BACKGROUND
The 'Gang of Eight' immigration expansion would have doubled
the rate of new immigration into the United States despite 1 in 4 Americans in
their working-ages not having a job. <http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2013/6/merit-based-visas-account-for-less-than-10-percent-of-total-immigration-under-gang-of-eight-bill>
Meanwhile, the I-squared bill would allow virtually
unlimited foreign hiring through universities. <http://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2015/1/hatch-klobuchar-rubio-coons-flake-blumenthal-introduce-high-skilled-immigration-bill>
As the National Review wrote opposing such increases:
"the United States is a nation with an economy, not an economy with a
nation." <http://www.nationalreview.com/article/351212/rubios-folly-cont-editors>
Keep in mind, the last time immigration as a share of
population hit its peak - in 1910 - immigration reductions were enacted and the
share fell for six straight decades.
This time around, lawmakers, led by the Gang of Eight, and spurred on by
various international CEOs and immigration lobbies, are trying to increase
immigration above our never-before-seen levels.
Keep in mind that immigration rates (e.g. green cards
issuances) are already nearly double what they were in the Regan years and more
than triple what they were in the post WW-II years. However, stay rates were lower in the 50's
and 60's so total immigration levels were still falling; stay rates are far
higher now, in part because of more generous federal benefits.
Since 1970, the foreign-born population has quadrupled. Meanwhile, wages today are lower than they
were in 1973. And wages as a share of
GDP have been falling for four decades.
Perhaps this is why the public overwhelmingly favors cuts to
record-breaking immigration. Unlike
illegal immigrants, when individuals arrive with green cards, they have
automatic lifetime work permits, benefits access and the ability to stay as
citizens. Most green card recipients are
lesser-skilled and lower-wage than U.S. workers. Each year we admit another 1 million each
year plus half a million students, 70,000 temp foreign workers, and 70,000
refugees & aslyees. Among the groups
most immediately harmed by high annual flows are past immigrants seeking better
pay, income security and inclusion in the middle class.
Other developed countries are moving to cut immigration
rates - for instance, Britain's conservative party is seeking a 2/3 cut to
annual immigration - as demand for workers continues its steady fall. Automation in particular means that the U.S.
will have a huge supply of lower-skilled unemployed workers in our existing
domestic labor pool, presenting social challenges that would be compounded by
large low-skilled worker flows from abroad.
At bottom, all discussion of immigration requires
understanding the numbers and polls.
<http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/67ae7163-6616-4023-a5c4-534c53e6fc26/immigration-primer-for-the-114th-congress.pdf>
[http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/immigration-population-highest.png]
POLLING
Gallup (1/29/15): By a more than 5-to-1 margin (39% vs. 7%),
Americans who are dissatisfied with current immigration levels want less rather
than more
<http://www.gallup.com/poll/181313/dissatisfied-immigration-levels.aspx>
Pew (2012): 69% say we should "restrict and control
people coming to live in our country more than we do now" (including 59%
of Hispanics)
<http://www.people-press.org/values-questions/q40n/more-restrictions-on-people-coming-to-live-in-our-country/#total>
Reuters (8/7/14): By a nearly 3-to-1 margin (45% vs. 17%),
Americans think immigration rates should be reduced, not increased
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/07/us-usa-immigration-worries idUSKBN0G70BE20140807http:/www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/07/us-usa-immigration-worries-idUSKBN0G70BE20140807>
Princeton Survey Research Associates (6/23/13): 61% say that
there "should be restrictions" on the number of STEM-related foreign
workers allowed to enter the U.S.
<http://www.pollingreport.com/immigration.htm>
Gallup<http://www.pollingreport.com/immigration.htm>
(6/8/14): By a 2-to-1 margin (41% vs. 22%), Americans think immigration should
be decreased rather than increased
The Polling Company (8/14/14): By a staggering 10-to-1
margin (75% vs. 8%), Americans believe that a business seeking workers should
raise wages and improve working conditions before hiring new labor from abroad
<http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/b7fe4df8-cb67-4eff-8310-3b53efa8ae45/10-1-immigration-poll.pdf>
Paragon Insights (9/2014): By an almost 5-to-1 margin (74%
vs. 15%), likely voters said they would be more likely to vote for a Republican
who said "the American people are right to be concerned about their jobs
and wages, and elected officials should put the needs of American workers
first." 70% said they would be more likely (vs. just 18% who would be less
likely) to vote for a Republican who said that "the first goal of
immigration policy needs to be getting unemployed Americans back to work - not
importing more low-wage workers to replace them."
<http://www.paragoninsights.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/140907-PI-National-Immigration-Poll-CROSSTABS.pdf>
And it cuts across all ethnic and party lines -
Source:<http://cis.org/Immigrant-Population-Hit%20Highest-Percentage-Ever-in-8-Years >.
Comments
Senator
Jeff Sessions (R-AL) is the only member of Congress leading the charge to
reduce excessive immigration. We need many
more politicians objecting to this invasion.
Most are dodging the issue, just like they ignored our open border for
decades. It’s time to get in their face about this. They are using their own
manufactured distractions to avoid the excessive immigration issue. The cost of
this treason will result in a formal government insolvency and
disbandment. The Communists will defeat
us without firing a shot.
Norb
Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment