Copy
A CIS Weekly update on immigration policy related
opinions from the United States and around the world.

Immigration Opinions, 5/15/16


Support the Center for Immigration Studies by donating on line here: http://cis.org/donate
 
1. "It Depends upon What the Meaning of the Word 'Open' Is," Mark Krikorian
2. "It Ain’t Over ‘til the Alien Wins," Mark Krikorian
3. "ICE Announces the Arrest of 84 Criminal Aliens – but What Else Should We Be Asking?," Dan Cadman
4. "The Wise Use of Prosecutorial Discretion, Expressed in a Single Sentence," Dan Cadman
5. "How Predators Get Admitted with Their Prey During Humanitarian Crises," Dan Cadman
6. "On Federalism, States' Rights, and the Power of Coercion," Dan Cadman
7. "Good News/Bad News on OPT," John Miano
8. "No, Deporting Illegal Immigrants Would Not Make Americans $600 Billion Poorer," Jason Richwine
9. "Should we be Satisfied That Immigrants Are 'a Better Class of Underclass'?," Jason Richwine
10. "Problems with the Treaty Trader and Treaty Investor Programs," David North
11. "DHS Uses WW II to Open the Gates for More Aging Filipinos," David North
12. "One Inspirational Story Doesn't Blot Out Realities of Illegal Immigration," Jerry Kammer
13. "New Yorker Surprise: Understanding for Trump's Appeal Among the White Working Class," Jerry Kammer
14. "Transfer of Visa-less Cubans to U.S. Border Continues," Kausha Luna
15. "The Myth of the ‘Open Borders’ Right," Ian Tuttle
16. "Elites Can Afford to Support Looser Immigration Policies," Victor Davis Hanson
17. "No Third-Party Candidate," Phyllis Schlafly
18. "Sanctuary City: Criminals Welcome," Debra J. Saunders
19. "Poll: GOP supporters Back Hard Line on Immigration, Trade, Muslims," Sierra Rayne
20. "Let’s Talk About Open Borders," G. Perry
21. " 'Build a Wall' to Block ISIS," Raymond Ibrahim
22. "Hillary Clinton's Proposal for Bureaucrats to 'Help' Illegal Immigrants," Michael Barone
23. "Trump’s Immigration Disaster," Reihan Salam
24. "National Data| April Jobs — Immigrant Job Share a Record For Any April During Obama Years," Edwin S. Rubenstein
25. "New Richwine Study Shows Cost of Immigration; Where Are ‘Fiscal Conservatives?’," James Kirkpatrick
26. "Illegal Immigrants Get Over $1,200 More in Welfare Benefits Than American Families a Year," Matt Vespa
27. "Cathy Young Proves the Point – Immigration Patriotism is Good for America. That’s Why She Hates it," James Kirkpatrick
28. "Clinton’s Path to Citizenship Would Harm American Workers and Legal Immigrants," Progressives for Immigration Reform
29. "Crime Victim Mother Supports Donald Trump as Immigration Enforcer," Brenda Walker
30. "A Look at Our Super-Charged Immigration Debate," Shariq Siddiqui
31. "Changing the Immigration Debate by Electing Immigrants to Office," Melanie Grayce West
32. "Our Immigration Policy is Not Only Unjust - it’s Un-American," Martin O’Malley
33. "The Government’s Cold-Blooded Anti-Immigrant Scam: How ICE is Outsourcing Detention and Deportation to Local Police," Eesha Pandit
34. "Report on Immigrant Welfare Use is Fundamentally Flawed—Here’s Why," Walter Ewing
35. "Why is the Center for Immigration Studies Publishing an 'Alt Right' Racist?," Neil Stevens
36. Sweden: "The Failure of the Swedish Establishment," Nima Gholam Ali Pour
37. Sweden: "Sweden’s Immigration Conundrum," Dov S. Zakheim
38. U.K.: "Cameron’s Offer to Refugee Children: It’s the Least He Could Do," The Guardian (U.K.)
39. E.U.: "The EU's Kiss of Death," Judith Bergman
40. E.U.: "Migrant Rape Epidemic Reaches Austria," Soeren Kern


1.
It Depends upon What the Meaning of the Word “Open” Is
By Mark Krikorian
The Corner at National Review Online, May 12, 2016
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/435327/open-borders-immigration-real

In his piece on the home page, Ian Tuttle is correct that “open borders” is sometimes used incorrectly as an epithet, like “RINO” or “commie.” But the Open-Borders Right is no myth.

Part of the confusion is what is meant by “open borders.” Ian cites two authorities for the meaning of the term, whose definitions are similar, but not the same. The Schengen zone (which, incidentally, includes several non-EU states) represents truly open borders – no screening at the frontier. It’s like driving to Cape Cod and whizzing at full speed past the “Entering Marion” sign.

But the definition he cites from OpenBorders.info is actually not open borders in its purest form: “a strong presumption in favor of allowing people to migrate…where this presumption can be overridden or curtailed only under exceptional circumstances.” But if it can be curtailed under any circumstances, is it actually “open borders”?

Likewise, Ian notes that “supporters of the policy are active at the Cato Institute” – the main one there being Alex Nowrasteh, whom I’ve debated many times. He certainly says he’s for open borders, but even he’s not in favor it in its literal form; he concedes that people should be prevented from entering if they are criminals, terrorists, or carry dangerous communicable diseases – control over which presupposes a vast infrastructure of border inspection and enforcement.

To use Plato’s metaphor of the cave, Ian is suggesting that because the shadows projected on the wall are not the concrete object, they aren’t related to the object and we must not call them by its name. If “open borders” can be used to label only a policy that is comparable to, say, your walking between your living room and your dining room – distinct spaces but with no barrier between them – then the term has no practical political meaning whatever.

But in the real world, the shadows are all we have to work with. Or, to use a perhaps more apt image, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.

Real-world open borders is consistent with enforcement theater, so long as it doesn’t interfere in any meaningful sense with foreigners moving here. It’s consistent with immigration quotas, so long as they are high enough that everyone who wants to move here is able to do so.

In a policy sense, then, open borders actually means “unlimited immigration.” And this is, in fact, a widespread view, on both the elite Left and the elite Right. As I wrote on this happy Corner back in 2010:

I actually think that La Raza, the Chamber of Commerce, the ACLU, Microsoft, et al. would sincerely back electrified fencing, land mines, and anything else they were asked to support, so long as there were no limits on the number of foreigners able to legally come here, as President Bush called for in his January 2004 immigration speech. This is why referring to these groups as supporters of open borders is not an epithet but simply a description.

This is also why “comprehensive immigration reform” proposals always have three elements: Amnesty for the illegals already here, empty enforcement promises to quiet the yokels, and – most importantly – huge increases immigration in the hopes that the enforcement won’t actually have to prevent anyone from moving here. Passage of the Schumer-Rubio Gang of Eight bill would not have delivered open borders overnight. But it would have been one more step in the asymptotic approach to open borders our political and economic and cultural leaders take as a given.

When Ian writes that “There’s an all-important difference between wanting to secure the borders while also letting more people in, and wanting to erase the border altogether,” he’s correct – in theory. In the real world, though, it doesn’t actually work that way.

Return to Top


********
********

2.
It Ain’t Over ‘til the Alien Wins
By Mark Krikorian
The Corner at National Review Online, May 12, 2016
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/435405/deportation-cases-never-die

"Immigration cases — like old soldiers — seem never to die."

That's the opening line of the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in a recent case that exemplifies the relentless war on America's borders being waged by immigration lawyers and their illegal-alien clients.

This is an utterly conventional case, like thousands of others that clog the courts, the result of "serial attempts to revisit a final order of removal" (a deportation order), in the words of the ruling. The alien plaintiff's 20-year campaign of lies and immigration fraud shows what our immigration-enforcement system is up against.

Jose Garcia is a Dominican who entered into a fraudulent marriage with a U.S. citizen in 1996. (There's no information on how he got here in the first place — if I had to guess, I'd say on a visitor visa with the intent to stay — another fraud.) Two years later, as the law stipulates, he applied to have his provisional green card converted to a regular one; the fraud was uncovered and the application denied. The INS then started the process of deporting him.

And "process" is the right word, because only in 2009 — 11 years later — was he finally ordered removed by an immigration judge; and that was only because he didn't show up for a hearing. His lawyer then petitioned to have his case re-opened, claiming he'd been stuck in traffic. (That, along with "I never got the notice in the mail," are the most common lies used to justify skipping an immigration hearing that isn't expected to go your way.) The immigration judge said no, Garcia appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA — the body between the immigration judges and the regular federal courts), then changed his mind and said we wanted to go home. So in 2009, 13 years after entering into a fraudulent marriage, he was removed to the Dominican Republic (at taxpayer expense).

In 2012 he came back illegally. The ruling doesn't say how; every year the Border Patrol does arrest a modest number of Dominican infiltrators, and others are arrested trying to fly from Puerto Rico to the United States using fake or stolen documents showing that they're Puerto Ricans. In any case he was charged with the felony of re-entry after deportation. In response, he filed to re-open his deportation case by claiming "ineffective assistance of counsel" back in 2009. He (through his new lawyer, presumably) claimed his 2009 lawyer hadn't moved to re-open the case after he'd been ordered deported. When that turned out to be a lie, "the petitioner switched gears and argued that the filed motion to reopen was 'terribly flawed' as it had not included a sworn statement from the petitioner himself."

He appealed to the BIA, was turned down, and then a year ago filed an appeal to the federal courts (the immigration judges and BIA are Justice Department civil servants, not actual judges). It's likely that during this whole time he's been out on bail and had a work permit, to boot; in other words, he's enjoyed four years (so far) of what he came here for in the first place — to live and work in the United States.

This latest ruling turned down his petition for judicial review, but who knows how long it will be before he's prosecuted for illegal re-entry (if Obama's Justice Department bothers to prosecute him at all), or if he'll simply run off and never be heard from again — until he commits vehicular homicide or some such.

The point of detailing this entirely typical 20-year saga of fraud, delay, and prevarication is to show that enforcing immigration laws requires a much more streamlined process for removing violators. Because the deportation of non-citizens is a civil, not criminal, matter, due process is whatever Congress says it is, and non-citizens must be provided fewer bites of the apple in challenging their removal. Congress needs to exercise its plenary power over immigration by, among other things, expanding "expedited removal," a tool defined in 1996 that "circumvents any judicial involvement from either the executive branch immigration courts or the judicial branch courts." It must also insist that the executive use this power to its maximum extent.

When the 1996 immigration law was passed — it created expedited removal among many other measures to stiffen immigration enforcement — the then-head of the immigration lawyers' association told me he assured his members that the bill was a testament to their effectiveness; in other words, they had so thoroughly obstructed enforcement of the laws that Congress had felt the need to push back. It's long overdue for Congress to push back some more.

Return to Top


********
********

3.
ICE Announces the Arrest of 84 Criminal Aliens – But What Else Should We Be Asking?
By Dan Cadman
CIS Immigration Blog, May 13, 2016
. . .
As to the agency: I know and respect many of the career personnel at ICE, both at the field agent and senior levels. They are hard-working people trying to do a job that's difficult in the best of times, and these are by no means the best of times. And they are by and large muzzled from speaking their minds without endangering their careers. That is what gave me pause before writing this blog.

But there is often a sad propensity these days for news organizations to be content unthinkingly accepting whatever is fed them; this way the reporters don't have to strive for difficult answers, they simply repackage the press release and, bingo!, no problem meeting publication deadlines for their respective outlets. That was established beyond a shadow of a doubt by the recent profile of White House adviser Ben Rhodes in his own words, in the New York Times Magazine, which has provoked belated outrage on both the left and the right since being published (see here and here).

The propensity to just accept official pablum is especially troubling given this administration's history of double-talk, duplicity, and outright lies, and in the end is what made me think I needed to go ahead and put figurative pen to paper even though it is a good thing that, at least for now, 84 hardened criminals are in detention. It's my small attempt to lead the horse to water where this one matter is concerned.
. . .
http://cis.org/cadman/ice-announces-arrest-84-criminal-aliens-what-else-should-we-be-asking

Return to Top


********
********

4.
The Wise Use of Prosecutorial Discretion, Expressed in a Single Sentence
By Dan Cadman
CIS Immigration Blog, May 11, 2016
. . .
The wisdom expressed in that one sentence by a senior career figure at DOJ contrasts strongly with the sadly politicized Justice Department of this administration, a lap dog that has scrambled to create a Potemkin Village of words to justify programs now before the Supreme Court that have permitted hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens to evade removal under the guise of "prosecutorial discretion".

The Obama White House, aided and abetted by Attorneys General Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch, has disgracefully taken the concept of prosecutorial discretion — to be used sparingly, as an act of ministerial grace — and turned it on its head in order to flout the law, undo immigration enforcement, and unconstitutionally infringe on the legislative powers of Congress (see here, here, and here).

We cannot be shed of this eight years soon enough; let's hope that the future does not bode four more years of the same or worse — the country cannot sustain it.
. . .
http://cis.org/cadman/wise-use-prosecutorial-discretion-expressed-single-sentence

Return to Top


********
********

5.
How Predators Get Admitted with Their Prey During Humanitarian Crises
By Dan Cadman
CIS Immigration Blog, May 10, 2016
. . .
This is not the case with Islamic extremists who hide amongst the massive flows of displaced persons in camps in Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon, who are making their way westward into Europe, Canada, the United States, and elsewhere. These jihadists seek only

to integrate themselves sufficiently into insular communities, such as largely Muslim Molenbeek in Brussels, in order to establish terrorist cells from which to commit attacks. Although racing against time because the persecutors were aging, OSI's environment was not one of imminent threat, or a "clear and present danger" to the American people. No one was going to don suicide vests; plant improvised explosive devices filled with nails, screws, and ball bearings in major transportation nodes; or fly airplanes into multi-story buildings after having scammed the refugee system.

One would think that this changed circumstance, this reality of the asymmetric threats we confront today, would make our government cautious about responding to pressures precisely like those laid out in the OSI report. It has not. Apparently because we are unwilling to learn the historical lesson that lies in the story behind the story of OSI: That there is always a fragility, even with the best of intentions, in the refugee admissions process. It is inevitable because refugee crises are inherently chaotic and breed opportunities for fraud, some more malignant or dangerous than others.

The chaos also breeds a sense of urgency, especially among non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and international agencies such as UNHCR, which act as the winnowing mechanisms to

line up applicants for interview by our refugee officers abroad. They invariably exert pressure on refugee officers within the various national governments to cut through their

bureaucratic processes and move large numbers out of camps and into their communities as quickly as possible. This in turn feeds a domestic sense of urgency as well.

We see this now in the context of Syrian and Iraqi migrants queued up and awaiting interviews and background checks — which the federal government assured Congress and the public is a lengthy and thorough process (after a series of publicly exposed gaffes in vetting processes), but has now collapsed down to a three-month window. Can anyone doubt that serious mistakes will be made?
. . .
http://cis.org/cadman/how-predators-get-admitted-their-prey-during-humanitarian-crises

Return to Top


********
********

6.
On Federalism, States' Rights, and the Power of Coercion
By Dan Cadman
CIS Immigration Blog, May 9, 2016

Various media outlets are reporting on a letter sent to the North Carolina governor from the Department of Justice (DOJ) threatening to withhold millions of federal dollars if something is not done to void the recently enacted state statute requiring that, in public places, individuals use bathrooms consistent with the gender reflected on their birth certificates (see here and here).

This is not the only evident use of the coercive powers of the federal government to achieve goals consistent with the "Obama agenda." Something similar has happened with the Department of Education in its oversight of universities and colleges on the matter of sexual violence on campus (see here and here). I do not suggest that sexual violence, or indeed assault of any kind, should be tolerated on campuses; I do question whether the administration is painting with too broad a brush, given that some of the incidents that triggered the massive DOE response of opening hundreds of investigations later proved false.

What have these two instances of the wielding of federal power to do with immigration? Nothing ... and everything. Compare the above near-instantaneous reactions to issues dear to the hearts of liberals and progressives with the anemic non-response of the federal government toward state and local governments that have over the past few years initiated sanctuary laws and policies leading to the release of thousands of alien felons back to the streets, rather than turning them over to agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
. . .
http://cis.org/cadman/federalism-states-rights-and-power-coercion

Return to Top


********
********

7.
Good News/Bad News on OPT
By John Miano
CIS Immigration Blog, May 9, 2016
. . .
So we are in the position that no court wants to take jurisdiction over the case.

What happens next?

I have no idea — unless, of course, the D.C. Circuit decides it has jurisdiction. That's the easy condition. If the D.C. Circuit decides it does not have jurisdiction, then we are in procedural nowhere land with both courts saying they do not have the case. What would happen next depends upon what is in the D.C. Circuit's opinion. If the D.C. District order is not a final order, there is nothing in the opinion or order setting out how a final order would ever flow from it. If you are confused, imagine being before the D.C. Circuit and trying to answer questions on all this.

That was the bad news.

The good news is the D.C. Circuit was not buying the argument that aliens working after graduation are students.
. . .
http://cis.org/miano/good-news-bad-news-opt

Return to Top


********
********

8.
No, Deporting Illegal Immigrants Would Not Make Americans $600 Billion Poorer
By Jason Richwine
CIS Immigration Blog, May 13, 2016
. . .
One way to see the difference between the size of the economy and the income of natives is to imagine that every American gets cloned, and the capital stock doubles to match the larger workforce. The American economy would be twice as large as before, but Americans would still have the same per capita income. The cloning would therefore be "good for the economy" in the sense that GDP has doubled, but the pre-existing population would be no better off.

Of course, the reality of immigration is more complicated than the cloning story. Because the skill distribution of real-world immigrants (unlike clones) is different from that of natives, immigration does generate efficiency gains. But those gains are always tiny relative to the increase in GDP. In a 2013 analysis for CIS, economist George Borjas estimated that of the hundreds of billions of dollars that illegal immigrants add to the U.S. economy, just 2.2 percent of those dollars go to natives. That would mean the "devastating" $623 billion cost of deportation reported by the AAF translates into a loss for natives of somewhere around $14 billion, which is less than one tenth of one percent of GDP. Far more important would be the distributional, fiscal, and logistical impacts of deportation, which include a major shift of income from employers and consumers toward low-skill native workers.
. . .
http://cis.org/cis/no-deporting-illegal-immigrants-would-not-make-americans-600-billion-poorer

Return to Top


********
********

9.
Should We Be Satisfied That Immigrants Are 'A Better Class of Underclass'?
By Jason Richwine
CIS Immigration Blog, May 13, 2016
. . .
Both reports elicited a large amount of media attention. In fact, the new report was at one point even more popular on Facebook than Justin Bieber (at least for some users), which is surely something to be proud of.

Along with the media attention has come pushback from immigration advocacy groups.

Fortunately, on an issue often driven by emotion, Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute published a critical commentary almost as dry in tone as the original paper. CIS had mostly the same debate with Cato when it published the last welfare paper, so I'll be brief with the responses.
. . .
Imagine a group of natives that consume, say, a whopping $50,000 of welfare per year.

Would immigrants with the same characteristics be a boon for the U.S. if they used "only" $40,000 per year? That is the Nowrasteh argument. It turns immigration policy into the pursuit of "a better class of underclass." We can do better.
. . .
http://cis.org/cis/should-we-be-satisfied-immigrants-are-better-class-underclass

Return to Top


********
********

10.
Problems with the Treaty Trader and Treaty Investor Programs
By David North
CIS Immigration Blog, May 11, 2016
. . .
The two programs deal with different populations. The E-1 (trader) program is largely for the employees of multi-national firms (think Japanese car companies) and their relatives.

The E-2 program is for individual alien investors (from treaty nations), their relatives, and — here is a problem area — the employees of those investors, including substantial groups of ill-paid foreign workers.

The E-2 program has some similarities to the EB-5 (immigrant investor) program in that both reward aliens for investing in the United States (and both, confusingly, start with the initial E). The EB-5 program creates green cards (i.e., permanent status) for its investors and is run largely by the Department of Homeland Security; the E-2 (and E-1) programs are run exclusively by the State Department and create nonimmigrant visas that can be renewed without limit, but that create no path to permanent alien status.

These treaties are reciprocal in that U.S. citizens get the same set of rights in treaty countries as aliens from those nations do in the United States. This aspect of the program may or may not be a blessing for the U.S. economy, but that is an area far from my field and I will make no comment on that variable. The only recent change in these treaties has been with Bolivia, which sends few people to the United States; that country's leftish government has decided that there are too many advantages for American investors there and is in the slow process of winding down the U.S.-Bolivia treaty as the State Department has reported.
. . .
http://cis.org/north/problems-treaty-trader-and-treaty-investor-programs

Return to Top


********
********

11.
DHS Uses WW II to Open the Gates for More Aging Filipinos
By David North
CIS Immigration Blog, May 11, 2016

One of the hidden specialties of the U.S. immigration system is the way it facilitates the immigration of aliens deep into, or beyond, their working lives.

The country-of-origin limits on immigration, coupled with high demand from some nations such as the Philippines, means that many migrants have been waiting for 20 years or more – and are thus about 20 years older than the average migrant when they finally arrive in the U.S. You can imagine what this does to the welfare costs.
. . .
The program offers a way around the intent of Congress to place ceilings on immigrant admissions by paroling in these relatives of veterans (who did not serve in our army, but

in that of the Philippines). The people who benefit must be on the waiting list created by their relationship to either an elderly or a dead veteran. Most of the principal beneficiaries must have been born before 1960, and thus be at least 56 years of age. They must not only have the correct relationships, they must have secured approved migration petitions based on those relationships. All are in the family categories of potential immigrants and all are on visa waiting lists.
. . .
http://cis.org/north/dhs-uses-ww-ii-open-gates-more-aging-filipinos

Return to Top


********
********

12.
One Inspirational Story Doesn't Blot Out Realities of Illegal Immigration
By Jerry Kammer
CIS Immigration Blog, May 9, 2016
. . .
The Quinones story fits well with the theme that shapes much of Ramos's journalism. Ramos, himself an immigrant from Mexico, opines that the United States has a moral duty to accept illegal immigrants. He believes that bigotry is the motivation for those who are bothered by illegal immigration and the problems associated with it. He and his team of correspondents rarely report on the perspective of Americans whose lives have been disrupted by illegal immigration.

Well, as columnist Michael Barone wrote back in 2007: "You don't have to be a racist

to be bothered by such things. You just have to be a citizen who thinks that massive failure to enforce the law is corrosive to society."

Now Donald Trump, with his reprehensible, sweeping denunciation of Mexican immigrants as rapists and criminals, is stoking the outrage of Ramos and others who believe it is wrong

for the United States to deport those who cross the border illegally unless they later commit major felonies.

Another of Ramos's guests on yesterday's "Al Punto" was former Mexican foreign minister Jorge Castaneda, who understands the importance of U.S. immigration rules even as he seeks to shape them to Mexico's advantage. Castaneda has written that illegal immigration "runs counter to the legalistic nature of a society that has little else to hold it together beyond the belief in and devotion to the rule of law."

Playing by the rules is one of the sustaining, unifying, and clarifying values of our society and our country. One of the things that bothers me about illegal immigration is that it is corroding that value. And one of the sidebars of the heroic story of Dr. Quinones is that he and many others have fled Mexico because of its failure to establish the rule of law.
. . .
http://cis.org/kammer/one-inspirational-story-doesnt-blot-out-realities-illegal-immigration

Return to Top


********
********

13.
New Yorker Surprise: Understanding for Trump's Appeal Among the White Working Class
By Jerry Kammer
CIS Immigration Blog, May 12, 2016
. . .
The New Yorker is the native habitat of Upper West Side provincialism and post-national cosmopolitanism. Its writers tend to approach the working-class world as if they are anthropologists embarked on a study of a primitive tribe in the South Pacific. Working-class conservatism is seen as a cause for astonished fascination, like cannibalism among the savages.

So imagine my shock as I read in the current issue reporting by George Packer about Donald Trump’s popularity with the middle-aged white working class, which Packer describes as "the base of the [Republican] Party".

Packer writes that this group "has suffered at least as much as any demographic group because of globalization, low-wage immigrant labor, and free trade. Trump sensed the rage that flared from this pain and made it the fuel of his campaign."

What a surprising, non-New Yorker-like contrast to last summer's nine-page, very New Yorker-like takedown of Trump supporters that was titled "The Fearful and the Frustrated". Author Evan Osnos fixated on the anxieties of a series of white nationalists, using crime statistics and academic studies to belittle their concerns. Osnos provides only scant acknowledgement of working class trauma, noting on page eight of his nine-page story that in recent decades "nobody has been hit harder than low-skilled, poorly educated men." He made no room for metrics that document the damage and relate it to immigration.
. . .
http://cis.org/kammer/new-yorker-surprise-understanding-trumps-appeal-among-white-working-class

Return to Top


********
********

14.
Transfer of Visa-less Cubans to U.S. Border Continues
By Kausha Luna
CIS Immigration Blog, May 10, 2016
. . .
Earlier this year, Panama transferred about 1,300 islanders to the U.S.-Mexico border, after Nicaragua and then Costa Rica closed their borders to Cuban migrants without visas passing through on their way north. However, after the airlift was complete, Cuban illegal aliens continued to arrive at the Panama-Costa Rica border.

This second transfer is happening even though the government of Mexico had previously stated that it would not accept another airlift, noting it would confuse the message of promoting safe and orderly migration. According to a press release by the Panamanian government, the latest airlift is being carried out "with the support of the Government of the United Mexican States, as an exceptional, limited solution and, for the

last time, to ensure smooth, orderly, and safe transit of such migrants, with observance of respect for their human rights." A joint press release by the Mexican Ministries of Interior and Foreign Affairs stated that, "Mexico has decided to continue with the exceptional support provided in previous weeks," and, "At the same time, both countries agreed to launch a series of actions to prevent and discourage new flows."
. . .
http://cis.org/luna/transfer-visa-less-cubans-us-border-continues

Return to Top


********
********

15.
The Myth of the ‘Open Borders’ Right
By Ian Tuttle
National Review Online, May 12, 2016

Paul Ryan is not for open borders. In the Year of Donald Trump, these are fighting words. They are also true. On his campaign website, the speaker of the House lists four principles that he believes should guide any attempt to reform our immigration system, among which are: “First, we need to secure the border,” and, “Second, we need to enforce our laws.” Ryan has called illegal immigration “an affront to the rule of law and an unacceptable security risk.” He voted for the “Secure Fence Act of 2006,” which aimed “to establish operational control over the international land and maritime borders of the United States.
. . .
None of this is to say that Republicans, especially congressional Republicans, have a sterling record on the subject of immigration. They don’t. Paul Ryan and many others are for increasing legal immigration. Republicans have enthusiastically supported the H-1B visa program, despite overwhelming evidence that it is being used, illegally, to undercut American tech workers. Republicans refused to push back against President Obama’s lawless executive amnesties, even going so far as to confirm a new attorney general who promised to carry them out. The omnibus spending bill passed in December included funding for the president’s Syrian refugee-resettlement program, an extension of the corrupt EB-5 visa program, and increased levels of H-2B visas — the last measure written in by Republicans themselves.

The GOP should be chided for repeatedly failing to take Americans’ immigration concerns seriously. Needless to say, the party is experiencing a backlash in the form of Donald Trump. Still, favoring increases in legal immigration, or believing that we need more tech or agricultural workers, while arguably bad policy, are not the same as pushing “open borders.” There’s an all-important difference between wanting to secure the borders while also letting more people in, and wanting to erase the border altogether.
. . .
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435289/immigration-open-borders-republicans

Return to Top


********
********

16.
Elites can Afford to Support Looser Immigration Policies
By Victor Davis Hanson
Townhall.com, May 12, 2016
. . .
At the top of the list are Mexico's elites. Illegal immigration results in an estimated $25 billion sent back in remittances to Mexico each year. The Mexican government worries more about remittances, the country's No. 1 source of foreign exchange, than it does about its low-paid citizens who are in the U.S., scrimping to send money back home. Remittances also excuse the Mexican government from restructuring the economy or budgeting for anti-poverty programs.
. . .
Ethnic elites also favor lax immigration policies. For all the caricatures of the old melting pot, millions of legal immigrants still rapidly assimilate, integrate and intermarry. Often within two generations of arrival, they blend indistinguishably into the general population and drop their hyphenated and accented nomenclature. But when immigration is mostly illegal, in great numbers and without ethnic diversity, assimilation stalls. Instead, a near-permanent pool of undocumented migrants offers a political opportunity for activists to provide them with collective representation.

If the borders were closed to illegal immigration, then being Hispanic would soon be analogous to being Italian-, Greek- or Portuguese-American in terms of having little prognostic value in predicting one's political outlook. The continual flow of indigent new arrivals distorts statistics on poverty and parity, prompting ethnic elites in politics, journalism and higher education to seek redress for perennial income and cultural imbalances. Offering affirmative action to a third-generation Hispanic-American who does not speak Spanish apparently is seen as one way to help thousands of recently arrived impoverished immigrants from Oaxaca, Mexico, find parity.
. . .
http://townhall.com/columnists/victordavishanson/2016/05/12/draft-n2161483

Return to Top


********
********

17.
No Third-Party Candidate
By Phyllis Schlafly
Townhall.com, May 10, 2016
. . .
The grumblings we hear about Donald Trump are mostly because of his strong stand against illegal immigration. Party bosses know that if Trump wins and then shuts down illegal immigration and so-called free trade, it will cost the Democratic Party millions of future votes and cost Republican businessmen lucrative deals for themselves with foreign countries.

Despite how current immigration heavily favors Democrats, many church leaders who usually lean Republican dislike Trump's strong stance against illegal immigration. They oppose Trump's plan to build a wall and deport illegal aliens.

They assume that more immigration puts more people in their pews, and most churches have a mission to bring the faith to people of all nations. Trump's nationalistic tone, to make America great again, is not something likely to be heard from a church pulpit.

Yet rank-and-file churchgoers overwhelmingly support Trump's views against current levels of immigration and trade. Evangelical voters, in particular, preferred Trump over his rivals in the Republican primaries, and they will surely vote heavily in favor of Trump rather than Hillary in the general election.

Despite the opposition of their members, some church leaders persist in supporting permissive immigration and opposing Trump. In sharp contrast with their congregations, they are more likely to agree with Obama on immigration than with Donald Trump.
. . .
http://townhall.com/columnists/phyllisschlafly/2016/05/10/no-thirdparty-candidate-n2160490

Return to Top


********
********

18.
Sanctuary City: Criminals Welcome
By Debra J. Saunders
Townhall.com, May 10, 2016
. . .
This year, however, newly elected Sheriff Vicki Hennessy tried to reform the policy by allowing deputies to inform ICE prior to the release of serious criminals -- those convicted of violent felonies within the last seven years (absent incarceration time), or three felony convictions from three separate incidents or two or more felony convictions for re-entering the United States after deportation. Two felony re-entries, not one? Three separate felonies? I say Hennessy is too easy. Avalos accused her of creating "a very wide funnel."

I asked Avalos if he thought people have a right to break immigration law. He answered, "The U.S. breaks international law all the time." He's angry at calls to reform the policy because of one "tragic" crime. Wrong. Steinle is not the first casualty of sanctuary city policies that protect repeat criminals. The Bolognas were. And if City Hall wants to provide shield violent offenders who otherwise would be deported, there will be more.
. . .
http://townhall.com/columnists/debrajsaunders/2016/05/10/sanctuary-city-criminals-welcome-n2160615

Return to Top


********
********

19.
Poll: GOP supporters Back Hard Line on Immigration, Trade, Muslims
By Sierra Rayne
American Thinker, May 13, 2016
. . .
The one controversial finding in the poll is its suggestion that a majority of Republicanvoters (57%), and nearly half of Trump's GOP base (47%) would prefer that illegal immigrants be eligible to stay in the country if certain – albeit unspecified – requirements were met, as opposed to their outright deportation. This result contrasts sharply with previous national polling data showing that nearly two thirds (64%) of Republicans are in favor of deportation over a path to residency, backed up by other polling results at about this level of support for deportation.

As well, prior polling data generally shows overwhelming – upwards of near 90% – support for deportation among Trump's overall base. This highlights a potential flaw in using Pew's latest results to assess where Trump supporters stand on various issues. While Trump continues to draw support dominantly from what would be termed "Republican-leaning" voters, a substantial portion of his potential voting bloc comes from those who classify themselves as independents -- among whom Trump holds a massive lead (43% to 19%) over Hillary Clinton – a group that often encompasses many of the so-called Reagan Democrats.
. . .
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/05/poll_gop_supporters_back_hard_line_on_immigration_trade_and_muslims.html

Return to Top


********
********

20.
Let’s Talk About Open Borders
By G. Perry
American~Rattlesnake.org, May 12, 2016
. . .
Whether you believe the end of the German nation as it’s historically been constituted is a cause for celebration or a grievous calamity is largely immaterial. The fact remains that the process it, like many other central and northern European nations, is undergoing is the most significant cultural revolution of the past 2 centuries. Perhaps the most significant of the millennium, although that remains to be seen. What can’t be argued is that what North America and Europe will look like in the decades and centuries ahead is of the utmost importance and needs to be debated, publicly and robustly. That’s why I’m pleased to invite you to Let’s Talk About Open Borders, a lecture by Yevgeniy Feyman sponsored by the America Future Foundation and Foundation for Economic Education.

Although I’ll probably be in the distinct minority within the audience, that’s all the more reason for me-and those of you who read this site and live in the New York/Tri-State Area-to attend. We only have to look to Sweden to see what decades of societal and government-imposed conformity on this subject can lead to. That’s why the subject of immigration/borders needs to be discussed, openly and honestly. Rationally, denuded of tedious cliches, by as many people with as many different viewpoints as possible.
. . .
http://american-rattlesnake.org/2016/05/lets-talk-about-open-borders/

Return to Top


********
********

21.
"Build a Wall" to Block ISIS
By Raymond Ibrahim
Family Security Matters, May 13, 2016
. . .
On December 2, 2015, "A Middle Eastern woman was caught surveilling a U.S. port of entry on the Mexican border holding a sketchbook with Arabic writing and drawings of the facility and its security system." Around the same time, "five young Middle Eastern men were apprehended by the U.S. Border Patrol in Amado, an Arizona town situated about 30 miles from the Mexican border. Two of the men were carrying stainless steel cylinders in backpacks..."

Far from being reassuring, all these arrests ultimately indicate that Islamic terrorists are crossing the border into the U.S. For every illegal caught crossing, how many pass? One estimate says that at best only half of those illegally crossing the border are ever apprehended. That would seem to suggest that, for every one ISIS supporter or sympathizer that gets caught-and as seen, many already have been-another quietly slips through. Under Obama's tenure alone, 2.5 million illegals have crossed the border. How many of these are ISIS operatives/sympathizers? Nor can border guards be especially alert for Islamic terrorists as many Arabs and Middle Easterners easily blend in with native Mexicans.

Three facts are undisputed: 1) ISIS and other terrorist groups see Mexico as a launching pad for acts of terror in the U.S.; 2) ISIS and other terrorist groups have bases of operations in Mexico; 3) members of ISIS and other terrorist groups have been caught trying to enter through the border.
. . .
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/build-a-wall-to-block-isis?f=immigration

Return to Top


********
********

22.
Hillary Clinton's Proposal for Bureaucrats to 'Help' Illegal Immigrants
By Michael Barone
Washington Examiner, May 11, 2016
. . .
"If Congress doesn't overhaul immigration, Clinton's plan is to allow undocumented residents to walk into local federal offices and ask for help. Already-busy bureaucrats — armed with guidelines that nobody has written yet — would make millions of decisions about who can stay."
Given the demonstrated incapacity of government to manage programs and deliver services — think of VA hospitals, the Flint water supply, Washington's Metro — does Clinton really plan to defend this proposal on the stump and in debate?
. . .
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clintons-proposal-for-bureaucrats-to-help-illegal-immigrants/article/2591068

Return to Top


********
********

23.
Trump’s Immigration Disaster
By Reihan Salam
National Review Online, May 11, 2016
. . .
So why blame Trump for the immigration-policy disaster to come? While Trump’s champions insist that their candidate has shifted the mainstream conversation on immigration to the right, I would argue that Trump’s noxious tone has made it much harder for restrictionists to win new allies. Some voters who might have otherwise been open to calls for more-stringent border enforcement and a more selective immigration policy have recoiled from Trump’s thinly veiled appeals to racial and ethnic resentment. This is true among Democrats and independents, but it is also true among anti-Trump Republicans. As long as Trump is the most visible figure on the anti-immigration right, extremists on the other side of the immigration issue seem sober-minded by comparison.
. . .
If Hillary Clinton is our next president, an outcome that is all but foreordained if Trump is the Republican nominee, it is a safe bet that her first big legislative push will be on immigration. She will characterize her victory over Trump as a repudiation ofthe restrictionist cause and a mandate for immigration legislation more permissive than the comprehensive immigration-reform bill backed by President Obama. Unlike Obama and George W. Bush, who felt obligated to make their pathways to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants seem onerous, Clinton has made it clear that she intends to make her pathway to citizenship as cheap and easy as possible.
. . .
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435217/donald-trump-immigration-plan-backfire

Return to Top


********
********

24.
April Jobs — Immigrant Job Share a Record For Any April During Obama Years
By Edwin S. Rubenstein
VDare.com, May 9, 2016
. . .
In February 2009, President Obama’s first full month in office, 14.972% of all persons working in the U.S. were foreign-born. In April 2016 the foreign-born share was 16.853%. While that is down from the Obama-era record (17.077%, reached only last month) it still ranks 11th highest among the 88 months of Mr. Obama’s Administration.

The data BLS publishes on native-born and immigrant employment are not seasonally adjusted. For this reason, comparisons with April of prior years may be more indicative of the real trend underlying the foreign-born share of total employment.

If that is indeed the case, then April 2016 marked a new record for the immigrants displacing natives in the workforce.
. . .
http://www.vdare.com/articles/national-data-april-jobs-immigrant-job-share-a-record-for-any-april-during-obama-years

Return to Top


********
********

25.
New Richwine Study Shows Cost Of Immigration; Where Are ‘Fiscal Conservatives?’
By James Kirkpatrick
VDare.com Blog, May 9, 2016
. . .
Jason Richwine, whom the Heritage Foundation and the Beltway Right shamefully failed to defend, just came out with a new study showing the cost of welfare use by immigrant and native households [The Cost of Welfare Use By Immigrant and Native Households, by Jason Richwine, Center for Immigration Studies, May 2016]
. . .
The study also found the region of origin of these immigrants strongly correlated with welfare use. As you’ve probably guessed, households from Central America and Mexico use more welfare than anyone else. Immigrants from Europe and South Asia actually use less than native households.

Electoral politics is about who, not what. But so is policy. If you are trying to control government spending but you simply will not acknowledge certain objective realities, you will fail. If “fiscal conservatives” actually want to limit government spending, they need to look at who is actually using these kinds of resources and take action to try to stop it.
. . .
http://www.vdare.com/posts/new-richwine-study-shows-cost-of-immigration-where-are-fiscal-conservatives

Return to Top


********
********

26.
Illegal Immigrants Get Over $1,200 More in Welfare Benefits Than American Families a Year
By Matt Vespa
Townhall.com, May 11, 2016
. . .
The Center for Immigration Studies, in an analysis of federal cost figures, found that all immigrant-headed households — legal and illegal — receive an average of $6,241 in welfare, 41 percent more than native households. As with Americans receiving benefits such as food stamps and cash, much of the welfare to immigrants supplements their low wage jobs.

The total cost is over $103 billion in welfare benefits to households headed by immigrants. A majority, 51 percent, of immigrant households receive some type of welfare compared to 30 percent of native households, said the analysis of Census data.
. . .
As the 2016 general election campaign begins (we know Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump will be the nominees), you can bet that Trump will bring up this issue on the campaign trail, and you can surely bet the mortgage that if Hillary wins in November—this problem will be left untouched by her administration.
. . .
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/05/11/waitillegal-immigrants-get-1200-more-in-welfare-benefits-than-american-families-n2161305

Return to Top


********
********

27.
Cathy Young Proves the Point – Immigration Patriotism is Good for America. That’s Why She Hates it
By James Kirkpatrick
VDare.com, May 10, 2016
. . .
Of course it’s blatant hypocrisy to say Israel can protect its borders but America can’t. Of course it’s sheer malevolence to acknowledge restricting immigration it is good for the country you care about (Israel) and work to force it on the country you despise (America). Of course Young is possessed by a kind of ethnocentric lunacy surpassing even the most fevered examples to be found anywhere on the Alt Right.

But what’s most absurd about Young’s polemic: its ostensible purpose is to hurt Ann Coulter. Yet in the end, Young admits that nothing Coulter says is “directed at the Jews.” But, using some kind of mind reading device unavailable to the rest of us, Young declares “the implications of her taunt are unmistakable.”

But they aren’t. At least not until Young spelled it out for us by revealing the hatred that appears to animate her entire existence.
. . .
http://www.vdare.com/articles/cathy-young-proves-the-point-immigration-patriotism-is-good-for-america-thats-why-she-hates-it

Return to Top


********
********

28.
Clinton’s Path to Citizenship Would Harm American Workers and Legal Immigrants
Progressives for Immigration Reform, May 10, 2016
. . .
Illegal aliens are already active in the labor force. But their lack of legal status keeps them out of certain jobs. If they gained legal status, these unlawful laborers could challenge Americans for positions in every industry. That’d be disastrous for the roughly 8 million Americans currently unemployed, as well as tens of millions more who face stagnant wages due to an oversupplied labor market.

Offering the perks of citizenship to illegal aliens is also a slap in the face to naturalized citizens who came to the United States legally.

The process to become a citizen is a long one. Foreigners must first apply for an immigrant visa — and to be eligible, they must obtain sponsorship from a prospective employer or a relative who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.
. . .
http://www.progressivesforimmigrationreform.org/clintons-path-citizenship-harm-american-workers-legal-immigrants/

Return to Top


********
********

29.
Crime Victim Mother Supports Donald Trump as Immigration Enforcer
By Brenda Walker
VDare.com, May 8, 2016
. . .
Mary Ann Mendoza appeared on Fox News on Saturday morning to discus Trump’s approach to the issue. She supports his strategy of taxing remittances — something I suggested in a 2002 op-ed (Relieve crisis on border with tax on remittances, Houston Chronicle, 12/3/02). Another program she backs is a fund to assist families who have lost a loved one to illegal alien crime, because now they get nothing and the lawbreakers get all sorts of help.
. . .
http://www.vdare.com/posts/crime-victim-mother-supports-donald-trump-as-immigration-enforcer

Return to Top


********
********

30.
A Look at Our Super-Charged Immigration Debate
By Shariq Siddiqui
Indianapolis Business Journal, May 7, 2016

As I watched “Batman v Superman,” I was struck how we were missing an important conversation about the immigration reform debate that has been raised in the GOP presidential race.

Our current immigration laws would permanently prohibit Superman from receiving legal immigration status. This would remain true even if he married Lois Lane, a U.S. citizen. Confused? Let me explain.

Superman came to the United States without inspection. This means his arrival was not preceded by receiving a visa. He simply was brought to our country without documentation. The fact that he came as a child is irrelevant under current law. He was then taken in by a U.S. family and raised as their son. Upon realizing his powers, he left the United States on a number of occasions (however brief is irrelevant).

Leaving once triggers a temporary bar. Leaving multiple times triggers a permanent bar, precluding his ever receiving legal status. It is irrelevant whether he has served our national security or has made positive contributions to our country. It is irrelevant that his permanent removal from our country would be devastating to Lois Lane and would force her to choose between someone she loves and the home she has always known.

As incredible as this sounds, such is the state of our current law. Which is why lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have asked for immigration reform.
. . .
http://www.ibj.com/articles/58430-a-look-at-our-super-charged-immigration-debate

Return to Top


********
********

31.
Changing the Immigration Debate by Electing Immigrants to Office
Sayu Bhojwani founded the nonpartisan New American Leaders project, which encourages political activism
By Melanie Grayce West
The Wall Street Journal, May 10, 2016
. . .
This election cycle, about two dozen New American Leaders alumni across the country are expected to pursue offices, in both the Democratic and Republican parties, ranging from local school-board seats to Congress. From 2011 to 2015, 33 alumni ran for office, and 10 won. Many more have used their training to land jobs in public service, according to Ms. Bhojwani.

This record, combined with a feeling among some in the immigrant community that the tone in politics has gotten worse, has given fresh momentum to candidates coming out of her organization’s training sessions.

“There is a maturation in the immigrant community,” Ms. Bhojwani said. “People we have, in the past, done get-out-the-vote work for, have not been as consistently responsive to our needs as we would like. That, I think, gives you more of an impetus to run yourself.”
. . .
http://www.wsj.com/articles/changing-the-immigration-debate-by-electing-immigrants-to-office-1462742620

Return to Top


********
********

32.
Our Immigration Policy is Not Only Unjust - it’s Un-American
By Martin O’Malley
Huffington Post, May 9, 2016
. . .
Our nation’s current policy on immigration reform and the treatment of refugees is not just disappointing; it is directly opposed to the founding principles and the most enduring values of our nation.

Today, yes today, the United States of America maintains the largest system of immigrant detention camps of any nation on the planet. Not North Korea, not Yemen, not the People’s Republic of China, but us. The People of the United States.

Have we not learned the lessons of our shameful internment of Japanese Americans, of Irish immigrants, of our turning away of those fleeing the Holocaust in Nazi Germany?
. . .
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gov-martin-omalley/our-immigration-policy-is_b_9876288.html

Return to Top


********
********

33.
The Government’s Cold-Blooded Anti-Immigrant Scam: How ICE is Outsourcing Detention and Deportation to Local Police
Immigration and Customs Enforcement uses local law enforcement to round up undocumented immigrants—at a hefty cost
By Eesha Pandit
Salon.com, May 9, 2016
. . .
Frances Valdez, a Houston immigration attorney, expresses exasperation at just how costly 287(g) is, both to the immigrant community and to taxpayers. When asked what might be in it for Harris County to continue the collaboration, she told Salon, “Nothing! Our county spends more than $1 million to provide space and personnel to ICE each year.” County officials are trained to work as ICE agents — they even wear ICE uniforms — but it’s the local community that pays the price, both literally and in terms of deported and detained community members. “It’s a drain to our budget,” Valdez says, “and it’s really damaged the relationships between immigrant community and law enforcement. For what? Conservative officials get to say that they are tough on immigrants.”
. . .
http://www.salon.com/2016/05/09/the_governments_cold_blooded_anti_immigrant_scam_how_ice_is_outsourcing_detention_and_deportation_to_local_police/

Return to Top


********
********

34.
Report on Immigrant Welfare Use is Fundamentally Flawed—Here’s Why
By Walter Ewing
ImmigrationImpact.com, May 10, 2016

It’s déjà vu all over again at the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS). Having released one flawed report on immigrant “welfare” use late last year, CIS has followed up with another that contains the same flaws. The biggest shortcoming of both reports is that they count the public benefits utilized by U.S.-born children as costs incurred by the “immigrant-headed households” of which they are a part—at least until those children turn 18, that is, at which point they are counted as “natives.”
. . .
In addition, CIS doesn’t account for income differences within the U.S. population. Rather than comparing rates of public-benefits usage among low-income immigrants and low-income natives, CIS compares use rates for all natives and all immigrants (including the wealthy, who don’t need public benefits). When differences in income are taken into account, though, the picture changes dramatically from what CIS suggests. For example, a 2013 report by two researchers from George Washington University concludes that:
. . .
http://immigrationimpact.com/2016/05/10/immigrant-welfare-use/

Return to Top


********
********

35.
Why is the Center for Immigration Studies Publishing an “Alt Right” Racist?
By Neil Stevens
RedState.com, May 10, 2016

I’ve been warning for a while now that the John Tanton universe of Malthusian, anti-immigration groups – FAIR, NumbersUSA, and the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) – are not our friends. They don’t promote conservatives ideas, and we should stay away from them.

Well, for those who weren’t convinced to ignore groups bankrolled by a Planned Parenthood local bigshot, take a look at this: Now they’re picking up the racist castoffs of legitimate groups like the Heritage Foundation.
. . .
They picked up the guy too racist for Heritage. But better, if you look at the numbers he cites, it’s not clear he’s even making his point. Richwine includes Social Security in his ‘welfare’ calculation, when Social Security is an insurance program you have to pay into to receive. Do most Americans on Social Security see themselves as welfare recipients?

Further, he admits that a study he relies on demonstrated there are four times as many legal immigrants as illegal (13MM vs 3MM, on Table 3, Page 4). By failing to distinguish legal and illegal immigrants in most of his paper and in his overall point, he’s just showing he has an axe to grind with foreigners, undercutting the rule of law and border security arguments we’re trying to make as conservatives.
. . .
http://www.redstate.com/neil_stevens/2016/05/10/center-immigration-studies-publishing-alt-right-racist/

Return to Top


********
********

36.
The Failure of the Swedish Establishment
By Nima Gholam Ali Pour
Gatestone Institute, May 6, 2016
. . .
While 800,000 migrants in Libya are waiting to invade Europe, Sweden has a refugee policy whereby only by obtaining livelihoods will those migrants with a refugee status and a temporary residence permit get permanent residence permits. So if you get a job, you get to stay in Sweden permanently. It is a strange refugee policy, because those who actually are refugees and not economic migrants are often traumatized and have difficulties finding a job. So Sweden's refugee policy is tailored to economic migrants.

In Sweden's third largest city, Malmö, the children of illegal migrants receive income support payments from the government, and families that are in Sweden illegally have their rent paid by the taxpayers. For some reason, the Swedish authorities want to paypeople who should not even be in Sweden. It is an open invitation to more migrants to come to Sweden.
. . .
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7860/sweden-establishment

Return to Top


********
********

37.
Sweden’s Immigration Conundrum
By Dov S. Zakheim
The American Interest, May 11, 2016
. . .
More generally, as in other countries, many of the Muslim immigrants have not assimilated to local culture; given their different ethnic background, their adherence to their own separate identity intensifies nativist and nationalist opposition to their presence in Sweden. In addition, a Riksdag report a found that two-thirds of refugees still cannot find employment after having lived in the country for 15 years—and therefore live off public funds. Moreover, there has been widespread reporting of a steady rise in the number of rapes perpetrated against Swedish women by immigrant Muslims. Not surprisingly, more and more Swedes view Muslims as a threat to their personal safety.

Despite all of the foregoing, Sweden remains far more liberal and open than many, if not most, of its European counterparts, or, for that matter, those Americans who support Donald Trump. Even as it has made it less appealing for Middle Easterners to migrate to Sweden by tightening border controls and cutting back on the benefits to be made available to immigrants, the government continues to provide welfare benefits to the thousands of immigrants who have arrived from Syria and elsewhere in the past few years. And despite having accepted 160,000 refugees in 2015 alone, it has announced that it expects more than 60,000 refugees to make their way to Sweden this year.
. . .
http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/05/11/swedens-immigration-conundrum/

Return to Top


********
********

38.
Cameron’s Offer to Refugee Children: It’s the Least He Could Do
The prime minister bowed to the threat of defeat. Some lone child refugees will be given a home in the UK. It is a welcome concession, but not nearly enough
The Guardian (U.K.), May 4, 2016
. . .
Wednesday’s decision may yet mean many more than the 3,000 children that campaigners wanted will be able to come to the UK to find security and loving families. But if there is no extra money, the number allowed in may be restricted to hundreds rather than thousands. There has also been a renewed promise to speed up the process of assessing the children stranded in wretched camps in Calais and Dunkirk who have family in Britain, but it is a promise that has been heard before. Nor is there any movement yet on finding ways to harness the thousands of families who have offered to help.

There is much uncertainty around these new policy shifts. When the call from Brussels for a shared EU-wide response to the greatest refugee crisis since the end of the second world war has been rejected, it seems the government has made the smallest shift it thought was necessary to avoid defeat. Every move is welcome; but would that it had been a bigger one, and more generous.
. . .
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/04/the-guardian-view-on-camerons-offer-to-refugee-children-its-the-least-he-could-do

Return to Top


********
********

39.
The EU's Kiss of Death
By Judith Bergman
Gatestone Institute, May 10, 2016

The European Union is hell-bent on forcing member states to take "their share" of migrants. To this end, the European Commission has proposed reforms to EU asylum rules that would see enormous financial penalties imposed on members refusing to take in what it deems a sufficient number of asylum seekers, apparently even if this means placing those states at a severe financial disadvantage.

The European Commission is planning sanctions of an incredible $290,000 for every migrant that recalcitrant EU member states refuse to receive. Given that EU countries such as Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Austria have closed their borders to migrants or are in the process of doing so, it is not difficult to discern at whom the EU is aiming its planned penalties.

The EU may yet come to realize, however, that this latest ill-concealed jab at the Central- and Eastern European members of the European Union -- if it passes muster by most member states and members of the European parliament -- may just signal the beginning of the unraveling of the European Union, an event which, considering the authoritarian structure of the organization, might be a good thing. The EU's authority comes, undemocratically, from the top down, rather than from the bottom up; it is non-transparent, unaccountable and there is no mechanism for removing European Commission representatives.
. . .
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8013/europe-migrant-quotas

Return to Top


********
********

40.
Migrant Rape Epidemic Reaches Austria
By Soeren Kern
Gatestone Institute, May 5, 2016
. . .
If convicted, they face a maximum sentence of seven-and-a-half years in prison. Due to the lenient nature of the Austrian judicial system, however, they may end up spending only two years behind bars, according to local observers.

It is also unlikely that the migrants will be deported: according to European law, sending them back to Afghanistan would be a violation of their human rights. Instead, observers say, the Afghans will qualify for Austrian social welfare benefits — €830 ($950) per month plus free healthcare — and probably for the rest of their lives become wards of Austrian state.

The assault in Praterstern is one of a growing number of migrant sex crimes in Austria (other migrant rapes and sexual assaults are included in the appendix below):
. . .
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7995/migrants-rape-austria

Return to Top



********



 

The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent, non-partisan, non-profit research organization founded in 1985. It is the nation's only think tank devoted exclusively to research and policy analysis of the economic, social, demographic, fiscal, and other impacts of immigration on the United States.