Displaying posts categorized under

IMMIGRATION

California Poised to Provide “Sanctuary” to Alien Criminals and Terrorists Playing politics with national security and public safety. September 22, 2017 Michael Cutler

On September 18, 2017, roughly one week after the 16th anniversary of the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, the LA Times reported on California’s “sanctuary state” bill-SB 54 that would ostensibly “expand protections for immigrants” by preventing officers from questioning and holding people on immigration violations.

To understand the ominousness of this measure, we must look back to the 9/11 Commission’s official “9/11 and Terrorist Travel” report, which focused on the multiple failures of the immigration system that enabled the 9/11 terrorists and other international terrorists to enter the United States and embed themselves as they went about their deadly preparations.

This explicit paragraph explains how sanctuary policies that confound DHS efforts to enforce immigration laws undermines America’s counterterrorism operations:

Thus, abuse of the immigration system and a lack of interior immigration enforcement were unwittingly working together to support terrorist activity. It would remain largely unknown, since no agency of the United States government analyzed terrorist travel patterns until after 9/11. This lack of attention meant that critical opportunities to disrupt terrorist travel and, therefore, deadly terrorist operations were missed.
This is why each and every illegal alien, irrespective of whether or not he/she has a criminal record, must not be shielded from detection by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

However, commonsense regarding the need for proper immigration law enforcement is being overshadowed by the manipulations of proponents of immigration anarchy. The LA Times article’s very headline — referring to “immigrants” — highlights the insidious manipulation of language that has made honest discussions about immigration virtually impossible. The process was initiated long ago by the Carter administration, which demanded that the term “Illegal alien” be stricken from the lexicon of INS employees and replaced with the term “undocumented immigrant.”

The removal of that single word — alien — from the vernacular has had a huge impact on the entire immigration debate, causing many decent and otherwise sensible Americans to be deceived into believing “sanctuary cities” exemplify altruism when quite the opposite is true.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the term alien simply means, “any person, not a citizen or national of the United States.” There is no insult in the term “alien” — only clarity. In fact, the title of the DREAM Act actually includes the verboten term “alien” (the DREAM Act is an acronym for Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act).

​Going back to the LA Times headline, in reality, lawful immigrants have absolutely no need for protection from immigration law enforcement officers. The only aliens who are at risk from adverse actions being taken against them by ICE agents are those aliens who either entered the United States illegally or, following lawful entry through a port of entry, either violated the terms of their admission into the United States or have committed criminal offenses in the United States.

Lawful immigrants do, however, have serious need for protection: they need protection from criminal aliens who lurk in their ethnic immigrant communities, plying their criminal trades. These individuals pose the greatest threat to the immigrants among whom they live irrespective of their ethnicities or countries of birth.

Mark Steyn: ‘I’m a Non-DREAMer, I Did The Boring Thing and Filled Out Paperwork’ Video

Commentator and legal immigrant Mark Steyn said he “did the boring thing” by following American immigration law, and therefore gets none of the sympathy that DACA recipients receive.

“I’m a non-DREAMer. Nobody sentimentalizes me,” he said of Democrats who use tales of illegal immigrants’ hardship to defend the rights of the undocumented.

Steyn said many of the DACA supporters talk about “brave journeys” through the desert.

“Nobody ever says that about me and my kids,” the Canadian immigrant to New Hampshire said. “We did the boring thing and filled out the paperwork.”
Read Full Article

On the topic of the supporters of illegal immigration speaking broadly about their fear or disdain for Trump, Steyn said it reminded him of Democrats during the Bush years.

He said that many on the left had bumper stickers during the Iraq War that said “Bush scares me.”

“Nobody in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was driving around saying ‘Saddam scares me’,” he said.

“John Kasich would scare them,” Steyn said, referring to the Ohio governor’s centrist stance on many issues compared to President Trump.

Watch more above.

Trump’s Immigration Deal at the Brink of Disaster By Victor Davis Hanson

If Donald Trump wished to make a mega deal on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, or even put an end to illegal immigration as he promised, he certainly had viable choices.https://amgreatness.com/2017/09/18/trumps-immigration-deal-brink-disaster/

The only way to blow that opportunity would be to cross the one and only political red line that could destroy his political coalition and career by insulting the intelligence of his base and reneging on his past immigration promises.

No Amnesty, Some Deportations, and Lots of Green-Cards?
Trump could give fence-sitting congressional Republicans an opening. They could institutionalize, clean up, and legalize aspects of the plainly unconstitutional Obama DACA program, but offer only the opportunity of legal residence (not amnesty with a “path to citizenship”). In exchange, Republicans could demand clear requisites for the issuing of a green card:

1) No past criminal convictions;
2) Verifiable proof of U.S. residence for, say, over a year (to preclude those who would flood across the border at the scent of amnesty);
3) Evidence that the applicant was either in school or gainfully employed and not on public assistance.

Liberals would object—given that they privately concede there are thousands among the 1-2 million “Dreamers” who are not, as they like to infer in their rhetoric, vital to the defense industry, Google techies, or Ivy League engineers, but instead have been convicted of crimes, are not working, or are living on public assistance.

More conservative Republicans would sign on to that filtered green-card concession—if in exchange Trump obtained E-Verify, an end to sanctuary cities and chain migration, deportation of non-qualifiers, newly defined rules for legal immigration, and completion of the border wall.

Open Borders Were No Accident
A compromise like that might have made it through the Republican-controlled House and Senate, but it would never have won Democratic support. The idea of any buy-in from Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) or Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for more stringent immigration controls is absurd.

Why? Because whereas most Republicans do not believe in deporting every illegal alien, most Democrats do not believe in deporting any illegal alien. They cannot, given that the party long ago mortgaged its soul to its own identity politics radical base—and to the idea that progressives could obtain political power by waiting for demographics to favor them when they could not otherwise persuade voters politically.

Democrats know well that the qualifications to be included in DACA and be named a “Dreamer” are rhetorical constructs that have never been defined and never would be audited.

Deportables may be a small minority of the 1-2 million DACA cohort, but that translates nonetheless into tens of thousands of young people who came with their parents as illegal alien minors and subsequently either did not continue in school, did commit a crime, or did not get a job.

Sending thousands of these non-qualifiers back home would translate in nightly CNN portraits of noble youth unfairly deported for an “accidental,” “not really serious,” “not my fault” drunk-driving convictions or “petty,” “insignificant,” “who cares?” petty-theft guilty pleas.

More importantly, progressives prefer citizenship amnesties, not green-cards, given the entire point of open borders was always bloc voting. The more they cried “racism,” the more they trafficked in racialism, by preferring immigration that was not to be diverse and would give little consideration to skill sets or education, or to those who followed the law.

The Vast Majority of Illegal Aliens Are Not Dreamers
Liberals never understood fully their own logic that, if within a pool of 10-15 million illegal aliens, some are judged deserving of amnesty, then that fact is an argument that others are more likely not to be deserving of amnesty.

Mass-Migration: The Tiniest Dose of Reality Hits by Douglas Murray

If you do not have control of your borders, with a meaningful set of immigration laws and the right to keep people out of your country, then you do not really have a country.

While the public wants their representatives to control their borders, politicians seem to see only political capital in running the other way. In part this is because there appears to be some kind of “bonus” to be achieved by looking welcoming and kindly, in contrast to the unwelcoming and mean things that borders now appear to represent.

By the end of August, it was estimated that almost 12,000 people had arrived in Canada through this route so far this year. It is a number that constitutes little more than an averagely busy week in Italy at any time over recent years. But even this comparatively tiny movement across an entire year has proven too much for Canada. At the end of last month, Prime Minister Trudeau told reporters: “For someone to successfully seek asylum it’s not about economic migration. It’s about vulnerability, exposure to torture or death, or being stateless people. If they are seeking asylum we’ll evaluate them on the basis of what it is to be a refugee or asylum seeker.”

Bombings and other terrorist attacks are now a common feature of life in modern Europe. On just one day (September 15, 2017), an improvised explosive device was placed on a London Underground train, a man wielding a knife and shouting “Allah” attacked a soldier in Paris, and a man with a hammer shouting “Allahu Akbar” badly wounded two women in Lyon. As the former Prime Minister of France and the present Mayor of London have put it, perhaps this is all just a price we have to pay for living in big cities in Europe in the 21st century: we have traffic congestion, great restaurants and terrorist attacks.

Of course, the public are all the time worrying about other things — not just whether all this is just a taste of something worse to come, but whether anything might be done to stop it. While our political leaders continue to view this as a narrow security-related question, the public can see that it is also a border-security and mass-immigration issue. Across the continent, poll after poll shows the European public continuously calling for migration into Europe to be slowed down. This plea is not due to some atavistic urge or distasteful racist instinct, but something that the public seems to intuit better than their politicians — which is that if you do not have control of your borders, with a meaningful set of immigration laws and the right to keep people out of your country then you do not really have a country.

Since the upsurge in Europe’s migration crisis in 2015, when Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel unilaterally decided to suspend normal border checks and turn an already existing flow of migrants into a tidal wave, politicians and the public have divided from each other over this issue. While the public want their representatives to control their borders, politicians seem to see only political capital in running the other way. In part this is because there appears to be some kind of “bonus” to be achieved by looking welcoming and kindly in contrast to the unwelcoming and mean things that borders now appear to represent.

Politicians such as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in Canada have used the opportunity of Europe’s migration catastrophe to grandstand and present themselves as offering a different way. In the wake of Donald Trump’s campaign rhetoric on building a wall along the US-Mexican border, Trudeau in particular has presented himself as the yin to Donald Trump’s yang. In January, when President Trump was sworn into office, Trudeau sent out a Tweet reading, “To those fleeing persecution, terror and war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength.” To which he added the hashtag, #WelcomeToCanada. In March of this year, in another clear response to the US President, Trudeau tweeted, “Regardless of who you are or where you come from, there’s always a place for you in Canada” — a tall order, given the existence of 7.5 billion people on this earth, many of whom are not already Canadian.

Scandinavia: Shift in Immigration Debate by Bruce Bawer

Until recently, the very notion that some European neighborhoods were “no-go” zones was vehemently dismissed by politicians and commentators on both sides of the Atlantic as a myth, a lie, a vicious right-wing calumny. But even as Swedish officials were denying the existence of such zones in their own country, they were secretly mapping them out and overseeing a police effort to liberate them.

The Sweden Democrats are on the rise because voters finally grasp the extent and significance of the damage their elites have been doing to their country — and the elites, both in the media and in government, are scrambling to snap into line in order to keep hold on power.

In some ways, the winds in Scandinavia may be turning, but it does not seem as if Stanghelle and his ilk are about to speak the whole truth about Islam, or to apologize for their inexcusable abuse of those who have.

Not long ago, Norwegian journalists were virtually united in representing Sweden, with its exceedingly liberal immigration policy and its strict limits on public discussion of the subject, as a model of enlightened thinking that deserved to be emulated. Meanwhile Denmark, with its far freer atmosphere of debate (remember the Danish cartoons) and more sensible border controls, was almost universally depicted in Norway as a deplorable hotbed of Islamophobia. That appears to be changing. As Hans Rustad of the alternative Norwegian news website Document.no noted recently, the term “Swedish conditions,” which some of us have been using for years to refer to the colossal scale of Sweden’s Muslim-related problems, is actually turning up these days in the mainstream Norwegian media — although the relationship of those conditions to Islam is still routinely underplayed, if not entirely avoided.

Until recently, Denmark, with its far freer atmosphere of debate and more sensible border controls, was almost universally depicted in Norway as a deplorable hotbed of Islamophobia. Pictured: A Danish checkpoint on the border with Germany, near Padborg, on January 6, 2016. (Photo by Sean Gallup/Getty Images)

Case in point: on August 10, the daily Aftenposten ran a piece by Tarjei Kramviken about an official Swedish report stating that police, during the past couple of years, have been pursuing an organized campaign to “take back neighborhoods from criminals who have set up parallel societies.” But the attempt, the report admitted, has failed. Instead, even more such neighborhoods have sprung up, and the level of violence within them has become more common, more brutal, and more spontaneous. If a police car crosses the invisible border, it is pelted with rocks or bottles.

The neighborhoods in question are, of course, Muslim neighborhoods, and the criminals are Muslims. Although the persons in question are indeed criminals — they carry guns, sell drugs, commit burglaries, and break out into the occasional riot — the use of the word criminals seems somewhat euphemistic. We are not talking about some kind of Mafia that has moved into certain neighborhoods, taken them over, and terrorized the locals. The criminals are the locals. They are the young men who live there. Maybe not every last young man, but a high percentage of them. Some of these criminals, moreover, are mere children. One Stockholm cop told Kramviken about “five-year-olds who give the finger to the police and say nasty things.”

Trump’s Dreamer Dealing The deportation lobby is a minority in the U.S. and the GOP.

Anything can happen with Donald Trump, and it usually does, as some of his ardent followers are discovering to their shock as the President negotiates with Democratic leaders on immigration. Mr. Trump has been known to change his mind, and in this case that’s for the good as his bipartisan dealing to legalize young adult immigrants brought here as children is in the best interests of the country and his Presidency.

“Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated and accomplished young people who have jobs, some serving in the military? Really!” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter Thursday morning. That excellent rhetorical question followed his dinner Wednesday night with Democratic leaders Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, who announced afterward that they had a deal with Mr. Trump to legalize the Dreamers, as the young adults are known.

Mr. Trump has been less definitive, saying Thursday morning in Washington that he and the two Democrats were “fairly close” to an agreement that would also include “massive border security.” He said his wall at the Mexican border “will come later,” though later in Florida he said “we’ll only do it if we get extreme security, not only surveillance but everything that goes with surveillance. If there’s not a wall, we’re doing nothing.”

Who knows how this will turn out, but we hope Mr. Trump cuts that deal with the Democrats with few security strings attached. The benefits would be many.

Congress would codify in law a policy that Barack Obama imposed illegally by executive fiat. Mr. Trump would solve the most politically emotive immigration problem, which is the fate of these young adults who committed no crime in coming here. Some 700,000 people could keep contributing to American society without fear of deportation.

Mr. Trump would also notch a political success on immigration that eluded George W. Bush and Mr. Obama. He would show, as he promised in the campaign, that he can get things done. Not a bad day’s work.

THE PIE IN THE ANTI-DEMOCRATIC SKY : MELANIE PHILLIPS

There are many things that could be said about Tony Blair’s suggestion that the UK should toughen its immigration policy to reduce the numbers coming in from Europe. He claims this can be done “by measures within our own law or by negotiation with Europe”. Hey presto! – the British will then suddenly come to their senses, demand a second referendum and vote to stay in the EU after all.

I don’t know which is the most startling here – the fantastic magical thinking, the fathomless hypocrisy or the deep contempt Blair displays for democracy and the British people.

“We can curtail the things that people feel are damaging about European immigration,” he writes on today’s Sunday Times website (£), “both by domestic policy change and by agreeing change within Europe to the freedom of movement principle, including supporting the campaign of President Emmanuel Macron on the ‘posted workers directive’”.

An allied report by the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change recommends forcing EU migrants to register on arrival in the UK, restricting access to free healthcare for unemployed EU migrants, letting universities and businesses discriminate against them in favour of British citizens and banning those EU migrants with no permission to reside in Britain from renting or opening bank accounts.

In the Observer, the former Labour minister Lord Adonis makes a similar pitch, arguing that the British could reverse their referendum decision if France and Germany agree the UK can take control of immigration while staying in the EU single market.

The first thing to say is the the EU will not change its free movement principle for anyone. Why should it? If it were to do so for the UK, the pressure to do the same for other member states would become a stampede.

Secondly, if anyone believes that mandatory checks will stop the flow of EU migrants they must be living in cloud cuckoo-land. UK border controls have been in chaos for years. Why should that change just because Blair and Adonis want the British people to change their minds on the EU? This is pie in an anti-democratic sky.

Third, Blair’s hypocrisy is truly jaw-dropping. Who was it who relaxed immigration policy in order to import hundreds of thousands of people from abroad in order to transform Britain into a multicultural society? Step forward Tony Blair and his Labour successor, Gordon Brown. Who was it who introduced the Human Rights Act, thus embedding human rights dogma with its inbuilt bias against majority cultural norms and stimulating judicial overreach so that the courts made it almost impossible to deport anyone – and almost impossible, for that matter, to discriminate against groups of people in precisely the way Blair is now openly suggesting EU citizens should be discriminated against? Why, none other than Tony Blair.

Blithely, he now says his encouragement of mass immigration belonged to another era. Well, I saw how bitterly it was opposed by the public when they finally realised how the country was being transformed, and how they were (and still are) demonised as a result for racism and xenophobia. With cavalier insouciance, Blair also claims that other EU member states find it perfectly simple to deport people. That’s untrue too: across the EU, deportation has been managed in relatively few cases.

Not only is this proposal hypocritical and unworkable but it also misses the most important point. People in the UK voted to leave the EU not just because of their significant concerns over immigration. More important than that, as they have repeatedly confirmed, they wanted the UK once again to have sovereign power over its own laws and policies.

Even if France and Germany were to cook up a supposed exemption to allow the UK to control its own immigration rules, the overarching loss of sovereignty entailed by remaining in the single market – with the “intersectionality” of the EU’s internal rules – would mean that the UK would still be caught one way or another, not least because it would still be subject to the rulings of the European Court of Justice. And what the British wanted most of all when they voted Leave was that the UK should once again be a sovereign nation, with a democratically elected parliament making its own laws which would no longer be subject to the superior authority of a foreign court.

Neither Blair nor Adonis can ever understand this supremely important fact – that the issue, above all, was and is democracy. They don’t believe this was the issue. They dismiss sovereignty as of no concern to the vast majority of people.

And that’s for one very simple reason. It’s of no concern to them. And that’s because, as fanatics in the EU cause, they actually think that the loss of democratic sovereignty advances the welfare of the world. They don’t believe in the sovereign European nation. They believe in the supranational EU project because they have no faith in their nation. They believe their country can only prosper if it negates its own sovereign power.

And that, after all, is the core belief that animates the EU.

The Cruelty of Barack Obama On immigration, the ex-president isn’t what he says he is.By William McGurn

Throughout his political life, Barack Obama has been hustling America on immigration, pretending to be one thing while doing another.

Now he’s at it again. Mr. Obama calls it “cruel” of Donald Trump both to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program that protected hundreds of thousands of people who came to the U.S. as children illegally—and to ask Congress to fix it. The former president further moans that the immigration bill he asked Congress to send him “never came,” with the result that 800,000 young people now find themselves in limbo.

Certainly there are conservatives and Republicans who oppose and fight efforts by Congress to open this country’s doors, as well as to legalize the many millions who crossed into the U.S. unlawfully but have been working peacefully and productively. These immigration opponents get plenty of attention.

What gets almost zero press attention is the sneakier folks, Mr. Obama included. Truth is, no man has done more to poison the possibilities for fixing America’s broken immigration system than our 44th president.

Mr. Obama’s double-dealing begins with his time as junior senator from Illinois, when he helped sabotage a bipartisan immigration package supported by George W. Bush and Ted Kennedy. Mr. Obama’s dissembling continued during the first two years of his own presidency, when he had the votes to pass an immigration bill if he had chosen to push one. It was all topped off by his decision, late in his first term, to institute the policy on DACA that he himself had previously admitted was beyond his constitutional powers.

Let this columnist state at the outset that he favors a generous system of legal immigration because he believes it is good for America. Let him stipulate too that a fair and reasonable solution to 800,000 children who are here through no fault of their own should not be a sticking point for a nation as large as America. But once again, here’s the point about Mr. Obama: For all his big talk about how much he’s wanted an immigration bill, whenever he’s had the opportunity to back one, he’s either declined or actively worked to scuttle it. CONTINUE AT SITE

Immigration and the Unlearned Lessons of 9/11 Politicians and the courts block Trump administration’s efforts to safeguard America. Michael Cutler

It is hard to believe that it has been 16 years since four passenger airliners were used as de facto cruise missiles to carry out the most horrific terror attack in the history of the United States.

That attack was against the entire United States of America, however, for those who were in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania on that day, the attack was also personal — all too personal.

I will never forget the sight of the ashes from the conflagration at what came to be known as “Ground Zero” fluttering down on my neighborhood in Brooklyn on that day. I will never forget my neighbors screaming and wailing as they watched the televised coverage of that act of violence and destruction playing out just miles from our homes, knowing that their loved ones and friends went to work only an hour or two earlier at the World Trade Center, or in one of the buildings near the World Trade Center complex.

I will never forget what I came to think of as the “stench of death,” the horrible, sickening odors emanating from the smoldering debris at Ground Zero that lasted for months, permeating the air in New York City.

So many of us still suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. How could we not?

Today the death count from 9/11 continues to climb as more people, especially first responders, slowly and torturously succumb to the diseases that were caused by their exposures to and ingestion of the toxins released when the World Trade Center collapsed.

In fact, the expenses associated with the massive number of those who were sickened by those toxins will be borne through the passage of legislation known as H.R.1786 – James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Reauthorization Act. That bill was named for NYPD Detective James Zadroga, one of the first responders who perished because of his exposure to those toxins.

For nearly every year since the attacks of 9/11 I have written retrospectives to lay out how both the Bush administration and especially the Obama administration failed to take the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission into account, particularly where the issue of immigration was concerned.

I provided testimony to the 9/11 Commission about the nexus between the terror attacks of 9/11 and multiple failures of the immigration system.

Last year my article, “Reflections On 9/11’S Vulnerabilities” made my frustrations with the Obama administration crystal clear.

My 2014 article The 9/11 Commission Report and Immigration: An Assessment, Fourteen Years after the Attacks provided and in-depth analysis of the many ways that the Obama administration had not only not acted in accordance with the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, but actually acted in direct opposition to those findings and recommendations.

Today, thankfully, Donald Trump is the President of the United States and the Attorney General is not Loretta Lynch but Jeff Sessions.

Trump and Session are both clearly committed to enforcing our immigration laws, securing our nation’s borders and addressing the immigration failures and vulnerabilities that the 9/11 Commission identified.

Byron York: Crime and immigration: What’s in the Dream Act by Byron York

Commentary on the DACA controversy frequently notes that the nation’s nearly 700,000 so-called Dreamers are a law-abiding group. But a new bill to give DACA recipients full legal status, sponsored by Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham and Jeff Flake and Democratic Sens. Richard Durbin and Chuck Schumer, would allow newly legalized Dreamers to have many run-ins with the law — arrests, charges, convictions — and still receive benefits. Schumer, the Democratic leader, is demanding quick passage.

Former President Barack Obama’s original 2012 executive action creating Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals stipulated that to be eligible, recipients must have “not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offense, or otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.” When Obama announced the criteria for renewing DACA status in 2014, the standard was “have not been convicted of a felony, a significant misdemeanor or three or more misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.”

The Obama administration defined a “significant misdemeanor” as a crime with a maximum sentence of one year, or, regardless of length of sentence, “an offense of domestic violence; sexual abuse or exploitation; burglary; unlawful possession or use of a firearm; drug distribution or trafficking; or driving under the influence.”

With the Dream Act of 2017, Graham, Flake, Durbin, and Schumer have adopted much of the existing Obama-era criteria about crime, but in a way that would allow Department of Homeland Security officials to be more generous with newly legalized DACA recipients.

The Dream Act would exclude anyone who has been convicted of “any offense under federal or state law, other than a state offense for which an essential element is the alien’s immigration status, that is punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of more than one year; or three or more offenses under federal or state law, other than state offense for which an essential element is the alien’s immigration status, for which the alien was convicted on different dates for each of the three offenses and imprisoned for an aggregate of 90 days or more.”

The phrase “other than a state offense for which an essential element is the alien’s immigration status” could excuse a lot of criminal activity. “It would grant status to illegal aliens who have been convicted of felony ID fraud or other crimes that could be considered to be related to their immigration status,” noted Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors tighter restrictions on immigration. “You could say human smuggling, document fraud, benefits fraud, false claims to citizenship, illegal voting, and many other felonies have an essential element that involves immigration status.”

In addition, Graham, Flake, Durbin, and Schumer throw in the phrase “for which the alien was convicted on different dates for each of the three offenses” when referring to misdemeanor convictions. Many crimes involve multiple charges. The Dream Act of 2017 would require a young Dreamer to have committed offenses on not one, not two, but three separate occasions, and been convicted of all before he or she is ineligible for legalization.