A new study by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), found that 30.8 million immigrants (legal and illegal) have settled in the U.S. since 1990. Their U.S.-born children and grandchildren total 12 million. Thus immigration has accounted for 42.8 million more people in the U.S. during the past 29 years. That total is greater than the combined population of 22 states, and accounts for one in eight residents of this country.

Supporters of mass immigration often that it is necessary in order to increase the working-age population and thereby sustain Social Security and Medicare. But the CIS study found that this has not been happening, one reason  being that the the average age immigrants is increasing. The addition of immigrants and their progeny since 1990 has only increased our working-age population (16-64) from 63.9 percent to 64.4 percent.

Read more at cis.org

We told you back on July 11 about “Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act,” which was passed by the House on July 10 (as H.R.1044).  Mitch McConnell has yet to decide whether to put its companion bill, S.386, to a vote in the Senate.

On the night of July 11, the hosts of the Breitbart News Tonight radio program interviewed Hilarie Gamm about the bill.  Gamm is the co-founder of the American Workers Coalition and the author of Billions Lost: The American Tech Crisis and The Road Map to Change.

“Because India has been the country of choice for big tech for over 25 years to import cheap foreign labor into the United States to displace Americans — middle-class workers — who are working in all different kinds of jobs, not just technology. So what used to be just tech in H-1B, we now have physical therapists, accountants, auditors, and [and] teachers who are coming in on the H-1B, now.

“There is a flood of H-1Bs from a couple of companies and basically one country, so because of that, there is a 500,000 person backlog just from India. . . . [W]e have five huge companies — Cognizance. . .the number one H-1B purveyor. . . . companies that people associate as American companies like Deloitte, or Accenture, or IBM, and they’re bringing in thousands and thousands of H-1Bs in addition to sending loads of jobs outside the U.S. . . .

“We have millions of Americans who could be working and are not working, and then we have loads of under-employed Americans, and they’re all being cut out of the labor market because of cheap foreign labor. Basically, H.R.1044 seeks to reward those huge companies like the Amazons, and the Google, and the Microsofts that continue to get all the H-1Bs every year.

“Americans need to understand that this is their future. Their children will not have jobs. There will be no point to going to college because there are not going to be any jobs left for Americans. . . . I know that all the big tech moguls want people to believe that it’s artificial intelligence that’s going to be taking people’s jobs. It’s not AI. It’s foreign cheap labor. . . . That’s what’s taking the jobs.

“[W]e’re basically culling out and hollowing out our American middle class. . . .”

We urge you to listen to Gamm’s full, eye-opening  interview here.

For more, see Breitbart News.

The Trump Administration has announced a new asylum policy. Published in the federal register, it would require migrants to seek asylum in the countries they enter before they can apply for asylum in the U.S. To illustrate, someone from Guatemala who crosses Mexico to reach the U.S. would first have file an asylum claim in Mexico.

Concerning the policy change, DHS Acting Secretary Kevin McAleenan stated “Ultimately, today’s action will reduce the overwhelming burdens on our domestic system caused by asylum-seekers failing to seek urgent protection in the first available country, economic migrants lacking a legitimate fear of persecution, and the transnational criminal organizations, traffickers, and smugglers exploiting our system for profits.”

Read more at foxnews.com

We reported on June 8 on what proved to be a premature rumor that the Trump administration had inked a deal with Mexico that that country would agree to function as a “safe third country” where asylum seekers are concerned.  A safe third country, under international asylum law, is any “safe” country that an asylum seeker enters following his departure from his home country. The would-be asylee must claim asylum in the first safe country that he enters, instead of another intended destination such as the United States.

The deal with Mexico’s adoption of safe third country status has since faltered. As Doris Meissner, a former commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service,  said recently, “If you’re going to pursue a safe-third-country agreement, you have to be able to say ‘safe’ with a straight face.”

Unable to complete a deal with Mexico, attention has now turned to Guatemala.

If Mexico is too laughable to be considered safe, what hope is there for Guatemala?  As an article in the New Yorker says, “More people are leaving Guatemala now than any other country in the northern triangle of Central America. Rampant poverty, entrenched political corruption, urban crime, and the effects of climate change have made large swaths of the country virtually uninhabitable. ” In addition, many of the gangs that the asylum seekers from El Salvador and Honduras–the other two countries in the northern triangle–claim to be fleeing, also operate in Guatemala.  At best, if their fears are indeed valid, seeking asylum in Guatemala would involve a leap between frying pans if not actually into the fire.  (Guatemalan asylum hopefuls would be excluded from the deal, as one would imagine.)

Details of the Guatemala agreement are in short supply, but officials familiar with it say it goes beyond the typical safe third country agreement. Under its provisions, the U.S. could send any asylum seeker straight to Guatemala, regardless of whether that would-be asylee has ever set foot there.

The government of Guatemala is terminally corrupt, and this may simply be the Jimmy Morales regime’s way of raking in some U.S. cash before it goes out of power in six months. Moreover, the scheme  may be part of a broader push to persuade Mexico to relent and accept safe status itself.  As reported here on June 17, Mexico evaded a tariff only contingent upon its cooperation with the U.S. on migrant control. More talks are scheduled in the next month. Safe third country status may well be on the table.

For more, see the New Yorker.

Elizabeth Warren is a top-tier candidate in the campaign for the Democrat presidential race.  As such, her basic position on illegal migrants and “asylum seekers” is not appreciably different from that of  any of her Democrat colleagues.  Like them, she supports “decriminalization” (i.e., legalization) of the act of entering the United States without authorization.

Ms. Warren, along with lower-tier opponents Julián Castro and Cory Booker,  supports the outright repeal of the statue, in effect now since 1929, which makes unauthorized entry a criminal offense, as opposed to a merely civil one. Their reason for taking that position may surprise you, if you’re still capable of being surprised by these people.

Section 1325, the Offending Statute

The statute under assault by Warren and the others is Section 1325 of Title 8 of the United States Code, reproduced above, which makes entering the United States without authorization a misdemeanor.  There is nothing especially unique about it.  Under international law, countries have the right and responsibility to their citizens to guard against unauthorized entry.

Blease, the Offending Sponsor

Yet Warren and her co-conspirators Castro, Booker, and others vow to repeal the statute because, 90 years ago, it was sponsored by a member of their own party, Senator Coleman Livingston Blease (D-SC), whom they now regard as an “unabashed” racist and white supremacist.  Warren writes on her newly released immigration position paper: “Entering the country without authorization has always been a violation of civil immigration law, but thanks to a former segregationist Senator, it’s also a criminal violation.” (emphasis added)

(Note:  Although Senator Blease, a Southerner and son of a Confederate veteran, is the figure being attacked and is widely held to having been the “author” of the legislation, according to the source of most of the  information for the attacks–a book titled City of Inmates by Kelly Lytle Hernandez–the actual author was the sitting U.S. Secretary of Labor, James J. Davis, a resident of Pennsylvania and a native Welshman.)

Senator Blease served one term in the U.S. Senate (1925-1931), during which he sponsored Section 1325.  He was born in 1868 and died 77 years ago.

Section 1325 makes no mention of race or ethnicity and bears no taint of racism or white supremacy.  Yet Warren and the others hate it because they hate who “wrote” it. How many other laws on the federal and state books would they find equally worthy of abolition, merely because they can associate them with historical persons whom they have come to disdain?

To adopt a policy of abolishing a law  ipso facto because it was written or sponsored or supported in some way by someone generations earlier whom you now regard as evil would be to open a Pandora’s box of hate, akin to today’s mad quest to tear down statues and monuments to the past. It would introduce into American legislative and judicial procedure a potentially catastrophic, nearly anarchic practice, from which we might never recover.  As such, it seems an entirely appropriate Democrat campaign plank for 2020.

For more, see Accuracy in Media.

Axios newsletter summarized the recent report of the McKinsey Global Institute on the future of employment in the U.S. It confirms the forecasts of many studies which indicate that automation will be replacing a large number U.S. jobs in the near future.

Axios stated, “Almost 40 percent of U.S. jobs are in categories expected to shrink between now and 2030. Automation will affect some of the country’s largest occupational categories: office support, food service, production work, customer service and retail sales. The hollowing out of middle-wage work will likely continue, per the report, without deliberate intervention to provide workers with skills they need to get higher-paying jobs.”

Despite these predictions, business interests seeking  cheap labor keep insisting that our country faces a severe labor shortage–which can only be alleviated by continued mass immigration

Read more at axios,com

We’ve reported recently (on June 28, June 12, June 7, for example) about the sudden and rapid increase of African migrants illegally entering the United States. On July 10, columnist Betsy McGaughey, former lieutenant governor of New York, dedicated a New York Post column to that upsurge.

Noting the arrests of African migrants in large groups by the Border Patrol–116 in late May, 500 in one week in early June, 310 later that month–McGaughey quotes Raul L. Ortiz, chief patrol agent in the Del Rio Sector, to the effect that migrants “‘from around the world are traveling thousands of miles just to enter the United States illegally to exploit our immigration laws.'”

African Migrants Denied Entrance to Europe (Defend Europa)

What has changed to trigger this increase?

For one thing, McGaughey writes, “Word is spreading worldwide. . .that the U.S. has an open southern border and an open checkbook. These migrants know that if they come with children and utter the word ‘asylum,’ they will be temporarily detained and then released inside the U.S. . . .”

And what factor, other than the lightning-quick spread of news, is at work?

“[T]he European Union has slammed the door on migrants,” McGaughey writes.

And so it has. According to the European Parliament website, “In 2015, 2.2 million people were found to be illegally present in the EU. By 2018, the number had dropped to just over 600,000.”  The BBC reported last year that 2015 was the peak year for African arrivals in Europe, when a whopping 1,015,078 arrived. So far in 2019, only about 40,000.

Italy has seen the bulk of the migrants in Europe. In 2016, 180,000 arrived there; in 2017, that number was down to 119,000, and the number continues to drop. The Washington Post credits Italy’s populist government and far-right Interior Minister Matteo Salvini, who has banned private rescue ships with migrants aboard from entering Italian  waters.

In addition, a much-derided deal with Libya was struck by the EU in 2017, which promised funding and training of the Libyan coast guard in return for Libya’s intercepting North African migrants on the sea route to Europe.

The European Union and some populist national governments such as that of Italy have acted decisively to stem the influx into the continent from Africa.  What has been the upshot?

The United States is the new destination of choice. “That’s why”–writes McGauhey–“many African migrants are heading to the U.S. They’re cobbling together airfare to Ecuador (which has a no-visa policy) and then trekking through Panama, north through Central America to the U.S. border.”

What does our government do in response? Right now, it calls up the city council of Portland, Maine, and tells them to get ready for more.  Such is life in America in the 21st century.

For more see, the New York Post.

On July 5, we reported on the attempts by Mike Lee and other Republican Senators to push through, by “unanimous consent,” bill S.386, the so-called “Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act.” This bill, which has not yet been voted on, is matched in the House by H.R.1044, which was rammed through, with plenty of Republican support, late yesterday by a vote of 365-65. (To see how your representative voted, see the House Roll Call site.)

H.R.1044, according to Breitbart News, is a “green card giveaway to 300,000 Indian contract workers” that “dramatically increases the incentives for more Indian graduates to take college graduate jobs in the United States.” It was supported by GOP House leader Kevin McCarthy.

Outside of Congress, the major support for 1044 and the Senate’s 386 comes from the Big Tech industry headquartered  in Silicon Valley.  Writing in The Hill, former Congressman Virgil Goode, the first member of Congress to endorse Trump, said the following:

” Silicon Valley says it loves diversity, but the industry only wants workers from one country — and it’s not America.

“An estimated 71 percent of the workforce in Silicon Valley is foreign-born. The majority are Indian nationals; nearly 70 percent of those who come on H-1B visas — a favorite of Big Tech — hail from India. Additionally, many tech firms have a sizable presence in India itself.

“And the reason tech giants love Indian-born workers? They tend to work for far less than American workers.”

These bills would eliminate country caps on green cards and enable Indian workers to take at least 75 percent of all employment-based visas. They also have a provision, noted below, that favors Chinese investors in the EB-5 visa program, a program that essentially allows wealthy foreigners to buy their way into the United States. The bills are opposed not only by conservatives like Goode, but also by some on the left, who are suspicious of the growing power of Big Tech. Writing on the Center for Immigration Studies website, David North–who describes himself as a “dyed-in-the wool, life-long, New Deal Democrat”–says the following about the two bills: “They bring unneeded additional benefits to the Haves, and provide no benefits to the Have Nots.” North identifies the legislation’s following winners:

• The high-tech industries that use the H-1B program to increase their already high profits
• The big city (notably Manhattan) real estate developers in the EB-5 program
• Rich Chinese in the EB-5 program
• Upper crust Indian nationals in the H-1B program

Classified as losers is everyone else, including:

• American workers who get shut out of jobs by lower-wage immigrants
• American investors shut out by wealthy Chinese who can raise their investment funds in China
• Would-be immigrants from countries other than the favored nationalities

If Senator Rand Paul drops his opposition to S.386 or if the bill passes the Senate anyway, the question is, Would President Trump veto it? That isn’t clear. The Department of Homeland Security issued a statement shortly before 1044 was passed, opposing the legislation on the grounds that it did not further the official White House goal of moving toward a more merit-based system.  That indicates at best lukewarm opposition, and President Trump might be persuaded otherwise.

One possible incentive on the part of Republican Senate leaders to oppose S.386, is that one of its main backers is Kamala Harris, currently a near-front-runner in the Democrat presidential campaign and possibly President Trump’s opponent in the general election next year.

As usual, American citizens are outnumbered and out-resourced by power-hungry pols and money-hungry CEOs. It’s an up-hill climb all the way.  We have to keep going.

For more, see Breitbart News.