We know it was REAGAN/BUSH who opened the border to flood the US with Latino immigrants at the same time they were making a mess of these Latin American economies and filling these nations with militarized instability. THIS IS RIGHT WING POLITICS----who votes for candidates like REAGAN/BUSH/CLINTON? Right conservatives. We are shouting to our right voters to stop supporting these global Wall Street pols----what goes around comes around.
We have known since the 1960s when Latino immigrants were brought to work agriculture that our US CONSTITUTION protects immigrants in US while they are employed by US business. These immigrants remained marginalized in agriculture for decades before CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA started to expand industries to which immigrants could work. Right wing voters love breaking down EQUAL PROTECTION AND LABOR AND JUSTICE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS but they hate when it comes back to harm them.
Obama and Clinton neo-liberals passed immigration law through THE DREAM ACT------POSING LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE-----that doubles-down on immigrants having to remain employed or be exported-----creating the conditions for immigrant abuse and exploitation to grow. THE DREAM ACT was not a dream for immigrants---remember far-right global Wall Street has no intention of doing anything LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE.
Immigrants in the US become illegal when they are left unemployed------this is what makes them easily exploited by employers. CITIZENSHIP NOW breaks that cycle-----CLINTON/OBAMA are far-right global Wall Street wanting to enslave immigrants in global labor pool.
The right wing creates the conditions for immigrants to come to US so the global 1% can exploit them-----they create the laws to do so------STOP VOTING RIGHT WING -----
Yes, illegal aliens have constitutional rights
By Raoul Lowery Contreras, contributor - 09/29/15 12:30 PM
These words, from Section One of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution rank along with the Constitution's Bill of Rights as — in these precincts — the most important in world and American history:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The following words do not rank well in American history, jurisprudence or in truth: "(Illegal aliens) do not have legal rights." Glenn Beck declared this on CNN in February 2007.He is not alone; popular radio talk show hosts Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity agree with Beck to one degree or another. For example, Ingraham — a lawyer — says that Supreme Court Justice William Brennan in Plyler v. Doe (1982) offhandedly commented that illegals had rights because they were "persons," so no one should take Brennan seriously or his official declaration of legal rights of illegal aliens.
The critics all claim that undocumented workers or immigrants or migrants — whichever label is the flavor of the day — don't have legal rights because they are lawbreakers by entering the country illegally and owe no loyalty to the United States. They claim that only U.S. citizens (natural born or naturalized) are protected by the Constitution. The critics are not only wrong -- they are really, truly and sincerely wrong.
The U.S. Supreme Court settled the issue well over a century ago. But even before the court laid the issue to rest, a principal author of the Constitution, James Madison, the second president of the United States, wrote: "that as they [aliens], owe, on the one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their [constitutional] protection and advantage."
More recently, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) that "due process" of the 14th Amendment applies to all aliens in the United States whose presence maybe or is "unlawful, involuntary or transitory."
Twenty years before Zadvydas, the Supreme Court ruled that the state of Texas could not enforce a state law that prohibited illegally present children from attending grade schools, as all other Texas children were required to attend.
The court ruled in Plyler that:
The illegal aliens who are ... challenging the state may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection clause which provides that no state shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' Whatever his status under immigration laws, an alien is a 'person' in any ordinary sense of the term ... the undocumented status of these children does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying benefits that the state affords other residents.
A decade before Plyler, the court ruled in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States (1973) that all criminal charge-related elements of the Constitution's amendments (the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and the 14th) such as search and seizure, self-incrimination, trial by jury and due process, protect non-citizens, legally or illegally present.
Three key Supreme Court decisions in 1886, 1896 and 1903 laid the 14th Amendment basis for the consistent ruling of the court that aliens, legal and illegal, have constitutional protection in criminal and certain civil affairs in the justice system.
In Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), the court ruled that:
Though the law itself be fair on its face, and impartial in appearance, yet, if it is applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and unequal hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons of similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the Constitution [the 14th Amendment].
In Wong Win v. United States (1896), the court ruled that:
It must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection by those amendments [Fifth and Sixth] and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.
In summary, the entire case of illegal aliens being covered by and protected by the Constitution has been settled law for 129 years and rests on one word: "person." It is the word "person" that connects the dots of "due process" and "equal protection" in the 14th Amendment to the U.S Constitution and it is those five words that make the Constitution of the United States and its 14th amendment the most important political document since the Magna Carta in all world history.
"Aliens," legal and illegal, have the full panoply of constitutional protections American citizens have with three exceptions: voting, some government jobs and gun ownership (and that is now in doubt) — Glenn Beck and others notwithstanding.
Since we know far-right global Wall Street CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA are not going to do anything having to do with MLK OR DREAMING-----they spent these few decades dismantling all of MLK'S LEGACY ------especially these several years of OBAMA------so left social Democrats needed to read this public policy to find the BAD POLICIES hidden in with policies made to sound good. Immigrants were sold on accessing public education and public health even as both were being dismantled with RACE TO THE TOP AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT. US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones will have the same global corporate campus schooling as overseas so immigrants here in the US get the same education as global labor pool in China or Malaysia-----same access to health care----preventative care only.
What we see below is the goal of DREAM ACT------getting immigrants to REGISTER----then easily tracked. This is used to make sure immigrants remain employed and will be used to export immigrants if not. Right wing voters no doubt think this is great----but it is happening while global labor pool flooding our US cities is ready to soar----who is being left unemployed? US black and white citizens and yes many right wing voters.
ALL THIS WAS SIMPLY A TRACKING SYSTEM FOR OUR IMMIGRANTS----KNOW WHAT IS COMING SOON? THAT ECONOMIC CRASH WITH HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT AT THE SAME TIME IMMIGRATION FROM ASIAN NATIONS GROW.
All this was always bad for our Latino immigrant citizens as their 5% to the 1% knew. It is black and brown communities in US cities seeing the worst of education and health care reform----
Research Your Immigration Issue
The Dream Act
This page contains important information regarding the DREAM Act including government documents, important press coverage, and links to advocacy groups.
“Don’t do the mistake we did and try to save few bucks going with nonprofessionals and sole practitioners! It will end up not only costing you much more in the long run, but also putting your status in jeopardy which can have a priceless impact. It is one of the most important steps in your life.”
- Sgt. Danny Lightfoot, Los Angeles, California
What is the DREAM Act?
The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, more commonly referred to as the DREAM Act is a piece of proposed legislation that was introduced to the United States Senate, and the House of Representatives in March of 2009. Senator Durbin the Bill’s co-author says, the DREAM Act is “a narrowly tailored, bipartisan measure which would permit undocumented students to become permanent residents if they came here as children, are long-term U.S. residents, have good moral character, and attend college or enlist in the military for at least two years.” The proposed bill will pave a path for undocumented individuals to earn legal status through a two step process.
Step one is to earn Conditional Resident Status, achieved by the following criteria:
1) The individual has been physically present in the United States for a period of at least five (5) years immediately preceding the enactment of this Act and had not reached the age of sixteen (16) at the time of initial entry to the U.S.
2) The individual has been a person of good moral character and free from any criminal activity.
3) The individual must be admitted to an American institution of higher learning, or has earned a high school diploma, or obtained a G.E.D. in the U.S.
4) The individual has never been under a final administrative or judicial order of exclusion, deportation, or removal unless the person:
(a) has remained in the U.S. under color of law after such order was issued; or
(b) received the order before reaching age 16
5) The alien had not yet reached age 35 on the date of the enactment of the Act.
Step two is applying for Permanent Resident Status. The criteria for this process are as follows:
1) The individual has demonstrated good moral character during the entire period that he/she has been a conditional permanent resident. Criminal, terrorist, or smuggling charges could make an individual ineligible for permanent residency.
2) The alien has not left the U.S. for more than a total of 365 days during CRS period.
3) The individual has either
a) acquired a degree from an institution of higher learning in the U.S.
b) has completed at least two (2) years in good standing in a bachelor’s degree program or higher degree in the U.S.
c) has served in the armed forces for at least two (2) years and, if discharged, was done so honorably.
4) The individual has provided a list of all secondary school that he/she attended in the U.S.
We spoke of TRUMP'S WALL-----the percentage of Latino immigrants has reached a goal for global Wall Street and now it is time to saturate with Asian immigrants---ergo the WALL. There is no problem with our immigrants coming from Latin America-----Africa----Asia------the problems are economic policies in place to create DELIBERATE MASS UNEMPLOYMENT at the same time. So, Latinos will experience larger and larger unemployment as Asian immigrants take those jobs across all industries.......since Latino immigrants need to stay employed---they will hit the global labor pool circuit and be sent to Upper Mongolia. This coming decade will see Asian populations grow to that goal of 30%----and it has nothing to do with their being the BEST OF THE BEST-----global Wall Street always keeps Foreign Economic Zones filled with global citizens from all over the world-----THEY ARE EASIER TO EXPLOIT AND IT IS HARDER FOR WORKERS TO ORGANIZE----keeping them as EX-PATS having no sovereign rights.
This immigration policy soared under CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA---left social Democrats have shouted these few decades to STOP THESE GLOBAL LABOR POOL POLICIES because---they will come back to the US to take WE THE PEOPLE ----
In a Shift, Biggest Wave of Migrants Is Now Asian
By KIRK SEMPLEJUNE 18, 2012
Asians have surpassed Hispanics as the largest wave of new immigrants to the United States, pushing the population of Asian descent to a record 18.2 million and helping to make Asians the fastest-growing racial group in the country, according to a study released Tuesday by the Pew Research Center.
While Asian immigration has increased slightly in recent years, the shift in ranking is largely attributable to the sharp decline in Hispanic immigration, the study said.
About 430,000 Asians — or 36 percent of all new immigrants, legal and illegal — moved to the United States in 2010, compared with 370,000 Hispanics, or 31 percent of all new arrivals, the study said. Just three years earlier, the ratio was reversed: about 390,000 Asians immigrated in 2007, compared with 540,000 Hispanics.
“Asians have become the largest stream of new immigrants to the U.S. — and, thus, the latest leading actors in this great American drama” of immigration, Paul Taylor, executive vice president of the Pew Research Center, wrote in the report.
Immigration scholars have attributed the decrease in Hispanic immigration to a mix of factors, including the economic downturn in the United States, increased deportation and border enforcement by the American authorities, and declining birthrates in Mexico.
Tougher enforcement measures have made a greater impact on the Hispanic immigrant population than on the Asian immigrant population because a much higher percentage of Hispanics are in the United States without immigration papers, experts said. About 45 percent of Hispanic immigrants in the United States are here illegally compared with about 13 percent to 15 percent of Asian immigrants, Pew demographers found.
Under this pressure, Hispanic immigration dropped 31 percent from 2007 to 2010, while Asian immigration increased about 10 percent.
Pew researchers estimated that Asian immigration surpassed Hispanic immigration by 2009. Mr. Taylor said in an interview on Monday that the delay in identifying this shift was due in part to the fact that the analysis relied on later demographic data, including the 2010 American Community Survey.
The findings are part of a study called “The Rise of Asian-Americans,” a comprehensive analysis of the Asian population in the United States. The Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan organization in Washington that has provided some of the most reliable estimates for illegal immigration.
Drawing on Census Bureau and other government data as well as telephone surveys from Jan. 3 to March 27 of more than 3,500 people of Asian descent, the 214-page study found that Asians are the highest-earning and best-educated racial group in the country.
Among Asians 25 or older, 49 percent hold a college degree, compared with 28 percent of all people in that age range in the United States. Median annual household income among Asians is $66,000 versus $49,800 among the general population.
In the survey, Asians are also distinguished by their emphasis on traditional family mores. About 54 percent of the respondents, compared with 34 percent of all adults in the country, said having a successful marriage was one of the most important goals in life; another was being a good parent, according to 67 percent of Asian adults, compared with about half of all adults in the general population.
Asians also place greater importance on career and material success, the study reported, values reflected in child-rearing styles. About 62 percent of Asians in the United States believe that most American parents do not put enough pressure on their children to do well in school.
The growth of the Asian population has been noteworthy for its speed. In 1965, after a century of exclusionary, race-based policies, the Asian share of the American population was less than 1 percent. But immigration reform legislation that year opened the door to broader immigration from around the world. The Asian share of the total population is now about 5.8 percent, the Pew study said.
“A century ago, most Asian-Americans were low-skilled, low-wage laborers crowded into ethnic enclaves and targets of official discrimination,” the study said. “Today they are the most likely of any major racial or ethnic group in America to live in mixed neighborhoods and to marry across racial lines.”
A closer look at the numbers can reveal sharp differences between subgroups.
At least 83 percent of the total Asian population in the United States traces its ancestry to China, the Philippines, India, Vietnam, the Korean Peninsula or Japan — and demographic characteristics can vary widely from group to group.
Indians, for instance, lead all other Asian subgroups in income and education, the report said. Indians, Japanese and Filipinos have lower poverty rates than the general public, while Koreans, Vietnamese and Chinese have higher poverty rates.
But Mr. Taylor said there was still value in the macroanalysis. “For better or worse, throughout our history, we’ve always used race as a prism to understand who we are,” he said. “Anything that illuminates the latest immigration wave, that illuminates a growing race group, helps us to understand ourselves better.”
Obama's immigration policy has always been a right wing global Wall Street policy so we knew that would have policy hidden somewhere in all that FEEL GOOD fake left social democratic propaganda----the goal of H-1 and all high-skill green cards is simply to leave US graduates unemployed while bringing down professional wages----that is it. Global Wall Street is creating density for when World Bank and IMF comes in and tells US cities soaked in bond debt to install overseas Foreign Economic Zone policies. So, what do these new policies do for our high-skilled immigrants? It has them tied to being APPRENTICES==INTERNS-----GRADUATE STUDENT RESEARCHERS-----it has them tied to NGO non-profits 'labor and justice' organizations. They are simply hanging out until US cities build global corporate campuses and global factories. Meanwhile they get the same tracking ID as Latinos-----more and more human capital tied to Foreign Economic Zone tracking.
This is the policy Trump chose to attack among others....left social Democrats do not want immigrants deported----we don't want immigrants to feel they must stay employed if conditions are bad.....the problem comes in opening immigration at a time when unemployment is already depression era here in the US-----the temporary FEEL GOOD is not worth the far-right wing global Wall Street goal----ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE BY GLOBAL CORPORATE TRIBUNAL 1%.
Immigration Reform 2016: Obama Administration New H-1B Visa Rule Helps High-Skilled Foreign WorkersBy Cristina Silva @cristymsilva On 12/31/15 AT 1:34 PM
The Obama administration is helping some high-skilled, foreign workers remain in the country without being tied to their employers. The Department of Homeland Security announced Thursday new rules that would allow certain visa holders to switch jobs more easily while waiting for a green card, The Hill reported.
The White House said the 181-page proposal would help resolve a massive visa backlog. It would also allow workers under the H-1B high-skilled temporary visa program waiting to become permanent residents to stay beyond the six-year limit of the H-1B program. The U.S. has limits on how many work visas can be granted each year.
“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 visa delays can leave foreign workers, mainly those in China and India looking to work in tech jobs, waiting for as many as 10 years to obtain the proper documents. “In many instances, these individuals are in the United States in a nonimmigrant, employer-specific temporary worker category and may be unable to accept promotions or otherwise change jobs or employers without abandoning their existing efforts — including great investments of time and money — to become permanent residents,” the agency said.
But critics called the new rule, on which the public has 60 days to comment formally, a gross expansion of U.S. immigration law. “Obama has gone the 'Full Monty' to bust the immigration system,” immigration lawyer John Miano told conservative site Breitbart. “What is going on is he is effectively giving green cards to people on H-1B visas who are unable to get green cards due to the [annual] quotas. … It could be over 100,000.”
A legal analysis of the rule conducted by Hunton & Williams LLP in New York found H-1B visa holders would benefit from an unlimited number of three-year extensions on permits until a green card application is either approved or denied.
What Obama has done with these immigration policies continues what was done under Bush and Clinton----they are using immigration policy as PAY-TO-PLAY----we cannot know this but likely global Wall Street pols are staging a 5% to the 1% immigrant player for a coming larger flooding of US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zone of the 99% of immigrants from Asia----from Middle-East---from Africa-----people who will work for global Wall Street and kill those 99% of global citizens.
IT IS NOT GOOD POLICY FROM ANY POLITICAL SIDE. TODAY'S ACLU PROTECTS GLOBAL 1% AND THEIR 2% BECAUSE THEY ARE GLOBAL WALL STREET CLINTON NEO-LIBERAL LAWYERS.
“What is going on is he is effectively giving green cards to people on H-1B visas who are unable to get green cards due to the [annual] quotas. … It could be over 100,000.”
Trump is MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE just as CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA----he is first posing conservative for Republican voters and then he is no doubt staging his OWN 5% TO THE 1% IMMIGRANT PLAYERS.
A Trump US Attorney General will no more ENFORCE these EXECUTIVE ORDERS OR US CONSTITUTIONAL LAW then CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA----it is all PRETENDING.
'As Boston.com’s Nik DeCosta-Klipa highlighted, Trump pounced on the seldom discussed and complex issue of tech companies heavily recruiting employees from overseas through the U.S. H-1B visa program for highly skilled workers — a practice criticized as problematic for diversity efforts and exploitative to immigrant workers'.
Lauren C. Williams
Tech reporter at ThinkProgress. Get at me: email@example.com.
Aug 21, 2015
Trump Hits A Nerve Talking About High-Skill Immigrant Visas
CREDIT: AP PHOTO/MARY SCHWALMLeading GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump has climbed the polls because of his frank — and sometimes misguided — opinions on touchy political issues including race and immigration.
But despite an offensive track record, the real estate magnate made valid points regarding Silicon Valley’s diversity problem and the industry’s treatment of highly educated and skilled legal immigrant workforce.
As Boston.com’s Nik DeCosta-Klipa highlighted, Trump pounced on the seldom discussed and complex issue of tech companies heavily recruiting employees from overseas through the U.S. H-1B visa program for highly skilled workers -- a practice criticized as problematic for diversity efforts and exploitative to immigrant workers.
Trump took shots at Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and political opponent Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) in his first policy paper for supporting open immigration policies, including a clear path to citizenship “that would decimate women and minorities.”
Too many visas, like the H-1B, have no such requirement. In the year 2015, with 92 million Americans outside the workforce and incomes collapsing, we need to companies to hire from the domestic pool of unemployed. Petitions for workers should be mailed to the unemployment office, not U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
Rubio, who co-sponsored the Immigration Innovation bill this year that aims to more than double the annual H-1B visa cap up to 195,000, has since backed away from his previous stance on comprehensive immigration reform, but Zuckerberg has remained firm, continuing support of his two-year immigration advocacy project FWD.us.
Trump spouted statistics such as that about 66 percent of the IT jobs are filled through the H-1B visa-holding STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) graduates under 30, despite graduating twice as many Americans in the same fields. He also touches on pain points that women and other minorities including Latinos, black, and Native Americans are often left out of the program — having to rely on tech companies’ taking the initiative.
The 25 year-old H-1B visa program was created to spur innovation and allow companies to hire the best talent from across the globe to propel us into the future. Tech companies particularly have been criticized for abusing the program, hiring a disproportionate amount of employees, such as Indian natives who make up almost two-thirds of H-1B visa holders, according to USCIS data from 2012 to 2013.
H-1B employees, in turn, may be taken advantage of, not being paid fairly or at all, illegally being charged application fees by staffing firms, and in some cases, prohibiting their spouses from working.
Trump’s answer to end the abuse and increase tech diversity is to raise the H-1B minimum wage to force companies to also look at homegrown graduates for entry-level jobs.
Raising the prevailing wage paid to H-1Bs will force companies to give these coveted entry-level jobs to the existing domestic pool of unemployed native and immigrant workers in the U.S., instead of flying in cheaper workers from overseas. This will improve the number of black, Hispanic and female workers in Silicon Valley who have been passed over in favor of the H-1B program.FWD.us president Todd Schulte fired back at Trump’s plan in a blog post, contending the program doesn’t steal jobs from Americans but helps create more jobs.
“We need to fix our nation’s badly broken immigration system so that more highly-skilled immigrants can create jobs here in the United States,” Schulte said, citing that each H-1B visa holder creates more than 2.5 jobs for Americans. “That means creating a Startup Visa to help entrepreneurs create the next generation of innovation here in the U.S…it means increasing the numbers of H-1B visas and reforming the program so that we don’t run out of spots.”
H-1B visas are a hot commodity: All 65,000 available slots this year were filled within the first week applications were accepted.
But while Trump hit some salient points regarding the controversial H-1B visa program, he is far from an authority on diversity. Past vitriolically xenophobic and sexist comments aside, his immigration plan released Sunday hinges on building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, which could depress the economy of the United States’ third largest trading partner, and deporting more than 11 million undocumented immigrants, costing the U.S. $620 billion and hollowing out the workforce in three major industries — hospitality, construction, and agriculture.
The right wing Republican think tanks like Hermitage and CATO have always been the source of immigration policy that allows US corporations to exploit immigrant labor and yes they were the ones writing to expand immigration to HIGH-SKILLED IMMIGRANT workers. The right wing has made clear-----WE DO NOT WANT THE POOR---WE WANT THE RICH AND BEST OF THE BEST----and this is the goal of Obama's H-1 policies.
The media outlet MSNBC has always been raging global Wall Street Clinton neo-liberal----it is morphing to FAR-RIGHT MARXISM. Here we see MSNBC telling WE THE PEOPLE that far-right Libertarian CATO INSTITUTION looks to be MOVING LEFT-------
“We all know immigration is vitally important to our economy. Our goal will be to develop an immigration policy that’s in the best interest of America, our economy, and allows the United States to get the best and brightest people to come here.”
So Trump is now being made to seem like the protector of US citizens needing jobs------seems to be that protector of US sovereignty-----nothing is more of a treasonous policy that threatens US sovereignty than US CITIES AS FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES. You will not hear a Trump Administration mention this.
Is an anti-immigration think tank moving left?
01/21/14 05:36 PM--Updated 02/06/14 02:50 PM
By Benjy Sarlin
Conservative economist and writer Stephen Moore has spent more than a decade calling for immigration reform. Former Republican Sen. Jim DeMint has spent the same period rallying against “amnesty” at every turn. A match made in heaven!
This week, Moore announced he is joining the DeMint-helmed Heritage Foundation as its chief economist. Heritage has been one of the most prominent opponents of immigration reform, pressuring Republican lawmakers last year to oppose bipartisan legislation, but Moore says he won’t shy away from addressing the issue in his new role.
The move puts Moore and DeMint on the same team during a critical stretch for immigration reform in Congress. Moore has pledged to work with the former South Carolina lawmaker to “develop a pro-growth immigration policy.”
“I don’t want Heritage to be viewed as anti-immigration,” he said in an interview with Heritage blog The Foundry about his new position. “We all know immigration is vitally important to our economy. Our goal will be to develop an immigration policy that’s in the best interest of America, our economy, and allows the United States to get the best and brightest people to come here.”
Last May, Heritage put out a study claiming a bipartisan Senate bill offering earned legal status to undocumented immigrants would cost the government a net $6.3 trillion. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office disagreed, estimating that it would actually reduce the deficit by $900 billion over the next two decades by increasing growth.
But the debate over methodology was soon overshadowed by a Washington Post report that one of the co-authors of the Heritage study, Jason Richwine, had once argued that Hispanic immigrants are unlikely to succeed due to their low IQs. Richwine left Heritage, which disavowed his views, shortly after Yahoo’s Chris Moody revealed he had written articles for a white nationalist website.
Moore, who served as a member of the pro-reform Wall Street Journal editorial board until now, has long taken a different view. Way back in 1997, he wrote a piece for libertarian think tank Cato arguing that it was a “myth” that immigrants “impose a financial burden on taxpayers” or that they “depress wages and working conditions.” In 2004, he defended President George W. Bush from charges of “amnesty” as the 43rd president tried unsuccessfully to get immigration reform past Congress and warned ominously that the GOP risked losing Hispanic and Asian voters if they opposed him. His warnings proved correct.
While Moore has criticized the Senate’s most recent bill, he’s been publicly supportive of its broad goals, praising its guest worker provision at a pro-immigration event hosted by Bush last year. He’s also tangled with Heritage directly, disputing a claim by DeMint last May that the late economist Milton Friedman was opposed to an “open borders” immigration policy.
The question now is whether Moore can drag Heritage toward the center on immigration.
“I’ve known Stephen Moore for 20 years and during that time he’s been an unwavering supporter of generous legal immigration levels and common sense immigration reforms,” Frank Sharry, president of pro-reform America’s Voice, told msnbc. “Knowing his commitment to the issue, I predict that he will have much more impact on Heritage’s approach to immigration policy than they will have on his.”
In an email to msnbc, Heritage vice president of communications Michael Gonzales downplayed the impact of Moore’s hiring on the think tank’s immigration policy.
“Heritage has wanted a pro-growth immigration policy for years,” Gonzales said.
DeMint and Moore might find some common ground. Throughout his career, Moore has called on Congress to offer more legal employment opportunities for migrant workers while keeping them cut off from federal benefits. DeMint doesn’t believe it’s politically possible to prevent immigrants from eventually becoming eligible for entitlements Medicare and Social Security, but at least it’s a general point of agreement. Heritage researchers have also signaled support for a much less controversial expansion of high-skilled worker visas and some form of temporary worker program to fill lower-skilled jobs. Perhaps Moore and DeMint will find a way to offer more detailed plans while skirting the issue of what to do with existing immigrants.
No one brought back this old world global human capital distribution system----global slave trading more than Bill and Hillary Clinton----they dedicated their lives to Foreign Economic Zones filled with corporations fed by global labor pool enslavement. The Clinton's did this by identifying those 5% to the 1% global Wall Street players who would promote very bad policy for a global 99%---especially here in a developed nation of America. She made more failed states than Bush-----or Reagan----just to move in World Bank and IMF. The Clinton's have been tag team to global Wall Street pols for the worst of immigration policies and her global 1% and their 2% of women sending a 5% of immigrants to US to MOVE FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE US cities as Foreign Economic Zones makes Hillary 1,000 times worse than TRUMP.
REAL left social Democrats must get the voice behind good 99% immigration policy. We don't need to deport----we need to stop the selectivity that takes all the justice in global citizens wanting to come to an America that is free having liberty and justice for all.
Making people be global Wall Street players just to have jobs----just to gain opportunity to come to America-----how despicable is that?
The Libya Gamble: Inside Hillary Clinton's Push for War & the Making of a Failed State
StoryMarch 03, 2016Watch Full Show
The New York Times has published a major two-part exposé titled "The Libya Gamble" on how then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pushed President Obama to begin bombing Libya five years ago this month. Today, Libya is a failed state and a haven for terrorists. How much should Hillary Clinton be blamed for the crisis? We speak to journalist Scott Shane of The New York Times.
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Five years ago this month, the United States and allied nations began bombing Libya, striking forces loyal to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. The Obama administration said the strikes were needed to enforce a no-fly zone and to protect Libyan protesters who took to the streets as part of the Arab Spring. Inside the Obama administration, there was a deep division over whether the U.S. should intervene militarily. One of the most hawkish members of Obama’s Cabinet was Hillary Clinton, then the secretary of state.
The New York Times has just published two major pieces [part one, part two] looking at Clinton’s role pushing for the bombing of Libya. The special report is titled "The Libya Gamble." In a moment, we’ll be joined by Scott Shane, one of the report’s co-authors, but first a video package produced by The New York Times.
JO BECKER: Hillary Clinton’s role in the military intervention that ousted Muammar Gaddafi in Libya is getting new scrutiny as she runs for president. The U.S. relationship with Libya has long been complicated. Colonel Gaddafi, who ruled from 1969 until 2011, was an eccentric dictator linked to terrorism. Still, when he gave up his nuclear program a decade ago and provided information about al-Qaeda, he became an ally of sorts. In 2009, when Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state, she welcomed one of Colonel Gaddafi’s sons to Washington.
SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON: We deeply value the relationship between the United States and Libya.
JO BECKER: But two years later, when Colonel Gaddafi threatened to crush the Arab Spring protests in Libya, she helped persuade President Obama to join other countries in bombing his forces to prevent a feared massacre.
-------goggle for more----
Why do we see terms like SANCTUARY CITY VS FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE?
Sanctuary cities in the US were those bringing foreign citizens escaping global Wall Street making their nation a Foreign Economic Zone. Most of those brought to the US cities under these conditions were being groomed to be a 5% to the 1% immigrant citizens or had helped the US in creating instability inside their nations. Not all of course but these were the goals of SANCTUARY CITIES. Many good people helped those immigrant families in need as was good----the problem stems from very, very, very bad right wing foreign policy of empire-building---here we see when it started---in REAGAN era same time as these US sanctuary cities were designated FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.
These US cities have been moving from a status of SANCTUARY CITY-----to FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE especially during Obama-----now global labor pool is coming to our US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zone and these early arrivals from Latin America are likely being groomed by those earlier immigrant arrivals.
So why does Baltimore not use these terms----SANCTUARY CITY---FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE-----it doesn't need to---Baltimore has no Rule of Law---no public justice so they can simply do what they want.
PUGH WAS INSTALLED BECAUSE SHE IS RAGING ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE PLAYER.
Indeed---Baltimore is one of the oldest Foreign Economic Zones-----and Johns Hopkins is the global corporation building the global labor pool human capital distribution system-----it did all its movement overseas in its global corporate headquarters-----these several years bringing global labor pool to Maryland and Baltimore.
What are sanctuary cities, and can they be defunded?
By Tal Kopan, CNN
Updated 5:09 PM ET, Wed January 25, 2017
Mayor Rahm Emanuel: You are welcome in Chicago 01:23
- Trump's order would begin the process of taking federal funds from sanctuary jurisdictions
- Already, mayors are standing firm
The order will "strip federal grant money from the sanctuary states and cities that harbor illegal immigrants," according to press secretary Sean Spicer.
The order declares that entities labeled "sanctuary jurisdictions" by the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security will be "not eligible" for federal grants, and it directs the Office of Management and Budget to compile federal grant money currently going to sanctuary jurisdictions.Already, some mayors have made clear they're standing firm. At a news conference just moments after Trump's executive order was announced, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel said his city wouldn't budge.
"I haven't read the content of the sanctuary city (order), but I want to make very clear, we are going to stay a sanctuary city. We welcome, just as in the spirit of what Cardinal (Blase) Cupich talked about, 'there is no stranger among us,'" Emanuel said.
But what is a sanctuary city? And can Trump really defund them?
Here's a look at what the term means and its implications in immigration policy under Trump.
What is a sanctuary city?
The term "sanctuary city" is a broad term applied to jurisdictions that have policies in place designed to limit cooperation with or involvement in federal immigration enforcement actions. Cities, counties and some states have a range of informal policies as well as actual laws that qualify as "sanctuary" positions.
Most of the policies center around not cooperating with federal law enforcement on immigration policies. Many of the largest cities in the country have forms of such policies.
In 2015, more than 200 state and local jurisdictions did not honor requests from Immigration and Customs Enforcement to detain individuals, ICE Director Sarah Saldaña testified before Congress, and a subset of that group refused to give access to their jails and prisons to ICE.
According to tracking by the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that advocates for restricting immigration and opposes sanctuary policies, roughly 300 sanctuary jurisdictions rejected more than 17,000 detention requests, between January 1, 2014 and September 30, 2015.
The idea for sanctuary cities appears to have sprung out of churches in the 1980s that provide sanctuary to Central Americans fleeing violence at home amid reluctance by the federal government to grant them refugee status. They became popular in more diverse locales to counter what officials there saw as overzealous federal immigration policies, particularly against those arrested for minor, non-violent crimes.
How does it work?
There is no single definition for a sanctuary city.
For example, the Los Angeles Police Department said after November's election that it would continue its policy of not allowing police to stop people solely to establish their immigration status, according to the Los Angeles Times.
"San Francisco is a sanctuary city and will not waiver in its commitment to protect the rights of all its residents," San Francisco Mayor Edwin Lee said earlier this month upon announcing an expansion to a city fund to provide legal services to the immigrant community, documented or otherwise.
Chicago has set up a similar fund, as has Los Angeles, and they're under consideration in other major cities, like New York.
"Chicago has in the past been a sanctuary city," Emanuel said in November, according to the Sun-Times. "It always will be a sanctuary city."
Emanuel also referenced Chicago's "Welcoming City Ordinance," a collection of laws similar to others around the country that make clear Chicago will not help investigate the citizenship status of individuals unless mandated by law or a court, will not discriminate issuing city services depending on citizenship and will not cooperate with immigration detentions.
And 12 states and the District of Columbia have laws allowing undocumented immigrants to obtain driver's licenses, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
The goal of the constellation of informal and formal policies is generally to protect undocumented immigrants who are not otherwise engaged in criminal activity from being detained or deported.
Who objects to these practices?
Some conservatives have opposed these policies for years, as they have sought tougher immigration laws that crack down on undocumented immigrants living in the US.
Trump made the issue a centerpiece of his campaign, at one time saying he would support a deportation force to round up all the millions of immigrants living in the US illegally. He has since backed off that position, with his surrogates saying his administration will prioritize removing criminals.
As major urban centers tend to be run by Democratic politicians, who support more forgiving immigration policies, many cities have been locked in battles with Republican leaders nationally over the policies.
ICE has also said the policies inhibit their ability to enforce immigration laws.
Opponents of sanctuary cities also often cite cases of crimes perpetrated or allegedly perpetrated by undocumented immigrants.
In one of the most emotionally charged challenges to sanctuary cities, the parents of Kate Steinle, a young woman who was allegedly fatally shot by an undocumented immigrant recently released from jail, attempted to sue San Francisco over its sanctuary city policy. The lawsuit claimed the sheriff and city were partly to blame for her death.
A judge ruled this month, however, dismissing the claim.
Still, Steinle's 2015 murder has been a rallying cry for opponents of sanctuary cities and those who seek tougher immigration policies.
What role does federal money play?
The order appears to apply mostly to future federal grants, though after OMB's review, Spicer explained that the funding identified could be taken away.
While the administration likely can't cut off all federal funding, as much of it is disbursed through Congress, the President could put some pressure on cities this way.
Aside from congressionally provided funds, there are a number of grants administered by federal agencies that could mean big money lost to cities and states.
One such program is the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, administered by the Department of Justice, points out Hans von Spakovsky, a legal and immigration expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation who advocates for policies like those implemented by Trump.
That fund alone allocated $274.9 million in 2016, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and the five states with the most allocations were California, at $30.5 million; Texas, at $21.4 million; Florida, with $17.8 million; New York, with $15.6 million; and Illinois, at $10.4 million.
Wouldn't that create a legal issue?
The move, when finalized, will almost certainly generate court challenges.
The courts have held in the past that the federal government can only strip funding that is related to the policy involved -- so it's unlikely to hold up if the administration tried to take away highway funds, for example, according to experts. The courts have also ruled that funding decisions may not be used to "coerce" states into actions.
But something like the JAG program, which supports law enforcement, might be considered germane to the issue.
In South Dakota v. Dole, the Supreme Court ruled in 1987 on Congress using highway funds to enforce a national drinking age, upheld past case law that federal grant restrictions may not pass muster "if they are unrelated 'to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs,'" and most also be to promote "general welfare." That ruling specifically applied to Congress, but would certainly be cited in any litigation over Trump's order.
And in a more recent case brought by conservatives against President Barack Obama's health care law, the Supreme Court held in 2012 that withholding Medicaid funds from states that did not cooperate was "coercion," and thus unconstitutional.
Another case written by a conservative icon, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, is also cited as a possible defense for sanctuary cities. In Printz v. US, a case on gun rights, Scalia wrote, citing case law: "The Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program."
The matter will likely end up in the courts -- as did many of Obama's immigration executive actions.
"It's a gray area how far the federal government can go in basically engaging in what some might call coercive behavior using federal money as an angle, but that would make for a very spirited, interesting litigation fight, and in the vast majority of these cases, the federal government has won," von Spakovsky said in an interview before the executive orders were issued.