Laura Ingraham: Marco Rubio has betrayed conservatives

Conservatives make a mistake when they put their hope in a person and not principles. That is the message from Laura Ingraham:

Before the election of Marco Rubio to the US Senate many saw him as the man to carry to Washington, D.C. the conservative principles that he spoke about so passionately during his campaign. He was seen as a man whose background, ideas and ideals were just what was needed to push back against the progressive agendas of more taxation, bigger government, immigration reform and a do nothing foreign policy. For many the hope was he would set things straight in the US Senate. For conservatives that hope has now become hype.

Conservative Floridians have now become disillusioned.

WDW has reported on how this happened. Some blame staff, some blame the influence on Rubio by Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham and others the go along to get along and get reelected siren call of lobbyists. Marco was a man of principle but then he decided to go on a different path than what he said during his campaign say many.

Marco Rubio is now viewed as the consummate politician. However, he can redeem himself, according to some. Will he go down with the immigration bill? That is the question.

RELATED COLUMNS:

Zuckerberg And Rubio: Amnesty’s Two Indistinguishable Amigos

Center for Immigration Studies calls Rubio’s amnesty ad “deceptive” (Video)

Center for Immigration Studies calls Rubio’s amnesty ad “deceptive” (Video)

Jon Feere, the Legal Policy Analyst at the Center for Immigration Studies, reviews an ad released by the “Gang of Eight” featuring Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL). The ad is playing nationwide, including in Florida.

Feere states, “The minute-long advertisement calls the proposal ‘conservative immigration reform’ and attempts to make amnesty appealing to Republican voters. Partisan politics aside, the amnesty ad is misleading on a number of counts…”

The ad was produced by Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg who created FWD.us, an advocacy group aimed at promoting amnesty. One of the group’s offshoots is “Americans for a Conservative Direction“, which is cited at the end of the ad.

Americans for a Conservative Direction’s board members include: Haley Barbour: former Governor Haley Barbour served as the 62nd governor of Mississippi from 2004 to 2012 and served as Chairman of the Republican National Committee in the mid ’90s; Sally Bradshaw: former Florida Governor Jeb Bush’s Chief of Staff from 1999-2001, and served as a Co-Chair of the Republican National Committee’s Growth and Opportunity Project; Joel Kaplan: currently Vice President of US Public Policy at Facebook, Joel also served as Deputy Chief of Staff to former President George W. Bush; Dan Senor: former chief advisor to Representative Paul Ryan on the Romney-Ryan 2012 campaign; Rob Jesmer: former Executive Director at the National Republican Senatorial Committee from 2008 – 2012.

Below is the ad:

Here is Feere’s analysis of the ad phrase by phrase:

RUBIO: “Anyone who thinks what we have now in immigration is not a problem is fooling themselves. What we have in place today is de facto amnesty.”

Very few Americans believe that we don’t have a serious problem with illegal immigration. It is true that this country is experiencing a de facto amnesty for illegal aliens, and it is largely the result of the Obama administration refusing to enforce immigration laws on the books. The problem is that Rubio wants to turn this “de facto” amnesty into a formal amnesty, and grant millions of law-breakers work permits, driver’s licenses, Social Security accounts, travel documents, and an unknown number of additional state-level benefits. Rubio is trying to help President Obama fulfill his campaign goal of keeping all illegal aliens in the country and giving them benefits reserved for legal residents. If Rubio was actually troubled by the de facto amnesty being advanced by the Obama administration, Rubio would side with the ICE officials who are suing the Obama administration over the president’s effort to prevent them from doing their jobs. Top-ranking ICE official Chris Crane explained the lawsuit to Fox News, here. Mr. Crane’s recent congressional testimony, available here, raises many troubling issues. ICE’s additional concern is that the amnesty bill would make permanent their inability to enforce the law by giving DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano “virtually unlimited discretion” to waive all enforcement of immigration law. If an amnesty is passed, the Obama administration will likely continue to undermine any immigration enforcement provisions in the bill.

ANNOUNCER: “Conservative leaders have a plan, the toughest immigration enforcement measures in the history of the United States.”

The so-called “Gang of Eight” senators who wrote the bill aren’t all “conservative leaders”, unless you consider Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), and Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) to fit that description. True, the gang also includes Republican senators, but it is up for debate whether one considers Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.), Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), and Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) to be conservative on immigration. Their immigration report card grades, from the pro-enforcement group NumbersUSA, are troubling: Graham has a “C”, McCain a “D”, and a Flake “C”. This is in contrast to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has an “A+” from NumbersUSA.

The voiceover in the ad also cites a newspaper article for the “toughest enforcement measures in the history of the United States” language. This commercial carefully avoided some of the language in the article’s full sentence, particularly the part noting that this bill would allow previously deported illegal aliens to return to the country. The article’s full sentence reads:

The controversial proposal would grant most of the 11 million people here illegally a path to citizenship and give thousands of deported individuals a chance to return, but would also adopt some of the toughest immigration enforcement measures in the history of the United States.

No immigration bill in the history of the United States has ever permitted previously deported illegal aliens to return to the United States to receive citizenship, so it is difficult to see how this news organization concluded that the bill is the “toughest” our country has ever seen. Of course, the article is really claiming that the bill would “adopt some” tough enforcement measures, not that the bill itself is tough.

On closer inspection, many of these measures (noted below) are not as tough as they seem to be.

RUBIO: “They have to pass the background check, they have to be able to pay a registration fee, they have to pay a fine.”

Within six months of the bill’s passage, illegal immigrants would become immediately eligible for legal status, and many of the hoops that illegal immigrants would have to jump through to get such status do not amount to much. It is likely that any illegal immigrants who simply claim to be eligible will be able to avoid deportation, even if they’re already in detention. This is exactly what is already happening under President Obama’s deferred action program. ICE agents are being instructed to release any illegal aliens who claim to be eligible, even if they haven’t filled out an application form. The same situation will unfold under the large-scale amnesty bill. ICE will be virtually handcuffed and will not be able to carry out most enforcement.

To acquire the primary legal status offered under this bill, illegal immigrants would have to undergo a simple background check. But the bill would still grant legal status to illegal immigrants with a significant amount of criminality on their rap sheet. For example, crimes like ID theft and vandalism are not considered serious enough to deny a person status, despite the fact that such crimes create real victims. Specifically, two misdemeanors will not result in legal status being denied and under the bill multiple misdemeanors could be counted as “one” misdemeanor, provided they occur on the same day. Additionally, any problematic history an illegal immigrant has in his home country is unlikely to be uncovered; in a sense, our public safety would depend on the bookkeeping of police departments in the alien’s homeland, and there are many things that Americans consider criminal that are not criminal overseas.

Finally, the government’s capacity to conduct background checks on millions of illegal immigrants is questionable. ICE Union head Chris Crane explained in a video interview with the Daily Caller that there is “no such thing as a background check on a foreign national.” The 1986 amnesty also had background checks, but hundreds of thousands of fraudulent applicants were rubber-stamped. The amnesty granted legal status to someone who used his new status to freely travel to the Middle East to pick up terrorist training and helped lead the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Had we enforced our immigration laws, he would have been removed from the country and the attack might never have occurred.

The recent Boston Marathon bombing should also illustrate the government’s inability to carefully vet backgrounds. The FBI interviewed at least one of the terrorists, his family members, and his neighbors, in addition to analyzing his Internet usage. They apparently found nothing that would have raised a red flag. Despite the fact that DHS estimates there are many problematic foreign-born people living in the United States, the millions of illegal aliens applying for the amnesty will not have nearly as vigorous of a background check as the Boston bombers had, suggesting that some bad people will receive legal status through the bill. As written, the bill would allow known gang members to become U.S. citizens if they simply “renounce” their gang affiliation.

Rubio also claims that illegal aliens applying for the amnesty would have to pay a fee, but there are waivers and no specificity. The bill simply notes that illegal aliens aged 16 and older who want legal status will have to pay a fee “in an amount determined by [DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano]”. While it is unclear how much the fee would be, the bill says it should be enough to cover processing the applications. (See here for David North’s estimate of the size of the fee needed to process applicants properly.) But in the next section, the bill gives Napolitano the power to limit the fee and to exempt “classes of individuals” altogether. With such broad authority granted by Congress, it is unclear whether this fee would apply to most amnesty applicants.

It should also be noted that USCIS already offers waivers for those who cannot afford certain fees — in fact, the Obama administration created a form for such waivers in 2010 — and similar waivers may apply to any future amnesty. To obtain a fee waiver for some existing immigration benefits, an applicant simply must show that they are currently using a welfare program. Currently, 71 percent of illegal alien households with children make use of at least one form of welfare.

Rubio also claims that amnesty applicants would have to pay a fine. A fine is different from a fee and, by definition, a fine is meant to be a punishment for breaking a law. The bill puts the fine at $500 for the initial legal status — not much of a punishment considering the laws that have been broken. This initial status turns the illegal aliens into legal residents and grants them work permits, driver’s licenses, Social Security accounts, and many other benefits. Applicants would have to pay another $500 over the next six years. If a person wants to upgrade from this provisional status to full green card status (and eventual U.S. citizenship), they would have to pay another $1,000 many years down the road. But there are many exceptions. For example, people of any age who claim to have entered before age 16 and have a high school degree or GED would not have to pay either of the $500 fines, nor would they have to pay the $1,000 fine for green card status. Also, all people under 21 years of age, regardless of when they entered and whether they have a high school degree, would be exempted from both of the $500 fines.

Furthermore, it is likely that some pro-amnesty groups will assist applicants in paying the fines — some of which will be using taxpayer-provided funds to do so. The bill would actually grant groups like La Raza $150 million of taxpayer dollars to help illegal aliens apply for the amnesty, and the bill grants them a lot of discretion to decide how to spend the money. In reality, the fine may not be much of a punishment at all — particularly if American taxpayers are the ones footing the bill.

Absent from Rubio’s list is the requirement that illegal aliens pay back taxes. The reason he is no longer citing it is because that provision never made it into the bill. For months Rubio and other amnesty advocates sold the bill on the notion of requiring illegal aliens to pay back taxes for the years they have worked off the books. But it was simply part of an attempt to mislead the public into thinking this bill is tougher than it really is. Only “assessed” taxes have to be paid, and if the IRS doesn’t audit illegal immigrants working off the books — which is won’t — then there will be no “assessed” taxes to pay.

ANNOUNCER: “Border security on steroids. Tough border triggers have no giveaways for law breakers.”

DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano Napolitano simply has to submit a plan for border security and a fencing plan within six months of the passage of this bill. As soon as she submits the plans, illegal aliens become eligible for work permits, Social Security accounts, driver’s licenses, travel documents, and countless state-level benefits. Past amnesties show that these benefits are mostly what illegal aliens are looking for; green card status and U.S. citizenship are not priorities for most illegal immigrants. No border security has to be in place for these benefits to be handed out. A proposed amendment to the bill that would have made border security come before these benefits are handed out was rejected by the Senate. Sen. Jeff Flake and Sen. Lindsey Graham, two of the alleged “conservative leaders” who helped authored this bill, voted against the amendment along with all of the Democrats.

The “triggers” — border security, an entirely new electronic verification system (to replace E-Verify), and an operational exit-tracking system — are required to be in effect before illegal immigrants can upgrade to a green card. But even this isn’t exactly true.

The bill does provide a significant amount of funding for border security, but it remains unclear how that money would be spent and whether the border would ever actually be secured. The bill requires an “effectiveness rate” of 90 percent and defines such a rate as “the percentage calculated by dividing the number of apprehensions and turn-backs in the sector during a fiscal year by the total number of illegal entries in the sector during such fiscal year.” This equation requires some estimate of the number of missed illegal entries, but the metrics of border security have been up for debate for many years and it’s unclear how such an estimate would be reached. Shawn Moran, vice president of the National Border Patrol Council asks, “How are they going to measure effectiveness?” He fears the bills language “will put pressure on Border Patrol management to fudge the number in order to fit political purposes.”

Rubio has said that if effective control of these sections of the border is not met within five years, “it goes to a border commission made up of people that live and have to deal with the border and they will take care of that problem.” But in the bill, the “Southern Border Security Commission” would be made up of six Washington-appointed members (two by the president and four by congressional leaders), plus one from each southern border state (appointed by the governor), and it could do nothing but issue recommendations. But it gets worse. The bill also says that if “litigation or a force majeure” prevents the border from being secured then Secretary Napolitano has the authority to go ahead and issue illegal aliens U.S. citizenship anyhow.

One member of the Gang of Eight has asserted that citizenship for illegal immigrants will not be conditioned on actually having a secure border. Sen. Charles Schumer (R-N.Y.) explained, “We are not using border security as a block to a path to citizenship. This [the trigger] will not be a barrier to giving citizenship to the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in our country.”

In other words, there really aren’t any border security triggers at all.

RUBIO: “No federal benefits, no food stamps, no welfare, no Obamacare, they have to prove that they’re gainfully employed.”

Rubio is simply wrong with these assertions. Illegal immigrants are already receiving federal benefits and this bill would do nothing to stop that. This bill would actually extend greater amounts of benefits to illegal immigrants by giving them legal status.

We estimate that 71 percent of illegal immigrant-headed households with children use at least one welfare program. Illegal immigrants generally receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children, but they, not the children, are collecting the benefits, which support the entire family. Illegal immigrant households with children primarily use food assistance and Medicaid, making almost no use of cash or housing assistance. In contrast, legal immigrant households tend to have relatively high use rates for every type of welfare program. It is undeniable that if the amnesty bill becomes law, the legalized illegal immigrants will have greater access to the welfare state.

As for Obamacare, illegal immigrants who get green card status will have access to Obamacare, causing the aggregate annual deficit to soar to around $106 billion, finds the Heritage Foundation. Heritage also concludes that the amnesty applicants who receive green card status would also receive full eligibility for more than 80 means-tested welfare programs.

As to the “gainfully employed” requirement, Rubio is not being completely honest. The most important exemption comes toward the end of the bill, but it’s worth noting at the outset: All education and job requirements in the bill are waived if the immigrant is unable to work or go to school “due to circumstances outside the control of the alien”. The bill provides no explanation of what this might include, and one must ask whether high unemployment rates would count as something outside the control of the amnesty applicants.

Acquiring provisional status does not require evidence of employment. Renewing the status after six years does trigger an employment section of the bill. The section requires that the legalized immigrant fulfill one of two options. In the first option, the alien must prove that he “was regularly employed throughout the period of admission as a registered provisional immigrant, allowing for brief periods lasting not more than 60 days” and “not likely to become a public charge”. But this means that the immigrant could be unemployed for a two-month period and still meet this requirement. Plus, the wording is such that it leaves some interpretation to the courts. What if the immigrant has two “brief periods” of unemployment “lasting not more than 60 days”? By some interpretations, the immigrant would still be able to meet this requirement. Can an immigrant have five such brief periods? Ten? If the bill were written to limit unemployment to 60 days, then it would read “allowing for brief periods of unemployment totaling not more than 60 days”. It is a simple wording change, but it leads to a significantly different outcome.

As an alternative, the alien can “demonstrate average income or resources that are not less than 100 percent of the federal poverty level” for the period he lived here as an alien legalized under the bill. If the alien is the only person in his household, this requirement means that he would have to be making at least $11,490 a year.

But standards are low here. Amnesty applicants can submit a number of different documents to prove they worked. This includes any paperwork from a day laborer hiring center or even sworn affidavits from an alien’s family member who is willing to claim that the alien was working.

On top of all this, the work requirements do not have to be met if an amnesty applicant is going to school. The bill defines the education requirement quite broadly.

Furthermore, the employment and educational requirements do not apply to anyone under age 21 at the time of applying for the amnesty’s provisional legal status, nor do they apply to people over age 60. Also exempted is anyone who is a “primary caretaker of a child or another person who requires supervision or is unable to care for himself or herself.”

ANNOUNCER: “Bold, very conservative, a tough line on immigration.”

Considering all the exemptions and waivers already laid out above, it is difficult to conclude that this bill is bold with a “tough line” on immigration. The phrasing in this portion of the Rubio commercial is taken from quotes from pro-amnesty columnists in the media. The word “bold” was used by a Washington Post blogger who supports amnesty. The phrase “very conservative” is from the same writer; the full sentence is more illuminating:

In essence, if you accept that you have to start somewhere and we have no capability to uproot 11 million people, this is a very conservative-friendly plan.

So the writer called the bill “very conservative-friendly” and the ad shortened it to “very conservative.” One could certainly argue that these have different meanings. But the premise of the full quote is also worthy of debate. Does the United States have no capability to send 11 million people back home? Amnesty advocates constantly argue that the only alternative to mass amnesty is mass deportations. But in reality, both are unworkable. The only solution to the illegal immigration problem is the “attrition through enforcement” policy where we consistently enforce our immigration laws for a period of years and encourage illegal immigrants to go home in greater numbers than they already are. The Post blogger does not entertain this option and presents only a choice between amnesty and mass deportations, one embraced by Rubio.

The phrase “tough line on immigration” was taken from a pro-amnesty columnist from CNN. The same columnistcalled Arizona a “rogue state at war” for passing laws attempting to curb illegal immigration. That the pro-amnesty columnist opposed Jan Brewer’s efforts but embraces Rubio should raise flags about Rubio’s commitment to immigration enforcement.

RUBIO: “It puts in place the toughest enforcement measures in the history of the United States, potentially in the world and it once and for all deals with the issue of those that are here illegally but does so in a way that’s fair and compassionate but does not encourage people to come illegally in the future and isn’t unfair to the people that have done it the right way.”

Rubio claims that this comprehensive amnesty will fix the illegal immigration problem “once and for all”. But the American people have been told this before. The 1986 comprehensive amnesty, the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) was sold to the public as a one-time plan that would not have to be repeated because the bill contained sanctions against employers for hiring illegal immigrants, and other enforcement provisions. But after IRCA legalized about three million illegal aliens, the enforcement provisions never materialized. Today, about 7.5 million illegal aliens are holding jobs and their employers are not being held accountable. Why would anyone believe that the enforcement provisions in yet another amnesty would ever be enforced? In fact, only a few years after IRCA passed, the National Council of La Raza issued a report calling for the end to workplace enforcement. Interestingly, the author of that report was Cecilia Munoz, who today is President Obama’s chief immigration advisor. Odds are high that she will be working to undermine the enforcement in Rubio’s bill the moment it becomes law. Just last week President Obama told a roomful of amnesty advocate groups that if the bill becomes law, he will “revisit” the enforcement provisions. In other words, Obama has pledged to administratively narrow the scope of enforcement as soon as 11 million illegal immigrants and their family members acquire legal status through the bill. This is why enforcement must come before any type of legal status. Rubio’s bill is backwards, and it’s clear he hasn’t learned from the mistakes of IRCA.

Rubio also claims that the bill “does not encourage people to come illegally” but he apparently hasn’t been listening to border officials in the field who have come to Washington to testify before Congress. Rubio didn’t see thisWashington Times article:

“We have seen an increase in attempted entries,” Border Patrol Chief Michael J. Fisher told a Senate committee.

He said part of the reason for an increase is that Congress is talking about legalizing illegal immigrants, which is luring more foreigners to try to be in the U.S. when amnesty takes effect.

This should not come as a surprise. Amnesties always encourage illegal immigration because they send the message that illegal entry is a feasible path to legal U.S. residence.

Rubio also claims that amnesty is not unfair to those who are attempting to come to the United States the legal way. The reality is that illegal aliens get to stay in the country the moment they apply for amnesty. If they pass the simple background check, they receive legal status and nearly all the benefits of citizenship, including a work permit, a Social Security account, travel documents, a driver’s license, and many additional state-level benefits. While green card status may be delayed for a period of years, it is undeniable that amnesty applicants are in a much better position compared to those overseas who have applied to come to the United States legally. The amnesty applicant is only in the “back of the line” in the sense that the green card — and eventual U.S. citizenship — would allegedly be delayed until after all existing green card applications are processed. But the fact is, the genuine back of the line is in the illegal alien’s home country.

ANNOUNCER: “Stand with Marco Rubio to end de facto amnesty, support Conservative Immigration Reform.”

Again, Rubio wants to turn the de facto amnesty we’re currently experiencing as a result of non-enforcement of immigration laws into a de jure amnesty for millions of people who do not belong here. Rubio asks you to “stand” with him, but Rubio himself is standing with Obama, Napolitano, La Raza, the ACLU, and many other amnesty supporters who cannot be described as “conservative” in any sense of the word.

The cost of amnesty

A new study by the Heritage Foundation on the cost of amnesty will reveal the following:

The immigration debate is about to get a lot more concrete.

Lawmakers need to be honest about the cost of their proposed immigration plans—and a new study due out today from The Heritage Foundation calculates the cost to taxpayers of granting amnesty to unlawful immigrants.

Yesterday on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” Heritage President Jim DeMint said:

The study you’ll see from Heritage this week presents the staggering costs of another amnesty in our country and the detrimental effects, long-term, that that will have. There’s no reason we can’t begin to fix our immigration system so that we won’t make this problem worse. But the bill that’s being presented is unfair to those who came here legally; it’ll cost Americans trillions of dollars; it’ll make our unlawful immigration system worse.

Watch Jim DeMint talk about the cost of amnesty on “This Week”

DeMint previewed the study, conducted by Heritage senior research fellow in domestic policy Robert Rector, who studied the cost of amnesty under a similar proposal in 2007. DeMint said:

The way that we calculated the cost, and I read the study over the weekend, I don’t think anyone can argue with it. If you consider all the factors related to the amnesty—and believe me, this is comprehensive, that it will have a negative long-term impact on our gross domestic product. We just want Congress for once to count the cost of a bill. They are notorious for underestimating the cost and not understanding the consequences.

Heritage’s Jason Richwine, the senior policy analyst in empirical studies, says the new report will be a “resounding rebuttal to the claim from amnesty supporters that a long waiting period between the initial amnesty and citizenship will eliminate any major costs to taxpayers.”

This window of ineligibility for many government services has led supporters to argue that an amnesty will not be costly. There are two problems with this argument. First, households headed by illegal immigrants today consume some government services and pay far less in taxes….The second problem with the view that amnesty would not be costly because of the waiting period is rather obvious: After the waiting period is over, lifetime costs will be substantial.

To make sure that costs are counted accurately, Richwine says, “The estimates for the final period in our research will be calculated beginning 14 years after the initial amnesty, which is the point at which recipients could become naturalized citizens.”

Heritage’s cost analysis is unique. DeMint dismissed the idea that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) could be trusted with calculating the bill’s costs, because it is bound by the way that Congress asks it to add the numbers. He said:

CBO said Obamacare wouldn’t cost us anything—they’re basically puppets of the Congress and the assumptions that they put in the bill. Heritage is the only organization that has done an analysis of the cost. Unlawful immigrants make up about 2 percent of our GDP, and they consume most of that. If you consider all the factors of amnesty and unlawful immigration, the cost will be in the trillions of dollars over the lifetime of these unlawful immigrants.

DeMint said that Members of Congress must read the Gang of Eight immigration proposal to make sure they know what is on the table.

“I think if people read the bill, that it will be blocked,” he said. “Because once you get into it, just like Obamacare, it is not the way it’s being advertised.”

To read the full study click here.

Read the Morning Bell and more en español every day at Heritage Libertad.

The Gang of Eight Immigration Bill, Explained in One Info-graphic

The Heritage Foundation reports, “Senators return to Washington next week to debate the Gang of Eight’s comprehensive immigration bill. Heritage President Jim DeMint has said the bill is ‘unfair, it costs too much, and it’s going to make the problem worse’.”

The below video is testimony before the US Senate by the ICE Union Chief, Chris Crane, in his testimony on the 884 page new Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (S. 744). The ICE Union won an initial court victory in its lawsuit against the Obama Administration. Federal Judge Federal Judge Reed O’Connor told the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that they had no power to refuse to deport illegal aliens.

Crane testifies before the Senate expressing his concern that law enforcement was shut out of the negotiations on the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act.

Crane testified the Act is flawed as currently written because it:

(1) does not provide for tamper proof Federal ID cards to keep track of illegal aliens

(2) does not have any provision to arrest and remove 400,000 criminal Illegal Aliens who are fugitives from justice with felony warrants

(3) does not deal with the inability of the federal government’s bureaucracy to process 18+ million Illegal aliens when the federal government hasn’t even been able to process 900,000 Veterans disability claims over a 4 year period

(4) does nothing to make Universities report (which should be under threat of felony criminal charges) the names and locations of the hundreds of thousands foreign students like the terrorists who were involved in the Boston bombing who no longer attend college classes

(5) does nothing to provide a means to cover the $6 trillion cost of the flawed 884 page Act according to research by the Heritage Foundation (the Senate Bill intentionally misled the American people by saying it would cost $22.5 billion)

(6) doesn’t cover the cost because the Senate bill provides for charging each of the 18+ million illegal aliens $500.00 when the real cost per illegal is $335,000.00

(7) intentionally misleads the American people by saying the Act would not be enacted until the border was secured when there is no provision to guarantee the border is secure after 29 years of failed promise (THE ONLY ORGANIZATION THAT CAN BE TRUSTED TO VERIFY THE BORDER HAS BEEN CLOSED IS THE ICE UNION)

(8) flagrantly discriminates against nearly 4 million unemployed Veterans by giving employers a $3000 tax credit for employing illegal aliens and relieves them from having to cover illegal aliens under the Obama Health Care law without giving those same benefits to unemployed US citizens

(9) does absolutely nothing to locate the many terrorists in the US among the 18+ million illegal aliens like the Chechen terrorists, the Times Square bomber, the first World Trade Union bombers in 1993, and Major Hassan who had all been affected by the Islam jihadists outreach program underway in the US by remaining under the radar scope of CIA and the FBI’s Watch Lists (the requirement in the Act for a tamper proof Federal ID card requiring fingerprints would help locate those terrorist suspects)

(10) does not provide provisions to prevent 80 million unskilled relatives of the 18+ million illegal aliens form coming into the US which would destroy the fragile US Welfare system & bankrupt the Republic

(11) does not have a provision to deport anyone who fails in their application (Mohammed Salameh who applied for amnesty in 1984 but was turned down was a co-conspirator in the in the first World Trade Center attack in 1993)

(12) does not provide annual quotas to process applicants so the crush of applicants won’t bring the process to a full stop, and does not have provisions in it to do a thorough background investigation of applicant from high threat countries/regions.

Heritage put together an info-graphic that explains some of the major problems with a ‘comprehensive’ approach to immigration reform. Forward this to a friend to share these concerns.

What's Wrong withthe Gang of Eight's Bill?

Read the Morning Bell and more en español every day at Heritage Libertad.

Georgia Billboard calls out Florida Senator Rubio

Elizabeth Llorente from Fox News Latino reports:

A billboard taking aim at U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio is expected to be installed next week in Georgia, said the head of a conservative group that is behind the effort.

The group is unhappy with the Florida lawmaker because of his central role in a bipartisan Senate bill that seeks to reform U.S. immigration laws by, among other things, tightening enforcement, expanding the guest worker program and providing undocumented immigrants a path to legal status.

It is his support for giving undocumented immigrants an opportunity to legalize – while continuing to live and work in the United States – that most upsets them.

“There’s the betrayal factor,” said D.A. King, who helped draft several of Georgia’s anti-illegal immigration laws. “It’s a mystery to us why he’s still considered a conservative.”

“In his race for the Senate, Rubio said that he would never support any amnesty,” said King, head of the The Dustin Inman Society, described as a non-partisan coalition of citizens against illegal immigration. “If there was any real intention to secure the borders it would have been done after 1986, or after 2007 in preparation for what is happening now.”

Read more.

ABOUT THE DUSTIN INMAN SOCIETY:

With a focus on Georgia, The Dustin Inman Society is dedicated to educating the public and our elected officials on the consequences of illegal immigration, our unsecured borders and the breakdown of the rule of law in our Republic.

Named for one of the thousands of Americans who have paid the ultimate price for those unsecured borders, The Dustin Inman Society is a non-partisan coalition of citizens of all ethnicities and from all walks of life who recognize that illegal immigration and homeland security are the most critical issues in America today.

The obvious illegal immigration crisis is not a “federal problem” – it is a national problem – with Georgia having one of the largest populations of illegal aliens and criminal employers in the nation.

5 Ways the Immigration Bill Is Like Obamacare

The Heritage Foundation reports:

Congress rammed Obamacare through without many Members even reading the bill. Now it’s applying that same frantic, complex, pie-in-the-sky legislating to immigration. The similarities are frightening.

1. Extreme Costs

The Government Accountability Office now projects that under the most realistic scenario, Obamacare will add $6.2 trillion to the primary deficit over the next 75 years. That’s a staggering figure, especially considering the fact that President Obama pledged in 2009, “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits—either now or in the future.”

The Gang of Eight’s immigration plan granting amnesty to those unlawfully in the U.S. will cost already burdened American taxpayers more than they can bear. When he last crunched the numbers during the 2007 amnesty debate, Heritage’s Robert Rector calculated that a general amnesty would cost some $2.5 trillion—after considering what legalized immigrants would likely pay in taxes and receive in government benefits and services. His updated research on the latest proposal, due out soon, is likely to find a higher price tag in 2013.

2. False Promises 

Remember President Obama’s promise that “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it”? That’s just one of the most famous (or infamous) broken promises of Obamacare. The Congressional Budget Office projects 7 million people will lose their employer-sponsored coverage by 2022 because of the law.

On immigration, Heritage President Jim DeMint told CNBC’s Larry Kudlow this week: “ I’ve heard a lot of promises about bills that have gone through Congress. …The only thing that I know about this bill is that it’s going to give legal status and eventual citizenship to those who came here unlawfully. The rest are just promises.” One of those promises is border security—as Heritage’s James Jay Carafano explains, the bill would not actually secure the border.

Watch Heritage Foundation President Jim DeMint explain the problems with the Gang of Eight bill

3. Have to Pass It to See What’s In It

Nancy Pelosi wasn’t kidding when she said Congress would have to pass Obamacare “to see what’s in it.” That’s because the bill gave federal agencies free rein to write regulations that would become the real-world version of the law—and even though it passed in 2010, the regulations are still being written today.

The immigration bill does the same thing—it gives over congressional authority to federal agencies, allowing unelected bureaucrats to think up all the details later.

Obamacare_Immigration_v1

Tweet this graphic

4. Piles on Already Broken—and Broke—Entitlement Programs

Obamacare plans to add millions of people to the Medicaid rolls—the largest expansion ever to this problematic program, which is already unsustainable and needs vital reforms.

Likewise, the immigration bill would add millions to the number of people on various taxpayer-funded benefits, from Medicare and Social Security to welfare. As DeMint said, “These programs are already broke. Our country is already $17 trillion in debt. This will be a net loss, a huge cost to taxpayers.”

5. Perks for Special Interests

Whenever the legislative process turns fast and furious, Members of Congress start loading on special-interest deals that are less likely to be noticed in the chaos. Obamacare was full of favors for Big Labor. Now, the immigration bill is carrying all sorts of special-interest goodies—not to mention a bonanza for immigration lawyers.

This isn’t the way Congress should make laws. It’s only making the same mistakes all over again—and we’ll be paying for them.

Read the Morning Bell and more en Español every day at Heritage Libertad.

Florida Case Worker: Illegal Aliens Got Food Stamps by the “Vanload”

Judicial Watch reports:

For decades the U.S. government has knowingly given illegal immigrants food stamps, according to a former certification case worker who denounced the costly practice back in the 1980s but was essentially ordered to keep a lid on it.

The retired assistant case manager, Craig McNees, was in charge of vetting food-stamp applicants in north Florida and Indiana in the ’80s and says the program was infested with fraud and corruption that was perpetually ignored by management. “Illegals would come in by the vanload and we were told to give them their stuff,” McNees said. “Management knew very well they were illegal. It was so rampant that some employees would tell their illegal relatives to come get food stamps.”

McNees contacted Judicial Watch after reading documents obtained by JW from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) detailing how the agency is working with the Mexican government to promote participation by illegal aliens in the U.S. food stamp program. The effort includes a Spanish-language flyer provided to the Mexican Embassy by the USDA ensuring that Mexicans in the U.S. don’t need to declare their immigration status to get financial assistance from Uncle Sam.

The documents ignited outrage considering the nation’s food stamp program has exploded under President Obama, who claims there are too many “food insecure households” in America. To correct the problem the administration has spent millions on ad campaigns promoting food stamps and has rewarded states with multi-million-dollar bonuses for signing up recipients. It’s been quite effective because American taxpayers spent an astounding $80.4 billion on the program in 2012 and a record number of people—46 million and growing—get free groceries from Uncle Sam.

The retired case worker who contacted JW says in the three years he worked in a Sarasota food-stamp office, he found more than 500 cases of fraud but management ignored them all instead pushing a yearly quota. “They just said that if we don’t give out as many as last year, we don’t get our money,” McNees said. “It was crazy, like a three-ring circus; like the inmates were running the asylum.”

Decades later it seems little has changed as Obama promotes the program like there’s no tomorrow. In fact, last summer a federal audit revealed that many who don’t qualify for food stamps receive them under a special “broad-based” eligibility program that disregards income and asset requirements. That means American taxpayers are getting stuck with a multi-million-dollar tab to feed hundreds of thousands who can well afford to feed themselves.

Adding insult to injury, last spring the USDA Inspector General revealed that many food-stamp recipients use their welfare benefit to buy drugs, weapons and other contraband from unscrupulous vendors. Some trade food stamps for reduced amounts of cash, the USDA watchdog told Congress, disclosing that the fraud has cost taxpayers nearly $200 million. None of this surprises McNees, who claims he witnessed so much fraud as a food-stamp case worker that he “could write a book.”

Miami FBI informant: Taliban walking freely on American streets

David Mahmood Siddiqui an FBI informant. Photo CBS Channel 7, Miami, FL

Michele Gillen from CBS Channel 4 in Miami, FL met with South Floridian David Mahmood Siddiqui an FBI informant involved in the case against Muslim Cleric Hafiz Muhammed Sher Ali Khan. Gillen reports, “Following a 29 day trial, the 77 year old former head of the oldest Mosque in Miami was convicted last month of supporting terrorism and conspiracy.  Khan awaits sentencing and could end up spending the rest of his life in prison.”

What is striking are Siddiqui’s comments during the interview.

Siddiqui states, “I am an informant and all I can tell you is that Talibans are walking freely right here in the soil of America right now, right now.”

Asked by Gillen what he thinks the risk of having Taliban living in America is, he responded; “They can commit a jihad at any time, they hate America, you have an enemy living here in American soil, do not know when they will take action to kill innocent Americans.”

“In a review of court documents and records, it appears Saddiqui and his undercover work resulted in key evidence in the case against Muslim Cleric Hafiz Muhammed Sher Ali Khan,” notes Gillen.

Watch the interview and read more by clicking here.

Curt Anderson from The Huffington Post reports, “The jury returned its verdict [on Monday, March 4, 2013] after the two-month trial of Hafiz Khan, the 77-year-old imam at a downtown Miami mosque. Khan was found guilty of all four charges: two conspiracy counts and two counts of providing material support to terrorists.”

“Despite being an imam, or spiritual leader, Hafiz Khan was by no means a man of peace,” said U.S. Attorney Wifredo Ferrer, whose office prosecuted the case. “Instead, he acted with others to support terrorists to further acts of murder, kidnapping and maiming.”

“Prosecutors built their case largely around hundreds of FBI recordings of conversations in which Khan expressed support for Taliban attacks and discussed sending about $50,000 to Pakistan. There were also recordings in which Khan appeared to back the overthrow of Pakistan’s government in favor of strict Islamic law, praised the killing of American military personnel and lauded the failed 2010 attempt to detonate a bomb in New York’s Times Square,” notes Anderson.

“Khan, who testified over four combative days in his own defense, insisted the money he sent overseas was for family, charity and business reasons – above all, his religious school, known as a madrassa, in Pakistan’s Swat Valley. Khan also said he repeatedly lied about harboring extremist views to obtain $1 million from a man who turned out to be an FBI informant wearing a wire to record their talk,” Anderson reports.

NOTE: The featured photo shows President Reagan sitting with members of the Taliban in the White House.

Judicial Watch Uncovers USDA Records Sponsoring U.S. Food Stamp Program for Illegal Aliens

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released documents detailing how the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is working with the Mexican government to promote participation by illegal aliens in the U.S. food stamp program.

The promotion of the food stamp program, now known as “SNAP” (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), includes a Spanish-language flyer provided to the Mexican Embassy by the USDA with a statement advising Mexicans in the U.S. that they do not need to declare their immigration status in order to receive financial assistance.  Emphasized in bold and underlined, the statement reads, “You need not divulge information regarding your immigration status in seeking this benefit for your children.”

The documents came in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request made to USDA on July 20, 2012.  The FOIA request sought: “Any and all records of communication relating to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to Mexican Americans, Mexican nationals, and migrant communities, including but not limited to, communications with the Mexican government.”

The documents obtained by Judicial Watch show that USDA officials are working closely with their counterparts at the Mexican Embassy to widely broaden the SNAP program in the Mexican immigrant community, with no effort to restrict aid to, identify, or apprehend illegal immigrants who may be on the food stamp rolls. In an email to Borjon Lopez-Coterilla and Jose Vincente of the Mexican Embassy, dated January 26, 2012, Yibo Wood of the USDA Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) sympathized with the plight of illegal aliens applying for food stamps, saying, “FNS understands that mixed status households may be particularly vulnerable.  Many of these households contain a non-citizen parent and a citizen child.”

The email from Wood to Lopez-Coterilla and Vincente came in response to a request from the Mexican Embassy that the USDA FNS step in to prevent the state of Kansas from changing its food stamp policy to restrict the amount of financial assistance provided to illegal aliens.  In a January 22, 2012, article, the Kansas City Star had revealed that the state would no longer include illegal aliens in its calculations of the amount of assistance to be provided low-income Hispanic families in order to prevent discrimination against legal recipients.

The documents, obtained by Judicial Watch in August 2012, include the following:

  • March 30, 2012 – The USDA seeks approval of the Mexican Embassy in drafting a letter addressed to consulates throughout the United States designed to encourage Mexican embassy staffers to enroll in a webinar learn how to promote increased enrollment among “the needy families that the consulates serve.”
  • August 1, 2011 – The USDA FNS initiates contact with the Mexican Embassy in New York to implement programs already underway in DC and Philadelphia for maximizing participation among Mexican citizens. The Mexican Embassy responds that the Consul General is eager to strengthen his ties to the USDA, with specific interest in promoting the food stamp program.
  • February 25, 2011 – The USDA and the Mexican Consulate exchange ideas about getting the First Ladies of Mexico and United States to visit a school for purposes of creating a photo opportunity that would promote free school lunches for low-income students in a predominantly Hispanic school. Though a notation in the margin of the email claims that the photo op never took place, UPI reported that it actually did.
  • March 3, 2010 – A flyer advertises a webinar to teach Hispanic-focused nonprofits how to get reimbursed by the USDA for serving free lunch over the summer. The course, funded by American taxpayers, is advertised as being “free for all participants.”
  • February 9 , 2010 – USDA informs the Mexican Embassy that, based on an agreement reached between the State Department and the Immigration & Naturalization Service (now ICE), the Women, Infants & Children (WIC) food voucher program does not violate immigration laws prohibiting immigrants from becoming a “public charge.”

As far back as 2006, in its Corruption Chronicles blog, Judicial Watch revealed that the USDA was spending taxpayer money to run Spanish-language television ads encouraging illegal immigrants to apply for government-financed food stamps. The Mexican Consul in Santa Ana, CA, at the time even starred in some of the U.S. Government-financed television commercials, which explained the program and provided a phone number to apply. In the widely viewed commercial the Consul assured that receiving food stamps “won’t affect your immigration status.”

In 2012, Judicial Watch reported that in a letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions questioned the Obama administration’s partnership with Mexican consulates to encourage foreign nationals, migrant workers and non-citizen immigrants to apply for food stamps and other USDA administered welfare benefits. Sessions wrote, “It defies rational thinking,” Sessions wrote, “for the United States – now dangerously $16 trillion in debt – to partner with foreign governments to help us place more foreign nationals on American welfare and it is contrary to good immigration policy in the United States.”

“The revelation that the USDA is actively working with the Mexican government to promote food stamps for illegal aliens should have a direct impact on the fate of the immigration bill now being debated in Congress,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “These disclosures further confirm the fact that the Obama administration cannot be trusted to protect our borders or enforce our immigration laws. And the coordination with a foreign government to attack the policies of an American state is contemptible.”

RELATED COLUMNS: 

Truth about welfare, food stamps, Obamacare buried in 2013 immigration bill

Judge says no to DHS ruling over immigration by executive order

Rubio: The Boston bombing has a bearing on the immigration debate

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Marco Rubio issued the following statement regarding comments by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy that it’s “cruel” to use the Boston Marathon terrorist bombing to halt immigration reform, as well as comments by those who say this attack should derail entirely the current effort underway to fix our immigration system:

“I disagree with those who say that the terrorist attack in Boston has no bearing on the immigration debate. Any immigration reform we pursue should make our country safer and more secure. If there are flaws in our immigration system that were exposed by the attack in Boston, any immigration reform passed by Congress this year should address those flaws. Congress needs time to conduct more hearings and investigate how our immigration and national security systems could be improved going forward.

“The attack reinforces why immigration reform should be a lengthy, open and transparent process, so that we can ask and answer important questions surrounding every facet of the bill. But we still have a broken system that needs to be fixed.”

Rubio: Leaving immigration the way it is, it’s amnesty (+ video)

Senator Marco Rubio’s comments on the US Senate floor:

Excerpts from Senator Rubio’s floor speech: “As far as the economy of the United States, a couple points. First of all, you can’t compare this bill to nothing, you have to compare it to what we have now. And what we have now is worse. What we have now is costing our economy. You have people in this country illegally, they get sick, they go to the emergency room, and the tax payer pays for it. You have people in this country that are having children, who are U.S. citizens and they go to our schools. They are driving in our streets without a driver’s license, which means they have no car insurance – which means all of us have to pay more in car insurance as a result. This is not good for us, it’s obviously not good for them, but it’s not good for us. What we have today is devastating and horrible for our economy. We can’t continue to have this, we have to fix this problem, and we have to fix it in a way that is fair to the people that have done it the right way, and fix it in a way that makes sure that this never ever happens again. And I believe that the bill we are working on does that. And I look forward to the input that my colleagues have.

“One more criticism I hear, ‘It’s being rushed through.’ That’s just not true. Just yesterday we voted on a series of amendments that I had less than twelve hours to review. And these amendments dealt with a fundamental right, the Second Amendment constitutional right. This bill has been online already for 48 hours. The Committee on Judiciary won’t even begin to consider amendments to this bill until next month. People are going to have three to four weeks to review it. It’s posted on my website, people can go on there now and see it. And beyond that, it will be available all these weeks, then it is going to go through an extensive committee process, then it will be brought here – hopefully to the floor – where we can debate it openly as well. Look, I am not claiming the bill is perfect – I am sure it can be improved. And I hope my 92 other colleagues will work hard to improve it, because we have an opportunity to do something important.

“My last point I address to many of my fellow Americans who share my deep commitment to upholding the Constitution of the United States, to limiting the size and scope of government, to encouraging the free enterprise system as the best way to create economic opportunity. America is a nation of immigrants, but both Republicans and Democrats have failed to enforce our immigration laws, and as a result we have millions of people here illegally. We are not going to deport them. So let’s secure the border, and let’s identify these people – let’s undergo a background check, get in the back of the line, pay a fine, pay taxes, no federal benefits. We all wish we didn’t have this problem, but leaving it the way it is, it’s amnesty. We have to solve this problem, and I hope we will.”

The “Border Security, Economic Opportunity & Immigration Modernization Act of 2013” introduced

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) today joined Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Dick Durbin (D-IL),  Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Michael Bennet (D-CO) to introduce S. 744, the “Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013.” The bill’s introduction marks a first step toward achieving the strongest border security and enforcement measures in U.S. history, modernizing the legal immigration system to encourage economic growth and job creation, and ending today’s de facto amnesty by dealing with the undocumented immigrant population in a tough but fair way that is directly linked to achieving several security triggers.

The legislation can be read here. A one page summary of the bill is available here. A frequently asked questions (FAQ) document is available here.

Following the bill’s introduction, Rubio issued the following statement:

“Our immigration system is broken, and the status quo of having 11 million undocumented people living under de facto amnesty will only continue if we do nothing to solve this problem. This bill marks the beginning of an important debate, and I believe it will fix our broken system by securing our borders, improving interior enforcement, modernizing our legal immigration to help create jobs and protect American workers, and dealing with our undocumented population in a tough but humane way that is fair to those trying to come here the right way and linked to achieving several security triggers.

“While I believe this legislation is a strong conservative effort that will accomplish all these things and tries to make the best of the imperfect reality we face, it’s not perfect. But I am also confident that an open and transparent process that welcomes public input is going to make it even better.

“This debate must engage the American people and every senator through open hearings, mark-ups and floor debate, as well as a robust, well-informed debate outside the walls of Congress through all the mediums available to us today. This kind of open debate will help the American people understand what’s in the bill, what it means for them and what it means for our future.

“I encourage people to read this bill and tell us what we can do to make it better. To ensure that immigration remains a source of America’s strength and exceptionalism, I invite Floridians and other interested parties to share their thoughts about it with me and submit ideas on ways we can improve it – through our websiteFacebook and Twitter pages.”

Rubio sends letter to Florida TEA Party Patriots

Senator Marco Rubio has been in the lead on “immigration reform”. The contents of the US Senate bill on immigration reform is still unknown. This has led many of his TEA party supporters to question his involvement in furthering such a bill. The pressure has caused him to respond.

J.R. Sanchez, Director of Outreach, emailed a letter signed by Senator Rubio to his Florida constituents. The letter states in part:

“Over the years, the Patriot movement and l have worked together on many causes and I want to respond personally to correct some misinformation regarding my involvement in the work to reform our country’s broken immigration system – misinformation that has prompted visits by some of you to my offices across Florida and in Washington.

First, there is absolutely no truth to the idea that l will support any immigration legislation that is rushed through Congress in typical Washington fashion. Already, l have fought and continue to tight to secure commitments for greater transparency through committee hearings and mark-up sessions that will allow senators on the Judiciary Committee ample opportunities to review and amend any immigration legislation before it is considered by the full Senate for additional debate and scrutiny. As a result, not only has the Judiciary Committee agreed to delay its first hearing, on this issue, it has agreed to add an additional one next week.

l will not relent from the ongoing fight to ensure the American people’s voices are heard before any votes are cast on this important government reform, but one fact is true: no bill will be rushed through the Senate as a take-it-or-leave-it proposition.”

Senator Rubio states his goals are “simply”:

l. I want to participate in the debate and help influence any immigration reform legislation in order to ensure that common sense limited government principles are applied.

2. I will not support anything that makes our immigration system worse, that does not truly and illegitimately secure our borders, or that leads to further immigration in the future.

WDW will continue to monitor and inform our readers on the progress of this bill and its impact on the state of Florida.

Illegal aliens receive $Billions Yearly via IRS Loophole

As part of National Tax Burden Month WDW –  Florida presents this column with videos of well known and documented tax fraud.

NBC Eyewitness News 13 in Indiana reports on a massive IRS tax loophole which provides over $4 billion per year in tax credits to millions of illegal aliens. In many cases recipients of American taxpayers’ misused monies have never set foot in the United States.

Watch this exposé put together by News 13 investigative reporter Bob Segall. He spent three months looking into this tax loophole:

Indiana is approximately 1700 miles northeast of the Mexican border.

A device known as the Additional Child Tax Credit is being used to pay for children living in Mexico — who have never lived here. One illegal admitted through an interpreter that his address is being used to file tax returns for numerous children, including multiple nieces and nephews. “If the opportunity is there and they give it [to him] why not take advantage of it?” he asked in Spanish. As a stunning example, thousands in tax credits have been awarded to an illegal alien who claimed 20 children live in a single trailer, that actually housed just one little girl.

“Our tax code should not reward those who enter the country illegally,” said Rep. Vern Buchanan (FL-13). “This is unacceptable, which is why last year I voted to immediately end the abuse of the Child Tax Credit by requiring those filing a claim to provide a Social Security number – a requirement that would save taxpayers $10 billion over the next decade.”

The IRS is aware of the magnitude of this fraud yet has done nothing to rectify it. In fact, this is the IRS website giving ten tips on how to apply. The application forms are easily downloadable.

J. Russell George, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration says report after report sent from his office has been ignored by the IRS. 

Watch the below video as the Honorable J. Russell George, Inspector General, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, delivers his opening statement at an oversight hearing on Administration of the First-Time Homebuyer Tax Credit. October 22, 2009.

Heritage Foundation: Amnesty Costs 70 Times More Than Enforcement

The following is provided by The Heritage Foundation:

Summary:

    The Heritage Foundation issued two studies in 2007 pointing out that the big problem with mass legalization is that (a) most illegal aliens are low-skilled and therefore do not earn enough money to pay enough taxes to cover the government benefits they receive; and (b), amnesty would eventually make them eligible for the full array of welfare and medical benefits offered by local, state and federal governments. They found the cost of allowing illegal aliens to remain in the United States, and eventually to become citizens, would be $3.7 trillion through the year 2056. That works out to a present cost of $1 trillion, at a 5 percent discount rate. In other words, immediately upon passage of an amnesty bill, the United States government would need to put $1 trillion into an investment earning 5 percent per year if it were honest about paying for the costs of amnesty.

$14 billion cost of attrition through enforcement option #1.

Source: 

      Congressional Budget office Estimate for H.R. 4437.

Summary: 

      This option is the bill H.R. 4437 sponsored by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner that passed the House of Representatives in 2005. This bill would have been so effective in combating illegal immigration that some 1 million illegal aliens marched in cities around the United States on May 1, 2006 to protest it. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the bill would cost $1.9 billion over the 5 years 2006-2010, which we extrapolate out to the year 2056 using a linear model to account for cost increases. Then we use a discount rate of 5 percent to bring the future costs back to a single present cost figure.

The resulting cost was actually $13.5 billion, which we round up to $14 billion to facilitate comparison to the other cost figures.

$177 billion cost of attrition through enforcement option #2.

Source:

       Congressional Budget Office Estimate for H.R. 4088.

Summary:

    This option is the SAVE Act (Secure America Through Verification and Enforcement Act) that was introduced in the House of Representatives in 2007. This is a strong attrition through enforcement bill. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the bill would cost $40.7 billion over the 10 years 2009-2018, which we extrapolate out to the year 2056 using a linear model to account for cost increases. Then we use a discount rate of 5 percent to bring the future costs back to a single present cost figure.

Detailed Explanation:

Amnesty Would Have a Present Cost of $1 Trillion

In 2007, the Heritage Foundation issued two studies, one on the cost of low-skilled immigration and one on the cost of amnesty. The study on the cost of low-skilled immigration noted that low-skilled immigrants do work hard: “It is important to note, these families are rarely idle; they consistently work and pay taxes. However, the taxes they pay are seldom, if ever, sufficient to cover the cost of the government benefits they receive. In consequence, these households must be continually subsidized by other taxpayers.” The Heritage study concluded that low-skilled immigrant households will cost native born U.S. taxpayers $89.1 billion per year over each of the next 30 years.

The Heritage report estimated that illegal residents comprise 41 percent of low-skilled immigrant households.1 Simple multiplication indicates that illegal-immigrant households cost the U.S. taxpayer $36.5 billion each year. Over 30 years, that works out to $1.1 trillion in costs. Using a financial calculator, we assumed a discount rate of 5 percent, and computed the net present value of a cost stream of $36.5 over the next 30 years to be $589 billion.

Cost to Taxpayer for Government Benefits to Illegal Aliens:

Years Cost Each Year Total Cost Present Cost @ 5% discount rate
2007-2037 $36.5 billion $1.1 trillion $589 billion
2038-2056 $144.5 billion $2.6 trillion $410 billion
$999 billion

 

A second report was issued by the Heritage Foundation a few weeks after the report discussed above. This report discussed the costs allowing current illegal aliens to become United States citizens. They will become eligible for the full array of welfare and medical benefits offered by state and federal governments. This study concluded that the $36.5 billion per year figure is valid for the next 30 years. The average age of an illegal alien is early 30s. Beginning 30 years from now, the current illegal alien population will retire. The problem is that low-skilled illegal aliens do not earn enough money to support their families, send remittances back to their homelands, and save adequate money for retirement. The U.S. taxpayer will be stuck supporting most illegal aliens in retirement. And each retired illegal alien is projected to cost the U.S. taxpayer $17,000 per year.

The Heritage report continues, that of the 10 million retired illegal aliens, some 8.5 million will live to the retirement age of 67 years old. At that time, the statistically normal lifespan is an additional 18 years. $17,000 per year for 18 years is $306,000. That is the cost of supporting one amnestied illegal alien through retirement. Multiplied by 8.5 million people, and that comes to the astounding figure of $2.6 trillion.2 Using a financial calculator, we assumed a discount rate of 5 percent and computed the net present value of a cost stream of $144.5 billion per year for 18 years from the years 2039-2057. The net present cost was given as $410 billion.

Attrition Through Enforcement Would Have a Present Cost of as Little at $13.5 Billion

H.R. 4437, The “Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005,” had Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner as its original sponsor. This bill had several features to combat illegal immigration including:

  • mandatory E-Verify 6 years from date of enactment
  • end the “catch-and-release” policy for all persons apprehended at border
  • require DHS to reimburse counties within 25 miles of the border for the costs relating to illegal aliens
  • removal orders would become final more quickly and readily
  • facilitate removal of aliens who reenter the country illegally after having been deported
  • mandatory minimum prison sentences for offenses related to illegal entry into the United States
  • additional port-of-entry inspectors and canine detection teams

This was the bill to which Sensenbrenner offered an amendment to reduce the penalty for illegal presence (aimed at visa overstayers) from a felony to a misdemeanor (Amendment 656, Roll Call Vote 655).3 However, all but 8 Democrats voted against the amendment (in other words, they voted for upgrading illegal presence to a felony) because they wanted to use the provision as a rallying point from which to stir up opposition to the bill.

The passage of this bill attracted a firestorm of opposition from the open borders lobby, including illegal alien demonstrations in a number of cities on May 1, 2006.

The illegal alien lobby was opposed to this bill because it would have been effective. This is why we can safely conclude that effective attrition through enforcement would cost as little as $13.5 billion.4

Strong Attrition Through Enforcement Would Have a Present Cost of $177 Billion

The SAVE Act (Secure America Through Verification and Enforcement) Act was introduced in the United States House of Representatives on November 6, 2007. It never made it to a vote because the House leadership would not allow it. Among the key provisions of the bill were:

  • mandatory E-Verify 4 years from the date of enactment;
  • increased employer sanctions for those knowingly employing illegal aliens;
  • a “National Birth and Death Registration System” to reduce stolen identities;
  • 140 additional Criminal Alien Program (CAP) officers to identify and remove criminal aliens detained in federal, state and local facilities;
  • training at least 250 state and local law enforcement officers on how to perform federal immigration enforcement procedures;
  • 8,000 additional beds for illegal aliens detained by immigration officials;
  • 13 additional federal district judges in border states to increase the flow of deportations, including 4 for the District of Arizona and 5 for the Southern District of California;

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the bill would cost $40.7 billion over the 10 years between 2009-2018.5