How about when Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Oman donated MILLIONS to your foundation when you were Secretary of State and then you conducted official US business with them?
Democratic leader Sen. Richard Durbin confirmed to Breitbart News that the Dream Act amnesty is open-ended and larger than his advertised number of the 780,000 people who have signed up for the DACA amnesty.
Breitbart News asked Durbin on Wednesday how many people would be included in the amnesty, which is co-sponsored by South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham. Durbin answered by saying:
We’re aiming at the DACA population, which is 780,000, but the Dream Act leaves that open.
Durbin spoke at a press conference arranged by Mark Zuckerberg’s FWD.us advocacy group. The event featured roughly 100 illegal aliens. Breitbart News asked the Illinois Senator when he would have a public estimate for the number of people who would gain from open-ended Dream Act, and he replied:
I don’t know that we have numbers. We can tell you 780,000 DACA. You have got ask how many are eligible for DACA today that didn’t apply, and I dont know what that number is. I really don’t. It is going to be more than 780,000, but I don’t know what it is.
Breitbart News cited the estimates prepared by the pro-amnesty Migration Policy Insitute estimates, which shows that 3.3 million illegal aliens would be eligible to obtain amnesty under the DREAM Act. But Durbin insisted he did not know how many would gain and charged GOP legislators with exaggerating the size of the amnesty and the number of people who would later arrive via chain migration. He said:
I don’t know where those numbers come from. Here is what [critics] are doing. They are projecting 15 years in the future when these Dreamers become citizens and they have the right of citizenship to petition for a spouse, children and parents, and they say, ‘Oh, that means that two or three for each one of those.’ …
I had to explain it to them, the laws of biology make that very difficult because if you came here under the age of 16, and you’ve been here four years, it is not likely that any children you have will have any special status —they will have been born in the United States. So some of the speculation about the numbers is real pretty far faced, and I don’t buy the two million, three million [estimates]. I don’t know where those numbers came from.
Durbin’s lack of an estimate is surprising, partly because he introduced the first version of the bill 16 years ago, in 2001.http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/10/07/exclusive-sen-du...
Love how truth just keeps on coming... .
Yes, this is exactly why the Dreamer Act is d.o.a. But my question is, where is the equally important, anchor-baby reform, allowing birthright U.S. citizenship (as a natural right) to only those born exclusively under U.S. sovereignty, with no foreign allegiance or attachments at birth?
Without changes "illegal immigration and chain migration, which severely and unfairly burden American workers and taxpayers, will continue without end."
My "immigration" google alert is overflowing this morning with media coverage of the Trump Administration's just-released "immigration priorities."
No one in the establishment media or in Congressional leadership denies that this is true -- yet the establishment of both parties say they oppose the proposed changes; essentially admitting that they want "illegal immigration and chain migration, which severely and unfairly burden American workers and taxpayers" to "continue without end."
"In a letter to Congress, Trump said these policy priorities 'must be included as part of any legislation addressing' DACA because without the changes, 'illegal immigration and chain migration, which severely and unfairly burden American workers and taxpayers, will continue without end.'"
• The current Chain-based immigration system results in a reverse-Robin-Hood redistribution of $500 billion every year from Americans who work with their hands and on their feet to the investor class that lives off of dividends and the cheap labor of immigrant workers.
• Because E-Verify is optional, employers can illegally hire foreign workers not authorized for employment to fill jobs that - by law - should go to legal permanent residents or U.S. citizens
Kevin Drum of Mother Jones says:
"Anyone who claims to be fiercely opposed to illegal immigration but doesn't support strong employer sanctions is just lying to you."
Michael D. Shear and Yamiche Alcindor of the New York Times:
"...Democrats need to be mindful not just of white working-class voters but all voters, said Cornell Belcher, who worked as one of President Barack Obama's pollsters during his 2008 presidential campaign. Democrats have to 'thread a fine needle,'he said, because polls show that voters broadly 'feel as though their borders need to be more secure.'"
Michael Brendan Dougherty of National Review:
"Someday people will look back on this time of mass immigration into America, from the 1970s to now, and wonder how it was that the language of humanitarianism was so easily and cheaply deployed to subordinate the very concepts of political community, democratic checks, and even the rule of law itself to the demands of employers....The truth is that American policymakers valued low-wage labor more than they valued any of our professed political values."
Peter Beinart of The Atlantic:
"The next Democratic presidential candidate should say again and again that because Americans are one people, who must abide by one law, his or her goal is to reduce America's undocumented population to zero. For liberals, the easy part of fulfilling that pledge is supporting a path to citizenship for the undocumented who have put down roots in the United States. The hard part, which Hillary Clinton largely ignored in her 2016 presidential run, is backing tough immigration enforcement so that path to citizenship doesn't become a magnet that entices more immigrants to enter the U.S. illegally."
Pete Spiliakos of First Things:
"Whatever the answer is, we need to ask some questions. Should we use our immigration system to make our population of least-skilled workers larger, or smaller? And should we indulge American employers who want to avoid hiring from among our most distressed workers?"