U.S. think tank's immigration study draws conservative fire:

56% Think Illegals Outnumber Legal Immigrants Each Year

 

Most Americans believe in any given year that illegal newcomers outnumber legal immigrants to the United States. But very few recognize how many legal immigrants enter this country each year.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% of American Adults believe there are more illegal immigrants than legal immigrants in a typical year. Only 14% think there are more legal immigrants coming in. But 30% are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

The survey of 1,000 Adults nationwide was conducted on May 6-7, 2013 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

National Survey of 1,000 Adults
Conducted May 6-7, 2013
By Rasmussen Reports

1* How closely have you followed recent news stories about immigration and immigration reform?

2* Other than national security threats, should the United States welcome all potential immigrants who are willing to work hard and able to support their family?

3* When thinking of all the immigrants who enter the United States in a typical year, are there more legal immigrants or illegal immigrants?

4* Suppose that the government actually secured the border and prevented illegal immigration. After that is accomplished, should the government increase the number of immigrants allowed to enter the country legally, decrease the number of immigrants allowed to enter legally or leave things unchanged?

5* Approximately how many immigrants legally enter the United States each year - 100,000,  250,000,  500,000, one million, 2.5 million, 5 million, more than 5 million, not sure?

6* In thinking about immigration policy, should the United States treat all potential immigrants equally or should the United States allow more immigrants from some countries than from others?

7* Should potential immigrants from countries with terrorist ties be screened more carefully than potential immigrants from friendly countries?

8* If you had to make a choice, should the United States give preference to potential immigrants who are related 

to American citizens or should the United States give preference to those who could most help the U.S. economy?
9* Should the United States treat all potential immigrants equally or should the United States give preference to those with higher levels of education and better economic prospects?

NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/econ_survey_questions/may_2013/questions_immigration_may_6_7_2013

 

Immigration amnesty bill would instantly put millions on welfare

(NaturalNews) At a time when the U.S. government is spending a trillion dollars more a year than it takes in, it makes no sense at all for our elected leaders to be considering any legislation that adds to the federal deficit, which is already more than 100 percent of our entire gross domestic product.

And yet, that's exactly the kind of legislation dominating the discussion and debate in Washington, D.C. What's worse, the people who would benefit from this new, costly legislation, aren't even American citizens.

It doesn't get any more insane than this.

The new "immigration reform" bill making the rounds in our nation's capital is nothing more than an amnesty for 95 percent of the illegal immigrants currently in our country (no, they're not "undocumented migrants" or "undocumented workers" - don't let others steal the language and define the debate).

What's more, according to Breitbart News, the bill, if passed, would completely overwhelm the nation's social system because the vast majority of these newly legalized criminals would become eligible for taxpayer-supported welfare benefits.

Did I not tell you this is insane?

'Illegal immigrants will be able to access all public benefit programs at a great cost to taxpayers'

Per Breitbart:

The immigration bill introduced to the Senate a week and a half ago would, if passed, allow illegal immigrants to access state and local welfare benefits immediately. ... The financial impact of allowing potentially millions of immigrants onto state and local public assistance could overwhelm these programs' budgets.

The ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., found the welfare loophole in the mammoth, nearly 900-page bill, as well as several others that has circulated in a memo, which was obtained exclusively by Breitbart in advance.

"The Gang of Eight made a promise that illegal immigrants will not be able to access public benefits," Sessions said in a statement to Breitbart News. "We already know that, once granted green cards and ultimately citizenship, illegal immigrants will be able to access all public benefit programs at a great cost to taxpayers. We have, however, identified a number of loopholes that would allow illegal immigrants to draw public benefits even sooner than advertised."

If you've not heard anything about this little hidden loophole, once again you can - and should - chastise the echo-chamber, far-left mainstream media, which has systemically failed to ask probing questions regarding this massive bill.

If the measure becomes law as is, the nation's 11 to 14 million illegal aliens would be legalized within a half a year - when Secretary Janet Napolitano, head of the Department of Homeland Security (the agency responsible for the border) submits her border security plan to Congress.

"Illegal immigrants would immediately be eligible for Registered Provisional Immigration (RPI) status, making them legal to live and work in the country," Breitbart reported.

In his memo, Sessions said "state laws frequently extend benefits to anyone 'lawfully present' in the U.S." His team noted a Department of Health and Human Services brief which says the only requirement a number of state and local governments have with regard to the ability for immigrants to gain access to public benefits is that they be "lawfully present," a term that is a legal definition.

Creating lifelong Democrats

Page 91 of the amnesty bill says that all illegal immigrations given RPI status shall be "lawfully present" in the country:

(4) TREATMENT OF REGISTERED PROVISIONAL IMMIGRANTS. - A noncitizen granted registered provisional immigrant status under this section shall be considered lawfully present in the United States for all purposes while such noncitizen remains in such status...

Sessions' staff further notes that, when evaluating whether an illegal immigrant qualifies for RPI status, the amnesty bill "explicitly forbids" DHS from using current law, which presently blocks entry to any illegal immigrant who could become "public charges" - that is, someone who would become dependent upon taxpayer-supported welfare programs.

"Therefore, when those here illegally who are unable to support themselves are legalized, much of the immediate fiscal burden will fall on state and local governments," Sessions' staff said in the memo.

'Gang of Eight' didn't negotiate with you, did they?

Republicans certainly have their issues when it comes to controlling spending, but without question the Democrat Party is the champion of big government. The reason why so many of them support this "immigration reform" bill is because it would essentially create millions of new constituents.

What's more, this "Gang of Eight" has negotiated this bill primarily with two major interest groups - Big Labor and Corporate America. Other groups were there as well - some religious organizations, for instance - but do you know who was missing from that table?

You, Mr. and Mrs. America, that's who. And yet it is you who will be called upon to pay for and support this egregious violation of sovereignty.

Like Obamacare, this bill was also negotiated in secret, is a mile long, and is now being foisted on the whole of Congress for a quick up-or-down vote on it, before anyone has a chance to dissect it or debate it. That's not a "republican form of government," that is democratic tyranny, period.

Well, the word is out now. This bill doesn't "reform" immigration law, it creates a new class of voters for one particular party, puts the country further in debt and rewards lawbreakers who are now openly demanding we cater to them.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.breitbart.com

http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/11/ImmigrantAccess/Eligibility/ib.shtml

http://www.uscis.gov

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/040277_immigration_reform_welfare_illegal_aliens.html#ixzz2Su73HxRl

Senate Immigration Bill Bogged Down by Amendments

Amendments about DNA, little dreamers and gay marriage could test resolve of 'gang of eight' 

 

The Senate's bipartisan immigration bill faced its first trial in the Judiciary Committee Thursday as lawmakers began debate on more than 300 amendments ranging from complicated provisions like strengthening border security to simple tasks like cleaning up typos in the bill.

"This is the only chance we are going to have," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., noted in opening remarks, reflecting on the historic significance of the immigration markup.

[READ: Ted Cruz Seeks to Ban Illegal Immigrants in U.S. from Citizenship]
Members of the "gang of eight" including Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., who serve on the committee, appeared united as some GOP lawmakers expressed extreme skepticism in the bill's sweeping reforms and "toothless metrics" on border security.

"No one can dispute that this bill is legalization first, enforcement later," ranking member Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said.

Flake and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., voted with Democrats to strike down one of Grassley's amendment that would have required the Department of Homeland Security to establish "operational control" of the border for a period of six months before immigrants already here illegally would be allowed to gain legal status.

Lawmakers powered through 17 amendments before breaking for lunch. But some of the most controversial pieces have yet to be debated. Republicans filed nearly 200 amendments and Democrats filed just over 100.
[READ: Amendment for Gay Couples Threatens Life of Immigration Bill]

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., filed an amendment that would give "little dreamers" an accelerated path to citizenship. The DREAM Act, which is part of the 844-page immigration bill ,would allow individuals who came to the U.S. illegally before the age of 16 a five-year path for citizenship. Blumenthal's amendment would give younger immigrants the same opportunity instead of the 13-year path currently provided in the bill.

Another amendment, sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, would require all immigrants who came to the country illegally to provide DNA samples to the federal government before they could be put on an eventual path to citizenship. Under current law, only immigrants who are detained by U.S. customs must provide DNA. Hatch says the hope is that the DNA samples would give law enforcement the chance to vet forensics against evidence in crime labs and ensure that the country does not allow immigrants with a criminal past the right to stay in the U.S.

The amendment has angered some human rights groups, however, who argue the law would violate the rights of immigrants.

[READ: GOP Throws Up Road Block on Immigration Reform]
Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D- Vt., authored amendments that would give same-sex, binational couples the chance to sponsor their partners for green cards. Republicans in the gang of eighthave warned that including the provision in the bill would sink the carefully-crafted legislation.
And Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., who has been an outspoken opponent of the gang's proposal from the start, issued 50 amendments. One would require Homeland Security to weigh the likelihood that an immigrant might use federal assistance in the future when deciding whether or not to give an individual legal status.
"In considering the application of an alien for registered provisional immigrant status, the Secretary shall consider the likelihood of the alien's reliance, at any point in the future, on cash and non-cash Federal means-tested public benefit," the amendment reads.

 

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


(Reuters) - A leading U.S. think tank headed by former Republican Senator Jim DeMint drew fire from fellow conservatives Monday for concluding that the citizenship proposals in a sweeping immigration reform bill would cost taxpayers trillions.

The clash underscored divisions within the Republican Party over bipartisan immigration legislation in the Senate backed by Democratic President Barack Obama.

The Heritage Foundation, in a report, warned that a proposed pathway toward U.S. citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants would cost $6.3 trillion over the next 50 years.

During their lifetimes, these immigrants-turned-citizens would take far more in federal services and benefits than they end up paying in taxes, the foundation said.

Conservative critics countered that the Heritage Foundation failed to consider the economic advantages of immigration reform, such as improvements in obtaining needed high- and low-skilled workers, while focusing solely on the costs.

"This study is designed to try to scare conservative Republicans into believing that the cost will be so giant that you can't possibly vote for it," former Republican Party Chairman Haley Barbour said in a conference call with reporters.

Derrick Morgan, a Heritage vice president, responded in a conference call of his own, saying, "We are a research institution here. We can't necessarily speak to the motivations of other people."
"But we very much want the fiscal costs to be part of the debate because it protects the American taxpayer," Morgan said.

While supporters of an "earned pathway toward citizenship" argue it would help create order, foes charge it would amount to unwarranted "amnesty" drawing more undocumented immigrants.

DeMint, a favorite of the conservative Tea Party movement, served in the Senate from South Carolina for eight years before stepping down in January to head the Heritage Foundation.

DeMint said the U.S. immigration system is "broken," and that "amnesty will only make the problem worse."
PROJECTS STRAIN ON GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS

Heritage has assumed a leading role in opposing the Senate bill and its study is expected to be the first of many on it.

Coming three days before the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to begin debating the immigration measure, the Heritage Foundation study estimated that legalizing the 11 million would put a severe strain on government programs, from healthcare to education.

The Heritage Foundation report was blasted by other conservatives even before it was issued.
Cato Institute, in a website posting over the weekend, said that the Heritage Foundation study was an update of a "fatally flawed" analysis it issued in 2007.

Grover Norquist, a leading anti-tax activist influential in Republican circles, has joined in supporting the Senate's bipartisan immigration bill, testifying in favor of it last month before the Judiciary panel.
Norquist has argued that the measure will boost economic growth, as has Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former aide to Republican President George W. Bush. Holtz-Eakin and Norquist both criticized the Heritage Foundation study.

In a memo to fellow Republicans in Congress, Norquist wrote that the study "does not speak for the conservative movement."

Following the 2012 elections in which 71 percent of Hispanic-American voters supported Obama, many Republicans began re-examining their opposition to immigration reforms.
(Reporting by Thomas Ferraro; Additional reporting by Richard Cowan; Editing by Fred Barbash and Cynthia Osterman)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/06/us-usa-immigration-costs-idUSBRE9450LR20130506