And only now are they finally doing something about it? Forgive me if I doubt their sincerity.

Furthermore, if they're so interested in securing the border, why are they holding border security hostage to their desire to amnesty illegals and double (perhaps triple) the rate of unskilled legal immigration?

[clawrence3]

Just ask Spiff - we have expelled more than 6 million illegal immigrants since Bush took office - that's more than enough for me. I'd rather we let most of those in legally and then we can focus on catching terrorists and others we DON'T want to let in.