I have made my personal distaste for Michelle Malkin known several times based on some of the worst op-ed screeds ever written, but today's column ("There is No Such Thing as a 'Deserving" DREAMER' " sets a new low standard for objectivity and truthfulness, especially the latter. Michelle Malkin has, with this column , knocked Ann Coulter off her "Nastiest female Arsehole in America" pedestal. ("You know who" still sits atop the male throne).
To begin with, she takes a number of quotes from non-Dreamers politicians and others, which use the term "deserves" to describe those in the program. She then ascribes the use of the word without distinction to the persons actually in the program, as if they so characterize themselves. She goes on to take quotes from some " Dreamers" in which they express their concerns for their future if the DACA is cancelled. Along the way she repeatedly uses the word "unconstitutional" to describe the actions of President Barack Obama, whom she loathes, in signing the executive order in the first place. She has no justification nor gives any for that characterization.
At this point she has made no mention of the hoops which Dreamers are required to negotiate to retain that status, while citing the number of Americans who are unemployed, with the unspoken inference that Dreamers are "takin' our jobs."
At the heart of the matter, she completely omits the thing which makes Dreamers different. That is they are here, almost universally, without having any say as to how they got here.
The requirements for DACA eligibility are: Must have been brought to the USA before the age of 16 (many, if not most, were much younger) and have lived here since 2017. Note the word "brought" as in didn't illegally enter of their own volition, many being babes in arms and in the vast majority of cases under the age of ten. They must also: be currently enrolled in school, have graduated high school or obtained a general development certificate (GED), or be an honorably discharged veteran, while not having been convicted of a felony or multiple or serious misdemeanors and not pose a "threat to national security or public safety." Dreamers are able to apply to defer deportation and legally reside in the US for two years. After that, they can apply for renewal. By March 31, 240,700 people had applied for renewal in the 2017 fiscal year and nearly 800,000 renewals had been approved over the life of the program.
Malkin's inference , scattered throughout the op-ed piece, is that these persons are, somehow, children of a lesser God and a drain on our society, taking jobs Americans seek, using welfare, increasing crime rates and not contributing to society. At this juncture, were I a writer with the lack of scruples and journalistic integrity exhibited by Michelle Malkin, I would choose three or four outstanding Dreamers, or even the hundreds currently serving in the US Armed Services and extrapolate to the entire 800,000.
Malkin has done the reverse, citing one Dreamer who became a violent criminal with the implication that it is characteristic of the group as a whole. Obviously stats was not her favorite course at Oberlin, where she matriculated and which instution she has since bashed at every turn. By Michelle Malkin's standard, Jesus Contreras, the young Dreamer EMT who was so heroic in Houston during hurricane Harvey, is either non-existent or is exemplary of them all.
Since I believe truth and data outweighs innuendo and aspersion, here are some well documented facts regarding DACA participants by category of Malkin allegation:
Crime: Factcheck.Org noted that "numerous studies have found that immigrants (not Dreamers), do not commit crimes at a higher rate than non-immigrants." (full report here: http://www.factcheck.org/2017/09/spinning-facts-daca/ ) Of course criminal activity disqualifies a Dreamer in any case, again a fact Malkin "forgets!"
Economic impact: Best available estimates are that 91% of DACA recipients – or roughly 700,000 individuals – are currently working, and these workers can be found on the payrolls of 72% of the top 25 Fortune 500 companies. A 2016 study in the Journal of Public Economics also found that DACA increased labor force participation and decreased the unemployment rate for DACA-eligible immigrants. DACA also increased the income of illegal immigrants in the bottom of the income distribution. The study estimates that DACA moved 50,000 to 75,000 unauthorized immigrants into employment. (full report here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047272716301268 )
According to University of California, Davis economist Giovanni Peri, ending DACA would bring a net loss in productivity, given that the U.S. economy is close to full employment. Additionally The CATO Institute estimated that ending DACA would have an adverse fiscal impact by reducing tax revenue by nearly $280 billion over a decade (remember, working Dreamers pay Income Tax) , and the Immigrant Legal Resource Center estimated that deporting DACA-eligible individuals would reduce Social Security and Medicare tax revenue by $24.6 billion over a decade. Another recent study estimated that that the loss of all DACA-eligible workers would reduce U.S. GDP by $433 billion over the next 10 years. While pointing out that the majority of Dreamers are working to better themselves and prepare for the jobs which many unemployed Americans either don't, won't or can't perform. Malkin also implies that Dreamers are or can be a drain on resources such as welfare, when the opposite is the case.
While it is true that DACA participants recipients can participate in Social Security and Medicare, Malkin conveniently omits that the age of benefits for both programs is 65 or over, by which time the Dreamer will have paid into both for at least 34 years after becoming a citizen and as many as 15 years prior. Lower Income DACA recipients may claim earned income tax credit, but only if they have paid in in the first place. They are still ineligible, however, for most forms of welfare including food stamps and Medicaid. As a cohort, Dreamers over the age of 25 are more than twice as likely to start a new business than the national average, according to a survey from the Center for American Progress (CAP).
Malkin's inference , scattered throughout the op-ed piece, is that these persons are, somehow, children of a lesser God and a drain on our society, taking jobs Americans seek, using welfare, increasing crime rates and not contributing to society. At this juncture, were I a writer with the lack of scruples and journalistic integrity exhibited by Michelle Malkin, I would choose three or four outstanding Dreamers, or even the hundreds currently serving in the US Armed Services and extrapolate to the entire 800,000.
Malkin has done the reverse, citing one Dreamer who became a violent criminal with the implication that it is characteristic of the group as a whole. Obviously stats was not her favorite course at Oberlin, where she matriculated and which instution she has since bashed at every turn. By Michelle Malkin's standard, Jesus Contreras, the young Dreamer EMT who was so heroic in Houston during hurricane Harvey, is either non-existent or is exemplary of them all.
Since I believe truth and data outweighs innuendo and aspersion, here are some well documented facts regarding DACA participants by category of Malkin allegation:
Crime: Factcheck.Org noted that "numerous studies have found that immigrants (not Dreamers), do not commit crimes at a higher rate than non-immigrants." (full report here: http://www.factcheck.org/2017/09/spinning-facts-daca/ ) Of course criminal activity disqualifies a Dreamer in any case, again a fact Malkin "forgets!"
Economic impact: Best available estimates are that 91% of DACA recipients – or roughly 700,000 individuals – are currently working, and these workers can be found on the payrolls of 72% of the top 25 Fortune 500 companies. A 2016 study in the Journal of Public Economics also found that DACA increased labor force participation and decreased the unemployment rate for DACA-eligible immigrants. DACA also increased the income of illegal immigrants in the bottom of the income distribution. The study estimates that DACA moved 50,000 to 75,000 unauthorized immigrants into employment. (full report here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047272716301268 )
According to University of California, Davis economist Giovanni Peri, ending DACA would bring a net loss in productivity, given that the U.S. economy is close to full employment. Additionally The CATO Institute estimated that ending DACA would have an adverse fiscal impact by reducing tax revenue by nearly $280 billion over a decade (remember, working Dreamers pay Income Tax) , and the Immigrant Legal Resource Center estimated that deporting DACA-eligible individuals would reduce Social Security and Medicare tax revenue by $24.6 billion over a decade. Another recent study estimated that that the loss of all DACA-eligible workers would reduce U.S. GDP by $433 billion over the next 10 years. While pointing out that the majority of Dreamers are working to better themselves and prepare for the jobs which many unemployed Americans either don't, won't or can't perform. Malkin also implies that Dreamers are or can be a drain on resources such as welfare, when the opposite is the case.
While it is true that DACA participants recipients can participate in Social Security and Medicare, Malkin conveniently omits that the age of benefits for both programs is 65 or over, by which time the Dreamer will have paid into both for at least 34 years after becoming a citizen and as many as 15 years prior. Lower Income DACA recipients may claim earned income tax credit, but only if they have paid in in the first place. They are still ineligible, however, for most forms of welfare including food stamps and Medicaid. As a cohort, Dreamers over the age of 25 are more than twice as likely to start a new business than the national average, according to a survey from the Center for American Progress (CAP).
The same survey found that more than 90 percent of Dreamers over the age of 25 are currently employed, and, on average, they work 40 hours a week and earn an annual income of $37,000. As a point of interest, (to me, not Malkin) that annual single earner average income is above the 2017 poverty level for a family of four. More than 98 percent of them speak English, and more than 70 percent of them are pursuing (or have attained) a bachelor’s degree. Since the initiative was signed, these young people have increased their college enrollment, found better jobs, and earned more money.
Health and Education: All studies in these areas indicate zero negative economic impact due to DACA, although, mental health experts cite the stress and loss of family cohesion if Dreamer parents (eligibility extends to age 31, at which time it's citizenship or leave) are deported and citizen children are left to the care of others.
Immigration: In 2016 study in International Migration found that DACA did not significantly impact the number of apprehensions of unaccompanied minors from Central America. In 2015 the non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report assessing the reasons behind the surge in unaccompanied minors from Central America. The report did not mention DACA, and cited crime and lack of economic opportunity in countries of origin as the main reasons behind the surge. As an aside, it should have been noted (but is intentionally omitted by Ms. Malkin) that the DACA is irrelevant to current recent entry undocumenteds anyway since they would have to have been here for ten years and under 16 on arrival.
In summary: Michelle Malkin makes numerous inferences about participants in the DACA and the act itself which are demonstrably incorrect. She harps on the assertion that Dreamers claim to be "deserving" while in fact all examples of statements to that effect were quoted from citizens, politicians and non politicians alike. She implies negative impact on the economy, welfare and social support systems, crime rates, health and education, yet there are none. Michelle Malkin is a liar, and a bigot.
This strikes me as very odd, in the sense that as the child of Filipino parents who were here on employer sponsored work Visas (also a "special" deal for immigrants, yes, in a sense she was an "anchor baby") and for whom America has become the land of economic success and opportunity, she certainly dislikes others who simply seek an opportunity to achieve the same good life with which she was gifted. She went to a parochial school in Philadelphia followed by Oberlin College, where her attitudes managed to disenchant practically everyone who knew her.
Michelle Malkin, an attractive Filipina externally, is a truly ugly person inside, where it matters.
Health and Education: All studies in these areas indicate zero negative economic impact due to DACA, although, mental health experts cite the stress and loss of family cohesion if Dreamer parents (eligibility extends to age 31, at which time it's citizenship or leave) are deported and citizen children are left to the care of others.
Immigration: In 2016 study in International Migration found that DACA did not significantly impact the number of apprehensions of unaccompanied minors from Central America. In 2015 the non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report assessing the reasons behind the surge in unaccompanied minors from Central America. The report did not mention DACA, and cited crime and lack of economic opportunity in countries of origin as the main reasons behind the surge. As an aside, it should have been noted (but is intentionally omitted by Ms. Malkin) that the DACA is irrelevant to current recent entry undocumenteds anyway since they would have to have been here for ten years and under 16 on arrival.
In summary: Michelle Malkin makes numerous inferences about participants in the DACA and the act itself which are demonstrably incorrect. She harps on the assertion that Dreamers claim to be "deserving" while in fact all examples of statements to that effect were quoted from citizens, politicians and non politicians alike. She implies negative impact on the economy, welfare and social support systems, crime rates, health and education, yet there are none. Michelle Malkin is a liar, and a bigot.
This strikes me as very odd, in the sense that as the child of Filipino parents who were here on employer sponsored work Visas (also a "special" deal for immigrants, yes, in a sense she was an "anchor baby") and for whom America has become the land of economic success and opportunity, she certainly dislikes others who simply seek an opportunity to achieve the same good life with which she was gifted. She went to a parochial school in Philadelphia followed by Oberlin College, where her attitudes managed to disenchant practically everyone who knew her.
Michelle Malkin, an attractive Filipina externally, is a truly ugly person inside, where it matters.
No comments:
Post a Comment