THE NEW IMMIGATION REFORM BILL

The purpose, or goal of immigration policy should be first and foremost to benefit existing American citizens, not people who are in this country illegally.
That being said, we must ask ourselves “what exactly is the purpose of the new “Gang of Eight Comprehensive Bill?”  Simply stated, its purpose is to give the Democrats a permanent majority.
But, that’s not the only problem be any means.  I will do my best to cover all the problems I am aware of, but I’m sure there are many I haven’t thought of.

To began, you must understand that this legislation was crafted behind closed doors with big business, big unions, and groups representing illegal aliens, groups with their own interests, and groups that stand to make millions from this legislation.  Anyone with a significantly different opinion on immigration reform was prohibited by the Gang of Eight from having input."

MY FIRST PROBLEM WITH IT: Our current system allowed two individuals to immigrate to the United States from the Chechen Republic in Russia, an area known as a hotbed of Islamic extremism, who then committed acts of terrorism?  It is becoming increasingly apparent that the Boston bombers rejected, rather than embraced, American values so much so that they sought to terrorize the Nation by killing and crippling women and children. Were there any safeguards? Could this have been prevented?  The immigration reform bill does NOTHING to address this problem.   To the contrary, The Gang of Eight’s 844-page immigration reform legislation makes it easier for asylum seekers to come to America.

SECOND PROBLEM: What about the so called “Birthright Citizenship”?  There is no mention of stopping Birthright Citizenship in this bill.  If you are unfamiliar with the term, it was originally intended to guarantee citizenship to the children of slaves.  It is now being misinterpreted to grant automatic citizenship to all persons born in this country, even if the parents are her illegally. 
 

THIRD PROBLEM: They say it does not grant amnesty.  That’s a lie, this bill grants amnesty.

It creates a framework for legalization for the estimated 11 million people unlawfully present in the United States.  Anyone who was present in the U.S. before 2012 qualifies, but there is too much opportunity for fraud—since there is no proof required that applicants have been here for several years.

FOURTH PROBLEM:  This plan does not account for the government benefits, especially welfare and entitlement benefits that would be paid to those who are legalized.  The additional costs to taxpayers would be enormous.  Some argue that amnesty would bring economic gains, but these would actually be captured by the formerly unlawful immigrants themselves. Legalization brings little, if any economic benefit to the rest of us.  The bill is a Trojan horse for government spending, and in some cases, it appears the funding is unrestricted or ill-defined. Just one example is a $6.5 billion “Comprehensive Immigration Reform Trust,” which includes a $2 billion “slush fund” for border security.

Our federal government currently spends $1 trillion more per year than it takes in, so adding on a new, unlimited spending commitment makes no sense at all. The entire cost of implementing the bill has yet to be determined. Further, the bill trashes fiscal discipline, exploiting “a loophole in the Budget Control Act (BCA) that allows Congress to spend more than allowed under the spending caps adopted in 2011.”

FIFTH PROBLEM:  Every past amnesty program that I can remember guaranteed better border security so there would never have to be another such program.  We all know that border security never happened, and it won’t this time.

The bill does require certification of “border triggers” for stemming the tide of illegal border crossings before additional steps in the legalization process can proceed.  But the Department of Homeland Security has been trying unsuccessfully to define credible metrics for border security since 2004.  Even if it had effective “triggers,” that does not guarantee a secure border.  Border crossing conditions constantly change. Even if the goal is achieved, there is no guarantee it will stay that way.
Amnesty creates an incentive for illegal border crossings and overstays. Thus, the strategy laid out would drive up the cost of securing the border. Just throwing money at the border does not make sense. The policies adopted on both sides of the border are more important.

For example, the Coast Guard is significantly under-funded and unprepared. America’s coastlines are already seeing a significant increase in illegal entry by sea, a trend that has been growing since 2007.

SUMMERY:  The bill does make an attempt to “modernize” lawful immigration and non-immigration visas.  These modernizations include substantially lowering “chain” migration; abolishing the diversity lottery; expanding the visa waiver; increasing high-skill migration; and expanding temporary worker programs.

Reforming the legal immigration system—in principle—sounds like a really good idea. But trying to craft precise measures in a massive bill like this is difficult.  For example, though it sounds harmless enough, one provision in the legislation could lead to big problems.  The legislation allows documents “issued by a federally recognized Indian tribe” to be used for identity and employment purposes.  Numerous Indian tribes exist along the southern border, including the Texas Kickapoo, the Ysleta Del Sur, and, the largest, the Tohona O’Odham.  Indian reservations already serve as drug pipelines and have been cited as weak links in border security.  Given these issues, does it really make sense to add this exemption to legislation aimed at minimizing identification fraud?

Once we get it right, there will be very strong bipartisan support that modernizing lawful immigration ought to be a priority.  Congress should put its effort into accomplishing that aim—moving forward on an area of strong agreement, while allowing time to debate issues where there is not strong consensus.

We deserve better—all of us.  Employers deserve better than having to sift through falsified credentials or risk breaking the law.  Families in communities burdened by the impacts of illegal immigration deserve better.  In fact, all who cherish a society that is committed to keeping America both a nation of immigrants and a country that respects its laws deserve better.  The key is to begin by working on the solutions on which we can all agree, rather than insisting on a comprehensive approach that divides us.

Here’s an update on the National Security issues by Michelle Malkin posted on 1/26 20133

http://townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/2013/04/26/a-national-security-history-lesson-for-marco-rubio-n1579068?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

UPDATE#2  Bill Clinton’s Part in America’s Immigration Nightmare

In 1994, Bill Clinton made an adjustment to the Immigration and Nationality Act. Its specific purpose was to change the status of those residing in the United States illegally. Prior to October 1994, only legal non-residents were permitted to avail themselves of a status modification, and only if a visa became available. Clinton’s “adjustment” changed all that.

Now, illegals had the practice extended to them . . . without requiring them to leave the country and wait for visa approval. It also required each applicant to pay a $1,000 fee. The law also included those who had entered the United States but committed visa violations during their stay. A provision that later benefited Tamerlan Tsarnaev of recent Boston Marathon bombing infamy.

In 1997, Clinton’s Congress passed NACARA, the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act, which granted legal status to people from Guatemala, El Salvador, Cuba, Nicaragua, and nationals of the former Soviet bloc. This law also provided some protection from deportation. Castro emptied the Cuban prisons into America on the strength of NACARA.

Not satisfied with his previous fine tuning, in December 2000 Clinton signed the Legal Immigration Family Equity (LIFE) Act which allowed those in the United States illegally to apply for and receive a green card even if they wouldn’t normally be eligible to receive one. Regardless of how the individual had entered the country, whether working illegally in the country or if the individual failed to “maintain lawful status” since his/her arrival in the United States, legitimacy was now assured.
Knowing that the next presidential election would be a tight race, Clinton initiated the not-so-clandestine Clinton/Gore “Project 500,000.” Gore was put in charge of boosting immigration, legal or not, in order to augment Democrat voting rolls by an additional 500,000 voters. Among other things, Gore ordered adjudicators to abstain from criminal background checks, told immigration officials to ignore the requirement of English for interviews, and waived the $1,000 application fee. Many thousands of foreign criminals received citizenship this way.

Transformation of United States immigration policy was not yet complete; but the changes to the system effectively changed America’s fundamental structure.  When legal immigration to America was no longer a requirement, the bar was again forced down.  Three revolutionary changes occurred as a result. The first was that uneducated, non-English-speaking, third-world transplants to America were given resettlement priority.

The second was that those given U.S. entry no longer found it necessary to want to be American. Many did; but many didn’t have to. There was no expectation or demand made for the price of their freedom and welfare.

Third, the destruction of the black family, begun by Lyndon Johnson in 1965 and compounded by Ted Kennedy’s immigration “reform,” were given additional drive by Clinton’s actions. The ability for American citizens on the lower rungs of society to climb upwards was further curtailed; unrestrained immigration, legal and illegal, was noticeably eroding the jobs base that would lead to better jobs for American citizens.

These changes would increase a population ever more dependent on government.

Immigration modifications shifted the focus of relocation to the United States from the individual’s desire for a better life to that of a political expedient. Cloaking the changes to America’s immigration policy in multi-cultural, politically correct dogma didn’t change the fact that America’s transformation was well underway.