Myth #1: Immigration lawyers are an objective source of information on immigration reform.
Fact: These bottom feeders make their living supporting illegal aliens and legal immigrants. Their point of view suffers from an obvious pro-immigrant bias. The more immigrants there are, the more money the lawyers make.
Myth #2: America must be both a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws.
Fact: This is a half truth. America was once a nation of immigrants during the great immigration waves of the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries. But our immigrant past does not constitute a valid argument for continuing high levels of immigration.
Myth #3: America is fundamentally the same country it was during the great waves of immigration.
Fact: America has changed drastically since the time when a largely unsettled continent lay before the early explorers, colonists, pioneers and immigrants. Now our population is over 300 million and expected to double again by the end of this century. Our natural resources which once seemed inexhaustible are now seriously depleted with petroleum reaching peak production more than 30 years ago in the 1970s, water becoming over committed, arable land becoming developed or destroyed, and other minerals becoming harder and harder to find. Finite natural resources means there will be less for each of us even without further population growth. Why would anyone want to ignore that elementary fact?
Myth #4: We need to acknowledge those illegals that are already here.
Fact: We do acknowledge them and also, the fact that they are, well --- illegal. We can further acknowledge them through vigorous and continuous internal enforcement using E-verification of work status, and expedited due process. We need enough immigration judges to assure that each case can be heard within 24 hours with appeals limited to one week based on narrowly defined criteria. Unnecessary family separations should not be one of those criteria. Families should be repatriated as a unit. Minor children should never be left behind regardless of citizenship.
Myth #5: Immigration laws are not working for employers and families.
Fact: While this may be true, they are in the minority. If the laws were enforced, they would work for all the other American citizens, labor unions and professional organizations whose members oppose illegals and the excessive legal immigration quotas that drive down wages, usurp American jobs and increase the level of poverty. Chain immigrations multiply the legal quota many fold and represent a huge loophole in the law. Families should be required to apply as a unit or forever forgo the possibility of legal immigration.
Myth #6: Americans support comprehensive immigration reform (CIR).
Fact: No one can make this assertion because Americans have never been given an opportunity to express an opinion, one way or the other, on a comprehensive list of potential individual reform measures or approaches. Most often the only stark choice given is between mass amnesty and mass deportation. Where is the middle ground for Americans to react to?
Myth #7: CIR is not amnesty.
Fact: This may or may not be true depending on what is meant by CIR. It is true that amnesty, legally-defined, is the forgiveness of an offense without penalty. If any penalty is imposed, even if it is just a slap on the wrist or unenforceable requirements to pay fines and back taxes and learn English, that is technically not amnesty. However, the commonly understood meaning of that term is any policy that permits the illegals to remain and work in this country instead of returning to their homelands and staying there until their turn comes up for legal immigration. Going to the back of the line is meaningless if illegals are allowed to remain here while waiting their turn while legal applicants must wait in their own countries.
Myth #8: Population-driven economic growth is sustainable indefinitely.
Fact: The limit of finite natural resources per capita as population increases without bounds is zero. The question is how far down this road do we want to go? How far can we go before the quality of life and standard of living is reduced for each of us?
At 20 metric tons per year per capita, 300 million additional people will pump 6 billion more tons of carbon pollutants into the atmosphere every year. This will reduce the biodiversity of our planet at the same time as we are touting diversity among our human population
Population-driven economic growth is unsustainable in the long run.
Myth #9: Legal immigration and illegal aliens cost taxpayers nothing.
Fact: There is a plethora of studies that argue to the contrary. The studies that suggest otherwise often are based on inadequate assumptions and incomplete analysis. A careful study of education and welfare costs for immigrants of all kinds and their progeny reveals a quite different picture as does a review of emergency room usage and indigent care in hospitals attributable to illegal aliens and their children. None of the studies have evaluated the costs arising from population growth such as collateral damage to the environment, increased traffic congestion, depletion of natural resources, and the threat to our culture, language and the rule of law.
Myth #10: We can't enforce our way out of this problem.
Fact: Such a statement is at best premature since we have never made a concerted effort at the border and internally to enforce the law and repatriate those who have violated it. This myth suggests that if we simply repeal the laws against immigration, robbery, murder and mayhem, that will solve all our problems. If we used E-verification of work status and promptly repatriated those who are here illegally, that would go a long way toward making our borders secure. Who would want to pay a coyote $3,000 and make a long and dangerous journey into a foreign land if they knew involuntary repatriation at their own expense would be the likely outcome?
Myth #11: Enforcement efforts have resulted in more human smuggling and deaths.
Fact: The open invitation to illegals created by the 1986 amnesty is the primary cause of the increase in smuggling and deaths. The illegals believe that if they can escape the immediate environs of the border, there is little to fear from an ineffective and discontinuous internal enforcement effort. Moreover, they believe that eventually the bleeding heart liberals, immigration lawyers, immigration special interests, and disloyal citizens will succeed in getting another amnesty approved. This is the strongest possible incentive to violate the border.
Myth #12: Opposition to illegal aliens and excessive legal immigration is based on bigotry, racism or nativism.
Fact: There are many reasons to oppose illegal aliens and excessive legal immigration some of which are cited above. National security, national sovereignty and the national interest are other such reasons. Pro-illegals resort to ad hominem arguments, hyperbole and name-calling because they have few substantive point so view.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Obama's Connections with the Far Left Socialists
Campaign workers for Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama are under fire for displaying a flag featuring communist hero Che Guevara. But Obama has his own controversial socialist connections. He is, in fact, an associate of a Chicago-based Marxist group with access to millions of labor union dollars and connections to expert political consultants, including a convicted swindler.
Obama's socialist backing goes back at least to 1996, when he received the endorsement of the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) for an Illinois state senate seat. Later, the Chicago DSA newsletter reported that Obama, as a state senator, showed up to eulogize Saul Mendelson, one of the "champions" of "Chicago's democratic left" and a long-time socialist activist. Obama's stint as a "community organizer" in Chicago has gotten some attention, but his relationship with the DSA socialists, who groomed and backed him, has been generally ignored.
Blogger Steve Bartin, who has been following Obama's career and involvement with the Chicago socialists, has uncovered a fascinating video showing Obama campaigning for openly socialist Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Interestingly, Sanders, who won his seat in 2006, called Obama "one of the great leaders of the United States Senate," even though Obama had only been in the body for about two years. In 2007, the National Journal said that Obama had established himself as "the most liberal Senator." More liberal than Sanders? That is quite a feat. Does this make Obama a socialist, too?
DSA describes itself as the largest socialist organization in the United States and the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International. The Socialist International (SI) has what is called "consultative status" with the United Nations. In other words, it works hand-in-glove with the world body.
The international connection is important and significant because an Obama bill, "The Global Poverty Act," has just been rushed through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, with the assistance of Democratic Senator Joe Biden, the chairman, and Republican Senator Richard Lugar. The legislation (S.2433) commits the U.S. to spending hundreds of billions of dollars more in foreign aid on the rest of the world, in order to comply with the "Millennium Goals" established by the United Nations. Conservative members of the committee were largely caught off-guard by the move to pass the Obama bill but are putting a "hold" on it, in order to try to prevent the legislation, which also quickly passed the House, from being quickly brought up for a full Senate vote. But observers think that Senate Democrats may try to pass it quickly anyway, in order to give Obama a precious legislative "victory" that he could run on.
Another group associated with the SI is the Party of European Socialists (PES), which heard from Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, back in 2006. Dean's speech is posted on the official Democratic Party website, although the European socialist parties are referred to as "progressive." Democrats, Dean said, want to be "good citizens of the world community." He spoke at a session on "Global Challenges for Progressive Politics."
Following up, in April 2007, PES President Poul Nyrup Rasmussen reported that European socialists held a meeting "in the Democrats HQ in Washington," met with officials of the party and Democratic members of Congress, and agreed that "PES activist groups" in various U.S. cities would start working together. The photos of the trip show Rasmussen meeting with such figures as Senator Ben Cardin, Senator Bernie Sanders, officials of the Brookings Institution, Howard Dean, and AFL-CIO President John W. Sweeney, a member of the DSA. The Brookings Institution is headed by former Clinton State Department official Strobe Talbott, a proponent of world government who was recently identified in the book Comrade J as having been a pawn of the Russian intelligence service.
The socialist connections of Obama and the Democratic Party have certainly not been featured in the Washington Post columns of Harold Meyerson, who happens not only to be a member but a vice-chair of the DSA. Meyerson, the subject of our 2005 column, "A Socialist at the Washington Post," has praised convicted inside-trader George Soros for manipulating campaign finance laws to benefit the far-left elements of the Democratic Party. Obama's success in the Democratic presidential primaries and caucuses is further evidence of Soros's success. Indeed, Soros has financially contributed to the Obama campaign.
It is not surprising that the Chicago Democrat, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, has endorsed Obama. Schakowsky, who endorsed Howard Dean for president in 2004, was honored in 2000 at a dinner sponsored by the Chicago chapter of the DSA. Her husband, Robert Creamer, emerged from federal prison in November 2006 after serving five months for financial crimes. He pleaded guilty to ripping off financial institutions while running a non-profit group. Before he was convicted but under indictment, Creamer was hired by the Soros-funded Open Society Policy Center to sabotage John Bolton's nomination as Ambassador to the U.N.
After his release from prison, Creamer released a book, Listen to Your Mother: Stand up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, described by one blogger as the book that was "penned in the pen." A blurb for the book declares, "Some people think that in order to win, Democrats need to move to the political center by adopting conservative values and splitting the difference between progressive and conservative positions. History shows they are wrong. To win the next election and to win in the long term, we need to redefine the political center."
In addition to writing the book, Creamer is back in business, running his firm, Strategic Consulting Group, and advertising himself as "a consultant to the campaigns to end the war in Iraq, pass universal health care, change America's budget priorities and enact comprehensive immigration reform." His clients have included the AFL-CIO and MoveOn.org. In fact, his client list is a virtual who's who of the Democratic Party, organized labor, and Democratic Party constituency groups.
Creamer's list of testimonials comes from such figures as Democratic Senators Dick Durbin (Ill.) and Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Harold Meyerson, MoveOn.org founder Wes Boyd, and David Axelrod, a "Democratic political consultant."
Axelrod, of course, is much more than just a "Democratic political consultant." He helped State Senator Barack Obama win his U.S. Senate seat in 2004 and currently serves as strategist and media advisor to Obama's presidential campaign.
Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of this AIM Report and can be reached at cliff.kincaid@aim.org
Obama's socialist backing goes back at least to 1996, when he received the endorsement of the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) for an Illinois state senate seat. Later, the Chicago DSA newsletter reported that Obama, as a state senator, showed up to eulogize Saul Mendelson, one of the "champions" of "Chicago's democratic left" and a long-time socialist activist. Obama's stint as a "community organizer" in Chicago has gotten some attention, but his relationship with the DSA socialists, who groomed and backed him, has been generally ignored.
Blogger Steve Bartin, who has been following Obama's career and involvement with the Chicago socialists, has uncovered a fascinating video showing Obama campaigning for openly socialist Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Interestingly, Sanders, who won his seat in 2006, called Obama "one of the great leaders of the United States Senate," even though Obama had only been in the body for about two years. In 2007, the National Journal said that Obama had established himself as "the most liberal Senator." More liberal than Sanders? That is quite a feat. Does this make Obama a socialist, too?
DSA describes itself as the largest socialist organization in the United States and the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International. The Socialist International (SI) has what is called "consultative status" with the United Nations. In other words, it works hand-in-glove with the world body.
The international connection is important and significant because an Obama bill, "The Global Poverty Act," has just been rushed through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, with the assistance of Democratic Senator Joe Biden, the chairman, and Republican Senator Richard Lugar. The legislation (S.2433) commits the U.S. to spending hundreds of billions of dollars more in foreign aid on the rest of the world, in order to comply with the "Millennium Goals" established by the United Nations. Conservative members of the committee were largely caught off-guard by the move to pass the Obama bill but are putting a "hold" on it, in order to try to prevent the legislation, which also quickly passed the House, from being quickly brought up for a full Senate vote. But observers think that Senate Democrats may try to pass it quickly anyway, in order to give Obama a precious legislative "victory" that he could run on.
Another group associated with the SI is the Party of European Socialists (PES), which heard from Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, back in 2006. Dean's speech is posted on the official Democratic Party website, although the European socialist parties are referred to as "progressive." Democrats, Dean said, want to be "good citizens of the world community." He spoke at a session on "Global Challenges for Progressive Politics."
Following up, in April 2007, PES President Poul Nyrup Rasmussen reported that European socialists held a meeting "in the Democrats HQ in Washington," met with officials of the party and Democratic members of Congress, and agreed that "PES activist groups" in various U.S. cities would start working together. The photos of the trip show Rasmussen meeting with such figures as Senator Ben Cardin, Senator Bernie Sanders, officials of the Brookings Institution, Howard Dean, and AFL-CIO President John W. Sweeney, a member of the DSA. The Brookings Institution is headed by former Clinton State Department official Strobe Talbott, a proponent of world government who was recently identified in the book Comrade J as having been a pawn of the Russian intelligence service.
The socialist connections of Obama and the Democratic Party have certainly not been featured in the Washington Post columns of Harold Meyerson, who happens not only to be a member but a vice-chair of the DSA. Meyerson, the subject of our 2005 column, "A Socialist at the Washington Post," has praised convicted inside-trader George Soros for manipulating campaign finance laws to benefit the far-left elements of the Democratic Party. Obama's success in the Democratic presidential primaries and caucuses is further evidence of Soros's success. Indeed, Soros has financially contributed to the Obama campaign.
It is not surprising that the Chicago Democrat, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, has endorsed Obama. Schakowsky, who endorsed Howard Dean for president in 2004, was honored in 2000 at a dinner sponsored by the Chicago chapter of the DSA. Her husband, Robert Creamer, emerged from federal prison in November 2006 after serving five months for financial crimes. He pleaded guilty to ripping off financial institutions while running a non-profit group. Before he was convicted but under indictment, Creamer was hired by the Soros-funded Open Society Policy Center to sabotage John Bolton's nomination as Ambassador to the U.N.
After his release from prison, Creamer released a book, Listen to Your Mother: Stand up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, described by one blogger as the book that was "penned in the pen." A blurb for the book declares, "Some people think that in order to win, Democrats need to move to the political center by adopting conservative values and splitting the difference between progressive and conservative positions. History shows they are wrong. To win the next election and to win in the long term, we need to redefine the political center."
In addition to writing the book, Creamer is back in business, running his firm, Strategic Consulting Group, and advertising himself as "a consultant to the campaigns to end the war in Iraq, pass universal health care, change America's budget priorities and enact comprehensive immigration reform." His clients have included the AFL-CIO and MoveOn.org. In fact, his client list is a virtual who's who of the Democratic Party, organized labor, and Democratic Party constituency groups.
Creamer's list of testimonials comes from such figures as Democratic Senators Dick Durbin (Ill.) and Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Harold Meyerson, MoveOn.org founder Wes Boyd, and David Axelrod, a "Democratic political consultant."
Axelrod, of course, is much more than just a "Democratic political consultant." He helped State Senator Barack Obama win his U.S. Senate seat in 2004 and currently serves as strategist and media advisor to Obama's presidential campaign.
Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of this AIM Report and can be reached at cliff.kincaid@aim.org
Friday, March 21, 2008
A Powerful Economic Stimulus Tool
Now that we are faced with a recession, a National Taxpayers Union legal brief, originally issued in 1992 while another Bush was in office, has been reissued. That brief states that President Bush can index capital gains for inflation now to create an additional stimulus for our lagging economy without Congressional approval.
For roughly two decades, significant portions of the U.S. Tax Code have been tied to inflation rates. For example, the personal exemption, standard deduction, and tax bracket amounts for individual income tax returns rise each year to account for increases in the cost of living. Doing so avoids the “bracket creep” phenomenon that pushed Americans into paying progressively higher income tax rates even though their incomes were merely keeping up with inflation. Formerly, this amounted to an automatic tax increase without the necessity of an on the record vote by the Congress.
The most important source of income that remains to be indexed is capital gains. The “real cost” of assets like the stocks and bonds must be inflation-adjusted in calculating the sale profit to ensure that nominal gains due solely to inflation are not taxed. These nominal gains are not real gains because they do not represent any increase in purchasing power. Though the Treasury Department and Congress traditionally have defined “cost” as the asset’s original cost and a “gain” as the difference between the original price and the selling price these definitions are not established law. The Treasury therefore has administrative discretion to reinterpret “cost” to take account of the economic reality that a “gain” attributable solely to inflation adds nothing to the taxpayer’s real wealth or purchasing power. It’s time for the Administration to step forward and correct this major irrationality in the tax code. The legal authority of the Department of the Treasury to promulgate a regulation providing for the indexation of capital gains, is available at
www.ntu.org. The time is ripe to demand that the President, the Secretary of the Treasury and/or the Congress to take action to fix this anomaly in the tax code.
Inflation-indexing keeps taxpayers from being penalized or taxed on phantom gains that don’t result in any "real" increases of purchasing or earning power. Here is a simplified, hypothetical example:
Sale of a $10,000 Asset Held for 10 Years /span>
Current Policy
Original Price $6,000
Amount of Gain $4,000
Tax on Gain (15%) $600
Inflation-Indexing
Original price $6,000
Amount of Gain $4,000
Cumulative Inflation Rate over 10 years: 50%
Inflation-adjusted Gain (50% of $4,000): $2,000
Tax on Gain (15%): $300
For roughly two decades, significant portions of the U.S. Tax Code have been tied to inflation rates. For example, the personal exemption, standard deduction, and tax bracket amounts for individual income tax returns rise each year to account for increases in the cost of living. Doing so avoids the “bracket creep” phenomenon that pushed Americans into paying progressively higher income tax rates even though their incomes were merely keeping up with inflation. Formerly, this amounted to an automatic tax increase without the necessity of an on the record vote by the Congress.
The most important source of income that remains to be indexed is capital gains. The “real cost” of assets like the stocks and bonds must be inflation-adjusted in calculating the sale profit to ensure that nominal gains due solely to inflation are not taxed. These nominal gains are not real gains because they do not represent any increase in purchasing power. Though the Treasury Department and Congress traditionally have defined “cost” as the asset’s original cost and a “gain” as the difference between the original price and the selling price these definitions are not established law. The Treasury therefore has administrative discretion to reinterpret “cost” to take account of the economic reality that a “gain” attributable solely to inflation adds nothing to the taxpayer’s real wealth or purchasing power. It’s time for the Administration to step forward and correct this major irrationality in the tax code. The legal authority of the Department of the Treasury to promulgate a regulation providing for the indexation of capital gains, is available at
www.ntu.org. The time is ripe to demand that the President, the Secretary of the Treasury and/or the Congress to take action to fix this anomaly in the tax code.
Inflation-indexing keeps taxpayers from being penalized or taxed on phantom gains that don’t result in any "real" increases of purchasing or earning power. Here is a simplified, hypothetical example:
Sale of a $10,000 Asset Held for 10 Years /span>
Current Policy
Original Price $6,000
Amount of Gain $4,000
Tax on Gain (15%) $600
Inflation-Indexing
Original price $6,000
Amount of Gain $4,000
Cumulative Inflation Rate over 10 years: 50%
Inflation-adjusted Gain (50% of $4,000): $2,000
Tax on Gain (15%): $300
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Choices
What are the choices that we must make if our country and society are to succeed rather than fail? For our society as a whole, the failures and successes of past societies are instructive. Two types of choices have been crucial in their outcomes towards success or failure: long-term planning, and willingness to reconsider core values.
It takes courage to practice long-term thinking, and to make bold, courageous, anticipatory decisions at a time when problems have become perceptible but before they have reached crisis proportions. This type of decision-making is the opposite of the short-term, myopic, reactive decision-making that too often characterizes our elected politicians. Set against the many depressing bad examples of such short-term, myopic decision-making are encouraging examples of courageous long-term thinking in the past, and in the contemporary world.
There are some organizations, businesses and departments of government that promote the long-term environmental policies essential to success. Although some, like the Sierra Club, steer clear of population control, other more forward looking organizations like Planned Parenthood freely provide information and counseling to enable family planning. Strangely enough, Muslim Bangladesh, formerly the eastern part of over-populated Pakistan, has seen the light and has adopted effective family planning. This is unusual for a Muslim country where such matters are often left in the hands of Allah. Pakistan in the West has not taken this necessary step and as a result has become the world’s sixth most populous country. Although the intrinsic rate of population growth (i.e. excluding net immigration) in the U.S. is small compared to that of some of the more populous countries of the world, our population is still expected to double again by the end of this century. This is the result of legal immigrants, illegal aliens, their progeny and their higher fertility rates. To avoid the fate of other failed nations, dramatic changes in immigration policies and border security are needed, as well as effective family planning. This means we must discard ancient and outmoded religious doctrines and dogma that have condemned so many to a life of poverty and suffering. If overpopulated Muslim countries can do this, others should be able to do likewise.
The other crucial choice illuminated by the past involves the courage to make painful decisions about values. Which of the values that formerly served society well can be continue to be maintained under new changed circumstances? We once welcomed immigrants with Emma Lazarus’s poem on the base of the Statue of Liberty. This is a treasured remnant of our past but it now must be jettisoned, figuratively speaking, and replaced with a different approach.
In other societies, people did reach agreement to subordinate their individual rights to group interests. Individuals in this country have a right to promote any sort of immigration reform they see fit but in doing so they should give consideration to the interests of their fellow citizens in maintaining some semblance of the quality of life we have all come to enjoy. By thinking in terms of long-term group interests instead of narrower short-term, myopic individual interests we can manage our shared resources and avoid the common problems and fate that have befallen some other societies.
The government of China restricted the traditional freedom of individual reproductive choice, rather than let population problems spiral out of control. This is an example where the need for a change in values was recognized and implemented. While we may not admire the methods used, we must recognize the huge problem that would have resulted in terms of human suffering if nothing had been done. Similarly, the Brits have had to come to grips with the values and long-held beliefs associated with their vast colonial empire and the one-time dominance of their political, economic and naval power that disappeared after World War II.
A reappraisal of values associated with our immigrant past will be exceedingly difficult. Likewise, we will agonize for a long time before we find the courage to make the most fundamental reappraisal regarding how much of our traditional consumer values and high living standard we can afford to retain? Politicians like to preach about "more" rather than "less" in this regard. Therefore, the seeming political impossibility of inducing citizens, businessmen and politicians to lower their expectations and their impact on the finite resources and environment of our country and of this planet is always foremost in our minds. Yet, the alternative, of continuing our current impact and increasing it by faulty resource management, immigration, tax, and population policies, is even more impossible.
Churchill’s response to criticisms of democracy is often quoted: “It has been said that Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” In that spirit, a lower-impact society and a stable population constitute the most impossible scenario for our future—except for all other conceivable scenarios.
While it won’t be easy to reduce our impact on the environment, it won’t be impossible either. Remember the impact is the product of two factors: population (which I have been pontificating about for a long time) multiplied times the impact per person. Population growth, except for the impact of immigration has recently declined in all of the First World countries. So, if we could solve the immigration conundrum and properly manage our arable land, minerals, water, forests and fisheries, we might just be able to succeed in preserving our society, our quality of life, our country and the planet itself in all its infinite variety of species.
--Excerpted, supplemented, modified in part from views expressed by Professor Jared Diamond in his book, Collapse
It takes courage to practice long-term thinking, and to make bold, courageous, anticipatory decisions at a time when problems have become perceptible but before they have reached crisis proportions. This type of decision-making is the opposite of the short-term, myopic, reactive decision-making that too often characterizes our elected politicians. Set against the many depressing bad examples of such short-term, myopic decision-making are encouraging examples of courageous long-term thinking in the past, and in the contemporary world.
There are some organizations, businesses and departments of government that promote the long-term environmental policies essential to success. Although some, like the Sierra Club, steer clear of population control, other more forward looking organizations like Planned Parenthood freely provide information and counseling to enable family planning. Strangely enough, Muslim Bangladesh, formerly the eastern part of over-populated Pakistan, has seen the light and has adopted effective family planning. This is unusual for a Muslim country where such matters are often left in the hands of Allah. Pakistan in the West has not taken this necessary step and as a result has become the world’s sixth most populous country. Although the intrinsic rate of population growth (i.e. excluding net immigration) in the U.S. is small compared to that of some of the more populous countries of the world, our population is still expected to double again by the end of this century. This is the result of legal immigrants, illegal aliens, their progeny and their higher fertility rates. To avoid the fate of other failed nations, dramatic changes in immigration policies and border security are needed, as well as effective family planning. This means we must discard ancient and outmoded religious doctrines and dogma that have condemned so many to a life of poverty and suffering. If overpopulated Muslim countries can do this, others should be able to do likewise.
The other crucial choice illuminated by the past involves the courage to make painful decisions about values. Which of the values that formerly served society well can be continue to be maintained under new changed circumstances? We once welcomed immigrants with Emma Lazarus’s poem on the base of the Statue of Liberty. This is a treasured remnant of our past but it now must be jettisoned, figuratively speaking, and replaced with a different approach.
In other societies, people did reach agreement to subordinate their individual rights to group interests. Individuals in this country have a right to promote any sort of immigration reform they see fit but in doing so they should give consideration to the interests of their fellow citizens in maintaining some semblance of the quality of life we have all come to enjoy. By thinking in terms of long-term group interests instead of narrower short-term, myopic individual interests we can manage our shared resources and avoid the common problems and fate that have befallen some other societies.
The government of China restricted the traditional freedom of individual reproductive choice, rather than let population problems spiral out of control. This is an example where the need for a change in values was recognized and implemented. While we may not admire the methods used, we must recognize the huge problem that would have resulted in terms of human suffering if nothing had been done. Similarly, the Brits have had to come to grips with the values and long-held beliefs associated with their vast colonial empire and the one-time dominance of their political, economic and naval power that disappeared after World War II.
A reappraisal of values associated with our immigrant past will be exceedingly difficult. Likewise, we will agonize for a long time before we find the courage to make the most fundamental reappraisal regarding how much of our traditional consumer values and high living standard we can afford to retain? Politicians like to preach about "more" rather than "less" in this regard. Therefore, the seeming political impossibility of inducing citizens, businessmen and politicians to lower their expectations and their impact on the finite resources and environment of our country and of this planet is always foremost in our minds. Yet, the alternative, of continuing our current impact and increasing it by faulty resource management, immigration, tax, and population policies, is even more impossible.
Churchill’s response to criticisms of democracy is often quoted: “It has been said that Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” In that spirit, a lower-impact society and a stable population constitute the most impossible scenario for our future—except for all other conceivable scenarios.
While it won’t be easy to reduce our impact on the environment, it won’t be impossible either. Remember the impact is the product of two factors: population (which I have been pontificating about for a long time) multiplied times the impact per person. Population growth, except for the impact of immigration has recently declined in all of the First World countries. So, if we could solve the immigration conundrum and properly manage our arable land, minerals, water, forests and fisheries, we might just be able to succeed in preserving our society, our quality of life, our country and the planet itself in all its infinite variety of species.
--Excerpted, supplemented, modified in part from views expressed by Professor Jared Diamond in his book, Collapse
Sunday, March 16, 2008
An Interview with Walter Klondike
Ultima: Mr. Klondike, why do you believe it is just not feasible to send the 12 million illegal aliens back to their homelands?
Mr. Klondike: Assuming a bus with a capacity of 30 passengers, it would take 400,000 trips to move that many people. If the goal was too accomplish this in one year, it would take 1096 such trips every day of the year. Where would we find that number of buses? For the illegals that are from South America, Africa or Asia, we would need to use airlines or shipping lines. It would be an expensive, logistical nightmare.
Ultima: Following the end of World War II,in 1945-6, eight million ethnic Germans were repatriated from the Eastern Territories back to Germany’s heartland in less than a year. That proves that the repatriation of millions of people is indeed feasible from a logistical point of view. Also, our transportation systems today are much improved over those of immediate post-World War II Europe.
The illegals paid coyotes and transportation costs to get here. Presumably they are now better off than they were then and should therefore easily be able to pay their way home. Failing that approach, we could always charge the employers of illegals for the costs of repatriating them or negotiate bi-lateral treaties with their homeland governments to enable us to obtain reimbursement for those costs.
Mr. Klondike: It still seems to me that this would be a very difficult undertaking if one wanted to accomplish it in a fairly short time. How many more government employees would it require?
Ultima: Few people are suggesting that all 12 million illegals could or should be returned to their homelands over a relatively short period of time. Rather, they believe that once we begin the process of: (1) verifying the work status of illegals and (2) apprehending and repatriating them, many will choose to leave on their own. This is sometimes referred to as enforcement through attrition.
We could put this task up for bids by private enterprise, with all costs to be recovered from the illegals, their families, their employers or their homeland governments. Private enterprise has a way of getting any job done quickly and efficiently when there is a dollar to be made. There is no need for additional government employees. It would be helpful if deportation laws were simplified so that each case could be decided on the day it is presented with only a week for any appeal. Agreement to self-deport and not return could shorten the process even further.
Mr. Klondike: If one were to admit the logistical feasibility of such an effort, there is still the human side. The vast majority of people crossing our borders illegally are poor and desperate to better the lives of their families. They are not law-breakers by nature. As Senator John McCain put it, “We need to sit down and recognize that these are God’s children as well.”
Ultima: No one has suggested that we ignore the human side of the illegal alien equation. There are 6.5 billion of God’s children in this world. Which of them did Senator McCain have in mind? Where do we draw the line on how many of them we should accommodate? Should we give preference to those of God’s children who happen to live just across the borders? It has been amply demonstrated that even if we continue to take a million legal immigrants each year, we cannot make a dent in the number of poor people in the world because they are reproducing at an even faster rate. Unlike the German repatriation in which each person was allowed to take only one suitcase with nothing of value, our process could be much more compassionate. Many of those in our prisons may not be lawbreakers by nature but when they do break the law they must be required to pay the price. Illegal aliens are no different in this regard.
Some favor a process that would require employers to re-advertise all of the jobs that are currently held by illegals to determine how many of those jobs could be filled with citizen labor if the employers offered a living wage. A living wage could be determined by local labor unions in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Labor, using historical data going back to the 1950s as adjusted for inflation. The illegals who survive this process could be granted temporary work permits to relieve them of the anxiety of being deported. After taking finger prints, photos and DNA samples, those who are displaced must be treated humanely but expeditiously repatriated, with the admonition that if they return without the proper papers they will face jail time.
As opposed to citizenship, most illegals, especially Mexicans, would be content with some sort of legal status that would eliminate their anxiety over potential deportation. If they just come here to work to improve the lives of their families, that sort of arrangement would be satisfactory to many.
Mr. Klondike: I’m not sure there is any humane way to repatriate illegals, especially if they have children born in this country who are birthright citizens. However, giving some of them a chance to stay with temporary work permits is a step in the right direction.
Ultima: Of course, birthright citizenship for minor children is a problem which could be easily solved by a reinterpretation of the 14th amendment to require that at least one of the parents be a citizen before it applies. Moreover, if we delay the award of birthright citizenship until the child reaches age 21 or enlists in the armed forces for at least four years, we would no longer hear protestations about family separations due to the citizenship of the children being different from that of their parents. At any rate, repatriated parents must take their minor children with them regardless of citizenship or be considered guilty of child abuse.
Mr. Klondike: Today, there are numerous organizations devoted to limiting or ending immigration altogether. And there are movements to require government agencies to use English only in official publications and documents. Such a measure would handicap any immigrant—legal or illegal—who does not read English well enough to understand official forms.
Ultima: There are very good and substantial reasons for restricting immigration and securing our borders. These reasons have nothing to do with racism, bigotry, or nativism. Those terms simply divert our attention from all the problems of excessive population growth which are due entirely to legal immigrants, illegal aliens and their progeny.
We once were a nation of immigrants. That historical fact does not constitute a valid argument for continuing a policy that allows an ever increasing number of the foreign-born to enter our country.
Although the indigenous Indian tribes might quarrel with this, to varying degrees,a vast, unsettled continent lay before the pilgrims, the explorers, the colonists, the founding fathers, the pioneers, and the immigrants of the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries. Our situation today is much different from those earlier periods in our history. Therefore, there is no reason why we should continue the outmoded immigration policies of the past.
The rich natural resources of our country that seemed inexhaustible in the beginning are now being rapidly depleted, destroyed or fully committed. Everyone should realize that natural resources like petroleum, arable land, water, and other minerals are finite. They are not limitless. Some minerals like coal are still in plentiful supply but even that resource will one day be gone. Coal also creates significant pollution problems by poisoning our air and acidifying our lakes and streams. The toxic air of some Chinese cities is a good example of how shortsighted population and environmental policies can compromise the quality of life and increase the death rate.
The mathematical concept of a "limit" is a useful way to look at the problem of finite natural resources. The "limit" of finite natural resources per capita as population grows without bounds is zero. In other words, the more people there are the fewer finite natural resources there will be for each of us. The question is how far down that road do we want to go? Our country is totally different now than it was when the great waves of immigration occurred. Changing our immigration policies to match our new situation makes eminent good sense.
Mr. Klondike: What about the Official English initiative?
Ultima: Neither legal immigrants nor illegal aliens would be seriously handicapped by the repeal of Executive Order 13166 and the enactment of an Official English law or constitutional amendment. A Public Interpreter, just like a Public Defender, could be provided to anyone who cannot afford one. And billable interpreters could be on staff at hospitals, emergency rooms and police stations, as necessary.
Mr. Klondike: Even though the Public Defender approach is a fixture in our society, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to provide Public Interpreters at every polling place and still maintain some semblance of a secret ballot.
Ultima: Informed voting would be difficult for those who are not fluent in English but the ability to read and write English has long been a requirement for citizenship. Official English would strengthen that requirement and provide an incentive, for those who can, to learn English as soon as possible. Those who cannot understand the ballot issues in English should not have the right to vote. This may mean that voting privileges may have to be postponed for some families until the second generation. This is a positive because it would mean that those who are voting would have more knowledge of our history, civics and our democratic form of government. We should note, however, that the printing of ballots and the prescription of voting procedures are the province of state government not the federal government. The federal legislation could do no more than grant states the authority to dispense with state and local documents and forms in other languages without fear of lawsuits.
Mr. Klondike: You stated that there were many good and substantial reasons for restricting immigration and securing our borders. You mentioned our declining natural resources as one such reason. What other reasons are there?
Ultima: Among the other reasons, the environment is perhaps the most important. Over the 30 year period beginning in 1975, a sustained effort by the U.S. government has reduced levels of six major air pollutants nationally by 25%, even though our energy consumption and population increased by 40% and our vehicle miles driven increased by 150% during those decades. Yet, we still remain far from achieving the goals established in the Kyoto Protocol.
According to such empirical concepts as those inherent in the Gompertz or logistic curve and Pareto's Principle, often most of the results, say 80%, is achieved with the first 20% of the effort. In other words, the easiest and most obvious things are done first to gain quick results. Subsequent improvements come at a much higher cost. In the case of the Gompertz Curve, slow initial progress is made followed by a period of rapid growth or improvement and then a final slow period of slow growth as the curve bends over at the top. As that final period is approached further improvement comes very slowly and at a much higher cost. Given the progress that has already been made, it would not be unreasonable to predict slower progress in the future. For example, some current action is being taken to begin to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to another 20%. Accomplishment of this goal is likely to be a very difficult and expensive technical problem. Each incremental reduction will be more difficult to achieve than the one that preceded it.
But it would be unfair to view this effort in isolation. What are the chances that this 20% goal will be achievable if our population increases by yet another 100% by the end of this century? No ones talks about the impact of population growth greenhouse gas emissions. Not even the Sierra Club. The UN says that people -- too many of them -- are the primary cause of these emissions. The things demanded by people such as autos, appliances, water, apartments, energy and even beef from flatulent cows are the reason. So why do we ignore this fact when we talk about immigration policies?
The growth in in the number of hybrid vehicles on the road is often mentioned as a sign of progress in the fight against carbon pollutants. But any reduction in emissions due to hybrid vehicles was more than offset by the large number of gas-guzzling SUVs that were being sold.
The UN estimates that, on average, every American produces a minimum of 20 metric tons of carbon pollutants every year. Even if we were able to reduce that figure by 20%, 300 million more people would still mean 4.8 billion additional metric tons of carbon pollutants per year (16 metric tons per person x 300 million additional people). This would be partially offset by the 20% reduction in emissions from our present population. If achieved, that would amount to 1.2 billion metric tons per year (4 metric tons x 300 million people) leaving a net increase of 3.6 billion tons per year when our population reaches 600 million, with no end in sight.
Another aspect of the concern about the environment is the extinction of species like the magnificent polar bear. Concern about these matters is not a sign of morally culpable or conscious selfishness.
Mr. Klondike: Since the overwhelming majority of illegal aliens are Hispanic, there seems to be an anti-Hispanic undercurrent driving all the anger of those who favor internal enforcement and secure borders. This has resulted in an increase in the number of hate crimes against Hispanics.
Ultima: First of all we should make it clear that we do not condone or advocate criminal behavior against any segment of our population whether they are citizens or not. Yet, as you have pointed our in relation to the treatment of earlier immigrants of Irish, Italian, Chinese or other descent, this anger and resentment is nothing new. But the term "hate crimes" is not an appropriate description of the criminal acts committed by the few as a result of their resentment of illegal aliens. Many who perpetrate these misdeeds do not hate the individual illegals but they do hate the fact that they have no regard for the rule of law and are involved in an unarmed invasion with deadly consequences for everything we hold dear.
There are two aspects to this problem. The first is the sheer numbers of Hispanics flooding our country from south of the border. This gives them a high profile in our society that serves as a focus for pro-legal and anti-immigration movements. The large numbers of these illegals and their real threat to our language, culture, political processes, and jobs presents Americans with a serious dilemma. We appreciate their hard work and desire to improve the lot of their families but insist on the rule of law and a recognition our national borders and sovereignty must come first.
The second aspect of the resentment of Hispanics arises from the largely monolithic support Hispanic citizens give to the illegals. It is as though they put La Hermandad de la Raza well ahead of their regard for their fellow citizens, the rule of law, the national interest and our national sovereignty. Some give lip service to border security but would withhold the tools necessary to achieve that goal. They believe nothing is needed beyond the immediate environs of the border. Or they favor employer sanctions but none for the illegals themselves. They oppose work status verification and internal enforcement even though these are the essential tools needed to buttress the physical improvement and staff increases at the border. Is this opposition a form of disloyalty? Are Hispanic citizens fellow travelers with the illegals? They do not seem to appreciate the negative impact excessive immigration, legal and illegal, will ultimately have on their quality of life. Some believe that their somnolence on this issue will result in the re-creation of the very conditions they fled their homelands to escape: poverty, pollution, disease, joblessness and government corruption.
Two things could relieve this problem. First, more Hispanics and Hispanic leaders should be speaking out against amnesty and de facto open borders. Second, if they were to endorse the Official English initiative, many of the remaining problems of illegal aliens could be quickly solved. It is their failure in both areas that generate much of the heat being focused on them by other citizens. They are their own worst enemies.
Mr. Klondike: Opinion polls show most Americans believe that tightened border controls plus some accommodation for those already here should be the solution to this problem.
Ultima: I agree, with the caveat that most polls give respondents exceedingly narrow choices and therefore the accommodation Americans would like to see for those already here is not well understood. I have already suggested one such accommodation that would probably be acceptable to the majority of Americans -- the idea of re-advertising jobs held by illegals at a living wage with a hiring preference for citizen labor. If a poll could be taken with 50 – 100 unbiased questions related to actions needed to solve the problems of immigration and illegal aliens, we would soon have a much better understanding of what most Americans favor as an accommodation.
Mr. Klondike: This issue could well decide the election.
Ultima: Yes. It is deplorable how all three presidential candidates have pandered to the Hispanics in our society without even a fleeting thought about the long term consequences for our country. Election is more important to them than the future of our country. They all should be reading: “Mexifornia: A State of Becoming” by Professor Hansen, "Collapse” by Pulitzer Prize winning Professor Jared Diamond, “The Coming Economic Collapse” by Leeb and Strathy, and “How Many People Can the Earth Support?” by demographer Joel Cohen.
If California is any guide, the term “Mexico Norte” may be an apt descriptor of our future. Perhaps that is the most important aspect of our resentment of Hispanic illegals and those who aid and abet their violation of our borders and displacement of American workers.
Mr. Klondike: Assuming a bus with a capacity of 30 passengers, it would take 400,000 trips to move that many people. If the goal was too accomplish this in one year, it would take 1096 such trips every day of the year. Where would we find that number of buses? For the illegals that are from South America, Africa or Asia, we would need to use airlines or shipping lines. It would be an expensive, logistical nightmare.
Ultima: Following the end of World War II,in 1945-6, eight million ethnic Germans were repatriated from the Eastern Territories back to Germany’s heartland in less than a year. That proves that the repatriation of millions of people is indeed feasible from a logistical point of view. Also, our transportation systems today are much improved over those of immediate post-World War II Europe.
The illegals paid coyotes and transportation costs to get here. Presumably they are now better off than they were then and should therefore easily be able to pay their way home. Failing that approach, we could always charge the employers of illegals for the costs of repatriating them or negotiate bi-lateral treaties with their homeland governments to enable us to obtain reimbursement for those costs.
Mr. Klondike: It still seems to me that this would be a very difficult undertaking if one wanted to accomplish it in a fairly short time. How many more government employees would it require?
Ultima: Few people are suggesting that all 12 million illegals could or should be returned to their homelands over a relatively short period of time. Rather, they believe that once we begin the process of: (1) verifying the work status of illegals and (2) apprehending and repatriating them, many will choose to leave on their own. This is sometimes referred to as enforcement through attrition.
We could put this task up for bids by private enterprise, with all costs to be recovered from the illegals, their families, their employers or their homeland governments. Private enterprise has a way of getting any job done quickly and efficiently when there is a dollar to be made. There is no need for additional government employees. It would be helpful if deportation laws were simplified so that each case could be decided on the day it is presented with only a week for any appeal. Agreement to self-deport and not return could shorten the process even further.
Mr. Klondike: If one were to admit the logistical feasibility of such an effort, there is still the human side. The vast majority of people crossing our borders illegally are poor and desperate to better the lives of their families. They are not law-breakers by nature. As Senator John McCain put it, “We need to sit down and recognize that these are God’s children as well.”
Ultima: No one has suggested that we ignore the human side of the illegal alien equation. There are 6.5 billion of God’s children in this world. Which of them did Senator McCain have in mind? Where do we draw the line on how many of them we should accommodate? Should we give preference to those of God’s children who happen to live just across the borders? It has been amply demonstrated that even if we continue to take a million legal immigrants each year, we cannot make a dent in the number of poor people in the world because they are reproducing at an even faster rate. Unlike the German repatriation in which each person was allowed to take only one suitcase with nothing of value, our process could be much more compassionate. Many of those in our prisons may not be lawbreakers by nature but when they do break the law they must be required to pay the price. Illegal aliens are no different in this regard.
Some favor a process that would require employers to re-advertise all of the jobs that are currently held by illegals to determine how many of those jobs could be filled with citizen labor if the employers offered a living wage. A living wage could be determined by local labor unions in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Labor, using historical data going back to the 1950s as adjusted for inflation. The illegals who survive this process could be granted temporary work permits to relieve them of the anxiety of being deported. After taking finger prints, photos and DNA samples, those who are displaced must be treated humanely but expeditiously repatriated, with the admonition that if they return without the proper papers they will face jail time.
As opposed to citizenship, most illegals, especially Mexicans, would be content with some sort of legal status that would eliminate their anxiety over potential deportation. If they just come here to work to improve the lives of their families, that sort of arrangement would be satisfactory to many.
Mr. Klondike: I’m not sure there is any humane way to repatriate illegals, especially if they have children born in this country who are birthright citizens. However, giving some of them a chance to stay with temporary work permits is a step in the right direction.
Ultima: Of course, birthright citizenship for minor children is a problem which could be easily solved by a reinterpretation of the 14th amendment to require that at least one of the parents be a citizen before it applies. Moreover, if we delay the award of birthright citizenship until the child reaches age 21 or enlists in the armed forces for at least four years, we would no longer hear protestations about family separations due to the citizenship of the children being different from that of their parents. At any rate, repatriated parents must take their minor children with them regardless of citizenship or be considered guilty of child abuse.
Mr. Klondike: Today, there are numerous organizations devoted to limiting or ending immigration altogether. And there are movements to require government agencies to use English only in official publications and documents. Such a measure would handicap any immigrant—legal or illegal—who does not read English well enough to understand official forms.
Ultima: There are very good and substantial reasons for restricting immigration and securing our borders. These reasons have nothing to do with racism, bigotry, or nativism. Those terms simply divert our attention from all the problems of excessive population growth which are due entirely to legal immigrants, illegal aliens and their progeny.
We once were a nation of immigrants. That historical fact does not constitute a valid argument for continuing a policy that allows an ever increasing number of the foreign-born to enter our country.
Although the indigenous Indian tribes might quarrel with this, to varying degrees,a vast, unsettled continent lay before the pilgrims, the explorers, the colonists, the founding fathers, the pioneers, and the immigrants of the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries. Our situation today is much different from those earlier periods in our history. Therefore, there is no reason why we should continue the outmoded immigration policies of the past.
The rich natural resources of our country that seemed inexhaustible in the beginning are now being rapidly depleted, destroyed or fully committed. Everyone should realize that natural resources like petroleum, arable land, water, and other minerals are finite. They are not limitless. Some minerals like coal are still in plentiful supply but even that resource will one day be gone. Coal also creates significant pollution problems by poisoning our air and acidifying our lakes and streams. The toxic air of some Chinese cities is a good example of how shortsighted population and environmental policies can compromise the quality of life and increase the death rate.
The mathematical concept of a "limit" is a useful way to look at the problem of finite natural resources. The "limit" of finite natural resources per capita as population grows without bounds is zero. In other words, the more people there are the fewer finite natural resources there will be for each of us. The question is how far down that road do we want to go? Our country is totally different now than it was when the great waves of immigration occurred. Changing our immigration policies to match our new situation makes eminent good sense.
Mr. Klondike: What about the Official English initiative?
Ultima: Neither legal immigrants nor illegal aliens would be seriously handicapped by the repeal of Executive Order 13166 and the enactment of an Official English law or constitutional amendment. A Public Interpreter, just like a Public Defender, could be provided to anyone who cannot afford one. And billable interpreters could be on staff at hospitals, emergency rooms and police stations, as necessary.
Mr. Klondike: Even though the Public Defender approach is a fixture in our society, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to provide Public Interpreters at every polling place and still maintain some semblance of a secret ballot.
Ultima: Informed voting would be difficult for those who are not fluent in English but the ability to read and write English has long been a requirement for citizenship. Official English would strengthen that requirement and provide an incentive, for those who can, to learn English as soon as possible. Those who cannot understand the ballot issues in English should not have the right to vote. This may mean that voting privileges may have to be postponed for some families until the second generation. This is a positive because it would mean that those who are voting would have more knowledge of our history, civics and our democratic form of government. We should note, however, that the printing of ballots and the prescription of voting procedures are the province of state government not the federal government. The federal legislation could do no more than grant states the authority to dispense with state and local documents and forms in other languages without fear of lawsuits.
Mr. Klondike: You stated that there were many good and substantial reasons for restricting immigration and securing our borders. You mentioned our declining natural resources as one such reason. What other reasons are there?
Ultima: Among the other reasons, the environment is perhaps the most important. Over the 30 year period beginning in 1975, a sustained effort by the U.S. government has reduced levels of six major air pollutants nationally by 25%, even though our energy consumption and population increased by 40% and our vehicle miles driven increased by 150% during those decades. Yet, we still remain far from achieving the goals established in the Kyoto Protocol.
According to such empirical concepts as those inherent in the Gompertz or logistic curve and Pareto's Principle, often most of the results, say 80%, is achieved with the first 20% of the effort. In other words, the easiest and most obvious things are done first to gain quick results. Subsequent improvements come at a much higher cost. In the case of the Gompertz Curve, slow initial progress is made followed by a period of rapid growth or improvement and then a final slow period of slow growth as the curve bends over at the top. As that final period is approached further improvement comes very slowly and at a much higher cost. Given the progress that has already been made, it would not be unreasonable to predict slower progress in the future. For example, some current action is being taken to begin to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to another 20%. Accomplishment of this goal is likely to be a very difficult and expensive technical problem. Each incremental reduction will be more difficult to achieve than the one that preceded it.
But it would be unfair to view this effort in isolation. What are the chances that this 20% goal will be achievable if our population increases by yet another 100% by the end of this century? No ones talks about the impact of population growth greenhouse gas emissions. Not even the Sierra Club. The UN says that people -- too many of them -- are the primary cause of these emissions. The things demanded by people such as autos, appliances, water, apartments, energy and even beef from flatulent cows are the reason. So why do we ignore this fact when we talk about immigration policies?
The growth in in the number of hybrid vehicles on the road is often mentioned as a sign of progress in the fight against carbon pollutants. But any reduction in emissions due to hybrid vehicles was more than offset by the large number of gas-guzzling SUVs that were being sold.
The UN estimates that, on average, every American produces a minimum of 20 metric tons of carbon pollutants every year. Even if we were able to reduce that figure by 20%, 300 million more people would still mean 4.8 billion additional metric tons of carbon pollutants per year (16 metric tons per person x 300 million additional people). This would be partially offset by the 20% reduction in emissions from our present population. If achieved, that would amount to 1.2 billion metric tons per year (4 metric tons x 300 million people) leaving a net increase of 3.6 billion tons per year when our population reaches 600 million, with no end in sight.
Another aspect of the concern about the environment is the extinction of species like the magnificent polar bear. Concern about these matters is not a sign of morally culpable or conscious selfishness.
Mr. Klondike: Since the overwhelming majority of illegal aliens are Hispanic, there seems to be an anti-Hispanic undercurrent driving all the anger of those who favor internal enforcement and secure borders. This has resulted in an increase in the number of hate crimes against Hispanics.
Ultima: First of all we should make it clear that we do not condone or advocate criminal behavior against any segment of our population whether they are citizens or not. Yet, as you have pointed our in relation to the treatment of earlier immigrants of Irish, Italian, Chinese or other descent, this anger and resentment is nothing new. But the term "hate crimes" is not an appropriate description of the criminal acts committed by the few as a result of their resentment of illegal aliens. Many who perpetrate these misdeeds do not hate the individual illegals but they do hate the fact that they have no regard for the rule of law and are involved in an unarmed invasion with deadly consequences for everything we hold dear.
There are two aspects to this problem. The first is the sheer numbers of Hispanics flooding our country from south of the border. This gives them a high profile in our society that serves as a focus for pro-legal and anti-immigration movements. The large numbers of these illegals and their real threat to our language, culture, political processes, and jobs presents Americans with a serious dilemma. We appreciate their hard work and desire to improve the lot of their families but insist on the rule of law and a recognition our national borders and sovereignty must come first.
The second aspect of the resentment of Hispanics arises from the largely monolithic support Hispanic citizens give to the illegals. It is as though they put La Hermandad de la Raza well ahead of their regard for their fellow citizens, the rule of law, the national interest and our national sovereignty. Some give lip service to border security but would withhold the tools necessary to achieve that goal. They believe nothing is needed beyond the immediate environs of the border. Or they favor employer sanctions but none for the illegals themselves. They oppose work status verification and internal enforcement even though these are the essential tools needed to buttress the physical improvement and staff increases at the border. Is this opposition a form of disloyalty? Are Hispanic citizens fellow travelers with the illegals? They do not seem to appreciate the negative impact excessive immigration, legal and illegal, will ultimately have on their quality of life. Some believe that their somnolence on this issue will result in the re-creation of the very conditions they fled their homelands to escape: poverty, pollution, disease, joblessness and government corruption.
Two things could relieve this problem. First, more Hispanics and Hispanic leaders should be speaking out against amnesty and de facto open borders. Second, if they were to endorse the Official English initiative, many of the remaining problems of illegal aliens could be quickly solved. It is their failure in both areas that generate much of the heat being focused on them by other citizens. They are their own worst enemies.
Mr. Klondike: Opinion polls show most Americans believe that tightened border controls plus some accommodation for those already here should be the solution to this problem.
Ultima: I agree, with the caveat that most polls give respondents exceedingly narrow choices and therefore the accommodation Americans would like to see for those already here is not well understood. I have already suggested one such accommodation that would probably be acceptable to the majority of Americans -- the idea of re-advertising jobs held by illegals at a living wage with a hiring preference for citizen labor. If a poll could be taken with 50 – 100 unbiased questions related to actions needed to solve the problems of immigration and illegal aliens, we would soon have a much better understanding of what most Americans favor as an accommodation.
Mr. Klondike: This issue could well decide the election.
Ultima: Yes. It is deplorable how all three presidential candidates have pandered to the Hispanics in our society without even a fleeting thought about the long term consequences for our country. Election is more important to them than the future of our country. They all should be reading: “Mexifornia: A State of Becoming” by Professor Hansen, "Collapse” by Pulitzer Prize winning Professor Jared Diamond, “The Coming Economic Collapse” by Leeb and Strathy, and “How Many People Can the Earth Support?” by demographer Joel Cohen.
If California is any guide, the term “Mexico Norte” may be an apt descriptor of our future. Perhaps that is the most important aspect of our resentment of Hispanic illegals and those who aid and abet their violation of our borders and displacement of American workers.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Friday, March 7, 2008
America's Immigration & Illegal Alien Problems
For the most part, America's immigration and illegal alien problems cannot be simplistically attributed to selfish evil people who knowingly and reprehensibly profit from cheap labor at the expense of the quality of life and standard of living of their fellow citizens. Neither can one attribute racist, xenophobic, nativist or bigoted motives to those who favor a stable population and the rule of law. They may be called restrictionists, in the non pejorative sense of that word, because they do indeed wish to restrict immigration and tailor it more precisely to our exact needs rather than to the demands of all those who wish to come here.
Concerns about dwindling natural resources, the environment, the quality of life and the standard of living are not the province of the uninformed. Many climatologists and other scientists are legitimately concerned about green house gases and the extinction of species. The interesting aspect of their concern is their failure to address the most obvious source of green house gases people -- too many of them, and the things they demand -- autos, highways, petrochemicals, medicines, grain, beef and pork, fish and energy.
The clashes between people whose own particular backgrounds, values, loyalties and cultures cause them to favor policies differing dramatically from those people with different backgrounds, values, loyalties and cultures are the root of many of the problems. Some see this divide in terms of what they deem to be in the national interest -- a stable population, the preservation of: natural resources, the quality of life, our standard of living, our language and the rule of law. Others see it in terms of reuniting families, humane treatment of illegals, de facto open borders, employer and government culpability, and faulty immigration laws.
Still others believe that people have basic human right to migrate and live wherever they wish. They believe that national sovereignty and national boundaries are irrelevant and that the laws of labor supply and demand should govern even if it leads to a regional or hemispheric equilibrium in the standard of living of all concerned. The latter, of course, would mean a significant decline in the standard of living of most Americans so this viewpoint enjoys little support, if any. Almost all rational people agree a nation has a right to secure its borders and protect its national sovereignty.
The clash is sometimes described as between "old timers" (nativists?) and "newcomers" (recent immigrants and illegal aliens) as particularly vehement because those whose families have been here for many generations feel that their heritage and their country is being stolen from them by the upstarts. The old timers see these upstarts as having little or nothing to do with the founding, development and defense of this country.
Of course, some of these upstarts did participate in the early exploration of North America, in the subjugation and exploitation of indigenous peoples, in the building of the transcontinental railroad, and more recently, the construction of highways, bridges, buildings and streets. And certainly it can be conceded that el Indio pobre de Mexico has provided much of the labor needed to harvest the field crops and produce of the orchards. This has been the province of the migrant farm worker for a long time.
America depends on manual labor. But this is not the same as writing and ratifying the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution; establishing schools and public education; colleges, churches, businesses; braving the dangers of the frontier and hostile Indians; persevering through drought, starvation, floods, famine, disease and pestilence; and defending our country against all enemies foreign and domestic.
In several major wars, citizens stepped forward to defend our country at great cost in lives, crippling injuries, family tragedies, and treasure. Is it any wonder then that these people and their descendants feel strongly about their country, language, culture and the rule of law?
Concerns about dwindling natural resources, the environment, the quality of life and the standard of living are not the province of the uninformed. Many climatologists and other scientists are legitimately concerned about green house gases and the extinction of species. The interesting aspect of their concern is their failure to address the most obvious source of green house gases people -- too many of them, and the things they demand -- autos, highways, petrochemicals, medicines, grain, beef and pork, fish and energy.
The clashes between people whose own particular backgrounds, values, loyalties and cultures cause them to favor policies differing dramatically from those people with different backgrounds, values, loyalties and cultures are the root of many of the problems. Some see this divide in terms of what they deem to be in the national interest -- a stable population, the preservation of: natural resources, the quality of life, our standard of living, our language and the rule of law. Others see it in terms of reuniting families, humane treatment of illegals, de facto open borders, employer and government culpability, and faulty immigration laws.
Still others believe that people have basic human right to migrate and live wherever they wish. They believe that national sovereignty and national boundaries are irrelevant and that the laws of labor supply and demand should govern even if it leads to a regional or hemispheric equilibrium in the standard of living of all concerned. The latter, of course, would mean a significant decline in the standard of living of most Americans so this viewpoint enjoys little support, if any. Almost all rational people agree a nation has a right to secure its borders and protect its national sovereignty.
The clash is sometimes described as between "old timers" (nativists?) and "newcomers" (recent immigrants and illegal aliens) as particularly vehement because those whose families have been here for many generations feel that their heritage and their country is being stolen from them by the upstarts. The old timers see these upstarts as having little or nothing to do with the founding, development and defense of this country.
Of course, some of these upstarts did participate in the early exploration of North America, in the subjugation and exploitation of indigenous peoples, in the building of the transcontinental railroad, and more recently, the construction of highways, bridges, buildings and streets. And certainly it can be conceded that el Indio pobre de Mexico has provided much of the labor needed to harvest the field crops and produce of the orchards. This has been the province of the migrant farm worker for a long time.
America depends on manual labor. But this is not the same as writing and ratifying the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution; establishing schools and public education; colleges, churches, businesses; braving the dangers of the frontier and hostile Indians; persevering through drought, starvation, floods, famine, disease and pestilence; and defending our country against all enemies foreign and domestic.
In several major wars, citizens stepped forward to defend our country at great cost in lives, crippling injuries, family tragedies, and treasure. Is it any wonder then that these people and their descendants feel strongly about their country, language, culture and the rule of law?
Saturday, March 1, 2008
The National Interest
Most voters balk at spending money on or getting too excited about immigration reform and illegal aliens if there is not an immediate crisis. Similarly not enough Americans complain about the level of legal immigration, chain immigrations and the number of illegal aliens in our country. The apparently don't realize that there is a point of no return at which the foreign-born will be in control of our politicians and therefore our country. At that time it will be too late and all will regret their myopia and somnolence when something could have been done.
In this sense, the American public is as responsible for inaction as the congress. The public has failed to sound the clarion call for a serious immigration reform bill that would expedite the involuntarily repatriation of illegals at their expense and reduce legal immigration to a level consistent with a stable population.
Few Americans understand that chain immigrations are not counted against the regular immigration quotas. They don't know that chain immigrations swell the number of legal immigrants by millions every year.
We, the public, bear the ultimate responsibility. Until we pressure our politicians into passing laws demanding different behavior by employers, illegal aliens, legal immigrants and the official charged with executing and enforcing the law. We could begin by demanding the the heads of INS and ICE be terminated and someone else put in their places who are interested in enforcing the law.
Our policies and lack of enforcement favors immigrants and illegals at the expense of ordinary citizens who may be unaware of these shortcomings of government and their long-term impact on the American way of life. Every American should have the opportunity to visit the barrios of San Diego, Los Angeles and even Santa Rosa, California to observe first hand what the future holds in store for our country. It would be especially revealing to visit some of those cities that already resemble Mexican cities more than they do American cities. Short of that everyone should read: "Mexifornia: A State of Becoming" by Victor Hansen. This books reveals from first hand observation and anecdotal evidence the transformations that are occurring in the Golden State.
Some like the INS, immigration advocates and lawlyers, special interest groups like La RAZA, MALDEFm LULAC, MeChA and the Aztlanistas, and members of the government like to think that they are the experts and that the public is ignorant and should keep quiet.
Fanned by the immigration dispute we should all become activists on behalf of a national policy that encompasses more restrictions on immigration and illegal aliens. Our emphasis must be on managing the problem in the national interest rather than in the interest of foreigners, some of whom would do us great harm. One might well ask, "What is in the national interest?" The national interest should be congruent with the long-term interests of the country's citizens. Those interest surely include: safety from terrorists, preservation of culture and language, the rule of law, and freedom from the ravages of excessive population growth, environmental damage and climate change.
In this sense, the American public is as responsible for inaction as the congress. The public has failed to sound the clarion call for a serious immigration reform bill that would expedite the involuntarily repatriation of illegals at their expense and reduce legal immigration to a level consistent with a stable population.
Few Americans understand that chain immigrations are not counted against the regular immigration quotas. They don't know that chain immigrations swell the number of legal immigrants by millions every year.
We, the public, bear the ultimate responsibility. Until we pressure our politicians into passing laws demanding different behavior by employers, illegal aliens, legal immigrants and the official charged with executing and enforcing the law. We could begin by demanding the the heads of INS and ICE be terminated and someone else put in their places who are interested in enforcing the law.
Our policies and lack of enforcement favors immigrants and illegals at the expense of ordinary citizens who may be unaware of these shortcomings of government and their long-term impact on the American way of life. Every American should have the opportunity to visit the barrios of San Diego, Los Angeles and even Santa Rosa, California to observe first hand what the future holds in store for our country. It would be especially revealing to visit some of those cities that already resemble Mexican cities more than they do American cities. Short of that everyone should read: "Mexifornia: A State of Becoming" by Victor Hansen. This books reveals from first hand observation and anecdotal evidence the transformations that are occurring in the Golden State.
Some like the INS, immigration advocates and lawlyers, special interest groups like La RAZA, MALDEFm LULAC, MeChA and the Aztlanistas, and members of the government like to think that they are the experts and that the public is ignorant and should keep quiet.
Fanned by the immigration dispute we should all become activists on behalf of a national policy that encompasses more restrictions on immigration and illegal aliens. Our emphasis must be on managing the problem in the national interest rather than in the interest of foreigners, some of whom would do us great harm. One might well ask, "What is in the national interest?" The national interest should be congruent with the long-term interests of the country's citizens. Those interest surely include: safety from terrorists, preservation of culture and language, the rule of law, and freedom from the ravages of excessive population growth, environmental damage and climate change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)