Feb 01

Amnesty with No Concessions Is Extreme

More Misinformation from the Media:

President Trump’s sweeping legislative framework for an immigration compromise has been deemed dead on arrival by many on both sides of the issue on Capitol Hill. The White House is trying to walk a very fine line between the restrictionist demands of some GOP lawmakers and the more moderate and reformist approach of most Democrats and a handful of Republicans. It won’t work.

The blueprint is too extreme to be taken seriously. It includes the one measure that has the support of 87 percent of Americans — legalization for up to 1.8 million so-called Dreamers, unauthorized immigrants who were brought to the United States as children. But it also includes the biggest cuts to legal immigration in nearly 100 years. It also requests [funds] . . . to build up a deportation force. Just as problematic is the proposed 40 to 50 percent reduction in legal immigration by restricting family migration and ending the diversity visa lottery program. — No ‘Art of the Deal’ for the Dreamers, The Boston Globe, Editorial, 1/27/18 [Link]

Fact Check: Just what is moderate about granting amnesty to 1.8 million illegal aliens, almost a million more than those who have applied for the DACA program? The argument is that they deserve clemency because, as children brought here by their parents or other relatives, they did not choose to break our laws.

Nevertheless, do we really know if all these people really came in to the U.S. as children? The screening for DACA applicants was loose, but at least these people felt they could make a case that they were brought here. The other million or so haven’t bothered to try. Why should we feel obligated to them? In any case, everyone who wants this amnesty should have to apply through a new and more stringent application process.

Also, if we must have an amnesty for illegal aliens, it is only reasonable—as President Trump proposed— that immigration control advocates get some concessions in exchange. One that’s certainly required is ending chain migration, which allows immigrants to bring in their relatives, who bring in their relatives and on and on. If this policy isn’t ended, the Dreamers who get amnesty will be able to petition for their parents and other relatives to get legal status too—the very people who did willingly break our laws.

For the past 25 years, largely due to chain migration, we have had the highest sustained level of immigration in our history, more than a million a year. Thus it is hardly “problematic” to reduce this extreme level by half. The Globe’s editorial writer cites a poll showing that most Americans support an amnesty for Dreamers. This writer might consider that a majority of citizens, according to a recent Harvard-Harris poll, want immigration cut in half. Thirty-five percent want less than 250,000 and year,  and 19 percent would like an annual level of less than 500,000.

As for “building up a deportation force,” the editorialist might note that we already have such a force. It is the federal agency called Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Its purpose is to enforce existing immigration laws. Surely there shouldn’t be anything “problematic” about that.

Permanent link to this article: http://www.aicfoundation.com/amnesty-with-no-concessions-is-extreme/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.