OBAMA’S OPEN BORDERS
SOARING DEATH IN AMERICA: MEXICO DELIVERS THE HEROIN.
THE RISE TO POWER OF BANKSTER-OWNED BARACK
OBAMA
'Incompetent' and 'liar' among most frequently
used words to describe the president: Pew Research Center
The
larger fear is that Obama might be just another corporatist punking voters
much as the Republicans do when they claim to be all for the common guy.
Obama Granted Soros-Tied Group $310M to Help Migrants Avoid Deportation
2:19
Former President Barack Obama’s administration rewarded an organization with ties to globalist billionaire George Soros to help Unaccompanied Alien Children (UACs) avoid deportation from the United States.
An Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) investigation reveals that between 2015 and 2016, the Obama administration rewarded the Vera Institute of Justice $310 million in contracts to help UACs — young migrants who came to the U.S.-Mexico border unaccompanied — avoid deportation.
The IRLI investigation reveals that the Obama administration rewarded the Vera Justice Institute with millions in American taxpayer-funded contracts to give “direct legal representation” to UACs in deportation proceedings.
“When the federal government pays for illegal alien minors to receive direct legal representation, it does more than flout the law,” IRLI executive director Dale Wilcox said in a statement.
“These unauthorized payments have undoubtedly speeded-up UACs’ release from detention facilities to join their families, relatives, or fellow gang members – or help them reconnect with and pay ‘pandillas,’ the criminal cartels that make enormous profits from controlling human trafficking over the southern border,” Wilcox said. “My guess is that average voters would not be pleased to know that such vast amounts of their tax dollars are being spent in aid of this giant criminal enterprise.”
The Vera Justice Center was previously headed by Christopher Stone, who also served as the president of Soros’s Open Society Foundation between 2012 and 2017. Soros’s Open Society Foundation also previously awarded funding to the Vera Justice Center.
Federal officials have said that UACs pouring into the U.S. are “potential recruits” for violent foreign gangs like MS-13 that have taken a stronghold in American communities. In 2017 alone, more than 40,000 UACs were resettled across the U.S. after they arrived in the country unaccompanied.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.
Another Surge of Illegal Immigrants Along the Southwest Border: Is this the Obama Administration’s New Normal?
House Committee on the Judiciary
9:00 a.m., Thursday, February 4, 2016
2141 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
http://judiciary.house.gov/index.cfm/hearings?ID=9AC016C4-D7CD-44D7-8172-9B81E587D2BD
BARACK OBAMA’S CONSPIRACY FOR A THIRD TERM FOR LIFE
First, destroy Trump and put Hillary away if she doesn’t end up in
jail.
HE PARTNERS WITH ZUCKERBERG, SOROS AND LOUIS FARRAKHAN
“Obama would declare himself president for life with Soros
really running the show, as he did for the entire Obama presidency.”
“Hillary was always
small potatoes, a placeholder as it were. Her health was always suspect. And do
you think the plotters would have let a doofus like Tim Kaine take office in
the event that Hillary became disabled?”
“Obama has the
totalitarian impulse. After all, he went around saying he didn't have
Constitutional authority to legalize the illegals, and then he tried anyway.
The courts stopped him.”
“The bottom line 2 is
this: Barack Obama is a Communist. This was all an Obama operation. Why is
anyone surprised that a communist (Obama) tried to subvert an election. That is
what Communists do. It is Barack Obama and his people like Brennan and Clapper
behaving to type. That's what Maduro does in Venezuela. That's what the Castro
brothers did. That's what every communist and socialist nation does. THEY FIX ELECTIONS!!”
“Hillary
kept a secret server overflowing with national security info which, more than
likely, was hacked. June 28, 2016, on a Phoenix tarmac, Bill Clinton met with
Attorney General Loretta Lynch to seal a deal insuring Hillary would not be
prosecuted.”
“Obama, of course, covered
up his own role, depicting his presidency as eight years of heroic
efforts to repair the damage caused by the 2008 financial crash. At
the end of those eight years, however, Wall Street and the financial
oligarchy were fully recovered, enjoying record wealth, while
working people were poorer than before, a widening social chasm that
made possible the election of the billionaire con man and Demagogue in November
2016.”
David Bernstein & The Heritage Foundation - “Lawless: The
Obama Administration’s Unprecedented Assault on the Constitution and the Rule
of Law.”
“The
Lawlessness of the Obama Administration: A never-ending story.” Michael Barone
– American Historian – Washington
Examiner
TRAITOR
BARACK OBAMA and the MEX FASCIST MOVEMENT of LA RAZA “The Race”
Reconquistas
Muñoz, Solis present at Obama sovereignty sellout session ...Obama was joined
at the meeting [about a push to amnesty millions of border-hopping job thieves]
by Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, Senior Advisor Valerie
Jarrett, Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs Phil Schiliro,
and White House Director of Intergovernmental Affairs [and former 'Tan Klan'
minion] Cecilia Muñoz...
*
"Of course none of this comes as any surprise considering that Obama's point person on illegal immigration, Cecilia Munoz, once worked for the ultra-radical National Council of La Raza [aka the Tan Klan], a racist group that is committed to staging a takeover of the American Southwest and returning it to Mexico...."
"Of course none of this comes as any surprise considering that Obama's point person on illegal immigration, Cecilia Munoz, once worked for the ultra-radical National Council of La Raza [aka the Tan Klan], a racist group that is committed to staging a takeover of the American Southwest and returning it to Mexico...."
GLOBALIST FOR BANKSTERS, THE SUPER RICH and
OPEN BORDERS
ADVOCATES TO FINISH OFF THE AMERICAN
MIDDLE-CLASS.
There’s a reason why Soros, Bezos, Zuckerberg,
Bloomberg, Gates and the Koch Brothers love the Obomb!
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/09/barack-obama-and-his-muslim-style.html
“Democrats Move Towards ‘Oligarchical
Socialism,’ Says Forecaster Joel Kotkin.”
JUDICIAL WATCH’S TEN MOST
CORRUPT LIST
President Barack Obama: During
his presidential campaign, President Obama promised to run an ethical and
transparent administration. However, in his first year in office, the President
has delivered corruption and secrecy, bringing Chicago-style political
corruption to the White House. JUDICIAL WATCH
MULTI-CULTURALISM and the
creation of a one-party globalist country to serve the rich in America’s open
borders.
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2017/12/em-cadwaladr-impending-death-of.html
“Open border advocates, such as Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, claim illegal
aliens are a net benefit to California with little evidence to support such an
assertion. As the CIS has documented, the vast majority of illegals are poor,
uneducated, and with few skills. How does accepting millions of illegal aliens
and then granting them access to dozens of welfare programs benefit
California’s economy? If illegals were contributing to the economy in any
meaningful way, CA, with its 2.6 million illegals, would be booming.” STEVE
BALDWIN – AMERICAN SPECTATOR
GEORGE SOROS PARTNERS WITH BARACK OBAMA and ERIC HOLDER TO CREATE A GLOBALIST REGIME FOR THE BILLIONAIRE CLASS and CRONY BANKSTERS…. Open borders and endless hordes of illegals will make it happen!
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/04/monica-showalter-soros-banksters-and.html
YOU WONDERED WHY
OBAMA-HOLDER WORKED SO HARD TO SABOTAGE AMERICAN VOTING FOR MORE ILLEGALS???
Those are the subliterate, low-skill,
non-English-speaking indigents whose own societies are unable or unwilling to
usefully educate and employ them. Bring these people here and they not only
need a lot of services, they are putty in the hands of leftist demogogues as
Hugo Chavez demonstrated - and they are very useful as leftist voters who will
support the Soros agenda.
JAMES WALSH
BARACK OBAMA’S HISPANICAZATION of AMERICA… first ease millions of illegals over our borders and into our voting
booths!
How the Democrat party
surrendered America to Mexico:
“The watchdogs
at Judicial Watch discovered documents that reveal how the Obama administration's
close coordination with the Mexican government entices Mexicans to hop over the
fence and on to the American dole.” Washington Times
"This is country belongs to Mexico" is said by the
Mexican Militant. This is a common teaching that the U.S. is really AZTLAN,
belonging to Mexicans, which is taught to Mexican kids in Arizona and
California through a LA Raza educational program funded by American Tax Payers
via President Obama, when he gave LA RAZA $800,000.00 in March of 2009!
The “zero tolerance” program was dismantled by Attorney
General Erc Holder once it had successfully cut the transit of
migrants by roughly 95 percent. Initially, officials made 140,000 arrests per
year in the mid-2000s, but the northward flow dropped so much that officials
only had to make 6,000 arrests in 2013, according to a 2014 letter by two
pro-migration Senators, Sen. Jeff Flake and John McCain.
“The cost
of the Dream Act is far bigger than the Democrats or their media allies admit.
Instead of covering 690,000 younger illegals now enrolled in former President
Barack Obama’s 2012 “DACA” amnesty, the Dream Act would legalize at least 3.3
million illegals, according to a pro-immigration group, the Migration Policy
Institute.”
Heather Mac Donald: OBAMA’S
SABOTAGE of HOMELAND SECURITY
“The watchdogs
at Judicial Watch discovered documents that reveal how the Obama
administration's close coordination with the Mexican government entices
Mexicans to hop over the fence and on to the American dole.” Washington
Times
The “zero tolerance” program was dismantled by Attorney
General Erc Holder once it had successfully cut the transit of
migrants by roughly 95 percent. Initially, officials made 140,000 arrests per
year in the mid-2000s, but the northward flow dropped so much that officials
only had to make 6,000 arrests in 2013, according to a 2014 letter by two
pro-migration Senators, Sen. Jeff Flake and John McCain.
WIKILEAKS EXPOSES THE OBAMA CONSPIRACY TO FLOOD
AMERICAN WITH DEM VOTING ILLEGALS
“The watchdogs
at Judicial Watch discovered documents that reveal how the Obama
administration's close coordination with the Mexican government entices
Mexicans to hop over the fence and on to the American dole.” Washington
Times
Obama Funds the Mexican Fascist Party of
LA RAZA “The Race”… now calling itself UNIDOSus.
"This is country belongs to Mexico" is said by the
Mexican Militant. This is a common teaching that the U.S. is really AZTLAN,
belonging to Mexicans, which is taught to Mexican kids in Arizona and
California through a LA Raza educational program funded by American Tax Payers
via President Obama, when he gave LA RAZA $800,000.00 in March of 2009!
Previous
generations of immigrants did not believe they were racially superior to
Americans. That is the view of La Raza Cosmica, by Jose Vasconcelos,
Mexico’s former education minister and a presidential candidate. According to
this book, republished in 1979 by the Department of Chicano Studies at Cal
State LA, students of Scandinavian, Dutch and English background are dullards,
blacks are ugly and inferior, and those “Mongols” with the slanted eyes lack
enterprise. The superior new “cosmic” race of Spaniards and Indians is
replacing them, and all Yankee “Anglos.” LLOYD
BILLINGSLEY/ FRONTPAGE mag
DURING
OBAMA'S 8 YEAR BANKSTER REGIME, HE OPERATED LA RAZA (NOW CALLING ITSELF
UNIDOSus FROM THE WHITE HOUSE UNDER LA RAZA V.P. CECILIA MUNOZ. HE
FUNDED THE MEX FASCIST PARTY WITH U.S. TAX DOLLARS.
BOTH OF OBAMA’S SECRETARY of
(ILLEGAL) LABOR WERE LA RAZA SUPREMACIST. THESE WERE HILDA SOLIS AND TOM PEREZ.
The “zero tolerance” program was dismantled by Attorney
General Erc Holder once it had successfully cut the transit of
migrants by roughly 95 percent. Initially, officials made 140,000 arrests per
year in the mid-2000s, but the northward flow dropped so much that officials
only had to make 6,000 arrests in 2013, according to a 2014 letter by two
pro-migration Senators, Sen. Jeff Flake and John McCain.
Jose Angel Gutierrez,
professor, University of Texas, Arlington and founder of La Raza
Unida political party screams at rallies: "We have an aging
white America. They are d ying. They are s hitting in their pants with fear!
I love it! We have got to eliminate the g ringo, and what I mean by that
is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to k ill him!"
Previous
generations of immigrants did not believe they were racially superior to
Americans. That is the view of La Raza Cosmica, by Jose Vasconcelos,
Mexico’s former education minister and a presidential candidate. According to
this book, republished in 1979 by the Department of Chicano Studies at Cal
State LA, students of Scandinavian, Dutch and English background are dullards,
blacks are ugly and inferior, and those “Mongols” with the slanted eyes lack
enterprise. The superior new “cosmic” race of Spaniards and Indians is replacing
them, and all Yankee “Anglos.” LLOYD
BILLINGSLEY/ FRONTPAGE mag
HERE'S WHAT YOUR OPEN BORDERS FOR CHEAP LABOR
DELIVERS
1.
SECOND ONLY TO MEXICO CITY IN MEX KIDNAPPING.
2.
PHOENIX IS U.S. FIRST PLACE FOR MEX HOME INVASION
3.
PHOENIX IS U.S. FIRST PLACE FOR MEX CAR THEFT.
4.
MILLIONS PAID OUT TO MEX ANCHOR BABY BREEDERS
The Mexican fascist separatist movement of M.E.Ch.A's goal is even more
radical: an independent ''Aztlan,'' the collective name this organization gives to the seven states of the U.S.
Southwest – Arizona, California,
Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas and Utah."
*
The “zero tolerance”
program was dismantled by Attorney General Erc Holder once it had
successfully cut the transit of migrants by roughly 95 percent.
Initially, officials made 140,000 arrests per year in the mid-2000s, but the
northward flow dropped so much that officials only had to make 6,000 arrests in
2013, according to a 2014 letter by two pro-migration Senators, Sen. Jeff Flake and
John McCain.
*
More than half a million illegal immigrants of several dozen nationalities
have been apprehended on John Ladd’s sprawling cattle ranch in southeastern
Arizona. Ladd has also found 14 dead bodies on his 16,500-acre farm, which has
been in his family for well over a century and sits between the Mexican border
and historic State Route 92.
*
We’ve got
an even more ominous enemy within our borders that promotes “Reconquista of
Aztlan” or the reconquest of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas into the
country of Mexico.
*
“While the
Obama Administration downplays violence along the U.S.-Mexico border,
authorities in Texas reveal that Mexican have transformed parts of the
state into a war zone where shootings, beheadings, kidnappings and murders are
common.
FIFTEEN THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT LA RAZA
“THE RACE”
by Michelle Malkin
Only
in America could critics of a group called "The Race" be labeled
racists. Such is the triumph of left-wing identity chauvinists, whose
aggressive activists and supine abettors have succeeded in redefining all
opposition as "hate."
JUDICIAL
WATCH
OBAMA HANDS TAX DOLLARS TO LA RAZA MEXICAN
SUPREMACIST:
Previous generations of immigrants did not
believe they were racially superior to Americans. That is the view of La Raza Cosmica, by Jose Vasconcelos, Mexico’s former education minister and
a presidential candidate. According to this book, republished in 1979 by the
Department of Chicano Studies at Cal State LA, students of Scandinavian, Dutch
and English background are dullards, blacks are ugly and inferior, and those
“Mongols” with the slanted eyes lack enterprise. The superior new “cosmic” race
of Spaniards and Indians is replacing them, and all Yankee “Anglos.” LLOYD BILLINGSLEY/ FRONTPAGE mag
MICHAEL BARONE
“The Lawlessness of the Obama Administration: A
never-ending story.”
THE PSYCHOPATH WHO WOULD BE DICTATOR FUNDED BY
HIS
CRIMINAL CRONY BANKSTERS AND REELECTED FOR A
THIRD TERM BY
MEXICO
SURGE OF ILLEGALS POUR OVER AMERICA’S OPEN and UNDEFENDED BORDERS FOR
OBAMA’S IMPERIAL AMNESTY, AMERICAN JOBS and WELFARE!
Mucho gringo welfare just over the border!
MEX WITH 37 CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS FINALLY DEPORTED… wonder
if he’s back looting already???
more at this link:
In FY
2012, ICE says it removed 409,849 illegal aliens. Fifty-five percent of them (or 225,390) were convicted
criminal aliens, the largest number of criminal aliens removed in agency
history, ICE said.
MICHELLE MALKIN: another brutal murder by another illegal
criminal long on the loose in our open borders!
Non-deportation rate drops — to 99.2 percent
Saturday, May 18, 2013
The Homeland Security Department has granted
legal status to 99.2 percent of all illegal immigrants who have applied under
President Obama's new non-deportation policy for young adults, according to the
latest numbers released Friday.
more at this link – post on your Facebook and email broadcast
We’ve got an even more ominous enemy within
our borders that promotes “Reconquista of Aztlan” or the reconquest of
California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas into the country of Mexico.
“While the
Obama Administration downplays violence along the U.S.-Mexico border,
authorities in Texas reveal that Mexican have transformed parts of
the state into a war zone where shootings, beheadings, kidnappings and murders
are common.
THE CARTELS NOW OPERATE IN MORE THAN 2,500 AMERICAN CITIES INCLUDING
OBAMA’S CHICAGO!
more at this link – post on your Facebook and email broadcast
Known for mounting the severed heads of its rivals on poles
or hanging their
dismembered bodies from bridges in cities throughout
Mexico, Los Zetas easily
has become the most feared criminal gang in Mexico.
DRUG CARTELS FIND CALIFORNIA A GREAT PLACE TO LOOT!
Street gang that controls ALL of Orange County drug trade taken down: SWAT
teams swoop on 120 members of the 'Mexican Mafia' a total of 129 people
have been indicted by county and federal grand juries alleging crimes
including murder, drug trafficking and extortion
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-mexican-crime-tidal-wave-mexican.html
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-mexican-crime-tidal-wave-mexican.html
CARTELS
OBAMAS OPEN BORDERS and the MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS…. They’re
hauling billions back over our open borders!
More Americans Killed by Illegal Aliens than Iraq War,
Study Says
more at this link – post on your Facebook and email broadcast
73% DEATHS ON OBAMA’S WATCH – DURING IS TERMS, HOW MANY
AMERICANS (LEGALS) WERE MURDERED OR RAPED BY MEXICANS OR CHILDREN MOLESTED?
The 12-Year War: 73% of U.S. Casualties in Afghanistan on
Obama's Watch
According to a 2011 report from the
Government Accountability Office, there are 70,000 sexual offenses
attached to the incarcerated criminal alien population.
AMERICA’S OPEN BORDERS:
70,000 LEGALS
RAPED!
A Mexican illegal alien allegedly raped a girl in Kansas in September
after being deported ten times in the past six years alone, according to
reports.
WHO ARE THE LA RAZA MEXICAN INVADERS?
In the July/August version of the Atlantic,
columnist Peter Beinart wrote an article titled, “How the Democrats Lost Their
Way on Immigration.”
“The next Democratic presidential candidate should say again and
again that because Americans are one people, who must abide by one law, his or
her goal is to reduce America’s undocumented population to zero.”
Peter Beinart, a frequent contributor to the New York
Times, New York Review of Books, Haaretz, and
former editor of the New Republic, blames immigration for
deteriorating social conditions for the American working class: The supposed
“costs” of immigration, he says, “strain the very welfare state that liberals
want to expand in order to help those native-born Americans with whom
immigrants compete.”
llustration by Lincoln Agnew*
The myth, which liberals like myself find tempting, is that
only the right has changed. In June 2015, we tell ourselves, Donald Trump rode
down his golden escalator and pretty soon nativism, long a feature of
conservative politics, had engulfed it. But that’s not the full story. If the
right has grown more nationalistic, the left has grown less so. A decade ago,
liberals publicly questioned immigration in ways that would shock many
progressives today.
Listen to the audio version of this article:Download the Audm app for
your iPhone to listen to more titles.
In 2005, a left-leaning blogger wrote, “Illegal immigration wreaks havoc economically, socially, and culturally; makes a mockery of the rule of law; and is disgraceful just on basic fairness grounds alone.” In 2006, a liberal columnist wrote that “immigration reduces the wages of domestic workers who compete with immigrants” and that “the fiscal burden of low-wage immigrants is also pretty clear.” His conclusion: “We’ll need to reduce the inflow of low-skill immigrants.” That same year, a Democratic senator wrote, “When I see Mexican flags waved at pro-immigration demonstrations, I sometimes feel a flush of patriotic resentment. When I’m forced to use a translator to communicate with the guy fixing my car, I feel a certain frustration.”
In 2005, a left-leaning blogger wrote, “Illegal immigration wreaks havoc economically, socially, and culturally; makes a mockery of the rule of law; and is disgraceful just on basic fairness grounds alone.” In 2006, a liberal columnist wrote that “immigration reduces the wages of domestic workers who compete with immigrants” and that “the fiscal burden of low-wage immigrants is also pretty clear.” His conclusion: “We’ll need to reduce the inflow of low-skill immigrants.” That same year, a Democratic senator wrote, “When I see Mexican flags waved at pro-immigration demonstrations, I sometimes feel a flush of patriotic resentment. When I’m forced to use a translator to communicate with the guy fixing my car, I feel a certain frustration.”
The blogger was Glenn Greenwald. The columnist was Paul Krugman. The senator was Barack Obama.
Prominent liberals didn’t oppose immigration a decade ago. Most acknowledged its benefits to America’s economy and culture. They supported a path to citizenship for the undocumented. Still, they routinely asserted that low-skilled immigrants depressed the wages of low-skilled American workers and strained America’s welfare state. And they were far more likely than liberals today are to acknowledge that, as Krugman put it, “immigration is an intensely painful topic … because it places basic principles in conflict.”
Today, little of that ambivalence remains. In 2008, the Democratic platform called undocumented immigrants “our neighbors.” But it also warned, “We cannot continue to allow people to enter the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked,” adding that “those who enter our country’s borders illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of the law.” By 2016, such language was gone. The party’s platform described America’s immigration system as a problem, but not illegal immigration itself. And it focused almost entirely on the forms of immigration enforcement that Democrats opposed. In its immigration section, the 2008 platform referred three times to people entering the country “illegally.” The immigration section of the 2016 platform didn’t use the word illegal, or any variation of it, at all.“A decade or two ago,” says Jason Furman, a former chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, “Democrats were divided on immigration. Now everyone agrees and is passionate and thinks very little about any potential downsides.” How did this come to be?
There are several explanations for liberals’ shift. The
first is that they have changed because the reality on the ground has changed,
particularly as regards illegal immigration. In the two decades preceding 2008,
the United States experienced sharp growth in its undocumented population.
Since then, the numbers have leveled off.
But this alone doesn’t explain the transformation. The number of
undocumented people in the United States hasn’t gone down significantly, after
all; it’s stayed roughly the same. So the economic concerns that Krugman raised
a decade ago remain relevant today.
What’s Wrong With the Democrats?A larger explanation is political. Between 2008 and 2016, Democrats became more and more confident that the country’s growing Latino population gave the party an electoral edge. To win the presidency, Democrats convinced themselves, they didn’t need to reassure white people skeptical of immigration so long as they turned out their Latino base. “The fastest-growing sector of the American electorate stampeded toward the Democrats this November,” Salon declared after Obama’s 2008 win. “If that pattern continues, the GOP is doomed to 40 years of wandering in a desert.”As the Democrats grew more reliant on Latino votes, they were more influenced by pro-immigrant activism. While Obama was running for reelection, immigrants’-rights advocates launched protests against the administration’s deportation practices; these protests culminated, in June 2012, in a sit-in at an Obama campaign office in Denver. Ten days later, the administration announced that it would defer the deportation of undocumented immigrants who had arrived in the U.S. before the age of 16 and met various other criteria. Obama, The New York Times noted, “was facing growing pressure from Latino leaders and Democrats who warned that because of his harsh immigration enforcement, his support was lagging among Latinos who could be crucial voters in his race for re-election.”
Alongside pressure from pro-immigrant activists came pressure from corporate America, especially the Democrat-aligned tech industry, which uses the H-1B visa program to import workers. In 2010, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, along with the CEOs of companies including Hewlett-Packard, Boeing, Disney, and News Corporation, formed New American Economy to advocate for business-friendly immigration policies. Three years later, Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates helped found FWD.us to promote a similar agenda.
This combination of Latino and corporate activism made it perilous for Democrats to discuss immigration’s costs, as Bernie Sanders learned the hard way. In July 2015, two months after officially announcing his candidacy for president, Sanders was interviewed by Ezra Klein, the editor in chief of Vox. Klein asked whether, in order to fight global poverty, the U.S. should consider “sharply raising the level of immigration we permit, even up to a level of open borders.” Sanders reacted with horror. “That’s a Koch brothers proposal,” he scoffed. He went on to insist that “right-wing people in this country would love … an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don’t believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country.”
Progressive commentators routinely claim that there’s a near-consensus among economists on immigration’s benefits. There isn’t.Sanders came under immediate attack. Vox’s Dylan Matthews declared that his “fear of immigrant labor is ugly—and wrongheaded.” The president of FWD.us accused Sanders of “the sort of backward-looking thinking that progressives have rightly moved away from in the past years.” ThinkProgress published a blog post titled “Why Immigration Is the Hole in Bernie Sanders’ Progressive Agenda.” The senator, it argued, was supporting “the idea that immigrants coming to the U.S. are taking jobs and hurting the economy, a theory that has been proven incorrect.”Sanders stopped emphasizing immigration’s costs. By January 2016, FWD.us’s policy director noted with satisfaction that he had “evolved on this issue.”
But has the claim that “immigrants coming to the U.S. are taking jobs” actually been proved “incorrect”? A decade ago, liberals weren’t so sure. In 2006, Krugman wrote that America was experiencing “large increases in the number of low-skill workers relative to other inputs into production, so it’s inevitable that this means a fall in wages.”
It’s hard to imagine a prominent liberal columnist writing that sentence today. To the contrary, progressive commentators now routinely claim that there’s a near-consensus among economists on immigration’s benefits.(Illustration by Lincoln Agnew. Photos: AFP; Atta Kenare; Eric Lafforgue; Gamma-Rapho; Getty; Keystone-France; Koen van Weel; Lambert; Richard Baker / In Pictures / Corbis)There isn’t. According to a comprehensive new report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, “Groups comparable to … immigrants in terms of their skill may experience a wage reduction as a result of immigration-induced increases in labor supply.” But academics sometimes de-emphasize this wage reduction because, like liberal journalists and politicians, they face pressures to support immigration.
Many of the immigration scholars regularly cited in the press have worked for, or received funding from, pro-immigration businesses and associations. Consider, for instance, Giovanni Peri, an economist at UC Davis whose name pops up a lot in liberal commentary on the virtues of immigration. A 2015 New York Times Magazine essay titled “Debunking the Myth of the Job-Stealing Immigrant” declared that Peri, whom it called the “leading scholar” on how nations respond to immigration, had “shown that immigrants tend to complement—rather than compete against—the existing work force.” Peri is indeed a respected scholar. But Microsoft has funded some of his research into high-skilled immigration. And New American Economy paid to help him turn his research into a 2014 policy paper decrying limitations on the H-1B visa program. Such grants are more likely the result of his scholarship than their cause. Still, the prevalence of corporate funding can subtly influence which questions economists ask, and which ones they don’t. (Peri says grants like those from Microsoft and New American Economy are neither large nor crucial to his work, and that “they don’t determine … the direction of my academic research.”)Academics face cultural pressures too. In his book Exodus, Paul Collier, an economist at the University of Oxford, claims that in their “desperate [desire] not to give succor” to nativist bigots, “social scientists have strained every muscle to show that migration is good for everyone.” George Borjas of Harvard argues that since he began studying immigration in the 1980s, his fellow economists have grown far less tolerant of research that emphasizes its costs. There is, he told me, “a lot of self-censorship among young social scientists.” Because Borjas is an immigration skeptic, some might discount his perspective. But when I asked Donald Davis, a Columbia University economist who takes a more favorable view of immigration’s economic impact, about Borjas’s claim, he made a similar point. “George and I come out on different sides of policy on immigration,” Davis said, “but I agree that there are aspects of discussion in academia that don’t get sort of full view if you come to the wrong conclusion.”
What’s Wrong With the Democrats?A larger explanation is political. Between 2008 and 2016, Democrats became more and more confident that the country’s growing Latino population gave the party an electoral edge. To win the presidency, Democrats convinced themselves, they didn’t need to reassure white people skeptical of immigration so long as they turned out their Latino base. “The fastest-growing sector of the American electorate stampeded toward the Democrats this November,” Salon declared after Obama’s 2008 win. “If that pattern continues, the GOP is doomed to 40 years of wandering in a desert.”As the Democrats grew more reliant on Latino votes, they were more influenced by pro-immigrant activism. While Obama was running for reelection, immigrants’-rights advocates launched protests against the administration’s deportation practices; these protests culminated, in June 2012, in a sit-in at an Obama campaign office in Denver. Ten days later, the administration announced that it would defer the deportation of undocumented immigrants who had arrived in the U.S. before the age of 16 and met various other criteria. Obama, The New York Times noted, “was facing growing pressure from Latino leaders and Democrats who warned that because of his harsh immigration enforcement, his support was lagging among Latinos who could be crucial voters in his race for re-election.”
Alongside pressure from pro-immigrant activists came pressure from corporate America, especially the Democrat-aligned tech industry, which uses the H-1B visa program to import workers. In 2010, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, along with the CEOs of companies including Hewlett-Packard, Boeing, Disney, and News Corporation, formed New American Economy to advocate for business-friendly immigration policies. Three years later, Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates helped found FWD.us to promote a similar agenda.
This combination of Latino and corporate activism made it perilous for Democrats to discuss immigration’s costs, as Bernie Sanders learned the hard way. In July 2015, two months after officially announcing his candidacy for president, Sanders was interviewed by Ezra Klein, the editor in chief of Vox. Klein asked whether, in order to fight global poverty, the U.S. should consider “sharply raising the level of immigration we permit, even up to a level of open borders.” Sanders reacted with horror. “That’s a Koch brothers proposal,” he scoffed. He went on to insist that “right-wing people in this country would love … an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don’t believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country.”
Progressive commentators routinely claim that there’s a near-consensus among economists on immigration’s benefits. There isn’t.Sanders came under immediate attack. Vox’s Dylan Matthews declared that his “fear of immigrant labor is ugly—and wrongheaded.” The president of FWD.us accused Sanders of “the sort of backward-looking thinking that progressives have rightly moved away from in the past years.” ThinkProgress published a blog post titled “Why Immigration Is the Hole in Bernie Sanders’ Progressive Agenda.” The senator, it argued, was supporting “the idea that immigrants coming to the U.S. are taking jobs and hurting the economy, a theory that has been proven incorrect.”Sanders stopped emphasizing immigration’s costs. By January 2016, FWD.us’s policy director noted with satisfaction that he had “evolved on this issue.”
But has the claim that “immigrants coming to the U.S. are taking jobs” actually been proved “incorrect”? A decade ago, liberals weren’t so sure. In 2006, Krugman wrote that America was experiencing “large increases in the number of low-skill workers relative to other inputs into production, so it’s inevitable that this means a fall in wages.”
It’s hard to imagine a prominent liberal columnist writing that sentence today. To the contrary, progressive commentators now routinely claim that there’s a near-consensus among economists on immigration’s benefits.(Illustration by Lincoln Agnew. Photos: AFP; Atta Kenare; Eric Lafforgue; Gamma-Rapho; Getty; Keystone-France; Koen van Weel; Lambert; Richard Baker / In Pictures / Corbis)There isn’t. According to a comprehensive new report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, “Groups comparable to … immigrants in terms of their skill may experience a wage reduction as a result of immigration-induced increases in labor supply.” But academics sometimes de-emphasize this wage reduction because, like liberal journalists and politicians, they face pressures to support immigration.
Many of the immigration scholars regularly cited in the press have worked for, or received funding from, pro-immigration businesses and associations. Consider, for instance, Giovanni Peri, an economist at UC Davis whose name pops up a lot in liberal commentary on the virtues of immigration. A 2015 New York Times Magazine essay titled “Debunking the Myth of the Job-Stealing Immigrant” declared that Peri, whom it called the “leading scholar” on how nations respond to immigration, had “shown that immigrants tend to complement—rather than compete against—the existing work force.” Peri is indeed a respected scholar. But Microsoft has funded some of his research into high-skilled immigration. And New American Economy paid to help him turn his research into a 2014 policy paper decrying limitations on the H-1B visa program. Such grants are more likely the result of his scholarship than their cause. Still, the prevalence of corporate funding can subtly influence which questions economists ask, and which ones they don’t. (Peri says grants like those from Microsoft and New American Economy are neither large nor crucial to his work, and that “they don’t determine … the direction of my academic research.”)Academics face cultural pressures too. In his book Exodus, Paul Collier, an economist at the University of Oxford, claims that in their “desperate [desire] not to give succor” to nativist bigots, “social scientists have strained every muscle to show that migration is good for everyone.” George Borjas of Harvard argues that since he began studying immigration in the 1980s, his fellow economists have grown far less tolerant of research that emphasizes its costs. There is, he told me, “a lot of self-censorship among young social scientists.” Because Borjas is an immigration skeptic, some might discount his perspective. But when I asked Donald Davis, a Columbia University economist who takes a more favorable view of immigration’s economic impact, about Borjas’s claim, he made a similar point. “George and I come out on different sides of policy on immigration,” Davis said, “but I agree that there are aspects of discussion in academia that don’t get sort of full view if you come to the wrong conclusion.”
None of this means that liberals should oppose immigration.
Entry to the United States is, for starters, a boon to immigrants and to the
family members back home to whom they send money. It should be valued on these
moral grounds alone. But immigration benefits the economy, too. Because
immigrants are more likely than native-born Americans to be of working age,
they improve the ratio of workers to retirees, which helps keep programs like
Social Security and Medicare solvent. Immigration has also been found to boost
productivity, and the National Academies report finds that “natives’ incomes
rise in aggregate as a result of immigration.”
The problem is that, although economists differ about the extent
of the damage, immigration hurts the Americans with whom immigrants compete.
And since more than a quarter of America’s recent immigrants lack even a
high-school diploma or its equivalent, immigration particularly hurts the
least-educated native workers, the very people who are already struggling the
most. America’s immigration system, in other words, pits two of the groups
liberals care about most—the native-born poor and the immigrant poor—against each
other.
One way of mitigating this problem would be to scrap the current system, which allows immigrants living in the U.S. to bring certain close relatives to the country, in favor of what Donald Trump in February called a “merit based” approach that prioritizes highly skilled and educated workers. The problem with this idea, from a liberal perspective, is its cruelty. It denies many immigrants who are already here the ability to reunite with their loved ones. And it flouts the country’s best traditions. Would we remove from the Statue of Liberty the poem welcoming the “poor,” the “wretched,” and the “homeless”?
A better answer is to take some of the windfall that immigration brings to wealthier Americans and give it to those poorer Americans whom immigration harms. Borjas has suggested taxing the high-tech, agricultural, and service-sector companies that profit from cheap immigrant labor and using the money to compensate those Americans who are displaced by it.Unfortunately, while admitting poor immigrants makes redistributing wealth more necessary, it also makes it harder, at least in the short term. By some estimates, immigrants, who are poorer on average than native-born Americans and have larger families, receive more in government services than they pay in taxes. According to the National Academies report, immigrant-headed families with children are 15 percentage points more likely to rely on food assistance, and 12 points more likely to rely on Medicaid, than other families with children. In the long term, the United States will likely recoup much if not all of the money it spends on educating and caring for the children of immigrants. But in the meantime, these costs strain the very welfare state that liberals want to expand in order to help those native-born Americans with whom immigrants compete.
What’s more, studies by the Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam and others suggest that greater diversity makes Americans less charitable and less willing to redistribute wealth. People tend to be less generous when large segments of society don’t look or talk like them. Surprisingly, Putnam’s research suggests that greater diversity doesn’t reduce trust and cooperation just among people of different races or ethnicities—it also reduces trust and cooperation among people of the same race and ethnicity.
Trump appears to sense this. His implicit message during the campaign was that if the government kept out Mexicans and Muslims, white, Christian Americans would not only grow richer and safer, they would also regain the sense of community that they identified with a bygone age. “At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America,” he declared in his inaugural address, “and through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other.”Liberals must take seriously Americans’ yearning for social cohesion. To promote both mass immigration and greater economic redistribution, they must convince more native-born white Americans that immigrants will not weaken the bonds of national identity. This means dusting off a concept many on the left currently hate: assimilation.
One way of mitigating this problem would be to scrap the current system, which allows immigrants living in the U.S. to bring certain close relatives to the country, in favor of what Donald Trump in February called a “merit based” approach that prioritizes highly skilled and educated workers. The problem with this idea, from a liberal perspective, is its cruelty. It denies many immigrants who are already here the ability to reunite with their loved ones. And it flouts the country’s best traditions. Would we remove from the Statue of Liberty the poem welcoming the “poor,” the “wretched,” and the “homeless”?
A better answer is to take some of the windfall that immigration brings to wealthier Americans and give it to those poorer Americans whom immigration harms. Borjas has suggested taxing the high-tech, agricultural, and service-sector companies that profit from cheap immigrant labor and using the money to compensate those Americans who are displaced by it.Unfortunately, while admitting poor immigrants makes redistributing wealth more necessary, it also makes it harder, at least in the short term. By some estimates, immigrants, who are poorer on average than native-born Americans and have larger families, receive more in government services than they pay in taxes. According to the National Academies report, immigrant-headed families with children are 15 percentage points more likely to rely on food assistance, and 12 points more likely to rely on Medicaid, than other families with children. In the long term, the United States will likely recoup much if not all of the money it spends on educating and caring for the children of immigrants. But in the meantime, these costs strain the very welfare state that liberals want to expand in order to help those native-born Americans with whom immigrants compete.
What’s more, studies by the Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam and others suggest that greater diversity makes Americans less charitable and less willing to redistribute wealth. People tend to be less generous when large segments of society don’t look or talk like them. Surprisingly, Putnam’s research suggests that greater diversity doesn’t reduce trust and cooperation just among people of different races or ethnicities—it also reduces trust and cooperation among people of the same race and ethnicity.
Trump appears to sense this. His implicit message during the campaign was that if the government kept out Mexicans and Muslims, white, Christian Americans would not only grow richer and safer, they would also regain the sense of community that they identified with a bygone age. “At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America,” he declared in his inaugural address, “and through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other.”Liberals must take seriously Americans’ yearning for social cohesion. To promote both mass immigration and greater economic redistribution, they must convince more native-born white Americans that immigrants will not weaken the bonds of national identity. This means dusting off a concept many on the left currently hate: assimilation.
Promoting assimilation need not mean expecting
immigrants to abandon their culture. But it does mean breaking down the
barriers that segregate them from the native-born. And it means celebrating
America’s diversity less, and its unity more.
Writing last year in American Sociological Review,
Ariela Schachter, a sociology professor at Washington University in St. Louis,
examined the factors that influence how native-born whites view immigrants.
Foremost among them is an immigrant’s legal status. Given that natives often
assume Latinos are undocumented even when they aren’t, it follows that illegal
immigration indirectly undermines the status of those Latinos who live in the
U.S. legally. That’s why conservatives rail against government benefits for
undocumented immigrants (even though the undocumented are already barred from
receiving many of those benefits): They know Americans will be more reluctant
to support government programs if they believe those programs to be benefiting
people who have entered the country illegally.
Liberal immigration policy must work to ensure that immigrants do not occupy a separate legal caste. This means opposing the guest-worker programs—beloved by many Democrat-friendly tech companies, among other employers—that require immigrants to work in a particular job to remain in the U.S. Some scholars believe such programs drive down wages; they certainly inhibit assimilation. And, as Schachter’s research suggests, strengthening the bonds of identity between natives and immigrants is harder when natives and immigrants are not equal under the law.The next Democratic presidential candidate should say again and again that because Americans are one people, who must abide by one law, his or her goal is to reduce America’s undocumented population to zero. For liberals, the easy part of fulfilling that pledge is supporting a path to citizenship for the undocumented who have put down roots in the United States. The hard part, which Hillary Clinton largely ignored in her 2016 presidential run, is backing tough immigration enforcement so that path to citizenship doesn’t become a magnet that entices more immigrants to enter the U.S. illegally.
Enforcement need not mean tearing apart families, as Trump is doing with gusto. Liberals can propose that the government deal harshly not with the undocumented themselves but with their employers. Trump’s brutal policies already appear to be slowing illegal immigration. But making sure companies follow the law and verify the legal status of their employees would curtail it too: Migrants would presumably be less likely to come to the U.S. if they know they won’t be able to find work.
In 2014, the University of California listed the term melting pot as a “microaggression.” What if Hillary Clinton had called that absurd?Schachter’s research also shows that native-born whites feel a greater affinity toward immigrants who speak fluent English. That’s particularly significant because, according to the National Academies report, newer immigrants are learning English more slowly than their predecessors did. During the campaign, Clinton proposed increasing funding for adult English-language education. But she rarely talked about it. In fact, she ran an ad attacking Trump for saying, among other things, “This is a country where we speak English, not Spanish.” The immigration section of her website showed her surrounded by Spanish-language signs.Democrats should put immigrants’ learning English at the center of their immigration agenda. If more immigrants speak English fluently, native-born whites may well feel a stronger connection to them, and be more likely to support government policies that help them. Promoting English will also give Democrats a greater chance of attracting those native-born whites who consider growing diversity a threat. According to a preelection study by Adam Bonica, a Stanford political scientist, the single best predictor of whether a voter supported Trump was whether he or she agreed with the statement “People living in the U.S. should follow American customs and traditions.”
In her 2005 book, The Authoritarian Dynamic, which has been heralded for identifying the forces that powered Trump’s campaign, Karen Stenner, then a professor of politics at Princeton, wrote:
Liberal immigration policy must work to ensure that immigrants do not occupy a separate legal caste. This means opposing the guest-worker programs—beloved by many Democrat-friendly tech companies, among other employers—that require immigrants to work in a particular job to remain in the U.S. Some scholars believe such programs drive down wages; they certainly inhibit assimilation. And, as Schachter’s research suggests, strengthening the bonds of identity between natives and immigrants is harder when natives and immigrants are not equal under the law.The next Democratic presidential candidate should say again and again that because Americans are one people, who must abide by one law, his or her goal is to reduce America’s undocumented population to zero. For liberals, the easy part of fulfilling that pledge is supporting a path to citizenship for the undocumented who have put down roots in the United States. The hard part, which Hillary Clinton largely ignored in her 2016 presidential run, is backing tough immigration enforcement so that path to citizenship doesn’t become a magnet that entices more immigrants to enter the U.S. illegally.
Enforcement need not mean tearing apart families, as Trump is doing with gusto. Liberals can propose that the government deal harshly not with the undocumented themselves but with their employers. Trump’s brutal policies already appear to be slowing illegal immigration. But making sure companies follow the law and verify the legal status of their employees would curtail it too: Migrants would presumably be less likely to come to the U.S. if they know they won’t be able to find work.
In 2014, the University of California listed the term melting pot as a “microaggression.” What if Hillary Clinton had called that absurd?Schachter’s research also shows that native-born whites feel a greater affinity toward immigrants who speak fluent English. That’s particularly significant because, according to the National Academies report, newer immigrants are learning English more slowly than their predecessors did. During the campaign, Clinton proposed increasing funding for adult English-language education. But she rarely talked about it. In fact, she ran an ad attacking Trump for saying, among other things, “This is a country where we speak English, not Spanish.” The immigration section of her website showed her surrounded by Spanish-language signs.Democrats should put immigrants’ learning English at the center of their immigration agenda. If more immigrants speak English fluently, native-born whites may well feel a stronger connection to them, and be more likely to support government policies that help them. Promoting English will also give Democrats a greater chance of attracting those native-born whites who consider growing diversity a threat. According to a preelection study by Adam Bonica, a Stanford political scientist, the single best predictor of whether a voter supported Trump was whether he or she agreed with the statement “People living in the U.S. should follow American customs and traditions.”
In her 2005 book, The Authoritarian Dynamic, which has been heralded for identifying the forces that powered Trump’s campaign, Karen Stenner, then a professor of politics at Princeton, wrote:
Exposure to difference, talking about difference, and applauding
difference—the hallmarks of liberal democracy—are the surest ways to aggravate
those who are innately intolerant, and to guarantee the increased expression of
their predispositions in manifestly intolerant attitudes and behaviors.
Paradoxically, then, it would seem that we can best limit intolerance of
difference by parading, talking about, and applauding our sameness.
The next Democratic presidential nominee should commit those words
to memory. There’s a reason Barack Obama’s declaration at the 2004 Democratic
National Convention that “there is not a liberal America and a conservative
America … There is not a black America and white America and Latino America and
Asian America; there’s the United States of America” is among his most famous
lines. Americans know that liberals celebrate diversity. They’re less sure that
liberals celebrate unity. And Obama’s ability to effectively do the latter
probably contributed to the fact that he—a black man with a Muslim-sounding
name—twice won a higher percentage of the white vote than did Hillary
Clinton.In 2014, the University of California listed melting pot as
a term it considered a “microaggression.” What if Hillary Clinton had traveled
to one of its campuses and called that absurd? What if she had challenged elite
universities to celebrate not merely multiculturalism and globalization but
Americanness? What if she had said more boldly that the slowing rate of
English-language acquisition was a problem she was determined to solve? What if
she had acknowledged the challenges that mass immigration brings, and then
insisted that Americans could overcome those challenges by focusing not on what
makes them different but on what makes them the same?
Some on the left would have howled. But I suspect that Clinton would be president today.
Some on the left would have howled. But I suspect that Clinton would be president today.
No comments:
Post a Comment