Everyone’s attention is currently fixated on illegal immigration and the chaotic situation unfolding at the southern border. Such focus is warranted since a nation that can’t defend its border is one that can’t function as a proper political entity. However, Immigration is a multifaceted issue that requires America First patriots to tackle all aspects of it. And that it includes legal immigration.
Preston Huennekens, the Government Relations Manager at the Federation of American Immigration Reform, exposed earlier this month a mass migration bill that Utah congressman John Curits and California congresswoman Zoe Lofgren introduced in the US House.
The bill in question is the H.R. 3648, the Equal Access to Green Cards for Legal Employment (EAGLE) Act. Huennekens argued that the EAGLE Act is another version of the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act, “a bill that would eliminate per-country caps for immigrant visas and subsequently ensure that only Indian and Chinese nationals dominate immigration into the United States for the foreseeable future.”
One thing that Huennekens brought up that stuck about this new bill is how it’s essentially a rebrand of the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act Act. Huennekens explained what the EAGLE Act does:
While the bill’s name changed, the underlying policy remains the same. Under current law, no country’s nationals can comprise more than 7 percent of any visa category. The existing caps are designed to increase diversity in employment-based immigration, which reflects the long-standing American priority of welcoming talented immigrants from across the globe. The EAGLE Act seeks to remove these caps entirely for employment-based immigrant visas, while also raising the cap on family-preference visas from 7 percent to 15 percent.
Under the EAGLE Act, Indian and Chinese nationals who apply for employment visas would not be subject to visa caps. Huennekens spelled out how current legal migration standards work for employment visas:
Before, nationals from other countries could receive employment visas because no country could fill more than 7 percent of any employment visa category. H.R. 3648 erases that boundary, thereby allowing the hundreds of thousands of applicants from India and China to dominate the employment categories and limiting applicants from other nations.
Huennekens summed up the policy implications of the Eagle Act:
If signed into law, this bill would profoundly change legal immigration to the United States for generations to come; and few, if any, individuals from countries other than India or China would be able to immigrate to the United States on an employment-based visa. Our immigration system is not designed to benefit only one or two countries.
Expansions of legal migration only serve the interests of big corporations who are constantly looking for cheap labor. They’re one of the biggest players in the current uniparty paradigm we live in and they work diligently to preserve the status quo.
Groups ranging from conservatives to libertarians have a strong interest in imposing restrictions on legal immigration as a way to limit the influence of corporations who are notorious for backing the establishments of both parties and who also push for policies that infringe on the freedoms of Americans.
Unfettered legal immigration is effectively easy money for megacorporations and they should be deprived of this crony exploitation.