Since the passage of Immigration Act of 1990, U.S. has admitted an average of 1 million immigrants every year. This is *triple* average annual admissions that preceded the law. The 1 million annual immigrant admissions does NOT include guest workers (≈700k) or illegal aliens. (NumbersUSA.com on Twitter)
More than a million illegal aliens could arrive at the United States-Mexico border this year, according to projection analysis.
Princeton Policy Advisor Steven Kopits projects that federal immigration officials could encounter about 1.2 million illegal aliens by the end of 2021 if current illegal immigration levels continue as a result of President Joe Biden’s policies.
The analysis comes after federal immigration officials apprehended nearly 170,000 border crossers including more than 18,600 UACs, nearly 53,000 family units, and nearly 97,000 single adults.
“At the current pace, apprehensions for calendar year 2021 could be forecast at 1.2 million, following the precedents of 2005 and 2006,” Kopits writes:
As a result, barring a major modification of Biden administration policy, we might expect a level of illegal immigration this year not seen since the Great Recession. The situation is fairly described as a border crisis and a rolling policy disaster. [Emphasis added]
‘Dreamers’ protest for amnesty, 2020. Photo: Twitter.
Breitbart News
Neil Munro
14 April, 2021
President Joe Biden’s deputies have awarded contracts worth up to $1.6 billion dollars to help foreign children and teenagers settle in the United States.
The one-year contracts signed by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) include a contract worth up to $530 million to Family Endeavors Inc. starting March 17, a contract worth up to $719 million with Deployed Resources Inc. starting March 19, and a contract worth up to $198 million to Rapid Deployment Inc.
The Department of Homeland Security is also spending heavily to record and process the younger migrants, as well as the wave of adults who bring young children.
Photo: Frontpagemag.com
Both agencies may spend less than the maximum per contract — but can also sign more contracts during Biden’s four years in office.
In contrast, President Donald Trump turned away most migrants, so forcing more U.S. government attention on the interests of Americans.
The HHS contracts are being used to operate shelters where migrant teenagers and children are identified, enrolled in asylum lawsuits, and then handed over to so-called “sponsors” who promise to take care of them until they eventually face asylum judges. In reality, most of the migrant teenagers and children are looking for U.S. jobs or joining illegal-migrant parents and relatives who are already living in the United States.
For example, the Family Endeavors contract includes $86 million in taxpayers’ funds to rent hotel rooms for six months for approximately 1,200 families who cross the southern border.
The child-migration process is being used by progressives, business groups, illegal migrants, coyotes, cartels, and pro-migration media to widen the small asylum side-door in the nation’s immigration laws.
The post-1990 immigration laws normally accept roughly 1 million legal immigrants per year. That huge inflow delivers roughly 1 new migrant for every four Americans who turn 18. But Biden’s deputies want to dramatically raise the overall migration levels by adding more people via side doors, including the side doors for asylum seekers and refugees.
Business groups want the extra immigration because the arrivals serve as wage-capping workers, profit-boosting consumers, and high-occupancy urban renters. For example, the meatpacking industry prefers hiring migrants to invest in labor-saving machinery.
The migrant children are delivered to the border by coyotes and cartels, mostly under contract with the children’s parents who are living illegally in the United States. Once the children arrive at the border, they are relayed by the taxpayer-funded agencies to their illegal migrant parents throughout the United States.
The relay process ensures the U.S. government is providing free subcontracting services to the coyotes and cartels. For example, without the $1.6 billion in spending, the illegal migrant parents would have to fund the extra expense and legal risk of transporting their migrant children to new homes throughout the United States. “We’re complicit as a nation in human trafficking,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said at a March 26 press conference in Texas with 17 other GOP Senators.
The $1.5 billion in shelter contracts are merely the up-front costs of sheltering the many young migrants coming from Central America. Once admitted, the children and teenagers are expected to spur additional spending via welfare and education agencies.
State and local governments spend almost $60 billion per year helping to settle and support immigrants, according to a 2016 report by the National Academies of Sciences. Much of the extra spending flows to companies via contracts and consumer purchases…. More here from Breitbart News.
Another day, another instance of the Biden political appointees at the Department of Homeland Security ignoring laws that they dislike.
Instead of going through notice and comment rulemaking, as required under the Administrative Procedure Act, to revise regulations, or getting Congress to pass legislative changes, the Biden administration seems to believe it can unilaterally create its preferred immigration system with impunity. The most recent example was yesterday’s announcement by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) that it will allow applicants to submit incomplete applications.
To a casual observer this might not sound like a big deal, but it is.
The requirements for properly filing applications and petitions are clearly spelled out in Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Specifically, 8 CFR 103.2 says:
§ 103.2 Submission and adjudication of benefit requests.
(a) Filing –
(1) Preparation and submission. Every form, benefit request, or other document must be submitted to DHS and executed in accordance with the form instructions regardless of a provision of 8 CFR chapter I to the contrary. The form’sinstructions are hereby incorporated into the regulations requiring its submission. Each form, benefit request, or other document must be filed with the fee(s) required by regulation. All USCIS fees are generally non-refundable regardless of if the benefit request or other service is approved, denied, or selected, or how much time the adjudication or processing requires. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter I, fees must be paid when the request is filed or submitted.
Ideally, applicants and petitioners only submit “perfect” applicants and petitions, meaning a completed form with all evidence and fees included that efficiently allows an adjudicator to make an approve/deny decision. Reality is different and the adjudicative process drags on inefficiently.
As a threshold matter, USCIS does not even begin to adjudicate a benefit request until the agency accepts the request and processes the required fees (if any). According to the USCIS Policy Manual, “In order for USCIS to accept a benefit request, a submission must satisfy all applicable acceptance criteria.” The agency explains that this generally means (1) a complete, properly executed form, with a proper signature; (2) correct fees; and (3) the required initial evidence for intake purposes, as directed by the form instructions.
Accepting the form does not guarantee approval for the benefit request; it is merely the threshold requirement that initiates adjudicator review. If the officer is unable to make an adjudicative decision, he or she may issue a Request for Evidence (RFE) to give the requestor an opportunity to supplement the record. When adjudicators issue RFEs, it delays the final determination and contributes to backlogs.
On the other hand, USCIS is supposed to reject benefit requests that do not meet these minimum requirements. As outlined in the Policy Manual, reasons for rejection may include (1) incomplete benefit request; (2) improper signature or no signature; (3) use of an outdated version of a USCIS form at time of submission; (4) principal application error; and (5) incorrect fee, including missing fees or fees in the wrong amount.
In 2019, senior Trump administration political leadership at USCIS discovered that the agency was accepting woefully incomplete Forms I-589, I-612, and I-918 in violation of the form instructions and regulations. For those (understandably) unfamiliar with USCIS form numbers, the three forms at issue are:
The CEO of Gallup has publicly warned President Joe Biden that approximately 42 million people south of Texas want to migrate into the United States.
In a blog post published on Wednesday, Jim Clifton, the chairman and CEO of the Gallup polling company, warned Biden as he and his administration struggle to deal with the surge of migration at the border:
Here are questions every leader should be able to answer regardless of their politics: How many more people are coming to the southern border? And what is the plan?
There are 33 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. Roughly 450 million adults live in the region. Gallup asked them if they would like to move to another country permanently if they could.
A whopping 27% said “yes.” This means roughly 120 million would like to migrate somewhere.
Photo: Frontpagemag.com
Gallup then asked them where they would like to move. Of those who want to leave their country permanently, 35% — or 42 million — said they want to go to the United States.
In addition to finding a solution for the thousands of migrants currently at the border, let’s include the bigger, harder question — what about all of those who would like to come? What is the message to them?
What is the 10-year plan?
330 million U.S. citizens are wondering. So are 42 million Latin Americans.
According to the Breitbart report, the United States already has very high rates of legal and illegal migration.
With around “four million young Americans who turn 18 each year and begin looking for jobs, careers, spouses, homes, and families. Yet, the federal government imports roughly one million legal immigrants per year, each of whom compete for the jobs and housing sought by Americans,” according to the Breitbart report.
According to the Western Journal, “Clifton is no right-wing pundit”, his warning shows that the border crisis is not only a concern to conservative Americans as Gallup is not a right-leaning pollster.
Oh, my! The Feb 4, 2021 headline in the liberal AJC’s “Get Schooled” blog “OPINION: Open door to higher education for immigrants” tells us the door to higher education is closed to immigrants! Can you imagine how horrible the state of Georgia must be?
But wait, the sub-headline is “Bill introduced by Republican legislator would restore in-state tuition for young immigrants.”
Ah, so maybe it’s not that immigrants cannot get a college education in the Peach State after all. Maybe the AJC’s problem with Georgia is that young immigrants must pay out-of-state tuition – at public universities?
Nope, that isn’t true either.
Actually the state’s taxpayer funded University System of Georgia is ruled by the autonomous Board of Regents and that body has a policy offering instate tuition rates to immigrants. But – and here is the real problem the AJC and the people who wrote the opinion column have with Georgia – the benefit is for legal immigrants. And refugees. And asyleees. Pretty mean, eh?
Legal immigrants, also known as Lawful Permanent Residents have what are widely referred to as ‘green cards.” The Regents policy does not allow illegal aliens to access instate tuition.
It’s right there in the Board of Regents Policy Manual
4.3.1 Out-of-State Enrollment & 4.3.2 Classification of Students for Tuition Purposes
4.3.2.3 Non-Citizens
“A non-citizen student shall not be classified as in-state for tuition purposes unless the student is legally in this state and there is evidence to warrant consideration of in-state classification as determined by the Board of Regents. Lawful permanent residents, refugees, asylees, or other eligible noncitizens as defined by federal Title IV regulations may be extended the same consideration as citizens of the United States in determining whether they qualify for in-state classification.
International students who reside in the United States under non-immigrant status conditioned at least in part upon intent not to abandon a foreign domicile shall not be eligible for in-state classification.”
The liberal AJC headline is over an opinion column from two advocates, Sofia Bork and Munir Meghjani. They seem very confused about the regents policy.
“Unfortunately, Georgia’s growing immigrant community has been locked out of the system that could propel them to reach their full potential, benefiting both their community and our state’s workforce. We have seen scores of family and friends struggle to make ends meet to afford the same education we received” they tell us.
If you have already guessed that the column is really about promoting state legislation to give illegal aliens instate tuition, you are on the right track.
The bill being sold is House Bill 120 from Republican Rep Kasey Carpenter of Dalton. Carpenter – and his mostly Democrat co-sponsors – want to provide illegal aliens with the much lower instate tuition rate than the regents allow U.S. citizens and legal immigrants from most other states to pay.
In liberal parlance, it’s fairness to “immigrants.”
Rep Carpenter says his bill is all about illegal aliens with DACA status. It’s not. DACA is not mentioned anywhere in the bill. But that isn’t part of the advocate’s column in the AJC. Rep Carpenter says illegal aliens with DACA are somehow ‘lawfully present’ in the United States. The 11th Circuit Appellate Court says DACA does not provide lawful presence. We wrote it up here.
None of that is in the opinion column in the liberal AJC. It’s worth a read if you aren’t already convinced the editors at the AJC are driven by an open borders agenda and they are quite willing to smear real immigrants to push that cause.
AJC Get Schooled editor Maureen Downey. Photo: Twitter.
The AJC “Get Schooled” blog is run by AJC editor Maureen Downey who we suspect wrote the headline.
Astounding Asylum Numbers in DOS Refugee Report for FY 2021
Center for Immigration Studies
October 28, 2020
Art Arthur
The Department of State (DOS) — with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) — transmitted their Report to Congress on Proposed Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2021 on September 30. My colleague Nayla Rush broke down that report, and the changes that the Biden-Harris ticket has proposed to the number of entries, in an October 6 post, but three statistics stick out therein: the number of aliens seeking asylum from DHS, the number seeking asylum as relief from removal from the immigration courts, and the credible fear grant rate in FY 2020.
Aliens who are present in the United States may seek what is called “affirmative asylum” from asylum officers (AOs) in U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), an agency in DHS. AOs may grant or deny those aliens asylum.
If an AO opts not to grant the alien asylum, and the alien is removable (as most are), the AO can refer the alien to immigration court (part of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) within the Department of Justice (DOJ)), for the alien to renew that application as a defensive application (relief from removal) in removal proceedings.
In addition to adjudicating those affirmative asylum applications, AOs also consider “credible fear” claims for aliens in expedited removal proceedings under section 235(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Those AOs can find that the alien has credible fear (in which case the alien is referred to immigration court to file an asylum application before an immigration judge (IJ) in removal proceedings), or determine that the alien does not have credible fear (in which case the alien can ask an IJ to review the AO’s decision).
There were an average of 500 to 550 AOs at USCIS in recent years (USCIS is authorized for 745 AOs), but last year USCIS announced that it planned to hire 500 new employees in the asylum branch of the agency (half of whom would be AOs; the rest staff), and, as of October 2019, they were on track to meet that goal. In a February 2020 report, however, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) was critical of USCIS’s efforts to train those AOs to perform credible fear screenings.
The number of such credible fear referrals skyrocketed in FY 2019, as almost one million aliens entered the United States illegally along the Southwest border or sought entry without proper documents at the ports of entry along that border. As GAO noted: “The number of referrals for credible fear screenings in the first two quarters of fiscal year 2019 alone was larger than the total number of referrals in each of fiscal years 2014 and 2015.”
In fact, AOs completed 5,523 credible fear cases in FY 2009, but in FY 2019, it completed 102,204 (out of 105,439 cases received) — a more than 1,750 percent increase. To help out, DHS assigned refugee officers, former AOs, and (in a controversial move), Border Patrol agents to handle interviews. A federal judge blocked that last effort in August.
All of which brings me back to the DOS report. As of August 31, according to the department, there were 598,692 asylum claims (in addition to credible fear claims) pending with USCIS. Assuming that there were the authorized 745 AOs on that date (the actual number — a moving target — is hard to find), that means that each AO is assigned almost 804 cases to adjudicate — not counting new cases that will be added.
In my experience, AOs generally take two hours to conduct interviews and complete about two per day, but USCIS’s statistics show a much lower completion rate. In September 2019, according to USCIS, AOs conducted 2,799 interviews and completed 6,286 cases. Assuming that there were 500 AOs at the time (likely on the low side), that means they each held 5.6 interviews each that month and completed 12.6 cases per capita — much fewer than one a day.
On top of the AOs’ asylum workload, according to DOS, there were 549,724 asylum claims (as of June 30) pending with the nation’s 520 IJs (the latter as of October — 20 new IJs were on-boarded on October 9, meaning that the number in June was actually closer to 500).
Again, that means that each IJ is assigned 1,057 asylum cases. As a former IJ, I generally completed one to two asylum cases per day, and at best IJs can hear approximately four (assuming that the alien shows up and is ready to go at the merits hearing date, which does not always happen). Consequently, as the Transactional Records Action Clearinghouse (TRAC) reported, in 2019 asylum applicants in immigration court on average waited almost three years for their cases to be decided, time that they will spend in the United States — and a timeframe that does not count appeals.
And, again, the DOS report does not count any new asylum cases that have been filed in the interim in immigration court.
Combined, however, these statistics show that there were 1,148,416 pending asylum cases in the United States — at a minimum. If those applicants were a state, they would be the 43rd largest in the United States, ahead of Montana, Rhode Island, Delaware, the Dakotas, Alaska, Vermont, and Wyoming.
Plus, as the foregoing shows, an asylum applicant denied by USCIS can renew his or her claim with the immigration court. In September 2019, for example, AOs approved 34 percent of the asylum claims they adjudicated (1,501), and referred (for one reason or another) 66 percent (2,901). Those cases — assuming that the aliens actually appear in immigration court — will end up on the IJs’ dockets.
This is a hole that the AOs and IJs will not be able to dig themselves out of without a massive increase in resources.
The Trump administration has, in fact, increased the total number of IJs by 70 percent and, as noted, has at least tried to increase the number of AOs by 50 percent. Joe Biden vows to double the number of IJs (as well as the number of EOIR staff and interpreters), but that hiring will take time and a significant increase in resources — resources Congress, which is stingy when it comes to immigration, may not fund. Much more here.
Joe Biden takes a knee to the Marxist Black Lives Matter, July, 2020. Photo: The GuardianBiden has adopted the Sanders’ plan to halt all deportations during the first 100 days of his presidency. In other words, he’s offering a 3-month open invitation for anyone in the world to come to the United States, so they can take advantage of the massive amnesty that he also promises.Biden has adopted the Sanders’ plan to halt all deportations during the first 100 days of his presidency. In other words, he’s offering a 3-month open invitation for anyone in the world to come to the United States, so they can take advantage of the massive amnesty that he also promises.Biden has adopted the Sanders’ plan to halt all deportations during the first 100 days of his presidency. In other words, he’s offering a 3-month open invitation for anyone in the world to come to the United States, so they can take advantage of the massive amnesty that he also promises.
Biden has been known as a moderate voice in the modern Democratic Party, willing to strike deals by reaching across the aisle. On immigration, his career NumbersUSA immigration-reduction grade of a D, while not good, places him in the middle of all Congressional Democrats since 1990. But compared with current Congressional Democrats, Biden would rank among the best 10%.
Unfortunately, instead of attempting to convince the more progressive wing of the Party that moderation on immigration is a more popular position, the “unity plan” capitulates to the radical wing of the Party that supports policies that would effectively create open borders. The days of Barbara Jordan’s Democratic Party that put the interests of American workers ahead of foreign workers and the businesses that profit from cheap labor are long gone.
LEGAL IMMIGRATION
While Biden refers to the Gang of 8 plan multiple times throughout his immigration platform, he forgets that one of the few bright spots in the Gang of 8 plan was its elimination of the Visa Lottery. Both his official plan and the “unity plan” call for the continuation of the Lottery.
We believe we should … preserve the critical role of diversity preferences in our immigration system.
Biden also calls for an increase in the number of employment-based green cards, including an exemption from the numerical limits for foreign students who graduate from U.S. colleges and universities with an advanced degree.
He calls for changes to the family chain migration categories, including exempting spouses and children of green card holders from numerical limits without offsets and issuing visas and work permits to any extended family members on the family-preference backlog due to annual caps.
Biden further calls for an increase of the H-1B higher-wage guest worker program and the streamlining of the H-2 guest worker programs.
Lastly, Biden adopts the Libertarian plan that was pushed by Democratic hopeful Pete Buttigieg to create a new visa program for states and local communities to utilize for “economic development”. One key goal of this is to add immigrants into depopulated cities that Americans have been fleeing.
Biden’s call for more immigration and guest workers, especially when nearly 50 million Americans have filed for unemployment since February and the nation faces months, if not years, of economic uncertainty, is a slap in the face to American workers of all skills.
AMNESTY
During the debates last fall, Biden was one of the few Democratic hopefuls who still believed in the rule of law. While most of the candidates for the Party’s nomination sought to abolish ICE and decriminalize illegal border crossings, Biden at least recognized that immigration enforcement is necessary.
He apparently no longer does.
Biden has adopted the Sanders’ plan to halt all deportations during the first 100 days of his presidency. In other words, he’s offering a 3-month open invitation for anyone in the world to come to the United States, so they can take advantage of the massive amnesty that he also promises.
Supporting an amnesty for nearly every illegal alien in the United States is not a new position for Biden; he called for a mass amnesty during the debates, and in 2013, he supported the Gang of 8’s mass amnesty bill. Highlights of his plan include speedier amnesties for “Dreamers” and agricultural workers, while adopting a bipartisan House plan that would force existing illegal Ag workers into indentured servitude before receiving their amnesty…. Read the rest here from NumbersUSA.com.
