Common Sense Skepticism: A Wake Up Call on Immigration Reform

Photo Courtesy of Washington Post’s Wonk Blog

Clay Olsen | June 10th, 2013

It is very difficult to keep up with all the news coming out of Washington with scandals appearing left and right. However, the American people must stay vigilant in focusing on legislation that has the power to radically change the country. Even though much of the media is focused on what is happening with the IRS or whatever it may be, we must remember that there is a group of politicians, known as the “Gang of Eight,” that are working to reform immigration. What does this reform mean for America (American citizens)? Surely it cannot be based on political gains, can it? For now, let us forget about the potential political impacts and instead, focus on the issue in a common sense manner.

The bill that the Gang of Eight has whipped up is over 1,000 pages long and is said to be a compromise between Republicans and Democrats. Of course one of the big concerns that Republicans voice with regards to immigration is a secure border. The bill only requires the Department of Homeland Security to submit a plan to secure the border; no action is required. However, we are supposed to trust that the border will become more secure after this bill passes, and we are supposed to give the Left what they want in return.

Let us take a little trip down memory lane and examine past immigration reform bills in our history. The 1965 Hart-Celler Act was defended by Democrats as being a bill that would not increase immigration. However, within the bill were the introductions of chain migration and the elimination of national quotas. Both made it easier for net welfare takers to be accepted by the immigration system. Illegal immigration increased from 2.5 million in the 1950s to 4.5 million in the 1970s to about 10 million in the 1990s. Again, this was a bill that Democrats repeatedly endorsed as a low impact piece of legislation with regards to immigration.

Immigration reform entered the picture again with the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. This bill would grant 3 million illegal immigrants with amnesty. In order to get enough support to pass, it “promised” border security. After the bill was passed one can only guess which aspect of the bill got priority. Amnesty or security? The pardon of illegal actions or the safety of our country? As expected, amnesty was given and border security was not.

With this kind of a track record, I think it is safe to say that we should be very careful to trust the Left. They continually tell us that the border is secure right now. So are we to expect any increased security? It is easy for those in the D.C. bubble to claim that the border is secure when they do not witness and are not affected by the gangs, drug trafficking, and shootings that occur on our southern border. And obviously they do not want to know. They seem to not even care about the danger that is threatening our nation as displayed by President Obama’s Oval Office meeting with illegal immigrants last month while disregarding the opinions of border security officials and immigration officers. The job of these politicians is to represent the American people, not illegal immigrants.

Welfare benefits and government subsidies are also an issue when discussing immigration reform. A large amount of illegal immigrants would qualify for welfare. This large of an amount would have a huge impact on an already bankrupt welfare state that the left refuses to reform. I fear that the legalizing of millions of illegal immigrants would be like taking a flamethrower to an already raging forest fire. The Gang of Eight bill does not relieve American taxpayers from subsidizing illegal immigration. It waives the public charge law. The public charge law prohibits the Department of Homeland Security from accepting an application from an illegal immigrant that would be an economical weight in our society. So there would be no consideration as to how the taxpayer would be affected by accepting an illegal immigrant into the system.

The bill also sets up a slush fund for advocacy groups to assist potential amnesty applicants. Remember that “government funds” is another term for “taxpayer money.” Also, illegal immigrants would be able to litigate against amnesty decisions that they consider unfair. Again, the litigation would be paid for by the American taxpayer. No doubt, a concept that Eric Holder is drooling over.

So now we must decide how we are to go about fixing the current immigration issues. What do you do the morning after a burglar has broken into your home? Do you make sure there is milk and cookies out on the table for the next intruder? Or do you upgrade the lock on your front door to prevent it from ever happening again? Not a perfect analogy, but it will have to suffice. We have an avenue for immigrants to come into our country with no background check, no security scan, and no way of keeping track of them. We must fix the leak and then deal with those that are within our borders.

Now Marco Rubio has been criticized by some as scheming with the Left and praised by others because he is starting the conversation. I like how he is trying to slow the process down so that more people can comprehend the bill and give their opinion on it. I know Marco Rubio is a smart Republican, and I hope he fully understands whom he is dealing with.

How are we to respond to immigration reform? We must make sure that the law actually secures the border. The United States is the wealthiest country on the earth; I think we can successfully secure our borders. We must make sure that legal immigration is encouraged and illegal immigration is discouraged. Two immigration reform bills (discussed above) brought by the Democrats have clearly failed at accomplishing this task. Illegal immigration has skyrocketed while the legal immigration system remains broken. Above all, we must make sure that the law is in the best interest of the American citizen, a notion that seems obvious but is often disregarded.

So before a group of politicians try to ram through another immigration reform bill, let us remember the past and tread carefully when we talk of compromise. With an estimated amount of 11 million illegal immigrants within our borders right now, we must take immigration reform very seriously because it has the potential to have a huge, negative impact on our country’s future.

Advertisements

The Ambivalent Elephant in the Room

Gang of Eight

Senator Marco Rubio speaking at a press conference on Capitol Hill with his Senate colleagues outlining his ideas for an immigration overhaul
Picture Courtesy of Desecret News

Danny Zeng | May 9, 2013

Many on the Right have come out in full force against Sen. Marco Rubio’s courageous effort to reform the current immigration system. Although there are legitimate arguments to be made against “amnesty,” economic and social, some rhetoric are nonetheless blown out of proportion. Smart people on very short attention span seem to forget just how bad the current immigration system is for lawful and unlawful immigrants. As it stands now, we don’t even know who’re in our country! Not to mention an unsecure border that let’s in criminals and narcotics, a legal system that deprives many of economic and social mobility, and a conscious polarization of our society between citizens and the foreign-born. Many immigrants have been active in their communities, working and living in the U.S. for many years, paying taxes, raising a family, and saving up for college. Even the most ardent exclusionists can appreciate the powerful motive of human beings’ innate desire for a better life. Immigration is plagued by systemic problems, so naturally it requires systemic solutions. Sen. Rubio and others have started this conversation. Let’s finish it and act in good faith to make our immigration system work for those who are currently in the country and many more highly skilled workers and entrepreneurs who thirst to benefit from our capitalist enterprise and to achieve their American Dream.

The current Senate bill, first and foremost, focuses on securing the border. It asks the Department for Homeland Security to come up with a border security plan that will be conditioned as a triggering mechanism for providing undocumented a provisional status. The path to citizenship is at least 13 years. Currently, undocumented immigrants will have to pay back fines and taxes. The bill cuts down chain migration by eliminating adult siblings and children from the preference system. It also boosts the number of allowance for skilled immigrants and provides uncapped access to foreign entrepreneurs. This shift from family-centric to skill-based immigration regime is monumental. It will contribute to America’s competitiveness in an increasingly globalized economy. 

On Monday, Heritage released its heavily criticized study that concludes that “If amnesty is enacted, the average adult unlawful immigrant would receive $592,000 more in government benefits over the course of his remaining lifetime than he would pay in taxes.” Unfortunately, by only examining taxes and welfare, Heritage fails to consider positive economic contributions from provisions embedded in the reform bill, such as opening up our system more to high-skilled workers. The Heritage study counts retirement benefits that are decades away without even acknowledging the possibility of entitlement reforms in the near future. The government predicates that Social Security will dry up by 2036, at which time benefits will either be curtailed, people will shore up by paying more taxes, or government defaults on its obligations to its citizens. Entitlements will be reformed sooner or later as a matter of necessity. Thus, projecting the current welfare spending level outward into the future is misleading.

The study has also been criticized by leading free-market experts from the American Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute for its misleading figures that fail to take into account the dynamism in our economy. Daniel Foster, who writes for National Review Online, argues that the Heritage study, if anything, is a strong case to roll back the welfare state. Cato condbucted a study a few years back that concludes that comprehensive immigration reform will have a net positive $1.5 trillion contribution to our economy, as real wages tend to go up for unlawful immigrants who come out of the shadow, yielding higher consumption and more government revenues.

The immigration bill is also found by the Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration to have a “substantial positive effect” on the economy by shoring up entitlements. According to the Social Security Administration, the bill would add more than $275 billion in revenue to Social Security and Medicare, increase the gross domestic product by 1.63 percent and add more than 3 million jobs over the next decade” (May 8, 2013 Bloomberg)

Instead of a coordinated campaign of shooting ourselves in the foot, let’s shore up our nation’s broken immigration system by actually leading on the issue. Ignore the fringe noise of exclusionists. GOP leaders should be vocal in support of reform. There are those who advocate for incrementalism in reforming immigration. Democrats and their union stooges will never opt for that route, so realistically incremental reform will get us nowhere, if not worse than status quo. Comprehensive reform is the only politically viable way forward. The defeatists within the Party would suggest that the 11 million undocumented would necessarily vote Democrat in decades to come. That is synonymous to waving white flag and admits defeat without even putting on a fight.  If our party cannot figure out dynamic ways to engage our fellow Americans with an optimistic vision and sound public policies, then our party will be swept into the dustbin of history. The GOP House will have sufficient political sway to ensure whatever safeguards deemed necessary to strengthen border security and enforcement provisions. The Republicans have the upper hand in this negotiation. Let’s not squander the opportunity to lead on an issue that will create a safer and stronger United States of America for the 21st century.

What Conservatives Can Learn from Liberals

By Clay Olsen | April 15th, 2013

After the 2012 election, there has been, and continues to be, much talk about the state of the Republican Party. Countless ideas are being thrown around about how the party can make a good rebound. Some of these ideas suggest Republicans should continue to move toward the center to get the coveted prize of the “undecided” vote. Others propose that a party revival is needed in which Republicans return to Conservative principles and make their stand there. One thing is agreed upon by all Republican strategists: we cannot afford to strike out next time we are at bat.

Perhaps it is appropriate to look back on past elections in order to gauge what works and what does not. Election 2012 is a good place to start. The results of this election should have been something Democrats feared. An economy going nowhere, huge debt and deficits, and the recent foreign policy foul up in Benghazi are some tough facts to run on. However, the GOP could not deliver. We saw a lower than expected Republican turnout at the voting booth.

Now let’s look at the 2010 Congressional elections. Similar situation: out of control spending, Democrats calling for higher taxes, and the controversial Affordable Care Act (sometimes referred to as Obamacare). We saw huge support for Republican candidates resulting in many seats going in the party’s favor.

So we have two very similar circumstances with two very different results. What was the difference between the 2010 and 2012 election? Conservatism. Although establishment Republicans want to downplay the Tea Party movement, it was this movement that brought the GOP majority in the House. Marches on D.C. before the election fired up the Republican party and showed how popular fiscal Conservatism really is to its constituents. The Tea Party was built on the principles of lower taxes, lower government spending, and the repeal of Obamacare. And that was popular! So why do establishment Republicans run from it?!

The GOP had two years to retain the Conservative excitement. Instead of going with an exciting candidate, the party decided to go with (once again) a moderate. Now I am not saying there was a clear Conservative candidate that was a guarantee win, but we tried out a moderate Republican in the 2008 election and we lost. Romney was supposed to collect the “undecided” vote. That is what elections today seem to be all about: the all-important “undecided” vote. The undecided vote means nothing if you cannot get your own party involved and out to vote on election day.

We are told that political strategy leads politicians to capture the fence-line voters by moderating their stances. In other words, pandering. We are told that we need to soften our principles and move toward the middle. And that is what we have done the past two presidential elections. We put up two weak Republicans to represent us and they expect to retain the same enthusiasm from the conservative Republicans that they got in the 2010 election? If the candidate that is supposed to be representing your principles and ideas goes out and sucks up to “Independents” in order to get votes, does that make you want to get involved in the guy’s campaign?

Pandering shows weakness. Nobody will willingly get behind someone who is not going to protect their principles. There was no pandering in 2010. There was only the unwavering stance on the principle of limited government. So what is to be done about the undecided voter. Do we all get down off our platform to convince them that we are not fanatical? I would suggest that the correct answer is to educate the undecided. Educate every voter. Make sure that every voter, no matter what party they are affiliated with, understands what we stand for. We cannot leave it up to the cable television networks that create a straw man of the Republican party.