Feb 22

Majority Support Trump’s Initiatives

A poll by McLaughlin & Associates for Secure America Now found that most Americans who are likely voters support President Trump’s recent initiatives on immigration. Fifty-nine percent endorsed his plan to cut federal funds to cities, counties, and states with sanctuary policies, i.e., polices forbidding cooperation with federal immigration law enforcement. Twenty-nine percent opposed the plan. Fifty-seven percent supported his proposed temporary ban travel to the U.S. from terrorist-linked countries. Thirty-seven percent were opposed.

Read more at scribd.com.

Permanent link to this article: http://www.aicfoundation.com/majority-support-trumps-initiatives/

Feb 21

Immigrants Riot in Sweden

Migrants from Third World countries rioted in a suburb of Stockholm only a few days after President Trump pointed out that Sweden had a problem with crime committed by immigrants. Commentators in the corporate media criticized Trump for making this observation.

Read more at fox.com.

Permanent link to this article: http://www.aicfoundation.com/immigrants-riot-in-sweden/

Feb 20

Border Wall a Bargain for Taxpayers

The pro-immigration Reuters News Service reports that President Donald Trump’s proposed wall along the border with Mexico to prevent illegal immigration will cost as much as $21.6 billion and take at least three years to complete.  Reuters said the cost estimate comes from an internal report from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

If the estimate is accurate, the border wall will be a bargain for American taxpayers when compared to the costs of illegal immigration.   With 654 miles of the border already fortified with fencing, completing a barrier along the remaining estimated 1,250 miles will save taxpayers a whopping $64 billion in costs that taxpayers cover for millions of illegal aliens.

Based on estimates from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS), each alien crossing illegally into the U.S. from the southern border causes a financial burden of $74,722 during his lifetime (based on taxes paid minus government services used), not including any costs for any children the alien might have while in the U.S.  That means that if a border security barrier stopped only half of the number of illegal aliens currently projected to successfully enter the U.S. over the next ten years, taxpayers would save nearly $64 billion, or three times as much as Reuters’ estimated wall costs.

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, the NAS developed its cost estimates based on the average border-crossing illegal alien’s education level and income earnings in the U.S.  Many other illegal aliens enter the U.S. with legitimate visas but do not leave when the visa expires.  Those aliens often have higher education and income levels to which the NAS estimate does not apply.

Researcher Steven Camarota who calculated the border wall savings, said “a border wall would pay for itself even if it only stops a modest fraction of those expected to successfully cross in the next decade.”

These cost savings from a border wall do not even consider the additional benefits such as preventing the entry of terrorists and drugs.

Permanent link to this article: http://www.aicfoundation.com/border-wall-a-bargain-for-taxpayers/

Feb 20

Trump Wall Would Save $64 Billion Over 10 Years

Savings created by reducing illegal immigration through an effective border wall could save taxpayers more than enough money to pay for the estimated $12 to $15 billion cost of building the wall, according to a new study by the Center for Immigration Studies.  

Because most illegals have low levels of education and earnings, they create far more costs to government than they pay in taxes: the lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) is a fiscal drain of $74,722 for each illegal border-crosser.  The study concludes that the wall would pay for itself if it stopped a mere 9 to 12 percent of attempted crossings.

Read more here:  http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017/02/19/study-trumps-border-wall-save-64-billion-10-years/

Permanent link to this article: http://www.aicfoundation.com/trump-wall-would-save-64-billion-over-10-years/

Feb 18

Nearly 2 Million Hispanic Aliens Illegally Registered to Vote

Many non-citizen Hispanics, as many as 2 million, have illegally registered to vote in the U.S., according to a nationwide poll.  The Washington Times broke this story on Wednesday, which bolsters an analysis by professors at Old Dominion University who say foreigners registered and voted in potentially large numbers.

President Trump’s assertion that voting by aliens was a serious problem has been dismissed by the MSM, which ignored this new evidence.

Read more here:  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/15/nearly-2-million-non-citizen-hispanics-illegally-r/

Permanent link to this article: http://www.aicfoundation.com/nearly-2-million-hispanic-aliens-illegally-registered-to-vote/

Feb 17

Labor Nominee Supports Amnesty

Immigration control advocates are concerned about President Trump’s nomination of Alexander Acosta to be secretary of labor. Acosta’s past statements indicate that he supports amnesty for illegal aliens and a liberal immigration policy. The Department of Labor has oversight over matters related to immigration.

Read more at lifezette.com.

Permanent link to this article: http://www.aicfoundation.com/labor-nominee-supports-amnesty/

Feb 16

Current Immigration Is a Net Loss

More Misinformation from the Media:

For [Trump’s] plan, at the scale he promises, would shrink the American economy and impoverish the world. If greatness is what he purses, a straightforward way to bulk up the economy . . . would be to allow many more immigrants in. . . .

Consider the report on immigration released last fall by the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine. I concluded that immigration to the United States from 1990 to 2010, both legal and illegal, produced net benefits worth $50 billion a year to the native population. . . . This might seem insignificant in an $18 trillion economy. But it packs more than what meets the eye. . . . Immigrants are slowing the aging of the workforce. . . . High-skilled immigrants contribute disproportionately to innovation, seeking patents at a higher rate than natives. – How to Make America Greater: More Immigration, Eduardo Porter, The New York Times, Eduardo Porter, 2/7/17.

Fact Check: This study did find a net benefit of immigration to the native-born American population, a total of $54.2 billion. But this benefit mainly went to the better-off segment of Americans, in effect making them richer, and it came at the cost of making less-well-off citizens poorer. It works this way: Lowered wages as the result of immigration cost working Americans $493.9 billion a year. But those lower wages provide an economic windfall for businesses totaling $548.1 billion. The difference between the two figures is the net of $54.2 billion. This is a questionable gain considering the liabilities it entails.

And the liabilities don’t stop there. The study found that immigration is causing a significant fiscal loss. Immigrants in general consume a good bit more in services than they pay in taxes. The study said this total net loss could be as high as $299 billion—which far overshadows the alleged net gain of $54.2 billion a year. The report does raise the possibility that over the next 75 years immigrants and their descendants will pay as much as they take. But as one commentator observes, this is nothing more than “assumption-driven speculation.” Without a doubt, immigrants will cause a fiscal deficit for many years to come.

With respect to slowing the aging of our population, current immigration is having an effect, but not enough to make any significant difference. In 2010, 66.6 percent of our population was of working age. If we had cut all immigration that year, that percentage by 2050 would have declined to 59.2 percent. But with our current policy of immigration remaining in effect, the total would only be 60.3 percent.

The outcome would be different if our policy specifically selected for young people, but the current policy selects for other criteria such as family ties, diversity, and lastly—far down the list—various skills. All of these categories have strong constituencies, and it’s unlikely they would all yield to a policy largely based on age.

As for skilled immigrants “seeking patents at a higher rate than immigrants,” one should note again that the great majority of legal immigrants are not selected on the basis of skills. Therefore, immigration could be cut sharply without impacting this category. In any case, it is by no means clear that immigrants, skilled or not, are much more likely to innovate and secure patents.

Despite Porter’s recommendation, increasing our already record sustained-level of mass immigration is absolutely the last thing we need to regain national greatness. It might “bulk up” the economy of America’s economic and political elites, but the rest of us will pay a price for their prosperity.

Permanent link to this article: http://www.aicfoundation.com/current-immigration-is-a-net-loss/

Feb 16

Media Myths about Immigration

Migration advocates have a stable of myths they commonly repeat, and because their numerous friends in the media repeat them too, the general public tends to believe these false claims. AIC Foundation posts a weekly “fact checker” to refute these and other media-induced myths.

Myth 1: Immigration Can Save Social Security and Medicare
Immigration advocates claim that immigration will significantly lower our average age, thereby providing an adequate number of young workers to support those retirement programs.
It is true that the present level and character of immigration will raise the percentage of working-age people (16 to 65) over time, but the increase will be negligible—far too small to make meaningful contributions to Social Security and Medicare. To illustrate, in 2010, 66.6 percent of our population was working-age. By 2050, that total, without any immigration, would drop to 59.2 percent. With current high immigration levels, it would only rise to 60.3 percent.

The percentage would be higher if we had an immigration policy that specifically selected for young immigrants, but such a goal would conflict with existing priorities for immigrants, including family ties and diversity. Given the constituencies for these categories, it seems unlikely that an overall age preference could be enacted.

Current immigration policy will not make us much younger, but it will make us a lot more numerous—to the extent of 80 million more people in the next 33 years. This rapid surge of population will place considerable stress on our finances, infrastructure, and environment. The attendant growth in diversity will strain national unity. Social Security won’t gain from it, but social insecurity just might. Source: Steven Camarota, 2012 “Projecting Immigration’s Impact on the Size and Age of the 21st Century Population,” Center for Immigration Studies.

Myth 2: We Need Immigrants Because of a Worker Shortage
If we truly had a shortage of workers, some key statistics would reflect it, but they don’t. One example is wage levels. Since 1970—when mass immigration began to take off—U.S. wage levels in constant dollars have stagnated, even as our productivity has increased. Also, if we truly had a labor shortage, the percentage of the working-age people in the workforce (18 to 65) would be increasing. In terms of numbers, there were 48.1 million working age-natives not working in 2015.

A further point to consider with respect to the labor shortage claim is that we are now entering an age of greatly increasing automation. According to a study done at Oxford University, almost half the jobs now being done by people in the U.S. will be automated within the next twenty years. In this situation, claims of a labor shortage will be even harder to sell than now. Sources: “A Decade of Flat Wages: The Key Barrier to Shared Prosperity and a Rising Middle Class,” 2013 Economic Policy Institute; Public use file of the Current Population from the second quarter of 2000 and 2015; MIT Technology Review, Report Suggests Nearly Half of U.S. Jobs Are Vulnerable to Computerization, Aviva Rutkin, 9/12/13.

Myth 3: Immigrants Are Superior at Starting Businesses
Commonly we hear that we need not worry about immigrants taking U.S. jobs because they excel at creating businesses which create new jobs for everyone. The basis of this myth is that some national groups of immigrants are more likely than natives to create businesses. But it ignores the reality that other groups are less likely to be entrepreneurs. Overall there is very little difference in the percentage of natives who are self-employed (11.1) and immigrants (11.4).

This slight edge in favor of immigrants, however, is mitigated in favor of natives by several factors. One is that natives have a higher rate of part-time self-employment, 1.7 percent, compared with 1 percent for immigrants. Another is that a higher percentage of native-owned businesses (19 percent) employ more than ten workers, compared with 16 percent for immigrant-owned firms. Also, immigrant-owned businesses tend to hire other immigrants, usually of their national background, rather than natives.

Immigrants do reasonably well in business, achieving at a level comparable to that of natives. But they are not the entrepreneurial supermen portrayed by immigration advocates. Source: Public use file of the 2015 Annual Social and Economic Supplement of the Current Population Survey. Figures are for employed persons 25 and older.

Myth 4: Immigrants Aren’t Allowed to Get Welfare
There are restrictions on immigrants getting welfare, but numerous loopholes keep them from having much effect. Immigrants aren’t supposed to become “public charges,” but this only applies to cash benefits, and this restriction is seldom if ever enforced. Immigrant-headed households use significantly more welfare (51 percent) than native-headed households (30 percent). Interestingly, immigrants have a slightly higher participation rate in the workforce than natives. The problem is that many working immigrants work at low-wage jobs, and their low salaries qualify them for welfare. Continuing mass immigration helps to keep those wages low. Source: Steven Camarota 2015, “Welfare Use by Immigrant and Native Households: An Analysis of Medicaid, Cash, Food, and Housing Programs,” Center for Immigration Studies; All Employment Growth Since 2000 Went to Immigrants, Center for Immigration studies Backgrounder, Karen Zeigler and Steve Camarota, June 2014.

Myth 5: Immigrants Are Natural Conservatives
This is a statement commonly made by some conservatives who believe that immigrants have a love for freedom, family values, and other characteristics that will incline them to support conservatism. Yet data show that Hispanics and Asians, groups with the largest numbers of immigrants and first generation citizens, strongly incline to liberal positions—particularly on government and economics. As a consequence, they favor Democrats by a margin of 2 to 1.

A key conservative issue is limiting the size of government. Forty-eight percent of the general public favor smaller government and fewer services, but only 19 percent of Hispanics and 36 percent of Asians share that view. Conversely, 41 percent of the general public want larger government and more services, compared with 75 percent of Hispanics and 55 percent of Asians. Hispanics have a strongly negative view of capitalism, with 55 percent expressing this view, compared with 40 percent of the general public.

Among the reasons for the leftist economic bent among immigrants is that many are from countries with that outlook. Also, many of them settle in liberal urban areas of the U.S., and that political climate tends to influence them. They also may embrace liberalism out of self-interest for welfare benefits and affirmative action.

On social issues there is no clear liberal or conservative disposition among immigrants. They are liberal on some issues and conservative on others. Many conservatives cite stronger anti-abortion sentiments among Hispanic immigrants than natives. That is true, but second generation Hispanics hold views on abortion comparable to those of native-born Americans. In any case, social issues are not a high priority for immigrants. Top issues for Hispanics are education, jobs, health care, and immigration. Immigrants are not natural conservatives. They much more naturally incline to liberalism, as their preference for the Democratic Party clearly shows. Source: Pew Research Center

Permanent link to this article: http://www.aicfoundation.com/media-myths-about-immigration/

Feb 15

Court Wrong about Terrorists

The federal court that blocked President Trump’s temporary travel ban seven countries claimed there was no evidence that people from them posed a threat of terrorism. But information compiled from a Senate subcommittee revealed that 72 individuals from those countries have been convicted of terrorist-related crimes since the 9/11 attacks.

Read more at cis.org.

Permanent link to this article: http://www.aicfoundation.com/court-wrong-about-terrorists/

Feb 14

Hungarian PM Offers Refuge to Europeans

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said his country offers a haven to Europeans seeking to escape politically correct tyranny in their countries. Said Orban, “We shall let in true refugees: Germans, Dutch, French and Italians . . .  who here in Hungary want to find the Europe they have lost in their homelands.” Globalist politicians, he continued, are trying to “sweep away a democracy of debate and replace it with a democracy of [political] correctness”, where “true power, decisions and influence [are] not held by elected governments, but [by] unelected global networks, media gurus and international organizations.”

Read more at breitbart.com.

Permanent link to this article: http://www.aicfoundation.com/hungarian-pm-offers-refuge-to-europeans/

Page 1 of 19412345...102030...Last »