What is it not? It is not millions of people cascading across the border … It is not welfare benefits for those folks immediately. In fact, it’s in the bill right now that they cannot get AFDC benefits … It is not immediately wives, husbands, and children will come across. Not the case.” ~Chuck Schumer on the House floor, commenting on 1986 amnesty bill
After President Trump was forced to finally suspend Obama’s illegal amnesty because of the pending lawsuit, he has completely flipped on immigration and is now siding with Nancy Pelosi. Multiple media sources are now reporting that Nancy Pelosi asked the president to tweet out his support for continued “Dream” amnesty during the next six months. He spoke with Chuck Schumer as well. Here is the tweet:
For all of those (DACA) that are concerned about your status during the 6 month period, you have nothing to worry about - No action!
Now that Trump has completely adopted the talking points, parlance, and priorities of the Left on immigration, it’s important that he answer the following questions that any Democrat should be confronted with:
A mockery of the constitution and statute: How can we expect other countries to respect our sovereignty when, even during the “suspension” of amnesty, you make it clear you are willing to keep amnesty for six months and even reinstate the affirmative benefits if Congress doesn’t act, just like Obama threatened?
Amnesty after amnesty after amnesty: Once we agree that there is a sense of urgency to grant amnesty but not an emergency to first secure the border and end illegal immigration, what is to stop this amnesty from resulting in the same flood of new waves of illegal immigration, as has consistently happened in the past? An amnesty-first approach with promises of enforcement later has already been tried. It failed. What about Americans first?
Immediate amnesty for the parents: Once you agree to the premise that there is a moral obligation to grant those brought here as kids not just amnesty but a path to citizenship, won’t the next argument be, “We can’t divide up families?” This will lead to the immediate clamor to grant amnesty to the parents. Sen. Dick Durbin is already saying this. Will we ever draw a line?
Amnesty brings chain migration: Within five years or so, the newly amnestied illegals will then be able to bring in their family members like any other American. So, this is not just about 800,000 people. This is endless chain migration of low-skilled immigrants draining our welfare state. How is it moral to the American citizen to pass amnesty before securing an agreement to pass the RAISE Act?
The next wave of dreamers: The “DACA” amnesty applied only to those brought here as children before 2007. Thus, it’s mainly for those who are currently in their 20s and 30s. Once we agree that there is a blanket entitlement for amnesty for anyone brought here as a kid, with the fiscal and cultural burden borne by Americans (by no fault of their own), what about the next generation of “dreamers?” The minute this amnesty passes, there will be a clamor to amnesty those who are even younger — roughly one to twelve years of age. They will have an even more sympathetic argument for amnesty. Ironically, we have been flooded with hundreds of thousands of Central Americans precisely because of DACA amnesty, yet they are not part of the program! What happens to them? And what happens to the new wave spawned by that amnesty? Don’t kid yourselves: This is not a limited amnesty. Once you telegraph the message that as soon as someone successfully comes here illegally and puts down roots, we will not have the stomach to deport them, why would that change during the next cycle?
Endless litigation from amnesty will paralyze enforcement: Even without amnesty, the courts are already blocking deportation of even criminal aliens. Once amnesty is passed, sure, we can set broad criteria to only give green cards to “good people.” But this will essentially burn all enforcement to the ground because so many people will have to be afforded the opportunity to litigate themselves into status, including criminal aliens. This is why amnesty always incentivizes a new flow, and they are not only good people. Thirty percent of the Central American kids now coming over the border have ties to gangs. How is amnesty before judicial reform not national suicide?
How will this not become a massive fiscal drain on Americans? Despite the talk of “Dreamers” being the most brilliant, productive people of all time, the reality is that they are by and large a poor demographic, particularly the ones from Mexico. And while officially they wouldn’t be entitled to welfare immediately, they get billions in refundable tax credits. Moreover, because of the outrageous and unconstitutional policy of unqualified birthright citizenship for illegals, a travesty I cover in depth in Stolen Sovereignty, they can immediately secure welfare on behalf of American-born children.
Foreign nationals in control of our citizenshipprocess: And speaking of unconditional birthright citizenship, how is it fair to grant retroactive amnesty to those brought here as children before we prospectively fix the birth tourism and anchor-baby scams? We will obviously honor the citizenship already granted under the false interpretation of the 14th Amendment, but without a proposal to change birthright citizenship first, the Dream Act would expand our anchor-baby magnet to an “anchor teenager” phenomenon.
What about fixing visa overstays first? More than 600,000 people who overstayed their visas in 2016 alone still remain in the country. This is a violation of our sovereignty and was the core security gap that lead to 9/11. Why would we make an emergency of amnesty before fulfilling the responsibility to the American people to fix our visa tracking system?
All of these unanswerable questions demonstrate the indefensibility of focusing on amnesty before first focusing on the needs of American sovereignty and security. Why should we have to beg for security as if this is a conservative issue? The entire country has a responsibility to secure our borders and visa system and make immigration work for Americans. Why should enforcement have to be held hostage — and never actually fulfilled — as a condition for amnesty? Shouldn’t we call agree on the need to ensure that illegal immigration is a thing of the past before discussing any amnesty?
The fact that liberals dogmatically oppose cutting off magnets on future illegals demonstrates that this is not about a one-time act of compassion for those already here. This is a bid for perennial open borders. Which is why it’s so disgraceful that Trump has cast his lot with Nancy Pelosi and has adopted her rhetoric on the issue.