Summary

One of the most frequently cited justifications for sanctuary policies is the claim that immigrants are less willing to report victimization to authorities. A report was released by the Center for Immigration Studies casts doubt on this claim, using the latest data from the National Crime Victimization Survey.

Mark Krikorian, the Center’s executive director and host of Parsing Immigration Policy, moderates a rebroadcast of the Center’s recent panel discussing the report. Two of the study’s co-authors participated in the panel, Center researchers Jessica Vaughan and Steven Camarota. They were joined by Capt. Keith Harmon of the Collier County, Fla. Sheriff’s Department, which has long experience with ICE’s 287(g) program.

Summary

The National Border Patrol Museum captures the history and mission of the U.S. Border Patrol dating back to the creation of the agency in 1924. Mark Krikorian, the Center’s executive director and host of Parsing Immigration Policy, recently visited the unique museum, located in El Paso, Texas, and spoke with its president.

This museum, funded entirely by private donations, displays border surveillance and transportation equipment and other tools used on both the northern and southern borders by agents and by those attempting to illegally enter or smuggle people or drugs across the border. The museum also houses an extensive archival collection of Border Patrol documents, including a memo from WWII regarding the potential of entry of Axis agents through the southern border.

Summary

The historic surge of illegal immigration at the U.S. border has overwhelmed the U.S. Border Patrol, the agency charged with detecting and preventing illegal traffic between ports of entry.

In this week’s episode of Parsing Immigration Policy, Mark Krikorian, the Center’s executive director and host of the podcast, discusses this with border security expert Dr. Victor Manjarrez Jr.

Summary

The Center for Immigration has been following the polling of the immigration issue closely since the election of President Biden. The 2020 presidential campaign was largely devoid of any debate on immigration policy, meaning that very few Americans voted for Joe Biden because of his immigration positions. But polling shows that there has been consistent, and growing, opposition to the Biden administration’s immigration policies and actions. Will public opinion eventually force a change in current immigration policies, and how might Biden’s immigration policies influence the next election?

On this week’s episode of Parsing Immigration Policy, Andrew Arthur, the Center’s resident fellow in law and policy, discusses immigration polls and their influence on the Biden administration’s policies. Arthur said, “Polling shows that Biden’s immigration policies are plainly unpopular with a large swath of the electorate. We have seen the public’s response to the monthly apprehension numbers at the border and Biden’s push for an amnesty, and we certainly saw a public reaction to the images of large numbers of migrants crossing the Rio Grande and the encampments in Del Rio, Texas. Immigration has jumped in importance to the public, but whether it remains a key issue will depend on how bad the border disaster becomes.”

Summary

Thousands of illegal aliens poured into Del Rio, Texas last week forming an encampment that eventually peaked with an estimated 15,000 migrants. Thousands of mostly Haitians, but also Cubans and other nationalities, waited for processing to enter the country as an overwhelmed Biden administration struggled to control the growing camp, and Texas moved to stop the numbers from going even higher.

After several days of watching the numbers multiply, the Biden administration moved to control the political damage of the shantytown, and began deporting some Haitians to their native country; however, most of them had been living and working in Brazil and Chile for years, and fled to Mexico instead of risking deportation.

Summary

The “public charge” doctrine – meaning that a person likely to have to be supported by taxpayers (a public charge) should not be permitted to immigrate – is one of the oldest elements of American immigration policy. Colonial Massachusetts enacted the earliest public charge law in 1645, while the first immigration law at the federal level, in 1882, likewise excluded immigrants who were likely to become a burden on taxpayers.

But then as now, the main question is how to define public charge.

Summary

There is no more important tool for preventing future attacks on U.S. soil than the nation’s immigration system. The 20th anniversary of the attacks that claimed thousands of American lives is an appropriate occasion to reflect on the role immigration failures played in the 9/11 attacks and the progress made in limiting opportunities for future terrorism. Americans may disagree on the level of immigration, and its costs and benefits, but few would argue against the importance of keeping foreign-born terrorists out of the country and apprehending terrorists who have entered the U.S.

In this week’s episode of Parsing Immigration Policy, Todd Bensman, the Center’s senior national security fellow, discusses the role of immigration law in protecting the American people. He highlights the importance of the National Vetting Center and the national security implications of an open southern border. What further policy changes are needed to keep us safe?

Summary

Every year the United States welcomes more than one million legal immigrants; two-thirds of this population are family members brought in through chain migration. With an average immigrant sponsoring 3.45 family members, the U.S. immigration flow is always impacted by chain migration.

The thousands of Afghans being resettled in the U.S. will be able to eventually petition for more relatives, just as all illegal immigrants granted amnesty would be able to bring in family members. On this week’s episode of Parsing Immigration Policy, Jessica Vaughan, the Center’s director of policy studies, joins host Mark Krikorian to discuss chain migration, its impact, and possible policy changes. Should immigrants be entitled to bring in their adult siblings and their families? Adult children and their families? Parents? The larger question is whether we should continue to allow yesterday’s immigrants to select tomorrow’s immigrants.

Summary

With the fall of the U.S.-backed government in Kabul, large numbers of Afghans are fleeing the country. In particular, the United States has sought to evacuate those Afghans who would be in danger of Taliban reprisals for their cooperation with American authorities.

To discuss this urgent issue, this week’s episode of Parsing Immigration Policy features two analysts at the Center for Immigration Studies. Dr. Nayla Rush, a senior researcher at the Center, explains the potential size of the flow of people to the United States from Afghanistan and the various programs (like Special Immigrant Visas and the Priority 2 refugee program) that Afghans will use to move here.

Summary

Today’s immigration policy debate focuses on many of the same issues as it did decades ago, including numbers, amnesties, labor impact, fiscal costs, and legislative strategy. In this week’s episode of Parsing Immigration Policy, George Fishman, former Department of Homeland Security

Deputy General Counsel and Republican Counsel on the House Immigration Subcommittee for over two decades, shares his institutional knowledge on immigration and legislative strategy and its application to today’s debates. Fishman became part of the immigration policy debate in the mid-1990s at the time of the bipartisan U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, the “Barbara Jordan Commission.” He discusses his participation in the three important immigration legislative battles that followed – in 1995-96, 2005-07, and 2013-14 – and what that experience can teach us today.

Summary

Congress passed the “Magna Carta” of environmental law, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), more than 50 years ago. NEPA mandates that all federal agencies consider the environmental implications of actions before they are undertaken; the environmental impact statements are then required to be made public, so that individuals have the opportunity to comment on government actions that will affect their communities. The law begins with a “Congressional Declaration of National Environmental Policy” which identifies the impact of population growth as one of the law’s chief concerns. Despite this, no environmental analysis has been performed on any immigration action in the decades since NEPA’s passage, even though the federal government’s main influence on U.S. population numbers comes through its immigration policies.

Julie Axelrod, the director of litigation for the Center for Immigration Studies, pioneered using NEPA to sue government agencies for not conducting environmental analysis on immigration actions. On this week’s episode of Parsing Immigration Policy, Axelrod discusses the NEPA lawsuits filed against the Department of Homeland Security for ignoring immigration actions in its NEPA procedures.

Summary

Few politicians have studied United States immigration and immigration policies as comprehensively as the late civil-rights icon, the first African American congresswoman to come from the Deep South, and chairwoman of President Clinton’s Commission on Immigration Reform, U.S. Representative Barbara Jordan (TX). The bi-partisan commission produced guiding principles for American immigration policies as well as specific recommendations – all but one recommendation was unanimous.

This week Parsing Immigration Policy features Eric Ruark, director of research at NumbersUSA, an immigration advocacy organization that has become the unofficial steward of the Jordan Commission’s reports and research. Ruark discusses the Jordan Commission’s report, how the Commission defined the purpose of immigration laws and the key recommendations, including a reduction in legal immigration and ending illegal immigration. Jordan advocated for a system that was in the best interest of the American people and protected the most vulnerable U.S. workers as opposed to employers.

Summary

The ever-expanding Central American Minors Refugee/Parole program (CAM), launched in 2014 (and expanded in 2016) by the Obama administration, and terminated in 2017 by the Trump administration, has expanded further under the Biden administration. In this week’s episode of Parsing Immigration Policy, Dr. Nayla Rush, a senior researcher at the Center for Immigration Studies, explains how an in-country processing family unification program for those who came to the United States illegally has expanded under the Biden administration to include adults unrelated to the petitioner, married adult children, and even the relatives of U-visa applicants – illegal immigrants claiming to be victims of certain crimes.

Will expansion of those eligible to apply for the CAM program solve the border crisis? Rush explains why the program will not discourage unaccompanied minors and other migrants/asylum seekers from showing up at our border.

Summary

Immigration has dominated headlines over the past week, and this week’s episode of Parsing Immigration Policy brings together Center for Immigration Studies experts to analyze these issues. The roundtable discussion covers the recent federal court ruling on DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), the newly released border apprehension numbers for June, and the possibility of Senate passage of an amnesty via a budget “reconciliation” rule.

Robert Law, the Center’s director of regulatory affairs and policy, weighs-in on the federal court ruling on DACA, which created President Obama’s executive amnesty program that awarded work permits and Social Security numbers to illegal aliens. Although the judge found the program to be an “illegally implemented program,” he ruled that DACA recipients, along with their employers, states, and loved ones, have come to rely on the DACA program, and his decision does not revoke work permits from the current DACA population. What are the implications of this decision? Will it be appealed?

Summary

Despite attempts by advocates to downplay the evidence that immigration hurts U.S. workers, the empirical evidence is overwhelming. In this week’s episode of Parsing Immigration Policy, Jason Richwine, a Resident Scholar at the Center, highlights Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) cases in which a clear pattern of discrimination against U.S. workers emerges. Dr. Richwine and Mark Krikorian, the Center’s executive director and host of the podcast, discuss how this qualitative evidence complements the quantitative studies that have found similar impacts. They lament that D.C. journalists – and even some activist academics – seem more interested in pro-immigration talking points than they are in fair summaries of the literature.

In his Closing Commentary, Krikorian notes that the old “wet foot/dry foot” policy for Cuban illegal immigrants may be making a comeback in a different form. DHS Secretary Mayorkas announced this week that migrants fleeing unrest in Cuba and Haiti will be turned away – but only if they are caught at sea. Mayorkas neglected to mention that many migrants at the southern border – including thousands of Haitians and Cubans – are already being admitted, particularly if they bring a child with them, so long as they step foot on the north bank of the Rio Grande.

Summary

Much academic work has been published on U.S. employer preference for hiring foreign low-skill labor over American workers, particularly black American workers. In this week’s episode of Parsing Immigration Policy, Amy Wax, the Robert Mundheim Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, highlights reasons why employers might seek to hire foreign nationals and the implications for American workers and society. Wax and Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and host of the podcast, explore the impact of the government permitting a constant flow of low-skill immigration, especially the harm done to low-skill American workers, who are less able to develop skills or support a family and may drop out of the workforce all together.

What would be the long-term implications for our country if immigration of unskilled foreign workers were reduced and policies putting Americans back to work were prioritized?

Summary

Few individuals can boast immigration research experience spanning more than six decades. David North, a Senior Fellow at the Center, is one of them.

North was introduced to immigration policy during the Eisenhower administration, when he first encountered the migrant farmworker issue as an employee of the state of New Jersey. He expanded that involvement as a political appointee in the Kennedy administration Labor Department and has continued working on the issue through to present day.

Summary

The nation’s two largest cash assistance programs for low income workers redistribute taxpayer funds from legal workers to illegal immigrants. This week, Dr. Steven Camarota, the Center’s director of research, and Mark Krikorian, the Center’s executive director and host of Parsing Immigration Policy, discuss the billions of dollars of cash payments from the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC) sent to illegal immigrants who have no income tax liability and the impact the policies allowing this has on immigration law. Sending cash payments to illegal immigrants through the tax system shows just how unserious the government is about controlling immigration.

In his Concluding Commentary, Mark Krikorian highlighted the anachronistic nature of our immigration system, as “an artifact of post-World War II, early Cold-War politics”, that was incorporated into U.S. law in 1980 in the Refugee Act. He concludes that, in the 21st century, “it’s long past time to reassess the way we do refugee resettlement”, beginning with a withdrawal from the United Nations refugee treaty to permit

Summary

The 287(g) program, created by Congress to enable trained local officers to work in partnership with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), serves as a force multiplier by taking illegal aliens who have been arrested for state or local crimes off the street. Lacking the personnel to address the large population of deportable criminal aliens in the country, ICE has developed 287(g) agreements with 146 law enforcement agencies across 25 states.

Former ICE Chief of Staff Jon Feere, now Director of Investigations at the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), and Mark Krikorian, the CIS executive director and host of Parsing Immigration Policy, discuss the Biden administration’s hostility towards 287(g) and its problematic decision to cancel a 287(g) partnership between ICE and the Bristol County Sheriff’s Office in Massachusetts.

Summary

The State of Texas is the epicenter of the illegal immigration crisis and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has been setting the example for how states can challenge the illegality of Biden administration immigration policies. In this week’s episode, Paxton describes how his office has so far filed five lawsuits challenging Biden immigration policies and says more are likely. He also describes what he has seen and heard from law enforcement and local officials during several recent trips to the border.

In his Closing Commentary, Mark Krikorian, the Center’s executive director and host of Parsing Immigration Policy, addresses Vice President Harris’s plea to potential migrants in Central America not to make the journey to the U.S. border, claiming that they will be turned back. But the country’s actions matter more than Harris’s words. The message has already gotten back to Central America and beyond that her rhetoric is not true – the U.S. is not, in fact, enforcing its laws or securing its border.