My Views on H.R. 4760 - Securing America's Future Act of 2018

Overall, this has:
a. modest reductions in lawful immigration quotas
(that future scofflaws will probably ignore too)
b. visa goodies for "cheap labor" Republicans
c. a potentially good mandatory employment verification Legal Workforce Act
(get ready to hear nearly every horror story and demand for repeal)
d. some good border security reforms
e. no substantial wall funding I can spot
f. a very dubious Grahamnesty

SEC. 1101. Family-sponsored immigration priorities.
yes, but be aware the DACA scofflaws are mainly from counties with quotas below immigrant desire

SEC. 1103. Employment-based immigration priorities
[H-2B: 140,000 -> 195,000 workers]
I suggest:
1. eliminating the totally fraudulent process of claiming an American can't be found to do the work
2. requiring new visa H-2B workers to punch a clock
3. requiring employers pay a $4/hour tax when any new visa H-2B worker is paid less than $30/hour (by pay period)
4. requiring employers to pay a $9,000 fee/new visa

A. non-manufacturing fruit/vegetable/nut work done on a farm or on the premises of a packing house(350,000 visa workers max)
Change required minimum wage to highest of:
a. 120% of the applicable minimum wage, for indoor work
b. 130% of the applicable minimum wage, for outdoor work
c. 140% of the general federal minimum wage, for outdoor work
d. going rate for the work

B. meat/poultry abattoir killing/disemboweling work (20,000 visa workers max)
Change required minimum hourly wage to highest of:
b. 140% of the applicable minimum wage
c. 160% of the general federal minimum wage
d. going rate for the work

I suggest eliminating the process of claiming an American can't be found to do such work. Enough Americans will do such unpleasant work if the wages are high enough and fairly paid.

TITLE IV—Asylum Reform
generally yes
yes -The Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish quality assurance procedures
no - uniform manner of questioning
The Secretary should be able to require questions to be asked (by country and region of possible danger), but DHS employees should be allowed to be innovative and probing.
[We don't want asylum applicants to be able to give canned answers to every possible question.]

TITLE V—Unaccompanied and Accompanied Alien Minors Apprehended Along the Border
I believe yes

TITLE I—Border Security
I believe the active method (complemented by phased-in mandatory E-verify) is appropriate.

I'm not a big believer in walls except near built-up areas. Mexicans who dynamite or bulldoze parts of Trump's wall will be Mexican heroes.

The bill has a handy list of laws that could use to block wall construction and other border security efforts.

I would recommend that language be added that environmental laws shall not apply to federal border security efforts within 500 feet of the border.

TITLE II—Emergency Port of Entry Personnel and Infrastructure Funding
I believe yes, especially the biometric part

TITLE IV—Transnational Criminal Organization Illicit Spotter Prevention and Elimination
I believe yes

DIVISION D—Lawful Status for Certain Childhood Arrivals
[This DACA II stuff is way, way too broad]

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS.—The requirements under this paragraph are that the alien—
(A) is physically present in the United States on the date on which the alien submits an application for contingent nonimmigrant status;
(B) was physically present in the United States on June 15, 2007;

(C) was younger than 16 years of age on the date the alien initially entered the United States;
[That age is a big flaw.]
[anybody over age 8 will normally be able to speak their native country's language fluently]
[anybody over age 6 will normally be able to speak their native country's language well enough to adjust to deportation well]
[I say make it age 6.]

(E) was under 31 years of age on June 15, 2012, and at the time of filing an application under subsection (c);
[This absurdly would be letting in everyone under age 36.]
[Anybody who should now have over five years of work experience in the USA should be able to get a job back home.]
[I say make it 18 years of age.]

[If Democrats will toss enough Catalog of Domestic Assistance programs into the trash heap of history, I'd make a deal on age in exchange.]

[I would make an opening for aliens that have been reliable (every possible year, less one or two at most, since age 18 or graduation) and substantial (1040 > $1,000/year) US taxpayers.]

(F) has maintained continuous physical presence in the United States from June 15, 2012, until the date on which the alien is granted contingent nonimmigrant status under this section;
[no continuous presence should be required, I have proposed 1,500 provable days since initial entry in total in the past]
[I believe this clause is meant to ensure no DACA person voluntarily returns home and stays there, reducing the number of probable future leftist voters.]

(G) had no lawful immigration status on June 15, 2012;
(H) has requested the release to the Department of Homeland Security of all records regarding their being adjudicated delinquent in State or local juvenile court proceedings, and the Department has obtained all such records; and
(I) possesses a valid Employment Authorization Document which authorizes the alien to work as of the date of the enactment of this Act, which was issued pursuant to the June 15, 2012, U.S. Department of Homeland Security Memorandum entitled, “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion With Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children”.
[We shouldn't encourage a repeat of that Obamanation.]
[Memorandums shouldn't replace Acts of Congress.]
[The 1986 bipartisan "one-time" deal (followed by six more defective deals) was that future scofflaws would get deported.]
[Donkeys and elephants both seem have bad memories and motives.]

I would add a requirement that an alien under age 18 have a relative that:
1. immigrated lawfully
2. maintains a residence in the USA
3. has had an income based on existing IRS records averaging at least $15,000/year for at least two years within 2014-2017
[We don't want to have to pay for Third World orphans or welfare system dependent children.]

I would add a requirement that the alien submit proof that the alien had:
1. a parent or sibling of US lawful work age earning income (lawfully or illegally) in the US at the time of entry, or
2. had a parent or sibling of US lawful work age detained by a domestic government within 10 days after crossing the border together with the alien
[We don't want more potential welfare system dependent children trying to get into the USA. Thirteen-year old scofflaws shouldn't be scaling our border walls.]

GROUNDS FOR INELIGIBILITY
....
(L) if over the age of 18, has failed to demonstrate that he or she is able to maintain himself or herself at an annual income that is not less than 125 percent of the Federal poverty level throughout the period of admission as a contingent nonimmigrant, unless the alien has demonstrated that the alien is enrolled in, and is in regular full-time attendance at, an educational institution within the United States;
[We don't want second-rate scofflaws admitted for political reasons clogging up colleges in California and other Democratic states.]
[An educational institution might even be a training academy for Democratic activists.]
[I would make it:
[if over 18,
[failed to maintain or prove full-time high school or college enrollment and participation in any three-month quarter since turning 18 and
[failed to maintain or prove an average taxable income of $300 per week excluding
[no more than twenty weeks (plus weeks in regular full-time high school/college/trade school attendance) in any calendar year (in the last three)(the alien was over age 18)

(M) is delinquent with respect to any Federal, State, or local income or property tax liability;
[Aliens can make tax filing mistakes just like a California politician's homeowners association, whose private street was sold for back taxes.]
[I would make it delinquent over $500 with respect to Federal, State, local income and property tax liabilities.]
[Student loans? Don't ask, don't tell.]

(O) has income that would result in tax liability under section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and that was not reported to the Internal Revenue Service; or
[I would make it income after 2012 over $5,000...that was not reported. These people often work for cash that gets spent and not reported.]

(B) INTERVIEW.—The Secretary shall conduct an in-person interview of each applicant for contingent nonimmigrant status under this section as part of the determination as to whether the alien meets the eligibility requirements set forth in subsection (b).
[800,000+ applicants, one Secretary]
[I suggest:
[The Secretary shall arrange for an in-person interview to be conducted of each applicant...]

Aliens applying for contingent nonimmigrant status under this section shall pay a border security fee to the Department of Homeland Security in an amount of $1,000.
[I would also want 20 years of quarterly fees ($300 or more each, age > 19 & < age 24, $500 or more each, age 24 or more) to be paid into the Old Age Social Security Trust Fund to maintain status too.]
[Letting illegals pay a mere $1,000 while law-abiding immigrants pay thousands in USCIS fees and thousands in lawyer fees is just unfair to law-abiding immigrants.]

(B) may not remove the individual until the Secretary has denied the application, unless the Secretary, in the Secretary’s sole and unreviewable discretion, determines that expeditious removal of the alien is in the national security, public safety, or foreign policy interests of the United States, or the Secretary will be required for constitutional reasons or court order to release the alien from detention.
[The last bit invites leftist courts to be a problem. Appellate jurisdiction can be totally barred by Congress I believe.]
[The backlog of judicial confirmations caused by Democratic obstruction needs to be resolved so DACA applicants and others could have a speedy judicial hearing if requested.]

[There are other problems, such as not having a reliable taxpayer or anchored parent amnesty or fixing our Constitution to remove the Amendment XIV Section I Anchor Baby clause so we don't have million of US babies with scofflaw foreign parents yet again.]

The biggest problems with all the amnesty bills are not the scofflaws to be granted amnesty but their and their offspring's probable adverse political and tax impacts.

The ~800,000 people and their offspring are likely to vote leftist by around 80% and they will eventually effectively disenfranchise us and decimate the Republican Party nationwide. Florida was won by only 537 votes in 2001.

It should also be remembered that most of these childhood arrivals probably have living parents. When the DACA "childhood arrivals" on a "path to citizenship" get that citizenship, their alien parents will be of Social Security and Medicare age. Can you figure out what Democratic activists will be clamoring for?

My personal view is that any DACA II deal should include judicial confirmations so Americans can get true justice and the removal of the problematical Amendment XIV Section 1 "anchor baby" clause from our Constitution.

The original DACA ending date might be extended three days for each state ratification of a corrective amendment.

The DACA II amnesty would be effective upon completion of ratification of a corrective amendment.

President Trump isn't going anywhere he doesn't want to. The 800,000+ illegals (and most of their parents) can't say the same. The Democrats need to play ball.

Well we’ll find out two things. PDJT demands budget before immigration and wall funding with an immigration bill. He wants chain migration ended and an end to the diversity lottery. I don’t think he’s going to be tricked or leveraged into anything else.

Well know and will see if the senate can pass a veto proof bill.

I don’t see this getting through the House and Senate. Further if Trump wants a second term he won’t sign it. Money for the wall is non negotiable. Chain migration has to be taken out of the DACA portion.

Text is not yet available. This is Giidlatte’s bill. Western growers hate it which is a good thing

Your analysis would be better a bit later on when it is actuallly having hearings in committee

The way you present it downplays (to the casual reader) the end of chain migration and the Visa Lottery, Mandatory E-Verify, as well as the 25% cut in legal immigration.

Here is how the open borders Libertarian CATO Institute summarizes the SAF Act:

“Republicans are essentially asking Democrats to trade the legalization of 700,000 unauthorized immigrants for the criminalization of all others, banning 2.6 million legal immigrants over the next decade, the elimination of almost all family sponsorship preference categories and the diversity visa lottery, deporting tens of thousands of asylum seekers, huge increases in border security spending, a massive new regulatory program that applies to every employee and employer in the country (“E-Verify”), and so much else.”

I say just add a $20 billion dollop of cream on top to build a wall, and we are pretty good to go.

Open borders and mass immigration are not conservative positions. They most assuredly are not libertarian positions. Having the government artificially increase the labor pool is no more conservative or libertarian than artificially increasing the money supply.

“Open borders and mass immigration are... most assuredly are not libertarian positions.”

They are the Libertarian position, read it for yourself:

https://www.cato.org/blog/securing-americas-future-act-net-negative-immigration-system

Libertarians are are not libertarian. Just like neocons are not conservative.

They call themselves libertarian but on borders, immigration and trade they are more statist than libertarian.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.