The lack of taxpayer payments to Central American economic migrants is a crisis on the border, says California Democrat Scott Peters, who presented the party’s weekend message.
“It’s a crisis when this Administration is allowing women and children – babies – to be dumped on American streets in the middle of the night with nothing more than the clothes on their back, without food, money, health screenings, or plans to get them to their destinations,” he said in the carefully drafted January 11 speech.
Peters did not say how much financial aid and healthcare must be given by U.S. taxpayers to the economic migrants as they head for U.S. jobs, communities, and schools.
Overall, the speech tried to blame President Donald Trump for public alarm over the growing flood of economic migrants into U.S. job markets and neighborhoods. Peters said:
There is a humanitarian crisis created by him.
It’s a crisis when the President threatens to shut down the nation’s legal immigration and asylum process over a border wall that is really just a campaign gimmick.
It a crisis when the President spends 72 million of your tax dollars to send our military to the border to confront a threat that didn’t exist, like he did in November, as a political stunt to rally the base.
It’s a crisis when this Administration is allowing women and children – babies – to be dumped on American streets in the middle of the night with nothing more than the clothes on their back, without food, money, health screenings, or plans to get them to their destinations.
In reality, migrants bring their children because multiple Democrat-backed loopholes in U.S asylum law allow them to walk through the border walls and into U.S jobs, welfare programs, schools, and communities.
The Democrats’ speech tried to reassure voters that Democrats are not pushing for a policy of open borders, even though nearly all Democratic legislators oppose any policies which might reduce the flow of migrants. Nearly all Democrats also oppose the deportation of economic migrants, even after judges say they do not meet U.S. legal requirements for asylum.
Peters said:
When President Trump says Democrats are against border security and for open borders, he’s lying.
We do not support a multi-billion dollar wall that will destroy sensitive lands, take private property, and can be tunneled under, climbed over or cut through, all while illegal border crossings have steadily declined over the past two decades. No. That’s not border security. That’s borderline crazy.
Instead of a border wall – like the triple-layered wall which effectively protects his district from migration out of Mexico — Peters touted the Democrats’ promise of a virtual wall of technology and sensors. Legislators know the “virtual wall” does not stop migrants — but it does shield some pro-migration politicians from worried voters.
Peters pushed that claim while touting a draft bill that would require the border agencies to postpone action until they have studied the migration problem they have studied and grappled with for decades:
In the last Congress, my colleagues Pete Aguilar of California, a Democrat, and Will Hurd of Texas, a Republican, proposed legislation with wide bipartisan support that included border security measures we could all agree on.
It would have directed Homeland Security to perform a mile-by-mile assessment of our entire southern border to determine the most practical and effective way to secure it, and to offer Congress a strategy for each section of the border.
It might be state-of-the-art technologies to detect tunnels because even in places where we have a fence, as we do in San Diego, it’s easy to dig tunnels underneath.
It might be sensors and radar to spot moving people and objects in any weather or time of day.
It might be cameras mounted on drones to surveil places where the terrain is tough to monitor.
Or, it might be, a physical barrier, such as a levee or fence if that makes sense in some places. But if Homeland Security wanted to recommend something as expensive as a wall in a particular place, they’d have to justify the extra expense against other less costly tools.
Nationwide, the U.S. establishment’s economic policy of using legal migration to boost economic growth shifts wealth from young people towards older people by flooding the market with cheap white-collar and blue-collar foreign labor. That flood of outside labor spikes profits and Wall Street values by cutting salaries for manual and skilled labor of blue-collar and white-collar employees.
The cheap labor policy widens wealth gaps, reduces high tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts kids’ schools and college education, pushes Americans away from high tech careers, and sidelines at least five million marginalized Americans and their families, including many who are now struggling with fentanyl addictions.
Immigration also steers investment and wealth away from towns in Heartland states because coastal investors can more easily hire and supervise the large immigrant populations who prefer to live in coastal cities. In turn, that investment flow drives up coastal real estate prices, pricing poor U.S. Latinos and blacks out of prosperous cities, such as Berkeley and Oakland.