Tag: More

German Chancellor Merkel: “We Must Accept Migrants Are More Criminal” (Videos)

Chancellor Merkel Says: “We Must Accept Migrants Are More Criminal”… After Accepting 1 Million Into Germany – Gateway Pundit

German Chancellor Angela Merkel opened Germany up to one million new third world Muslim migrants in 2015.

.

.
Seventy percent of the migrants entering Europe were men.

German officials admitted they did not able to fingerprint all of the new migrants flooding across the border.

On New Year’s Eve a horde of young Muslim men sexually assaulted and harassed hundreds of German women outside of Cologne’s busy main train station during public celebrations.

Video captured Muslim men shooting off fireworks at the cathedral and police station in the area.
.

.
THis week Angela Merkel reminded Germans that the migrants are more violent.
.

.
————————————————————————————————–
.

Related article:

.
Berlin, Cologne, Hamburg, Stuttgart, Dusseldorf… New Year’s Migrant Sex Assault In Every Major German City – Breitbart

German capital city Berlin has joined the sad parade of cities touched by migrant sex violence on New Year’s Eve, with hundreds of assaults now reported to police in Cologne and other cities.

Although on a smaller scale to the unrestrained and un-policed sex attacks in Cologne, the Berliner Morgenpost has now reported on assaults taking place on the street “in front of the Brandenburg gate”.

The revelation may prove difficult for the German media, which until now has stressed in most reports on the new year’s rapes that Berlin was not caught up in the scandal.

The paper reports four separate incidents around the cite, including a tourist being sexually assaulted by a group of “three to five men”, and two women being “sexually harassed” by men from Pakistan and Iraq.

Another woman came forward to police on Tuesday following national press coverage of the migrant rape scandal to report being “touched” at a music event by “several immoral men”.

More analagous to the Cologne attacks were events in Hamburg, where groups of “southern or Arab appearance” men aged between 20 and 40 sexually assaulted dozens of women.

Police have recieved 53 complaints of harrasment relating to new year’s eve so far, including 39 of sexual harassment. One 19 year old girl identified by the pseudonym of ‘Lotta’ went out to celebrate the new year in a ‘chic’ dress and high heels.

Spiegel reports their comments when they related while walking between two clubs, they were warned by a bouncer not to go down a particular street, to do so “would be your death”. Despite the warning Lotta and her girlfriends walked down the road but became separated by the men. She said: “I was suddenly alone… 20 to 30 men were standing around me… every time a hand went away, already arrived the next… I felt helpless”.

Having been assaulted under her dress, her hair pulled, and finally thrown to the ground, Lotta met up with her friends, who had all been treated similarly by other groups of men. The girl told Spiegel she thought they were “foreign origin”.

In Stuttgart two 18 year old women were assaulted and robbed by a gang of 15 men reports the Stuttgarter Zeitung, as well as an unspecified number of other “mostly young women” victims. The state prosecutor warned against making comparisons between Stuttgart and Cologne, remarkng “The incidents in both cities vary greatly in their dimensions”.

Düsseldorf saw at least eleven sexual assaults in the historic city centre by “North African” men. In contrast to Stuttgart a police source here was less reticent to admit the scale of the problem, admitting “The nature of the offenses with which is comparable in Cologne”.

Breitbart London was the first English language news site to report on the Cologne sex attacks this week, the events having been obscured by German news media until large numbers of women coming forward to report rapes and sexual abuse and on-line discussion forced events.

.

.

President Asshat Thinks Gitmo Is A ‘Recruitment Tool For ISIS’… So He’s Releasing More Muslim Terrorists

Obama Releases Dangerous Jihadists… Then Misleads Country About It – Weekly Standard

.

.
President Barack Obama says his administration will continue releasing terrorists from the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, so long as those released are less dangerous than the jihadists currently fighting against the U.S. and its interests.

The bizarre argument comes in a new interview with Olivier Knox of Yahoo! News and is one of several comments in their discussion that reinforces the president’s stubborn nonchalance on issues related to jihad. Obama also shrugs off concerns about recidivism of former Guantanamo detainees, suggesting that only a “handful” of former detainees have returned to the fight and claiming that only “low-level” terrorists have been released from the detention facility. Both claims are demonstrably false.

In the interview, Knox asked Obama about Ibrahim al Qosi, a Guantanamo detainee transferred by the Obama administration to Sudan in July 2012, who recently resurfaced as a leader of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, often described as the most dangerous al Qaeda branch. Al Qosi appeared in a propaganda video disseminated by the group last week. Knox asked Obama whether having someone return to the fight “in a big way,” like Qosi, has caused the administration to revisit its vetting procedures.

“I am absolutely persuaded, as are my top intelligence and military advisers, that Guantanamo is used as a recruitment tool for organizations like ISIS,” Obama began. “And if we want to fight ’em, then we can’t give ’em these kinds of excuses.”

There is no reason that Obama would need to be “persuaded” of something that can be easily demonstrated. Either Guantanamo is a major recruitment tool or it’s not.

Administration officials have been making this claim for years and it’s not true.

Guantanamo rarely appears in jihadist propaganda, whether ISIS or al Qaeda, and reviews of recent propaganda materials from ISIS and al Qaeda – online videos and audio recordings, glossy magazines, etc. – found very few mentions of the facility.

“Keep in mind that between myself and the Bush administration hundreds of people have been released and the recidivism rate – we anticipate,” Obama said. “We assume that there are going to be – out of four, five, six-hundred people that get released – a handful of them are going to be embittered and still engaging in anti-US activities and trying to link up potentially with their old organizations.”

A handful? Obama is woefully ill-informed or he’s being dishonest. According to the most recent report on Guantanamo recidivism, prepared in September 2015 by James Clapper’s office, Obama’s own Director of National Intelligence, 196 former detainees are either confirmed (117) or suspected (79) of returning to the fight. That’s a recidivism rate of more than 30 percent. Intelligence officials tell THE WEEKLY STANDARD that those numbers are almost certainly low, as they do not include jihadists the United States and its allies are no longer tracking.

(Obama’s formulation there is odd, too, using “embittered” as if the reason the jihadists would once again take up arms against the United States is their time in detention.)

Obama continued, describing the process officials use to determine whether a detainee can be released or transferred. “The judgment that we’re continually making is: Are there individuals who are significantly more dangerous than the people who are already out there who are fighting? What do they add? Do they have special skills? Do they have special knowledge that ends up making significant threat to the United States?”

It’s an odd set of criteria for evaluating threats unless your main objective is emptying the detention facility. These are standards set up to allow the administration to claim that the knowledge base and skill sets of Guantanamo detainees are outdated. But former Guantanamo detainees return to the fight with elevated status and often assume leadership roles in the groups determined to attack the U.S. and its interests. Just like Ibrahim al Qosi.

Obama went on to suggest that those released don’t present much of a threat anyway. “And so the bottom line is that the strategic gains we make by closing Guantanamo will outweigh, you know, those low-level individuals who, you know, have been released so far.”

Again, Obama’s claim is false. Many of the 653 detainees transferred or released from Guantanamo as of September 2015 were much more significant than “low-level individuals.” It’s a group that includes al Qaeda operatives who worked directly for Osama bin Laden, senior leaders of the Afghan Taliban, and veteran jihadists with decades of experience fighting.

According to assessments provided by Joint Task Force Guantanamo, the original population of Guantanamo was 43 percent “high risk,” and 36 percent “medium risk.” Only 20 percent of those ever detained at Guantanamo were deemed “low risk.” The Bush administration transferred many of the detainees found to present minimal risks to the U.S. and by the time Obama took office, 98.7 percent of those remaining were considered medium risk (23.8 percent) or high risk (74.9 percent).

Consider the Taliban Five, released in exchange for Bowe Bergdahl. Although Obama administration officials initially downplayed the significance of these detainees, intelligence and military officials made it clear that they were high-risk transfers. Michael Leiter, the former head of the National Counterterrorism Center under Obama, said it was “very, very likely” that the five Taliban leaders would return to the fight. Rob Williams, the national intelligence officer for South Asia, who briefed Congress shortly after the transfer, testified that there was a high likelihood that at least four of the five freed detainees, and possibly all of them, would rejoin the fight.

And what about Ibrahim al Qosi? He’s the Guantanamo recidivist that triggered Knox’s question to the president. Was he a “low-level” fighter, as Obama suggested?

He is not. Qosi is now a senior leader in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, as well as the group’s public spokesman. AQAP has repeatedly attempted to attack the U.S., while taking over large parts of Yemen. The dossier compiled by U.S. officials for Qosi demonstrates that he served bin Laden in multiple roles because he was so trusted.

A threat assessment of al Qosi prepared by the intelligence officials on the Joint Task Force Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO) reported that he would present a “high risk” of taking up arms against the United States or its allies if he were freed from the detention facility. “Detainee is an admitted veteran jihadist with combat experience beginning in 1990 and it is assessed he would engage in hostilities against US forces, if released.”

Virtually everything Obama said in his Yahoo interview about Guantanamo is false. Guantanamo is not a leading recruitment tool for jihadists. From the earliest days of the facility, many of those detained there were deemed more than the “low-level” fighters the president would have us believe. And far more than a “handful” of released detainees – nearly 200 suspected or confirmed – have returned to the fight.

We are left with this uncomfortable but incontrovertible fact: Barack Obama is releasing jihadists known to present a serious threat to the United States and he’s misleading the country about it.

.

.

11 Of 23 Obamacare Co-Ops Have Collapsed, Leaving Half A Million More Americans Without Health Insurance

Obamacare Doomsday? ‘Collapses’ Drop Half-Million Americans – WorldNetDaily

.

.
About half of Obamacare’s Consumer Operated and Oriented Plans, or co-ops, have imploded, leaving nearly half-a-million Americans looking for new health coverage.

And instead of addressing the problem, the Obama administration is pretending it doesn’t exist.

That’s the assessment of Rep. Adrian Smith, R-Neb., a member of the House Ways and Means Committee who recently wrote about the spate of failures in the Wall Street Journal.

“When it passed Congress in 2010, the Affordable Care Act offered substantial financial support to create nonprofit health-insurance plans. Today 11 of the 23 such regional Consumer Operated and Oriented Plans have failed – seven since the beginning of October,” Smith wrote.

“They’ve collapsed despite federal startup loans totaling more than $1.1 billion. These loans will likely never be fully repaid, while insurers and consumers will be on the hook for any unpaid claims left behind by failed insurers,” he added.

The congressman estimates 400,00-500,000 Americans lost their coverage in those 11 failed co-ops.

In an interview with Radio America, Smith says the co-ops were doomed from the start.

“I think they were improperly structured. They were allowed to charge too low a premium, not reflecting the actual costs. They thought the original subsidies – or loans if you will, but let’s face it, they’re subsidies, especially since they’re so unlikely to be repaid. That wasn’t enough,” said Smith, who is fuming more as he learns how these collapses transpired.

“The more I am learning about this entire situation, the more offensive it is, and this is just one part of Obamacare,” Smith said.

The congressman said what galls him most is that the government forced many people out of coverage they liked and then left those same people out in the cold.

“The thing that bothers me the most is when a good, upstanding citizen is doing everything they’re supposed to do to be a responsible individual,” Smith said. “Yet they are faced with canceled coverage, or they’re faced with a penalty for taking care of themselves.”

Adding to Smith’s frustrations is what he believes is utter indifference to the problem from the Obama administration.

“We had a hearing earlier this week, and the chief of staff from [the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services] was our witness,” Smith said. “[Dr. Mandy Cohen] sent the message that everything is just fine in the Obamacare co-op arena.”

He said it’s quite obvious that co-ops are not “just fine.”

“It’s not a win,” Smith said. “Nearly half of the co-ops have collapsed and that’s from New York to Nevada. Ours, with Nebraska and Iowa together, we were the first to collapse a year ago. Now we see them collapsing at a much quicker pace.”

How can the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, say all is well when almost half the co-ops have failed?

“In a very dismissive manner, I have to say, and it’s disappointing,” Smith said. “I started asking questions almost a year ago and HHS is not offering any answers.”

Not only is the government doing little to help, in some circumstances it is actually pushing co-ops to their deaths.

“The administrators of the Nebraska-Iowa plan saw a larger number of people sign up for their plan than they originally anticipated,” Smith said. “So they requested permission from HHS to suspend enrollment, to basically cap that at a number they figured was more manageable. They were prohibited by HHS from capping the number of enrollees.”

The congressman said that hastened the demise of the Nebraska-Iowa co-op. He said HHS did give permission for the Tennessee co-op to cap enrollment, but it collapsed anyway.

In the meantime, Smith is sponsoring legislation that would protect those who lost coverage with the failure of the co-ops from being fined by the IRS for not having coverage as mandated by federal law.

He believes all of Obamacare will eventually crater, but he hopes too many people aren’t hurt in the process.

“Ultimately, I think it collapses under its own weight,” he said. “I just want to do everything I can to minimize the damage in the ensuing time. That’s what weighs heavy on my mind is that the heavy hand of the federal government is actually hurting the very people Barack Obama was saying he was wanting to help.”

.

.

More Bad News For Hitlery

Potential Classified Clinton Emails Grow To More Than 300 – Daily Caller

.

.
The State Department is referring 305 of Hillary Clinton’s State Department emails to the intelligence community to review for classified information, the federal government reported in a court filing on Monday.

“Out of a sample of approximately 20% of the Clinton emails, the [Intelligence Community] reviewers have only recommended 305 documents – approximately 5.1% – for referral to their agencies for consultation,” State Department attorneys told U.S. District Court judge Emmet Sullivan, according to The Washington Times.

The State Department has reviewed about 6,000 of the approximately 30,000 emails Clinton handed over in December. If reviewers continue to find emails with secret information at the current rate, more than 1,500 of Clinton’s emails could potentially contain highly classified material.

The government’s revelation comes after the Intelligence Community inspector general, I. Charles McCullough, told Congress earlier this month that his agency had determined that two emails that traversed Clinton’s private email server contained information that was “top secret” – the highest classification level.

That finding prompted the FBI to intervene and gain control of the private email server Clinton used to maintain her personal email account during her tenure at State. The agency also commandeered thumb drives containing copies of Clinton’s emails that her attorney, David Kendall, had stored in a safe in his office.

The State Department has already redacted and released 60 Clinton emails which contain information that is classified as “confidential” – the lowest category. The agency insists that the information was not classified at the time it was sent and stored on Clinton’s server.

Some of those emails were sent by Clinton herself, including one she sent in Nov. 2009 to her longtime friend, Sidney Blumenthal, about former U.S. ambassador Joe Wilson.

.

.
Clinton has downplayed the entire email controversy as a right-wing conspiracy. At a campaign event in Iowa on Friday, she said she “won’t get down in the mud” with Republicans. But she has also walked back some of her most adamant claims about her handling of classified material.

In March, she said at a press conference that “there was no classified material” on her server. But as the investigation has progressed, she’s changed her tune. Last month she said: “I am confident that I never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time it was sent and received.”

After the McCullough’s finding of “top secret” information was revealed, Clinton and her team have turned to claiming that none of the emails were “marked” classified at the time they were sent or received.

Clinton has also attempted to portray herself as a willing participant in the email inquiry.

In a radio interview conducted over the weekend, she claimed that if it wasn’t for her, the emails never would have been made public.

“Because if I had not asked for my emails all to be made public, none of this would have been in the public arena,” she said.

The Republican operative group America’s Rising called that claim false, pointing out that Clinton handed over her emails only after the State Department sought them in response to the congressional investigation into the Benghazi attacks. Clinton had been out of office nearly two years when she finally provided the emails. The off-the-books email operation was only made public in a New York Times article in March. Clinton had also said that she would not turn over her private email server to a third-party. The hardware has also been scrubbed, her attorney has said.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related articles:

.
ABC: “Highly Likely” A Backup Of Hillary’s Original Server Files Exists – Hot Air

Hillary Clinton visited the Iowa State Fair this weekend, trying to pass off the FBI and Inspectors General probe into her e-mail system as nothing more than partisan politics. She even joked about having a Snapchat account where messages disappear on their own. If this ABC News report is correct, though, Hillary won’t be laughing for long. Platte River Services, the company to which the Clintons entrusted the server after she left office, believes that a backup of her data is “highly likely” to exist. And if it does, the 31,000+ e-mails that Hillary and her team deleted may not be gone after all (via the Daily Caller):

.

.

JONATHAN KARL, ABC NEWS CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Out in Iowa this weekend, Hillary Clinton joked about the thousands of e-mails she deleted from her time as secretary of state.

HILLARY CLINTON (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I recently launched a Snapchat account. I love it. I love it. Those messages disappear all by themselves. (LAUGHTER)

KARL (voice-over): But her infamous private server is now in the hands of the FBI, which is intensifying its investigation into the handling of classified information in her e-mails. According to sources familiar with the investigation, it’s already been determined that at least two of the e-mails included information that’s top secret, some of it from so-called signals intelligence, among the most sensitive intelligence there is. Investigators are also trying to determine if the Chinese or Russians were able to get access to Clinton’s private e-mails.

COL. STEVE GANYARD, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE: Anybody that works around this level of classification knows the sensitivity. It’s not something you can talk around and it’s always obvious.

KARL (voice-over): But in the most intriguing new development, Platte River Networks, the Colorado company that set up Clinton’s server, told ABC News it’s highly likely that a full backup of the server was made, meaning those thousands of e-mails she deleted may still exist.

It seems exceedingly odd to hear Hillary cracking jokes about disappearing messages. She’s trying to sell the idea that this is a partisan nothingburger, which is a strange tack to take when the investigation has been taken up by Barack Obama’s Department of Justice. Let’s also not forget that the intelligence community that has been outraged by this conduct hardly qualifies as a GOP-friendly outfit, as George Bush and Dick Cheney can attest. It’s like hearing Richard Nixon make jokes about wiretaps while the House prepared articles of impeachment, only Nixon was smart enough not to try that, at least in public. What’s the message supposed to be here – that voters should celebrate her impunity towards transparency and secure handling of classified materials? I guess that makes sense in the context of Hillary’s desire for a coronation, but don’t expect most Americans to be laughing along with her.

If the FBI finds a backup at Platte River Services of Hillary’s original e-mail database, the Snapchat jokes will dry up quickly. It seemed odd that such a firm wouldn’t have made backups, which would be another moment of incompetence for Hillary and her team in their attempt to clean up the e-mail stash. Once the FBI gets a backup copy, then the fun will truly begin. The House will want access to the complete set of data, and if they or the DoJ discover responsive materials within those that got trashed, then all sorts of new problems begin for Hillary Clinton – including a potential perjury charge. The State Department will be forced to comply with a number of FOIAs stalled by Hillary’s use of a secret e-mail server, and if there is any indication of influence peddling in connection to the Clinton Foundation or Bill Clinton’s speeches within her e-mails, Hillary may not be the only Clinton in legal trouble.

Perhaps Hillary should laugh while she can, but it’s either false bravado or irrational denial at this point.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–

.
Woodward On Clinton Emails: ‘Reminds Me Of The Nixon Tapes’ – Breitbart

.

.
Washington Post Associate Editor Bob Woodward said of Hillary Clinton’s emails, “It, in a way, reminds me of the Nixon tapes” on Monday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

Woodward stated that allowing Clinton and her lawyers to decide whether to turn over information was “unprecedented,” and “follow the trail here. You know, there are all these emails. Well, they were sent to someone, or someone sent them to her. So, if things have been erased here, there’s a way to go back to who originated these emails, or who received them from Hillary Clinton. So, you’ve got a massive amount of data. It, in a way, reminds me of the Nixon tapes. Thousands of hours of secretly recorded conversations that Nixon thought were exclusively hers – his, that he was not going to get them. Hillary Clinton initially took that position, I’m not turning this over. There’s going to be no cooperation. Now, they’re cooperating. But, this is – this has to go on a long, long time, and the answers are probably not going to be pretty.”

Earlier he said, “It’s extraordinary. And, again, it’s the volume. 60,000 emails, and Hillary Clinton has said 30,000 of them, half, were personal and they were deleted. Who decided that? What’s on those emails? I would love to have all 60,000, read them, it would be a character study about her personal life, and, also, what she did as secretary of state. And let’s step back for a moment, the big question about Hillary Clinton is, who is she? Is she this secretive, hidden person, or is she this valiant public servant? Look at those 60,000 emails, and you’re going to get some answers. And there’s a hydraulic pressure always in the system here. You’ve got the FBI, you’ve got the inspector generals, you’ve got lots of people in government who are furious, because they spent hours being trained, like the example of Madeleine Albright. You have to be careful about this. Hillary Clinton went in – I mean, what was the origin? Who knew about this idea of using a private server? I mean, when I first found about that, it’s unimaginable.”

Woodward added, “for Hillary Clinton to go out, as she did, in recent days, and say, [paraphrasing] ‘This is politics. This is dirty politics. They’re trying to smear me in an unfair way,’ that dog will not hunt, at all. You have got Barack Obama’s government now investigating her and looking at this. Now, at the same time, nothing’s been proven to be illegal and [Ed] Rendell there had a good point that, you know, kind of slow down. I think, in the media and political environment we’re in, where everything is driven by impatience and speed, that’s going to not be possible. But, they’re going to have to get some answers.”

Woodward concluded, in response to a question about the responsibilities of officials to ensure classified material doesn’t get out, “the first level of scrutiny is common sense. And, you know, in the world where Petraeus was dealing, either as a general or as CIA director, or Hillary Clinton was dealing [at the] State Department, almost everything is classified one way or another. And so you have to have some systems to protect it, and you have to use common sense.” He also stated that it’s “easier to describe the creation of the universe” than say how material becomes classified. And “the idea of the server, and this excuse, oh, it was all for convenience, isn’t going to work.”

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related video:

.

.

.

*VIDEO* More Planned Parenthood Atrocities Exposed


.

.

Feds To Issue More Green Cards Than The Populations Of Iowa, New Hampshire And South Carolina Combined

USA To Issue More Green Cards Than Populations Of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina Combined – Big Government

.

.
Breitbart News has exclusively obtained text and a chart from the Senate’s Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, chaired by Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), concerning America’s ongoing policy of massive legal immigration:

The overwhelming majority of immigration to the United States is the result of our visa policies. Each year, millions of visas are issued to temporary workers, foreign students, refugees, asylees, and permanent immigrants for admission into the United States. The lion’s share of these visas are for lesser-skilled and lower-paid workers and their dependents who, because they are here on work-authorized visas, are added directly to the same labor pool occupied by current unemployed jobseekers. Expressly because they arrive on legal immigrant visas, most will be able to draw a wide range of taxpayer-funded benefits, and corporations will be allowed to directly substitute these workers for Americans. Improved border security would have no effect on the continued arrival of these foreign workers, refugees, and permanent immigrants – because they are all invited here by the federal government.

.

.
The most significant of all immigration documents issued by the U.S. is, by far, the “green card.” When a foreign citizen is issued a green card it guarantees them the following benefits inside the United States: lifetime work authorization, access to federal welfare, access to Social Security and Medicare, the ability to obtain citizenship and voting privileges, and the immigration of their family members and elderly relatives.

Under current federal policy, the U.S. issues green cards to approximately 1 million new Legal Permanent Residents (LPRs) every single year. For instance, Department of Homeland Security statistics show that the U.S. issued 5.25 million green cards in the last five years, for an average of 1.05 million new legal permanent immigrants annually.

These ongoing visa issuances are the result of federal law, and their number can be adjusted at any time. However, unlike other autopilot policies – such as tax rates or spending programs – there is virtually no national discussion or media coverage over how many visas we issue, to whom we issue them and on what basis, or how the issuance of these visas to individuals living in foreign countries impacts the interests of people already living in this country.

If Congress does not pass legislation to reduce the number of green cards issued each year, the U.S. will legally add 10 million or more new permanent immigrants over the next 10 years – a bloc of new permanent residents larger than populations of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina combined.

This has substantial economic implications.

The post-World War II boom decades of the 1950s and 1960s averaged together less than 3 million green cards per decade – or about 285,000 annually. Due to lower immigration rates, the total foreign-born population in the United States dropped from about 10.8 million in 1945 to 9.7 million in 1960 and 9.6 million in 1970.

These lower midcentury immigration levels were the product of a federal policy change: after the last period of large-scale immigration that had begun in roughly 1880, immigration rates were lowered to reduce admissions. The foreign-born share of the U.S. population fell for six consecutive decades, from 1910 through 1960.

Legislation enacted in 1965, among other factors, substantially increased low-skilled immigration. Since 1970, the foreign-born population in the United States has increased more than four-fold – to a record 42.1 million today. The foreign-born share of the population has risen from fewer than 1 in 21 in 1970, to presently approaching 1 in 7. As the supply of available labor has increased, so too has downward pressure on wages.

Georgetown and Hebrew University economics professor Eric Gould has observed that “the last four decades have witnessed a dramatic change in the wage and employment structure in the United States… The overall evidence suggests that the manufacturing and immigration trends have hollowed-out the overall demand for middle-skilled workers in all sectors, while increasing the supply of workers in lower skilled jobs. Both phenomena are producing downward pressure on the relative wages of workers at the low end of the income distribution.”

During the low-immigration period from 1948-1973, real median compensation for U.S. workers increased more than 90 percent. By contrast, real average hourly wages were lower in 2014 than they were in 1973, four decades earlier. Harvard Economist George Borjas also documented the effects of high immigration rates on African-American workers, writing that “a 10 percent immigration-induced increase in the supply of workers in a particular skill group reduced the black wage of that group by 2.5 percent.” Past immigrants are additionally among those most economically impacted by the arrival of large numbers of new workers brought in to compete for the same jobs. In Los Angeles County, for example, 1 in 3 recent immigrants are living below the poverty line. And this federal policy of new large-scale admissions continues unaltered at a time when automation is reducing hiring, and when a record share of our own workers here in America are not employed.

President Coolidge articulated how a slowing of immigration would benefit both U.S.-born and immigrant-workers: “We want to keep wages and living conditions good for everyone who is now here or who may come here. As a nation, our first duty must be to those who are already our inhabitants, whether native or immigrants. To them we owe an especial and a weighty obligation.”

It is worth observing that the 10 million grants of new permanent residency under current law is not an estimate of total immigration. In fact, the increased distribution of legal immigrant visas tend to correlate with increased flows of immigration illegally: the former helps provide networks and pull factors for the latter. Most of the countries who send the largest numbers of citizens with green cards are also the countries who send the most citizens illegally. The Census Bureau estimates 13 million new immigrants will arrive, on net, between now and 2024 – hurtling the U.S. past all recorded figures in terms of the foreign-born share of total population, quickly eclipsing the watermark recorded 105 years ago during the 1880-1920 immigration wave before immigration rates were lowered. Absent new legislation to reduce unprecedented levels of future immigration, the Census Bureau projects immigration as a share of population will continue setting new records each year, for all time.

Yet the immigration “reform” considered by Congress most recently – the 2013 Senate “Gang of Eight” comprehensive immigration bill – would have tripled the number of green cards issued over the next 10 years. Instead of issuing 10 million green cards, the Gang of Eight proposal would have issued at least 30 million green cards during the next decade (or more than 11 times the population of the City of Chicago).

Polling from Gallup and Fox shows that Americans want lawmakers to reduce, not increase, immigration rates by a stark 2:1 margin. Reuters puts it at a 3:1 margin. And polling from GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway shows that by the huge margin of nearly 10:1 people of all backgrounds are united in their belief that U.S. companies seeking workers should raise wages for those already living here – instead of bringing in new labor from abroad.

.

.