MYTH V. FACT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Special Privileges And Special Paths
Special Path/Green Card - page 1
Amnesty Or Not? page 2
This Debate Will Be Full And Open page 5
Crushing The Middle Class
Guest Worker/Labor Shortage - page 8
If Amnesty, No Welfare -page 9
Immigration Reform Helps The Economy page 10
Shooting Ourselves In The Foot
Enforcement Triggers First page 11
This Ends Illegal Immigration page 12
We Will Force President Obama To Enforce The Laws page 14
MYTH VS. FACT
Special Privileges and Special Paths
1. MYTH: “THERE SHOULD BE NO SPECIAL PATH TO CITIZENSHIP FOR THOSE WHO HAVE
BROKEN OUR IMMIGRATION LAWS.”
Fact: Any path that leads to a green card for someone who is currently ineligible for a green
card because they violated U.S. immigration laws, such as the Senate bill, is a special path to
The Wall Street Journal describes the current House citizenship plan as follows: “Since
last summer, leading lawmakers have sketched out the basic idea. Give illegal
immigrants who qualify a legal status, but no promise of citizenship an effort to try
to satisfy both sides. Instead, offer them the chance to access existing opportunities to
gain legal permanent residence, also known as a green card. Once someone has a
green card, he or she can apply for citizenship.” (Jan. 27, 2014, emphasis added)
In addition, the House plan reportedly includes an expedited path to citizenship for so-
called DREAMers, providing an even larger magnet for future illegal immigration than
birthright citizenship.
According to one report, the House approach would grant green cards to an estimated
4.4 million to 6.5 million illegal immigrants. (National Foundation for American Policy,
Jan. 2014).
In addition, even a “legalization-only” plan rewards those vvho have disobeyed our
laws by allowing them to remain in the country, work, obtain driver’s licenses, and
qualify for public benefits, and creates the same incentive for others to enter the
country illegally.
And regardless, as Democrat Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-III.) said, “if we do not get
citizenship this year, [pro-amnesty groups] will be back next year and the year after
that.” (Associated Press, Jan. 7, 2014)
In any event, all such proposals favor those who have broken our laws over those who
follow our laws because it allows them to lìve, travel, and Work in the U.S. a privilege
not bestowed on those who wait in Iíne in their home countries. This erodes the rule
of law.
MYTH: “THIS IS NOT AMNESTY BECAUSE ILLEGAL IIVIIVIIGRANTS WILL HAVE TO PAY FINES,
BACK TAXES, LEARN ENGLISH AND CIVICS, AND PASS BACKGROUND CHECKS.”
Fact: Like the Senate plan, the House plan provides legal status and work authorization first
- the fundamental grant of amnesty.
Any plan that provides such special privileges to those who are in the country illegally
today, but does not extend the same privileges to those who enter the country
illegally tomorrow, is amnesty.
Proponents ofthe Senate bill claimed the fines and fees that illegal immigrants would
have to pay to gain legalization would cover the Cost of the massive But the bill
riddled with waivers and loopholes, including permitting installment payments and
outright exemptions, and the amount was even less than the rejected 2007
immigration bill. Moreover, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services currently offers
waivers for those who cannot afford certain fees. Why would this administration not
waive these requirements once again?
The claim that illegal immigrants will be required to pay “back taxes” is a paper tiger.
Even if back taxes were somehow paid a dubious claim at best the amount
collected would pale in comparison to the amount of tax dollars paid to illegal
immigrants, such as the billions in free tax credits claimed each and every year.
o Even the sponsors of the Senate bill eventually were forced to concede that the
back taxes provision in their bill was illusory and toothless. (Politico, April 18,
2013). Moreover, the bill did not even attempt to address collection of state,
local and employment back taxes.
o In fact, according to Politico: “Early discussions [about the Senate bill] included
requiring applicants to file a complete work history with salary information so
that the IRS could backtrack those wages to figure out how much should be
owed. That idea was quickly dismissed during consultations with the IRS,
according to a Democratic aide familiar with the drafting of the legislation.”
(Politico, April 18, 2013)
o As the former chieic economist at the U.S. Department of Labor, Diana
FurChtgott-Roth, has written, “[playment of back taxes and a fine in exchange for
legal status makes for a fine sound bite but would be a nightmare to administer.”
(Collecting Immigrants’ Back Taxes: An impossible Dream, Policy Perspectives,
Mar. 11, 2013)
o Because of a 2000 IRS ruling, illegal immigrants who are disqualified from
receiving the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) can retroactively receive the EITC
for years worked without a Social Security number if they receive amnesty. (IRS
Office of Chief Counsel, Memorandum 11200028034, July 14, 2000)
o Moreover, the IRS’s targeting of conservative nonprofit groups and selective
enforcement of Obamacare at the very least calls into question how the agency would handle the politically-charged task of collected back taxes owed by illegal
immigrants.
Just as proponents of the Senate bill claimed, the House proposal is touted as
requiring that illegal immigrants learn English and Civics to obtain legalization.
o The Senate bill actually imposed this requirement only for a green card, and even
then a person only had to be pursuing a course of study “to achieve an
understanding of English and knowledge and understanding” of cìvics. In many
cases, the Secretary of Homeland Security was given the authority to waive this
requirement.
o Current law already requires immigrants to learn English. Anything less than
current law would favor those who have violated our laws over those who follow
them.
Proponents ofthe House proposal have said that illegal immigrants will have to pass
background checks to obtain legalization.
o Kenneth Palinkas, head of the USCIS union the agency responsible for
background checks - stated that, currently “USCIS adjudications officers are
pressured to rubber stamp applications instead of conducting diligent case
review and investigation. The culture at USCIS encourages all applications to be
approved, discouraging proper investigation into red flags and discouraging the
denial of any applications. USCIS has been turned into an ‘approval machine.’”
(Press Release, American Federation of Government Employees, Council 119,
May 20, 2013)
o There would no doubt be intense political pressure to complete amnesty
applications as quickly as possible, and the number of illegal immigrants who
the CBO projects would be legalized under the Senate bill is more than four
times the number approved in the 1986 amnesty, which was described by The
New York Times as “one of the most extensive immigration frauds ever
perpetrated against the United States government” as an estimated one-fourth
of all successful amnesty applications were fraudulent. For example, 1993 World
Trade Center bomber Mahmoud “The Red” Abouhalima, an Egyptian who
claimed to be a farmworker, was given amnesty in 1986, which enabled him to
travel to Afghanistan where he joined a terrorist training camp and later re-enter
the U.S. (Center for Immigration Studies, Feb. 26, 2013)
o Moreover, it has been reported that the administration is currently “rubber-
stamping” applications for President Obama’s administrative DREAM Act
program (DACA), which are being approved at a rate of over 99 percent. (USCIS
Office of Legislative Affairs, Dec. 18, 2013)
o And, it recently was reported that the federal government filed a complaint
against the company it had hired to handle the background investigations for
Edward Snowden and the Navy Yard shooter for fraudulently submitting atleast
665,000 incomplete background investigations for government personnel. (The
Washington Post, Jan. 23, 2014)
Finally, it was revealed during the Senate debate that the Senate bill did not require
the Secretary of Homeland Security to conduct face-to-face interviews with a single
amnesty applicant, even though they are necessary to determine national security and
law enforcement risks. Indeed, according to Mr. Palinkas, at present “USCIS lacks the
resources to adequately screen and scrutinize legal immigrants and non-immigrants
seeking status adjustment” - let alone the tens of millions who would seek
legalization. (Press Release, American Federation of Government Employees, Council
119, May 20, 2013)
