Working for logical immigation reform based on a stable population, a recognition of the finite nature of our natural resources and the adverse impact of continued growth on our quality of life, standard of living, national interest, character, language, sovereignty and the rule of law. Pushing back and countering the disloyal elements in American society and the anti-American rhetoric of the leftwing illegal alien lobbies. In a debate, when your opponents turn to name calling, it's a good sign you've already won.

Monday, September 24, 2007

Water, water everywhere and not a drop to drink

Everyone, especially the naysayers regarding a stable population like Bob Schmidt, should be watching the NBC Nightly News which is beginning a series on water. The one tonight was about the grossly polluted Ganges River in India in which people bath and from which they even drink in spite of the fact that it is highly toxic. Part of the reason for this behavior is religious but the pollution is a direct function of the population, too many people in too small a space.

Tomorrow night the water segment will deal with the Southwestern U.S.. It is important for everyone especially the Pros and their ilk to watch this segment. It might give them some clue about why there is opposition to high fertility rate immigrants and illegal aliens.

Pick your presidential candidate

Take this short test and then post your results in a comment.
Select a Candidate

Friday, September 21, 2007

Why We Disagree.

Disagreement about immigration is not peculiarly American. It exists in many countries of the world. Americans are split in half into nature and content. Not the nation but the people. The nation, at least for the moment, is totally and mystically unified, but each American is split into two halves. On the one side are his origins, European, Latin American, Asian; on the other side the enormous opportunities that confront him. We are a people who fled civilizations. Think of that. We are offspring who could not succeed under the established, civilized circumstances, whatever they were---and all of our backgrounds varied. We struggled through hardships to get to the new land, then we found a fantastically rich world. Having left the old countries penniless and hungry, our fathers had to convince themselves that they would build a better place. They taught that to their children. It created tremendous idealism. It created tremendous gullibility. The modern immigration movement is after all lip service to idealism. We want to continue the idealism of our immigrant past but pushing aside our gullibility we know that the instant we allow our past to color our thinking about the present and the future we are doomed.

The U.S., as a fantastically rich nation, exists only in the imagination of those who still live in the past. The U.S. is graying at the temples. Finite resources are in steep decline. Petroleum must be purchased in large quantities abroad. From the perspective of our highways and streets, our country is full.

Poverty may bring forth faith; affluence brings things -- wide screen tv, multiple cars, obesity. We must have faith so Americans have achieved faith in things. Therefore what the American people are faced with is a craving for reassurance that they have kept the faith, the universal faith of our immigrant fathers, the faith of loss and deprivation. Simultaneously the other half is a quivering maw of national sensuality - sensation, tactilities, gluttony, satiety - the essence of total self indulgence, making us dependent on our riches, faith's opposite.

We approach the problem of immigration with the knowledge that finite resources divided over an increasing number of people will ultimately mean a reduction in our quality of life and standard of living. We approach the problem of immigration knowing that more immigrants means more poverty. We know deep in our souls that millions of immigrants, illegal aliens and their progeny will inevitably mean that our standard of living must come into equilibrium with that of the poorer nations who send us their impoverished masses. The solution to this conundrum is apparent for all those who wish to see it. (paraphrased in part from Richard Condon's novel "Mile High")

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Dee speaks Her Piece II

Rushdie Paraphrased

"What I fear most is that, when we look back in 25 years' time at this moment, what we will have seen is the surrender of America to immigration's unarmed invasion, without a shot being fired. They'll say that in the name of tolerance and acceptance, we tied our own hands and slit our own throats. One of the things that have made me live my entire life in America is because I love the way people live here, the quality of life and the standard of living. All that will change for the worse as legal immigrants and illegal aliens and their progeny result in unfettered population growth, the destruction of social solidarity in communities affected by high degrees of ethnic and racial diversity, the depletion of natural resources, increased pollution, more traffic congestion, extinction of species, climate change and gasoline at $10/gallon. All this we can lay at the feet of our shortsighted politicians and their tax and immigration policies, and to the disloyal, complicit immigrant sympathizers and their fellow travelers."

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Rushdie Speaks

Rushdie runs through a list of the theatres and galleries that have censored themselves in the face of religious fundamentalist protests. He mentions that the entire British media - from the BBC down - placed itself in purdah during the Mohammed cartoons episode. "What I fear most is that, when we look back in 25 years' time at this moment, what we will have seen is the surrender of the West, without a shot being fired. They'll say that in the name of tolerance and acceptance, we tied our own hands and slit our own throats. One of the things that have made me live my entire life in these countries is because I love the way people live here."

At the Border VII

At the Border VI

At the Border V

At the Border IV

At the Border III

At the Border II

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

The "Pro-illegals have overplayed their hand

“Pro-illegal” immigration policies and supporters have overplayed the “human-rights” element of the situation. Currently the federal government is cracking down on those who hire illegal immigrants. If they are successful the businesses will have to hire US citizens at higher wages thus increasing not only wages but prices and government revenues.

There will be a lag between high wages and inflation but not a long one. Just as there was a lag between delinquent mortgage payments and foreclosures there will be lag between the crackdown on illegal immigrant’s employment and inflation.

The truth is the US economy has lived on borrowed time due to low inflation, higher wages for “legal” workers and low interest rates. Soon this will change as the pendulum swings the other way.

To those who think that illegal immigration is great because you can hire a cleaning lady on the cheap and get your lawn mowed for pennies on the dollar then I suggest you live in the same standard of living that those illegal immigrants live. Overcrowded, crime-ridden neighborhoods filled with anger for those who have more but a willingness to continue their vicious circle of existence due to the desire to live.

The federal government, by ignoring its own policies and laws, has created a conundrum that only Solomon can get us out of. The question that begs to be answered is, “Who is the Solomon amongst us?” It certainly isn't those who favor mass legalization, open borders, amnesty, increased immigration and more varieties of visas. It certainly isn't those who oppose Official English. It isn't those who oppose clarification of the 14th amendment. It isn't those who think Mexican trucks on American roads is a good thing. It isn't those who favor the interests of foreign government and foreign nationals over the national interest.

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Rudy Puts his Foot in his Mouth

Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani says illegal immigration is not a crime. Technically, he is correct. When you throw an immigrant out of the country, it's not a criminal proceeding. It's a civil proceeding. But, obviously, he is not taking the problem seriously.

"Illegal immigration shouldn't be a crime, either," Giuliani said,"... because the government wouldn't be able to prosecute it. We couldn't prosecute 12 million people. We have only 2 million people in jail right now for all the crimes that are committed in the country, 2.5 million. My solution is close the border to illegal immigration."

These statements are a curious way to win the nomination. How is it that we can undertake civil proceedings against millions of illegals but not criminal proceedings. Maybe he should suggest a change in the law along the lines of Sensenbrenner, HR 4437.

He doesn't explain why we are spending billions of dollars on the Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement if no crime is being committed by the illegal aliens. Nor does he deal with the case of the repeat offender who returns to the U.S. after having been deported or removed. That person faces jail time -- a startling turn of events for something that is not a crime. Good luck, Rudy, with trying to close the border without criminal penalties.

Rudy missed the point altogether. You don't have to prosecute 12 million cases to send a message to the illegals that they are unwelcome and that we will prosecute as many as we can. All we need is a law that says illegal entry is a felony and visa overstays will be heavily fined and immediately deported. Sorry Rudy, no cigar!

Politics and Population

"The Malibu Chamber of Commerce Business Directory has a nice photo on its cover from the 'Golden Age of Surfing,' the mid-1960s. I contend that was probably the Golden Age of California. Starting in 1965, for reasons I have yet to comprehend, the U.S. government decided to greatly increase the amount of legal immigration into this country. It is presently at about 1.2 million a year. They also got very lax on illegal immigration from about that same time.

Here are some startling statistics: The population of California increased by 43 percent in the 20 years from 1979 to 1999. That, by any standards, is an outrageous increase in population. That increase was largely the result of immigration, legal and illegal.

Here's another startling statistic: according to the Census Bureau, the population of the United States increased by 33.3 million from July 1994 to July 2004. You read that right: 33 million in one 10-year period! That's insane. An d it has been getting worse and worse. It is projected not only to continue but to increase greatly in the future.

No part of the country has been more affected by the huge increases in both legal and illegal immigration than Southern California. Yet our elected officials have not just been asleep at the wheel on this issue, but some have been actively working to increase it as evidenced by the support of the recently defeated amnesty bill in the Senate.
A recent Rasmussen poll shows what most Americans have known for a while: a majority of Americans favor cutting off federal funds for "sanctuary cities" that thumb their noses at federal immigrations laws. By a wide margin (71 percent to 16 percent) Americans favor having foreign visitors carry a universal ID card. A majority also want the fence on the border with Mexico to be built.

As we approach the next presidential election, many people think that the big issue will be the war in Iraq. The candidat es have staked out their positions on that issue pretty clearly. I personally believe the biggest issue for the majority of Americans at election time will be immigration and overpopulation. On that issue, the candidates have also clearly staked out their positions.

This is not a question of right and left, and it is not a racial issue. This is a question of numbers and sustainability. Our population is simply getting too big too rapidly. Our country was actually at a relatively manageable minimum growth pace back in the 'Golden Age' of California. Remember the 2.1 kids per family equation? Then our government officials decided to drastically increase the legal immigrant numbers (the U.S. allows more legal immigrants than all of the rest of the countries of the world combined!) and concurrently not enforce immigration laws. The problem is: they never consulted the citizenry on this issue, despite the fact that a majority of Americans have always favored immigration and population controls. We need some new leaders and representatives. This will be a hard and difficult fight. The future of America is at stake. We must take action now to avert foolishly allowing our population to balloon into nightmare proportions." --Mullen

Monday, September 10, 2007

An Alternate Immigration Reform Plan

Comprehensive Immigration Reform

Senator Salazar (D, Colorado) has been suggested that those who opposed the immigration reform bills initiated by the U.S. Senate in 2006 and 2007 should come forward with their own plan. Here is one such plan with the provisions listed in priority order. Some of these provisions may be incorporated in the same bill but in general to keep the bills to a reasonable length and understandable to all, separate bills would be preferable but with the effectivity of each contingent on the enactment of each preceding bill of higher priority.

1. Strong border control and enforcement as outlined in HR 4437 (Sensenbrenner) and further elaborated in S.1639

a. Completion of all infrastructure improvements to include improved roads, fences, electronic and aerial surveillance

b. Results-oriented triggers for other immigration reform provisions.

(1) A reduction in the illegal population.

(2) A reduction in the number of border apprehensions.

c. Disincentives and sanctions (see below)

2. An end to 14th amendment abuses and chain immigrations

a. Incorporate the provisions of the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)[H.R.1940.IH

b. Suspend birthright citizenship for children until their 18th birthday.

3. Incorporate the provisions of the S.I. Hayakawa Official English Language Act of 2007 (Introduced in Senate)

a. Repeal E.O. 13166

b. Provide a Public Interpreter for anyone who cannot afford one.

c. Allow health care facilities and others to bill for interpreter services.

4. Simplify the H-2A visa application procedure for guest agricultural and ski resort workers

a. Limit the number of visas issued to the demonstrated need.

b. No arbitrary limit

c. Number of visas issued should be unrelated to the number of illegals already present.

5. Disincentives and Sanctions

a. Expeditious immigration decisions and appeals.

b. Self or voluntary deportations reclassified as involuntary.

c. Minor children must accompany parents under removal orders.

d. Jail time for repeat offenders.

e. Escalating penalties for those who employ illegals or who aid them or give them sanctuary.

f. Employer accountability for illegals in their employ whether they were hired knowingly or unknowingly.

g. Withhold federal funds from cities that declare themselves to be sanctuary cities or that fail to provide full police cooperation with the ICE in identifying and detaining illegal aliens

6. American labor protection provision

a. All jobs currently held by illegal aliens to be re-advertisement at a fair wage and a hiring preference for citizens.

b. Fair wage to be determined by local unions and U.S. Department of Labor based on historical data adjusted for ensuing inflation.

c. Expeditious repatriation of all illegals who are replaced with American workers through this re-advertisement process. Register and issue IDs to those illegals who survive this process.

d. A mandatory workplace immigration status verification system for all workers not just new hires.

e. No more than one month to resolve social security number and name mismatches.

7. Mandatory employer family health insurance coverage for all foreign workers.

a. Authority for health care facilities and providers to bill employers for any unpaid medical expenses of their foreign employees.

b. Construction of triage and obstetrical care hospitals south of the border at all border crossings; costs to be shared by Mexico and the U.S.

c. Once their conditions are stabilized, illegals will be transported to one of these hospitals.

d. Hospitals to be staffed by Mexican physicians and nurses and volunteers.

e. Standby helicopters and ambulances to enable patients to be quickly delivered to hospitals.

f. Pregnant women are prohibited from entering the U.S. under any circumstances; babies born of violators will be issued a temporary birth certificate showing the citizenship of the child as that of the mother.

8. Interior enforcement

a. Enabling legislation to permit local and state jurisdictions to charge illegal aliens with criminal trespass and to deny them housing, jobs, welfare, etc. and to enact such other measures as may be deemed necessary to reduce or eliminate the illegal population.

b. As a condition of federal support, state and local law enforcement officers are required to detain any law violators for a determination of immigration status by the ICE; no catch and release.

c. Construction of more detention facilities along illegal immigration routes.

d. More immigration judges stationed in these detention facilities to expedite removal proceedings.

e. Immediate deportation of all visas overstays.

9. Tamperproof, biometric photo IDs with thumb prints for all legal foreign workers

10. Strict criteria for immigration appeals

a. Time limit of one week for appeals.

b. Appeal criteria

(1) Credit to the community

(2) Children over the age of 8 in U.S. schools

(3) Testimonials from fellow workers of a different ethnicity

(4) Evidence of social integration

(5) Evidence of cultural and linguistic assimilation

(a) Participation in community-based English language instruction.

11. A reduction in immigration quotas or visas of all kinds, except tourist visas, to a maximum of 200,000 per year

a. Priority for those who already speak English or who have skills not available in sufficient numbers in the domestic work force.

b. A national objective of a stable population within 20 years.

c. A soft landing for our economy

12. Permanent disbarment from a pathway to citizenship for anyone who voted in any election illegally, entered the U.S. illegally, or overstayed his visa contrary to law.

13. Registration of all illegal aliens; involuntary removal at their own expense or that of their employers of all who do not register within six weeks

14. Foreign workers must be paid not less than the median wage of citizens doing the same kind of work with equal experience

15. The ability to read, write and speak English as a condition of citizenship and voting rights.

Friday, September 7, 2007

Criminal aliens are not facing the proper consequences.

"Authorities in Essex County, New Jersey, recently identified a man named Jose Carranza as a principal suspect in the August 4 murder of three young people in Newark. The victims were forced to kneel against a wall and then shot in the back of the head. Carranza, a Peruvian national, is an illegal alien.

At the time of the shooting, Essex County officials reportedly considered the immigration status of criminal suspects "irrelevant." The officials refused to ask the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) if the suspect was an illegal alien, unless and until the suspect was convicted and sentenced. That policy has had unfortunate consequences in this case. If DHS, which takes a special interest in child sex offenders, had known that Essex County had arrested Carranza earlier this year for molesting a five-year-old, it could very well have detained and deported him for his illegal status before the shooting.

Localities that fail to cooperate with DHS in identifying criminal aliens in their custody may end up paying a steep price. They ensure that criminal aliens, who could otherwise be deported, are released back into the community to commit further crimes, which they do at an astonishing rate. A Government Accountability Office study found that 55,322 criminal aliens were arrested a total of at least 459,614 times, averaging over eight arrests per alien. The Department of Justice expressed its surprise at the "extremely high" rate of re-arrests for criminal aliens when it found that that 73 criminal aliens in a study group were arrested a total of 429 times. Localities that adopt "sanctuary" policies, in an effort to be welcoming to both legal and illegal immigrants, need to consider whether such policies have the effect of attracting and incubating crime. ...

Localities and DHS should work together to remove criminal aliens from our streets, and send them back to their countries of origin. The legal authority for such cooperation already exists, and numerous jurisdictions have placed specially trained officers in their jails to help DHS identify criminals who should be deported. But such agreements are only one part of a larger national strategy that needs to be adopted to deal with criminal aliens.

I recently introduced the Immigration Enforcement and Border Security Act (S. 1984), which is a reflection of the concerns of a number of senators. These senators believe that the United States could do much more to combat the crimes committed by illegal aliens. Among other things, the bill would require DHS to help identify aliens incarcerated in U.S. jails before they are released, and to take custody of those aliens within 72 hours of apprehension or at the conclusion of any prosecution." -- Senator Kyl, R. Arizona

Sanctuaries - Senator Norm Coleman

"Increasingly it seems Americans in different parts of the country have opened their morning newspaper or turned on the TV and learned about an act of violence carried out by someone who is living in this country illegally. Alarmingly, many of these individuals have had previous contact with local law enforcement officials. Such is the case in Newark, New Jersey, where recently three innocent young people were tragically murdered. In the aftermath of this tragedy, we learned that one of the suspects -- an illegal immigrant -- was previously arrested on multiple occasions and, rather than being deported, was set free only to victimize again.

The situation in Newark didn't happen in a vacuum. It isn't new, nor is it relegated to just this one community. An alarming number of cities and towns throughout this nation have similar sanctuary policies on the books -- including both Minneapolis and St. Paul in my home state of Minnesota. In these cities, local law enforcement officials are barred from so much as inquiring about a suspect's immigration status and passing along their concerns to federal authorities for follow up action. The rationale for this practice is as antiquated as the practice itself. Yes, it is important to maintain good relations between immigrant communities and local law enforcement, but we must not hide behind that as an excuse for letting lawbreakers off the hook. In a post 9/11 world, the evidence has shown the consequences of sanctuary city policies can reach beyond just one community. Take for example Mohammed Atta, leader of the 9/11 hijackers. In 2001, he was stopped and ticketed for driving without a license in Florida. His visa was expired and yet he was simply allowed to continue on his way. ...

Opening the lines of communication between local and federal law enforcement officials is essential to protecting the security and safety of our citizens. Sanctuary cities like Newark, Minneapolis and others hinder that communication and prevent us from taking action against criminals before they act. In Minnesota, police officers have told me they feel their jobs could be threatened if they asked about immigration status in routine investigations. Simply put, our officers should not be handcuffed in their ability to protect the public.

The informational wall created by the sanctuary city loophole defies logic and, in this day and age, is harmful to our national security. We must give this tool back to our local law enforcement. And even though the debate in Washington over immigration reform has subsided for now, I will continue working with my colleagues to end the practice of sanctuary cities."

Beck on the Ethics of Immigration

"Some advocates of high immigration justify the harm it does to this country by arguing that we are ethically bound to honor the heroism and courage of those who leave their countries and tenaciously fight to immigrate here for the betterment of their families.

Well, I am happy to concede to my immigrant friends that they have been bold and often brave. I make no moral judgment against their decision to accept the legal option that our country offered them to immigrate. But few immigrants are heroes. For example, only a tiny portion of the foreign-born here – according to recent studies – has fled starvation, persecution, or even joblessness.

The courageous heroes on the world scene are not those men and women in poor countries who have the energy, the intelligence, and the skills to escape to a rich country but rather those remaining with their people. Rather than focus on improving conditions for themselves and their families by emigrating, they strive to raise the conditions for whole communities.

It is in those communities where more than 99% of the world’s poor will live out their lives, regardless of what rich countries do about immigration. That is where effective and, thus, ethically sound humanitarianism must be directed.

Years ago, I developed a little presentation with gumballs to help a junior high social studies class analyze this issue. I held up a huge bottle with 4,600 gumballs, each representing approximately one million people in the world who are more impoverished than the average Mexican (4.6 billion). I then removed a single gumball. This represented the one million legal immigrants the U.S. has taken in an average year since 1990.

The students had no trouble getting the point: As a humanitarian program for the world’s poor, immigration is pitifully ineffective for nearly everybody it is supposed to help.

The world's poor will not find hope in those who migrate, but in those who remain and bloom where they are planted. Heroism and courage is found among those leveraging every bit of good will and appropriate investment from outside to provide home-grown quality of life improvements."

Thursday, September 6, 2007

Samuelson: Washington Post

From 1990 to 2006, the number of poor Hispanics increased 3.2 million, from 6 million to 9.2 million. Meanwhile, the number of non-Hispanic whites in poverty fell from 16.6 million (poverty rate: 8.8 percent) in 1990 to 16 million (8.2 percent) in 2006. Among blacks, there was a decline from 9.8 million in 1990 (poverty rate: 31.9 percent) to 9 million (24.3 percent) in 2006. White and black poverty has risen somewhat since 2000 but is down over longer periods.

Only an act of willful denial can separate immigration and poverty. The increase among Hispanics must be concentrated among immigrants, legal and illegal, as well as their American-born children. Yet, this story goes largely untold. Government officials didn’t say much about immigration when briefing on the poverty and income reports

Saturday, September 1, 2007

Who Should Plan Immigration?

In a letter to the editor in the June 2007 _The Freeman_, Norman Henry asks several questions to which I have supplied answers:

  1. How many of the six-and-a-half billion people in the world should be able to enter the United States to "live and work peacefully" under an "open borders" policy?

There should be no open borders policy. Immigration of all kinds should be limited to 200,000 per year or whatever it takes to achieve a stable population.

  1. Who decides a number limit if literal "open borders" is deemed impractical?

Obviously, this is the job of the congress. It can certainly take a page out of the play book of India and China and adopt a policy that will prevent a population level anything like that of those two countries.

  1. What should the limited number be?

It should be that number which will lead to a stable population in not more than 20 years.

  1. Should national, or continental, origin of new immigrants be considered in the immigration process? If so, what should be the basis for the balance?

Yes, an earlier wise policy reflected the national or continental origin of the existing citizen population. That is the appropriate basis for the balance.

  1. Should immigrants from Mexico or Canada who can "walk in" be made equal "somehow" with People from Europe, Asia, Africa, and elsewhere, who cannot "walk in"?

Yes, this is a good idea. It might be called handicapping.

  1. Should these new immigrants be "non-preference" immigrants as was the case before 1965? That is, can anyone immigrate to the U.S. regardless of skill or immediate relatives or refugee status or any other limiting "preference" criteria?

No, the preference system should be based on the need for the skills possessed by the applicants and knowledge of the English language. The number should be limited to our measured and metered needs consistent with a national objective of a stable population.

7. If it is decided that the United States needs to limit immigration to a billion or two billion or some other number of immigrants in some period of time, what should be done about the subsequent illegal immigration problem that would remain?

They should be promptly repatriated without recourse as quickly as they are apprehended.