Obama's Immigration Charade

By James H. Walsh
Published in The Social Contract
Volume 27, Number 1 (Fall 2016)
Issue theme: "When robots replace humans"

Since January 20, 2009, President Barack Obama has set a course of open borders—meaning little or no control of the foreign nationals entering the United States legally or illegally, or by refugee status or asylum status. He and his administration have talked border enforcement, but their actions and directives, have prevented full border enforcement, while permitting foreign nationals unequaled residence in the country without inspection. His charade may come to an end with the November elections.

Compounding the Obama open-borders mentality were his Executive Orders, beginning in 2012, which officially consented to illegal aliens having residence in the U.S., with no real background investigation and no indicia of loyalty to the U.S.

In 2016, The Obama immigration free entry policy received a large boost from Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Jeh Johnson. On August 1, 2016, Johnson announced the granting of “Temporary Protected Status” (TPS) to at least 8,000 Syrians, which means that these and other Syrians as well as Iraqis, Afghans, and other “refugees” have a free pass into the U.S. with no serious vetting. Add these amnesty grants to Obama’s 10,000 plus refugee grants, and what little security exists is waived. Democrat presidential nominee Hillary Clinton is suggesting 65,000 Syrian refugees is the least we should accept.

There is no way that proper and adequate background checks can be made of all these Syrian and other refugees, asylum-seekers, and TPS recipients. Not only are they admitted into the country with no valid security checks, but they get work permits, all entitlements, and the complete welfare packages—including taxpayer money. National security be damned! U.S. taxpayers should accept globalization as Obama/Clinton dictate.

Over the last weekend of July 2016, a Catholic priest in Belgium was stabbed trying to help an asylum-seeker. Germany and France are under siege by Middle East and African refugees and asylum-seekers committing murder, sexual assaults, and all sorts of crimes. This will surely occur here in America. Failure to properly and adequately check the refugees and amnesty aliens means trouble.

The national Democratic Party and its presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, are strongly committed to open borders. Because of the inability of the United States to adequately vet—do background checks on—these refugees, it would be extremely foolish to blithesomely admit them. Then there is the fact that FBI Director James Comey admits it is difficult to monitor the known terrorists and fellow-travelers in all 50 states. One terrorist entering the country is one terrorist too many. Again, national security be damned!

Many Americans believe it would be better to create “safe zones” in Syria for the refugees. Obama, Clinton, and the open-borders advocates have no interest in this solution, although Clinton prior to her nomination as the Democrat presidential candidate had indicated she might favor “a safe zone” in Syria for all potential refugees.

As for persons illegally residing now in the United States, they fall into various categories. Persons entering the U.S. without inspection (illegal border-crossers) violate U.S. law 8 U.S. Code Section 1325.

In 1996, the immigration law as applicable to foreign nationals who are non-immigrants, at the time they entered the U.S. legally on visas, but overstayed their visa time period, was changed to include a penalty. [8 U.S. Code Section 1202 (g)]

These are the two most important sections of immigration law, as these cover the vast majority of illegal foreign residents presently in the U.S.—illegal border-crossers and visa overstays. Visa overstays make up about 40 percent of the undocumented foreign residents in the country.

The actual number of illegal foreign residents in the U.S. today is unknown. The number of illegal aliens in the country according to the Obama administration and immigrant advocates is approximately 11 million. This figure is a low-ball estimate, even factoring in the deaths and departures of some unknown number of illegal aliens.

Over the last 30 years, Border Patrol agents have estimated that 3 to 7 illegal border-crossers avoid apprehension each year for every one illegal border-crosser apprehended. The Border Patrol figures show that 337,117 illegal border-crossers were apprehended in 2015, which would translate conservatively to 1,011,351 persons crossed the border illegally to reside in the U.S. Between 1990 and 2006, an average 1 million illegal border-crossers were apprehended according to official Border Patrol statistics. This would translate to approximately 3 million illegal entrants each year for that 16- year period, or conservatively 48 million for that period.

Arturo Sarukhan, the former Mexican ambassador to the United States from 2007 to 2013, told MSNBC on August 18, 2015, that there were 30 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. He suggested that it would cost $130 billion to deport that number. Ambassador Sarukhan is connected with left-of-center organizations such, as The Brookings Institution, Global Solutions, and The Podesta Group.

Mr. Sarukhan did not float the number 30 million undocumented aliens in the U.S. as a whim or a mere over-the-top number. He is a knowledgeable man of lived experiences with immigration and flows of migrants in the Americas. He probably stated the number to prepare U.S. citizens for a shock if Obama/Clinton and the Democrats pass a comprehensive immigration reform package. Thirty million plus persons openly needing and demanding paid health care, housing, sustenance, welfare, and other entitlements will disrupt federal, state, and local tax paradigms. Education needs for all undocumented alien children are provided for now, as is emergency health care, all of which is causing strains on present state and local tax bases.

Thus taxes will rise to meet these increased financial obligations for the new refugee residents. Neither immigrant advocates nor the Democrats ever mention the higher taxes needed to meet the entitlements costs. Mrs. Clinton and the Democrat candidates always avoid any mention of costs for the freebies they propose. President Obama proposes unlimited immigration knowing full well he will be enjoying the benefits of a former president when federal taxes are raised to fund the freebies. His charade will create middle-class angst as all the various tax bills come due.

Saturday, September 6, 2014, went down as a day of infamy for open-borders immigration advocates. Bowing to Democrat Senate and House members concerned about voter backlash to Obama’s over-reaching immigration Executive Actions, the President quietly and indirectly agreed to halt any further Executive Actions on immigration.

Then in an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press” Host Chuck Todd, which aired on September 7, 2014, Obama said, “I want to make sure it’s sustainable.” What he appears to imply is that his executive actions would be able to withstand judicial and legislative attacks. The President went on to say he wanted to do the right thing for the economy and he wanted the support of the American people. The Democrat Congressional members knew that undocumented foreign nationals were taking jobs from American citizens, whether in the high-tech industry or the agricultural industry. The African-American unemployment numbers during the Obama years were always 8-20 percent higher than White or Hispanic unemployment numbers.

A Reuters news poll in 2014 shows that 70 percent of Americans believe illegal aliens are a threat to the American economy and culture. Moreover, 63 percent believe illegal aliens place a burden on the economy. Poll numbers depend on how questions are framed— what demographic group is polled, or what age group is polled, to what geographic area is polled, and when the poll is conducted.

The Brexit polls of 2016 in the United Kingdom (UK) about the UK leaving the European Union (EU) demonstrated that many persons being polled did not tell the truth. A majority did in fact vote for the UK to leave the EU. In America today, with the nation so divided in all categories of life and living, many people keep their inner beliefs and opinions to themselves or close family members.

In the summer of 2016, voter polls show that 68-72 percent of American voters disapprove of Obama’s immigration policies; 53-69 percent of Americans believe illegal alien children crossing the border should be returned home immediately; 80 percent believe more border security is needed, especially for terrorists; and 60 percent believe children of illegal alien parents should not be given automatic citizenship.

Fifty-seven percent of Americans believe they are falling behind economically, and another 57-64 percent believe U.S. policies caused the illegal alien surges in June, July, and August 2014. These polls are just a snapshot in time.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported as of June 2016 that 94,517,000 Americans are not in the U.S. labor force. In June of 2008, the last year of George W. Bush’s administration, 79,314,000 Americans were not in the labor force. In June of 2012, midway through President Obama’s tenure as president, 88,071,000 Americans were not in the U.S. labor force.

The June 2016 Department of Commerce Gross Domestic Product (GDP) number was the lowest in decades — 1.2 percent growth in the 2nd quarter of 2016 and a 1.1 percent growth in the 1st quarter of 2016. The U.S. economic recovery under President Obama has been abysmal, and no excuse satisfies the American people. The objective economists blame stifling over-regulations for driving businesses to leave the country for Mexico and Asia.

There is a link of open borders mentality and the anemic GDP along with other causes of the listless GDP—over-regulation of small businesses, excessive high corporate taxes, and businesses leaving the country.

The estimated population of the United States is 323,730,000 with 94,317,000 Americans not in the labor force. This equals approximately 29 percent of the U.S. population that is out of work, regardless of the reason. This is a record high number of persons out of the workforce, which expanded annually under the Obama Administration.

The BLS reports a record high number of foreign-born workers are employed in the United States, 26.3 million or 16.7 percent of the total force as of 2015. There is no distinction between legal and illegal workers.

Strangely, the BLS indicates that 58.3 percent of foreign-born men are in the U.S. workforce compared to 52.2 percent of native-born men in the workforce.

The BLS reports are always subject to revisal; whether this is done to mislead the public or due to incompetency is open to debate.

The average American citizen has little concern for the BLS and the Census Bureau, which are always revising their numbers, causing citizens to ask why these government agencies’ data are in constant flux. Could it be that President Obama enjoys the uncertainty the numbers present, especially when they reflect badly on his handling the economy?

Then citizens are asking, does President Obama want actual immigration reform enacted? Or would it be to his and the Democrats, advantage that immigration reform be delayed, otherwise they would lose his carrot for Hispanic/Latino voters?

His unfulfilled promises of passing immigration reform legislation meant 71 percent of the Latino vote in 2012 went for him and Democrats. Yet, Obama failed to pass immigration reform even during his first year when the President had control of the Senate and the House of Representatives. This question seems to avoid being asked by the national news media.

Each year, Obama promised immigration reform, in fact comprehensive immigration reform—a free-for- all illegal alien entry and citizenship gambit never made it through the Senate and/or the House of Representatives for the President’s signature.

October 15, 2013, President Obama was inter-viewed again on Univision, the Spanish-language television network, and he repeated his excuses of his September 20, 2012, Univision interview for not being able to have any immigration legislation passed—as always, it was someone’s else’s fault. He always names the Republicans as the reason his legislation fails. He never states that he refuses to work with or negotiate with the Republicans—always it is “his way or the highway.”

On MSNBC on September 5, 2014, Janet Murguia, a spokeswoman for the Latino activist advocacy organization La Raza (the Nation) stated that Hispanics wanted President Obama to “fulfill his promise” to 6 million illegal aliens. She also said that “we’re done waiting” and “we waited long enough.” The promise she may have been referring to is his promise in the Rose Garden on June 30, 2014, or the many yearly promises all the way, back to his 2008 campaign promise for immigration reform and a “pathway to citizenship.” In 2016, Obama ignores any immigration talk.

Christina Jimenez of the organization United We Dream, an immigration activist group, is quoted by the AP as saying the President’s delay in decision making is “another slap in the face to the Latino and immigrant community.” To be fair, Obama, with his Executive Orders, has bypassed Congress in avoiding any meaningful immigration reform. Obama has given illegal aliens a superhighway to residency in America and all its entitlements by his Executive Orders—thus, making criticisms by some immigration advocates of Obama a ruse, to mislead the American people that they are unhappy with his immigration end-runs of Congress.

Some Hispanics understand Obama is playing the Latinos as dupes. The national Hispanic columnist, Ruben Navarrette has repeatedly pointed out how Obama has toyed with Latinos’ immigration hopes and that Obama plays hocus–pocus with immigration reform legislation. Now you see it, now you don’t.

Regardless of Obama and the Democrats’ promises, comprehensive immigration reform is not a reality. Incremental reform can be a reality, but Obama and the Democrats refuse such reform, as it is not likely to give them all they want—official legal “Open Borders” legislation.

The 2016 Presidential and Congressional elections are unpredictable. The best estimates of the national population are 63.9 percent white, 16.3 percent of the population are Hispanic, and 12.6 percent of the population are Black, with Asian and Native American the remaining 7.2 percent. These are best estimates as the numbers change daily. Will each population demographic vote for its own agenda, or will each population demographic vote for what is best for the nation as a whole? Who knows?

President Obama, for almost eight years, has used comprehensive immigration as a charade to cloak his ultimate plan of constant immigration chaos—pitting each demographic group against each other. Such chaos means open borders and loss of national sovereignty, as no nation remains sovereign without control of its borders,

Obama leaves office with immigration controls nonexistent. His charade of immigration reform and protection of national sovereignty is intact thanks to the Democrat Party, Hillary Clinton, and a very liberal news media. He leaves the presidency with a country so divided that it may do irreparable harm.

Fortunately, America is resilient. America takes severe body blows but comes back swinging and victorious. It will again!

About the author

James H. Walsh, formerly an Associate General Counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in the U.S. Department of Justice, writes immigration commentary. During his INS tenure, Walsh was selected as a German Marshall Fund Scholar, traveled through Europe interviewing immigration officials, and published articles based on his findings. At INS, he worked with other federal agencies and congressional committees on immigration matters. His assignments included consultations with foreign governments and international business concerns. He chaired a task force on Transit Without Visa (TWOV), whose report identified weaknesses in pre-9/11 airport security. Walsh has a B.A. in history from Spring Hill College and a J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center.

Copyright 2007-2013 The Social Contract Press, 445 E Mitchell Street, Petoskey, MI 49770; ISSN 1055-145X
(Article copyrights extend to the first date the article was published in The Social Contract)