Tag Archives: illegal immigration

Why Democrat Leaders Oppose Border Controls, Part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its review of opposition to funding the southern border wall

Arguments about the cost of the wall fail to make economic sense; cost-savings from reducing the number of illegal entries far exceeds any expenses incurred in construction. Steven Camarota describes the financial outline in a Center for Immigration Studies report:

“The findings of this analysis show that if a border wall stopped a small fraction of the illegal immigrants who are expected to come in the next decade, the fiscal savings from having fewer illegal immigrants in the country would be sufficient to cover the costs of the wall. Among the findings:

  • There is agreement among researchers that illegal immigrants overwhelmingly have modest levels of education — most have not completed high school or have only a high school education.
  • There is also agreement that immigrants who come to America with modest levels of education create significantly more in costs for government than they pay in taxes.
  • A recent NAS study estimated the lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) of immigrants by education. Averaging the cost estimates from that study and combining them with the education levels of illegal border-crossers shows a net fiscal drain of $74,722 per illegal crosser.2
  • The above figures are only for the original illegal immigrants and do not include any costs for their U.S.-born descendants. If we use the NAS projections that include the descendants, the fiscal drain for border-crossers grows to $94,391 each.
  • If a border wall prevented 160,000 to 200,000 illegal crossings (excluding descendants) in the next 10 years it would be enough to pay for the estimated $12 to $15 billion costs of the wall.
  • Newly released research by the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) done for the Department of Homeland Security indicates that 170,000 illegal immigrants crossed the border successfully without going through a port of entry in 2015.3 While a significant decline in crossings from a decade ago, it still means that there may be 1.7 million successful crossings in the next decade. If a wall stopped just 9 to 12 percent of these crossings it would pay for itself.
  • If a wall stopped half of those expected to successfully enter illegally without going through a port of entry at the southern border over the next 10 years, it would save taxpayers nearly $64 billion — several times the wall’s cost.”

The answer to the puzzling opposition to border enforcement by Democrat leaders is found at the ballot box.  As the New York Analysis of Policy and Government has previously noted, What may seem, at first impression, to be a position counter to the Democrats own key interests comes into focus when seen through the prism of politics on a national scale.

Governing magazine points out that “Democrats went into this (2016)election controlling the governorship, Senate and House in just seven states — that was their lowest number since the Civil War, when there were 15 fewer states. Now, they control just five states.”

National Review  study concurs.“President Obama’s recent executive orders granting provisional legal status to an estimated 5 million illegal aliens will likely allow an indeterminate number of them to cast ballots in elections across the United States — and it’s hard to see how it won’t affect the outcome of some number of close elections. Amnestied illegal aliens are now eligible to receive Social Security numbers and, in many cases, drivers’ licenses. Since the vast majority of states don’t require individuals to present proof of citizenship to either register or vote, and given the Obama administration’s zealous promotion of motor-voter registration and declared refusal to enforce Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act (ensuring that only eligible individuals vote), it’s certain that appreciable numbers of amnestied illegal aliens will be able to vote. Furthermore, testimony…before the House Judiciary Committee revealed that under Obama’s amnesty some illegal aliens will receive advance-parole status — a glide path to citizenship and full voting rights…”

Voting in their own interests, unlawful immigrants who eventually vote, legally or otherwise, will overwhelmingly support Democrats. That is the primary reason for the opposition by Democrat party leaders to reasonable border control.

Why Democrat Leaders Oppose Border Controls

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government presents a two-part analysis of the opposition to the southern border wall. 

There has been insufficient examination of why Democrats have so vehemently opposed measures to restrict illegal immigration. The latest iteration of this is the threat to shut down the government if the latest government funding bill contains money for the southern wall.

Former presidential candidate Herman Cain has commented on the irony of this tactic.

“Back in 2013,” Cain writes, “when GOP members threatened a federal shutdown, they were called ‘terrorists’ and ‘hostage takers.’  Brian Williams famously carped that ‘All kinds of people are getting cheated out of salaries, benefits, medical treatment.’  That, in true Williams fashion, was a bald-faced lie, but it was the narrative the entire left-wing media decided to run with. As Mark Halpern admitted on MSNBC, the press was in Obama’s pocket and they were going to help him sell the anti-Republican narrative. It worked.  The GOP took a temporary hit and, for the next few years, Republicans would cower any time someone said the word ‘shutdown.’ Now, the circumstances have been reversed.  Having decimated their own party, Democrats are desperately searching for weapons with which to stall, delay, or derail the GOP agenda. Guess what they’re threatening…”

The Boston Globe recalls that “As a senator, Barack Obama once offered measured praise for the border control legislation that would become the basis for one of Donald Trump’s first acts as president…Obama was talking about the Secure Fence Act of 2006, legislation authorizing a barrier along the southern border passed into law with the support of 26 Democratic senators including party leaders like Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Chuck Schumer…Now it’s become the legal mechanism for Trump to order construction of a wall between the United States and Mexico…”

Illegal immigration detrimentally affects many who are, or at least once upon a time were, core Democrat constituencies, including union workers and blacks, who have seen their job opportunities and salaries shrink due to increased competition from illegals.  The poor, who have favored Democrats because of the party’s support for social welfare programs, are forced to share limited federal assistance funding with a new wave of incomers. They certainly don’t benefit.

Last month, the New York Times pointed out: “The issue splits traditional Democratic constituencies.  It pits groups with competing material interests against each other, but it also brings those with vested psychological interests into conflict as Hispanics, African-Americans, labor and liberal advocacy groups clash over their conception of territoriality, political ownership and cultural identity.”

Democrat leaders have even opposed measures to deport illegal alien who have committed crimes. Matt Vespa, writing in Townhall  refutes Democrat’s characterization of ICE raids on illegal criminals as being prosecution of otherwise innocent illegals: Over the past couple of days, immigration enforcement agents have round up almost 700 illegal aliens—75 percent of which had criminal records. Rep. Nancy Pelosi disputed the claim, but Immigration and Customs Enforcement also confirmed the figure released by the Department of Homeland Security.

As the Dallas News  notes, “We can argue about whether America has an immigration problem. But it seems pretty clear that Democrats have an immigration problem…Josh Barro, a senior editor at Business Insider, laid out at length exactly what that problem is. Briefly: Democratic arguments about immigration mostly aren’t arguments…It’s easy to explain how immigrants benefit from an open door. Explanations of how the rest of us benefit tend to rely on the trivial or on abstract economic arguments that most people don’t find particularly intuitive or convincing. Those arguments look even more suspicious because they are generally made by the one group that visibly does benefit from a lot of low-skilled immigration, which provides the nannies, lawn-care, and food services that high-skilled professionals rely on to allow them to work longer hours.”

The report concludes Monday

Taxpayers Pay Heavy Costs for Immigration, Part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its review of immigration costs

Many specific, costly areas highlight the economic weight of illegal immigration.

Louise Radnofsky, writing for the Wall Street Journal, reports:

“When federal lawmakers wrote the act overhauling the nation’s health-care system… they ruled out any possibility of extending health insurance to illegal immigrants. Local officials where many of those immigrants live are treating them anyway. A Wall Street Journal survey of the 25 U.S. counties with the largest unauthorized immigrant populations found that 20 of them have programs that pay for the low-income uninsured to have doctor visits, shots, prescription drugs, lab tests and surgeries at local providers. The services usually are inexpensive or free to participants, who must prove they live in the county but are told their immigration status doesn’t matter…Unauthorized immigrants account for at least one-quarter of the approximately 30 million uninsured people in the U.S., the Congressional Budget Office estimates…For communities that provide care to illegal immigrants, the financial commitment is significant. Interviews with officials in the 25 counties indicated that local initiatives provide nonemergency care for at least 750,000 unauthorized immigrants across those counties, costing them more than $1 billion a year—almost all from local funds.”

Educational costs for illegal immigrants are massive.  The Daily Caller,  citing Federation for American Immigration Reform statistics,  noted that “It cost taxpayers an estimated $43.9 billion to educate illegal alien students in the 2015-2016 school year, and $59.2 billion for programs to educate voters lacking proficient English skills.”

A study by the American Enterprise Institute notes that:

“According to the Pew Research Center, from 1995 to 2012, the percentage of K-12 students with at least one undocumented immigrant parent rose from 3.2 to 6.9%.  In California, this figure was 13.2%, and 17.7% in Nevada…In New York, almost 12% of public school students are undocumented minors, according to a New York Post article. A report by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) estimates the state will spend over $147 million in the 2014-2015 school year educating undocumented minors from the border crisis in 2014, a cost of $35,520 per pupil. California enrolls the highest amount of the nation’s 5 million English Language Learners (ELL) with nearly 1.5 million, and spends an estimated $12.3 billion annually educating children of undocumented immigrants.”

Law Enforcement costs are also a factor. A General Accounting Office  study found that:

“the number of criminal aliens in federal prisons in fiscal year 2010 was about 55,000, and the number of State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) criminal alien incarcerations in state prison systems and local jails was about 296,000 in fiscal year 2009…The number of criminal aliens in federal prisons increased about 7 percent from about 51,000 in fiscal year 2005 while the number of SCAAP criminal alien incarcerations in state prison systems and local jails increased about 35 percent from about 220,000 in fiscal year 2003… in 2005, [the General Accounting Office] (GAO) reported that the percentage of criminal aliens in federal prisons was about 27 percent of the total inmate population from 2001 through 2004. Based on our random sample, GAO estimates that the criminal aliens had an average of 7 arrests, 65 percent were arrested at least once for an immigration offense, and about 50 percent were arrested at least once for a drug offense. Immigration, drugs, and traffic violations accounted for about 50 percent of arrest offenses…About 40 percent of individuals convicted as a result of DOJ terrorism-related investigations were aliens. GAO estimates that costs to incarcerate criminal aliens in federal prisons and SCAAP reimbursements to states and localities ranged from about $1.5 billion to $1.6 billion annually from fiscal years 2005 through 2009…”

Taxpayers Pay Heavy Costs for Immigration

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government takes a two-part look at the cost of immigration to the American taxpayer.

 In the furious battle over illegal immigration, far too little attention is paid to the extraordinary costs borne by the American taxpayer to provide care and services to recent arrivals, legal and illegal.

Unlike earlier generations of immigrants, many of those arriving in the U.S. have an expectation of government assistance, and in fact do get taxpayer-funded help.  With an economy already nearing $20 trillion in debt, a crumbling infrastructure, burdensome taxes, and numerous needs, the question is of exceptional importance.

An Association of Mature American Citizens (AMAC) study found that  “In 2010, the average unlawful immigrant household received around $24,721 in government benefits and services while paying some $10,334 in taxes. This generated an average annual fiscal deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of around $14,387 per household. This cost had to be borne by U.S. taxpayers.”

According to the Heritage Foundation “Today’s immigrants differ greatly from historic immigrant populations. Prior to 1960, immigrants to the U.S. had education levels that were similar to those of the non-immigrant workforce and earned wages that were, on average, higher than those of non-immigrant workers. Since the mid-1960s, however, the education levels of new immigrants have plunged relative to non-immigrants; consequently, the average wages of immigrants are now well below those of the non-immigrant population. Recent immigrants increasingly occupy the low end of the U.S. socio-economic spectrum. The current influx of poorly educated immigrants is the result of two factors: first, a legal immigration system that favors kinship ties over skills and education; and second, a permissive attitude toward illegal immigration that has led to lax border enforcement and non-enforcement of the laws that prohibit the employment of illegal immigrants. As a result of this dramatic inflow of low-skill immigrants,

  • One-third of all immigrants live in families in which the head of the household lacks a high school education; and
  • First-generation immigrants and their families, who are one-sixth of the U.S. population, comprise one-fourth of all poor persons in the U.S.”

Startling numbers have been revealed by a number of studies examining the fiscal implications of this issue. The Center for Immigration Studies  provides this overview:

  • “51 percent of immigrant-headed households used at least one federal welfare program — cash, food, housing, or medical care — compared to 30 percent of native households.
  •  The average household headed by an immigrant (legal or illegal) costs taxpayers $6,234 in federal welfare benefits, which is 41 percent higher than the $4,431 received by the average native household.
  • The average immigrant household consumes 33 percent more cash welfare, 57 percent more food assistance, and 44 percent more Medicaid dollars than the average native household. Housing costs are about the same for both groups.
  • At $8,251, households headed by immigrants from Central America and Mexico have the highest welfare costs of any sending region — 86 percent higher than the costs of native households.
  • Illegal immigrant households cost an average of $5,692 (driven largely by the presence of U.S.-born children), while legal immigrant households cost $6,378.
  • The greater consumption of welfare dollars by immigrants can be explained in large part by their lower level of education and larger number of children compared to natives. Over 24 percent of immigrant households are headed by a high school dropout, compared to just 8 percent of native households. In addition, 13 percent of immigrant households have three or more children, vs. just 6 percent of native households.”

The Federation for American Immigration Reform adds this summary:  adds this summary:

  • “Illegal immigration costs U.S. taxpayers about $113 billion a year at the federal, state and local level. The bulk of the costs — some $84 billion — are absorbed by state and local governments.
  • The annual outlay that illegal aliens cost U.S. taxpayers is an average amount per native-headed household of $1,117. The fiscal impact per household varies considerably because the greatest share of the burden falls on state and local taxpayers whose burden depends on the size of the illegal alien population in that locality
  • Education for the children of illegal aliens constitutes the single largest cost to taxpayers, at an annual price tag of nearly $52 billion. Nearly all of those costs are absorbed by state and local governments.
  • At the federal level, about one-third of outlays are matched by tax collections from illegal aliens. At the state and local level, an average of less than 5 percent of the public costs associated with illegal immigration is recouped through taxes collected from illegal aliens.
  • Most illegal aliens do not pay income taxes. Among those who do, much of the revenues collected are refunded to the illegal aliens when they file tax returns. Many are also claiming tax credits resulting in payments from the U.S. Treasury.”

The Report concludes tomorrow

What’s the Cost of Protecting Illegal Immigrants?

As the Obama Administration’s time comes to an end, Democrats are desperately seeking to solidify the vast numbers of illegal immigrants who entered the U.S. during the past eight years.

Those they seek to protect range from those brought into the nation at a very young age (known as “dreamers”) to hardened criminals and gang members who pose serious threats to public safety.

60 Democrats, notes The Hill, have submitted two letters requesting President Obama to pardon approximately 750,000 youth who were brought to the U.S. by parents. While the President has the power to pardon individuals, legal questions could be raised about an act that appears to wholly offset existing law, as a mass pardon would.

Arguments about humanitarian actions for dreamers fall far short for other illegal immigrants. The City Journal  notes:

“Some of the most violent criminals at large today are illegal aliens. Yet in cities where the crime these aliens commit is highest, the police cannot use the most obvious tool to apprehend them: their immigration status. In Los Angeles, for example, dozens of members of a ruthless Salvadoran prison gang have sneaked back into town after having been deported for such crimes as murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and drug trafficking. Police officers know who they are and know that their mere presence in the country is a felony. Yet should a cop arrest an illegal gangbanger for felonious reentry, it is he who will be treated as a criminal, for violating the LAPD’s rule against enforcing immigration law. The LAPD’s ban on immigration enforcement mirrors bans in immigrant-saturated cities around the country, from New York and Chicago to San Diego, Austin, and Houston. These ‘sanctuary policies’ generally prohibit city employees, including the cops, from reporting immigration violations to federal authorities. Such laws testify to the sheer political power of immigrant lobbies, a power so irresistible that police officials shrink from even mentioning the illegal-alien crime wave. ‘We can’t even talk about it,’ says a frustrated LAPD captain.”

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) stated in April that in 2015, the Obama Administration released 19,723 people who had been convicted of a combined 64,179 crimes, including 134 sex offenses, 216 kidnappings and 196 homicide-related convictions. Despite that, advocates continue to impede efforts for the removal of the criminal aliens. Breitbart report reports that “Immigration advocacy groups are asking California Attorney General Kamala Harris to “block federal access” to the database containing names of gang members in the state.

There are, of course, issues beyond crime.  The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIRUS)  found that “Illegal immigration costs U.S. taxpayers about $113 billion a year at the federal, state and local level. The bulk of the costs — some $84 billion — are absorbed by state and local governments.”

Perhaps even more worrisome than issues relating to finance and crime is the problem of contagious disease.

The Southern Medical Association reports that There’s a growing health concern over illegal immigrants bringing infectious diseases into the United States. Approximately 500,000 legal immigrants and 80,000 refugees come to the United States each year, and an additional 700,000 illegal immigrants enter annually, and three-quarters of these illegal immigrants come from Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Legal immigrants and refugees are required to have a medical examination for migration to the United States, while they are still overseas… Illegal immigration may expose Americans to diseases that have been virtually eradicated, but are highly contagious, as in the case of TB. This disease rose by 20% globally from 1985 to 1991, and was declared a worldwide emergency by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1995. Furthermore, TB frequently occurs in connection with the human immunodeficiency virus…”“Troubling facts concerning health risks related to the wave of illegal immigrants who are crossing our southern border are coming to light…Historically, immigrants who legally sought entry to America (such as those through Ellis Island) went through a structured process that checked them for communicable diseases. In some cases, those found to present a health risk were quarantined until they no longer proposed a threat. In other cases, they were sent back to their country of origin. Today, Border Patrol agents have confirmed those now flooding across the border are not adequately checked for diseases because of the sheer volume, lack of proper screening techniques and lack of manpower…This is what we know. Immigrants coming here have been documented as having communicable diseases such as tuberculosis and swine flu. Because there is limited use of the vaccine for the former and limited effectiveness of vaccine for the latter (studies vary on the effectiveness of the swine flu vaccine; estimates range from 42 percent to 96 percent), individuals coming in contact with people with these diseases are at risk of becoming infected. Those most vulnerable to contracting illnesses from illegals are the first responders such as the Border Patrol agents. In turn, they may pass diseases and conditions on to their children, spouses, seniors and those with whom they come in contact who have compromised immune systems…It isn’t the diseases that we have been vaccinated against that are the most concerning, but ones like TB, which have developed multiple drug resistance, or tropical diseases such as Dengue fever that doctors may have difficulty diagnosing and for which there is no treatment.”

Some will argue that those seeking to protect illegal immigrants are doing so out of a humanitarian impulse.  Others contend that, since statistics overwhelmingly indicate that new immigrants, legal or illegal, tend to vote Democrat,  the motives are self-serving. In either case, the increased danger from crime and contagious disease, as well as the added expense to taxpayers, requires that policies protecting illegal immigrants must be seriously weighed against the significant detrimental impact they impose.

What Washington Must Do Now, Part 2

 Can the American people pull together after the bruising 2016 presidential election? There is a clear, even urgent, need to do so. The U.S. faces a number of extraordinarily troubling challenges. In Part One of our review, we discussed the nation’s faltering economy, its dramatically weakened national security, and the federal deficit.  Today, we review immigration, the plight of senior citizens, and the use of federal agencies for partisan purposes.

Immigration: The current wave of immigration is unlike any in America’s past. Far too large a percent of those arriving are doing so illegally, and soon seek public assistance, particularly straining state and local budgets.

Since so many have entered without any government oversight, the danger of re-introducing diseases long since eradicated within U.S. borders is significant.  According to the Southern Medical Association “Illegal immigration may expose Americans to diseases that have been virtually eradicated, but are highly contagious, as in the case of TB.”

The Washington Times reports: “Viruses we had finally eliminated from our lives are returning, and others we should never have to face are now crawling through our nation, targeting our children and families. In addition to the word “jihad” we now must re-introduce into our lexicon the words measles, polio, diphtheria, tuberculosis, malaria, scabies, dengue, and now ‘Zika.’ The Zika virus is emerging as a new threat, is spread by mosquito bites, but the CDC is now warning of a transmission through a blood transfusion and sexual contact. Symptoms include fever, rash, joint and muscle pain, and headache. The horror show part of this scourge is it can also apparently cause brain damage in the fetuses of pregnant women.

In 2000, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) declared measles eradicated in the United States. But then there was suddenly a 20-year high of 600 cases in 2014, more than all reported cases between 2009 and 2013, reports Breitbart News.

“The government and media blamed a lack of vaccinations for the spread, while admitting that it was an unidentified “foreign visitor” who likely brought the virus into the country. At about the same time, in the summer of 2014, a mysterious polio-like illness began to strike children in 34 states. Over 100 children were impacted, many left permanently paralyzed. The CDC has guessed at a possible cause, but there has been no official finding as to what caused so many young people to be condemned with a virus similar to what was eradicated in the United States in 1979.

What was happening just prior to the spread of previously thought annihilated viruses? The massive surge of illegal immigrants, including “unaccompanied minors,” at the southern border and their transportation to the interior of the country by the federal government.

“According to a report by the House Committee on Home land security, illegal immigration is also responsible for the rise in gang activity throughout the nation.”

Senior Citizens:  The past eight years have been devastating for America’s senior citizens.  First, their medical care has been imperiled. Obamacare implements $716 billion in Medicare payments in the time span from 2013 to 2022 in reimbursement formulas for Medicare providers. Breitbart quotes Obama economic advisor Robert Reich, who explained in September 2007: “if you’re very old, we’re not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It’s too expensive…so we’re going to let you die… Or we could just listen to Dr. Howard Dean, the former head of the Democratic National Committee, who said in July 2013 in the pages of the Wall Street Journal that the so-called Independent Payment Advisory Board ‘is essentially a health-care rationing body. By setting doctor reimbursement rates for Medicare and determining which procedures and drugs will be covered and at what price, the IPAB will be able to stop certain treatments its members do not favor by simply setting rates to levels where no doctor or hospital will perform them.”

The travails of seniors don’t end with health issues. Over the past eight years, seniors have received less in social security cost of living increases than at any time in memory.  This was based on formulas that make little sense.  The reduction in gas prices accounted for the alleged drop in the cost of living, but food, medical care and other expenses rose, in some cases sharply.

Add to those woes actions by the Federal Reserve to mask a faltering economy by keeping interest rates low, which affected seniors trying to live off their savings.

Agency Accountability: During the past eight years, the Internal Revenue Service has been used to target political opponents of the White House; the Department of Justice has refused to prosecute clear-cut cases of election violations by pro-White House interests; and the Environmental Protection Agency has been heavily influenced by non-governmental, politically motivated sources. The list could go on, but the principle is clear: federal agencies have been abused for partisan political purposes. Safeguards are badly needed.

Unasked, Unanswered Questions About Refugees and Immigrants

This week at the United Nations, the issue of refugees has taken center stage. The key question is whether the central problems will be addressed, or will the discussion be yet another forum for merely blasting the West for not resolving the disasters caused by non-western nations. In the United States, particularly, the drive to allow increased numbers of both illegal immigrants as well as refugees is combined with a White House push to accelerate the process of granting citizenship, a move motivated by statistics indicating that new citizens tend to vote solidly Democrat in the first generation.  The Administration’s stance against authenticating citizenship before registering to vote also means that many recent arrivals may vote even before being legally eligible to do so.

Outgoing U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon presides over his final session, which began with an unprecedented summit on refugees and migrants. A declaration was adopted calling for better treatment to the over 65 million displaced individuals, including 21 million classified as refugees (one quarter of whom arising from the Syrian conflict). According to George Soros’ Open Societies Foundation the UN will also commit to an effort leading to “safe, orderly, and regular migration” for all.

Mr. Obama is calling for specific actions to be taken. Robert McKenzie, writing for the Brookings Institute  describes the President’s three goals:

  • Increase by 30 percent the financing for global humanitarian appeals, from $10 billion in 2015 to $13 billion this year;
  • double the number of resettlement slots and alternative legal pathways for admission that are available to refugees, and increase the number of countries accepting refugees; and
  • increase the number of refugees worldwide in school by one million, and the number of refugees granted the legal right to work by one million.

A number of key questions are not even scheduled to be fully discussed:

  •  Rather than solely concentrating on the condition of refugees in host nations, shouldn’t the U.N. be more proactive in resolving the disputes that led to the need to flee?
  • Shouldn’t U.N. members that are responsible for creating the conditions that compel the need to become refugees be penalized, as well as being liable for the cost of caring for those who have fled?
  • The most acute current crisis, the Syrian refugee issue, is directly the fault of Syria’s leader, Bashar al-Assad, who has openly violated numerous human rights standards, fully aided and abetted by Russia and Iran. All three bear extensive moral, legal, and financial responsibility.
  • Shouldn’t the populations of the host nations bear some input into how many refugees are taken in? Leaders in both the E.U. and the U.S. have action without regard to domestic preferences.

There is significant dissent in both the European Union and the United States on this issue. It was, as the New York Analysis has previously reported, a key reason why the citizens of the United Kingdom voted to end their relationship with the E.U., and why Germans have turned against the party of Angela Merkel, who supported the acceptance of large numbers of refugees.

Increasing immigration, legal or otherwise, has substantial political implications for the U.S., a key reason Democrats have made increasing the numbers entering through any means a key goal.

Politico described the push this way: “The Obama administration and its allies [have held] scores of events  to nudge 8.8 million legal residents who are eligible for naturalization to become full-fledged citizens — and therefore, eligible to vote. The not-so-secret expectation is that most of them would probably register as Democrats, given the demographics heavy on Hispanics and Asians …Most of those green card holders are already on a path to becoming citizens and voters, and their politics skew Democratic.”

Since 1990, according to Pew Hispanic,  the number of illegal immigrants has soared from 3.5 million in 1990 to up to  at least 11 million today, accounting for about one-quarter of all immigrants.  (Pew also found that “the overall foreign-born population in the U.S. has gone up each year since 2009. The overall immigrant population rose by nearly 3 million from 2009 to 2014, reaching 43.6 million.”)

The numbers are in dispute. A Daily Signal  analysis indicates that the figure could be up to 30 million. A Bear Sterns examination found that “Illegal immigrants constitute a large and growing force in the political, economic, and investment spheres in The United States. The size of this extra-legal segment of the population is significantly understated because the official U.S. Census does not capture the total number of illegal immigrants…The number of illegal immigrants in the United States may be as high as 20 million people…Cell phones, internet and low-cost travel have allowed immigrants easier illegal access to the United States and increased their ability to find employment and circumvent immigration laws.”

U.S. Justice Department Caught Lying to Court

Can, indeed should, the leadership of the Obama Justice Department, perhaps even the President himself, be disbarred?

A furious U.S. District Court judge has sharply rebuked  the U.S. Department of Justice for acts that would have resulted in substantial ethics charges being brought against any law firm.

The case concerns the Deferred Action for Parent of Americans program, initiated without legislative authority by President Obama in 2014. The intent of the action is to defer deportation of illegal aliens who are parents of a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident, sometimes known as anchor babies. The illegals would be given protected status and the right to apply for work permits. Up to five million illegals could be affected.

Opponents of the move have argued that the President ignored his constitutional duty to insure that the nation’s laws are faithfully executed. They argue that Mr. Obama did not have the authority to engage in action that was legislative in character, and that even if the measure was regulatory in nature, the Administrative Procedure Act mandated that there be an opportunity for the public to comment on it before its implementation.  In every way possible, it is obvious that the President acted far beyond any legal authority.

As previously reported by the New York Analysis of Policy and Government, the measure was challenged by 26 states. A preliminary injunction was granted to the states by U.S. District Court Judge Andrew S. Hanen. The Court turned down Washington’s request to delay the stay. Judge Hanen also issued an order rebuking the White House for granting three-year periods of deferred action to 108,081 individuals between the announcement of DAPA and the preliminary injunction, despite The Department of Justice’s denial that it had done so.  The Justice Department, in other words, was caught in a lie.

Judge Hanen reacted with fury to the Justice Department’s misdeeds. “The Government claims that the reason its lawyers were not candid with the Court was that they either ‘lost focus on the fact’ or that somehow ‘the fact receded in memory or awareness.’ Yet the Government’s lawyers chose not to tell the Plaintiff States or the Court…what counsel did borders on the incredible. The duties of a Government lawyer, and in fact of any lawyer, are threefold: (1) tell the truth; (2) do not mislead the Court; and (3) do not allow the Court to be misled…The Government’s lawyers failed on all three fronts.”

According to the legal memorandum and decision issued by the Court on May 19th, an order was given to provide the 26 States that sued the Obama Administration some avenue for relief from the possibility of any damage that may result from the misconduct of the Department of Justice and to prevent future harm due to the Government’s misrepresentations.

The Court also moved to deter and prevent future misconduct by Justice Department lawyers by ordering an appropriately tailored continuing legal education program, “which will not only serve to educate the uninitiated, but more importantly will remind all trial lawyers that their honest and ethical participation is a necessity for the proper administration of justice. It also compels the Attorney General, or her designee, to take the necessary steps to ensure that DOJ attorneys act honestly in the future.”

Despite a record debt so vast that any other organization would be considered functionally bankrupt, (with additional debt being piled on each year and many crucial needs being underfunded) the Obama Administration has engaged in extraordinary and extreme measures aimed at insuring that the costly tidal wave of illegal immigrants remains unsuppressed.  Despite the expenses this brings to the American taxpayer, the heightened competition for scarce jobs, the increase in crime, the spread of disease, and the potential for infiltration by drug cartels and terrorists, the current White House has vigorously opposed any attempt to staunch the human flood.

Lying to the Court now must be added to the White House’s list of inappropriate, illegal practices it has engaged in to counter any move to address the crisis.

The underlying issue of the President’s lack of authority will eventually be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Numbers, Costs for Illegals Soar

There are substantive indications that the Obama Administration’s immigration policy is burdening U.S. taxpayers and imposing health ristks at a time when key programs (such as Social Security and Medicare) already paid for by American citizens are going bankrupt.

According to the U.S. Border Patrol, 33,335 total apprehensions on the southwest border were reported in March, 4,201 were unaccompanied children and 4,448 were members of family units traveling together. Total apprehensions in March 2016 increased by 28 percent compared to February 2016.

These numbers, of course, only represent those that were caught. The fact that these individuals were apprehended does not mean that they will not eventually reside within the U.S. The Washington Times notes that the Obama Administration is engaging in “catch and Release,’ a practice “ordering Border Patrol agents not to bother arresting and deporting many new illegal immigrants…Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council, …said the releases are part of President Obama’s ‘priorities’ program, which orders agents to worry chiefly about criminals, national security risks and illegal immigrants who came into the U.S. after Jan. 1, 2014. Mr. Judd said illegal immigrants without serious criminal convictions have learned that by claiming they came before 2014 — without even needing to show proof — they can be released immediately rather than being arrested. ’Immigration laws today appear to be mere suggestions,’ Mr. Judd testified…”

According to the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) the number of unaccompanied illegal children has soared during the Obama Administration. “ … From 8,000 in FY 2008, the number of apprehended unaccompanied alien children (UACs) grew to 69,000 in FY 2014. … border officials are expecting significant increases throughout FY 2016 and into FY 2017 (up to 75,000, if not more). According to DHS,the number of UACs coming across the border almost doubled in FY 2016 compared to the same period in FY 2015.”

Part of the justification presented by the White House for its welcoming posture is that those flooding across the border are “refugees.” However, the United Nations High Commission on Refugees, according to CIS, does not support that classification.

Why the surge in illegal minor entry? CIS notes: “Individuals from El Salvador, Guatemala, or Honduras come to the United States illegally. Then children (probably their own children) follow on their own, also illegally. They are, for the most part, welcomed, assisted, and reunited with their families here. New data provided by the Department of Health and Human Services, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, shows that 80 percent of the 71,000 Central American children placed between February 2014 and September 2015 were released to sponsors who are in the United States illegally. Parents were more than half of the cases; many others were siblings, aunts, and uncles.”

The cost of providing support for the illegals is significant.

A CIS analysis of the cost of funding the needs of illegals is onerous, and generally exceeds that of native-born household in similar circumstances.:

In September 2015, the Center for Immigration Studies published a landmark study of immigration and welfare use, showing that 51 percent of immigrant-headed households used at least one federal welfare program — cash, food, housing, or medical care — compared to 30 percent of native households. Following similar methodology, this new study examines the dollar cost of that welfare use.

  • The average household headed by an immigrant (legal or illegal) costs taxpayers $6,234 in federal welfare benefits, which is 41 percent higher than the $4,431 received by the average native household.
  • The average immigrant household consumes 33 percent more cash welfare, 57 percent more food assistance, and 44 percent more Medicaid dollars than the average native household. Housing costs are about the same for both groups.
  • At $8,251, households headed by immigrants from Central America and Mexico have the highest welfare costs of any sending region — 86 percent higher than the costs of native households.
  • Illegal immigrant households cost an average of $5,692 (driven largely by the presence of U.S.-born children), while legal immigrant households cost $6,378.
  • The greater consumption of welfare dollars by immigrants can be explained in large part by their lower level of education and larger number of children compared to natives. Over 24 percent of immigrant households are headed by a high school dropout, compared to just 8 percent of native households. In addition, 13 percent of immigrant households have three or more children, vs. just 6 percent of native households.

The health risks presented by illegals also leads to added costs, although these aren’t as easily calculated in financial estimates. Judicial Watch reports that “A government official warned employees deploying for the influx of illegal immigrant minors about health and safety risks because the new arrivals would have tuberculosis and some were young adults—not children—like the Obama administration proclaimed…. ‘We might as well plan on many of the kids having TB,”’states a June 26, 2014 guidance e-mail from a Centers for Disease Control (CDC) environmental health scientist, Alaric C. Denton, as the agency prepared to handle the crisis. ‘Most of these kids are not immunized, so we need to make sure all our staff are immunized.’”

Supreme Court to Examine Obama Immigration Move

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the United States v. Texas case, concerning whether President Obama’s move to delay the deportation of almost 5 million undocumented immigrants is legal.

SCOTUSBLOG outlines the issues:

** Did President Obama exceed the powers of his office in going forward with a massive new immigration policy without approval by Congress, and thus violating that act’s direct restrictions on the use of executive branch power?

** Is the deferred deportation policy a product of “arbitrary and capricious” actions by President Obama and his cabinet departments, and thus violates that act?

** Is the policy subject to review in the courts, applying the act, or are the specific modes of enforcing immigration laws a matter left to the discretion of the president and his cabinet?

** Is the policy illegal, under the APA, [Administrative Procedure Act] because it was not first announced as a draft program, offered to the public for its reactions, or then issued in final form, or is the policy exempt from that requirement because it was achieved through executive branch discretion?

As important as the immigration issue is, the more pressing question concerns the balance of power within the federal government. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)has stated: “The case of United States v. Texas is fundamentally about preserving the separation of powers and its outcome will have drastic implications for our Republic. All three branches of government have weighed in against President Obama’s unilateral actions: the lower courts have blocked them from being implemented, the House of Representatives has filed a brief opposing them, and the President himself stated over 20 times – before he took his unilateral action – that he does not have the authority to change our nation’s immigration laws on his own.  I am hopeful that the Supreme Court will stop President Obama’s lawlessness so that we protect the Constitution and the intent of the Founding Fathers that the legislative branch, which reflects the will of and is accountable to the American people, makes the laws, not the President.”

National Border Patrol Council President Brandon Judd testified before the House judiciary Committee in March. He confirmed the existence of what has become known as “catch and release”. According to Judd, “This program directly violates the President’s ‘Priority Enforcement Guidelines’ by refusing to process and deport those who have entered the US illegally after December 31, 2013.”

Judd further asks: “Why have Guidelines if you are not going to follow them?…

President Obama … and his cronies continue to mislead and misinform them as they expand amnesty and weaken enforcement and security.

He presented five questions that he wants the White House to answer:

# 1: If the President was expanding his amnesty programs why not just be straight with the American people?

#2: Does this expansion put our communities at risk? … It appears that President Obama’s priority is not and will never be enforcement but amnesty.

#3 : Is the Commissioner power hungry or incompetent? Either he has to go. This hearing should put the spotlight on Richard Gil Kerlikowske the current Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection.  Judd questions Kerlikowske’s leadership and ability to head U.S. Customs and Border Protection. If he was following directives from the President then the President owes the public an explanation why he kept this a secret. If the President was unaware of the program he needs to restore public trust by removing those responsible. It is sad that after seven years, Obama’s has no plan to enforce our nation’s immigrations laws.

# 4 : Why not ask for additional resource to address the court backlog? If the Administration was concerned with the court’s backlog why not request additional funds to expedite the case by either hiring more judges or expanding Operation Streamline. Simply put, the Administration is not be interested in fixing a problem they intentionally created. They have manipulated the situation to expand their amnesty programs without Congressional or pubic consent.

# 5: Isn’t this just a page torn from the “Dreamers Playbook” ? The main argument “Dreamer” made was by no fault of their own they were here illegally and should not be held responsible this act and therefore granted citizenship. It is reasonable that those not issued NTA as part to “Catch and Release” program will make the same claim as part demand for amnesty. The Administration and the Democrats must believe this is good politics.