Media 1. Mark Krikorian Debates E-Verify on PBS Newshour 2. Announcement: CBO Projects the Gang of Eight Bill Fails to Stop Illegal Immigration
Publication 3. Foreign-Born Share Would Hit Historic High in Seven Years Under S.744: One in Seven U.S. Residents Would Be Immigrants by 2020
Blogs 4. Sen. Begich Angles to Bring Home Some S.744 Bacon: Low-Wage Foreign Workers to Process Alaska Salmon 5. Hoeven-Corker Amendment and the Pelosi Rule 6. A Virtual Debate with Sen. Pat Toomey, Champion of the World's Unskilled (but Not Our Own) 7. Labor Department H-1B Enforcement: A Paper Tiger 8. "The Border Security Ruse" 9. CBO Report as S.744 Rorschach Test 10. That Big Raid on the 7-Eleven Stores – Some Comments 11. CBO: Schumer-Rubio Bill Will Be a Failure 12. Sanders: S.744 Tramples Young Americans in Rush to Bring in Foreign Workers 13. The Beauty and Danger of Sen. Klobuchar's Speech 14. NYT Highlights Border Insecurity in Texas 15. Pro-Amnesty Stance Not Enough to Earn Latino Support 16. Hatch's Back Tax Demand Targets Illegal Aliens, Ignores Their Employers 17. Bulletin: NYT Editorial Shows Concern for American Workers 18. The Inevitable? — More TPS Eligibility for Syrians
Excerpt: The central purpose of the Schumer-Rubio bill (S.744) is to reduce future illegal immigration. In fact, Sen. Chuck Schumer has said that its passage would mean "Illegal immigration will be a thing of the past."
But the Center for Immigration Studies finds that the new Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis of the legislation confirms that the bill will almost completely fail in this regard. According to CBO, if S.744 passes, "the net annual flow of unauthorized residents would decrease by 25 percent." Because S.744 fails to stem a larger portion of illegal immigration, CBO projects that nearly 5 million new illegal immigrants and their children will be living in the United States 10 years after the bill passes.
Excerpt: According the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Gang of Eight Bill (S.744) would dramatically increase legal immigration while reducing future illegal immigration by only 25 percent. Based on CBO's numbers, the Center for Immigration Studies projects that under S.744 the foreign-born (legal and illegal) share of the U.S. population would hit a record high of 15 percent in 2020 — surpassing the all-time high of 14.8 percent reached in 1890. Based on CBO's analysis, we further project that the foreign-born would reach 17 percent of the population by 2033, a level never before seen in U.S. history. The total size of the foreign-born population would grow to 55.9 million by 2023 and nearly 65.2 million by 2033 if S.744 becomes law. To place this into perspective, the foreign-born population was less than 20 million as recently as 1990 — 7.9 percent of the total population.
Excerpt: Sen. Mark Begich, D-AK, is determined to bring home some bacon from the Senate immigration bill. Actually, it would be closer to the truth to say that he's bringing home some salmon filets. To be precise, his mission to bring home the foreign college students for which his state's powerful seafood-processing industry has developed a dependence that comes mighty close to addiction.
Begich, leveraging his vote with the Gang of Eight, has managed to insert in the Senate bill a provision that would nullify the State Department's decision to put seafood processing off-limits to the Summer Work Travel program.
Excerpt: It's ba-ack! The ugliest, most monstrous procedure of legislative sausage making is now being employed by senators on both sides of the aisle. They're resurrecting this approach to hurry a vote on a major, humongous amendment to a major, controversial bill.
Then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (R-Calif.) infamously said of the Obamacare legislation that lawmakers needed to rush to "pass the bill so you can find out what's in it". I'm dubbing this the Pelosi Rule — an inadvisable, reckless approach that should never, ever be allowed for justifying the rushed passage of legislation under an arbitrary deadline.
Excerpt: Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) took up the cause of the unskilled workers of the world on Thursday when he declared that the Senate immigration bill's provisions for low-wage, non-agricultural guest worker visas are "wildly inadequate" to the needs of the American economy.
Toomey, of course, is a former president of the Club for Growth, which recently hailed him as "a fighter for free markets and limited government". In Thursday's speech on the Senate floor, Toomey made it clear that he doesn't believe in limited foreign competition for low-skilled and unskilled jobs in the United States.
Excerpt: One of the problems with the H-1B program, which brings low-paid, high-tech workers to the United States in the hundreds of thousands (and that would be dramatically expanded by the Schumer-Rubio bill now being debated in the Senate), is that there is a broad streak of fraud within it.
It should be noted that even when the program runs as it is supposed to, it takes multitudinous jobs away from American workers and it reduces wages for all in its ambit.
Excerpt: For a brief moment, I thought the Wall Street Journal had published an editorial on immigration I agreed with. It's titled "The Border Security Ruse" and I thought it would be about the efforts to add increasingly stringent border enforcement provisions as a way of buying Republican votes for the amnesty, pointing out that they were only included for political purposes and would never actually be implemented. Alas, the Journal was complaining that the promotion of enforcement-first amendments was the eponymous ruse, a "trick" by the inhumane and anti-growth folks on the "restrictionist right" to prevent amnesty for no good reason.
Excerpt: The Congressional Budget Office's report on the Senate immigration reform bill quickly served as a Rorschach test for the opposing sides in the Senate debate. Here are excerpts from two very different reactions to the report Wednesday on the Senate floor. The first is from Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and the second from Jeff Session (R-Ala.).
Excerpt: ICE and other law enforcement organizations mounted a big, two-state raid earlier this week on a collection of 7-Eleven stores that had been employing – and cheating – dozens of illegal aliens; there was extensive reporting by the New York Times and the Associated Press.
This was a bonanza, financially, for the employers. The various 7-Eleven interests had made $182 million in profits from these stores, according to the AP.
Was it a whopping success for the good guys? Were the raids staged to support the administration's immigration policies? Did it reveal a long series of corporate, governmental, and community failings?
Excerpt: Heritage, CIS, and others will be examining the assumptions behind the Congressional Budget Office projections of the Schumer-Rubio immigration bill's budget impact, but why not start by just assuming, for the sake of argument, that all the CBO assumptions are plausible and their calculations correct? If so, the bill will fail on its own terms.
Chuck Schumer said recently that passage of the legislation will ensure that "Illegal immigration will be a thing of the past." Rubio and Graham have made the same claim, repeatedly. But, as we point out, the CBO projects 4.8 million new illegal immigrants and their U.S.-born children will be living in the country by 2023 if the bill becomes law, compared to 6.4 million without it. The report doesn't break out the number of U.S.-born children included in that 4.8 million number, but let's say, for round-number purposes, there would be 4 million new illegal aliens a decade from now. The report also assumes that only 8 million of the current illegals will receive amnesty, leaving 3.5 million still here illegally (if there are about 11.5 million illegals now, as is likely). Assuming further that half a million of them would die or go home over the next decade, that would seem to imply, based on CBO's own figures, that there would be 7 million illegal aliens living here 10 years after the bill's passage. Does that sound like illegal immigration will have become "a thing of the past"?
Excerpt: One of the most interesting elements of the Senate's immigration reform debate is the contrast between the many who tell family stories as they urge passage of the legislation and the few who warn that the bill could have devastating consequences for young Americans. Vermont independent Bernie Sanders took to the floor again Tuesday. He defended the interests of young job-seeking Americans, saying they are being trampled in the rush to satiate employers' appetite for foreign workers.
Excerpt: Yesterday on the Senate floor, Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) gave a speech that was a fine illustration of how the emotion of immigration complicates the job of policy-making. The emotion was especially poignant in the last 400 words of her 2,300-word speech, in which she told her family's own story and projected it onto the current policy debate. I reproduce her comments here as she actually delivered them, not as they appear in the Congressional Record, which apparently relied on a written text. Then I offer a brief comment.
Excerpt: Reporters Eric Lipton and Julia Preston of the New York Times produced a fine story from South Texas for the Sunday paper, putting the surge in illegal immigration in the context of the immigration reform debate in the Senate.
But it seems to me they buried the lede, placing it at the mid-point of the story with this remarkable revelation about the state of border security in the Rio Grande Valley. Lipton and Preston reported:
Excerpt: Sen. Lindsay Graham's (R-S.C.) absurd notion that Latino voters will flock to Republican candidates if they embrace amnesty and "comprehensive immigration reform" has been once more refuted, this time a Massachusetts special election to fill John Kerry's U.S. Senate seat. On Friday, El Planeta, the state's largest Spanish-language newspaper, endorsed Democrat Ed Markey, a long-serving member of the House who only occasionally actually sets foot in his district, over Republican newcomer and fellow Latino Gabriel Gomez, son of Colombian immigrants, who often gives his campaign speeches in Spanish followed by an English translation and who is an enthusiastic supporter of the Schumer-Rubio amnesty bill.
Excerpt: The New York Times published a remarkable editorial on Sunday. It made me wonder if the editorial board is beginning to feel that U.S. immigration policy-makers and business leaders should be more concerned with the fate of American workers and less interested in expanding the alphabet-soup of visa categories that every year brings hundreds of thousands of lower-wage foreign workers to every level of the American economy.
Excerpt: DHS announced today that Syrians who arrived in the United States before today and those who will arrive in the United States in the next few hours (before midnight) are to be granted Temporary Protected Status and allowed to work — no matter how they got here or what their visa status.
Syrians who arrived before March 31, 2012, have been eligible for TPS, as we reported in an earlier blog, but now all who have arrived up to June 17, 2013, are eligible.