President Donald Trump is offering amnesty and citizenship to at least 3.7 million illegal aliens and foreign residents, not just to the 800,000 DACA illegals, according to statements from Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Nancy Pelosi.
The huge scale of Trump’s expanded amnesty is obscured by the media’s routine use of the Democratic-developed “dreamer” term for the almost 800,000 younger illegals who enrolled in Obama’s 2012 DACA amnesty. But the Democrats’ actual “Dream” Acts provide amnesty to roughly 3.3 million illegals and 400,000 other foreign residents.
For example, the Dream Act of 2017 is sponsored by Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin and Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham, and provides a path to citizenship for at least 3.7 million people, according to the pro-amnesty Migration Policy Institute. The matching bill on the House side is the DREAM Act, sponsored by Democratic Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard and retiring GOP Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.
Instead of just granting residency and work permits to the 800,000 beneficiaries of Obama’s expiring DACA amnesty, the Democrats’ two ‘Dream’ acts greatly expand the number of people who can quickly get conditional green cards and later convert them into citizenship papers in five years. In turn, the new citizens will have huge moral incentives and will be under great family pressure, to sponsor many more of their unskilled, government-dependent, Democratic-boosting relatives into the United States for decades after the amnesty is launched.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told reporters on Tuesday that Trump told her the DREAM Act, not just provide benefits to the 800,000 DACA enrollees.
Sen. Chuck Schumer made the same claim to a Bloomberg reporter:
Chuck Schumer told me the deal last night isn't just #DACA. `We agreed it would be the DREAM Act,' he said.
(Has pathway to citizenship)
— Laura Litvan (@LauraLitvan) September 14, 2017
The confusion is increased by business lobbies because many polls show that Americans want to help the younger illegals, but many polls also show they strongly prefer immigration laws help their fellow Americans get good jobs. That’s the hidden distinction in polls which allowed Trump to win the November 2016 election.
— Todd Schulte (@TheToddSchulte) September 14, 2017
There are no media reports showing that Trump had any help from anti-amnesty staff aides during his talks with Democrats. Chief of Staff John Kelly, for example, reportedly excludes immigration aid staff Steve Miller, and Kelly may not recognize the difference between the 800,000 DACA ‘dreamers’ and the much larger ‘dreamer’ bills.
The two Dream bills seem identical. For example, the House bill says an unskilled illegal with two felonies can convert his temporary green card into citizenship if he “has been employed for periods totaling 5 at least 3 years and at least 75 percent of the 6 time that the alien has had a valid employment authorization.” The Senate bill says a two-time illegal-alien felon can get citizenship if he “has been employed for periods totaling at least 3 years and at least 75 percent of the time that the alien has had a valid employment authorization.”
The pro-amnesty Migration Policy Institute said 1.8 million illegals are “immediately eligible” for the Dream Act amnesty, and 1.5 million “may become eligible … in the future.”
But most of the 1.5 million would sign up for the amnesty because they gain huge benefits, including irrevocable and lifetime legal and financial aid from the federal government for themselves and all their descendants.
The 1.5 million includes 387,000 young children who can apply as they grow older, and 1.1 million high school dropouts who could apply after they merely enroll in — not pass — a high-school education course.
Those two groups of 1.8 million and 1.5 million add up to 3.3 million people who can get the Dream act amnesty, said the MPI.
But the legislation also offers amnesty to a further 400,000 people with “Temporary Protected Status.” They are migrants who fled disasters in Haiti, El Salvador and other countries but have been allowed to stay well after the disasters passed. That group boosts the total number of direct beneficiaries up to 3.7 million.
The Dream acts also invite fraud because they set no upper age limits, no limits on the number of people who get amnesties, no exclusion of people living outside the country, and do set many opportunities for fraud. Those opportunities include provisions which say that affidavits from two friends are sufficient to meet one set of legal tests.
The acts also encourage agency fraud by allowing the Secretary of Homeland Security to grant citizenship to anyone for political or humanitarian reasons.
Prior amnesties have encouraged and winked at massive fraud. For example, the 1986 amnesty included a side-amnesty for farm workers, but, as the Atlantic reported in 1995:
Backed by Congressman Leon Panetta and Senator Pete Wilson, both from California, the Special Agricultural Worker (SAW) program was expected to grant legal status to 350,000 illegal immigrants. Instead more than 1.3 million illegal immigrants–a number roughly equivalent at the time to a sixth of the adult male population of rural Mexico–applied for this amnesty, most of them using phony documents in what has been called one of the greatest immigration frauds in American history. More than a million illegal immigrants were eventually granted legal status; many were soon joined illegally by their wives and children. Instead of shrinking the farm-labor force, IRCA has guaranteed an oversupply of workers.
A criminal record is no barrier to the amnesty because both Dream acts only reject people who have been convicted of felonies on two three separate occasions. The acts also direct officials to ignore crimes committed by the illegals to further their illegal immigration, such as identity fraud or use of false documents.
Already, more than 2,000 DACA-beneficiaries have been charged or found guilty of various crimes.
The Dream acts also allow states to provide illegals with education grants and to allow them to pay-in-state university fees. In contrast, Americans from other states will continue to be charged out-of-state fees.
Even if only one million of the 3.7 million illegals and TPS residents pick up their hugely valuable citizenship papers, and even if there is no fraud, the scale of the amnesty will continue to rise because of chain-migration.
The chain-migration rate will be high, partly because 90 percent of the DACA illegals are from families in Mexico. A February 2017 study by Jessica Vaughan, the policy director at the nonpartisan Center for Immigration Studies, reported:
According to the most complete contemporary academic studies on chain migration, in recent years each new immigrant has sponsored an average of 3.45 additional immigrants. In the early 1980s, the chain migration multiplier was 2.59 – more than 30 percent lower.
Of the top immigrant-sending countries, Mexico has the highest rate of chain migration. In the most recent five-year cohort of immigrants studied (1996-2000), new Mexican immigrants sponsored an additional 6.38 additional legal immigrants.
If that data holds, a 2017 amnesty for only 1 million DACA illegals from Mexico will deliver 3.7 million extra Mexicans to U..S. voting booths over the 20 years.
Many of the DACA migrants do want to maintain close ties to their homeland families. In September interviews with Breitbart News, several DACA illegals rejected any curbs in future immigration in any DACA amnesty compromise.
“Building a wall can’t stop people coming into different countries … it is a better opportunity for their families,” said Jessica A. who was part of a group from Trinity Washington University in Washington D.C. “I can’t say that needs to stop.” When asked how many legal immigrants should be annually accepted, she responded: “I can’t give you an answer because it is my people.”
When Breitbart News asked Yoseline R. if new immigration limits were a fair trade for amnesty, she replied: “I think no.” She added that she would not set limits on immigration because she is concerned for members of her family outside the United States.
Natalie H., a Mexican who was brought into the United States at age 3, said legal immigration should rise because foreign people want to “come here for a better life.”
The amnesty inflow will rise even further because the huge number of immigrants are creating incentives for politicians to favor more immigration. That is seen especially in California, where Democratic politicians are using the state legislature to block federal enforcement of national immigration laws and to provide aid and business licenses to illegals.
Daniel Horowitz, the editor of Conservative Review, sketched out the trend:
Now consider the following electoral dynamic playing out over the next 10 years. Democrats are already on a positive trajectory thanks to years of amnesty and open borders. But the same thing that happened to California after the 1986 amnesty will now happen in many other states, including Texas, Arizona, and Florida. There are an estimated 260,000 “dreamers” in Texas, as well as 559,000 eligible for DAPA. That is a total of 820,000 new voters over time, even before discussing chain migration. That is greater than the 807,000 margin of victory for Trump in Texas last year. The margin of victory in Arizona and Florida was close to 100,000 in each state, easily overwhelmed by any iteration of amnesty and citizenship.
.@wwwCISorg: Fascinating Takeaways from California's DACA Lawsuit https://t.co/QETS4HnH4C
— Mark Krikorian (@MarkSKrikorian) September 14, 2017
The Democrats’ Dream acts are very different from the popular RAISE Act, endorsed last month by Trump. The Senate RAISE Act would reduce legal immigration by roughly 400,000 people a year, or 4 million fewer people in 10 years. The bill was drafted with two GOP Senators, Georgia Sen. David Perdue and Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton, both of whom won election following the 2013 “Gang of Eight” disaster.
A similar merit-immigration bill was introduced September 14 by Rep. Lamar Smit, chairman of the House committee on science. He said:
“The Immigration in the National Interest Act ensures that our legal immigration system prioritizes those with the highest skills and education necessary to boost economic growth, spur innovation, and create jobs in our country. It will also reduce the number of low-skilled and under-educated immigrants. Studies have shown these individuals typically depress wages or take jobs from Americans, and receive four times as much more in government assistance than they pay in taxes.
“Additionally, this bill will end the policy of automatically admitting extended relatives of legally admitted immigrants, often referred to as chain migration. Those relatives outside the nuclear family must use other methods to immigrate legally to our country.
“Thank you to Senators Cotton and Perdue for their partnership on this important issue. And I appreciate President Trump’s support of this legislation and his help in fulfilling the pledge we made to make our immigration laws better serve America.”
For background on the RAISE Act, click here.
Four million Americans turn 18 each year and begin looking for good jobs. However, the government imports roughly 1 million legal immigrants to compete against Americans for jobs. Not all do go to work, for example, or else file for government aid, almost 100,000 legal immigrants per year are close to retirement.
The government also hands out almost 3 million short-term work permits to foreign workers. These permits include roughly 330,000 one-year OPT permits for foreign graduates of U.S. colleges, roughly 200,000 three-year H-1B visas for foreign white-collar professionals, and 400,000 two-year permits to DACA illegals. Some of those imported white-collar workers gain outsourced jobs at Jan’s alma mater, Stanford University.
That Washington-imposed policy of mass-immigration floods the market with foreign labor, spikes profits and Wall Street values by cutting salaries for manual and skilled labor offered by blue-collar and white-collar employees. It also drives up real estate prices, widens wealth-gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts kids’ schools and college education, pushes Americans away from high-tech careers, and sidelines at least 5 million marginalized Americans and their families.