June 18, 2019

“Radical” Islam Taking Over Idaho

How about it Idahoans. Are “radical” Muslims taking over Boise and Twin Falls? Are they threatening your way of life?

Share

The “Job” is Collecting Welfare – Tough Work

FriedmanQuote

Share

They’re Coming to America

ISISBring

Share

The Phony “Refugee Crisis”

So far, NATO, or in other words the international armed branch of the United States, has not reacted. But according to its most recent missions, the Atlantic Alliance is reserving for itself the possibility of military intervention if the migrations should become important.Since we know that only NATO is capable of publishing false information on the front page of all the newspapers of its member states, it is very probable that it has organised the present campaign. Besides which, the fact that all migrants are represented as refugees fleeing the war zones, and the insistance about the supposed Syrian origin of these migrants, allows us to suppose that NATO is preparing a public action linked to the war which it is secretly waging against Syria.

Source: The phoney « refugee crisis », by Thierry Meyssan

Share

Ann Corcoran on Refugee Resettlement

Share

Obama’s Amnesty Order Harms Jobs, Schools, Health and Simple Fairness, Black Activists Say

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

Washington, DC – Activists with the Project 21 black leadership network are critical of just-announced executive action by President Barack Obama to grant amnesty to non-citizens illegally in the United States.

“What President Obama did is reward those who broke our laws. This will only embitter and endanger the citizenry and legal immigrants who are similarly looking for work, just scraping by and worried about their economic future,” said Project 21 Archbishop Council Nedd II of St. Alban’s Anglican Church. “God has blessed America with abundance, and I cannot fault those seeking a better life here. But the unregulated surge of people across our borders is problematic, unsustainable and in violation of carefully-crafted rules.”

“By himself, and against the protests of congressional leaders, President Obama is giving the illegal alien community absolution for its law-breaking. Obama’s action effectively rewards the intentions of these illegals to exploit a broken immigration system and lay claim to the American way of life at the expense of its citizens and legal immigrants who obeyed our laws,” said Project 21’s Derryck Green, a southern California resident. “Our nation will undoubtedly suffer from further and a likely intensified strain on our infrastructure as well as resources that are already limited in supply due to a poor economic recovery.”

“What we are now witnessing with Obama’s amnesty plan is a complete destruction of our constitutional republic. We no longer seem to live under a system of checks and balances or separation of powers,” said Project 21’s Shelby Emmett, a lawyer and former congressional staff member who dealt with immigration issues. “We the people apparently have no more say in our representation or our form of government.”

Project 21 has issued six “DataReleases” on immigration in recent weeks, covering the following major policy areas:

Jobs: Jobless Black Americans are demographically similar to illegal immigrants and amnesty means they encounter substantially increased head-to-head competition for jobs. Illegal immigrant migration to urban centers exacerbates challenges for black jobseekers. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights concluded that illegal immigrants “depress both wages and employment rates for low-skilled American citizens, a disproportionate number of whom are black men.”

Fairness: Carefully-crafted rules to manage immigration into the United States with an eye toward health, financial sustainability and clean legal records are discarded by mass amnesty, which also is unfair to those who immigrated after waiting in line. Obama-backed immigration policy changes would eliminate the method by which a quarter of all African immigrants, who historically have emigrated legally, are allowed residency in the United States while millions of Latin Americans who arrived illegally are granted amnesty.

Health: Health providers along the U.S-Mexico border are dealing with flu, tuberculosis, chicken pox, scabies and other illnesses brought into the U.S. by illegal aliens. The legal immigration process contains health screening, but the massive influx of Latin American children in 2014 in particular led the Obama Administration to rely on inferior screening processes and a resettlement strategy that dispersed them across the country.

Public schools: Attorney General Eric Holder told public school administrators they have an “obligation to enroll students regardless of immigration status.” This influx expands class sizes and stretches school budgets.

Refugees: Designating Latin American illegal aliens as “refugees” from gangs and drug lords to justify an executive action blocking them from deportation would disrupt rules and limits for accepting refugees into the United States and put refugee candidates from other parts of the world at a severe disadvantage.

History: Immigration surges historically have tended to hurt the employment prospects of black Americans.

This year, Project 21 members have been interviewed and published hundreds of times on immigration, including an op-ed in the Orlando Sentinel by Project 21’s Joe Hicks, a former executive director of the Greater Los Angeles chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.

Project 21, a leading voice of black conservatives for over two decades, is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research (http://www.nationalcenter.org).

Share

Throughout U.S. History, Immigration Surges Have Harmed Black Workers

Washington, DC – Surges in immigration have harmed black workers throughout U.S. history.

Evidence shows that eras of high black employment and economic mobility directly correspond with periods of reduced immigration.

Should President Obama legalize many or all of the approximately 11.3 million illegal immigrants estimated to be living in the United States, black public policy experts with Project 21 warn, black Americans already experiencing a jobless rate far above the national average could be further harmed.

Outright discrimination in employment based on race, unfair regulations and ethnic networking also have harmed the ability of black Americans to find and retain good jobs.

Facts and Figures

• In the early 1800s, friction between free blacks and immigrants who were in competition for low-skilled labor opportunities led to the rise of union-based anti-black discrimination. Roy Beck, in The Case Against Immigration, wrote: “Rising immigration from the 1820s to the Civil War drove down wages for free black Americans and immigrants alike… As badly as new immigrants often were treated by established Americans, even worse treatment was meted out to black Americans by the immigrants. Organizing themselves into trade unions, immigrant laborers helped set the terms of hiring at many urban workplaces. Not only would they not allow black workers into their unions, but they usually would refuse to work alongside them if they were hired. Many firms decided not to hire black workers, or to fire the ones already on the site, because of that refusal on the part of the more numerous immigrant workers.”

• After the end of the Civil War, Beck writes, a high rate of European immigration kept many newly-freed blacks locked within the South’s agricultural economy (and helped widen the overall technological gap with the North). “High immigration solved an immense problem for the defeated southern landed aristocracy. The restoration of the plantation system depended on holding onto the ex-slaves. Eric Foner, the specialist on Reconstruction, says a major priority for both white southerners and northerners was to subdue former slaves into a sedentary agricultural work style in the South. During a brief window of opportunity after the war, many freed slaves made their way to the North and grabbed jobs that they held for years to come. But because of increasingly high immigration, most freed slaves did not get any of the new jobs up north or any of the new land out west. The unions were an essential force in keeping the ex-slaves out of the North. Nearly all of the unions — dominated by immigrants — barred blacks from membership, Foner says.”

• Blacks were pushed out of jobs at the start of the 20th Century by a wave of immigration of Italians and Eastern Europeans who settled in the North. Beck, who is CEO of the immigration policy organization Numbers USA, writes: “[Historian John E.] Bodnar found that the immigration had a ‘devastating impact upon [Steelton, Pennslyvania’s] black working force.’ Black workers stopped progressing up the job ladder, they lost semi-skilled occupations to the Slavs and Italians and many were forced to leave town in search of work. The black population declined. Job displacement was occurring in all cities. In 1870, of all black men in Cleveland, 32 percent had skilled jobs; by 1910, only 11 percent were in skilled trades. ‘It did not take Jim Crow laws to drive blacks out of such jobs in the North, which could draw on a huge pool of immigrant labor flowing into the cities,’ says Lawrence Fuchs of Brandeis University.”

Beck adds: “Anybody concerned about fulfilling the spirit of the civil rights era would have been given pause by a look back a century ago at what happened in interior industrial centers such as Pittsburgh, McKeesport, Wilkes-Barre and Johnstown in Pennsylvania; Lorain in Ohio and Buffalo in New York. In tight-labor conditions immediately after the Civil War, those cities had needed the migration of black labor. They witnessed black growth that was modest in numbers but almost explosive in terms of percentages. With the biggest surge of immigration after 1899, however, black growth in those cities essentially stopped or populations actually declined. High immigration to the nation’s cities had assured that the black worker ‘would have to start his economic climb over again — from the bottom,’ Bodnar says.”

• Reduced immigration during World War I led to employment opportunities for black males. During the “Great Migration” that began in 1914, approximately half a million blacks moved from the South to urban areas in the North. “Wartime opportunities in the urban North gave hope to such individuals,” wrote Chad Williams, then an associate professor of history at Hamilton College and since 2012 the chairman of the Department of African and Afro-American Studies at Brandeis University. “The American industrial economy grew significantly during the war. However, the conflict also cut off European immigration and reduced the pool of available cheap labor. Unable to meet demand with existing European immigrants and white women alone, northern businesses increasingly looked to black southerners to fill the void. In turn, the prospect of higher wages and improved working conditions prompted thousands of black southerners to abandon their agricultural lives and start anew in major industrial centers. Black women remained by and large confined to domestic work, while men for the first time in significant numbers made entryways into the northern manufacturing, packinghouse and automobile industries.”

• Many of America’s labor laws, some of which are still in existence, are unfair to black workers. As Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper wrote in a 2014 monograph for the Capital Research Center: “Many federal labor laws in the United States originated in efforts to saddle black men with extra burdens and limitations, in order to (as racists often put it) ‘protect white jobs.’ Tragically, these laws, in one form or another, remain on the books today and continue to hamper the ability of blacks, especially men, to enjoy gainful employment.” In particular, “[t]he primary objective of [the] Davis-Bacon [Act] was to make it harder for black tradesmen to compete for work on federal projects.” And the National Labor Relations Act, “the quintessential labor law achievement of the Progressive movement… was a catch-22: When blacks chose to leave the farms and plantations for opportunities in the North, the NLRA empowered the racist trade unions to lock them out.”

• A joint paper by professors at the University of California, University of Chicago and Harvard University for the National Bureau of Economic Research concluded that immigration has measurably lowered black wages. One of the authors, Dr. Gordon H. Hanson of the University of California, San Diego, said, “Our study suggests that a ten percent immigrant-induced increase in the supply of a skill group is associated with a reduction in the black wage of four percent, a reduction in the black employment rate of 3.5 percentage points and an increase in the black institutionalization [incarceration] rate of 0.8 percentage points.”

In testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Dr. Hanson added: “The economic adjustments unleashed by the large 1980 – 2000 immigrant influx, a labor supply shock that increased the number of workers in the United States by nearly ten percent and the number of high school dropouts by over 20 percent, reduced the employment rate of low-skill black men by about eight percentage points. Immigration, therefore, accounts for about 40 percent of the 18 percentage point decline in black employment rates. Similarly, the changes in economic opportunities caused by the 1980 – 2000 immigrant influx raised the incarceration rate of black high school dropouts by 1.7 percentage points, accounting for about ten percent of the 20 percentage point increase observed during that period.”

• Illegal immigrants and black Americans in the workforce today have a similar median age (approximately 36 and 39 years of age, respectively, with non-Hispanic whites six years older than the illegal immigrants, at 42 ), making illegal aliens more likely to compete head-to-head for age-sensitive employment opportunities.

• Analyzing evidence from two studies showing that employers may have a preference for hiring immigrants over black citizens, Dr. Harry J. Holzer of Georgetown University and the Urban Institute noted “that employers perceive stronger work ethic among the immigrants, and a greater willingness to tolerate low wages… Some of these perceptions and the hiring behavior they generate might well reflect discrimination, especially against black men whom employers generally fear…”

• “Ethnic networking” pits American blacks and Hispanic migrants against each other. As Beck writes in The Case Against Immigration: “Studies claiming to show insignificant changing in rates of African-American unemployment or labor force participation fail to take into account employment opportunities closed to black Americans who might otherwise migrate to metropolitan labor markets increasingly impacted by immigrants. The pervasive effects of ethnic-network recruiting and the spread of non-English languages in the workplace have, in effect, locked many blacks out of occupations where they once predominated.”

He adds: “Much of the power of immigration streams comes from ‘ethnic networking,’ in which immigrants after obtaining a job use word of mouth to bring relatives and other acquaintances from their country into the same workplace. Immigrants today act like the immigrants early this century, who took whole occupations and turned them into their own preserve, quickly shutting native-born Americans — especially blacks — out of a workplace … Within five years [in the 1990s], the workforce of seafood plants in North Carolina, Virginia and Maryland had changed from being predominantly African-American to mainly teenage girls and young women from Mexico … Businesses cease to advertise jobs. Natives don’t hear about openings as they are announced through word of mouth of the foreign workers in their local community and also across the country and even in other countries.”

• As in the Reconstruction era, when blacks competed with European immigrants in northern cities, Cornell University Professor Vernon M. Briggs, Jr. notes that both illegal immigrants and black workers tend to “cluster in metropolitan areas” and compete for the same jobs. Dr. Briggs says, “there is little doubt that there is significant overlap in competition for jobs in this sector of the labor market. Given the inordinately high unemployment rates for low-skilled black workers (the highest for all racial and ethnic groups for whom data is collected), it is obvious that the major loser in this competition are low-skilled black workers. This is not surprising, since if employers have an opportunity to hire illegal immigrant workers, they will always give them preference over legal workers of any race or ethnic background. This is because illegal immigrant workers view low-skilled jobs in the American economy as being highly preferable to the job opportunities in their homelands…”

Dr. Briggs further stated: “As for wage suppression, all studies show that the large infusion of immigrants has depressed the wages of low-skilled workers. It is the illegal immigrant component of the immigration flow that has most certainly caused the most damage… the unemployment rates in the low-skilled labor market are the highest in the entire national labor force. This means that the low-skilled labor market is in a surplus condition. Willing workers are available at existing wage rates. By definition, therefore, illegal immigrants who are overwhelmingly present in that same labor market sector adversely affect the economic opportunities of legal citizen workers because the illegal workers are preferred workers. No group pays a higher penalty for this unfair competition than do low-skilled black Americans, given their inordinately high unemployment levels.”

• Using employment data compiled from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Center for Immigration Studies asserts that virtually all of the net jobs created in the United States since 2000 have gone to legal and illegal immigrants as opposed to native-born citizens. The report noted that “[t]hough there has been some recovery from the Great Recession, there were still fewer working-age [16 to 65] natives holding a job in the first quarter of 2014 than in 2000 [127,000], while the number of immigrants with a job was 5.7 million above the 2000 level.” The report concluded there actually has been “no general labor shortage” in the United States thus far in the 21st century and “trends since 2000 challenge the argument that immigration on balance increases job opportunities for natives. Over 17 million immigrants arrived in the country in the last 14 years, yet native employment has deteriorated significantly.”

What Project 21 Members are Saying

“In the spirit of Booker T. Washington, President Obama should encourage the Chamber of Commerce, Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates to cast down their buckets among the millions of black Americans who are here and in need of economic opportunity. Instead, it seems Obama wants to cast his political lot among those who smuggled themselves into our nation, and whose insertion into our still faltering economy would increase unemployment and misery among black Americans. Those who ignore history are bound to repeat it, and it would behoove Obama to see how blacks have fared in past mass migrations before he throws his most loyal constituency over a cliff.” — Project 21 member Derryck Green writes for Project 21 on federal employment statistics and other economic indicators

“The immigration issue is complex. While it is clear the left wants to pass it off as a cut-and-dry case of humanitarianism and common sense, there are secondary effects at play. History shows that surges in immigrants, both legal and illegal, lead to employment crises in the black community because they create increased competition for the same jobs. If it is true that many low-wage workers could be granted amnesty or legalized working status, who is speaking on behalf of black American citizens who are struggling to find work and opportunities? In the past, we had Frederick Douglass and Booker T. Washington championing the cause of black job-seekers. Who among the self-appointed black leadership will stand up for us now on immigration and jobs since they have failed to lead blacks to true, sustained economic empowerment?” — Project 21 member and financial analyst Hughey Newsome

“Frederick Douglass… often spoke of America’s race-based labor policies. In the North, free blacks were denied employment because of a preference for the cheap labor of the Irish. Booker T. Washington implored employers to ‘cast down your bucket where you are’ to provide work for the black man. But Western European immigration increased, and the Davis-Bacon Act — which is still on the books — was passed to, in part, keep blacks and new immigrants from being hired for many jobs.” — Project 21 member and talk radio host Charles Butler

“While modern illegal immigration has had a devastating impact on the quality of education, health care and other services, black Americans in particular have had a long history of being impacted by immigrants. Our opportunities for gainful employment suffered exponentially under the weight of past waves of legal and illegal unskilled foreign workers, sometimes undermining the free market through unlawful employment. Now, we appear to be losing more opportunities than ever to illegal aliens. This is a civil rights problem that was recognized in the past but is largely overlooked today when we debate the issue of amnesty for those who smuggle themselves into our nation.” — Project 21 member and right-to-work activist Stacy Swimp

What Others are Saying About Mass Immigration and Its Effects on Black Employment

• In his book, The Case Against Immigration, Numbers USA CEO Roy Beck wrote of post-Civil War history and immigration: “The end of the Civil War opened a golden door of opportunity to black Americans, both those just freed from the chains of slavery and those who long had been free… By happy circumstances, both new land and good jobs became available soon after the Civil War… If more black Americans had gotten in on the ground floor of both of those developments, they and their descendents would have had remarkably different lives. And all Americans today likely would be living in a much more harmonious and healthy society. But it wasn’t to be. Mass immigration helped slam the golden door shut on equality of opportunity for black Americans after the Civil War.”

• In 1871, the famed black abolitionist Frederick Douglass wrote in The Washington New National Era: “The former slave owners of the South want cheap labor; they want it from Germany and from Ireland; they want it from China and Japan; they want it from anywhere in the world, but from Africa. They want to be independent of their former slaves, and bring their noses to the grindstone.”

• Booker T. Washington, the famous black educator, said in a impassioned plea on behalf of black American job-seekers at the Atlanta Cotton States and International Exposition in 1895: “To those of the white race who look to the incoming of those of foreign birth and strange tongue and habits for the prosperity of the South, were I permitted I would repeat what I say to my own race, ‘cast down your bucket where you are,’ Cast it down among the eight millions of Negroes whose habits you know, whose fidelity and love you have tested in days when to have proved treacherous meant the ruin of your firesides. Cast down your bucket among these people who have, without strikes and labour wars, tilled your fields, cleared your forests, built your railroads and cities and brought forth treasures from the bowels of the earth, and helped make possible this magnificent representation of the progress of the South.”

• Commenting on the improvement in job prospects for black Americans due to a curtailment of immigration, leftist black labor activist W.E.B. DuBois sourly wrote in The Crisis in 1929: “[T]he stopping of the importing of cheap white labor on any terms has been the economic salvation of American black labor. As usual, we gain only by the hurt of our fellow white serfs, but it is not our fault and whenever these same laborers get a chance they swat us worse than the capitalists.”

• In laying out the goals of the Clinton-era U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform in testimony before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee in 1994, former U.S. Representative Barbara Jordan (D-TX) said: “It will be impossible to reach answers to these questions [about economic stability and civic diversity] unless our policies and their implementation are more credible. As far as immigration policy is concerned, credibility can be measured by a simple yardstick: people who should get in, get in; people who should not enter are kept out; and people who are deportable should be required to leave. The Commission is convinced that immigration can be managed more effectively and in a manner that is consistent with our traditions, civil rights and civil liberties. As a nation of immigrants committed to the rule of law, this country must set limits on who can enter and back up these limits with effective enforcement of our immigration law.”

• In testimony before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee in 2012, Peter Kirsanow, a commissioner with the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and a member of Project 21, said: “Granting amnesty to illegal immigrants will only further harm African-American workers. Not only will the low-skilled labor market continue to experience a surplus of workers, making it difficult for African-Americans to find job opportunities, but African-Americans will be deprived of one of their few advantages in this market… Furthermore, recent history shows that granting amnesty to illegal immigrants will encourage more people to come to the United States illegally. The 1986 amnesty did not solve the illegal immigration problem. To the contrary, that amnesty established the precedent that if you come to America illegally, eventually you will obtain legal status. Thus, it is likely that if illegal immigrants are granted legal status, more people will come to America illegally and will further crowd African-American men (and other low-skilled men and women) out of the workforce.”

* * *

During 2014, Project 21 members have participated in over 150 interviews on immigration, including a commentary in the Orlando Sentinel written by Project 21 member Joe Hicks, a former executive director of the Greater Los Angeles chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Over the past several weeks, the Project 21 black leadership network has issued a series of press releases highlighting how a unilateral move by the Obama Administration to protect illegal aliens could have a negative disparate impact on black Americans and African immigrants on issues such as jobs , education, health and legal immigration.

In 2014, Project 21 members have been interviewed or cited by the media on current events over 1,300 times, including by the Fox News Special Report with Bret Baier, the O’Reilly Factor, Fox and Friends, CNN’s Situation Room, Salem Radio Network, Sean Hannity, Jim Bohannon, Conservative Commandos, Bill Martinez, Radio America, American Urban Radio Network, Bill Cunningham, Roger Hedgecock, Mike Siegal, Dana Loesch, Thomm Hartmann, Progressive Radio Network, The Blaze, EurWeb, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, SiriusXM satellite radio, TVOne, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Orlando Sentinel and 50,000-watt talk radio stations including WBZ-Boston, WJR-Detroit, KDKA-Pittsburgh and WLW-Cincinnati. Project 21 has participated in cases before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding race preferences and voting rights and defended voter ID laws at the United Nations. Its volunteer members come from all walks of life and are not salaried political professionals.

Project 21, a leading voice of black conservatives for over two decades, is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative, free-market, non-profit think-tank established in 1982. Contributions to the National Center are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Share

Possible Obama Scheme to Designate Huge Numbers of Latin American Illegal Immigrants as “Refugees” Would Violate Limits on Refugees Set by Obama Himself

Such a Strategy to Circumvent Congress Would Violate Refugee Procedures Set by U.S. Law and Harm Immigration Chances of Desperate Refugee Applicants from Other Continents

Washington, DC – President Obama reportedly is considering designating Latin American illegal aliens as “refugees” from gangs and drug lords to justify an executive action blocking them from deportation and providing them with a means of seeking American citizenship.

This scheme, if imposed, would seriously disrupt carefully-crafted rules and limits for accepting refugees into the United States and put refugee candidates from other parts of the world, such as Africa, at a severe disadvantage.

Such a scheme would violate a limit on refugees set by Obama himself. It also would upend highly specialized conditions and procedures related to the acceptance of refugees set by U.S. law.

It would also create a situation in which potential refugee candidates from other regions are handicapped because they are often located at great distances and separated by oceans, as opposed to being smuggled across a border. This includes, but is not limited to, child refugees fleeing from Boko Haram in Nigeria, potential victims of ISIS murderers in Iraq, families displaced by the Syrian civil war, pro-democracy Afghans targeted by the Taliban and pro-democracy activists escaping from Communist China.

Facts and Figures

• On October 2, 2013, President Obama issued a “memorandum for the Secretary of State” that, in keeping with the terms of the Immigration and Nationality Act, set a limit for the admission of refugees for the 2014 fiscal year that was “justified by humanitarian concerns or is otherwise in the national interest.” It was capped at 70,000 persons. This amount was divided among regions, with Africa allowed 15,000 refugees and Latin America and the Caribbean collectively allowed only 5,000. An additional 2,000-person “unallocated reserve” could be applied to unintended need as well as reallocation of regional amounts that respected the President’s cap of 70,000 (and with Congress being apprised of the reallocation).

• A cap on refugees is usually set by presidential proclamation in late September or early October after a public comment period (which ended on May 29, 2014 for fiscal year 2015). During the Obama Administration, this cap has shrunk from 80,000 in 2010 to 70,000 in 2014. The Immigration and Nationality Act generally defines a refugee as someone unwilling to return to their home country due to a “well-founded fear of persecution” based on factors including race, religion, ethnicity, politics and social associations.

• The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security states that a refugee is defined under law as a person who is “located outside the United States,” has “special humanitarian concern,” “demonstrates that they were persecuted or fear prosecution” and “is admissible to the United States.” Qualified candidates must receive a “referral” to the USCIS from the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program and be processed and interviewed for possible acceptance while residing outside of United States borders. Should someone be accepted, he “will receive a medical exam [and] cultural orientation.” There are nine federal agencies that meet weekly on refugee resettlement issues to consider each case individually and “match the particular needs of each incoming refugee.”

• According to the U.S. Department of State, approximately 3 million refugees have been resettled in the United States since 1975. Pew Research estimated that, as of March of 2012, there were 11.7 million people residing illegally in the United States. “Resettlement opportunities,” the State Department reports, are only available to the “most vulnerable refugees.”

• A draft memo from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, written on May 30 by Border Patrol Deputy Chief Ronald Vitiello and obtained by the Associated Press, estimated around 90,000 children in particular may illegally cross America’s southern border before the end of the 2014 fiscal year on September 30, 2014. That number, Vitiello suggested, could rise to 142,000 in the 2015 fiscal year. As of late June, approximately 57,000 unaccompanied children were actually apprehended by law enforcement, and there were more children in custody who were not included in this count because they travelled with family. After meeting with Latin American leaders in part about the immigration crisis, Obama said on July 25 that “[t]here may be some narrow circumstances in which there is humanitarian or refugee status that a family may be eligible for.” He also said his administration is considering some sort of program for young people to request refugee status.

• The United Nations High Commission on Refugees is trying to alter its normal definition of refugee to force the United States to accept Latin American illegal immigrants. A proposed resolution would classify crime in Latin America as violence akin to war, thus alleging that the United States “should recognize that this is a refugee situation which implies that they shouldn’t be automatically sent to their home countries but rather receive international protections.” This is significant because “Central Americans would be among the first modern migrants considered refugees because they are fleeing violence and extortion at the hands of criminal gangs.”

• If refugee status can actually be justified, it should be granted by Mexico, the country through which illegal immigrants from other Latin American countries normally pass. Mexico recently enacted a widely-praised refugee relief policy. Signed by then-President Felipe Calderon in 2011, the “Law on Refugees and Complementary Protection” binds Mexico to abide by international immigration treaties and, according to the U.S. High Commission on Refugees, “will grant complementary protection for people not considered as refugees but whose life has been threatened or could be at risk of torture, ill treatment or other forms of cruel inhuman treatment.” The non-governmental U.S. Commission for Refugees and Immigrants called Mexico’s refugee law a “groundbreaking effort” that “grant[s] access to health services, health insurance, education, recognition of academic credentials and permission to work.” This seems more generous than potential amnesty offers from the Obama Administration, which allegedly would deny illegal immigrants access to entitlements such as ObamaCare.

• There are an estimated 11 million refugees on the continent of Africa, many of whom are considered to be mistreated and abused by their host governments. The non-governmental U.S. Commission for Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI) gave Kenya, Congo (Kinshasa) and South Africa failing grades for “not adequately protecting refugees from violence and forcing refugees back across the border.” Abuses in Africa that befall refugees include arbitrary detainment and denial of judicial access and safety. The USCRI added, “the United Nations, as well as the United States and other western governments, have further failed refugees across Africa and other parts of the world by allowing them to be warehoused in camps for 10, 20, 30 or more years without such basic human rights as freedom of movement, protection from violence and ability to support their families.”

• A security analysis of illegal immigration across the southern United States border compiled by the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) reports that the flow of foreigners is “exacerbated by misperceptions of recent U.S. immigration policies among migrants.” EPIC reported a U.S. Border Patrol survey of 230 illegals caught in the Rio Grande Valley found 219 saying the main reason they violated U.S. immigration law “was the perception of U.S. immigration laws granting free passes or permisos” to those who successfully cross the border. Smugglers “have dispensed misinformation to convince migrants that they have a clear path to U.S. citizenship if they make it into the United States.” The analysis also reports “homicide trends and migrant interviews suggest violence is likely not the principal factor during the increase in [illegal alien children] immigration. While [Border Patrol] data from early fiscal year 2011 indicates a steady increase in… immigration, United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime statistics — within the same timeframe — show a decline in per capita homicide roles in these three countries; El Salvador saw the sharpest decline, followed by Honduras and Guatemala, respectively.”

What Project 21 Members Say About Potential Amnesty and its Effect on Legal Immigration

“Fleeing gender discrimination in the Middle East? Afraid you are going to be killed for your religious beliefs in Asia? Displaced by war in Africa? It seems your best bet for getting resettled in the United States may not be abiding by our government’s rules and putting yourself on a long waiting list at a refugee camp, but to buy a plane ticket to Mexico and smuggle yourself across America’s porous southern border. President Obama appears to be on the verge of yet another unlawful act in which he will once again ignore his duty to work with the people’s elected representatives in Congress. If the President isn’t going to follow the rule of law for what is obviously crass political gain, why should anyone else feel bound to it these days?” — Project 21’s Shelby Emmett , an attorney, who dealt with immigration issues as a staff member for the U.S. Congress

“When a leader makes a mistake he owns up to it, apologizes for it and attempts to fix it. But when a politician makes a mistake, he often doubles down on that mistake. It’s absurd for President Obama to even contemplate calling illegal aliens refugees. It violates his own order placing limits on refugees from South America. When I lived in the Persian Gulf, my friend Mohammad converted to Christianity. People found out, and they attempted to kill him on more than one occasion. He was a true asylum-seeker, yet our doors were closed to him. America is a wonderful country endowed with gifts from our creator, and I understand why people flock here. But, under these circumstances, how do we countenance telling the real refugees ‘sorry, no vacancies’ while throwing the door wide open for those who might be considered more politically advantageous?” — Project 21’s Council Nedd II, an Archbishop of the Episcopal Missionary Church. Archbishop Nedd is chairman of In God We Trust and serves as the Archbishop for Abu Dhabi. He has been involved in several relief missions to the Middle East and Africa.

“I believe President Obama and congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle firmly believe they will gain politically if they grant some sort of amnesty to the million of illegal aliens who are here and those still trying to come here. But nowhere in their narrative have they talked about how this relates to legal immigration and legitimate refugees. During my time in the United States Navy, I worked alongside dozens of legal immigrants who wanted to give back to our nation. Amnesty will be nothing more than a slap in the face to those who went through the legal process of immigration. And using a political trick to provide cover for those smuggled into this county is a mockery of a refugee policy meant to save our planet’s most vulnerable souls. This shows the laziness of politicians who seem to have forgotten long ago how to govern and protect out nation. Unabated, blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants is a complete scam.” — Project 21’s Kevin Martin, who took part in refugee operations in Bosnia and Kosovo while serving in the U.S. Navy

“President Obama and other White House officials claim young illegal aliens who flooded across our southern border should be granted refugee status because they fled violence and poverty in their home nations. When have these conditions not existed in places such as Honduras, El Salvador, Mexico and Guatemala? This, the open-borders crowd claims, presents us with a moral crisis. A moral crisis is indeed facing our nation, but it is a crisis of the current political leadership, who appear willing to sacrifice the nation’s interests to the apologists for illegal immigration. These radical special interest groups disdain the nation’s immigration law and argue that it is they — and not the law — who should determine who can enter our nation, under what conditions and from where.” — Project 21’s Joe R. Hicks, a former executive director of the Greater Los Angeles chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and former executive director of the Los Angeles City Human Relations Commission

What Others are Saying About Possible Abuse of Our Refugee System

• During a debate on “Special Report” on the Fox News Channel, political commentator Charles Krauthammer said: “We cannot… open our borders up because of miserable conditions in certain countries… If you want to deal with the humanitarian issue, and I’m prepared to spend a lot of money on this, then perhaps we ought to think of doing it in-country. You return them. You spend a lot of money. You set up the same centers that you saw in Virginia or elsewhere — perhaps in-country — with American personnel. American money. If you want to help them against the gangs, or — if you’re really serious about this — send National Guardsmen who will protect the villagers. But the idea that you’re importing the problem into the United States is, to me, unacceptable because it means we don’t have a border.”

• In providing public comment about a city council resolution favoring the award of refugee status on illegal aliens, former refugee Ly Kou told Riverside, California city council members: “I was a refugee from Asia. We lived in a refugee camp for two years waiting to come here. We had our lungs x-rayed. We had health screening. We went to classes so that, when we got here, we weren’t gonna be going to school and not knowing the alphabet. OK? That’s being a refugee. Someone who’s running away from a war-torn country. What these people are talking about – they’re paying someone to take them — a ‘coyote,’ or whatever they’re called — $7,000 or $8,000 for a 10-day trip across Mexico to America. That, to me, is not refugee. You want to talk refugee? Talk to someone who walked out of the killing fields [of Cambodia]. Someone who was in a prison camp. That’s a refugee.”

• While calling the mass immigration from her country to the United States a “humanitarian crisis,” Guatemala’s First Lady Rosa Leal de Perez admitted that most of the children are traveling from her country to the United States to join family members and not to escape violence. “I can’t say violence isn’t a problem in our countries,” she said. “In the municipalities where the kids are coming from, there aren’t gangs.”

• Members of the Obama Administration and their powerful supporters are trying to use religion to make their case, saying Jesus was a refugee. One of the Obama Administration’s top people on refugees, Eskinder Negash, director of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement, told the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, “Jesus was a refugee, and that’s a very good reminder to all of us.” Similarly, U.S. House of Representatives Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said: “I reference the Conference of [Catholic] Bishops statement in which they say baby Jesus was a refugee from violence. Let us not turn away these children and send them back into a burning building.” According to the Bible, Jesus and his family returned to his home of Nazareth from refuge abroad after Joseph learned that it was safe for him to do so.

* * *

During 2014, Project 21 members have participated in over 150 interviews on immigration, including a commentary in the Orlando Sentinel written by Project 21 member Joe Hicks, a former executive director of the Greater Los Angeles chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Over the past several weeks, the Project 21 black leadership network has issued a series of press releases highlighting how a unilateral move by the Obama Administration to protect illegal aliens could have a negative disparate impact on black Americans and African immigrants on issues such as jobs , education, health and legal immigration.

In 2014, Project 21 members have been interviewed or cited by the media on current events over 1,300 times, including by the Fox News Special Report with Bret Baier, the O’Reilly Factor, Fox and Friends, CNN’s Situation Room, Salem Radio Network, Sean Hannity, Jim Bohannon, Bill Martinez, Radio America, American Urban Radio Network, Bill Cunningham, Roger Hedgecock, Mike Siegal, Dana Loesch, Thomm Hartmann, Progressive Radio Network, The Blaze, EurWeb, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, SiriusXM satellite radio, TVOne, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Orlando Sentinel and 50,000-watt talk radio stations including WBZ-Boston, WJR-Detroit, KDKA-Pittsburgh and WLW-Cincinnati. Project 21 has participated in cases before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding race preferences and voting rights and defended voter ID laws at the United Nations. Its volunteer members come from all walks of life and are not salaried political professionals.

Project 21, a leading voice of black conservatives for over two decades, is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative, free-market, non-profit think-tank established in 1982. Contributions to the National Center are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Share

Obama’s Immigration Policies are Biased Against Immigrants from Africa

A Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

Obama’s Immigration Policies, if Adopted, Would Prejudice U.S. Immigration Policy Against Immigrants from Africa

Obama’s Threatened Executive Actions Would Legalize Millions from Central America and Mexico While His Legislative Agenda Would Cut African Immigration by a Quarter

Washington, DC – Expected executive action by President Barack Obama to block illegal aliens from deportation would create a de facto preference in immigration law favoring immigrants from the Americas and create a relative prejudice within U.S. immigration policy against would-be immigrants from elsewhere, including Africa, say members of the Project 21 black leadership network.

The tens of thousands of Africans who are granted legal immigration status in the U.S. every year are but a tiny percentage of the millions of Latin Americans who would be granted legal status by President Obama if his rumored executive amnesty takes place.

The disparity between permitted African and Hispanic immigrants threatens to grow even wider if S. 744, the Senate immigration bill President Obama vigorously supports, is enacted, as its passage could cut already-meager legal immigration from African nations by one-quarter even as millions of Hispanic illegal immigrants are legalized.

The Senate immigration bill eliminates the diversity visa program, which provides immigration opportunities for people from nations with low immigration rates. Enacted in 1990, it historically has benefited would-be immigrants from Africa. In 2012, 50 percent of the people offered visas through this program were from African nations compared to 2 percent from South and Central America and the Caribbean. In 2010, 24 percent of all immigrants from Africa granted permanent residence in the U.S. achieved that status through the diversity visa program the Obama-supported immigration bill would eradicate.

Legal immigration numbers vary among countries and continents and are regulated by the U.S. government. The rumored executive action by the President would dramatically alter the distribution to favor immigrants from the Americas and disadvantage people from Africa, Europe, Asia and Oceania, Project 21 members say.

Project 21 members also note that African immigrants have a record of seeking to become U.S. residents and/or citizens in a lawful manner and do not deserve to have their legal quotas sharply cut both in numerical and relative terms while Central American and Mexican illegal immigrants are rewarded.

Facts and Figures

• Approximately 41 million Americans are immigrants. Immigrants from Africa make up nearly 4 percent while about 36 percent are from Mexico and Central America (8 percent from Central America and 28 percent from Mexico). 15 percent of the world population lives in Africa while 3.6 percent lives in Mexico and Central America combined (2 percent in Central America and 1.6 percent in Mexico). So America has 9 times as many immigrants from Central America and Mexico compared to all of Africa, even though more than four times as many people live in Africa as in Central America and Mexico combined.

• Based on 2008 turnout data compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau, Hispanic naturalized citizens turn out to vote at a higher rate than U.S.-born Hispanic citizens. In 2008, naturalized Hispanic citizens were more likely to vote than U.S.-born Hispanics by 6 percentage points (54 percent to 48 percent). This differs from the pattern seen among non-Hispanic naturalized citizens, who typically are less likely to turn out to vote than U.S.-born citizens. Hispanics generally have a low voting turnout rate (in 2012, it was 48 percent, compared to 66.2 percent for blacks and 64.1 percent for whites ), prompting candidates who expect to win the Hispanic vote to devote considerable resources to encouraging Hispanic turnout.

• The number of Hispanic voters has grown considerably in both numbers and influence, and Hispanic voters tend to favor Democrats. 1.4 million more Hispanics voted in the 2012 presidential election than in 2008, and 3 million more Hispanic voters voted in 2008 compared to 2004. In 2012, Hispanics voted 71 percent for the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate and 27 percent for the Republican Party’s. In 2008, Democrats won this vote 67-31 percent. Should President Obama “legalize” millions of Hispanic illegal immigrants by executive action, the Democratic Party is expected to benefit considerably when many of these newly-legal residents inevitably become naturalized. Under current law, prospective citizens may qualify for naturalization if they are at least 18 years old and have been a permanent resident for at least 5 years (or 3 years if married to a U.S. citizen) and meet all other eligibility requirements.

• African immigrants tend to vote Democrat, but their vote as a group is less valuable to the Democratic Party than that of Latin American immigrants. This is a) because the number of African immigrants is dramatically smaller and b) because African immigrants have tended not to settle in swing states. The Washington Post reported in 2008 that about 40 percent live in the New York City area and 10 percent in the District of Columbia. About half of all the relatively few African immigrants in the United States live in California, New York, Texas, Maryland, DC or Virginia, of which only the last is presently regarded as a swing state.

• An annual global limit of 675,000 exists on the number of visas issued by the U.S. Department of State, with some exceptions allowed for immediate family members. Specifically, there are 480,000 visas available for family and 140,000 for employment. In keeping with the Immigration and Nationality Act, the State Department’s visa office manages visa allotments per-country on a monthly basis and has strict cut-offs, based on dates in which applications are filed, that determine who may be initially eligible to apply.

• In 2012, according to the U.S. Department of State, 42,167 immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa were granted immigration visas and, according to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 74,775 immigrants from all African countries became naturalized citizens. Throughout the Obama Administration, the number of visas granted to people from sub-Saharan African nations has ranged between 38,000 and just over 47,000 annually, while annual naturalizations ranged from around 64,000 to 75,000.

• According to the Migration Policy Institute, adult immigrants born in Africa were more likely than native-born Americans to have bachelor’s degrees or higher. The Immigration Policy Center reports that “two-fifths of African immigrants have at least a bachelor’s degree, and more than one-third work in professional jobs.”

• African immigrants are more likely to participate in the civilian labor force than other immigrants of the same gender and also are more likely to participate in the civilian labor force than are native-born Americans. Specifically, African-born immigrant males over 16 had an 83.7 percent labor force participation rate compared to 80.0 percent for all foreign-born men and 69.1 percent for native-born men. African-born women had a higher labor force participation rate, 67.2 percent, than all foreign-born women at 57.4 percent and native-born women at 60.2 percent.

• Only 29.1 percent of immigrants from Africa had limited English proficiency, compared to 52 percent of immigrants overall.

• The U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Immigration Statistics estimated there were 11.4 million illegal immigrants in the United States as of January 2012. Exact numbers of arriving illegal immigrants per year is impossible to determine, but 409,849 people were deported in fiscal year 2012 and 368,644 in fiscal year 2013.

• To obtain a legal visa for work or residency, an applicant must be sponsored by family, a lawful resident or employer and pay an application processing fee. They must also undergo a rigorous screening process that includes proving their financial stability, good health, good moral character and lack of a criminal record that would cause concern and submit to an interview with U.S. officials and a fingerprint scan. An attorney is not required, but some applicants do seek legal assistance and that practice is not discouraged by the State Department.

• There is a high demand for work visas. The H1-B visa program that allows for temporary work permits allowing businesses “to employ workers in occupations that require highly specialized knowledge in fields such as science, engineering and computer programming” reached its 85,000-applicant limit for fiscal year 2015 in April 2014.

• Some who obtained temporary visas later added to the illegal immigration problem. An estimated 40 percent of all illegal immigrants are people who illegally overstayed otherwise legal visas, according to Sara Murray of the Wall Street Journal, who also reported last year, “Of the people who gained legal status in 2003 and also spent time in the U.S. illegally, 13% overstayed tourist visas by more than six years.” Murray also reported, “…over the past decade the number of new arrivals overstaying their visas has fallen sharply, likely due in large part to stringent security measures put in place after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.”

What Project 21 Members Say About Potential Amnesty and its Effect on Legal Immigration

“As a former staffer for a member of Congress who worked with constituents to resolve their immigration problems, I can say with first-hand experience that those following our immigration laws are experiencing longer wait times as a result of all the attention and resources devoted to helping those who purposely circumvented our laws. Legal immigrants are forced to wait while those entering illegally are, for instance, enrolling in our public schools. It appears our immigration policy now is ‘break the law and we will break our backs to help you. Do it the right way and we punish you for it.'” — Project 21 member Shelby Emmett, Esq., a former congressional staff member and radio talk show host

“If the Obama Administration grants any type of amnesty that allows the illegal immigrants invading our country to stay, the President will basically be spitting in the face of every foreign-born naturalized American citizen who went through the proper legal path to citizenship. One such foreign-born naturalized citizen is my wife, who came from Africa. Like millions of other law-abiding foreign nationals, she waited in line and played by the rules when applying for her green card and ultimately becoming naturalized. How utterly disrespectful it would be to her and others — especially those from far-away lands — if President Obama simply gives the millions of illegals currently in our country a pass because they were able to slip across our border.” — Project 21 member and social commentator Darryn “Dutch” Martin

“It’s a travesty that there are Africans, Asians and others who would like to come to our nation and are willing to follow the rules who may lose out on their dream because someone else did not play fair, yet is essentially being rewarded by Obama for breaking the law. What this president can do to help the black community, and Americans of all colors, is get out of the way and stop this executive amnesty talk. Stop the job-killing policies he has set up through the EPA and ObamaCare to destroy workers, the middle class, and small business. Cut the social engineering of allowing this influx of illegals to flood the country in order to force amnesty. These would be good first steps.” — Project 21 member Wayne Dupree, talk show host on WAAR and Internet radio pioneer

What Others are Saying About Illegal Immigration’s Impact on Legal Immigration

• In 2012, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service shifted attention from regular visa processing to deal with illegal immigrants due to President Obama’s “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” (DACA) executive memorandum that halted deportation enforcement for certain young illegals. It reportedly delayed 500,000 legal applications in the process. Mark Kirkorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, wrote: “That’s half a million husbands, wives, and children of U.S. citizens — people whose expeditious immigration even I support, wholeheartedly — [who] have seen their wait times triple because the administration dumped an illegal amnesty program in the lap of an overwhelmed bureaucracy at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, with no additional resources to handle the workload. That means USCIS had to pull people off the processing of legal immigration applications to handle the amnesty applications of illegal aliens, leading to the increased wait times… [H]alf a million illegal aliens have received amnesty, forcing half a million husbands, wives and minor children of American citizens to go to the back of the line.”

• In an analysis of “administrative amnesty,” such as Obama’s 2012 DACA memorandum, Heritage Foundation Vice President Derrick Morgan and Homeland Security Research Associate David Inserra wrote: “Such presidential nullification of established immigration law is unjust to those who decided not to come to the United States because they would be doing so without authorization. Millions of people would fit into this category in Mexico alone. Granting amnesty for another class of people who violated our laws treats those who respect our laws with contempt. It is also unjust to the millions of Americans and resident legal immigrants who followed the rules. Many had to follow our sometimes lengthy process as relatives or spouses of those here legally. Others simply wanted to come to study or work in the United States and followed the rules to do so legally. Granting blanket amnesty to those who neglected to follow our law is a slap in the face to those who are following the rules.”

• Criticizing pending legislation in 2012 that would grant amnesty to illegal aliens, U.S. Representative Lamar Smith said: “President Obama’s amnesty blatantly ignores the rule of law that is the foundation of our democracy and violates his oath to uphold the laws of the land. Congress has the constitutional authority to determine our nation’s immigration laws… Executive branch discretionary authority is meant to be applied on a case-by-case basis, not to entire categories of illegal immigrants.”

• “There is nothing ‘anti-Hispanic’ about wanting to treat fairly the millions of Hispanics and other foreigners who have immigrated to this great country legally or are waiting in line to come here legally. On the contrary, those who equate lawlessness with being somehow pro-Hispanic or those who would punish law-abiding Hispanics waiting in line for the American Dream are far closer to being the racists.” — Charles Hurt, Washington Times columnist

* * *

So far this year, members of the Project 21 black leadership network have been interviewed or cited over 100 times by the media on the issue of immigration. Project 21 members were also interviewed or cited by the media over 1,000 other times this year, including TVOne, the Philadelphia Inquirer, Fox News Channel, Westwood One, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, SiriusXM satellite radio and 50,000-watt talk radio stations such as WBZ-Boston, WJR-Detroit and KDKA-Pittsburgh, on issues including civil rights, entitlement programs, the economy, race preferences, education and corporate social responsibility. Project 21 has participated in cases before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding race preferences and voting rights and defended voter ID laws at the United Nations. Its volunteer members come from all walks of life and are not salaried political professionals.

Project 21, a leading voice of black conservatives for over two decades, is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative, free-market, non-profit think-tank established in 1982. Contributions to the National Center are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Share

House Immigration Proposal a Step in Right Direction

Press Release from National Center for Public Policy Research – Project 21:

President Obama Should Show More Leadership in Deterring Travel to U.S. Border by Young Central Americans

“We need a solution that will plug our porous border and swiftly process and deport those who have come here against the law…”

Washington, DC – Activists with the Project 21 black leadership network are calling on President Obama to send a strong message to the leaders and the parents in Central American countries that their dangerous efforts to enter America illegally will not succeed.

The Project 21 activists also are expressing cautious approval of a plan in the House of Representatives next week to deal with the humanitarian crisis on the border.

“President Obama’s request for $3.7 billion in taxpayer money will simply manage the humanitarian crisis he created on our southern border. We need a solution that will plug our porous border and swiftly process and deport those who have come here against the law as it is written,” said Project 21’s Derryck Green.

The proposal put forward by House leaders provides approximately $1.5 billion in new funding and is to be paid for by cuts from existing spending allocations. A key element of the bill is changing the current law, passed in 2008, so young illegal immigrants from Central America and elsewhere are treated the same as those from Mexico and Canada. This will permit the U.S. Border Patrol to return these illegal aliens to their own countries more promptly by allowing it to immediately repatriate illegal aliens who wish to return. Those who do not voluntarily return will be given a hearing within a week to determine if they are likely to present a serious claim that they will be persecuted if returned to their own countries. Without a change in the law, Central American illegal immigrants will stay in the U.S., often for years, awaiting a full judicial review of their status.

Both President Obama and the Secretary of Homeland Security have in the past endorsed changes to the 2008 law so that Central Americans and Mexicans are treated the same under the law.

Legislation expected to be offered by Senate liberals who control that chamber may cost a pricier $2.7 billion and contains no policy changes.

“It’s great to see the House of Representatives taking a leadership role in the current border crisis. This appropriation should be used for shoring up border security, taking care of the immediate humanitarian needs of these children and for their transportation back home,” said Project 21’s Christopher Arps. “President Obama also needs to exercise some leadership, in between all of the fundraisers he’s been hosting, to send a strong message to the leaders and the parents in these Central American countries that their children are making a dangerous and illegal journey all for naught. America is a rightly described as a country made up of immigrants, and I wholeheartedly encourage legal immigration.”

Project 21’s Green, who regularly comments on the state of the American economy for the National Center for Public Policy Research, said: “Amnesty advocates claim illegal immigrant workers contribute to our economy, but the current crisis presents an entirely different situation that turns that claim on its head. It’s now all about children who will, unless we change our policies in a manner such as what is proposed in the House of Representatives, become reliant on American taxpayers for education, health care and other social services. Unless Obama plans to use his pen and phone to curtail the enforcement of child labor laws as well, the influx of young illegal immigrants is a complete drain with no recognizable short-term gains for hardworking, law-abiding taxpayers.”

According to a story by Seung Min Kim and Jake Sherman in Politico, the House proposal is expected to “allow access for Customs and Border Protection officials onto federal lands, and… detaining families apprehended at the border and processing their cases within five to seven days”; “boost the number of immigration court judges available to address asylum and credible fear claims, deploy the National Guard to the border to help care for the unaccompanied children, and bolster measures to disrupt transnational criminal organizations.”

It also “includes tougher penalties for human smugglers” and has additional strategizing mechanisms for strengthening border security, and it recommends an “‘aggressive’ messaging campaign in both the United States and abroad to advise against traveling to the United States illegally and to ‘dispel immigration myths.'”

Some House conservatives have expressed reservations about the House proposal, fearing it could lead to a conference committee on S. 744, the Senate-passed immigration bill often referred to as the “Gang of 8” bill, which is opposed by most conservatives.

In 2014, Project 21 members have already been interviewed or cited by the media over 800 times — including TVOne, the Philadelphia Inquirer, Fox News Channel, Westwood One, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, SiriusXM satellite radio and 50,000-watt talk radio stations such as WBZ-Boston and KDKA-Pittsburgh — on issues that include civil rights, entitlement programs, the economy, race preferences, education and corporate social responsibility. Project 21 has participated in cases before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding race preferences and voting rights and defended voter ID laws at the United Nations. Its volunteer members come from all walks of life and are not salaried political professionals.

Project 21, a leading voice of black conservatives for over two decades, is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative, free-market, non-profit think-tank established in 1982. Contributions to the National Center are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated .

Share