looking for a better life * news and pro-enforcement opinion
According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection statistics, through March 2019, 35,898 UACs have been apprehended by the U.S. Border Patrol entering the United States illegally in the first six months of FY 2019. That compares to 50,036 in all of FY 2018, and 41,435 in FY 2017.
Read the report here.
March 20, 2019
Image: Washington Examiner
“The so-called “remittances” have been in the focus of some immigration reform advocates who want to tax the transfers. Proponents said that a tax on the money, some of which is collected under the table and outside payroll taxes, could help pay for President Trump’s proposed border wall with Mexico.
Under one proposal that failed to pass Congress, remittances would be taxed 7 percent. Pew Research Center revealed in January that immigrants in the United States sent home $138 billion in 2016 alone. A 7 percent tax would raise nearly $10 billion, enough to fund building the wall in three years.”
“These huge numbers also suggest that the United States should follow the lead of Oklahoma, and start collecting a share of the remittances to help mitigate the costs of illegal immigration. You could build a wall with some of that money, compensate victims of illegal immigration, and much more – and Congress should do it,” said immigration expert Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies.
Money immigrants send home is a huge part of the economy of those three nations, reaching over 20 percent in El Salvador and Honduras. Over 90 percent of the remittances come from immigrants inside the United States, though a United Nations group said that the money comes from a total of over 100 countries. Read more here.
February 9, 2019
Froma Harrop
Americans don’t usually think of technical professionals as “guest workers,” yet at any one time, there are more than a half-million foreigners holding tech jobs in the U.S. They are here thanks to the H-1B visa program. H-1B, so the official spiel goes, addresses an alleged shortage of “highly skilled” Americans to fill jobs “requiring specialized knowledge.”
Growing evidence, however, points to companies using the program to replace perfectly qualified American workers with cheaper ones from elsewhere. A new report published by the Atlantic Council documents the abuses. The authors are Ron Hira, a political scientist at Howard University, and Bharath Gopalaswamy, director of the Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center.
Among their criticisms:
• Virtually any white-collar job can be taken by an H-1B visa holder. About 70 percent of them are held not by what we consider tech workers but by teachers, accountants and salespeople, among others.
“By every objective measure,” Hira and Gopalaswamy write, “most H-1B workers have no more than ordinary skills, skills that are abundantly available in the U.S. labor market.”
U.S. colleges graduate 50 percent more students in engineering and in computer and information science than are hired in those fields every year, according to a study by the Economic Policy Institute.
Cutting labor costs is clearly the paramount “need.” In Silicon Valley, computer systems analysts make on average just over $116,000 a year. But companies can hire H-1B workers at a lower skill level, paying them only about $77,000 a year to do the same work, the report says.
And it’s not unheard-of for companies to ask American workers to train the H-1B workers taking their jobs. “60 Minutes” featured Robert Harrison, a senior telecom engineer at the University of California, San Francisco Medical Center. Asked whether training his replacement felt like digging his own grave, Harrison responded:
Why does this program continue without serious reform? Mainly because its big boosters include such marquee tech names as Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Michael Bloomberg and Eric Schmidt. Big Tech has showered think tanks with funding to brainwash Americans into believing that their country is starving for tech expertise. Read the rest here.
Bryan Baker
DEFINITIONS
Legal Residents
The legally resident immigrant population as defined for these estimates includes persons granted lawful permanent residence, persons granted asylum, persons admitted as refugees, and persons admitted as nonimmigrants under classes of admission associated with residence (e.g., students and temporary workers, as opposed to tourists) and with authorized periods of admission ending after January 1, 2015.
Illegal Alien Residents
The resident illegal alien population is defined as all foreign- born non-citizens who are not legal residents (see above). Most illegal aliens either entered the United States without
inspection or were admitted temporarily and remained past the date they were required to depart. Persons who are beneficiaries of Temporary Protected Status (TPS), Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) or other forms of prosecutorial discretion, or who are residing in the United States while awaiting removal proceedings in immigration court are included among the illegal alien population estimates. Illegal aliens applying for adjustment to LPR status under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) are considered to be part of the resident illegal alien population until they have been granted lawful permanent residence. Here.
| USBP | Demographic | OCT | NOV | DEC | JAN | FEB | MAR | APR | MAY | JUN | JUL | AUG | SEP | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Southwest Border | UAC | 4,971 | 5,264 | 4,764 | 5,124 | 20,123 | ||||||||
| Family Units | 23,114 | 25,164 | 27,507 | 24,116 | 99,901 | |||||||||
| Southwest Border Total Apprehensions | 50,998 | 51,857 | 50,749 | 47,893 | 201,497 | |||||||||
*Note: Family Unit represents the number of individuals (either a child under 18 years old, parent or legal guardian) apprehended with a family member by the U.S. Border Patrol.
In January, 47,893 people were apprehended between ports of entry on the Southwest Border, compared with 50,749 in the month of December and 51,857 in November. In FY18, a total of 396,579 individuals were apprehended between ports of entry on our Southwest Border.
For breakdown by Sector, visit USBP Southwest Border Apprehensions by Sector
| Field Operations | Demographic | OCT | NOV | DEC | JAN | FEB | MAR | APR | MAY | JUN | JUL | AUG | SEP | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Southwest Border | UAC | 455 | 404 | 353 | 409 | 1,621 | ||||||||
| Family Units | 4,178 | 4,986 | 4,383 | 4,212 | 17,759 | |||||||||
| Southwest Border Total Inadmissibles | 9,770 | 10,606 | 10,030 | 10,314 | 40,72 | |||||||||
Because it is easier to make an immigration case, federal prosecutors sometimes charge illegal immigrants only with immigration violations, even when they have committed serious non-immigration crimes. Once convicted, an immigrant will still normally serve some time and then be deported, which is often seen by prosecutors as good enough. This, of course, does not happen with citizens. But because of this, conviction data for non-immigration crimes will tend to understate the level of criminal activity among non-citizens.
Among the findings of the new data:
Areas where non-citizens account for a much larger share of convictions than their 8.4 percent share of the adult population include:
Areas where non-citizens account for a share of convictions roughly equal to their share of the adult population include:
Areas where non-citizens account for a share of convictions lower than their share of the adult population include:
Read it here from CIS.org
IERB complaints: responses to responses
1) The 1982 SCOTUS Plyler v Doe decision made us do it:
Plyler v. Doe has essentially guaranteed a right to pursue a high school diploma to all students (children) regardless of immigration status. It applies to K-12 education.
An easy to read and accurate synopsis: Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down both a state statute denying funding for education to undocumented immigrant children and a municipal school district’s attempt to charge undocumented immigrants an annual $1,000 tuition fee for each undocumented student to compensate for the lost state funding.[1] The Court found that any state restriction imposed on the rights afforded to children based on their status as immigrants must be examined under an intermediate scrutiny standard to determine whether it furthers a “substantial” government interest.
The application of Plyler v. Doe has been limited to K-12 schooling. Other court cases and legislation such as Toll v. Moreno 441 U.S. 458 (1979) and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996[2] have allowed some states to pass statutes that deny undocumented immigrants students eligibility for in-state tuition, scholarships, or even bar them from enrollment at public colleges and universities.
Plyler v Doe applies to admittance, enrollment and education of illegal alien students in K-12 . It does not provide for any education of parents of students. Neither does it mean that school systems can or should provide any public benefit to parents (adults) in the name of furthering the education of the child/student. The argument that parents of illegal aliens are somehow exempt from proving eligibility for public benefits because of Plyler v Doe is absurd. Do we also exempt parents from proving work eligibility under Georgia’s E-Verify laws? Are parents of illegal aliens excluded for the affidavit process in 50-36-1 and 13-10-91 because they have children in Georgia K-12 schools? (No).
The USDOE has distributed guidance letters which are linked below. Although many of the responses from Georgia school districts cite Plyler v Doe and these letters as evidence of the legality of adult education for already enrolled K-12 students, the letters all clearly address enrollmentof K-12 students, not adult education.
The (English) guidance documents:
http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201405.pdf
http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/qa-201405.pdf
http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/dcl-factsheet-201405.pdf
Lastly, the argument that verifying the eligibility/immigration status of parents for public benefits or not providing illegal aliens parents (adults) of K-12 students language classes hinders the education of the child can be expanded to say that we cannot verify the legal status of the parents for a teaching or contractor job in the school system and that use of the E-Verify or SAVE system aimed at a parent is a “civil rights violation” or somehow damages the child’s education. Taken to extremes, use of the E-Verify system for parents of any or all Georgia K-12 students could be said to hinder the education of an illegal alien’s child because the parent cannot lawfully be employed. Shorter: The Plyer v Doe argument is intended for people who do not know the law.
2) Title lll made us do it and authorizes English classes for illegal alien parents of K-12 students already enrolled in Georgia’s school system.
I do not dispute that there is language in Title lll concerning parents and English language assistance. But partial quoting of Title lll without noting the federal requirement that all programs be in compliance with individual state law is incomplete and deceptive.
I insert a link to Title III text here
Title III — Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students
Please note Section 3116 Local Plans “(a) PLAN REQUIRED – Each eligible entity desiring a subgrant from the State educational agency under section 3114 shall submit a plan to the State educational agency at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the State educational agency may require.
(b) CONTENTS – Each plan submitted under subsection (a) shall —
…(1) each local educational agency that is included in the eligible entity is complying with section 3302 prior to, and throughout, each school year;
(2) the eligible entity annually will assess the English prof iciency of all children with limited English proficiency participating in programs funded under this part;
(3) the eligible entity has based its proposed plan on scientifically based research on teaching limited English proficient children;
(4) the eligible entity will ensure that the programs will enable children to speak, read, write, and comprehend the English language and meet challenging State academic content and student academic achievement standards; and
à(5) the eligible entity is not in violation of any State law, including State constitutional law, regarding the education of limited English proficient children, consistent with sections 3126 and 3127.
And Section 3126 LEGAL AUTHORITY UNDER STATE LAW.
à“Nothing in this part shall be construed to negate or supersede State law, or the legal authority under State law of any State agency, State entity, or State public official, over programs that are under the jurisdiction of the State agency, entity, or official.
SEC. 3127. CIVIL RIGHTS.
Nothing in this part shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with any Federal law guaranteeing a civil right. Use of Funds Requirements in OMB Circular A – 87
3) Title lll and Title l made us do it:
“Translation and Interpretation for English Learners – Requirements under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Related to National Origin Discrimination and Use of Funds Under Title III, Part A andTitle I, Part A of the ESEA.” See linked info ( for some reason, the link must be pasted into your browser to open the fed document).https://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/titleititleiii421.pdf
“Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A – 87 requires that the use of funds for a specific purpose be: necessary and reasonable for the proper and efficient performance and administration of the program; and authorized and not prohibited under State and local laws or regulations.
—
“On June 24, 2016 — during the waning days of President Barack Obama’s administration — Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson sent a three-page memorandum To 10 top law enforcement chiefs responsible for border security.1 The subject line referenced a terrorism threat at the nation’s land borders that had been scarcely acknowledged by the Obama administration during its previous seven years. So far, it also has evaded much mention in national debate over Trump administration immigration policy.
The subject line read: “Cross-Border Movement of Special Interest Aliens”.
What followed were orders, unusual in the sense that they demanded the “immediate attention” of the nation’s most senior immigration and border security leaders to counter such an obscure terrorism threat.
Secretary Johnson ordered that they form a “multi-DHS Component SIA Joint Action Group” and produce a “consolidated action plan” to take on this newly important threat. He was referring to the smuggling of migrants from Muslim-majority countries, often across the southern land border — a category of smuggled persons likely already known to memo recipients as special interest aliens, or SIAs. Secretary Johnson provided few clues for the apparent urgency, except to state: “As we all appreciate, SIAs may consist of those who are potential national security threats to our homeland. Thus, the need for continued vigilance in this particular area.” Elsewhere, the secretary cited “the increased global movement of SIAs.”
The unpublicized copy of the memo, obtained by CIS, outlined plan objectives. Intelligence collection and analysis, Secretary Johnson wrote, would drive efforts to “counter the threats posed by the smuggling of SIAs.” Coordinated investigations would “bring down organizations involved in the smuggling of SIAs into and within the United States.” Border and port of entry operations capacities would “help us identify and interdict SIAs of national security concern who attempt to enter the United States” and “evaluate our border and port of entry security posture to ensure our resources are appropriately aligned to address trends in the migration of SIAs.”
Secretary Johnson saw a need to educate the general public about what was about to happen. Public affairs staffs would craft messaging that the new program would “protect the United States and our partners against this potential threat.”
However, no known Public Affairs Office education about SIA immigration materialized as Secretary Johnson and most of his agency heads were swept out of office some months later by the election of Republican President Donald Trump. Whatever reputed threat about which the Obama administration wanted to inform the public near its end remains narrowly known. So, too, are whatever operations developed from the secretary’s 2016 directive.
Perhaps notably, the cross-border migration of people from Muslim-majority nations, as a trending terror threat, has gone missing during contentious national debates over President Trump’s border security policies and wall. Most discourse has been confined to Spanish-speaking border entrants rather than on those who speak Arabic, Pashtun, and Urdu.
So what is an SIA and why, in 2016, did this “potential national security threat” require the urgent coordinated attention of agencies, with not much word about it since? This Backgrounder provides a factual basis necessary for anyone inclined to add the prospect of terrorism border infiltration, via SIA smuggling, to the nation’s ongoing discourse about securing borders.
It provides a definition of SIAs and a history of how homeland security authorities have addressed the issue since 9/11. Since SIA immigration traffic is the only kind with a distinct and recognized terrorism threat nexus, its apparent sidelining from the national debate presents a particular puzzlement.
No illegal border crosser has committed a terrorist attack on U.S. soil, to date. A Somali asylum-seeker who crossed the Mexican border to California in 2011 did allegedly commit an ISIS-inspired attack in Canada, wounding five people in 2017, and numerous SIAs with terrorism connections reportedly have been apprehended at the southern border, to include individuals said to be linked to designated terrorist organizations in Somalia, Sri Lanka, Lebanon, and Bangladesh.2 But while most SIAs likely have no terrorism connectivity, the purpose of this Backgrounder is not to assess the perceived degree of any actual terrorist infiltration threat. The purpose, rather, is to establish a less disputable basis for discourse and action by either Republicans or Democrats through a homeland security lens: That SIA smuggling networks provide the capability for terrorist travelers to reach the border, and also that legislation-driven strategy requires U.S. agencies to tend to the issue regardless.3
The rest of the report can be read here.
December 17, 2018
They can reach the main lanes of Central America leading to the United States the easy way, or the hard way. This video documents the hard way.
