Census Data Show Insanity Of Congressional Move To Fund President Obama’s Unlawful Mass Amnesty

Flickr/Luis Felipe Salas

With the Republican Congress perilously close to funding President Obama’s unlawful mass amnesty, and amid Democrats’ increasingly strident opposition to any border controls, recently-released Census data for 2013 underscore the dangers posed by unlimited immigration of the poor into our country.

The figures show that decades of unchecked immigration (illegal and legal) of very poor people into America has made it impossible for us to reduce our poverty rate and is increasing U.S. income inequality.

Consider the last half-century: we have enjoyed unimaginable technological progress, we have more people going to college and many more women in the workforce. We have also spent more than $20 trillion in a “war on poverty.” But, incredibly, the poverty rate sits just where it was in 1966, and the total number of poor people is dramatically higher than it was back then.

In other words, our immigration policy is to import poverty. It’s insanity.

Let’s look at a few figures. In the last 35 years, the foreign-born population has doubled and the number of people in poverty is up 80%. What a coincidence.

How have Hispanics, the biggest immigrant group in recent decades, been doing? Since the Census Bureau first began recording Hispanic data in 1972, the poverty rate for Hispanics has risen, not fallen. Both the rate of Hispanic poverty and the total number of Hispanics in poverty in the United States have risen over the last four decades.

What’s more, as Pew Research noted earlier this year, with the U.S. Hispanic population having quintupled since 1972, a majority of the increase in people living in poverty since then has come from Hispanics.

That should not surprise us, given how poor most entrants to our country are. Census Bureau figures confirm that median household income when the householder is not a citizen is significantly lower than for other households.

Even Joe Biden’s former Chief Economist admitted, as he wrote in the New York Times last fall, that immigrants to the U.S. “have higher-than-average poverty rates.”

It’s no surprise, then, that the Bureau finds that income inequality has increased since 1999. The foreign-born population has risen more than 50% in that time.

Of course, we need to take all poverty statistics with more than a grain of salt, as the measure seems designed by government officials to exaggerate the number of people declared poor. Incredibly, this measure – the government’s leading measure of poverty – does not count the value of food stamps (SNAP), Medicare, Medicaid, public housing, or the earned income tax credit! Still, as the Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector points out, the Census data are a good measure of rates of self-sufficiency over time.

The question for open borders politicians and, ultimately, for voters, is this: How does importing millions of very poor and minimally-educated people into the United States help America’s existing poor and middle-class families? It seems that it does not.

The poverty rate of whites is actually higher now than it was in 1964, the unemployment rate for African-Americans age 16-19 who are actively looking for work exceeds 30%, and more than one in four African-Americans are living in poverty. Wages for almost all Americans are stagnant.

Meanwhile, we’ve put $18 trillion on the national credit card, and the Congressional Budget Office projects Medicaid spending will increase 15% this year, while the economy will grow a paltry 2%.

Yet the pace of newcomers is expected to increase in coming years, even before considering the massive magnet of Obama’s unlawful amnesty. The Congressional Research Service reported recently that the foreign-born population, which has more than tripled since 1970 to 41 million people, will blow past 58 million just eight years from now, and perhaps approach 70 million if “comprehensive immigration reform” becomes law.

As the Census data show, this will mean more people in poverty and greater inequality, and it will increase the constituency dependent on Big Government welfare programs.

It’s essential that the American people make the 2016 primaries and general election a referendum on unlimited immigration of the poor into our country. How about we help the 45 million poor people already here escape poverty before we import millions more?

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Trey Gowdy Reacts To Judge’s Anti-Amnesty Ruling

Twitter/Norwood Tea Party

As Western Journalism reported Tuesday, a Texas federal judge issued a temporary block on certain aspects of Barack Obama’s executive action regarding illegal immigration. With millions of illegals set to enjoy de facto amnesty beginning this week, Judge Andrew Hanen’s ruling came just days before the controversial order went into effect.

Hanen determined that a porous border and lax security “has exacerbated illegal immigration into this country,” a phenomenon that increasingly taxes resources among the states forced to receive these uninvited residents.

The judge responded to protests by more than half of all U.S. states in ruling that Obama’s order should face further review before being implemented.

“It is preferable to have the legality of these actions determined before the fates of over four million individuals are decided,” Hanen wrote. “An injunction is the only way to accomplish that goal.”

The decision led the Obama administration to delay issuing preferred status to the millions who would benefit from the executive order. South Carolina Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy, a frequent Obama critic and chairman of the House Immigration Subcommittee, shared his thoughts on Hanen’s ruling.

He called the decision a “victory for the rule of law,” explaining that Obama’s unilateral order deserved the scrutiny it received.

“The President’s extra-constitutional actions were rooted in political expediency and were devoid of a serious legal underpinning,” Gowdy stated. “This is not and never was about immigration law – as evidenced by the President’s consistent admission that he lacked the legal authority to do precisely what he did.”

While he acknowledged the legitimacy of prosecutorial discretion, Gowdy concluded that it is not “a synonym for anarchy wherein the executive branch can pick and choose portions of laws to enforce and ignore.”

Share this article on Facebook if you agree with Gowdy’s assessment. 

Support Gowdy’s Benghazi Investigation? Send Him An Email

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Outrage: Obama’s Executive Amnesty Okays Tax Refunds To Illegals Who Never Paid US Taxes

AJ Wms (Flickr)

As the Republican-led House squabbles with the Republican-led Senate over DHS funding to pay for President Obama’s executive amnesty orders, something the IRS commissioner just said may change the course of that legislative tussle.

The Washington Times reports that, as a result of Obama’s unilateral actions on amnesty, the Internal Revenue Service is preparing to provide “refunds” to illegal immigrants who have never paid federal income tax.

If the IRS carries out its plan to put money into the pockets of immigrants in the country illegally, that would mean that U.S. citizens — legal residents who lawfully and dutifully pay their taxes — would be funding the payouts to illegals.

According to the Times: “IRS Commissioner John Koskinen told Congress on Wednesday that even illegal immigrants who didn’t pay taxes will be able to claim back-refunds once they get Social Security numbers under President Obama’s temporary deportation amnesty.”

The Times report notes that the IRS chief claims he has never discussed with the White House the tax implications of Obama’s executive actions that many Republicans challenge as unconstitutional.

“Mr. Koskinen, testifying to the House oversight committee, said the White House never asked him or anyone else at the IRS about the potential tax effects of his amnesty policy.”

In his testimony to the committee, IRS boss Koskinen attempted to clarify remarks he had earlier made that contradicted what he told committee members on Wednesday.

Now Koskinen has made it clear that the planned issuance of Social Security numbers to non-citizens will trigger their ability to apply for so-called “back-credits.”

“Under the new program, if you get a Social Security number and you work, you’ll be eligible to apply for the Earned Income Tax Credit,” Mr. Koskinen said.

He said that would apply even “if you did not file” taxes, as long as the illegal immigrant could demonstrate having worked off-the-books during those years.

Rep. Mick Mulvaney, the South Carolina Republican who grilled Mr. Koskinen on the tax credits, said he was stunned the White House never checked with the IRS on the tax implications of its move.

“That’s just outrageous,” charged the South Carolina Republican who expressed his shock at the IRS’ position.

“This is just another example of the administration operating outside the rule of law,” fumed Rep. Mulvaney, who, according to the Washington Times article, promised to keep digging into the IRS policy that could cost American taxpayers an untold amount of money.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Boehner Calls Out Senate Democrats For Their Refusal To Act

Flickr/Talk Radio News Service

In a recent reaction to the House of Representative’s move to fund the Department of Homeland Security while halting Barack Obama’s executive action on illegal immigration, House Speaker John Boehner was quick to tout the effort. He also noted, however, that the House cannot pass the funding bill on its own.

“We won the fight to fund the DHS and stop the president’s unconstitutional actions,” he said. “Now it’s time for the Senate to do their work.”

Boehner specifically called out Senate Democrats who have repeatedly worked to prevent the legislation’s passage.

“In the gift shop out here,” he said, “they’ve got these little booklets on how a bill becomes a law. Why don’t you go as the Senate Democrats when they’re going to get off their a—and do something other than vote no?”

The Senate’s top Democrat, Harry Reid, responded to Boehner’s accusation through a spokesperson, criticizing the use of profanity in his statement.

“We know Speaker Boehner is frustrated,” Adam Jentleson said, “but cursing is not going to resolve the squabbling among Republicans that led to this impasse.”

Though many Americans responded positively to Boehner’s direct admonition, others described the statement as the rhetorical flourishes of an ineffective speaker.

“A do-nothing obstructionist Republican telling someone else to ‘get off their a$s?’” one reader wrote in response to a Washington Times report. “That’s an absolute riot! Proving once again that rank hypocrisy is no deterrent to those lacking a moral compass.”

Some critics also shared the opinion that Boehner should not celebrate funding the DHS at all.

Twitter

Twitter

h/t: Washington Times

Do you think Boehner’s admonition was warranted? Sound off in the comments section below!

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

A Few Words On Immigration And Population Growth

Photo credit: Nevele Otseog (Flickr)

Illegal aliens are modern pioneers—but there are consequences.

I advocate increased immigration enforcement. But I don’t criticize immigrants for coming here. Not even the illegal ones. I admire their courage in making such a risky decision. And I admire their hard work to build new lives for their families. I certainly harbor no ill will for the innocent children of illegal immigrants who grew up here. If I lived south of the border, I would do whatever was necessary to enhance the well-being of my family and expand the opportunities of my children—including breaking immigration laws. It’s what parents do. It’s what makes family so essential to our culture.

The illegal aliens are modern pioneers. They would make excellent American citizens.

I would legalize them in a heartbeat—if only we could just turn off the immigration spigot. But legalizing them without first taking resolute actions to prevent further immigration is just begging for immigration growth. Past amnesties have clearly demonstrated that. Until I see more than just promises to seriously control immigration, I must take an emotionally detached stand against anything that will exacerbate the problem. That includes amnesty and any increase or even maintenance of present immigration levels.

And what is the problem? Population growth.

America’s population has doubled in sixty years. Immigration has been the driver, especially since 1965. And America is not a better place for that growth. We have become acclimated to growth. We have learned to live with congestion, urban sprawl, and environmental degradation. But when I look at the sea of houses, strip malls, office complexes, shopping centers, and manufacturers creeping out into the valleys, up the foothills, up riparian ways, into wetlands, and ever further along our coastlines, I see an environmental catastrophe in the making—in terms of the land we cover, the air we breathe, the pollution and waste we dump everywhere, and the resources we consume. It is that evolutionary quality of population growth that makes it so insidious. Each generation gets used to a bigger footprint and more congestion; and after a few generations, you have—twenty-first century America.

Why have we done this? We haven’t opened our doors to immigration because we are nice folks and just want to share our blessings. Despite the parable of the American melting pot being a nation of immigrants, there is now and always has been one dominant motivation for allowing mass immigration—cheap labor—which means inexpensive goods, an expanding market for those goods, and easy profits. Big Money, Big Government, and Big Academia so fiercely protect their open-borders growth engine and so ardently justify it under the euphemism of “a nation of immigrants” that throttling that growth engine will not happen painlessly. And the pain will be felt unevenly. It will fall most heavily on those who arrived late in the immigration flood. But should we do nothing just because the cure is painful?

I have a duty to my grandchildren to achieve a sustainable population policy. The established powers, however, are fighting against the environmental sustainability that another doubling of our population would ravage. Such a struggle and fundamental change of immigration policy will have unintended casualties. Some of today’s illegal-alien pioneers may be on that list.

It is essential for Americans to safeguard our wonderful physical and cultural environment for the sake of the progeny of all those immigrants who have come to America over the centuries. If we don’t, the natural consequences of population growth will continue to degrade the ingredients that have made our country exceptional.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom