Mediaboss Marketing

A recent online test by Time magazine has been flying around the internet it uses rules outlined in President Trumps proposed immigration reform to determine if you, the test-taker, would be approved for a visa under Trumps RAISE Act. The minimum score is 30 points, and the desirable qualities toward those points include youth, higher education, and deep pockets. Isnt that all of us? Not so. (This writer scored a 28.)

Even the 2016 Nobel Laureate in literature, Svetlana Alexievich honored for her polyphonic writings, a monument to suffering and courage in our time is apparently not good enough for this country under Trumps plan. Unless, of course, the Belarusian writer who spends most of her time collecting oral histories about what life was like pre- and post-Soviet Union has $1.35 million to invest. Then this administration would be willing to overlook her dabbling in the dark, low-yielding arts of the humanities.

Apparently, it doesnt matter if youve dedicated your life to trying to understand why suffering cannot be converted to freedom if you also cannot convert that thought into currency.

But enough about real people. What about 2017s fictional recent arrivals? How would they fare in this test? I looked at three debut novels published this year that feature fictional immigrant newcomers, and took the liberty to fill out the test for them to see how theyd do.

Applicant: Eugenias family Origin: Rome, Italy Score:15 Status: Ineligible

An Italian patriarch forces his family to move to L.A. just as the Rodney King riots are subsiding in order to fulfill his dream of making an Italian-Hollywood horror film. However, in the tradition of the manic and hilarious prose of Gary Shteyngart, the glamour and glitz of America remains firmly out of reach. For Eugenia, the eldest daughter, this miss is harshly felt. There are no pools, no fancy cars, no evanescent sunlight. Instead, she is stationed in a bizarre neighborhood marooned by a long highway, where her only friends are a thrift store owner missing part of an ear and the young dubious producer helping her father, Ettero, with the film. Often praying to the Virgin Mary to ease her troubles, she pleads at some point for the Mother of God to provide a solution for her feeling out of place, pointing out, Its easier to be a Virgin who gives birth than to be an Italian who lives on Victory and Sepulveda. Amen.

Immigration Test Notes: As entertaining as they may seem, this Italian family failed to achieve eligibility to apply for a visa in part for the ambiguous job offer that brings them to the U.S. Ettero is billed as a journalist, though he is a filmmaker. Not that the suspicious offer of the job disqualifies them, rather, it is the salary, which I guesstimate to be less than $77,900, and is therefore worth exactly zero points.

Score: 8Applicant: PeilanOrigin: ChinaStatus: Ineligible

This touching and sensitive novel, which won the PEN/Bellwether Prize, is the story of a boy whose mother is undocumented and one day does not return from work. A white family adopts the boy, Deming, but he is never able to put from his mind his mothers disappearance. Lisa Ko is a subtle, intelligent writer, drawing up the complications of assimilation in simple terms. When Demings mother, Peilan, arrives to America, she becomes Polly. So it was Polly, not Peilan, who was doing thirteen-hour shifts in a garment factory, the same work Peilan had done in China except for eight times more money, and it was Polly who paid too much rent for a sleeping bag on the floor. For his part, Deming is renamed Daniel by his adoptive parents: Daniel had lay dormant in Deming until adolescence, and now Deming was a hairball tumor jammed deep in Daniels gut. A beautiful, daring debut.

Immigration Test Notes: Peilan, who comes into the U.S. as undocumented, does not speak good English, does not get very many points for schooling, and also, she did not recently win an Olympic medal.

Score 28Applicant: Selins ParentsOrigin: TurkeyStatus: Ineligible

In the times when e-mail is a new shiny thing, Selin, the daughter of Turkish immigrants, tries to survive her first year at Harvard. This cunning, engrossing novel is filled with delightful conundrums that made me many times put the book down so that I could consider for example, what is the structural equivalency between a tissue box and a book? Batuman writes, Both consisted of slips of white paper in a cardboard case; yet and this was ironic there was very little functional equivalence, especially if the book wasnt yours. This is also a story of freshman love, and all freshman things that eventually also fade and are lost in the transition of growing up.

Immigration Test Notes: Selins parents are educated, and though they warrant a check in the box marking a foreign masters degree in science, technology, engineering or mathematics (worth a whopping 8 points), in the end it was not enough. Probably because their lack of a Nobel prize. Sad!

The Leavers and The Idiot are available wherever books are sold. Catch Chiara Barzini, author of Things that Happened Before the Earthquake, at Green Apple Books on the Park (1231 9th Ave., San Francisco) on Thursday, Aug. 17, at 7:30pm.

The Spine is a biweekly book column. Catch us back here in two weeks.

View original post here:
Merit-Based Immigration Reform: The Fictional Character Edition - KQED

By Janet Williams

I wonder what Stephen Miller and Donald Trump would have to say about my grandmother and her rag-tag immigrant family.

Miller, a senior White House advisor, and Trump support a sweeping immigration reform plan that would slash the overall number of immigrants while welcoming those with money, skills and English-language proficiency. In other words, we welcome the best and brightest and to hell with the huddled masses.

That would have included my grandmother and her family.

My grandmothers story is like so many others. She arrived in the United States from Germany with her oldest sister not long after the turn of the last century. She joined her father, mother and younger brothers in a thriving immigrant community amid the coal mines and steel mills of Johnstown in Cambria County, Pennsylvania.

As best I can figure out from the faded lines on an old ship manifest from the Ellis Island website, my great-grandfather was a common laborer who came under the sponsorship of a brother.

They didnt speak English when they got here and until the World War I they lived among German neighbors, shopped in German-run grocery stores and worshipped in German church services. I still have my grandmothers German Lutheran hymnal and her faded confirmation certificate, also in German.

Still, my grandmothers generation learned English quickly and she spoke the language flawlessly without a trace of an accent. Thats because she was determined to be American.

Her generation worked, married, raised children, sent them to college and encouraged them to dream of a life where anything was possible for them and their children even for those who spoke no English and started with no education and few skills.

What they and most immigrants of all backgrounds bring to our great nation is determination, energy and a belief in the American dream of equal opportunity for all.

The so-called immigration reform proposal turns that dream upside down, barring many of the kinds of people who have made America a great incubator of innovation, technology and creativity. In my grandmothers time, they came mostly from the poor and struggling populations of Europe. Today, they migrate from Africa, the Middle East and South America. What immigrants across generations share are a belief in America and a hope in a better future.

I can make plenty of economic arguments against this proposal. Sen. Lindsay Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said the plan would bar the thousands of lower-skilled workers that his states agricultural economy depends on. Other data show that allowing more workers of all skill levels actually helps the economy grow without hurting the job prospects of Americans.

The Partnership for a New American Economy, a nonpartisan group of more than 500 political and business leaders, reports that immigrants play a significant role in Indianas economy. There are nearly 323,000 foreign-born residents in Indiana and in 2014, immigrant-led households earned $8.1 billion, or 5 percent of all income that year, according to the data compiled by PNAE. That income translates into $2.3 billion in federal, state and local taxes.

If you think our foreign-born neighbors are a drain on social services consider that in 2014, the last year for which data is available, they contributed $382 million to Social Security and $89 million to Medicare.

And what about jobs?The Partnership for a New American Economy estimates that immigrants in the workforce actually helped keep jobs on American soil, preserving more than 5,500 local manufacturing jobs. In addition, many start their own businesses and in 2014 generated $136 million in business income.

Just because my family came here more than a century ago doesnt mean I have a bigger stake in the American dream than the family who arrived here from the Congo last year. We all share the American dream.

Janet Williams is editor of TheStatehouseFile.com, a news website powered by Franklin College journalism students. Send comments to letters@dailyjournal.net.

View post:
Immigration reform plan crushes American dream - Daily Journal - Daily Journal

The $1 trillion cost-saving generates a $3,000 saving for each American, and it is gained by halving one decades inflow of unskilled immigrants who will be dependent on taxpayer aid during their working years and in their old age.

Heritages 75-year estimate uses the data and analysis validated in September 2016 by the prestigious National Academics of Sciences. The academies September 2016 report prepared by a panel of pro-immigration experts showed that low-skill immigrants are very expensive for taxpayers. They are so expensive that American taxpayers are virtually depositing at least $140,000 in a bank at 3 percent interest as soon as each low-skill migrant arrives, the NAS panel said.

The Heritage report was written by Robert Rector, the foundations in-house expert on immigration. He wrote:

To cover the future cost of one years inflow of low-skill immigrants, the government would need to immediately raise taxes by a lump sum of $67 billion, put the money in the bank earning interest at the inflation rate plus 3 percent, and use the interest and principal to cover long-term costs. ($67 billion equals around $800 for each U.S. household currently paying federal income tax.)

Of course, in the next year another 470,000 would arrive, requiring another lump sum payment of $800 per taxpaying household. The year after, another 470,000 will arrive requiring another $800 per taxpaying household, and so on

The future net outlays (benefits given less taxes paid) for the inflow of 4.7 million low-skill immigrants will be around $1.9 trillion (in constant 2012 dollars).

Trumps merit immigration reform would trim future legal low-skill immigration by roughly 50 percent in one decade, so saving taxpayers at least $1 trillion over the next 75 years, says the Heritage report. Americans will save an extra $1 trillion for every decade where low-skill immigration is reduced, Rector said.

By limiting future legal low-skill immigration, the RAISE Act could save at least $1 trillion. Additional large savings could be achieved by limiting future illegal immigration. These saving figures apply to only a single decade of low-skill immigration. Similar savings would occur by limiting low-skill immigration in subsequent decades.

That cost saving, however, would be bad for the business and government interests which normally receive the huge welfare spending once the low-wage immigrants use the aid to effectively buy and consume food, lodging, entertainment, transportation and basic education for their kids.

TrumpspopularReforming American Immigration for Strong Employment (RAISE) Act wasdrafted by two GOP Senators, Georgia Sen. David Perdue and Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton.

The $1 trillion savings from reduced tax spending does not include the extra benefit of higher wages for Americans, especially for lower-skilled Americans, marginalized Americans and recent immigrants. According to Rector:

Metaphorically speaking, low-skill immigrants increase the economic pie, but they eat nearly all the increase themselves.

Low-skill immigration reduces the wages of similar U.S.-born workers. An immigration-induced increase in the low-skill labor force of 10 percent can reduce the wages of low-skill non-immigrant labor by 3 to 10 percent.

Some studies show wage losses as high as 17 percent. Black male wages and employment areespecially hard hit. By reducing wages of less skilled non-immigrants, low-skill immigration increases economic inequality in the U.S., redistributing income from the least advantaged Americans to the more affluent.

Reduced immigration also reduces the power of the Democratic Party to expand government and raise taxes, Rector notes:

According toCooperative Congressional Election Survey, the political alignment of immigrants is far to the left that of non-immigrants. Immigrants in general are twice as likely to identify with and register as Democrats than as Republicans.

Rector did not discuss the workplace impact of Trumps immigration reforms, which are already pushing companies to hire Americans, and to buy American-made, high-tech labor-saving machinery. That shift in investment is converting low-wage jobs slated for illegal immigrants into high-wage jobs for Americans.

Also, at least three economic forecasts show higher wages for Americans if immigration is rolled back, and numerous employers are already complaining about having to divert profit into wages or investment.

In his August 2 presentation of Trumps merit plan to the media, presidential advisor Steven Miller made clear the Presidents plan to raise all Americans wages:

At the end of the day, President Trump has been clear that he is a pro-high-wage President. He ran as a pro-high-wage candidate, and thats what this policy will accomplish.

At the same time, to the point about economic growth, were constantly told that unskilled immigration boosts the economy. But again, if you look at the last 17 years [of mass immigration], we just know from reality thats not true. And if you look at wages, you can see the effects there. If you look at the labor force, you can see the effects there.

And so again, were ending unskilled chain migration, but were also making sure that the great inventors of the world, the great scientists of the world, that people who have the next great piece of technology can come into the United States and compete in a competitive application process a points-based system that makes sense in the year 2017.

The annual inflow of foreign workers is very large.

In 2016, for example, federal data shows thatformer President Barack Obama gave federal Employment Authorization Document work permits toat least 2.3 million migrantsfor U.S. jobs, and approved visas for roughly 500,000 outsourcing workers, such as the H-1B white-collar workers, H-2B blue-collar workers and H-2A agriculture workers. Those temporary workers were in addition to the routine inflow of 1 million legal immigrants and roughly 400,000 illegal immigrants.

The combined inflow delivered almost4 million legal foreign workersto Americans economy in 2016, just as 4 million young Americans turned 18 and began looking for decently paid jobs.

Manypolls showthat Americans are very generous, they do welcome individual immigrants, and they do want to like the idea of immigration. But the polls also show that most Americans are increasingly worried that large-scale legal immigration will change their country and disadvantage themselves and their children.

The currentannual floodofforeign laborspikes profits and Wall Street valuesbycutting salariesfor manual and skilled labor offered by blue-collar and white-collar employees. It also drives up real estate prices,widens wealth-gaps, reduceshigh-tech investment, increasesstate and local tax burdens, hurtskids schoolsandcollege education, and sidelinesat least 5 million marginalizedAmericansand their families.

Read the Heritage report here.

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

Read more:
Donald Trump's Merit Immigration Reform Saves $1 Trillion by 2027, Says Study - Breitbart News

The admission adds to the other forecasts and the real-world data now which are bolstering Trumps prediction that a reduced inflow of foreign workers will boost wages for working Americans. Overall, Trumps Hire American policy is opposed by the investors, business groups and employers who gain from the nations cheap-labor economic policy.

The new admissions are buried under the groups diversionary claims that Trumps merit immigration plan dubbed the RAISE plan will reduce total employment and business revenue by 2027. The Penn Wharton Budget Model group says:

By 2027, our analysis projects that RAISE will reduce GDP by 0.7 percent relative to current law, and reduce jobs by 1.3 million. By 2040, GDP will be about 2 percent lower and jobs will fall by 4.6 million.

The groups report is being accepted by credulous reporters, but it is a diversion because it distracts readers from the hidden admission that Trumps reform will accomplish what it is intended to accomplish to raise wages and to get more Americans back to work.

The popular Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment (RAISE) Act wouldraise Americans wages by deliberately reducing the inflow of wage-cutting cheap-labor immigrants. With fewer imported workers, native-born Americans will be able to get higher wages via the normal rule of supply-and-demand in the labor market, says the plan, which is championed by Trump and which was drafted by two GOP Senators, Georgia Sen. David Perdue and Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton.

When pressed by Breitbart News, the groups leader, economic professor Kent Smetters,admitted that Trumps merit immigration plan will continue to raise Americans wages for the next 33 years:

By 2027, wages increase a small amount (0.231%) relative to baseline; by 2040, wages increase by an even smaller amount (0.158%).

That is a very small increase but the Penn Wharton group has declined to explain why the increase is so small. Instead it has kept secret critical assumptions about productivity, investment and workforce participation. Smetters told Breitbart News:

Despite our best efforts at complete transparency, I appreciate that our written analysis was short on details I agree that we can improve our communications of describing the sophisticated nature of our model, that is, besides just showing the underlying math equations, which are available in white paper presentations on our website.

Smetters answer came after Breitbart News emailed critical questions to several academic and business advisors working with Setters and his group.

Smetters told Breitbart News why his group did not publish the wage numbers:

Instead of reporting wage numbers, we originally choose to report the change in per capita GDP because: (a) for these purposes, we think it represents a more comprehensive summary statistic of average economic wellbeing; (b) and, in any case, both of the changes in the ratios (wages and per capita GDP) are very small.

Making too big a deal about very small deltas [changes] strikes me as false precision. In our last immigration report last summer, conservatives and recall that I was a political appointee during the first term of Bush seemed to be content with us reporting per capita GDP ratios. However, we will update the current report with some wage information as well, since more information is, of course, the best.

The group also hid its admission that the Trump merit plan will also help millions of sidelined Americans get jobs.

The group hid that admission by first claiming that the economy would be 1.3 million fewer jobs in a decade than is now predicted, while burying the fact that Trumps plan would reduce the inflow of foreign workers by roughly 3.5 million over the same period. So a simple subtraction of 3.5 million imported workers from an economy with just 1.3. million fewer jobs suggests that Trumps very popular plan will help bring roughly 2.3 million sidelined Americans back into the workforce.

In a convoluted admission, Kent admitted the wage-increase caused by the reform plan would help remaining unemployed Americans find jobs, saying:

These small [wage] changes just are not enough to boost the participation rate of remaining workers very much.

Very much is an admission that Trump plan does raise the participation rate of Americans.

In a podcast interview with a university employee, Smetters also said Trumps plan would cut total jobs by 4 million in 2040. But, assuming no other changes, Trumps merit plan could also reduce the immigration inflow by roughly 10 million over the same period. Those two numbers suggest Trumps plan will create roughly 6 million extra jobs for Americans by 2040.

In links behind the main page, the group says its model is similar to the analysis used by the Congressional Budget Office during the 2013 debate over the Gang of Eight cheap-labor-and-amnesty bill. That bill would have approved a tsunami ofroughly 46 million legal immigrants from 2013 to 2033, and invited an unlimited inflow of foreign white-collar workers.

In 2013, this reporter noted that the CBO admitted employees would get less financial benefit from the mass-immigration economy than would investors for at least 20 years. The rate of return on capital would be higher [than on labor] under the legislation than under current law throughout the next two decades, says the report, titled The Economic Impact of S. 744. It continued:

Because the bill would increase the rate of growth of the labor force, average wages would be held down in the first decade after enactment The legislation would particularly increase the number of workers with lower or higher skills but would have less effect on the number of workers with average skills. The wages of lower- and higher-skilled workers would tend to be pushed downward slightly (by less than percent) relative to the wages of workers with average skills.

In September 2016, a pro-immigration panel selected by the National Academies of Science admitted that immigration imposes a 5.2 percent tax on Americans salaries.

In June 2016, Moodys Analytics issued a report saying that Trumps campaign promise to reduce immigration would spike Americans salariesand also reduce the price of housing for young American families.

In July and August, U.S. employers complainedthat they have to increase salaries for Americans because they cant import all the foreign workers they wish. The reducing flow of foreign workers is also prompting employers to buy labor-saving machinery from U.S. manufacturing workers.

At the same time, business groups and progressive activists are urging the government to expand the economy by importing more consumers and cheap employees.

Smetters shares that expansion-via-immigration view, saying his podcast that If we didnt change the skill mix but we just increased the number of legal immigrants, it would have a very big positive impact on the economy.

The Penn Wharton Budget Model is backed by several investors who stand to gain from an increased inflow of consumers and cheap workers.

In his August 2 presentation of Trumps merit plan to the media, presidential advisor Steven Miller made clear the Presidents plan to raise Americans wages:

At the end of the day, President Trump has been clear that he is a pro-high-wage President. He ran as a pro-high-wage candidate, and thats what this policy will accomplish.

At the same time, to the point about economic growth, were constantly told that unskilled immigration boosts the economy. But again, if you look at the last 17 years [of mass immigration], we just know from reality thats not true. And if you look at wages, you can see the effects there. If you look at the labor force, you can see the effects there.

And so again, were ending unskilled chain migration, but were also making sure that the great inventors of the world, the great scientists of the world, that people who have the next great piece of technology can come into the United States and compete in a competitive application process a points-based system that makes sense in the year 2017.

The annual inflow of foreign workers is very large.

In 2016, for example, federal data shows thatformer President Barack Obama gave federal Employment Authorization Document work permits toat least 2.3 million migrantsfor U.S. jobs, and approved visas for roughly 500,000 outsourcing workers, such as the H-1B white-collar workers, H-2B blue-collar workers and H-2A agriculture workers. Those temporary workers were in addition to the routine inflow of 1 million legal immigrants and roughly 400,000 illegal immigrants.

The combined inflow delivered almost4 million legal foreign workersto Americans economy in 2016, just as 4 million young Americans turned 18 and began looking for decently paid jobs.

Manypolls showthat Americans are very generous, they do welcome individual immigrants, and they do want to like the idea of immigration. But the polls also show that most Americans are increasingly worried that large-scale legal immigration will change their country and disadvantage themselves and their children.

The currentannual floodofforeign laborspikes profits and Wall Street valuesbycutting salariesfor manual and skilled labor offered by blue-collar and white-collar employees. It also drives up real estate prices,widens wealth-gaps, reduceshigh-tech investment, increasesstate and local tax burdens, hurtskids schoolsandcollege education, and sidelinesat least 5 million marginalizedAmericansand their families

Read the original:
Donald Trump's Immigration Reform Will Raise Wages, Jobs, Admits Business-Funded Group - Breitbart News

A prominent politician, announcing the results of a commission appointed to study immigration, urged Congress to significantly cut legal migrations to the United States.

The rationale offered was that a flood of lesser-educated, low-skilled immigration drives down wages and hurts employment prospects for Americans with comparable skills and education.

What the commission is concerned about are the unskilled workers in our society in an age in which unskilled workers have far too few opportunities open to them, the politician announced. When immigrants are less well-educated and less-skilled, they may pose economic hardships to the most vulnerable of Americans, particularly those who are unemployed or under-employed.

President Donald Trump? Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) or David Perdue (R-Ga.)?

Try Barbara Jordan, civil rights icon and first black woman elected to Congress from the South.

The nine-member Commission on Immigration Reform that the former Texas congresswoman headed in the 1990s produced a pair of reports one calling for tighter controls on illegal immigration and another calling for cutting back legal immigration to about 550,000 entrants a year.

The specifics look a lot like the RAISE Act, the bill Cotton and Perdue introduced earlier this year to fierce criticism.

The Jordan commission proposed prioritizing skills and education in immigration, while limiting family-based migration to spouses and minor children, unlike the current system, which allows extended relatives to come into the country.

That is similar to the provisions of the RAISE Act, as are Jordan commission recommendations for reducing refugees to 50,000 per year and eliminating the diversity visa lottery, which awards roughly 50,000 green cards annually to applicants chosen randomly from around the world.

"The RAISE Act really is the second coming of the Barbara Jordan commission," said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies.

Robert Law, government relations director at the Federation for American Immigration Reform, agreed.

"It's literally, word-for-word, how the press release from Cotton and Perdue reads," he said.

What Jordan Recommended Indeed, the Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment (RAISE) Act bears strong resemblance to the Jordan commission recommendations and to subsequent legislation that it inspired. Although the Jordan commission did not call for a points system like that proposed in the Cotton-Perdue bill, it did place the same priority on high-skilled immigration.

The Jordan commission's proposed reduction to 535,000 is similar to the projections of how many legal immigrants the RAISE Act would allow annually. In the 1990s, that represented a reduction of about a third. Compared to today's system, it could be a cut by as much as half.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), who sponsored legislation based on the Jordan commission and has agreed to sponsor a House version of the RAISE Act, also sees the similarity.

"The knee-jerk Democratic opposition to the RAISE Act does suggest how radicalized the mainstream Left has become on immigration."

"Legal immigration in the U.S. under the RAISE Act would remain among the most generous levels in the world; half a million legal immigrants would be admitted annually, which aligns with the figure recommended by the Jordan commission," he wrote in response to questions posed by a reporter from The Atlantic.

David Cross, a spokesman for Oregonians for Immigration Reform, said Jordan recognized that minorities are disproportionately more likely to face competition from immigrants.

"I think about the issue of black unemployment, particularly black youth unemployment," he said. "I certainly think that's something Barbara Jordan would have been mindful of."

To see how much the immigration debate has changed over the past two decades, it is instructive to review the reaction that the Jordan commission received. The bipartisan commission, itself, endorsed the proposals on legal immigration by an 8-1 vote. The lone dissenter was the executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

While the RAISE Act has been labeled racist by more than one critic particularly after President Donald Trump endorsed it earlier this month the similar proposals by the Jordan commission met with bipartisan praise. Democratic then-President Bill Clinton endorsed it. Then-Rep.Anthony Beilenson (D-Calif.) said he would co-sponsor legislation based on it.

"Consistent with my own views, the commission's recommendations are pro-family, pro-work, pro-naturalization," Clinton said in June 1995.

That's not to say the recommendations did not draw opposition. Pro-immigration groups called it misguided. Pro-business Republicans such as then-House Majority Leader Richard K. "Dick" Armey (R-Texas) feared it would hurt economic growth.

But few questioned the motives of Jordan or other members of the commission, and critics were not so quick to call it bigoted.

"The knee-jerk Democratic opposition to the RAISE Act does suggest how radicalized the mainstream Left has become on immigration," Law said.

He added: "It seems like it's not the message but the messenger."

Congress did not adopt the Jordan commission's recommendations in whole. Krikorian attributed that, in part, to the former congresswoman's untimely death in 1996 at the age of 59.

"When she died, Clinton was free to do whatever he wanted," he said.

A 'Clever Tactic' to Kill Immigration Reform Then-Sens. Spencer Abraham (R-Mich.) and Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) maneuvered in the Judiciary Committee to split the proposal into two pieces one on legal immigration and another on illegal immigration.

"It was a clever tactic, quite frankly," Krikorian said.

It helped killed the legal immigration reforms, but even then, the vote on the illegal immigration bill is revealing.

The Illegal Immigration Reform & Immigrant Responsibility Act passed in 1996 with solid Democratic support. In the House, almost as many Democrats 88 voted "yes" as the 92 who voted "no." It divided Senate Democrats, as well, with 22 voting "yes" and 24 voting "no." Liberal stalwarts such as Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif), Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), and Harry Reid (D-Nev.) supported the bill.

Meanwhile, senators on the floor of the upper chamber voted 80-20 to kill a proposal to reduce immigration by extended relatives of legal residents by at least 10 percent over the ensuing five years. Feinstein offered a similar amendment, but it would have allowed some visas for adult children of legal permanent residents. That failed 74-26.

The House that year killed provisions of the immigration bill that would have cut legal migration by 30 percent after five years and restriction chain migration. The vote was an overwhelming 238 to 183 and included 75 Republicans in the majority. Still, 25 House Democrats sided with the immigration restrictionists.

It seems unlikely that the RAISE Act would attract anywhere close to that level of support from current House Democrats. Law attributed the 1996 vote to the waning vestiges of a Democratic Party primarily concerned with working people in the United States.

"Pretty much since 2013, the Democratic Party totally sold out on immigration," he said. "I would suggest the Democratic Party has been paying lip service to this constituency and taking it for granted."

The Democratic Party of today marches almost in unison in favor of mass immigration and blurs the distinction between legal and illegal migration, Krikorian said. He noted that 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and runner-up Bernie Sanders both advocated essentially applying the "wet foot/dry foot" Cold War policy toward Cubans escaping the communist regime to every immigrant anyone who can make it to America can stay (provided he or she does not commit a crime).

That consensus in the party does not appear to have evaporated since the election, although Krikorian pointed to recent articles by progressive writers T.A. Frank in Vanity Fair, Peter Beinart in The Atlantic, and CNN's Fareed Zakaria questioning the party's immigration absolutism.

"Maybe a few people are having second thoughts about the rush to mass immigration," he said.

Read this article:
Not So Long Ago, Democrats Favored Immigration Curbs - LifeZette