# data[].attributes.body
This site states many reasons why immigration should not be allowed including ways to prevent it like increasing border security

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Since a bipartisan group of senators, known as the "Gang of Eight," introduced the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 (also called the immigration reform bill S 744) on April 16, the anti-immigrant movement has worked to derail progress on the bill. Anti-immigrant groups have decried the bill in number of ways, claiming it will hurt American workers, weaken national security and lead to increases in "legal" immigration and an influx of cheap labor in the United States.

Claiming to be on the side of American workers

One of the anti-immigrant movement's main tactics in this immigration debate is claiming to take the side of the "American worker." Anti-immigrant groups assert that the unemployment rate is very high and as more immigrants become documented, the more they will compete for jobs with Americans. Historically, the anti-immigrant movement has attempted to co-opt issues and groups such as labor. The movement founded a front group called the Coalition for the Future American Worker in the 2000s, which was comprised of numerous anti-immigrant organizations. In the current battle to defeat immigration reform, the anti-immigrant movement is again targeting organized labor, like the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), claiming it does not represent the American worker because of the AFL-CIO's support of immigration reform. In an April 1 press release, Dan Stein, the president of the extreme anti-immigrant group Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) claimed, "The AFL-CIO has consistently failed to stand with American workers...." The anti-immigrant movement asserts that the immigration reform bill is an assault on the American worker.

In response to the introduction of the bill, Roy Beck, president of NumbersUSA, a grassroots anti-immigrant group that helped stop the 2007 immigration reform bill, stated on April 17 in a Bloomberg article, "We will be doing everything we can to help the 20 million unemployed Americans have a voice and be heard in this debate."

William Gheen, the founder of the North Carolina-based anti-immigrant group Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC), wrote in an April 17 press release after the introduction of the bill, "We believe that this bill will hurt American workers, taxpayers, students, and voters by both destroying our future abilities to control our borders and by encouraging more illegal immigration into our suffering nation!"

The Virginia-based anti-immigrant group Americans for Immigration Control (AIC) wrote the following in an email to supporters on April 18, "Also, on top of the amnesty is a massive increase in legal immigration and guest workers to take American jobs-this at a time when 20 million Americans can't find full-time employment."

Attacking "cheap labor"

In addition to its claim to be standing up for the "American worker," the anti-immigrant movement consistently targets the big business community for its support of immigration reform. After the introduction of the bill, many anti-immigrant groups spoke out against what they believe will be an influx of "cheap labor" into the job market. The attack on the big business community is an attempt to strengthen the movement's claims that it supports Americans who are unemployed and underemployed:

Ira Mehlman, media director for the anti-immigrant group Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), claimed in an April 17 Bloomberg article, "Our goal is to make the American public aware that there's nothing in it for them." Mehlman went on to argue that the bill contains "all sorts of goodies for people who broke our laws and people who want to hire cheap labor."

Gayle Kesselman, head of the New Jersey-based anti-immigrant group New Jersey Citizens for Immigration Control (NJCIC), argued against "cheap labor" in an April 16 Washington Free Beacon article, stating, "Cheap labor is not cheap. Many do not have the equivalent of a high school education and are not literate in English. It's a huge cost in terms of social benefits. They go to the emergency room for health care. ... You can even make the case that we imported the health care crisis.";

Dan Stein echoed his colleague Ira Mehlman's comments in an April 16 FAIR press release, arguing, "This legislation is all about satisfying the demands of illegal aliens and their advocates for amnesty and providing business interests access to low-wage foreign labor."

Focus on border security

The anti-immigrant movement also claims that the immigration reform bill's enforcement and border security measures should be implemented up front and not over a period of time. Many argue that providing undocumented immigrants with a pathway to citizenship will make our border less secure. By focusing on what they perceive as border security problems they have also tried to bridge immigration with the issue of terrorism:

In an April 16 press release, Dan Stein argued, "Simply put, Congress has no business even introducing amnesty legislation until the Obama administration secures the border, sets forth clear and transparent metrics to measure its success, and demonstrates to the American people it is serious about enforcing our immigration laws across the country. Border security and the rule of law should not be held hostage to amnesty for illegal aliens."

Rep. Lou Barletta (R-PA), a co-chair of FAIR's board of advisors, claimed the following in April 18 McClatchy article when asked for his opinion on the bill, "We have immigration laws for two reasons. One, to protect our national security. Two, to protect American jobs. The proposal of the Senate Gang of Eight violates both of those principles. We'll make our borders less secure, and by offering a pathway to citizenship we encourage millions of people to rush to the United States to benefit from this proposal."

In an April 24 blog for National Review Online, Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), claimed, "Last week's bombings were a bloody reminder that our immigration-security efforts leave much to be desired. And this bill either ignores many of those concerns, or makes them worse."

Pushing for limits on legal immigration

It is well-known that the anti-immigrant movement in the United States is opposed to undocumented immigration. It is less widely reported that the movement is also in favor of lowering the number of "legal" immigrants admitted into the country each year. FAIR takes this one step further, calling for a moratorium on all immigration to the United States. After the introduction of the immigration reform bill, many anti-immigrant groups argued that the bill would result in large increases in "legal" immigration:

Ric Oberlink, a spokesperson for the Santa Barbara-based anti-immigrant group Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS), told the Los Angeles Times on April 16, "When we have massive unemployment in the U.S., I don't think we need to be increasing immigration and bringing in people to take jobs when there are American citizens and legal immigrants who need jobs."

NumbersUSA published an update on its website on April 16 alleging, "The bill could result in an additional 15 million green cards being issued in the first 10 years above and beyond the 1.1 million green cards that are currently issued each year. That would result in more than a 150% increase in legal immigration over the first decade after the bill's passage."

On April 18, Joe Guzzardi, a senior writing fellow for CAPS, claimed in an article for GOPUSA.com, "As if granting legal status to aliens isn't bad enough, a preliminary analysis of the bill shows that legal immigration could increase by up to 100 percent. Current legal immigration totals about 1 million annually."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Since a bipartisan group of senators, known as the "Gang of Eight," introduced the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 (also called the immigration reform bill S 744) on April 16, the anti-immigrant movement has worked to derail progress on the bill.

# data[].attributes.body
This article gives the top four arguments to reason why immigration should not be allowed in the united States

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Less than two weeks after the Senate passed a historic immigration reform bill by a bipartisan 68-32 margin, opponents of reform have already started peddling a bevy of reality-defying excuses about why the House of Representatives should not follow suit. Faced with overwhelming support from stakeholders and groups across the political spectrum-from the Service Employees International Union, the AFL-CIO, and the National Council of La Raza, to the American Action Forum, Americans for Tax Reform, and the American Conservative Union -opponents of reform are grasping at straws in their effort to block reform from happening.

In potentially the most extreme example, William Kristol of The Weekly Standard and Rich Lowry of the National Review laid their cards on the table, urging the House to refuse to bring any bill to conference with the Senate for fear that immigration reform might actually pass. In their desperation, this small group of immigration opponents has coalesced around the following four arguments against the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, or S. 744, each of which requires a suspension of reality:

The Senate shut the American people out of the process of immigration reform by writing the bill behind closed doors.

Immigration reform will hurt working-class Americans.

The Obama administration will refuse to implement the border-security and enforcement strategies written into the bill.

Republicans can simply ignore Latino voters and continue to win elections by maximizing their share of white voters.

These arguments wither under scrutiny.

Myth No. 1: Congress shut the American people out of the process of immigration reform. In their joint op-ed, titled "Kill the Bill," Kristol and Lowry argue that because of "the sheer size of the bill and the hasty manner in which it was amended and passed," it should be defeated in the House, while Michael Patrick Leahy of Brietbart News argued that it is "unlikely any of the 68 Senators who voted in favor of it had read the entire bill."

Fact: Even Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), who led the opposition to S. 744 on the Senate floor, praised the "open and transparent" way that Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) held hearings, as well as the committee's markup of the bill. There were 71 days between when the bill was introduced in committee and when it was voted on, giving members and the public more than ample time to read the bill. The Senate Judiciary Committee spent five separate days debating the bill, considering a total of 212 suggested amendments and adopting more than 90 of them, the vast majority of which had bipartisan support. The full Senate then spent three weeks working on the bill before voting. At each step of the process, all parts of the bill and the amendments were posted online, giving anyone the opportunity to read through the changes and comment on each one.

Myth No. 2: Immigration reform will harm working-class and middle-class Americans. Jay Cost of The Weekly Standard and Fred Bauer of the National Review-not inconsequentially, both are writers for the very same magazines as Kristol and Lowry-in a pair of columns published on Monday, dredge up many of the misguided arguments that The Heritage Foundation has been pushing for months about immigrants being uniformly lesser-skilled workers who hurt the wages of lesser-skilled Americans.

Fact: The reality is that economists have repeatedly found that immigrants do not bring down the wages of lesser-skilled Americans and instead find that immigrants actually have small but positive effects on native workers' wages and job prospects. These positive effects arise because immigrants tend to complement, rather than compete with, native workers; are consumers who spend money in the economy, stimulating business demand; and are entrepreneurial, starting businesses and helping to employ American workers.

Cost and Bauer also fail to take into account the fact that immigration reform itself will improve the American economy, creating jobs and prosperity for allAmericans. Studies have found that legalized workers earn higher wages, which in turn means they pay more in taxes. These higher wages circulate through the economy: Providing legal status to the 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the country would create 121,000 jobs each year, raise the wages of allAmericans by $470 billion, and increase our gross domestic product by a cumulative $832 billion over a decade.

Legalizing immigrants would also support the solvency of the Social Security system during its period of greatest strain over the next three-and-a-half decades, as the Baby Boomers-America's largest generation-retire and begin to claim their benefits. During this period newly legalized immigrants would add a total of $606 billion to the system, supporting 2.4 million American retirees.

Finally, as the Congressional Budget Office points out, S. 744 would also go far in reducing the deficit, saving $158 billion over the first decade and $685 billion over the second decade.

Myth No. 3: The administration will simply decline to implement border security and enforcement. Kristol and Lowry, as well as Rep. Raúl Labrador (R-ID), have alleged that the administration's decision this week to delay implementation of the Affordable Care Act's employer mandate-which requires that businesses provide health insurance for their workers-gives them reason to believe that either this or a future administration will simply decline to implement any of the border-security or enforcement provisions of S. 744.

Fact: Trying to leverage Obamacare implementation as an argument against immigration reform is breathtakingly cynical. It attempts to distract readers from the bill itself by ginning up an emotional response to a wholly unrelated issue. As Slate's Matthew Yglesias puts it, "This plays well to the hard-right prejudice that Barack Obama is too much of a black Muslim socialist foreigner to be a legitimate president, and that his very presence in office suspends the ordinary rules of constructive governance."

The bill itself includes specific triggers, before which no immigrants can complete the pathway to citizenship. If the Obama administration or a future administration chooses to delay or not implement the border-security provisions in the bill-including doubling the number of Border Patrol agents on the southern border, building 700 miles of fencing, deploying $40 billion in technology, implementing mandatory E-Verify for all employers, and implementing a full electronic exit system to track visa over-stayers-then not a single person with the temporary Registered Provisional Immigrant status can become a permanent resident. It is as simple as that.

Believing that the administration would somehow decline to secure the border flies in the face of increasingly harsh and expansive immigration-enforcement policies that have taken place over the past 20 years. The pundits calling for border security to precede other reforms willfully ignore that our national policy has been to spend a king's ransom on adding more personnel and technology onto the southern border than ever before. In addition to the literal militarization of the border, with the stationing of National Guard troops there, we have deported more than 3 million people over the past 10 years, with record-breaking numbers-more than 400,000 people per year under the current administration. The United States currently spends more each year on immigration enforcement than on all other federal law enforcement combined. At 21,394, the number of Border Patrol agents is more than double the number of agents a decade ago, and apprehensions at the southern border, which the Department of Homeland Security uses as a proxy for the number of people who try to cross each year, are at their lowest point in 40 years.

As The Wall Street Journal's editorial page points out, "For some Republicans, border security has become a ruse to kill reform."

Myth No. 4: The Republican Party can ignore Latino voters and still win elections. In a four-part series for RealClearPolitics, an online journalism hub, Sean Trende argues against the idea that Republicans need to focus on appeasing the Latino voting bloc by passing immigration reform. Instead, he says, Republicans can ignore Latino voters and work on winning a greater percentage of the white vote. Conservative pundit Ann Coulter took this idea even further, arguing that the GOP " deserves to die " if it helps immigration reform pass and calling Latino voters only "a small portion of the electorate."

Fact: The idea that the Republican Party should focus only on its white base by rejecting immigration reform relies on fallacious premises, highly dubious future projections, and a disturbing view of whose interests the party should represent-i.e., only white Americans.

The substance of this mythical argument is fundamentally inaccurate. Trende argues that potentially millions of white voters failed to vote in 2012, and if these eligible voters were to visit the polls in future elections, there would be no need to make in-roads with other groups. But as demographers Ruy Teixeira and Alan Abramowitz point out, this analysis is fatally flawed, disregarding the fact that turnout among allvoters-including Latinos, Asians, and African Americans, as well as white voters-was low in 2012. Adding back minority voters along with white voters in future elections leaves Republicans in the same demographic dilemma as they are currently in: As Nate Cohn puts it in The New Republic, "to counter [these] demographic changes by 2016, the GOP will need broader appeal than it's had since 1984."

As Public Policy Polling finds, this approach may not even help them in the immediate term-in the 2014 midterm elections-before the dual demographic trends of shrinking white populations and rising Latino populations accelerate even more. That poll showed that seven key Republican-held House seats could be up for grabs if immigration reform fails to pass. Between 61 percent and 69 percent of voters in these districts in California, Colorado, Minnesota, Nevada, and New York support the Senate bill, with more than three-quarters of voters in each district arguing that it is important to pass immigration reform this year.

Most importantly, as conservative pundit Karl Rove illustrates, focusing only on the immediate gains to be had from white voters is a long-term strategy of political suicide that rejects the changing face of America and does not embrace the demographic reality of the 21st century. Likewise, as polling from Americans for a Conservative Direction makes clear, Republican voters themselves support immigration reform in droves: 96 percent of surveyed Republican voters said that it was very important or somewhat important to fix the immigration system, while two-thirds voiced support for a pathway to citizenship when coupled with additional border security.

Conclusion

As Greg Sargent of The Washington Post points out, these myths are being put forward by opponents of immigration reform, who are looking for any reason to kill S. 744 and try to escape the blame for its failure. The fact of the matter is that the Senate-passed immigration reform bill is a strong bipartisan compromise that will bring our nation's immigration laws into the 21st century. It includes a significant investment in border security and interior enforcement, modernizes future immigration to the United States, and puts 11 million people on the path to citizenship and to becoming full and equal members of society. Simply opposing immigration on its face or with fallacious facts is no longer an option.
Marshall Fitz is Director of Immigration Policy and Philip E. Wolgin is Senior Policy Analyst for Immigration at the Center for American Progress.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Top 4 Reality-Defying Arguments Against Immigration Reform - Center for American Progress

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Less than two weeks after the Senate passed a historic immigration reform bill by a bipartisan 68-32 margin, opponents of reform have already started peddling a bevy of reality-defying excuses about why the House of Representatives should not follow suit.

# data[].attributes.body
the table below shows the growing number of conflicts with Hispanic immigrants. It shows how conflicts are growing each year and how the immigrants are endangering more and more people

# data[].attributes.body
this graph shows the cost of all the programs and administration in the past years. It shows that the cost is only rising with each year. It wants us to see how deportation is a waste of time and money.

# data[].attributes.body
this website proves with many sets of data that immigrants bring in economic aid to an economy that is struggling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Your usage has been flagged as a violation of our terms of service.

For inquiries related to this message please contact support. For sales inquiries, please visit http://www.bloomberg.com/professional/request-demo

If you believe this to be in error, please confirm below that you are not a robot by clicking "I'm not a robot" below.

Please make sure your browser supports JavaScript and cookies and that you are not blocking them from loading. For more information you can review the Terms of Service and Cookie Policy.

Block reference ID:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Your usage has been flagged as a violation of our terms of service. For inquiries related to this message please contact support. For sales inquiries, please visit http://www.bloomberg.com/professional/request-demo

# data[].attributes.body
This site is for amnesty. they argue that amnesty should be past by proving different points. They said that amnesty is good for the economy, illegal immigrants already pay taxes, most illegal immigrants are law-abiding, and immigration is a natural right.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Immigration reform returned to center stage in Washington last week with a proposal from a bipartisan group of senators that was promptly endorsed in principle by President Barack Obama. One of the lynchpins of the proposal is providing a "path to citizenship" for those who are currently in the country illegally, a concept that opponents were quick to label "amnesty." Obama of course denies any talk of amnesty, saying instead that he wants illegal immigrants to pay penalties, pay taxes, learn English, and then go "to the back of the line."

But what's wrong with granting amnesty to hard-working, tax-paying individuals whose only crime is their immigration status? Indeed, amnesty is not only the best solution to our immigration problem, it is the only feasible solution. Here are five reasons to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants now.
Note: All images are from the Georgetown Bookshop and are available as posters. Click through on images for more details and more images. 1. Immigration Is Good for the Economy
For all the rhetoric about immigrants stealing jobs, immigration actually provides a benefit to the national economy, whether those immigrants crossed the border legally or not. Why? Because of what economists call the specialization of labor. As Jonathan Hoenig, proprietor of the Capitalist Pig blog, explains: "The fact that foreigners are eager to pick crops, clean houses, bus tables and produce allows more of us to afford cheaper food and better services, affording us even more wealth to enjoy and invest. It's not the immigrants, but the taxes, spending and entitlements (most of which immigrants don't even receive) that have drained the economy dry."
Next: But aren't they dodging the taxman?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 Reasons to Grant Amnesty to Illegal Immigrants

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Immigration reform returned to center stage in Washington last week with a proposal from a bipartisan group of senators that was promptly endorsed in principle by President Barack Obama. One of the lynchpins of the proposal is providing a "path to citizenship" for those who are currently in the co