Tag Archives: immigration

Politics Undermine U.S. Courts, Part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy & Government concludes its two-part look at how politics are undermining confidence in the impartiality of American courts.

 The Daily Signal characterizes the change in composition of the courts as a revolution that has been “comprehensive, dramatic, and under the radar…”

The Washington Times worries that our court system has become politicized. “The Obama administration flooded it with activist judges that ruled in favor of advancing liberalism, to the detriment of our national sovereignty. So it’s no surprise the courts would work to stop Mr. Trump’s agenda.” In 2003, that newspaper wrote: “One of the greatest contemporary threats to the survival of republican government arises from the courts. Increasingly, judges are behaving like black-robed autocrats, not simply ruling upon the law, but making law…outrageous cases…suggest our American system of separated powers, checks and balances, is seriously out of balance…The Framers limited the power of the courts just as they did the powers of the other two branches of government.”

In an excellent analysis in the Daily Wire, Ben Shapiro  notes that the logic behind the various 9th Circuit decisions could invalidate “virtually all immigration law…The Court also seems to establish a brand new interest not found in the Constitution—protecting the due process rights of illegal aliens, a right that doesn’t exist.”

Joseph Klein, in describing an initial 9th circuit travel ban ruling, commented in Front Page that  “… therein lies the heart of the matter.  This is not a ruling of law, it’s a statement of political opposition to the winner of the 2016 election, a piecemeal attempt to impose the personal views of Ninth Circuit judges over the lawful results of an election.”

How serious a threat is this? A 2003 Washington Times editorial: “One of the greatest contemporary threats to the survival of republican government arises from the courts. Increasingly, judges are behaving like black-robed autocrats, not simply ruling upon the law, but making law…outrageous cases…suggest our American system of separated powers, checks and balances, is seriously out of balance…The Framers limited the power of the courts just as they did the powers of the other two branches of government.”

Last year, as reported in the Weekly Standard, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s engaged in an outburst against Donald Trump that was roundly criticized by people of all political stripes. “Insofar as her comments suggested a clear bias about cases that could come before the Supreme Court, they were clearly a mistake and a departure from the norms of Court behavior…Justice Ginsburg later apologized…For a long time it has been clear that the four Democratic-appointed Supreme Court justices generally vote in lockstep on political issues of importance to the president. When there are public calls for bipartisanship on the Court, this is invariably code that one or more Republican-appointed judges should vote with their Democratic-appointed colleagues. And they often do, as in the case of Obamacare and college affirmative action. It never means the opposite.”

The Obama Administration’s diminishment of the objectivity of American Courts was blatant. A Stanford Law Review article describes it:

“Congress and the President [Obama] have belittled the Court. President Obama told the public at the 2010 State of the Union address that ‘the Supreme Court reversed a century of law’ with its Citizens United decision and suggested that the Court opposed honest elections. The ensuing image was even more damaging. With 48 million Americans watching, the camera panned to a cadre of expressionless Supreme Court Justices sitting in the front row…Politicization of the Court is dangerous because it primes the public for a power grab by the political branches. If the Court loses authority to check political power and make unpopular decisions, it cannot enforce the Constitution with the same effectiveness. Without enforcement of the Constitution, Congress is free to invade constitutional rights and exceed its lawful powers.”

Politics Undermine U.S. Courts

The New York Analysis of Policy & Government takes a two-part look at how politics are undermining confidence in the impartiality of American courts.

The recent action by 9th Circuit U.S. Judge Derrick Watson limiting President Trump’s travel ban has implications far more broad than that affecting a single executive order.

Tolerating a judge (from the Circuit which has more of its decisions overturned than any other area) who issued a ruling that conforms to his political preferences rather than legal precedent or statutory and constitutional law undermines the entire concept of an impartial legal system.

The lack of legal merit in Judge Watson’s decision is clear.

As noted in the Daily Caller regarding a prior 9th Circuit ruling on the travel ban “The power over immigration is exclusively reserved to the Congress, and its power is plenary, which means total, complete and unreviewable. Congress delegated certain powers to restrict immigration to the President by enacting 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), which says that when the President (any president) ‘finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States,’ he is authorized to ‘suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.’ Having granted this authority to the President, only Congress can revoke it and no federal court, not even the Supreme Court has the power to interfere in that presidential authority short of challenging the constitutional power of Congress to delegate certain of its plenary powers over immigration to the President. It is simply not within the power of any state to interfere with such a presidential decision, as immigration-control advocates found during Obama’s tenure in office. Obama did exactly the opposite, he ordered our Border Patrol officers NOT to deny entry to any aliens who illegally entered the United States, and when Arizona and other states challenged this policy in court on exactly the same sort of grounds of detrimental impacts to the people of Arizona caused by rampant and uncontrolled illegal immigration, Obama simply invoked the plenary federal power over immigration policy and did nothing to secure our borders.”

In response to the 9th Circuit Court judge’s decision, Attorney General Jeff Sessions stated on media outlets that “I got to tell you it is a point worth making that single sitting district judge out of 600, 700 district judges can issue an order stopping a presidential executive order that … is fully constitutional designed to protect the United States of America from terrorist attack….I really am amazed that a judge … can issue an order that stops the President of the United States from what appears to be clearly his statutory and Constitutional power.”

Lawnewz described the appropriate criticism, by five respected jurists, of a prior 9th Circuit Court decision. They pointed out the deep legal problems with travel-ban related actions of the 9th Circuit, including “its a-historicity, it’s abdication of precedent, and its usurpation of Constitutionally delegated Presidential rights…claiming a consular officer must be deferred to more than the President of the United States; claiming first amendment rights exist for foreigners when the Supreme Court twice ruled otherwise; the claim that people here could claim a constitutional right for someone else to travel here, a decision specifically rejected by the Supreme Court just a year ago…They go on to identify other ‘obvious’ errors. [the decision]…’never once mentioned’ the most important statutory authority: section 1182(f) of title 8…[as well as failing to refer to] the important Presidential power over immigration that all courts, Congress, and the Constitution expressly and explicitly gave him in all of its prior precedents.”

Stream.org  points out that  “…the politicization of the courts was one of the most profound actions of the Obama Administration.” The publication emphasized that “Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) gloated in 2014, ‘one of the most profound changes this Congress made was filling the bench’ with Obama’s appointments of federal judges. He went on: ‘This will affect America for a generation, long after the internecine battles on legislative issues are forgotten…Obama got 329 federal judges appointed to the circuit and district courts, all lifetime appointments.”

The Report concludes tomorrow.

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

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.”

Clinton Immigration Plan Will Duplicate European Rape Crisis

The Associated Press reports that “it appears increasingly likely that the Obama administration will hit its goal of admitting 10,000 Syrian refugees into the United States before the end of September. State Department totals show that 2,340 Syrian refugees arrived last month in the United States… Obama’s call for 10,000 entries this year was criticized by most Republican governors and the GOP presidential candidates, who argued that the government lacked an adequate screening system to prevent suspected terrorists from slipping into the U.S.”

What does this mean for current residents of the U.S.? A look at Europe’s experience is informative. Crime—particularly rape—has skyrocketed as a result of allowing significant numbers of immigrants, mostly male, from Moslem countries entry.

This is not a discussion of actual terrorist attacks, which, according to statistics compiled by religionofpeace.com “So far in 2016,  [as of August 2] there have been 1395 Islamic attacks in 50 countries, in which 12556 people were killed and 15387 injured.

Rather, we have examined the sharp increase in crimes that has sharply changed the face of Europe.  The Gatestone Institute discussed the crisis involving the vast increase in rapes in Germany since Chancellor Angel Merkel “allowed more than one million mostly male migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East into the country. The crimes are being downplayed by the authorities, apparently to avoid fueling anti-immigration sentiments.” These not only include individual acts, but mass attacks such as that which occurred in the city of Cologne on New Year’s Eve. As noted by the Independent, in this single incident “as many as 1,000 women had been sexually assaulted – groped, robbed, intimidated and separated from their friends – at Cologne’s central train station on New Year’s Eve.”

European authorities had no reason to be surprised. Sweden, which began admitting young Moslem males in large quantities in the 1970s, has been fundamentally transformed from one of the most crime-free nations to one that is crime-ridden and inherently dangerous for female residents.

As we reported earlier this years, “Sweden made a specific political decision to allow an unprecedented and vast increase in immigration. Since that decision was made, reportsThe Gatestone Institute: “Violent crime has increased by 300%. If one looks at the number of rapes, however, the increase is even worse. In 1975, 421 rapes were reported to the police; in 2014, it was 6,620. That is an increase of 1,472%. Sweden is now number two on the global list of rape countries. According to a survey from 2010, Sweden, with 53.2 rapes per 100,000 inhabitants, is surpassed only by tiny Lesotho in Southern Africa, with 91.6 rapes per 100,000 inhabitants.

“Over the past 10-15 years, immigrants have mainly come from Muslim countries such as Iraq, Syria and Somalia. Michael Hess, a local politician from Sweden Democrat Party, encouraged Swedish journalists to get acquainted with Islam’s view of women, in connection with the many rapes that took place in Cairo’s Tahrir Square during the “Arab Spring”…Hess notes that “There is a strong connection between rapes in Sweden and the number of immigrants from MENA-countries [Middle East and North Africa].”This remark led to Michael Hess being charged with “denigration of ethnic groups” [hets mot folkgrupp], a crime in Sweden. In May last year, he was handed a suspended jail sentence and a fine — the suspension was due to the fact that he had no prior convictions. The verdict has been appealed to a higher court.

“Whether or not they measured by the number of convicted rapists or men suspected of rape, men of foreign extraction were represented far more than Swedes… A new trend reached Sweden with full force over the past few decades: gang rape — virtually unknown before in Swedish criminal history. The number of gang rapes increased spectacularly between 1995 and 2006. Since then no studies of them have been undertaken.”

The facts are clear, dramatic, and apparent. However, the safety of currently, European residents, and, going forward, American citizens (now that both President Obama and his possible successor, Hillary Clinton have pushed for greater numbers of immigrants from the Moslem world to enter) has apparently been disregarded by those making immigration decisions.

 Breitbart notes that “If elected president, Hillary Clinton could permanently resettle close to one million Muslim migrants during the first term of her presidency alone, according to the latest available data from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).Between 2001 and 2013, the U.S. permanently resettled 1.5 million Muslim migrants on green cards. However, under Hillary Clinton’s stated proposals, Muslim immigration would grow substantially faster, adding nearly one million Muslim migrants to the U.S. during her first term alone. Based on the most recent available DHS data, the U.S. permanently resettled roughly 149,000 migrants from predominantly Muslim countries on green cards in 2014. Yet Clinton has said that, as President, she would expand Muslim migration by importing an additional 65,000 Syrian refugees into the United States during the course of a single fiscal year. Clinton has made no indication that she would limit her proposed Syrian refugee program to one year. Clinton’s Syrian refugees would come on top of the tens of thousands of refugees the U.S. already admits from Muslim countries.”

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.

Importing Unemployment

In another example of why many Americans believe that elites are not concerned with the average citizen, The White House, supported by academia and big business, is loosening restrictions on noncitizens holding Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM)  jobs.

The controversy concerns H-1B visas, described by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)  as being used “to employ foreign workers in specialty occupations that require the theoretical or practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, including but not limited to: scientists, engineers, or computer programmers.”

In a press release strategically timed during the holidays to avoid much attention, DHS said that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Agencies (USCIS) has proposed a rule “that would modernize and improve certain aspects of employment-based nonimmigrant and immigrant visa programs. USCIS is also proposing regulatory amendments to better enable U.S. employers to hire and retain certain foreign workers who are beneficiaries of approved employment-based immigrant visa petitions and are waiting to become lawful permanent residents (LPRs).”

According to The Hill, “The agency said the rules are primarily aimed at helping high-skilled foreign workers who have been approved for a permanent work visa but are still waiting for their green card because of the backlog.’ Simply put, many workers in the immigrant visa process are not free to consider all available employment and career development opportunities,’ DHS said in the proposed rules.”

The Hill reports that DHS believes the change is necessary to “allow certain temporary workers who are on track to become permanent residents to stay beyond the 6-year limit of the H-1B program. The changes would also allow those temporary visa holders and certain other foreign workers to more easily change jobs without fear of losing their spot in line for a green card. The DHS says the current backlog can delay permanent residency for high-skilled workers from a few months to as much as a decade. Because of country-based caps, the delays have hit foreigners from China and India the hardest, where demand is high.”

The move is supported by powerful interests. Zerohedge reports that “High-tech titans like Bill Gates, Steve Case, and Mark Zuckerberg are repeatedly quoted proclaiming a dearth of talent that imperils the nation’s future. Politicians, advocates, and articles and op-eds published by media outlets—including The New York TimesForbes, CNN, Slate, and others—invoke such foreign-born entrepreneurs as Google’s Sergey Brin or Yahoo’s Jerry Yang, as if arrival from abroad (Brin and Yang came to the US as children) explains the success of the companies they founded . . . with partners who are US natives. Journalists endorse studies that trumpet the job-creating skills of these entrepreneurs from abroad, while ignoring the weaknesses that other scholars find in the research.

“Meanwhile, The National Science Board’s biennial book, Science and Engineering Indicators, consistently finds that the US produces several times the number of STEM graduates than can get jobs in their fields. Recent reports from the National Institutes of Health, the National Academies, and the American Chemical Society warn that overproduction of STEM PhDs is damaging America’s ability to recruit native-born talent, and advise universities to limit the number of doctorates they produce.”

The Columbia Journalism Review reports that “President Obama supports bringing more foreign STEM workers to the US, despite high unemployment among US workers…Figures from the National Institutes of Health, the National Academies, the National Science Foundation, and other sources indicate that hundreds of thousands of STEM workers in the US are unemployed or underemployed. But they are not organized, and their story is being largely ignored in the debate over immigration reform.”

Reaction has been harsh. Breitbart  contends that “ Industry executives and university advocates have successfully duped nearly every reporter, editor and anchor nationwide about the scale and purpose of the H-1B professional outsourcing program. The journalists–and Americans—have been kept in the dark while universities and many allied name-brand companies have quietly imported an extra workforce of at least 100,000 lower-wage foreign professionals in place of higher-wage American graduates, above the supposed annual cap of 85,000 new H-1Bs.Less than one-sixth of these extra 100,000 outsourced hires are the so-called ‘high-tech’ computer experts that dominate media coverage of the contentious H-1B private-sector outsourcing debate. These white-collar guest-workers are not immigrants — they are foreign professionals hired at low wages for six years to take outsourced, white-collar jobs in the United States. Many hope to stay in the United States, but most guest-workers return home after six years.”

An analysis from Zerohedge reveals that “since December 2007, according to the Household Survey, only 790,000 native born American jobs have been added. Contrast that with the 2.1 million foreign-born Americans who have found a job over the same time period.”

Writing for the Center for Immigration Studies, Steven Camarota asks “Does it make sense to continue to admit a million new permanent immigrants each year, along with several hundred thousand guest workers, given the enormous pool of people not working or trying to find full-time work?”

Obama places needs of immigrants above U.S. Citizens

There is growing concern that the Obama Administration places its international agenda above the needs of the nation it was elected to serve. A prime example can be seen in the realm of employment.

Americans needing unemployment insurance benefits rose recently to the highest levels in half a year, reports the U.S. Department of Labor .   “In the week ending December 26, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 287,000, an increase of 20,000 from the previous week’s unrevised level of 267,000. The 4-week moving average was 277,000, an increase of 4,500 from the previous week’s unrevised average of 272,500. There were no special factors impacting this week’s initial claims.”

The prospects for improvement in the jobs picture in 2016 is not promising.  Yahoo  business notes that “Many economists expect a slower pace of job market improvement in 2016.”

Additional troubling factors include the fact that many of the jobs created in recent years are low-paying, benefit-less positions replacing well-paying jobs offering full benefits.

While Americans continue to file for unemployment benefits or take employment at far lesser pay, President Obama continues to encourage immigration. For illegal immigration, Washington continues to tolerate inadequate border security and a lack of deportation actions for illegal arrivals. For legal immigrants, the provision of benefits and work permits provides increased competition for both benefits and jobs for U.S. citizens.

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency   states: “The United States welcomes thousands of foreign workers in multiple occupations or employment categories every year. These include artists, researchers, cultural exchange participants, information technology specialists, religious workers, investors, scientists, athletes, nurses, agricultural workers and others.”

The Washington Times  notes that “net international migration is expected to add one person to the U.S. population every 29 seconds.”

International factors will add to the acceleration. 2016 will see even more immigration from Latin America. The Miami Herald reports that “Central American nations have reached a deal to let the first of thousands of stranded Cuban migrants continue their journey north toward the United States” in January. “The humanitarian transfer will airlift an unspecified number of Cubans the first week of January from Costa Rica to El Salvador, from where they will continue by bus toward Mexico, Costa Rica’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement.”

Despite the White House’s opening of relations with Cuba, the island continues to endure harsh repression from the Castro regime and a depressed economy. As a consequence, as reported in the Telegraph, “A year after relations with America began to thaw, people are leaving the island in droves, impatient at the speed of change…”

President Obama also advocates allowing up to 10,000 Syrian refugees into the U.S., despite security concerns about terrorism.

That welcome is about to be expanded. Breitbart eports that “President Barack Obama is preparing a colossal new executive action that could print-up work permits for a huge number of foreign white-collar graduates every year, above and beyond the levels set by Congress. This executive action…directly bypasses Congressional lawmakers…it will certainly raise new security concerns as it covers categories of immigration utilized by migrants from the Middle East and nearby regions. The 181-page rule focuses primarily on giving work-permits to foreign college-grads who will compete against Americans for white collar jobs, despite the large number of American graduates now stuck in lower-wage positions and struggling to pay off college debts. The rule will also make each foreign graduate much cheaper for U.S. employers to hire than many U.S.-born college grads.”

The British newspaper Daily Mail  reports that “up to 34 million blank ‘green cards’ and work permits have been  ordered.”

Much of the President’s plan is done without the consent of the legislative branch. US News  recently noted “in his efforts to work around Congress, Obama has made the aggressive use of executive power, particularly on immigration, an increasingly effective and politically accepted presidential tool.”

Writing in Roll Call,  Rep. Lou Barletta (R-Pa) states: “We have immigration laws in this country for two basic reasons: to preserve American jobs and to protect national security. President Barack Obama’s unlawful executive actions to grant amnesty to at least 5 million illegal immigrants violate both of those principles. Any objective review must find that the president’s policies have placed the concerns of those who have broken our laws ahead of the interests of citizens and legal residents of the United States… Employment is difficult enough to find for millions of Americans and legal residents who woke up this morning without a pay check. On top of that hardship, the president has now introduced millions of new applicants who will compete for jobs that are already scarce. It is difficult to imagine how such a policy is beneficial to American workers…Worse, the president has laid out the welcome mat for anyone around the world who seeks illegal access to the interior of the United States.”

Make bad governments pay for causing their citizens to flee

The scenes are heartbreaking, such as those of sick and dying children on the shores of the EU. The Economist estimates that 23,000 have lost their lives since 2000 attempting to enter the European continent. The Gatestone Institute reports that more than 175,000 have applied for asylum during the past 12 months. Many, many more are entering illegally.

Across the Atlantic, the Migration Policy Institute  notes that “In 2013, approximately 41.3 million immigrants [legal and illegal] lived in the United States, an all-time high for a nation historically built on immigration. The United States remains a popular destination attracting about 20 percent of the world’s international migrants, even as it represents less than 5 percent of the global population. Immigrants accounted for 13 percent of the total 316 million U.S. residents; adding the U.S.-born children (of all ages) of immigrants means that approximately 80 million people, or one-quarter of the overall U.S. population, is either of the first or second generation.”

Impoverished families crossing the U.S. southern border present wrenching views. The Pew Research Institute  estimates that there are approximately 11.3 million illegals in the U.S. Pew also notes that “President Obama’s executive action on immigration, announced Nov. 20, 2014, would among other things expand deportation relief to almost half the unauthorized immigrant population, though this part of the program is on hold due to a lawsuit to stop the move.” Unauthorized immigrants make up 5.1% of the U.S. labor force.

The reactions to this wave of humanity range from  an abundance of sympathy, such as that exhibited by President Obama’s very lax enforcement of American immigration law, to the exclusionary policies advocated by some European political groups. Even Pope Francis has weighed in, urging Christian charity for the masses on the move.

The United Nations Refugee Agency has noted:

“Since the late 1970s, the international community has been well aware of the severe impact that large scale refugee populations can have on the social, economic and political life of host developing countries… From the moment of arrival, refugees compete with the local citizens for scarce resources such as land, water, housing, food and medical services. Over time, their presence leads to more substantial demands on natural resources, education and health facilities, energy, transportation, social services and employment. They may cause inflationary pressures on prices and depress wages. In some instances, they can significantly alter the flow of goods and services within the society as a whole and their presence may have implications for the host country’s balance of payment and undermine structural adjustment initiatives… The heavy price that host countries have to pay in providing asylum to refugees is now widely recognized.”

But, perhaps for reasons of political correctness and an embarrassment of past instances of colonialism, the actual causes of illegal immigration and the only workable solutions to the crisis remain largely unspoken.

The poverty, war and other conditions from which most of the refugees flee are largely not the results of a natural disaster, such as a famine or flood, but from bad regimes.

The fact is, the governments from which most of the current waves of immigrants hail from are corrupt, incompetent, repressive, or adhere to economic philosophies that simply don’t work. Their misdeeds and/or ineptness force many of their citizenry to seek refuge and sustenance elsewhere. In essence, the populations of the United States and Europe are forced to pay for the stupidity or malfeasance of other nations.

DW, discussing the lack of candor in Africa about the reasons for the immigration crisis, noted:

“Tens of thousands of refugees risk their lives trying to get to Europe. Surprisingly this sort of news rarely makes front page in Africa. ‘The migrant boat tragedy is not just Europe’s problem,’ a title by the ‘Daily Maverick’, a South African daily, silently screams.

“The African Union communications department has been very busy lately, issuing statements on subjects as varied and diverse as the Sudanese elections, the killing of Ethiopian citizens by ‘Islamic State’ (IS) in Libya, the xenophobic violence in South Africa and the marketing of Africa’s ‘Agenda 2063’ to Polish investors. Nothing, however, on the boatloads of Africans risking everything to escape the continent. Nothing on the hundreds of corpses floating in the Mediterranean.”

There should be an international discussion on placing penalties and sanctions on governments that create the conditions that cause many of their citizens to flee. While some may claim that this constitutes interference in the internal affairs of the nations affected, it is appropriate, pragmatic and, indeed, humanitarian to eliminate, at the source, the conditions which give rise to the necessity of mass immigration.

“Sanctuary Cities” and Illegal Immigration

Should American cities have the right to ignore federal law, and protect or aid illegal immigrants? The question continues to gain importance as the national debate over illegal immigration continues.

According to the Congressional Research Service “Controversy has arisen over the existence of so-called ‘sanctuary cities.’ The term ‘sanctuary city’ is not defined by federal law, but it is often used to refer to those localities which, as a result of a state or local act, ordinance, policy, or fiscal constraints, place limits on their assistance to federal immigration authorities seeking to apprehend and remove unauthorized aliens.

“Supporters of such policies argue that many cities have higher priorities, and that local efforts to deter the presence of unauthorized aliens would undermine community relations, disrupt municipal services, interfere with local law enforcement, or violate humanitarian principles.

“Opponents argue that sanctuary policies encourage illegal immigration and undermine federal enforcement efforts. Pursuant to § 434 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA, P.L. 104-193) and § 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA, P.L. 104-208), states and localities may not limit their governmental entities or officers from maintaining records regarding a person’s immigration status, or bar the exchange of such information with any federal, state, or local entity.

“Reportedly, some jurisdictions with sanctuary policies take a “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach, where officials are barred from inquiring about a person’s immigration status in certain circumstances. Though this method does not directly conflict with federal requirements that states and localities permit the free exchange of information regarding persons’ immigration status, it results in specified agencies or officers lacking information that they could potentially share with federal immigration authorities.”

The International Business Times notes that “Last December, Democratic mayors in two dozen municipalities launched an effort aimed at helping undocumented immigrants seek temporary status and obtain some legal rights. In 2013, the Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office in Louisiana announced it would decline federal immigration detention requests except when an individual is held on felony charges for violent crimes. The policy change was prompted by a New Orleans council member’s resolution to end the holds, citing their strain on local law enforcement resources, according to a council spokesman. Supporters of such policies say there are higher municipal priorities, and that deterring the presence of undocumented immigrants is more disruptive in administering municipal services and interferes with local law enforcement, according to the CRS study. Conversely, a study of undocumented immigrants and resources in New York City published by the Federation for American Immigration Reform found that the city was spending $5.1 billion annually on helping illegal immigrants.  ‘We are sacrificing the financial security of American citizens’ with sanctuary policies, said Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for FAIR, an anti-illegal immigration group.”

While the federal government has been far less than vigorous in its effort to stop illegal immigration at the border and to apprehend and deport those illegals who have escaped into the nation’s interior, the lack of cooperation among state and local jurisdictions has also been a factor. According to the U.S. Customs and Enforcement agency,  (ICE) “ICE’s efforts in the interior…were impacted by an increasing number of state and local jurisdictions that are declining to honor ICE detainers.  As a result, instead of state and local jails transferring criminal aliens in their custody to ICE for removal, such aliens were released by state and local authorities. Since January 2014, state and local law enforcement authorities declined to honor 10,182 detainers. This required ICE to expend additional resources attempting to locate, apprehend, and remove criminal aliens who were released into the community, rather than transferred directly into custody. These changes further contributed to decreased ICE removals.”

The Ohio Jobs & Justice PAC   describes why localities engage in “sanctuary” policies:

“ One justification of creating sanctuary cities is often under the guise of protecting ‘immigrant rights.’  But illegal aliens are not immigrants — immigrants come to the U.S. legally, and maintain their legal presence. When a person is illegally smuggled into the U.S. or violates their visa restrictions — he/she is not an immigrant or visitor, but an unauthorized alien subject to deportation under existing federal law.

“ Another common argument public officials use to justify sanctuary policies is safety–framing them as an effective ‘community policing’ policy tool.  The argument goes as follows: Illegal aliens who are victims of crimes or are witnesses to crimes won’t report them to police for fear of arrest and deportation.  However, these political panderers ignore the fact that if the illegal aliens were removed from the U.S., they would not be here to become victims, and the predators would be out of the country too.

“Why do public officials pass sanctuary laws or establish unwritten “don’t ask–don’t tell” policies?  There are a variety of reasons.  Some politicians attempt to appease illegal immigration support groups such as the National Council of La Raza (NCLR),  Mexican American Legal Defense & Education Fund (MALDF), and League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), or other immigration activist groups that lobby local governments to implement formal or informal sanctuary policies. Other reasons include political contributions and ethnic voter support at election time; complacency, ignorance, or “don’t care” attitudes; and purposeful resistance to existing U.S. immigration law based upon an open-border political philosophy that may serve their economic, political, or ethnocentric interests.   A great number of politically appointed big city police chief’s often support an administration’s sanctuary policy because they share a similar political ideology or just want to keep their job.  It’s much easier too for city officials to collect their paychecks and avoid the political protests and threats of expensive lawsuits that routinely follow attempts by cities to stop illegal aliens from taking root in their communities.”

Testifying before the House Judiciary Committee on April 14, ICE Director Sarah R. Saldaña  stated: “Another significant factor impacting removal operations has been the increase in state and local jurisdictions that are limiting their partnership, or wholly refusing to cooperate with  ICE immigration enforcement efforts. While the reasons for this may vary, including state and local legislative restrictions and judicial findings of state and local liability, in certain circumstances we believe such a lack of cooperation may increase the risk that dangerous criminals are returned to the streets, putting the public and our officers at greater risk. Given ICE’s public safety mission and limited resources, state and local cooperation is essential to our success. During calendar year 2014, state and local jurisdictions have declined more than 12,000 ICE detainer requests. There are more than 200 jurisdictions, including some of the largest in the country, that refuse to honor ICE detainers and some have also denied ICE access to their jails and prisons…”

Ironically, Ms. Saldana’s federal agency was bemoaning the lack of cooperation by localities, the Obama Administration has continued with its policy of harassing local sheriffs who seek to enforce federal laws against illegal immigration. Speaking on the Cavuto program earlier this year, Sheriff Paul Babeu, from Arizona, described being threatened by the White House for taking an active stance against illegal immigration.