The Debate on Immigration is Now, The Raise Act

Posted on February 7, 2017February 7, 2017 by Denise Simon

What is President Clinton say in the State of the Union address in 1995 on immigration? It got a standing ovation. It is time to have this debate in a wide and deep context including the financial and social and legal consequences.

NumbersUSA: Chain Migration is the main reason that American workers have had to compete for wages and jobs with tens of millions of new immigrants who have been given lifetime work permits the last several decades.

40% IMMEDIATE REDUCTION IN ANNUAL IMMIGRATION

Sen. Cotton says his bill would reduce the number of lifetime work permits given to foreign citizens by around 40% the first year — and by around 50% in the tenth year after passage.

Ending Chain Migration is the primary way the bill would achieve that goal.

For several decades, immigrants no longer have been limited to bringing in a spouse and minor children. Chain Migration categories allow each immigrant (once a citizen) to petition for adult brothers and sisters, for adult sons and daughters, and for parents. Each of them can in turn do the same along with bringing their own spouses who can start whole new chains in their own families, and so forth in a never-ending pattern.

Sen. Cotton would stop all of that immigration which adds millions of workers each decade without any regard to their skills or how they would affect Americans competing in the same occupations.

By limiting family immigration to a spouse and minor children — including overseas adoptions and marriages by U.S. citizens — Sen. Cotton says the bill would . . .

” . . . restore historical levels of immigration in order to give working Americans a fair shot at wealth creation.”

At around one million a year since 1990, overall annual legal immigration has been some THREE times higher than the historical average before then.

A RARE OPPORTUNITY

Sen. Cotton’s bill will be the first since 1996 to challenge the Senate to eliminate future Chain Migration.

It was in 1996 that we started NumbersUSA with our Number One legislative goal being to end Chain Migration, as recommended by the bi-partisan federal commission chaired by the Civil Rights icon Barbara Jordan.

Sen. Cotton has boldly indicated today that he will assume the leadership to advance that vision of an immigration policy that first serves the interests of our national community’s workers, especially its most vulnerable.

This year represents a rare opportunity. It is the first time in nearly a hundred years that there is a President in the White House who has declared his intention to reduce the overall numerical level of immigration.

THE PROBLEM BEING ADDRESSED

Sen. Cotton is titling his bill the Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment Act.

Its initials spell RAISE. It’s the RAISE bill. Sen. Cotton wants to give hard-pressed American workers a raise by allowing labor markets to begin to tighten.

Sen. Cotton described the problem his bill is attempting to address:

For over a quarter century, the United States has accepted an average of 1 million immigrants annually—the equivalent of adding the entire state of Montana each year.
When only 1 out of every 15 immigrants arrives in the United States on a skills-based visa, the majority of the remaining immigrants are either low-skill or unskilled.
This generation-long influx of low-skilled labor has been a major factor in the downward pressure on the wages of working Americans, with the wages of recent immigrants hardest hit.
Wages for Americans with only high school diplomas have declined by 2 percent since the late 1970s, and for those who didn’t finish high school, they have declined by nearly 20 percent. This collapse in wages threatens to create a near permanent underclass for whom the American Dream is always just out of reach.

THE ‘RAISE’ SOLUTION

Sen. Cotton describes the key elements of his bill like this:

Eliminate Outdated Diversity Visa Lottery: The Lottery is plagued with fraud, it advances no economic or humanitarian interest, and it does not even deliver the diversity of its namesake. The RAISE Act would eliminate the 50,000 visas arbitrarily allocated to this lottery.

Place Responsible Limit on Permanent Residency for Refugees: The RAISE Act would limit refugees offered permanent residency to 50,000 per year, in line with a 13-year average. (This is the same annual refugee cap in Pres. Trump’s executive order. It is also the cap recommended in the 1980 Refugee Act, which is current law but which Presidents have routinely exceeded.)

Prioritize Immediate Family Households. The RAISE Act would retain immigration preferences for the spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents.

Eliminated would be green card categories for foreign citizens who are:

Adult parents of U.S. citizens
Adult brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens
Unmarried adult sons & daughters of U.S. citizens
Married adult sons & daughters of U.S. citizens
Unmarried adult sons & daughters of legal permanent residents

Create Temporary Visa for Parents in Need of Caretaking: For U.S. citizens who wish to bring elderly parents in need of care-taking to the United States, the RAISE Act creates a renewable temporary visa on the condition that the parents are not permitted to work, cannot access public benefits, and must be guaranteed support and health insurance by their sponsoring children.

The difference in this being a wonderful bill and it being an incredibly helpful law is likely to be the degree to which the 8 million members of NumbersUSA’s online grassroots army make it clear to their Members of Congress and to Pres. Trump that this is a TRUE PRIORITY.

20 Step Refugee Vetting Process, Nuts…

Posted on February 6, 2017February 6, 2017 by Denise Simon

So, that is the process, allegedly done with extreme scrutiny…ahem. But what about those that come into the United States by other nefarious methods such as sneaking across our borders? They get a pass?

It is the exact time in our country to have this debate and the arguments must include the safety and financial consequences, both of which never are part of the wider discussion.

California is working to become a sanctuary state, putting all other CONUS states at extreme risk as people can travel freely. (CONUS = Continental United States).

San Francisco is at the hub of the issue, how so? The mayor via the police force refuse any collaboration as noted below:

SFPD Cuts Ties With FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force

San Francisco Police Department officials announced Wednesday that they have suspended participation with the FBI’s controversial Joint Terrorism Task Force.

According to San Francisco Police Commission protocol, all contracts require approval by the Board of Supervisors after 10 years.

The JTTF Memoranda of Understanding was signed in 2007, so that time has come, according to department officials.

The department will update its guideline for First Amendment activities and will “seek clarification” from the Police Commission as to this guideline’s application to JTTF investigations.

Once that new guideline is adopted, the department may consider renegotiating the JTTF memoranda with the FBI with guidance from the police commission.

Last month, the Asian Law Caucus, the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ San Francisco Bay Area office and the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California sent a letter to San Francisco Police commissioners urging them to cease the department’s participation in the JTTF.

In the Jan. 5 letter, the groups speculate that, following President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the JTTF would likely increase surveillance of Muslim communities like the New York City police did after Sept. 11, 2001.

According to the FBI, 71 JTTF field offices have been established since 2001. The first was established in New York City in 1980.

“The SFPD is committed to public safety and will continue to work diligently to keep San Francisco safe for everyone,” San Francisco police Sgt. Michael Andraychak said in a statement.

(That last statement gets a BIG REALLY DUDE?)

*** Back in 2008:

Refugee Program Halted As DNA Tests Show Fraud

Thousands in Africa Lied about Families To Gain U.S. Entry

The State Department has suspended a humanitarian program to reunite thousands of African refugees with relatives in the U.S. after unprecedented DNA testing by the government revealed widespread fraud.

The freeze affects refugees in Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda, Guinea and Ghana, many of whom have been waiting years to emigrate. More here from the WSJ. Lying and making up ghost people to get other permits? Hah….

*** Back in 2004, as a result of the 9/11 Commission Report on the issue of immigration, many robust recommendations were made of which all members of Congress at the time signed off on. They need to be reminded of that, as does the California legislature at a minimum. But going deeper in factual history, others need to be reminded of the following: (In part from Migration Policy dot org.)

Kerry Outlines Ideas on Immigration Reform

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry on June 30 announced his platform on immigration reform. In a speech to the National Council of La Raza’s national conference, Kerry said that within 100 days of taking office, he would propose a four-part plan that would give “good people who are undocumented but living here, working here, paying taxes, [and] staying out of trouble . . . a path to equal citizenship.” In addition, he said that immigrants would be required to take civics and English classes. Kerry also promised to sign two bills currently pending in Congress: the AgJobs agricultural worker program, and the DREAM Act, which would allow young, out-of-status immigrants to pay in-state tuition rates while attending college. Both bills create a path for immigrants to eventually receive legal resident status.

In an interview with the Spanish-language network Telemundo on June 29, Kerry took stances on other immigration-related issues. He stated that granting driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants violated the spirit of the law, and that immigration authorities had the right to perform raids to capture unauthorized immigrants who had broken other laws. Some analysts believe that Kerry’s comments regarding driver’s licenses could hurt his standing with Latino voters in the election. Nevertheless, the Washington Post reported on July 22 that Kerry currently has a 2 to 1 advantage over his opponent, President George W. Bush, among registered Latino voters.

Hmong Refugees Resettled to the United States

Around 15,000 Hmong refugees are expected to arrive in the United States this year. The first members of the group have already reached the U.S., and up to 3,000 more are expected by the end of August, with the remainder arriving by the end of 2004. The new arrivals fled their native country because of persecution they suffered due to their alliance with the U.S. during the Vietnam War. One third of the refugees will be resettled to Minnesota, a third will be sent to California, and the rest will be distributed among more than a dozen other states. Many of the refugees have been living illegally in a makeshift camp in Thailand, having passed up the opportunity for resettlement to the United States in the 1980s and 1990s as they clung to the hope of returning to Laos. Because the Thai military plans to close the camp by the end of 2004, most residents plan to accept the resettlement opportunity offered by the U.S. Department of State.

The refugees will receive initial assistance from U.S. resettlement agencies, which will help meet basic needs such as housing, school, language, employment, and health services. To fund these services, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on June 24 announced an additional $3.3 million allocation for Hmong resettlement costs. After one year of living in the U.S., refugees can apply to adjust their status to permanent residency and acquire a “green card.” They eventually become eligible for citizenship. In addition, unlike other immigrants, refugees are not barred from receiving welfare benefits in their first seven years of residence in the United States. The next group of Hmong refugees, approximately 2,000 individuals, is expected to arrive by the end of August.

U.S and Mexico Sign Pact on Social Security

The United States and Mexico on June 29 signed a pact enabling Mexican workers in the U.S. and American workers in Mexico to transfer social security benefits across national borders. The pact is similar to international Social Security agreements the U.S. has with Britain and Canada, and allows workers to contribute to only one benefits system at a time. According to estimates by U.S. Social Security officials, only 7,500 U.S. citizens working in Mexico will qualify for retirement benefits, as compared to 41,000 Mexican employees likely to qualify for Social Security in the United States. Even so, the plan will have an initially limited effect because it excludes, unless or until they are legalized, an estimated six to eight million undocumented Mexican workers currently employed in the United States. While the pact will not become law without legislative approval, the United States Congress and the Mexican Senate are expected to pass the measure; U.S. lawmakers have routinely approved similar agreements with 20 other nations. (For more information on International Agreements of the Social Security Administration, see this January 2004 Migration Policy Institute Immigration Fact Sheet)

State Department Halts Mail Renewal of Visas

The Department of State on July 16 stopped accepting applications for mail renewals of visas. Under the new policy, announced on June 23, foreigners who work in the United States must return to U.S. embassies abroad to be interviewed and fingerprinted for visa renewal. The policy, which does not apply to foreign diplomats or employees of international organizations, is part of the U.S. effort to improve border controls after the September 11, 2001 attacks. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher stated that the switch was made to overseas processing because of the better capacity of U.S. embassies abroad to interview and fingerprint visa applicants. More than 50,000 people from more than 60 countries were processed in 2003.

Tech Companies Filed Amicus Brief, Supports Foreign Workers

Posted on February 6, 2017February 6, 2017 by Denise Simon

Amicus Brief Tech companies This is an employment epidemic across the nation where companies sponsor foreign national for domestic jobs, leaving thousands to train their replacements. We have not addresses how many could be purposely placed for industrial espionage.

***

Apple, Google, Microsoft pile in: 97 US tech firms file brief against Trump’s travel ban

In part from ZDNet: Immigrants or their children founded 200 US companies that generate $4.2 trillion in annual revenues, the brief highlights, among them Apple, AT&T, and Google, as well as Ford, General Electric, McDonald’s, Boeing, and Disney.

“Businesses and employees have little incentive to go through the laborious process of sponsoring or obtaining a visa, and relocating to the United States, if an employee may be unexpectedly halted at the border.

“Skilled individuals will not wish to immigrate to the country if they may be cut off without warning from their spouses, grandparents, relatives, and friends. They will not pull up roots, incur significant economic risk, and subject their family to considerable uncertainty to immigrate to the United States in the face of this instability.” Full article here.

***

The H1-B visa program has a cap to the number allowed to be issued. It is a visa program that needs more scrutiny by Congress for the sake of American employees. There have been abuses to the program and further companies like Disney hire foreign nationals to replaced domestic employees driving down the salary costs.

Janet Napolitano, the former Secretary of the Department of Homeland security and now the president of the University of California system knows it all so well and how to work the system.

In part from the LATimes: Using a visa loophole to fire well-paid U.S. information technology workers and replace them with low-paid immigrants from India is despicable enough when it’s done by profit-making companies such as Southern California Edison and Walt Disney Co.

But the latest employer to try this stunt sets a new mark in what might be termed “job laundering.” It’s the University of California. Experts in the abuse of so-called H-1B visas say UC is the first public university to send the jobs of American IT staff offshore. That’s not a distinction UC should wear proudly. Full op-ed here.

*** One of 5 huge examples beyond California is:

Pfizer Connecticut R&D

In 2008, workers at pharmaceutical giant Pfizer’s New London and Groton (Connecticut) research and development campus raised the alarm: They were being replaced by Indian workers on H-1B visas and forced to train their replacements. Those outsourced workers were scheduled to return to India, where they will run the same systems as their U.S. counterparts, albeit at a cheaper rate and with diminished benefits. The move was part of an outsourcing agreement signed in 2005 between Pfizer, Infosys Technologies and Satyam Computer Services. More here.

***

A 100 page Joint Venture report for tech companies includes the following text:

Foreign-Born Residents

Silicon Valley has an extraordinarily large share of residents who are foreign born (37.4%, compared to California, 27.1%, or the United States, 13.3%). This population share increases to 50% for the employed, core working age population (ages 25-44), and even higher for certain occupational groups. For instance, nearly 74% of all Silicon Valley employed Computer and Mathematical workers ages 25-44 in 2014 were foreign-born. Correspondingly, the region also has an incredibly large share of foreign-language speakers, with 51% of Silicon Valley’s population over age five speaking a language other than exclusively English at home (compared to 43% in San Francisco, 44% in California, and 21% in the United States as a whole). This majority share in 2014 was up from 49% in 2011.

*** The Senate held a hearing in 2015 with a few former employees that were forced to train their foreign replacements. Many of these employees are paid a severance package but it also includes a major stipulation to remain mute on the topic as noted below:

My former company, a large utility company, replaced 220 American IT workers with H-1Bs…we would have to train them in order to receive our severance packages. This was one of the most humiliating situations that I have ever been in as an IT professional.

The whole IT department was going through the same fate as myself. Those were the longest and hardest five months of my life. Not only did I lose a work family, but I lost my job and my self-esteem. We had constant emails sent by HR that we could not talk about this situation to anyone or make posts to social media. If we did, we would be fired immediately and not get our severance. Read the full article here.

FY SCAAP 2016: Criminal Aliens $189,008,372.00

Posted on February 3, 2017February 3, 2017 by Denise Simon

A faithful reader of this website, reached out to me and asked for an update on a previous post. Hat tip for this great reminder. Grrr….when looking at the dollars, it has hard not to jump and down in frustration.

With a little effort in research, the last time the Government Accountability Office did any estimate to the cost of the U.S. economy for all things illegal/immigration related was 2011.

Image result for criminal aliene detention

The cost at the State level fluctuates based on deportations and beds available. The Federal government out of the Justice Department helps pay respective states for the costs of alien incarceration. It must be understood that aliens come from hundreds of countries and since there are some countries that allegedly refuse to take back their citizens by deportation, at least the Justice Department should work all the diplomatic channels that the home countries of the criminals should pay up for all expenses and associated future costs.

Three groups of criminal aliens can be distinguished.

 All criminal aliens include both unauthorized aliens, most of whom are potentially removable, and legal aliens10 who may or may not be removable depending on specific crimes committed. This population contains the set of criminal aliens who are removable on the basis of specific crimes committed.

 Criminal aliens who have been convicted of removable criminal offenses are subject to removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) even if they are otherwise legally present.11 For example, a legal permanent resident (LPR) convicted of cocaine possession is subject to removal,12 but an LPR convicted of public intoxication is not. This population also includes aggravated felons.

 Criminal aliens who have been convicted of aggravated felonies13 are ineligible for most forms of relief from removal14 and are ineligible to be readmitted to the United States.15

As noted above, all three of these subpopulations—criminal aliens, removable criminal aliens, and aggravated felons—comprise an unknown mix of legally present noncitizens and unauthorized aliens.

State by state and listed by country, click here for what the Bureau of Justice released for FY 2016.

SCAAP Overview

The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, administers SCAAP, in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). SCAAP provides federal payments to states and localities that incurred correctional officer salary costs for incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens who have at least one felony or two misdemeanor convictions for violations of state or local law, and who are incarcerated for at least 4 consecutive days during the reporting period.

SCAAP Legislative Authority

SCAAP is governed by Section 241(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(i), as amended, and Title II, Subtitle C, Section 20301, Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Pub. L. 103-322. In general terms, if a chief executive officer of a state or a political subdivision exercises authority over the incarceration of undocumented criminal aliens and submits a written request to the U.S. Attorney General, the Attorney General may provide compensation to that jurisdiction for those incarceration costs. SCAAP is subject to additional terms and conditions of yearly congressional appropriations.

***

ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH 8 U.S.C. § 1373

****

Just a view from the State of Texas for aliens that are not being detained or incarcerated as noted in a report from 2013:

In part from FAIRUS.org: In 2013, illegal immigration cost Texas taxpayers about $12.1 billion annually. That amounts to more than $1,197 for every Texas household headed by a native-born or naturalized U.S. citizen. The taxes paid by illegal aliens — estimated at $1.27 billion per year — do not come close to paying for those outlays, but we include an estimate of revenue from sales taxes, property taxes, alcohol taxes, and cigarette taxes.

Examining Texas’s fiscal outlays from the perspective of the current debate over adopting an amnesty for illegal aliens, we find that the fiscal burden to taxpayers would not be significantly lessened even if an amnesty like that proposed in the Senate’s S.744 were enacted. In fact, it becomes clear that the only way to significantly reduce the fiscal burden is to reduce the size of the population that illegally entered the country. State and local policymakers have options available to accomplish that objective. In Arizona, efforts to discourage the arrival of additional illegal residents and to hold employers accountable for knowingly hiring illegal workers have been effective in reducing the illegal alien population and, thereby, the fiscal costs associated with that population.

Foreign Service Personnel Dissent Letter to Pres. Trump

Posted on January 30, 2017January 30, 2017 by Denise Simon

We heard last week that several top policy people at the State Department left their positions. The State Department has a culture of very lenient diplomacy where few governments are ever disciplined or rebuked for decisions and actions that counter agreements, treaties, human rights and more. Iran is the topic example.

Now we have the next level of State Department personnel that are pushing back hard on President Trump’s Executive Order on suspension of travel visas and travel bans from listed countries. Secretary of State nominee, Rex Tillerson when confirmed will have a rank and file challenge on his hands.

Perhaps those behind the signatures on this dissent letter could answer some questions on the recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission Report where the entire chapter was dedicated to immigration of which every member of Congress, both sides of the aisle signed in approval to accept the recommendations and work to implement. (Pre 9/11 status quo has infected diplomacy again)

Countless foreign service officers have drafted a memo to the White House.

LawFareBlog: Numerous Foreign Service officers and other diplomats have drafted a dissent memo expressing opposition to President Donald Trump’s executive order banning refugees and immigrants from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen from entering the United States. ABC reported this morning on the draft, which is likely to be submitted today.

Here’s a copy of the actual draft. We are hearing that literally hundreds of foreign service officers are planning to be party to the dissent memo; it’s still unclear exactly how many. We have redacted all names and personally identifiable information from this document.

**

(First page on the left) The State Department’s Dissent Channel is a mechanism for employees to confidentially express policy disagreement, created in 1971 as a response to concerns within the Department over the government’s handling of the Vietnam War. Authors of a memo submitted through the Channel, which is open to all regular employees of the State Department and USAID, may not be subject to any penalty or disciplinary action in response. Once a memo is submitted, the Secretary of State’s Policy Planning Staff must acknowledge its receipt within two working days and will usually distribute it to the Secretary of State, the Deputy Secretary of State, the Under Secretary for Political Affairs, the Chairperson of the Open Forum, and, if the memo’s author is employed by USAID, by the head of that agency as well. Taking into account the wishes of the author, the memo may also be distributed more broadly within the State Department and may be done so anonymously.

The ultimate significance of the channel is that memos must receive a substantive response within 30-60 working days