Posted on 01/03/2018 2:16:01 PM PST by Kaslin
When President Trump announced his decision to wind down DACA, which protects illegal aliens who came to America before their 18th birthday, Democratic leaders were secretly pleased. They thought DACA gave them a way to defeat the president, and compel him to cave in on the issue in order to avert a government shutdown just before Christmas.
The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) was created by a stroke of President Barack Obama’s pen in 2012, even after Obama said 22 times that he lacked the power to do that. DACA provided a two-year work permit with a valid Social Security number to around 800,000 illegal aliens, a number that has since dropped through attrition to about 690,000.
No one denies that Trump has the power to rescind an executive order by his predecessor, but many were misled by polls showing that DACA is a popular program. Depending on how the question is asked, polls show many Americans sympathize with the plight of young people who were supposedly brought here through no fault of their own.
But the real poll is on Election Day, and Donald Trump was elected president primarily because of his commitment to control our borders and reduce immigration. If Trump could be rolled by the media on his signature issue, it would undermine his presidency and make it that much easier for Democrats to defeat the rest of the Trump agenda.
Thinking they had Trump on the defensive, Democrats laid plans to expand DACA from a two-year work permit for 700,000 people all the way to permanent residency for some 4 million illegal residents. Democrats felt so confident that they would win on the DACA issue that they started posturing already for how to expand its amnesty to include many millions.
Now Democrats are making similar threats about extending DACA as a condition for the next budget deadline on January 19, but the terms of the debate have changed. Instead of DACA and the Dream Act, Trump has forced public attention on chain migration.
Between Christmas and New Year’s Eve, Trump served notice via Twitter about the new deal that Democrats would face in the new year: “There can be no DACA without the desperately needed WALL at the Southern Border,” he warned, “and an END to the horrible Chain Migration & ridiculous Lottery System of Immigration etc. We must protect our country at all cost!”
A helpful web page was created by the White House to elaborate on the president’s tweet. According to this page at whitehouse.gov, chain migration is “the process by which foreign nationals permanently resettle in the U.S. and subsequently bring over their foreign relatives, and so on, until entire extended families are resettled within the country.”
The numbers are huge. On average, according to the White House, “every 2 new immigrants bring 7 additional foreign relatives to permanently resettle in the U.S.”
In just the last ten years, some 9.3 million people have been allowed to settle permanently in the United States solely because of their familial ties to another immigrant. That’s more than the total population of Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas, San Francisco, and Cleveland – combined.
“This system of chain migration – whereby one immigrant can bring in their entire extended families, who can bring in their families and so on – de-skills the labor force, puts downward pressure on wages, and increases the deficit,” explains the White House website. The Trump administration is absolutely correct that low-skill immigrants increase the fiscal deficit by consuming more in benefits than they pay in taxes.
Chain migration “de-skills the labor force” because those immigrants, on average, have lower or fewer skills than the Americans who are already here and struggling to find adequate employment. While the vast majority of immigrant green cards were based on family ties, only 6 percent were issued on the basis of skills.
Despite low unemployment figures being reported, as President Obama’s chief economic adviser Jason Furman recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “some 9 million men of prime age – that is, between 25 and 54 – still are not working.” Furman ignored immigration, but it’s not just a coincidence that 9 million men exited the labor force during the same period that 9.3 million low-skill immigrants settled in the United States.
“The bulk of the decline in employment,” Jason Furman continued, “has been for men with a high-school diploma or less, who have seen their employment rates fall from 97% in 1964 to 83% today.” That’s the same group that is most harmed by the policy of allowing low-skill immigrants to come here and fight for the same jobs.
For more than 50 years, America’s immigration policy has been set by an unholy alliance between liberal Republicans, who seek to please their donors with access to cheap labor, and Democrats in search of more votes for their progressive agenda. Under the Trump administration, that corrupt bargain is finally coming to an end.
And it's high time
This same alliance has undermined and perverted some Constitutional protections for liberty at the same time, leading a historically knowledgeable person to conclude that any difference between what the writer describes as "liberal Republicans" and "Progressive Democrats" is minimal and/or nonexistent. At the very least such individuals, when holders of power in Washington, D. C., are threats to liberty!
I do. I think we should vet them to separate the keepers from the throwbacks. Keep the ones who are Americans at heart, who have behaved themselves and contributed to society; throw back the ones who are still Mexican, Guatemalan, Irish, Somali, etc., have committed crimes and who have been wards of the state. YMMV.
No. Folks like us who want America protected, yet acknowledge that fairness is a desirable characteristic. Punishing one individual for the behavior of another is unfair. Yeah, I know- life's not fair.
A set of written standards by which the candidates would be evaluated is a must. And a set of rules for those retained; no crimes, no welfare, voting or holding public office. That is, unless and until they apply for and are granted citizenship.
I must be getting soft in my old age.
I’m so sick of this s—t.
Illegal is illegal is illegal.
The Left trashes us every day saying all societies around the world aren’t equal, and we’re big racists because we won’t accept people here. Then when we try to send back illegal aliens, it’s deemed so unfair to send them back to those filthy places they came from.
So which is it?
Are those societies equal to ours, or aren’t they?
If they are, then send them back.
If they aren’t, then lets quite taking in so many from those hell holes.
DACA is nothing more than a key word set up to game the issue on. Kids of illegals are still illegals.
No place in our Constitution is it clearly stated that “ALL” children born on U. S. soil are instantly citizens.
It’s a fabrication, and I’m tired of seeing people buy off on it.
If we’re not going to enforce our immigration laws, then all our immigration laws are therefore null and void.
Hunting and pecking is not allowed. Honor all our immigration laws or lets just open our damned borders and f our progeny to hell, because that is what this nation will quickly become.
I know. I live in it every day in Southern California.
Bookmark.
if we make the vetting literal:
Serve your country.
OR wards of the state when old enough to arrange welfare payments etc. for themselves...they had no control over what their parents did.
Best would be to send ‘em all back to from where their parents brought them and let them apply to come in, but highly impractical and subject to abuse by bureaucrats who look for a little taste on top of their government paycheck.
Those brought here as infants to maybe 4 or 5 years old have little or no memory of those filthy places; America is all they've known. Those are the ones for whom a little compassion is warranted.
Maybe we get a better class of illegals here than in CA...most try to keep their heads down and stay out of trouble. Some WILL take advantage of our welfare system; they'd be foolish not to do so as long as our own laws/rules allow it.
Full disclosure: I am landlord to Mexican tenants; a mom who is here legally and her four American born daughters, two of whom are young adults working, one in high school and one in grade school. No section 8 or other rental assistance from public funds, though the church helped a few time when things were tight, with food and clothing. I call the two younger kids my adopted granddaughters. Her husband was deported, deservedly, after a domestic violence incident. He never got legal status; she did.
I am with you on the interpretation of birthright citizenship...simply add the language "born of parents legally present" and the problem is solved. But her kids are as American as mine, with the exception of being fully bilingual...my boys never had to learn Gaelic!
JimRed, that kind of story plays out for each of the 30 million illegal immigrants in the nation.
When citizens need a job, they often times can’t find it, because another person who was willing to work for half the wages, has taken it.
When housing is taken up by these people, it leaves a much higher occupancy rate. That causes upward pressure on rents or even home ownership.
When these people are used to the living standard in their old country, they are willing to live three families to a single family dwelling in order to pay 1/3rd of the house payments each, thus competing with our single family dwellers.
This not only drives up property prices forcing out American citizens, and it lowers the property values as the homes and properties are trashed. They’re used to living under much worse conditions, so they don’t know how to keep property up.
Our schools are overcrowded, and many times by children that cannot speak our language. If there is enough of them in the school, they can actually gang up against the white citizen children. I had this happen to my own children. This resulted in a $300 monthly impact at the time, which put a real hardship on us. We had to put our kids in private school.
I could go on for quite a while raising issues. I don’t need to. We have immigration laws put in place to avoid these situations. There IS NO VALID EXCUSE to ignore them.
Let me ask you, if I go out and employ low level tactics to bilk money away from unsuspecting people, would it be okay as long as I had a family at home to feed, house, clothe, and support in other ways? Should I be able to run ‘guess which cup the ball is under’ or ‘Three Card Money’ games with impunity?
What you have just presented is an argument that would play out over each of the 30 million people illegally here. Hey you have a soft spot. Everyone else does. Why not just let them stay? Right?
Should I have to follow traffic laws? Should I have to pay my bills? Should I have to do any of a thousand things I don’t really like all that much? Why should I? Do you think this causes our society to get better or more course.
What you are advocating is the opening of our borders to all comers. Once you get here, you’re just such a tragic situation that we’ll grant you permission to stay.
Meanwhile, your grandchildren will be dealing with people who vote about 80% for Democrats. They will no longer be a part of the majority race here. Have you seen the problems we already have with regard to race? Multiply that by ten.
What is your prognosis for a nation like that? Better, or much much much worse?
I don’t want to be mean to people, but I did not put them in this position. They did. Now they want to be granted leniency and consideration, after literally thumbing their nose at the laws of my nation, and indirectly me.
30 million is roughly 30% of Mexico’s population. Granted only about 65-70% of our illegals are from there, but think of the massive political power you are handing these people. And if they pull the wool over our eyes here by blinking theirs and acting all sorrowful about having to face the penalty for what they have done, our way of life will be over shortly.
How about giving some thought to this and the future citizens in about 20 years time. You are expressing a willingness to screw them into the dirt here. We’re talking about your and my grand-kids.
Not buying it.
Look JimRed, I’m not angry with you. You raise a point that has to be addressed. I’m choosing to think of our own citizen’s today and on into the future.
Funny; I didn't notice this.
When these people are used to the living standard in their old country, they are willing to live three families to a single family dwelling in order to pay 1/3rd of the house payments each, thus competing with our single family dwellers.
How does this 'compete'?
They’re used to living under much worse conditions, so they don’t know how to keep property up.
Strange; isn't it; that so many manage to find work 'keeping up property' of others.
Gardners and landscapers and drywall guys and painters and...
All doing the work that 'Americans won't do'.
Not so. Only for some compassion for a number of people who are already here, who had no say in their arrival, and meet the criteria as "keepers". No newer arrivals (anyone who was brought here after DACA became Obammunist policy) qualify.
Once a WALL is completed that problem will be reduced by 90%+ anyway. I've advocated for a wall since about the mid-1980s, though I have backed off on the minefields at the border. Like I said, getting soft.
LOL. “Hey, my sob story is ‘special’. Nobody else will have one.” Seriously Elsie...
A property is on the market for $300k. A single family buyer would like to buy it. It’s a stretch, but he thinks he can handle the payments.
Three families decide to compete with him. Their slice of the payments would each be 1/3rd of his. They can afford to raise their offer more than he can, because at the end of the day, they’ll only have to pay 1/3rd of the mortgage payment each month.
You see no competition there?
How about the reality that with fewer people able to handle the current property prices, they property would settle to a lower price. Wouldn’t that benefit citizens trying to find a reasonably priced property.
There is competition.
Now, as for the ability to keep a property up. I live in Los Angeles, and if you think properties in the region are looking better after being flooded with illegal aliens, you need to get out more.
As for wear and tear on the interior of the property, do you think it’s easier to keep the inside of a home in better shape with two adults and 1-3 kids, or do you think it’s easier with six adults and 3 to 9 kids?
JimRed, seriously, think about it.
Everyone has a sob story. EVERYONE!
When we start saying, “Okay, I guess you’re right. We’ll let you stay.”, it’s over. We essentially have no law enforcement.
If the mother came over, she was aware. Do we send her home and leave the children parent-less? Why of course not. That would be so mean.
It never ends. Everyone has a sob story.
Are we a nation or aren’t we?
If we refuse to stop the invasion, the game is over.
Well; since you frame it that way.
But if I am the guy that is SELLING the house...
'Tis an ill wind that blows no good.
Division of labor.
Why would people BUY a house (for more; you say) and then tear it up?
Where is the profit in that?
SO, finish the WALL and all other preventative measures. Then throw 'em all out, or decide who stays and who goes. Without near absolute border security, the invasion will continue.
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.