Do all of the Democrats support effectively unlimited immigration?

by philg

Voters are choosing today among the remaining Democrats running for President. What is the choice on what many would consider to be the biggest issue and one with the most long-term impact: low-skill immigration ? (transfers $500 billion/year right now from the working class to the rich, for example, and chips away at every American’s infrastructure endowment)

Let’s look at Mike Bloomberg’s immigration policy page:

Mike’s plan will protect Dreamers and TPS holders and create an earned pathway to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented.

Mike will rescind President Trump’s disgraceful travel ban, end family separations at the border, establish rigorous safeguards for children, and promote alternatives to detention for individuals and families who pose no threat to public safety.

A “dreamer” is someone who shows up prior to turning 16 (but since none show up with documents, it is necessary only to say “I am 15”?). There will be no family separation at the border if an adult shows up with someone who is, or says he/she/ze/they is under 18.

Isn’t the effect of these policies essentially unlimited immigration? A would-be adult immigrant shows up with a “child” and neither can be detained (one is a blameless child; detaining the adult would be “family separation at the border”). Once in, the child cannot be deported because he/she/ze/they is now a “dreamer”. Once the “child” turns 18, he/she/ze/they is entitled to obtain green cards for two parents (“chain migration”).

There are roughly 2 billion children worldwide, age 0-14. Add their parents and that’s at least half the world population that would be eligible for legal immigration to the U.S. under Bloomberg’s plan(s).

Do any of the other Democrats propose a substantially different immigration policy?

[Separately, how does Bloomberg know that there are 11 million undocumented immigrants currently in the U.S.? There is no citizenship question on the 2020 Census (rumor FAQ) and there wasn’t one on a previous census. The eggheads at Yale say that the likely number is closer to 22 million.]

Exterior of my hotel last week in Los Angeles:

Americans are supposed to call up Mike, charge boldly up to the edge of the coronavirus, and let Swedish vodka merchants tell them how to have sex (but we still want to let the Russians tell us how to vote?).

8 thoughts on “Do all of the Democrats support effectively unlimited immigration?”

  1. Hey Phil, Is it me, or does it seem like there has been 11 million illegal immigrants since at least the 2008 election cycle? It’s been flat for 14 years?

    • From a quick Google search, it looks like the only way that an undocumented immigrant can make it into the estimates that are reported by our media is by answering the door to a U.S. government Census worker and answering “Yes” to the “I am foreign-born” question.

      https://www.census.gov/topics/population/foreign-born/about.html#par_textimage explains

      “The Census Bureau collects data from all foreign born who participate in its censuses and surveys, regardless of legal status. Thus, unauthorized migrants are included in Census Bureau estimates of the total foreign-born population.”

      I wonder if this should be updated to “Incredibly stupid unauthorized migrants are included”. Especially given media reports that the government is seeking to deport migrants, what person at risk of deportation would open the door to a Census worker and/or answer questions about foreign birth accurately?

  3. Yes, Sam-
    The houses are so crappy in LA that no one sane would ever consider buying one–and house prices are so ridiculously high! Both Marx and Sanders noticed that.
    Compare it to the Al-Shabaab Caliphate. No industrial pollution, no predatory hedge funds, no Islamophobia, no LGBT issues, no ICE and open borders for all.
    And by the way, no coronavirus because–no kissing strangers in public. Hint, hint!

  4. > … one with the most long-term impact: low-skill immigration ?

    A bigger issue is low-IQ immigration, not low-skill. IQ is largely hereditary, doesn’t not improve with “skills training”, and our military says it has no job that can be productively done with IQ lower than 83 (approx our bottom 15%). Meanwhile there are entire sub-continents where the average IQ is 68 (approx our bottom 3%) seeking to immigrate here. What would be the long-term impact of importing several hundred million of those people into our society?

Comments are closed.