AF believes the interests of current US citizens should be paramount when formulating US immigration policy. Unfortunately, our government has lost sight of its primary responsibility to its citizens on immigration policy and law enforcement.

AF begins with the premise that the US government has no obligation to let any person from another country immigrate. Our country certainly has no obligation to reward illegal immigrants and other lawbreakers by giving them the benefit of a legal presence in the US, much less any “path” to amnesty, citizenship or access to our benefit programs.

AF is educating the public on how the wages of working class Americans have been declining for 30 years due in large part to the oversupply of labor resulting from the influx of huge numbers of both legal and illegal immigrants. American citizens have a right to demand that their government serve their interests instead of the interests of citizens of other countries who have broken our laws by coming here.

AF believes that US immigration policy should be refocused on prioritizing and protecting the interests of current US citizen and their progeny, with the following policies:

•      A mandatory implementation of an eVerify system for not only employers, but also landlords, and an enhancement of internal immigration enforcement efforts;

•      Completion of the border fence already authorized by federal law in 2006;

•      Disqualification of immigrants from affirmative action programs;

•      Abolition of birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens; and

•      Establishment of English as the official language, and adoption of laws barring discrimination against English-only speakers.



The US Commission on Immigration Reform

In 1995, Congresswoman Barbara Jordan (D – TX) chaired the US Commission on Immigration Reform, which in 1997 issued a 246 page report in the most thorough examination of the impact of US immigration policies to date.   A more readable 1994 interim report can be found here.  It notes that, “The immediate need is more effective prevention and deterrence of unlawful immigration.”

See The Ghost of Barbara Jordan: Texas’s First Black Congresswoman Provided A Voice Missing From Today’s Immigration Debate.    By W. James Antle III, May 8, 2013

“. . . . . In all, the Jordan Commission favored reducing legal immigration by one-third, moving towards more skill-based immigration and away from chain migration, and enhanced enforcement. . . .  [S]erious alternatives to the Gang of Eight approach were once seriously contemplated by such mainstream Democrats as former President Bill Clinton.”

“. . . Jordan observed that ‘it is both a right and a responsibility of a democratic society to manage immigration so that it serves the national interest,’ which includes the interests of citizens of every race . . . “


The United States Commission on Civil Rights

Citing a 2008 briefing, three members of the United States Commission on Civil Rights wrote to Congressional Black Caucus chairwoman Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-OH) to express their belief that amnesty or legalization of some 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. will disproportionally hurt the black community, particularly black men.  “Such grant of legal status will likely disproportionately harm lower-skilled African-Americans by making it more difficult for them to obtain employment and depressing their wages when they do obtain employment,” they noted.  Matthew Boyle at Breitbart has the full story.


Why Liberals Should Oppose the Immigration Bill: It’s About Low-Wage American Workers  By T. A. Frank, New Republic, June 27, 2013

“ . . . Most of America’s college-educated elites are little affected by illegal immigration. In fact, it’s often a benefit to us in terms of childcare, household help, dinners out, and other staples of upper-middle-class life.

. . . All in all, I became convinced that high levels of low-skill immigration are good for wealthy Americans and bad for poor Americans.

Far more important, high levels of illegal immigration—when you start to get into the millions, as we have—undermines unions and labor standards, lowers wages, heightens social tensions, strains state budgets, widens income inequality, subverts the rule of law, and exacerbates class divides.

The effects go far beyond wages, because few undocumented workers earn enough to cover anything close to the cost of government services (such as education for their children) they require, and those services are most important to low-income Americans. In short, it’s an immense blow to America’s working class and poor. . . . for all the ambitious measures listed on paper, the current bill grants near-immediate legalization in exchange for future enforcement.”


Liberalism and Immigration
Yet another voice explains why, “One can be liberal (as I am) and be against continued mass immigration.”
JayMan’s Blog, April 22, 2013

Immigration Reform is Treason
Unemployment is High. Why Are We Importing Foreign Workers?
Ted Rall, May 30th, 2013


The Boston Bombing is Just One of Millions of Reasons Why Another Mass Amnesty of Illegal Alien Invaders is Insane
Nicholas Stix, 04/23/13

Common Sense From Lefties On The Cheap Labor Bill
Steve Sailer, May 31, 2013

Senator Bernie Sanders (Vermont, Independent), who often identifies as a “socialist,” offers some old-fashioned supply and demand reasoning about The Eight Banditos’ bill: ‘This is a massive effort to attract cheap labor.’

Americans Have Always Thought Of Their Own As “Nation Of Immigrants?”

No, they haven’t. The Audacious Epigone (July, 2010) reports on some clever research showing that,  “. . . the phrase certainly has not been commonplace throughout most of the country’s history,” and notes that, “ . . . From my perspective, those who are now here legitimately get to decide who may come and who must stay out.”


Center for Immigration Studies Report: Welfare Use by Immigrant Households with Children – A Look at Cash, Medicaid, Housing, and Food Programs

Among the findings, based on Census Bureau data:

•In 2009 (based on data collected in 2010), 57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 18) used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children.

•A large share of the welfare used by immigrant households with children is received on behalf of their U.S.-born children, who are American citizens. But even households with children comprised entirely of immigrants (no U.S.-born children) still had a welfare use rate of 56 percent in 2009.


Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate of the Senate immigration bill (page 23): ” . . . under the bill, the net annual flow of unauthorized residents would decrease by about 25 percent relative to what would occur under current law . . . “