Episódios
-
The Optional Practical Training program (OPT), which began as a post-graduation internship program, has evolved into the largest foreign worker program in the United States, authorizing work for years beyond graduation for foreign nationals on student visas. Notably, OPT was developed by DHS under pressure from Silicon Valley tech leaders looking for ways around worker protections built into the H-1B visa program.
In the latest episode of Parsing Immigration Policy, Jon Feere, the Center’s Director of Investigations and former ICE Chief of Staff, examines the controversial OPT program. This timely discussion reveals the implications of the underregulated program that has allowed over half a million foreign students to work in the United States without work visas, impacting American employment and wages, national security, and Social Security and Medicare revenues.
Key Points:Economic Impact: Employers hiring foreign students under OPT are exempt from paying Social Security and Medicare taxes, leading to an estimated $4 billion in annual lost revenue. This tax advantage can incentivize the hiring of foreign workers over Americans.Oversight Challenges: Over 7,400 schools certified by ICE to enroll foreign students rely on Designated School Officials (DSOs) to maintain and update records. These officials often face university pressure to ignore the required strict oversight.Fraudulent Practices: "Day 1 CPT" schemes allow students to work almost immediately upon arrival, undermining the educational purpose of their visas and enabling work without genuine educational intent.National Security Concerns: The unchecked growth of the OPT program poses significant national security risks, allowing foreign nationals to work for years in sensitive fields.Solutions: Limit the fields of study available to foreign students, and eliminate or significantly tighten up the OPT program to make it more manageable for DHS and less likely to have a significant impact on national security and the U.S. labor market.Host
Mark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.
Guest
Jon Feere is the Director of Investigations at the Center for Immigration Studies.
Related
Bloomberg Investigates 'Elaborate Charade' Known as Day1 CPT
Optional Practical Training for Foreign Students Now a $4 Billion Annual Tax Exemption
ICE's Controversial Foreign Student Employment Programs Are Not Protecting Workers
Foreign Student Fraud Case HIghlights Serious Problems
Intro Montage
Voices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes". -
Immigration shifts political power in the United States – without a single immigrant having to vote.
Seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and thus votes in the Electoral College are apportioned among the states based on each one’s total population — not by the number of citizens or legal residents. The Center for Immigration Studies today released two reports explaining how this works, which are the subject of this week’s episode of Parsing Immigration Policy.
The first report examines how the enormous scale of legal and illegal immigration in recent decades has redistributed House seats and electoral votes to high-immigration states, which provides a net benefit to Democrats.
The second report looks at congressional districts, and shows how immigration redistributes representation from districts comprised primarily of U.S. citizens to districts with large non-citizen populations. This too has a significant partisan dimension, but it has nothing to do with non-citizens possibly voting illegally.
“Because of the way reapportionment and redistricting work, immigration, including illegal immigration, redistributes political power in Washington,” said Steven Camarota, the Center’s Director of Research and lead author of both reports. He added, “This redistribution is directly proportional to the scale of legal and illegal immigration and exists independent of whether or how immigrants themselves vote.”
Host
Mark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.
Guest
Steven Camarota is the Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies.
Related
Press Release
Estimating the impact of legal and illegal immigration on apportionment and political influence in the U.S. House and Electoral College
How Non-Citizens Impact Political Representation and the Partisan Makeup of the U.S. House of Representatives
How Many Non-Citizens Would Have to Vote to Affect the 2024 Presidential Election?
Intro MontageVoices in the opening montage:
Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes". -
Estão a faltar episódios?
-
Recent Center for Immigration Studies field work reveals a growing crisis in the Mexican southern state of Chiapas. Why are thousands of migrants bottled up in this area near the Guatemala-Mexico border, and why are caravans forming but only moving within Chiapas? On-the-ground reporting by Todd Bensman, the Center’s national security fellow, highlights the impact of the Biden-Harris administration’s December 2023 deal with Mexico and the potential consequences leading up to and following the U.S. election.
Key findings:
Biden-Harris Agreement: In December 2023, the U.S. and Mexico reached a secretive deal to keep migrants in southern Mexico to reduce the appearance of a border crisis in the U.S. The deal has resulted in the Mexican military setting up roadblocks in the region, particularly around the border town of Tapachula, to slow the flow of migrants.
Migrants Bottled Up: Bensman visited Tapachula, where an estimated 150,000 migrants are stranded, with 500 to 1,500 more arriving daily. The city is overwhelmed, with high poverty levels and unrest.
Caravans and Military Escorts: Migrant caravans are forming, but they are not headed to the U.S. Instead, the Mexican military is escorting them to other cities within Chiapas to ease pressure on Tapachula. Bribes and mafias enable wealthier migrants to escape the blockade, but poorer migrants remain trapped.
CBP One App: The U.S. extended access to the CBP One app, previously only usable in northern Mexico, to allow migrants in southern Mexico to schedule appointments for processing into the U.S. However, delays and limited access make it difficult for most to advance quickly.
Upcoming Election Tension: Many migrants feel an urgency to reach the U.S. before a potential change in leadership. Those interviewed fear that a Trump win would mean a closed border and no benefits, while they believe a Harris win would maintain the status quo and provide access to benefits.
In his closing commentary, Mark Krikorian, the Center’s executive director and podcast host, contends that Mexican government’s prevention of migrants from approaching the U.S. border is largely political and temporary. If the administration were serious about halting the migrant flow, they would support Panama’s efforts at the Darien Gap, to prevent migrants from getting to southern Mexico in the first place. He highlights Bensman’s recent fieldwork in Panama, where he explored the new president’s initiatives to control migrant traffic through the Darien Gap. Despite the positive implications for the U.S., the Biden-Harris administration has been slow to provide the diplomatic and financial support promised to Panama.
Host
Mark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.
Guest
Todd Bensman is National Security Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies.
Related
CIS in the southern Mexican state of Chiapas
Daily Mail Op-ed
Inside ‘Zone 47’: Biden’s Ruthless Mexico Immigration Crackdown Is Working, but Media Won’t Tie Him to It
Recent Sky-High Levels of Illegal Migration Are Dropping Fast — and Here’s Why
Podcast: Investigating Panama’s Efforts to Cut Migration
Intro Montage
Voices in the opening montage:
Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes". -
In the latest episode of Parsing Immigration Policy, the Center examines how a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) program – originally designed for homeless veterans – has evolved into a controversial funding source for illegal immigrants.
This program has received wide public notice in the wake of the two recent hurricanes and claims that FEMA is putting the needs of illegal aliens ahead of Americans suffering from natural disasters.
Andrew Arthur, the Center’s fellow in law and policy, walks the audience through the creation of an emergency food and shelter program in 1987 under President Reagan, its expansion and current role as a funding pipeline for NGOs and blue states to pay for the consequences of the Biden-Harris migrant crisis.
Highlights:History of FEMA’s Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP): Originally meant to provide relief to homeless Vietnam veterans and others, this program has expanded beyond its intended purpose.Shift in Focus: After more than 111,000 adult migrants with children and unaccompanied minors crossed the border illegally May 2019, President Trump requested additional funds to move migrant children out of Border Patrol custody. He ultimately received the money, but only in exchange for a $30 million expansion of EFSP for transporting and housing illegal migrants. His administration unsuccessfully tried to end the program in subsequent budget requests.Biden-Harris Administration Funding Surge: Under President Biden, regular EFSP grew, but a new line item also appeared called EFSP-H, for “humanitarian”, i.e., to facilitate the settlement of illegal border-crossers. It later morphed into the FEMA Shelter and Services Program (SSP). Funding grew from the original $30 million to $650 million in 2024 – a 20-fold increase in just a few years. Much of this money is directed to NGOs and local governments in blue states.Undermining Incentives for Policy Changes: The government creates disaster through bad policy, then requests and receives funding to cope with the disaster, which is funneled to NGOs which support the policies responsible for the disaster in the first place. This removes much of the incentive to address the illegal immigration problem or to push the federal government for policy changes.Reprogramming FEMA Funds: The podcast highlights DHS’s ability to reprogram FEMA money from immigration support to disaster relief, raising questions about the prioritization of illegal immigration over natural disaster recovery.In his closing commentary, Mark Krikorian, the Center’s executive director and podcast host, highlights the arrival and expansion of the Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua, emphasizing that its establishment is a direct consequence of the Biden-Harris administration’s policies.
Host
Mark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.
Guest
Andrew Arthur is a Fellow in Law and Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies.
Related
Making Sense of FEMAs Migrant Payment Schemes
How FEMA Distributes Moneys to Cope with the Surge of Migrants
Massive Spending Bill Includes $785 Million to Feed, House and Transport Migrants
Intro Montage
Voices in the opening montage:
Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes". -
The latest episode of Parsing Immigration Policy examines a groundbreaking legal case that has set a new precedent for how immigration policies intersect with environmental law. Julie Axelrod, Director of Litigation at the Center for Immigration Studies, joins the conversation to discuss the federal court’s landmark decision that holds the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) accountable for violating the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
The Center bought a case against DHS on behalf of a rancher in the first case to successfully apply NEPA — often regarded as the "Magna Carta" of environmental laws — to immigration actions. NEPA, enacted in 1970, mandates that federal agencies evaluate the environmental effects of significant actions, including their impact on human environments. Yet, immigration policies have never undergone such analysis, despite their direct influence on population growth and environmental conditions.Key HighlightsWhat is NEPA? Axelrod explains the origins of NEPA and its importance in shaping government decision-making. She emphasizes that NEPA requires agencies to "look before they leap" by conducting thorough environmental reviews before implementing actions that could affect the environment. While NEPA has long applied to policies regarding energy, agriculture, etc., immigration authorities have never been held to the same standard — until now.Why It Matters: The ruling underscores the environmental impacts of mass immigration, which contribute to population growth, urban development, and strain on natural resources. Axelrod points out that, paradoxically, environmental groups — which typically champion NEPA — have not pursued this angle, leaving the Center to lead the charge.Future Implications: The court’s decision paves the way for future lawsuits that could hold the government accountable for immigration policies' environmental consequences.Remedies: The case will now move forward to determine appropriate remedies, with briefings scheduled for later this year. Axelrod highlights the need for future public engagement and hearings to assess how immigration impacts local communities and ecosystems.In his closing remarks, Mark Krikorian, the Center’s executive director and host of the podcast, addresses the recent announcement that the U.S. government will not be renewing the parole of Haitians and Venezuelans who were let in unlawfully by the hundreds of thousands by the Biden-Harris administration. While this may seem like a tough stance, Krikorian explains that the decision is largely symbolic with no real impact and purely designed to influence the election.
Host
Mark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.
Guest
Julie Axelrod is the Director of Litigation at the Center for Immigration Studies.
Related
CIS Prevails in Challenge to Biden-Harris Immigration Actions
50th Anniversary of NEPA: Five Decades of Ignoring Environmental Impacts of Immigration
Intro Montage
Voices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes". -
In the latest episode of Parsing Immigration Policy, the growing threat of transnational criminal organizations, how we got here, and potential solutions to address the issue. Guest host Jon Feere, the Center’s Director of Investigation and former Chief of Staff of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is joined by retired U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Denver Field Office Director John Fabbricatore who shares insights from his new book De-Iced: America in the Era of Open Borders and Unchecked Immigration.
Fabbricatore focuses on the Venezuelan transnational criminal organization “Tren de Aragua,” which has quickly established itself in the U.S., particularly in cities like Chicago and New York, and even in smaller cities like Aurora, Colorado. He explains how the gang, involved in human trafficking and drug smuggling, has been expanding rapidly since first arriving in the country in 2023.
Drawing on decades of experience in immigration enforcement, Fabbricatore shares personal stories from his career, including the challenges of deporting criminals and the complexities of international law enforcement. He stresses the need for a stronger commitment to enforcing immigration laws to ensure public safety and national security.
Key Points:Tren de Aragua has already established a foothold in the U.S., with an estimated 5,000 members. He warns that unless there is swift action, the gang’s influence will only continue to grow.The challenges posed by sanctuary city policies hamper ICE’s ability to tackle gang violence and organized crime: "Sanctuary policies protect criminals, not citizens."Fabbricatore criticizes the Biden-Harris administration’s handling of immigration, particularly the abuse of parole programs, which he claims has overwhelmed the system. "Our system cannot handle the flood of illegal immigrants. The chaos being created now will eventually result in a push for amnesty."Host
Jon Feere is the Director of Investigations at the Center for Immigration Studies.
Guest
John Fabbricatore is a retired U.S. Customs and Border Protection Field Office Director.
Related
De-Iced: America in the Era of Open Borders and Unchecked Immigration
Venezuelan Gang Stirs Fears in Colorado’s Third Largest City
Sanctuary Map
Intro Montage
Voices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes". -
The latest episode of Parsing Immigration Policy examines two key issues for the upcoming election: how former President Donald Trump might approach interior enforcement of immigration laws if elected, and the ideology behind the Biden-Harris policies that have led to the current border crisis.
In a pre-recorded segment from a recent seminar, Andrew Arthur, the Center’s fellow in law and policy, outlines what a return to normal immigration enforcement under a Republican presidency might look like.
Key topics discussed include:
Prioritizing Removals: How might Trump prioritize the removal of illegal aliens? Just for starters, the priority could be to find and remove the 99 aliens on the terrorist watch list who were released under Biden-Harris policies, followed by criminal aliens, and then the 1.29 million individuals already under orders of removal.
ICE and Law Enforcement: ICE will be challenged due to staffing declines under Biden-Harris in ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) division. But officers from the other main division of ICE, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), would help make up the shortfall.
Sanctuary Policies and Criminal Aliens: How state and local police might handle criminal aliens under sanctuary policies.
Detention and Deportation Logistics: The use of military bases and county jails for detention, commercial and charter flights for deportations, and potential obstacles from uncooperative countries are examined.
E-Verify and Workplace Enforcement: Workplace enforcement, especially E-Verify, would likely play a critical role in Trump's approach.
Our special commentary in this episode is the opening statement that Mark Krikorian, the Center’s executive director, provided before the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Accountability. He testified that the Biden-Harris administration's immigration policy is not the result of incompetence or failure but a deliberate ideological stance. Describing the current border crisis as the largest in U.S. history, he highlights the over 10 million encounters with inadmissible aliens since January 2021. The administration’s approach bypasses legal limits set by Congress and is driven by a belief in unlimited immigration. This, according to Krikorian, represents a significant departure from U.S. law and poses a challenge to national sovereignty.
Host
Mark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.
Guest
Andrew Arthur is the Resident Fellow in Law and Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies.
Related
Graph from Andrew Arthur's presentation
Mark Krikorian's Testimony
Intro Montage
Voices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes". -
The latest podcast episode from the Center for Immigration Studies highlights recent fieldwork conducted in Colombia and Panama. This episode explores the migration flow through the Darien Gap and examines new developments under Panama’s leadership designed to manage the number of migrants traveling through this dangerous area en route to the U.S. border. Despite these initiatives carrying positive implications for U.S., the U.S. has been slow to provide the diplomatic and financial support promised to the Panamanian government.
National Security Fellow Todd Bensman joins the podcast after returning from a lengthy trip to the Darien region. He shares how Panama's newly elected president, who took office on July 1, is working to close the Darien Gap to the massive surge of migrants. This region, a roadless jungle connecting Colombia and Panama, has become a strategic choke point for migrants traveling north to the United States. Many of the migrants come from Venezuela, Haiti and countries with high potential security risks. Last year, over 550,000 migrants made their way through the gap, a significant increase from previous years. So great had the volume become that Panama went from screening 90 percent of those passing through the country for terrorism or espionage before 2021 to less than 3 percent in 2024.
Bensman emphasizes that the Darien Gap matters to U.S. national security as it’s a transit point for migrants from over 170 countries, including those of terrorism concern. Panama’s new president recognized this and moved swiftly to set up roadblocks, erect barbed wire, target smuggling networks and more. However, U.S. support, particularly financial backing for deportation flights, has been slow to materialize, allowing the flow to continue.
Bensman also delves into the armed militia group that controls critical smuggling routes on the Colombia side of the Darien Gap and speaks about his exclusive CIS interview with the chief of Panama’s National Border Service, Director General Jorge Gobea.
Host
Mark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.
Guest
Todd Bensman is the National Security Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies.
Related
Progress Report: Has Panama Closed the Notorious ‘Darien Gap’ Mass Migration Route to the U.S. Border as Promised?
Exclusive Interview: Panama Border Security Chief Says Many U.S.-Bound Terror Suspects Caught in Darien Gap Region
CIS at the “Darien Gap”, heart of the U.S. Border Crisis?
Intro Montage
Voices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes". -
The Center for Immigration Studies has released a new episode of its Parsing Immigration Policy podcast based on a recent Center report, “Sen. Kamala Harris’s Attempted Sabotage of Immigration Law Enforcement”, which examines then-Sen. Kamala Harris’s immigration track record during her four years in Congress. Based on this comprehensive review of legislation that Harris either wrote or co-sponsored, the episode offers key insights into what immigration policies might look like under a potential Harris administration.
George Fishman, the Center’s senior legal fellow and podcast guest, says, “If Harris were elected on the same immigration platform she advocated in Congress, her policies would be far more extreme than those of the Biden administration or even the impeached Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas. I have never seen anything so extreme.”
Fishman discusses radical legislation authored or co-sponsored by Sen. Harris on the border, detention, deportations, asylum fraud, and the handcuffing of immigration enforcement officers – all examples of Harris’s views on immigration policy.
In his closing remarks, Mark Krikorian, the Center’s executive director and the host of the podcast, highlights the recent presidential debate and missed opportunities by both candidates to clearly articulate their views on immigration.
Host
Mark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.
Guest
George Fishman is Senior Legal Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies.
Related
Sen. Kamala Harris’s Attempted Sabotage of Immigration Law Enforcement
Intro Montage
Voices in the opening montage:
Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes". -
Many argue the United States needs to bring in more immigrants to work in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) due to a labor “shortage.” However, data recently obtained by the Center for Immigration Studies from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows little long-term increase in real (inflation-adjusted) compensation for STEM workers. This is powerful evidence that demand for STEM labor is not outstripping supply.
Steven Camarota, the Center’s Director of Research, and Jason Richwine, the Center’s Resident Scholar, discuss these findings in their latest analysis, New Wage Data Show No STEM Worker ‘Shortage.’ The two experts join the Parsing Immigration Policy podcast to discuss how the recently received compensation data contradicts a new report released by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, which again advocates for increased immigration based on an alleged labor shortage. The report overlooks the issue of stagnant wages and benefits, and the role they may play in hindering the recruitment of domestic STEM degree holders.
The conversation also touches on the 29 percent of STEM workers who are foreign-born and how this may crowd out Americans from the field, as well as the national security implications of not cultivating a larger domestic tech workforce.
In his closing remarks, Mark Krikorian, the Center’s executive director and host of the podcast, highlights an upcoming book, Against the Corporate Media – a collection of over forty essays on the decline of the news industry. Edited by Michael Walsh, the book includes a chapter on immigration authored by Krikorian.
Host
Mark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.
Guests
Steven Camarota is the Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies.
Jason Richwine is a Resident Scholar at the Center for Immigration Studies
Related
International Talent Programs in the Changing Global Environment
New Wage Data Show No STEM Worker ‘Shortage
’Immigrants in U.S. Doctoral Programs
Intro Montage
Voices in the opening montage:
Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes". -
A new episode of Parsing Immigration Policy explores Vice President Harris’s role as the “Root Causes” Czar in addressing the U.S. migrant crisis. Discussing Harris’s efforts and their impact are host Mark Krikorian, the Center’s Executive Director, and Andrew Arthur, the center’s Resident Fellow in Law and Policy. Key Discussion Points:
What are “Root Causes”?Root causes refers to the underlying factors driving migration, including crime, violence, food insecurity, poverty, corruption, and climate change. The Biden administration’s border strategy has focused exclusively on addressing these issues, also called “push factors”, in Central America, as opposed to “pull factors” in the U.S., to reduce the flow of migrants heading to the U.S. border.The Strategy:Vice President Harris has engaged in diplomatic efforts, including meetings with a few Central American leaders and private corporations, aimed at stabilizing the region and creating economic opportunities. However, her focus has been largely on just three countries – Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador – while migration from other regions has increased dramatically.What Was Done?Harris has visited Central America twice since taking on this role: once in 2021, and again in 2022 for the inauguration of Honduran President Xiomara Castro. Despite discussions around corruption and governance, corruption continues to worsen.Challenges and Criticisms:One major criticism of the administration’s approach is the lack of measurable success. While Harris has highlighted investments in Central America, questions remain about how much investment has occurred, how much of this investment would have occurred anyway, and whether it has effectively curbed migration.The Biden administration has not emphasized a policy of deterrence. Without addressing the pull factors – such as the ability to live and work in the U.S., whether illegal migrants are detained or prosecuted, and the existence of formidable border infrastructure – mass migration to the U.S. will continue.A Global Issue:The episode also touches on the broader issue of migration, noting that many countries are experiencing significant illegal flows of migrants. Helping nations develop to a point where migration will no longer occur is a very long-term, and perhaps impossible, solution.Contrasting Success:A notable contrast is seen in El Salvador, where a significant drop in crime has occurred due to internal policies, including the arrest and prosecution of gang members. Despite this success, the Biden-Harris administration has not promoted El Salvador’s approach, raising questions about the administration’s commitment to effective solutions.In his closing, Krikorian highlights reports that Harris has reversed her decision on building more border wall and now embraces it. This talking point resulted from her DNC speech, where she said she would sign the failed Senate border bill, which referred to funding for the wall but provided no new resources. Is she flip flopping?
Host
Mark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.
Guest
Andrew Arthur is a Resident Fellow of Law and Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies.Related
How Fruitful Have Kamala Harris Root Causes Efforts Been?
The Biden-Harris ‘Root Causes’ Strategy, Decoded: Part OneT
he Biden-Harris ‘Root Causes’ Strategy Decoded - Part Two
Kamala Harris and Feckless ‘Root Causes’ Plan to Secure the Border
The Spectator World: What did Kamala do to address the ‘root causes’ of migration?
The NY Post: Don’t Believe for One Minute Kamala Harris’ Fantasy Pivot on Open Border
Intro Montage
Voices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes". -
The new episode of the Center for Immigration Studies’ podcast, Parsing Immigration Policy, focuses on the Center’s updated map of sanctuary jurisdictions, based on data from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Joining host Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center, is Jessica Vaughan, the Center’s director of policy studies, who explains her update of the map.
The update adds about 170 new sanctuary locations, mostly counties (including regional jails) as well as some cities. Some of these newly listed sanctuaries are in states that prohibit such policies, such as South Carolina, Indiana, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, and North Carolina.
Virginia, North Dakota, Nebraska, New York, and Minnesota have seen the most significant increases in sanctuary policies.
The Center's updated map is based on ICE's internal tracking, adding information from the document entitled "Detainer Acceptance Tracker – Limited and Non-Cooperative Institutions," obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request. The Center’s map is a collaboration between Vaughan and multimedia director Bryan Griffith, and has been used to track sanctuaries since 2015, using ICE information and open sources.
Since then, well over 10,000 deportable criminal aliens who were arrested by local authorities for state and local crimes have been released back to the streets due to sanctuary policies, despite ICE seeking custody with a detainer, and a significant share have committed subsequent crimes. For example, in a documented eight-month period during 2014-2015, about 1,800 of 8,000 criminal aliens released by sanctuary jurisdictions were rearrested for committing 7,500 new crimes.
“It is alarming to see the continued proliferation of sanctuary policies, especially in places like Virginia,” Vaughan notes, “where ICE has had to use its scarce resources to re-arrest violent gang members and rapists in our communities who were set free by local jails, when they should have been transferred directly to ICE custody for a plane ride home.”
Vaughan continued: “Federal and state lawmakers should adopt measures to better ensure that local law enforcement agencies cooperate with ICE, and to penalize those agencies that choose not to cooperate.”
In his closing commentary, Krikorian discusses the Democratic Party’s 2024 immigration platform introduced this week at the party’s convention. The platform embraces the U.S. Citizenship Act, a radical piece of legislation introduced in January 2021, that would have granted amnesty to all illegal immigrants in the U.S. as of January 2021 and even allowed the return of many previously deported illegal immigrants. This position contrasts sharply with the Republican position on immigration enforcement, setting the stage for an unambiguous policy debate.
Host
Mark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.
Guest
Jessica Vaughan is the Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies.
Related
Sanctuary Map
Justice Department Still Funding Sanctuaries
Are Immigrants Less Willing to Report Crime?
Background and Likely Effects of the Biden-Menendez Amnesty Bill
The 2024 Democratic Party Platform
Intro Montage
Voices in the opening montage:
Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes". -
The Biden-Harris administration expects to resettle more than 100,000 refugees into the U.S. by the end of Fiscal Year 2024 — the highest number in three decades. In this week’s episode of Parsing Immigration Policy, the Center’s Executive Director Mark Krikorian and the Center’s Senior Researcher and refugee expert Nayla Rush discuss how the administration has transformed the resettlement program to reach these high admission numbers. The episode highlights concern about whether the remade program truly helps the most vulnerable, or if the distinction between humanitarian resettlement and ordinary immigration has been blurred.
Key topics discussed in this episode include:Executive Branch Role: While the resettlement program is established in law, the president sets the cap on refugee admissions each year, which is now viewed more as a target than a limit.Expansion of Who Is Treated as a “Refugee”: The Biden-Harris administration has effectively redefined the term “refugee,” extending benefits and privileges to individuals who do not meet the traditional legal definition.An Expanded Domestic Resettlement Network: Ten religious or community-based organizations which assist with resettling refugees inside the U.S. maintain nationwide networks of local affiliates to provide refugees with services, including assistance in signing up for taxpayer-funded benefits. The local affiliate number is up from 150 to 350.Modernization of the Refugee Program: Efforts to modernize the program have significantly reduced processing times from years to just a few months, allowing for faster refugee arrivals. In FY 2023, despite a cap of 125,000, only half that number were resettled. However, with ongoing modernization and the introduction of “private” sponsorship, the cap is expected to be met or even raised in FY 2025.Private Sponsorship through the “Welcome Corps”: The administration has introduced the Welcome Corps initiative, allowing private groups and individuals to select their own refugees and future American citizens, bypassing the traditional role of the UN. The “Welcome Corps” was further expanded to include the “Welcome Corps on Campus”, bringing “refugees” straight to U.S. campuses; and the Welcome Corps at Work, bringing them straight to U.S. jobs. There is also a Latin American program and an Afghan targeted program.Concerns and Controversies:Chain Refugee Resettlement: Former refugees sponsoring new refugees, potentially creating issues with accountability and oversight.Private Sponsorship Challenges: Despite being labeled as “private,” the Welcome Corps is heavily subsidized by federal taxpayer funding.Future Expansion under a Potential Harris Administration: Pressure is already being exerted to create a “Welcome Corps” program for Gaza refugees.Host
Mark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.
Guest
Nayla Rush is a Senior Researcher at the Center for Immigration Studies.
Related
Remaking the U.S. Refugee Resettlement Program
Latest Biden/Harris ‘Lawful Pathways’ Scheme: Declare Latin American Migrants to be ‘Refugees’
Parolees Paroling More Parolees
Intro Montage
Voices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes". -
The Biden/Harris administration has recently paused the fraud-prone program which allows up to 30,000 inadmissible nationals of Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela to fly to the United States each month. The suspension of this “CHNV parole program” is the focus of this week’s episode of Parsing Immigration Policy, featuring Andrew Arthur, the Center’s Fellow in Law and Policy, and Mark Krikorian, the Center’s Executive Director.
While the grants of parole (and work authorization) to these migrants – who have no legal right to enter the U.S. – are supposed to last only two years, Arthur notes that “the administration never had a plan to remove these migrants after these two years were over.” Overall, nearly 400,000 unauthorized migrants have entered the U.S. under the CHNV program, likely permanently.
Arthur also points out the fraud and other abuses in the CHNV program. For instance, many of these migrants are flying to the U.S. from safe third countries such as Iceland and Fiji. Arthur also points out various problems with the program’s sponsor requirement – “sponsors” are not actually required to provide food or housing for CHNV beneficiaries, and there are many cases of sponsors turning out to be deceased or possessing fake Social Security numbers, raising concern about trafficking.
Arthur and Krikorian surmise that the administration is likely pausing the program because they see it as a political liability for the upcoming election, as the widespread examples of fraud became too difficult to hide. Ultimately, the flaws in this program reveal the importance of ensuring that Congress, not the president, has the sole power to make laws pertaining to immigration.
Highlights:The Biden-Harris administration’s legal rationale for the CHNV program comes from Congress’s authorization of a narrow “parole” authority, which allows the executive to let in inadmissible aliens under certain narrow circumstances. This administration has abused this small loophole to let in 2.2 million people who have no right to be here.The CHNV program is one of two legally dubious parole programs implemented by the Biden-Harris administration. The other, the CBP One app interview scheme, allows migrants of any nationality to schedule their illegal entry at one of eight ports of entry on the Mexican border.There are currently two ongoing legal challenges to the CHNV program, one in Texas and one in North Dakota.Sponsors of CHNV applicants need not be individuals; non-profit groups or companies can also be sponsors, creating the potential for labor exploitation where employers hold migrants in debt bondage.If the next administration were to terminate the CHNV program, the INA would require all 400,000 CHNV parolees to be detained, making a complete shutdown potentially difficult to implement.In his closing commentary, Krikorian discusses the ongoing riots in the United Kingdom, sparked by the murder of three British girls by the son of Rwandan immigrants. He describes the riots as symbolic of the broader consequences of Western leadership acting as a “cartel” to prevent changes to immigration policy favored by the majority, leading to societal unrest. -
SummaryThis week’s episode of Parsing Immigration Policy explores the relationship between the cost of illegal immigration and the Biden-Harris administration’s abuse of parole. Joining host Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, are Jessica Vaughan, the Center’s Director of Policy Studies, and George Fishman, the Center’s Senior Legal Fellow.
Vaughan highlights her recent report on Massachusetts as a case study of the long-term costs of mass illegal immigration. She asserts that “people have not been focusing on the long-term cost ... and that long-term cost is going to clearly eclipse the [short-term] cost of [migrant] shelters.” Specifically, she discusses how the Biden-Harris administration’s policy of paroling millions of illegal aliens into the U.S. is a “fiscal time bomb”, as many of these aliens will qualify for welfare benefits in the coming years.
Fishman explains how the time bomb works: the Biden-Harris administration’s abuse of the parole system interacts with the 1996 welfare reform law, which allows paroled aliens to access welfare benefits after residing in the U.S. for five years – a “parole payday” which Fisman explored in a 2023 report. As a result, over one million aliens paroled into the U.S. since 2021 will start becoming eligible for welfare benefits as early as 2026.
To mitigate the burden that mass immigration places on the welfare system, Vaughan suggests that sponsors of parolees should be required to register with the state and thus have their income factored into the decision whether to grant welfare benefits to an alien. Additionally, Fishman suggests that the 1996 welfare reform law should be reformed so that parolees no longer qualify for welfare benefits.
In his closing, Krikorian highlights two recent Center publications – a report on the enormous changes the Biden-Harris administration made to the refugee resettlement program and an article discussing one of those changes: the Safe Mobility Office Initiative in Latin America, which is responsible for flying in thousands of people who would not have qualified as refugees in the past. These pieces highlight the administration’s perspective that any foreigner should have the opportunity to come to the U.S., pointing to the crux of the immigration debate: should American immigration policies serve the interest of the American people or foreign citizens?Highlights:The main reason that mass immigration is so costly is that illegal immigrants generally are less-skilled, thus earn lower salaries, and therefore consume large sums in welfare, healthcare, and education while working low-paying jobs.60 percent of illegal-alien households are currently using at least one welfare program.While the goal of the 1996 welfare reform law was to restrict the number of aliens who could access federal welfare benefits, one of its measures allows paroled aliens (technically only aliens who are paroled before entering the U.S.) to receive welfare after residing in the US for five years, creating a “fiscal time bomb.”The requirement that some parolees have a sponsor to gain entry does not reduce the fiscal burden that these migrants place on the welfare system, because these sponsors are not actually responsible for providing any financial support.Fishman speculates that Trump may revoke the parole status should he return to the White House in 2025, but suggests that if Harris becomes president, she would “never in a million years…revoke [these aliens’] parole status.”Host
Mark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.
Guests
Jessica Vaughan is the Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration StudiesGeorge Fishman is a Senior Legal Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies
Related
Massachusetts: A Case Study in Mass Immigration and the Welfare State
Parole with BenefitsWelfare Use by Immigrants and the U.S.-Born
Haitian CHNV Parole Migrant Arrested for Aggravated Rape in Massachusetts
Remaking the US Refugee Resettlement Program
The Latest Biden/Harris ‘Lawful Pathways’ Scheme: Declare Latin American Migrants to Be ‘Refugees’
Intro Montage
Voices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes". -
In this week’s episode of Parsing Immigration Policy, Emma Waters, a Senior Research Associate at the Heritage Foundation, joins Mark Krikorian, the Center’s Executive Director, to discuss the recent development of international commercial surrogacy, which creates tremendous potential for immigration fraud and exploitation and poses a national security risk.
International commercial surrogacy refers to the process by which foreign nationals contract with surrogates in the United States to have a child on their behalf. While this child is subsequently raised in a foreign country, the child is granted U.S. citizenship by virtue of their birth here, making it easier for the parents of this child to eventually obtain U.S. citizenship. This system is unique to the United States, as other Western countries either ban international surrogacy or do not have birthright citizenship.
Waters states that international commercial surrogacy is a “situation of immigration fraud as well as a national security risk.” The most common demographic of foreign nationals who come to the U.S. for surrogacy are Chinese men, and thus this form of birth tourism allows children who are raised in China and shaped by CCP influence to obtain U.S. citizenship, posing a threat to U.S. national security.
To prevent this form of birth tourism, Waters emphasizes that U.S. immigration laws need to be updated to reflect technological advancements in surrogacy, childbirth, etc. She points to recent examples of nations, such as Nepal and India, which have successfully restricted commercial surrogacy. She also highlights the importance of publishing information surrounding international commercial surrogacy, such as state records regarding the number of surrogacy contracts in each state and the country of origin of the contracting parents.
Waters and Krikorian agree that once information regarding the abuses in the international commercial surrogacy industry becomes available, it will be possible for Congress and state governments to take action against this particularly troublesome form of birth tourism.
Highlights:The U.S. has no federal laws governing international commercial surrogacy, making it extremely difficult to identify the children and parents involved in this industry.The majority of fertility clinics are in California, and these surrogacy agencies often have deep connections in China.The Heritage Foundation has recently filed Freedom of Information Act requests seeking data regarding the countries of origin of contracting parents as well as the number of surrogacy contracts in states such as California.Addressing the problem of international commercial surrogacy ultimately requires “[preventing] foreign nationals from accessing commercial surrogacy in the United States,” but this would require states to forego the financial interest they have in continuing this lucrative industry.Recently, some Republican lawmakers have expressed interest in addressing the abuses of this troublesome form of birth tourism through legislation, focusing on how commercial surrogacy harms American surrogate mothers and places the interests of foreign countries above the interests of American citizens.Host
Mark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.
Guest
Emma Waters is a Senior Research Associate at the Heritage Foundation.
Related
The New Face of Birth Tourism: Chinese Nationals, American Surrogates, and Birthright Citizenship
The Rise and Fall of International Adoption
America’s Rent-A-Womb Industry Lures An Alarming Number Of Chinese Nationals
Birth Tourism: Facts and Recommendations
Intro Montage
Voices in the opening montage:
Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes". -
This week, Balazs Orban, a member of the Hungarian Parliament and political director for Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban (no relation), joins Parsing Immigration Policy to discuss the strategies Hungary has taken to prevent illegal migration despite continuing pressure from the EU.
Speaking with the Center’s executive director Mark Krikorian, Orban addresses both the effects on Hungary of the 2015-16 migrant crisis in Europe as well as a recent EU court ruling fining it millions of euros for its strict policies regarding asylum for illegal border crossers.
He emphasizes the deterrent effect of Hungary’s policies, asserting that the country's immigration policies were designed to make it so “if you try [to immigrate] illegally you are losing something, not getting something.” Hungary believes maintaining this deterrent effect is a critical aspect of securing its borders, and it has held firm to these deterrent policies despite the massive fines from the EU.
Orban concludes by stating that Hungary “does not want to become an immigration-based society,” highlighting Hungary’s strategy of limiting immigration to a few selective guestworker programs while using the state to promote pro-family policies and raise the fertility rate. Such policies, while costly, are crucial in preserving the cultural and demographic heritage of Hungary—a top priority for this small, landlocked central European country.
In his closing commentary, Krikorian discusses the Republican National Convention’s highlighting of illegal immigration and crime. He points out crime rates of illegal immigrants and Americans are not comparable and that every crime committed by an illegal immigrant is preventable and is a result of government policy.
Host
Mark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.
Guest
Balazs Orban is a member of the Hungarian Parliament and political director for Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban.
Related
Migration Research Institute
ECJ Fines Hungary for Violating Asylum Law
CIS Report on the Hungarian Border Fence
Hungary Rejects EU Migrant Quota in 2016
While Illegal Aliens Kill and Rape, Bogus Crime Comparisons Still Blunt Solutions
Intro Montage
Voices in the opening montage:
Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes". -
In this week’s episode of Parsing Immigration Policy, Dr. Ron Hira, Associate Professor of Public Policy at Howard University, joins guest host Steve Camarota, the Center’s Director of Research, to discuss the flaws in the U.S. guest worker programs and the myths of a STEM labor shortage.
Hira refutes the idea that guest worker programs are justified under the assumption that there is a shortage of STEM workers. He states, “There is no evidence to support that there is a generalized shortage of STEM workers.” Both Hira and Camarota highlight that wages in STEM fields have been stagnant or declining, indicating no shortage.
The discussion then moves to the exploitation within guest worker programs. Hira explains, “Guest workers are underpaid, exploited, and threatened, which harms U.S. workers competing with them.” He points out that the Department of Labor sets lower minimum wages for H-1B workers and that the OPT program makes foreign workers cheaper by exempting them from payroll taxes, distorting the labor market.
Hira concludes, “There is clarity on what should be done, the question is whether you get an executive branch that will do anything about it.”
Highlights:Skills-based immigration is tilted towards temporary workers, not permanent workers.Many of these visa programs, H-1B in particular, are justified under the pretense that there is a shortage of STEM workers in the U.S. However, no evidence supports this claim.One of the long-term trends across the American economy has been that an ever-larger share of productivity gains has gone to firms – or to those who own capital – rather than workers.Guest-workers have fewer rights than American citizens and are thus subject to exploitation.The foreign-worker program called Optional Practical Training (OPT) exempts participants (recent graduates still here on student visas) and their employers from the payroll tax, making them 15.3 percent cheaper to hire than U.S. born students and laborers.H-1B is often sold as being for the “best and brightest” foreign nationals. However, applicants are selected randomly via a lottery, ensuring the selection of a large number of the mediocre and ordinary.Host
Steven Camarota is the Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies.
Guest
Dr. Ron Hira is an Associate Professor of Public Policy at Howard University.
Related
New evidence of widespread wage theft in the H-1B visa program
H1-B Visa Program: Myths and Needed Reforms
DOL Is Considering Allowing More Employers to Circumvent Protections for American Workers
Legal and Illegal Immigration: Understanding U.S. High-Skilled Immigration
Intro Montage
Voices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes". -
Critical findings from recent CIS Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation reveal that a Biden “humanitarian” parole program created specifically for nationals of four countries has resulted in many applicants flying in from 74 other countries. This episode of Parsing Immigration Policy draws attention to the discrepancies between the public justification for the Cuban Haitian Nicaraguan Venezuelan (CHNV) Direct Flight Program and the reality of its implementation. Mark Krikorian, the Center’s executive director, and Todd Bensman, the Center’s national security fellow, also highlight the urgent need to reform U.S. asylum laws.
Massive Influx: Since January 2023, more than 460,000 from those four nationalities have been authorized to fly into the country, with 30,000 being allowed in each month – all eligible for two-year renewable work authorization.Litigation and
Transparency Issues:FOIA Requests and Lawsuits: CIS had to resort to FOIA requests and then lawsuits to obtain information about the program. While Homeland Security eventually disclosed 45 U.S. airports used for arrivals, the administration resisted revealing departure countries until recently. They continue to refuse to provide the number flying in from each nation.Public Deception: The administration promoted the CHNV Program as a kind of rescue initiative. However, many entrants are coming from safe countries, contradicting the stated need for urgent humanitarian intervention. Applicants are flying in from 77 different countries, including safe, prosperous nations like France, Germany, Finland, Sweden, Iceland, Fiji, Australia, and Canada.Concerns and Implications:Asylum Shopping: This raises critical questions about the purpose of asylum. Should individuals in safe countries qualify for U.S. asylum, or is this merely a workaround to bypass immigration limits set by Congress?Reforming Asylum Laws: CIS experts stress the need for statutory changes to ensure asylum is reserved for those genuinely fleeing persecution and not for those already in safe countries.Executive Overreach: The Biden administration’s actions suggest an attempt to increase immigration without congressional approval, undermining the legislative process and immigration limits.Host
Mark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.
Guest
Todd Bensman is a National Security Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies.
Related
New Data: Many Migrants in Biden’s ‘Humanitarian’ Flights Scheme Coming in from Safe Countries and Vacation Wonderlands
A Secret Finally Revealed: Americans Can Know the U.S. Cities Receiving Hundreds of Thousands of Immigrants Flying from Abroad
What is CHNV Parole and Why You Should Care
Parsing Immigration Policy podcast: Straight Talk on Biden’s Parole Flights
Government Admission: Biden Parole Flights Create Security ‘Vulnerabilities’ at US Airports
New Records: Biden DHS Has Approved Hundreds of Thousands of Migrants for Secretive Foreign Flights Directly into U.S. Airports
Intro Montage
Voices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes". -
Today’s episode of Parsing Immigration Policy delves into the details and implications of this week's controversial announcement by the Biden administration that it will be granting de facto amnesty to over half a million illegal immigrants in the United States. The conversation between Mark Krikorian, the Center’s executive director, and Andrew Arthur, the Center’s fellow in law and policy, also highlights the administration's reliance on executive orders in lieu of legislative compromise.
Announcement: On June 18, 2024, the Biden administration announced that 500,000 illegal immigrant spouses of U.S. citizens, who have been in the country for at least ten years and married before June 17, 2024, will be allowed to apply for “parole in place” (PIP). These benefits will also be extended to an estimated 50,000 children of these spouses, who do not need to meet the ten-year residency requirement. The PIP plan retroactively legalizes illegal entries and allows beneficiaries to apply for work authorization and attain a Social Security number.
Understanding Parole in Place: Parole in place is a limited form of parole that to this point, Congress has only extended to immediate family-members of active-duty military that allows otherwise inadmissible foreign nationals to stay in the U.S. in a quasi-legal status. While parole itself is only to be used on a case-by-case basis for “urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit”, the Biden administration has greatly expanded its use to large classes of inadmissible foreign nationals, raising questions about the legality of its actions. Podcast Highlights:Executive Overreach: The podcast discusses how the Biden administration’s use of PIP circumvents established immigration laws and precedents, similar to previous programs like DACA. The action will undoubtedly end up in the courts, and the administration’s approach has long-term implications for bipartisan cooperation on immigration reform.Potential for Fraud: Concerns are raised about USCIS’s ability to effectively adjudicate the more than a half million expected PIP applications, potentially leading to widespread fraud, particularly with respect to the ten-year residency requirement. This means that the number of aliens amnestied can be expected to be considerably higher than the White House estimate of 550,000.A Solution in Search of a Problem: A waiver for alien spouses in this situation already exists in the form of I-601A “Applications for Provisional Unlawful Presence Waivers”. The Biden administration simply needs to fast track those applications.Political Motivations: The discussion also raises concerns that the timing of the amnesty may be politically motivated, reminiscent of the Obama administration’s pre-2012 election DACA rollout, and is aimed at garnering support from immigrant voters ahead of elections.Host
Mark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.
Guest
Andrew Arthur is a Fellow in Law and Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies.
Related
DHS Fact Sheet Lays Out Parameters of Biden’s ‘Parole in Place’ Amnesty
Biden’s ‘Parole in Place’ Plan is a Solution in Search of a Problem
Amnesties All the Way Down
Intro Montage
Voices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes". - Mostrar mais
