Anybody familiar with the history of wild swings in immigration law understands that the big problems in the last century began with Ted Kennedy's Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. The Slave Party goal has obviously been demographic:
Yes, the 1965 Immigration Act changed the demographics of this country forever. Other landmark events included Reagan's 1986 "one-time" amnesty, Bush 41 doubling the legal immigration caps approximating now over one million legal permanent immigrants annually, and the two Obama executive amnesties beginning with the 2012 Dreamer amnesty that has legalized 580,000 Dreamers (up to the age of 30) giving them work permits and SSNs.
87% of legal permanent immigrants are minorities as defined by the USG. Since 1990 we have admitted over 35 million legal permanent immigrants, almost equal to the population of Canada. In 1970 one in 21 was foreign born; today it is less than one in 8, the highest in 105 years; and within a decade it will be one in 7 the highest in our history.
Immigration drives 80% of our population growth. Non-hispanic whites will be a minority by 2043, compared to 63% today; and 89% in 1970. There are electoral consequences. Minorities and immigrants vote more than two to one Dem. By 2019 half of the children 18 and under will be minorities. Unless we significantly reduce legal immigration, the Dems will soon be the permanent majority party.
So nobody needs to tell me the problems the demography of illegals have posed; they are legion. They have destroyed my once beloved, admired, and idyllic California and turned it into a degenerating cesspool of crime and corruption. It is a continuing and unfolding tragedy.
LEGAL immigration is far more destructive than illegal aliens. In the case of CA, both have combined to destroy the state, which has the same demographics as the US will have in 2050, if we don't decrease drastically legal immigration.
Trump's proposal is to deport them all and allow only "the good ones" back in on an expedited basis. The more one reads what Trump has to say the more one realizes this will be a VERY expedited step over the border and back for the majority of current illegals, wall or no wall. Current illegal aliens will become LEGAL immigrants or "guest workers," which is not at all clear in his plan.
Trump has never indicated how many would be allowed back in except that it will be done legally. If that is the case, the numbers could be very small given the fact that most of the lawbreakers have violated many laws including those that are felonies. Nor has Trump provided a detailed plan on how the lawbreakers will be deported. He does however support such things as mandatory e-verify, the elimination of catch and release, and a host of other measures meant to enforce our laws. Deportation is required by law for those here illegally. It goes on every day now. Under Trump and now Cruz, attrition thru enforcement will winnow down the illegal alien population. We will always have to deport people. And Trump says unequivocally that if you are here illegally, you must go. Cruz has equivocated.
There seems to be this quaint notion that we have a static population of 11 million illegal aliens. The reality is that it is constantly changing. 60% of all green cards are due to a change in status, in many cases from illegal to legal.
One legitimately has to ask why Cruz never talks about mass deportations and avoids the question when asked in debates. Many here presume he therefore doesn't mean for illegals to leave. I think there is another explanation beyond that unsupported assertion: To state such flatly without ambiguity would be to give his RINO/crat enemies a weapon against him.
Cruz is trying to have it both ways. In the past, he has supported legalization of the lawbreakers and criticized Romney's self-deportation (as has Trump in the past.) Cruz Tries to Claim the Middle Ground on Immigration Cruz parsing of words is Clintonian, hence his avoidance of defining what is amnesty.
Reporter asks Ted Cruz four times: “How do you define amnesty?â€
So no, his plan is amnesty in all but name, and worse if the courts shut him down. Everything I've heard on this forum to the contrary is nothing more than wishful thinking unsupported by reality.
The courts will have a hard time stopping the President from enforcing the law. How can they stop deportation of the 40% of the illegal population who are visa overstays? Unlike Obama who has used his power to thwart the enforcement of existing laws, Trump will be enforcing existing law that was passed by Congress. He will not be using executive orders to legalize the lawbreakers. He will enforce the laws against sanctuary cities.
Unlike Trump, Cruz has promised to curtail legal immigration until employment conditions have improved. Trump has made vague promises to favor Americans in his policies but has not explained what he means.
Cruz is not proposing to curtail legal immigration. He is proposing not to increase it. Here is what he says:
Halt any increases in legal immigration so long as American unemployment remains unacceptably high. The purpose of legal immigration should be to grow the economy, not to displace American workers. Under no circumstances should legal immigration levels be adjusted upwards so long as work-force participation rates remain below historical averages.
Compare that to what Trump is proposing. Trump wants legal immigration to return to historical levels, which means 195,000 a year (1925-65) compared to 1.1 million today. From Trump's plan:
Immigration moderation. Before any new green cards are issued to foreign workers abroad, there will be a pause where employers will have to hire from the domestic pool of unemployed immigrant and native workers. This will help reverse women's plummeting workplace participation rate, grow wages, and allow record immigration levels to subside to more moderate historical averages.
One feature I applaud in Cruz' plan is that he does not propose to make e-Verify mandatory nationally as Trump does. Mandatory e-Verify is clearly an unconstitutional search and a usurpation of the power to control EVERY employment agreement. It is ripe for the kind of abuses that make the current IRS scandals look like a tea party. Cruz DOES propose to make e-Verify mandatory for federal employment and or contracting, which is within his Constitutional authority as an employer. He gets the Constitutional distinction.
BS. The Supreme Court ruled in AZ's favor on making e-verify mandatory. We need to shut off the job magnet now. E-verify is a tool that makes it easier and quicker for the employer to ensure that he does not hire illegal aliens, which is against the law. Are you against the I-9 process which currently requires. All U.S. employers must ensure proper completion of Form I-9 for each individual they hire for employment in the United States. Is it unconstitutional? Does Cruz support the elimination of the I-9 process? Cruz says in his plan that he wants to "strengthen e-verify," What does that mean?
FYI: People like Jeff Sessions and Steve King want mandatory e-verify as do NumbersUSA, FAIR, etc.
I'm with Cruz' plan as opposed to Trump's because the former shows a far better understanding of both existing law and how the government is structured.
The Trump plan was written for the most part by a staffer in Jeff Sessions' office. I know that for a fact. As someone who has been working on the immigration issue for nine years as a member (read President) of a grassroots immigration group that lobbies on the Hill, Trump has presented the best position paper of any presidential candidate in recent memory. Cruz has made a belated attempt at a knock-off of the Trump plan and it is not as good. I don't trust Cruz to deliver on immigration.
Trump was the first high profile political figure to highlight the American victims of criminal alien crime. Cruz has never done that. Cruz wanted a 500% increase in H-1B visas, one of the Cruz amendments to the Gang of 8 bill that Sessions did not support.
Phyllis Schafly, who gets it on immigration, has called Trump the "last hope" for America." She said Cruz would make a good VP or member of the Supreme Court.