U.S. Supreme Court upholds Arizona law punishing businesses that hire illegal immigrants.
The 5-3 ruling is a victory for supporters of a crackdown on illegal immigration. Opponents of the law, including the Obama administration, say it steps on traditional federal oversight over immigration matters.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Monday, May 23, 2011
Dee Perez-Scott: The Immigration Backlog
The number of cases awaiting resolution before the Immigration Courts reached a new all-time high of 267,752 by the end of December 2010, according to very timely government enforcement data obtained by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC). The case backlog has continued to grow — up 2.6 percent — since TRAC's last report three months ago, and more than a third higher (44%) than levels at the end of FY 2008.
Wait times increased since our last report. The average time these pending cases have been waiting in the Immigration Courts of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) is now 467 days, compared with 456 days at the end of September last year.
Full details — by state, nationality, Immigration Court and hearing locations — can be viewed in TRAC's backlog application, now updated with data through December 30th, 2010.
See also TRAC's last backlog report and listing of earlier TRAC report reports in this series beginning in 2008 examining the volume of cases, wait times, as well as the number of immigration judges available.
Wait Times by State
Wait times continue to be longest in California with 639 days, up from 630 days three months ago. Massachusetts average wait times remained at 615 days over the same time period. Nebraska stayed in third place, with an average time of 511 days pending cases have been waiting in the Omaha Immigration Court — down from 519 days three months ago.
Wait Times by Nationality
Among nationalities, and limiting comparisons to the 50 countries with the most individuals in queue, Armenians with cases pending before the Immigration Courts currently had the longest wait times of 886 days — almost twice the national average of 467 days. Other nationalities within the top five in terms of the length their cases had been pending were Indonesia (823), Albania (672), Iran (611) and Pakistan (609).
Highest Growth Rates in Pending Cases
Among individual Immigration Courts, and considering only those with at least 1,000 pending cases, the court with the fastest buildup during FY 2011 was the Immigration Court in Oakdale, Louisiana, where pending cases jumped by 25 percent. The Harlingen, Texas court ranked second, with a growth spurt of 14 percent during this year. San Antonio, Texas (up 11 percent), El Paso, Texas (up 9 percent), and New Orleans (up 9 percent as well) made up the remaining top five locations experiencing the highest growth rates in case backlogs. Portland, OR just missed out being included in these ranks with a growth rate of 8 percent.
Courts With Declining Case Backlogs
Some courts, however, saw a decline in their number of pending cases during the first three months of FY 2011. Again considering only courts with at least 1,000 pending cases, the court with the sharpest decline was in Lumpkin, Georgia. That court saw its backlog reduced by 57 percent. This was followed by the Guaynabo, Puerto Rico court where the pending caseload dropped by 11 percent during this fiscal year. Dallas, Texas dropped by 7 percent, Kansas City by 6 percent, and Miami, Florida by 5 percent.
Wait times increased since our last report. The average time these pending cases have been waiting in the Immigration Courts of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) is now 467 days, compared with 456 days at the end of September last year.
Full details — by state, nationality, Immigration Court and hearing locations — can be viewed in TRAC's backlog application, now updated with data through December 30th, 2010.
See also TRAC's last backlog report and listing of earlier TRAC report reports in this series beginning in 2008 examining the volume of cases, wait times, as well as the number of immigration judges available.
Wait Times by State
Wait times continue to be longest in California with 639 days, up from 630 days three months ago. Massachusetts average wait times remained at 615 days over the same time period. Nebraska stayed in third place, with an average time of 511 days pending cases have been waiting in the Omaha Immigration Court — down from 519 days three months ago.
Wait Times by Nationality
Among nationalities, and limiting comparisons to the 50 countries with the most individuals in queue, Armenians with cases pending before the Immigration Courts currently had the longest wait times of 886 days — almost twice the national average of 467 days. Other nationalities within the top five in terms of the length their cases had been pending were Indonesia (823), Albania (672), Iran (611) and Pakistan (609).
Highest Growth Rates in Pending Cases
Among individual Immigration Courts, and considering only those with at least 1,000 pending cases, the court with the fastest buildup during FY 2011 was the Immigration Court in Oakdale, Louisiana, where pending cases jumped by 25 percent. The Harlingen, Texas court ranked second, with a growth spurt of 14 percent during this year. San Antonio, Texas (up 11 percent), El Paso, Texas (up 9 percent), and New Orleans (up 9 percent as well) made up the remaining top five locations experiencing the highest growth rates in case backlogs. Portland, OR just missed out being included in these ranks with a growth rate of 8 percent.
Courts With Declining Case Backlogs
Some courts, however, saw a decline in their number of pending cases during the first three months of FY 2011. Again considering only courts with at least 1,000 pending cases, the court with the sharpest decline was in Lumpkin, Georgia. That court saw its backlog reduced by 57 percent. This was followed by the Guaynabo, Puerto Rico court where the pending caseload dropped by 11 percent during this fiscal year. Dallas, Texas dropped by 7 percent, Kansas City by 6 percent, and Miami, Florida by 5 percent.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Dee Perez-Scott: Thirty Reasons for Immigration Reform Now
Thirty Reasons for Immigration Reform Now!
1. Our population has increased six-fold since the 1850s. Does anyone really want this kind of an increase to recur leading to a population of 1.8 billion?
2. A vast largely unsettled continent lay before the Founding Fathers and their successors. Natural resources like water, timber, fish, arable land, game and minerals seemed limitless. Now we know better.
3. The “limit” of finite natural resources per capita as population increases without bounds is zero. (The more there are of us, the less there is for each of us!)
4. The top-priority campaigns of the nation's big environmental groups include endangered animals, pollution and global warming. The chief source of these and other challenges is immigration-driven U.S. population growth.
5. The United States is the world's third-most populous country, after China (1.3 billion people) and India (1.1 billion). Does anyone really want to emulate China and India in this regard?
6. The scientific data pretty much across the board shows that we in the U.S. are reaching many of the nation's ecological limits, one by one. Many of those limits are linked to population trends.
7. America's relatively high population growth and high rates of resource consumption and pollution make for a volatile mixture resulting in the largest environmental impact per capita ... in the world.
8. As we have seen in other parts of the world, growing population means encroachment on wildlife habitat, national parks and national monuments. In many cases, it also means abject poverty and misery. Let’s not go there.
9. Immigration laws are unduly complicated and give unfair advantage and preference to relatives of citizens or permanent residents who are then generally not counted against the established immigration quota. This aspect of the laws needs to be changed.
10. Under existing law, under certain conditions, parents of United States citizens may be sponsored for immigration by their adult citizen children (those at least 21 years of age). Instead, all adults should have to apply separately and be accepted or rejected based on their own skills, education, and other qualifications important to the U.S. economy. All should be counted against the overall immigration quota.
11. In the 1950s, the number of persons admitted for legal residence averaged around 200,000 per year. That is a reasonable goal for the future, especially if the quota is focused on those individuals who possess the skills or advanced education in physical science, math, engineering or medicine needed to keep the U.S competitive in the global economy.
12. We can reaffirm our rich tradition of welcoming immigrants who would benefit our country while rejecting those who would strain our budget and further stretch our finite natural resources. To do otherwise will certainly result in a decline in both our quality of life and standard of living.
13. Sentiment is not a sound basis for public policy. The purpose of the U.S. - including its immigration laws - is to benefit American citizens, as it says in the Constitution's preamble: " ... to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
14. Americans occupy about 20 percent more developed land per capita for housing, schools, shopping, roads and other uses than they did 20 years ago.
15. About 40 percent of the nation's rivers and 46 percent of its lakes are too polluted for fishing and swimming. Wetlands, the biological filters for water pollution, are shrinking by 100,000 acres a year, mainly because of development to serve excessive population growth.
16. Americans produce 20 metric tons of pollutants per capita annually. Even if by some technological miracle we were to be able to reduce our output by half to that of Mexico, we would have made no progress in reducing the present unacceptable level as our population doubles by the end of this century.
17. The fertility rate of American women is about at the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman. Therefore, population growth must be almost solely the result of legal immigration, illegal aliens, their progeny and their higher fertility rates.
18. It is difficult to imagine a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one which makes unauthorized entry into this country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry [birthright citizenship]. Jus soli, observed by less than 20% of the world's countries, must be replaced with jus sanguinis.
19. Written in the mid 1800s when immigration’s first peak was less than 50 years away and the U.S. population was only about 50 million, Emma Lazarus’s famous sonnet, posted on the base of the Statue of Liberty, was an expression of her empathy for those who had fled the anti-Semitic Pogroms in Eastern Europe. The sonnet is a poignant reminder of our immigrant past but is not a basis for current policy. The operative word in the phrase immigrant past is the word “past.”
20. There are many things in our past: child labor, prohibition, lack of women’s suffrage, Jim Crow laws, and segregation. Few thinking Americans want to go back to that “past” yet some of us continue to cling to the idea of “our immigrant past” without a second thought about its appropriateness as a model for the fully-settled and fully-developed America of today with more than 300 million people.
21. The achievement of a stable population must be a part of the public dialogue on immigration on immigration reform.
22. Our traditions clearly need to be rebalanced to fit the vast changes in the U.S. since the 1800s. Immigration reform needs to be framed in terms of those dramatic changes rather than the conditions that prevailed over a hundred years ago.
23. In looking for what has been called that “illusive middle ground” the beginning point always seems to be amnesty for those illegal aliens who are already here. That is not the middle ground --not even close!
24. We can determine who, among the millions of illegals, are essential to our economy and those who aren’t. That is the middle ground and that is where we should begin.
25. We can and should tie overall immigration quotas to the total U.S. unemployment rate by sector.. The real connection between the two cannot be denied. Immigration quotas should not be demand-driven.
26. Most of those who have studied immigration have failed to address the issue of uncontrolled population growth and its impact on our standard of living and quality of life. They provide very few facts about the ultimate sustainability of population-driven economic growth.
27. Illegal immigration is a serious criminal offense not a civil right. When compounded with fraudulent documents, it is a felony.
28. It’s time to end mass immigration. The flood of legal immigrants and illegal aliens drives wages and living conditions for those on the lowest economic rung toward those of the Third World. The influx imposes both sprawl and gridlock on our metropolitan areas.
29. Immigrant families needing services overwhelm our schools, taxpayer-funded health care facilities and other public agencies. Those requiring services don't assimilate and, instead, expect to be served in their native languages. American civic culture frays as each ethnic group establishes its own grievance lobby and pushes for preferences.
30. Lack of reform is yet another illustration of an all too common American mindset: short on vision, mired in denial and unable to comprehend nature’s limits.
1. Our population has increased six-fold since the 1850s. Does anyone really want this kind of an increase to recur leading to a population of 1.8 billion?
2. A vast largely unsettled continent lay before the Founding Fathers and their successors. Natural resources like water, timber, fish, arable land, game and minerals seemed limitless. Now we know better.
3. The “limit” of finite natural resources per capita as population increases without bounds is zero. (The more there are of us, the less there is for each of us!)
4. The top-priority campaigns of the nation's big environmental groups include endangered animals, pollution and global warming. The chief source of these and other challenges is immigration-driven U.S. population growth.
5. The United States is the world's third-most populous country, after China (1.3 billion people) and India (1.1 billion). Does anyone really want to emulate China and India in this regard?
6. The scientific data pretty much across the board shows that we in the U.S. are reaching many of the nation's ecological limits, one by one. Many of those limits are linked to population trends.
7. America's relatively high population growth and high rates of resource consumption and pollution make for a volatile mixture resulting in the largest environmental impact per capita ... in the world.
8. As we have seen in other parts of the world, growing population means encroachment on wildlife habitat, national parks and national monuments. In many cases, it also means abject poverty and misery. Let’s not go there.
9. Immigration laws are unduly complicated and give unfair advantage and preference to relatives of citizens or permanent residents who are then generally not counted against the established immigration quota. This aspect of the laws needs to be changed.
10. Under existing law, under certain conditions, parents of United States citizens may be sponsored for immigration by their adult citizen children (those at least 21 years of age). Instead, all adults should have to apply separately and be accepted or rejected based on their own skills, education, and other qualifications important to the U.S. economy. All should be counted against the overall immigration quota.
11. In the 1950s, the number of persons admitted for legal residence averaged around 200,000 per year. That is a reasonable goal for the future, especially if the quota is focused on those individuals who possess the skills or advanced education in physical science, math, engineering or medicine needed to keep the U.S competitive in the global economy.
12. We can reaffirm our rich tradition of welcoming immigrants who would benefit our country while rejecting those who would strain our budget and further stretch our finite natural resources. To do otherwise will certainly result in a decline in both our quality of life and standard of living.
13. Sentiment is not a sound basis for public policy. The purpose of the U.S. - including its immigration laws - is to benefit American citizens, as it says in the Constitution's preamble: " ... to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
14. Americans occupy about 20 percent more developed land per capita for housing, schools, shopping, roads and other uses than they did 20 years ago.
15. About 40 percent of the nation's rivers and 46 percent of its lakes are too polluted for fishing and swimming. Wetlands, the biological filters for water pollution, are shrinking by 100,000 acres a year, mainly because of development to serve excessive population growth.
16. Americans produce 20 metric tons of pollutants per capita annually. Even if by some technological miracle we were to be able to reduce our output by half to that of Mexico, we would have made no progress in reducing the present unacceptable level as our population doubles by the end of this century.
17. The fertility rate of American women is about at the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman. Therefore, population growth must be almost solely the result of legal immigration, illegal aliens, their progeny and their higher fertility rates.
18. It is difficult to imagine a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one which makes unauthorized entry into this country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry [birthright citizenship]. Jus soli, observed by less than 20% of the world's countries, must be replaced with jus sanguinis.
19. Written in the mid 1800s when immigration’s first peak was less than 50 years away and the U.S. population was only about 50 million, Emma Lazarus’s famous sonnet, posted on the base of the Statue of Liberty, was an expression of her empathy for those who had fled the anti-Semitic Pogroms in Eastern Europe. The sonnet is a poignant reminder of our immigrant past but is not a basis for current policy. The operative word in the phrase immigrant past is the word “past.”
20. There are many things in our past: child labor, prohibition, lack of women’s suffrage, Jim Crow laws, and segregation. Few thinking Americans want to go back to that “past” yet some of us continue to cling to the idea of “our immigrant past” without a second thought about its appropriateness as a model for the fully-settled and fully-developed America of today with more than 300 million people.
21. The achievement of a stable population must be a part of the public dialogue on immigration on immigration reform.
22. Our traditions clearly need to be rebalanced to fit the vast changes in the U.S. since the 1800s. Immigration reform needs to be framed in terms of those dramatic changes rather than the conditions that prevailed over a hundred years ago.
23. In looking for what has been called that “illusive middle ground” the beginning point always seems to be amnesty for those illegal aliens who are already here. That is not the middle ground --not even close!
24. We can determine who, among the millions of illegals, are essential to our economy and those who aren’t. That is the middle ground and that is where we should begin.
25. We can and should tie overall immigration quotas to the total U.S. unemployment rate by sector.. The real connection between the two cannot be denied. Immigration quotas should not be demand-driven.
26. Most of those who have studied immigration have failed to address the issue of uncontrolled population growth and its impact on our standard of living and quality of life. They provide very few facts about the ultimate sustainability of population-driven economic growth.
27. Illegal immigration is a serious criminal offense not a civil right. When compounded with fraudulent documents, it is a felony.
28. It’s time to end mass immigration. The flood of legal immigrants and illegal aliens drives wages and living conditions for those on the lowest economic rung toward those of the Third World. The influx imposes both sprawl and gridlock on our metropolitan areas.
29. Immigrant families needing services overwhelm our schools, taxpayer-funded health care facilities and other public agencies. Those requiring services don't assimilate and, instead, expect to be served in their native languages. American civic culture frays as each ethnic group establishes its own grievance lobby and pushes for preferences.
30. Lack of reform is yet another illustration of an all too common American mindset: short on vision, mired in denial and unable to comprehend nature’s limits.
Dee Perez-Scott: Are you tuned in?
“I sincerely believe…that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale.”
--Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816
When we no longer possess the public courage which is nourished by the love of independence and a sense of national honor and sovereignty we will become so apathetic that we no longer care enough about our way of life to defend it, we will no longer have an unsustainable foundation for any society.
--Paraphrased from Gibbons , The Decline and Fall of Rome”
A society that seeks to equalize the minds of men doesn’t cherish real learning. Education becomes the right of the elite and the masses must then accept their interpretation of needs and events. A society that seeks to equalize incentives for work doesn’t cherish individualism.
Heavy taxes eat away at the incentive to work hard, robbing every one of their motivation, drive, and individual initiative. This leads to less risk-taking entrepreneurship, lower economic growth, fewer jobs, and, generally speaking, a society that is forced to fund itself via debt rather than productivity.
--Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816
When we no longer possess the public courage which is nourished by the love of independence and a sense of national honor and sovereignty we will become so apathetic that we no longer care enough about our way of life to defend it, we will no longer have an unsustainable foundation for any society.
--Paraphrased from Gibbons , The Decline and Fall of Rome”
A society that seeks to equalize the minds of men doesn’t cherish real learning. Education becomes the right of the elite and the masses must then accept their interpretation of needs and events. A society that seeks to equalize incentives for work doesn’t cherish individualism.
Heavy taxes eat away at the incentive to work hard, robbing every one of their motivation, drive, and individual initiative. This leads to less risk-taking entrepreneurship, lower economic growth, fewer jobs, and, generally speaking, a society that is forced to fund itself via debt rather than productivity.
Friday, May 20, 2011
Dee Perez-Scott Doesn't Think!
She will not know the worth of water 'til the well is dry.
She will not know the worth of American culture and character until it is transformed into another failed Latino culture.
She will not know the worth of a stable population 'til our population equals that of India or China.
She will not know the worth of finite minerals until they are all gone.
She will not know the worth of American culture and character until it is transformed into another failed Latino culture.
She will not know the worth of a stable population 'til our population equals that of India or China.
She will not know the worth of finite minerals until they are all gone.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Dee Perez-Scott: Here is a real conversation with an Hispanic woman
She: "Just to shine some light on what we are discussing, I am a legal resident, and also my family. I guess I misunderstood your previous posts in which you were discussing the DREAM act."
Me: If are a legal resident why aren't you are not entitled to resident tuition under the current rules. I thought you were saying that you were still an illegal alien. My comments in that regard were based on the misunderstanding of your status.
"I am an American, very proud of it, and I expect to contribute to this country as much as others that have lived difficult lives here as well. I still consider myself very young, and don't expect to make a family anytime soon because I still have goals set for myself (and honestly i don't want to be that stereotypical Hispanic girl who gets pregnant at age 15-20)."
Of course, if you really want to do some good, your homeland obviously could use some help so that its citizens no longer have to emigrate. Your attitude toward making a family is very admirable. Former Senator John Edwards gave this advice to young women: "learn a skill and get a job before you think about having babies that you may not be able to support and educate."
She: "There is no need for me to go to a country that I've known for 4 months. Yes I do speak Spanish, but unfortunately not as well as I would like. I think the thing that bothers me is that everyone in the U.S has had a history of migrating. All are immigrants (of course with the exception of Native Americans) some might be 2nd, 3rd, to like 10 generations after their ancestors have come to the land of opportunity. Others have come more recently. What bothers me is when the people, some people, when they become citizens or legal residents, they forget why they came to the U.S and made that decision in the first place."
Actually all of us including the so-called Native Americans are immigrants. The Native Americans first arrived 25,000 years ago but they were immigrants just as much as those who arrived yesterday. It is quite natural for immigrants to realize that their quality of life and standard of living will also be threatened by the arrival by more immigrants and illegal aliens and the excessive population growth they represent. They begin to see the light just as the earlier arrivals see it. That shouldn’t bother you. It is a very natural reaction, once one realizes that natural resources are finite,that the more there are of us the less there will be for each of us. Moreover, the more immigrants we admit and the more illegals we allow to stay, the more this country will resemble the countries the immigrants left behind. It is perfectly natural to want to protect one’s way of life, quality of life, standard of living, national character, culture, ideals, type of government, language and freedoms. Otherwise, what will happen in the long run is all of those cherished ideals will be destroyed; then where will we immigrate to. Ignoring this is just shortsightedness. the primary source of population growth is legal immigration, illegal aliens, their higher birth rates, and their progeny. Unless we do something about that now, the U.S. will be in downward spiral from which we will be unable to escape.
Emma Lazarus’s famous sonnet was an expression of her empathy for those who had fled the anti-Semitic Pogroms in Eastern Europe. The sonnet is a poignant reminder of our immigrant past but the operative word in that phrase is the word “past.” In the 1850s when Emma Lazarus was mounted on the base of the Statue of Liberty, the U.S. population was about 50 million. After a sixfold increase, it now stands at 300 million. What are Hispanics and other potential immigrants doing to to make sure we don't see another sixfold increase to 1.8 billion by the end of this or the next century? Does anyone think that would be a good thing. If they do, they need to visit the hinterlands of China, India,Bangladesh and Sub-Saharan Africa to see what that would be like. I suspect they would change their minds immediately.
We are not obligated to continue any past practice if it is not in the national interest. Does anyone want to go back to the days before woman suffrage, to the days of child labor, and Jim Crow laws? Do you think our country will be better with 600 million or 1.8 billion people than it is with 300 million? I don’t think so and neither do many intellectuals.
For example, Physics Professor Emeritus Albert Bartlett of the University of Colorado had this to say: “Can you think of any problem in any area of human endeavor on any scale, from the microscopic to the global, whose long-term solution is in any demonstrable way aided, assisted, or advanced by further increases in population, locally, nationally, or globally?”
Eminent demographer Joel Cohen came to a similar conclusion: “I personally am very concerned by the vast inequitable and largely avoidable burdens of hunger, disease, violence, ignorance and poverty borne by too many billions of people. But I will not try to persuade you that the world will end in the next ten years unless everybody changes to a diet of soybeans and contraceptive pills, or that a universal diet of soybeans and contraceptive pills would eliminate hunger, disease, violence, ignorance and poverty…. But I will try to persuade you that the world cannot easily and comfortably accommodate an unlimited number of people at any desirable level of material, mental and civic well-being.”
If those quotes are not enough, consider this beautiful quotation from the 1848 Principles of Political Economy of British philosopher John Stuart Mill who commends a change of values.
“There is room in the world, no doubt, and even in old countries, for a great increase in population, supposing the arts of life to go on improving, and capital to increase. But even if innocuous, I confess I see very little reason for desiring it. The density of population necessary to enable mankind to obtain, in the greatest degree, all the advantages both of cooperation and of social intercourse, has, in all the populous countries been attained. A population may be too crowded, though all be amply supplied with food and raiment. It is not good for man to be kept perforce at all times in the presence of his species. A world, from which solitude is extirpated, is a poor ideal. Solitude, in the sense of being often alone, is essential to any depth of meditation or of character; and solitude in the presence of natural beauty and grandeur, is the cradle of thoughts and aspirations which are not only good for the individual, but which society could ill do without. Nor is there much satisfaction in contemplating the world with nothing left to the spontaneous activity of nature; with every rood of land brought into cultivation, which is capable of growing food for human beings; every flowery waste or natural pasture ploughed up, all quadrapeds or birds which are not domesticated for mans’ use exterminated as his rivals for food, every hedgerow or superfluous tree rooted out, and scarcely a place left where a wild shrub or flower could grow without being eradicated as a weed in the name of improved agriculture. If the earth must lose that great portion of its pleasantness which it owes to things that the unlimited increase of wealth and population would extirpate from it, for the mere purpose of enabling it to support a larger but not a better or happier population, I sincerely hope, for the sake of posterity, that they will content to be stationary, long before necessity compels them to it.
It is scarcely necessary to remark that a stationary condition of capital and population implies no stationary state of human improvement. There would be as much scope as ever for all kinds of mental culture, moral and social progress; as much room for the Art of Living, and much more likelihood of its being improved, when minds ceased to be engrossed by the art of getting on. Even the industrial arts might be as earnestly and as successfully cultivated, with this sole difference, that instead of serving no purpose but the increase of wealth, industrial improvements would produce their legitimate effect, that of abridging labour….Only when, in addition to just institutions, the increase of mankind shall be under the deliberate guidance of judicious foresight, can the conquests made from the powers of nature by the intellect and energy of scientific discoverers, become the common property of the species, and the means of improving and elevating the universal lot.”
More recently there was a program on PBS narrated by the eminent naturalist Charles Attenborough which should convince you that you are on the wrong side of any argument that tends to increase the U.S. or world population.
She: "There are sooooo many stories and situations that caused so many of these undocumented people to come to the U.S.. And still people rather focus on the fact that they are illegal, they broke the law, and have no compassion towards what they went through."
These people are quite proprly focusing on the much more important issues of finite natural resources, pollution produced by people, growing energy demands, and all the other detrimental aspects of population growth. They are having compassion on all of their fellow citizens while others choose to limit their compassion to foreigners.
"You yourself explained how it took 10 years for your grandparents daughters to come to the U.S legally. That's was just plain luck. Do you know how long it takes in times like these for someone to migrate to the U.S legally? And if so, do you think some of the families that are illegal here had the time to wait for that green light to happen? I can name you 10 people that were so close to death because their own country would not provide them proper food, and shelter. Families were threatened because one member of the family would speak out of the injustice that was going on, etc."
Where is Pancho Villa and Emilio Zapata when we need them? I don’t doubt what you have written but it doesn’t change the fact that we have no obligation to accept all those who wish to come here. To do so would ultimately be the end of America as we know it. We should make provision for the skilled few who are in real danger in their homelands and we do, if the applicants for asylum can prove their cases. But we cannot and should not take them all. To do so would simply mean the re-creation here of the very conditions that led the illegal aliens to leave their homelands in the first place -- corruption, oligarchs, crime, poverty, joblessness, starvation, pestilence and disease. If you believe as I do, that we need to take steps to stabilize our population before it is too late, then you have to set the bar for admission very high. That means most applicants will never be able to come here and we should let them know that. We should accept only a limited number of the most skilled applicants for immigration.The others must begin to expend more effort to fix the governments and institutions of their homelands, even if it takes revolution as it did in Egypt and Tunisia. We should lower the legal immigration quota to no more than 200,000 per year focused on those who can do the most good for America not just anyone who wants to come here. I know this sounds like I am lacking in compassion for the unfortunate souls you describe. I do feel compassion for them but my allegiance to America comes first and that means enforcing the immigration laws and pursuing policies that will stabilize our population.
She: "But you’re right when you wrote, 'You cannot expect anyone to readily and without protest give up what they have long enjoyed and what they consider the heritage of their children.'
I and others that support my cause can affect one mind at a time. It is a repetitive and tiresome process, but if I can persuade at least one mind, I am much closer to making people understand how much we can gain with the immigration reform and the Dream Act. "
Me: As I have indicated, I believe we have much to lose and little to gain from any immigration reform that increases the number of immigrants and fails to secure the borders. You need to present a balanced argument to those who might be persuaded to support your cause. Otherwise, they will know they are hearing only half of the story. We simply do not need any more people. We need to let all the countries of the world know that and that our immigration policies will be structured to serve our national interest not the demand for immigration. Every person you convince to support immigration reforms that do otherwise is just another nail in America’s coffin. I hope you will give some more thought to that and try to take the long view of what America will be like 50, 100, or even 200 years from now if you are successful in your advocacy and our population balloons to the level of China or India. The people there in the hinterlands live in abject poverty and misery simply because of their numbers and their adherence to old cultures and beliefs.
She: "Thank you so much for supporting one of the causes I am fighting for. Even though we don't agree on some things, it really means a lot to me if we get support on one side then the other. There are many people that spread hate towards immigration but many others, like you, prefer to make logical and important counter-arguments that we all should carefully consider. If only everyone could be like that. You’re one of the few that we can actually have a civil conversation with. (Some people yell at us, curse, spit etc. and would deny even one illegal alien to get a higher education in the U.S.)
Me: If are a legal resident why aren't you are not entitled to resident tuition under the current rules. I thought you were saying that you were still an illegal alien. My comments in that regard were based on the misunderstanding of your status.
"I am an American, very proud of it, and I expect to contribute to this country as much as others that have lived difficult lives here as well. I still consider myself very young, and don't expect to make a family anytime soon because I still have goals set for myself (and honestly i don't want to be that stereotypical Hispanic girl who gets pregnant at age 15-20)."
Of course, if you really want to do some good, your homeland obviously could use some help so that its citizens no longer have to emigrate. Your attitude toward making a family is very admirable. Former Senator John Edwards gave this advice to young women: "learn a skill and get a job before you think about having babies that you may not be able to support and educate."
She: "There is no need for me to go to a country that I've known for 4 months. Yes I do speak Spanish, but unfortunately not as well as I would like. I think the thing that bothers me is that everyone in the U.S has had a history of migrating. All are immigrants (of course with the exception of Native Americans) some might be 2nd, 3rd, to like 10 generations after their ancestors have come to the land of opportunity. Others have come more recently. What bothers me is when the people, some people, when they become citizens or legal residents, they forget why they came to the U.S and made that decision in the first place."
Actually all of us including the so-called Native Americans are immigrants. The Native Americans first arrived 25,000 years ago but they were immigrants just as much as those who arrived yesterday. It is quite natural for immigrants to realize that their quality of life and standard of living will also be threatened by the arrival by more immigrants and illegal aliens and the excessive population growth they represent. They begin to see the light just as the earlier arrivals see it. That shouldn’t bother you. It is a very natural reaction, once one realizes that natural resources are finite,that the more there are of us the less there will be for each of us. Moreover, the more immigrants we admit and the more illegals we allow to stay, the more this country will resemble the countries the immigrants left behind. It is perfectly natural to want to protect one’s way of life, quality of life, standard of living, national character, culture, ideals, type of government, language and freedoms. Otherwise, what will happen in the long run is all of those cherished ideals will be destroyed; then where will we immigrate to. Ignoring this is just shortsightedness. the primary source of population growth is legal immigration, illegal aliens, their higher birth rates, and their progeny. Unless we do something about that now, the U.S. will be in downward spiral from which we will be unable to escape.
Emma Lazarus’s famous sonnet was an expression of her empathy for those who had fled the anti-Semitic Pogroms in Eastern Europe. The sonnet is a poignant reminder of our immigrant past but the operative word in that phrase is the word “past.” In the 1850s when Emma Lazarus was mounted on the base of the Statue of Liberty, the U.S. population was about 50 million. After a sixfold increase, it now stands at 300 million. What are Hispanics and other potential immigrants doing to to make sure we don't see another sixfold increase to 1.8 billion by the end of this or the next century? Does anyone think that would be a good thing. If they do, they need to visit the hinterlands of China, India,Bangladesh and Sub-Saharan Africa to see what that would be like. I suspect they would change their minds immediately.
We are not obligated to continue any past practice if it is not in the national interest. Does anyone want to go back to the days before woman suffrage, to the days of child labor, and Jim Crow laws? Do you think our country will be better with 600 million or 1.8 billion people than it is with 300 million? I don’t think so and neither do many intellectuals.
For example, Physics Professor Emeritus Albert Bartlett of the University of Colorado had this to say: “Can you think of any problem in any area of human endeavor on any scale, from the microscopic to the global, whose long-term solution is in any demonstrable way aided, assisted, or advanced by further increases in population, locally, nationally, or globally?”
Eminent demographer Joel Cohen came to a similar conclusion: “I personally am very concerned by the vast inequitable and largely avoidable burdens of hunger, disease, violence, ignorance and poverty borne by too many billions of people. But I will not try to persuade you that the world will end in the next ten years unless everybody changes to a diet of soybeans and contraceptive pills, or that a universal diet of soybeans and contraceptive pills would eliminate hunger, disease, violence, ignorance and poverty…. But I will try to persuade you that the world cannot easily and comfortably accommodate an unlimited number of people at any desirable level of material, mental and civic well-being.”
If those quotes are not enough, consider this beautiful quotation from the 1848 Principles of Political Economy of British philosopher John Stuart Mill who commends a change of values.
“There is room in the world, no doubt, and even in old countries, for a great increase in population, supposing the arts of life to go on improving, and capital to increase. But even if innocuous, I confess I see very little reason for desiring it. The density of population necessary to enable mankind to obtain, in the greatest degree, all the advantages both of cooperation and of social intercourse, has, in all the populous countries been attained. A population may be too crowded, though all be amply supplied with food and raiment. It is not good for man to be kept perforce at all times in the presence of his species. A world, from which solitude is extirpated, is a poor ideal. Solitude, in the sense of being often alone, is essential to any depth of meditation or of character; and solitude in the presence of natural beauty and grandeur, is the cradle of thoughts and aspirations which are not only good for the individual, but which society could ill do without. Nor is there much satisfaction in contemplating the world with nothing left to the spontaneous activity of nature; with every rood of land brought into cultivation, which is capable of growing food for human beings; every flowery waste or natural pasture ploughed up, all quadrapeds or birds which are not domesticated for mans’ use exterminated as his rivals for food, every hedgerow or superfluous tree rooted out, and scarcely a place left where a wild shrub or flower could grow without being eradicated as a weed in the name of improved agriculture. If the earth must lose that great portion of its pleasantness which it owes to things that the unlimited increase of wealth and population would extirpate from it, for the mere purpose of enabling it to support a larger but not a better or happier population, I sincerely hope, for the sake of posterity, that they will content to be stationary, long before necessity compels them to it.
It is scarcely necessary to remark that a stationary condition of capital and population implies no stationary state of human improvement. There would be as much scope as ever for all kinds of mental culture, moral and social progress; as much room for the Art of Living, and much more likelihood of its being improved, when minds ceased to be engrossed by the art of getting on. Even the industrial arts might be as earnestly and as successfully cultivated, with this sole difference, that instead of serving no purpose but the increase of wealth, industrial improvements would produce their legitimate effect, that of abridging labour….Only when, in addition to just institutions, the increase of mankind shall be under the deliberate guidance of judicious foresight, can the conquests made from the powers of nature by the intellect and energy of scientific discoverers, become the common property of the species, and the means of improving and elevating the universal lot.”
More recently there was a program on PBS narrated by the eminent naturalist Charles Attenborough which should convince you that you are on the wrong side of any argument that tends to increase the U.S. or world population.
She: "There are sooooo many stories and situations that caused so many of these undocumented people to come to the U.S.. And still people rather focus on the fact that they are illegal, they broke the law, and have no compassion towards what they went through."
These people are quite proprly focusing on the much more important issues of finite natural resources, pollution produced by people, growing energy demands, and all the other detrimental aspects of population growth. They are having compassion on all of their fellow citizens while others choose to limit their compassion to foreigners.
"You yourself explained how it took 10 years for your grandparents daughters to come to the U.S legally. That's was just plain luck. Do you know how long it takes in times like these for someone to migrate to the U.S legally? And if so, do you think some of the families that are illegal here had the time to wait for that green light to happen? I can name you 10 people that were so close to death because their own country would not provide them proper food, and shelter. Families were threatened because one member of the family would speak out of the injustice that was going on, etc."
Where is Pancho Villa and Emilio Zapata when we need them? I don’t doubt what you have written but it doesn’t change the fact that we have no obligation to accept all those who wish to come here. To do so would ultimately be the end of America as we know it. We should make provision for the skilled few who are in real danger in their homelands and we do, if the applicants for asylum can prove their cases. But we cannot and should not take them all. To do so would simply mean the re-creation here of the very conditions that led the illegal aliens to leave their homelands in the first place -- corruption, oligarchs, crime, poverty, joblessness, starvation, pestilence and disease. If you believe as I do, that we need to take steps to stabilize our population before it is too late, then you have to set the bar for admission very high. That means most applicants will never be able to come here and we should let them know that. We should accept only a limited number of the most skilled applicants for immigration.The others must begin to expend more effort to fix the governments and institutions of their homelands, even if it takes revolution as it did in Egypt and Tunisia. We should lower the legal immigration quota to no more than 200,000 per year focused on those who can do the most good for America not just anyone who wants to come here. I know this sounds like I am lacking in compassion for the unfortunate souls you describe. I do feel compassion for them but my allegiance to America comes first and that means enforcing the immigration laws and pursuing policies that will stabilize our population.
She: "But you’re right when you wrote, 'You cannot expect anyone to readily and without protest give up what they have long enjoyed and what they consider the heritage of their children.'
I and others that support my cause can affect one mind at a time. It is a repetitive and tiresome process, but if I can persuade at least one mind, I am much closer to making people understand how much we can gain with the immigration reform and the Dream Act. "
Me: As I have indicated, I believe we have much to lose and little to gain from any immigration reform that increases the number of immigrants and fails to secure the borders. You need to present a balanced argument to those who might be persuaded to support your cause. Otherwise, they will know they are hearing only half of the story. We simply do not need any more people. We need to let all the countries of the world know that and that our immigration policies will be structured to serve our national interest not the demand for immigration. Every person you convince to support immigration reforms that do otherwise is just another nail in America’s coffin. I hope you will give some more thought to that and try to take the long view of what America will be like 50, 100, or even 200 years from now if you are successful in your advocacy and our population balloons to the level of China or India. The people there in the hinterlands live in abject poverty and misery simply because of their numbers and their adherence to old cultures and beliefs.
She: "Thank you so much for supporting one of the causes I am fighting for. Even though we don't agree on some things, it really means a lot to me if we get support on one side then the other. There are many people that spread hate towards immigration but many others, like you, prefer to make logical and important counter-arguments that we all should carefully consider. If only everyone could be like that. You’re one of the few that we can actually have a civil conversation with. (Some people yell at us, curse, spit etc. and would deny even one illegal alien to get a higher education in the U.S.)
Dee Perez-Scott Doesn't know about The High Cost of Cheap Labor
Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget
This study is one of the first to estimate the total impact of illegal immigration on the federal budget. Most previous studies have focused on the state and local level and have examined only costs or tax payments, but not both. Based on Census Bureau data, this study finds that, when all taxes paid (direct and indirect) and all costs are considered, illegal households created a net fiscal deficit at the federal level of more than $10 billion in 2002. We also estimate that, if there was an amnesty for illegal aliens, the net fiscal deficit would grow to nearly $29 billion.
Among the findings:
Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household.
Among the largest costs are Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).
With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most social services.
On average, the costs that illegal households impose on federal coffers are less than half that of other households, but their tax payments are only one-fourth that of other households.
Many of the costs associated with illegals are due to their American-born children, who are awarded U.S. citizenship at birth. Thus, greater efforts at barring illegals from federal programs will not reduce costs because their citizen children can continue to access them.
If illegal aliens were given amnesty and began to pay taxes and use services like households headed by legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual net fiscal deficit would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total net cost of $29 billion.
Costs increase dramatically because unskilled immigrants with legal status -- what most illegal aliens would become -- can access government programs, but still tend to make very modest tax payments.
Although legalization would increase average tax payments by 77 percent, average costs would rise by 118 percent.
The fact that legal immigrants with few years of schooling are a large fiscal drain does not mean that legal immigrants overall are a net drain -- many legal immigrants are highly skilled.
The vast majority of illegals hold jobs. Thus the fiscal deficit they create for the federal government is not the result of an unwillingness to work.
The results of this study are consistent with a 1997 study by the National Research Council, which also found that immigrants' education level is a key determinant of their fiscal impact.
A Complex Fiscal Picture
Welfare use. Our findings show that many of the preconceived notions about the fiscal impact of illegal households turn out to be inaccurate. In terms of welfare use, receipt of cash assistance programs tends to be very low, while Medicaid use, though significant, is still less than for other households. Only use of food assistance programs is significantly higher than that of the rest of the population. Also, contrary to the perceptions that illegal aliens don't pay payroll taxes, we estimate that more than half of illegals work "on the books." On average, illegal households pay more than $4,200 a year in all forms of federal taxes. Unfortunately, they impose costs of $6,950 per household.
Social Security and Medicare. Although we find that the net effect of illegal households is negative at the federal level, the same is not true for Social Security and Medicare. We estimate that illegal households create a combined net benefit for these two programs in excess of $7 billion a year, accounting for about 4 percent of the total annual surplus in these two programs. However, they create a net deficit of $17.4 billion in the rest of the budget, for a total net loss of $10.4 billion. Nonetheless, their impact on Social Security and Medicare is unambiguously positive. Of course, if the Social Security totalization agreement with Mexico signed in June goes into effect, allowing illegals to collect Social Security, these calculations would change.
The Impact of Amnesty. Finally, our estimates show that amnesty would significantly increase tax revenue. Because both their income and tax compliance would rise, we estimate that under the most likely scenario the average illegal alien household would pay 77 percent ($3,200) more a year in federal taxes once legalized. While not enough to offset the 118 percent ($8,200) per household increase in costs that would come with legalization, amnesty would significantly increase both the average income and tax payments of illegal aliens.
What's Different About Today's Immigration. Many native-born Americans observe that their ancestors came to America and did not place great demands on government services. Perhaps this is true, but the size and scope of government were dramatically smaller during the last great wave of immigration. Not just means-tested programs, but expenditures on everything from public schools to roads were only a fraction of what they are today. Thus, the arrival of unskilled immigrants in the past did not have the negative fiscal implications that it does today. Moreover, the American economy has changed profoundly since the last great wave of immigration, with education now the key determinant of economic success. The costs that unskilled immigrants impose simply reflect the nature of the modern American economy and welfare state. It is doubtful that the fiscal costs can be avoided if our immigration policies remain unchanged.
Policy Implications
The negative impact on the federal budget need not be the only or even the primary consideration when deciding what to do about illegal immigration. But assuming that the fiscal status quo is unacceptable, there are three main changes in policy that might reduce or eliminate the fiscal costs of illegal immigration. One set of options is to allow illegal aliens to remain in the country, but attempt to reduce the costs they impose. A second set of options would be to grant them legal status as a way of increasing the taxes they pay. A third option would be to enforce the law and reduce the size of the illegal population and with it the costs of illegal immigration.
Reducing the Cost Side of the Equation. Reducing the costs illegals impose would probably be the most difficult of the three options because illegal households already impose only about 46 percent as much in costs on the federal government as other households. Thus, the amount of money that can be saved by curtailing their use of public services even further is probably quite limited. Moreover, the fact that benefits are often received on behalf of their U.S.-citizen children means that it is very difficult to prevent illegal households from accessing the programs they do. And many of the programs illegals use most extensively are likely to be politically very difficult to cut, such as the Women Infants and Children (WIC) nutrition program. Other costs, such as incarcerating illegals who have been convicted of crimes are unavoidable. It seems almost certain that if illegals are allowed to remain in the country, the fiscal deficit will persist.
Increasing Tax Revenue by Granting Amnesty. As discussed above, our research shows that granting illegal aliens amnesty would dramatically increase tax revenue. Unfortunately, we find that costs would increase even more. Costs would rise dramatically because illegals would be able to access many programs that are currently off limits to them. Moreover, even if legalized illegal aliens continued to be barred from using some means-tested programs, they would still be much more likely to sign their U.S.-citizen children up for them because they would lose whatever fear they had of the government. We know this because immigrants with legal status, who have the same education levels and resulting low incomes as illegal aliens, sign their U.S.-citizen children up for programs like Medicaid at higher rates than illegal aliens with U.S.-citizen children. In addition, direct costs for programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit would also grow dramatically with legalization. Right now, illegals need a Social Security number and have to file a tax return to get the credit. As a result, relatively few actually get it. We estimate that once legalized, payments to illegals under this program would grow more than ten-fold.
From a purely fiscal point of view, the main problem with legalization is that illegals would, for the most part, become unskilled legal immigrants. And unskilled legal immigrants create much larger fiscal costs than unskilled illegal aliens. Legalization will not change the low education levels of illegal aliens or the fact that the American labor market offers very limited opportunities to such workers, whatever their legal status. Nor will it change the basic fact that the United States, like all industrialized democracies, has a well-developed welfare state that provides assistance to low-income workers. Large fiscal costs are simply an unavoidable outcome of unskilled immigration given the economic and fiscal realities of America today.
Enforcing Immigration Laws. If we are serious about avoiding the fiscal costs of illegal immigration, the only real option is to enforce the law and reduce the number of illegal aliens in the country. First, this would entail much greater efforts to police the nation's land and sea borders. At present, less than 2,000 agents are on duty at any one time on the Mexican and Canadian borders. Second, much greater effort must be made to ensure that those allowed into the country on a temporary basis, such as tourists and guest workers, are not likely to stay in the country permanently. Third, the centerpiece of any enforcement effort would be to enforce the ban on hiring illegal aliens. At present, the law is completely unenforced. Enforcement would require using existing databases to ensure that all new hires are authorized to work in the United States and levying heavy fines on businesses that knowingly employ illegal aliens. Finally, a clear message from policymakers, especially senior members of the administration, that enforcement of the law is valued and vitally important to the nation, would dramatically increase the extremely low morale of those who enforce immigration laws.
Policing the border, enforcing the ban on hiring illegal aliens, denying temporary visas to those likely to remain permanently, and all the other things necessary to reduce illegal immigration will take time and cost money. However, since the cost of illegal immigration to the federal government alone is estimated at over $10 billion a year, significant resources could be devoted to enforcement efforts and still leave taxpayers with significant net savings. Enforcement not only has the advantage of reducing the costs of illegal immigration, it also is very popular with the general public. Nonetheless, policymakers can expect strong opposition from special interest groups, especially ethnic advocacy groups and those elements of the business community that do not want to invest in labor-saving devices and techniques or pay better salaries, but instead want access to large numbers of cheap, unskilled workers. If we choose to continue to not enforce the law or to grant illegals amnesty, both the public and policymakers have to understand that there will be significant long-term costs for taxpayers.
Summary Methodology
Overall Approach. To estimate the impact of households headed by illegal aliens, we rely heavily on the National Research Council's (NRC) 1997 study, "The New Americans." Like that study, we use the March Current Population Survey (CPS) and the decennial Census, both collected by the Census Bureau. We use the March 2003 CPS, which asks questions about income, household structure, and use of public services in the calendar year prior to the survey. We control total federal expenditures and tax receipts by category to reflect actual expenditures and tax payments. Like the NRC, we assume that immigrants have no impact on defense-related expenditures and therefore assign those costs only to native-headed households. Like the NRC, we define a household as persons living together who are related. Individuals living alone or with persons to whom they are unrelated are treated as their own households. As the NRC study points out, a "household is the primary unit through which public services are consumed and taxes paid." Following the NRC's example of using households, many of which include U.S.-citizen children, as the unit of analysis makes sense because the presence of these children and the costs they create are a direct result of their parents having been allowed to enter and remain in country. Thus, counting services used by these children allows for a full accounting of the costs of illegal immigration.
Identifying Illegal Aliens in Census Bureau Data. While the CPS does not ask respondents if they are illegal aliens, the Urban Institute, the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), and the Census Bureau have used socio-demographic characteristics in the data to estimate the size and characteristics of the illegal population. To identify illegal aliens in the survey, we used citizenship status, year of arrival in the United States, age, country of birth, educational attainment, sex, receipt of welfare programs, receipt of Social Security, veteran status, and marital status. This method is based on some very well-established facts about the characteristics of the illegal population. In some cases, we assume that individuals have zero chance of being an illegal alien, such as naturalized citizens, veterans, and individuals who report that they personally receive Social Security benefits or cash assistance from a welfare program or those who are enrolled in Medicaid. However, other members of a household, mainly the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens, can and do receive these programs. We estimate that there were 8.7 million illegal aliens included in the March 2003 CPS. By design, our estimates for the size and characteristics of the illegal population are very similar to those prepared by the Census Bureau, the INS, and the Urban Institute.
Estimating the Impact of Amnesty. We assume that any amnesty that passes Congress will have Lawful Permanent Residence (LPR) as a component. Even though the President's amnesty proposal in January seems to envision "temporary" worker status, every major legalization bill in Congress, including those sponsored by Republican legislators, provides illegal aliens with LPR status at some point in the process. Moreover, Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry has indicated his strong desire to give LPR status to illegal aliens.
To estimate the likely impact of legalization, we run two different simulations. In our first simulation, we assume that legalized illegal aliens would use services and pay taxes like all households headed by legal immigrants with the same characteristics. In this simulation, we control for the education level of the household head and whether the head is from Mexico. The first simulation shows that the net fiscal deficit grows from about $2,700 to more than $6,000 per household. In the second simulation, we again control for education and whether the household head is Mexican and also assume that illegals would become like post-1986 legal immigrants, excluding refugees. Because illegals are much more like recently arrived non-refugees than legal immigrants in general, the second simulation is the more plausible. The second simulation shows that the net fiscal deficit per household would climb to $7,700.
Results Similar to Other Studies. Our overall conclusion that education level is the primary determinant of tax payments made and services used is very similar to the conclusion of the 1997 National Research Council report, "The New Americans." The results of our study also closely match the findings of a 1998 Urban Institute study, which examined tax payments by illegal aliens in New York State. In order to test our results we ran separate estimates for federal taxes and found that, when adjusted for inflation, our estimated federal taxes are almost identical to those of the Urban Institute. The results of this study are also buttressed by an analysis of illegal alien tax returns done by the Inspector General's Office of the Department of Treasury in 2004, which found that about half of illegals had no federal income tax liability, very similar to our finding of 45 percent.
This study is one of the first to estimate the total impact of illegal immigration on the federal budget. Most previous studies have focused on the state and local level and have examined only costs or tax payments, but not both. Based on Census Bureau data, this study finds that, when all taxes paid (direct and indirect) and all costs are considered, illegal households created a net fiscal deficit at the federal level of more than $10 billion in 2002. We also estimate that, if there was an amnesty for illegal aliens, the net fiscal deficit would grow to nearly $29 billion.
Among the findings:
Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household.
Among the largest costs are Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).
With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most social services.
On average, the costs that illegal households impose on federal coffers are less than half that of other households, but their tax payments are only one-fourth that of other households.
Many of the costs associated with illegals are due to their American-born children, who are awarded U.S. citizenship at birth. Thus, greater efforts at barring illegals from federal programs will not reduce costs because their citizen children can continue to access them.
If illegal aliens were given amnesty and began to pay taxes and use services like households headed by legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual net fiscal deficit would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total net cost of $29 billion.
Costs increase dramatically because unskilled immigrants with legal status -- what most illegal aliens would become -- can access government programs, but still tend to make very modest tax payments.
Although legalization would increase average tax payments by 77 percent, average costs would rise by 118 percent.
The fact that legal immigrants with few years of schooling are a large fiscal drain does not mean that legal immigrants overall are a net drain -- many legal immigrants are highly skilled.
The vast majority of illegals hold jobs. Thus the fiscal deficit they create for the federal government is not the result of an unwillingness to work.
The results of this study are consistent with a 1997 study by the National Research Council, which also found that immigrants' education level is a key determinant of their fiscal impact.
A Complex Fiscal Picture
Welfare use. Our findings show that many of the preconceived notions about the fiscal impact of illegal households turn out to be inaccurate. In terms of welfare use, receipt of cash assistance programs tends to be very low, while Medicaid use, though significant, is still less than for other households. Only use of food assistance programs is significantly higher than that of the rest of the population. Also, contrary to the perceptions that illegal aliens don't pay payroll taxes, we estimate that more than half of illegals work "on the books." On average, illegal households pay more than $4,200 a year in all forms of federal taxes. Unfortunately, they impose costs of $6,950 per household.
Social Security and Medicare. Although we find that the net effect of illegal households is negative at the federal level, the same is not true for Social Security and Medicare. We estimate that illegal households create a combined net benefit for these two programs in excess of $7 billion a year, accounting for about 4 percent of the total annual surplus in these two programs. However, they create a net deficit of $17.4 billion in the rest of the budget, for a total net loss of $10.4 billion. Nonetheless, their impact on Social Security and Medicare is unambiguously positive. Of course, if the Social Security totalization agreement with Mexico signed in June goes into effect, allowing illegals to collect Social Security, these calculations would change.
The Impact of Amnesty. Finally, our estimates show that amnesty would significantly increase tax revenue. Because both their income and tax compliance would rise, we estimate that under the most likely scenario the average illegal alien household would pay 77 percent ($3,200) more a year in federal taxes once legalized. While not enough to offset the 118 percent ($8,200) per household increase in costs that would come with legalization, amnesty would significantly increase both the average income and tax payments of illegal aliens.
What's Different About Today's Immigration. Many native-born Americans observe that their ancestors came to America and did not place great demands on government services. Perhaps this is true, but the size and scope of government were dramatically smaller during the last great wave of immigration. Not just means-tested programs, but expenditures on everything from public schools to roads were only a fraction of what they are today. Thus, the arrival of unskilled immigrants in the past did not have the negative fiscal implications that it does today. Moreover, the American economy has changed profoundly since the last great wave of immigration, with education now the key determinant of economic success. The costs that unskilled immigrants impose simply reflect the nature of the modern American economy and welfare state. It is doubtful that the fiscal costs can be avoided if our immigration policies remain unchanged.
Policy Implications
The negative impact on the federal budget need not be the only or even the primary consideration when deciding what to do about illegal immigration. But assuming that the fiscal status quo is unacceptable, there are three main changes in policy that might reduce or eliminate the fiscal costs of illegal immigration. One set of options is to allow illegal aliens to remain in the country, but attempt to reduce the costs they impose. A second set of options would be to grant them legal status as a way of increasing the taxes they pay. A third option would be to enforce the law and reduce the size of the illegal population and with it the costs of illegal immigration.
Reducing the Cost Side of the Equation. Reducing the costs illegals impose would probably be the most difficult of the three options because illegal households already impose only about 46 percent as much in costs on the federal government as other households. Thus, the amount of money that can be saved by curtailing their use of public services even further is probably quite limited. Moreover, the fact that benefits are often received on behalf of their U.S.-citizen children means that it is very difficult to prevent illegal households from accessing the programs they do. And many of the programs illegals use most extensively are likely to be politically very difficult to cut, such as the Women Infants and Children (WIC) nutrition program. Other costs, such as incarcerating illegals who have been convicted of crimes are unavoidable. It seems almost certain that if illegals are allowed to remain in the country, the fiscal deficit will persist.
Increasing Tax Revenue by Granting Amnesty. As discussed above, our research shows that granting illegal aliens amnesty would dramatically increase tax revenue. Unfortunately, we find that costs would increase even more. Costs would rise dramatically because illegals would be able to access many programs that are currently off limits to them. Moreover, even if legalized illegal aliens continued to be barred from using some means-tested programs, they would still be much more likely to sign their U.S.-citizen children up for them because they would lose whatever fear they had of the government. We know this because immigrants with legal status, who have the same education levels and resulting low incomes as illegal aliens, sign their U.S.-citizen children up for programs like Medicaid at higher rates than illegal aliens with U.S.-citizen children. In addition, direct costs for programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit would also grow dramatically with legalization. Right now, illegals need a Social Security number and have to file a tax return to get the credit. As a result, relatively few actually get it. We estimate that once legalized, payments to illegals under this program would grow more than ten-fold.
From a purely fiscal point of view, the main problem with legalization is that illegals would, for the most part, become unskilled legal immigrants. And unskilled legal immigrants create much larger fiscal costs than unskilled illegal aliens. Legalization will not change the low education levels of illegal aliens or the fact that the American labor market offers very limited opportunities to such workers, whatever their legal status. Nor will it change the basic fact that the United States, like all industrialized democracies, has a well-developed welfare state that provides assistance to low-income workers. Large fiscal costs are simply an unavoidable outcome of unskilled immigration given the economic and fiscal realities of America today.
Enforcing Immigration Laws. If we are serious about avoiding the fiscal costs of illegal immigration, the only real option is to enforce the law and reduce the number of illegal aliens in the country. First, this would entail much greater efforts to police the nation's land and sea borders. At present, less than 2,000 agents are on duty at any one time on the Mexican and Canadian borders. Second, much greater effort must be made to ensure that those allowed into the country on a temporary basis, such as tourists and guest workers, are not likely to stay in the country permanently. Third, the centerpiece of any enforcement effort would be to enforce the ban on hiring illegal aliens. At present, the law is completely unenforced. Enforcement would require using existing databases to ensure that all new hires are authorized to work in the United States and levying heavy fines on businesses that knowingly employ illegal aliens. Finally, a clear message from policymakers, especially senior members of the administration, that enforcement of the law is valued and vitally important to the nation, would dramatically increase the extremely low morale of those who enforce immigration laws.
Policing the border, enforcing the ban on hiring illegal aliens, denying temporary visas to those likely to remain permanently, and all the other things necessary to reduce illegal immigration will take time and cost money. However, since the cost of illegal immigration to the federal government alone is estimated at over $10 billion a year, significant resources could be devoted to enforcement efforts and still leave taxpayers with significant net savings. Enforcement not only has the advantage of reducing the costs of illegal immigration, it also is very popular with the general public. Nonetheless, policymakers can expect strong opposition from special interest groups, especially ethnic advocacy groups and those elements of the business community that do not want to invest in labor-saving devices and techniques or pay better salaries, but instead want access to large numbers of cheap, unskilled workers. If we choose to continue to not enforce the law or to grant illegals amnesty, both the public and policymakers have to understand that there will be significant long-term costs for taxpayers.
Summary Methodology
Overall Approach. To estimate the impact of households headed by illegal aliens, we rely heavily on the National Research Council's (NRC) 1997 study, "The New Americans." Like that study, we use the March Current Population Survey (CPS) and the decennial Census, both collected by the Census Bureau. We use the March 2003 CPS, which asks questions about income, household structure, and use of public services in the calendar year prior to the survey. We control total federal expenditures and tax receipts by category to reflect actual expenditures and tax payments. Like the NRC, we assume that immigrants have no impact on defense-related expenditures and therefore assign those costs only to native-headed households. Like the NRC, we define a household as persons living together who are related. Individuals living alone or with persons to whom they are unrelated are treated as their own households. As the NRC study points out, a "household is the primary unit through which public services are consumed and taxes paid." Following the NRC's example of using households, many of which include U.S.-citizen children, as the unit of analysis makes sense because the presence of these children and the costs they create are a direct result of their parents having been allowed to enter and remain in country. Thus, counting services used by these children allows for a full accounting of the costs of illegal immigration.
Identifying Illegal Aliens in Census Bureau Data. While the CPS does not ask respondents if they are illegal aliens, the Urban Institute, the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), and the Census Bureau have used socio-demographic characteristics in the data to estimate the size and characteristics of the illegal population. To identify illegal aliens in the survey, we used citizenship status, year of arrival in the United States, age, country of birth, educational attainment, sex, receipt of welfare programs, receipt of Social Security, veteran status, and marital status. This method is based on some very well-established facts about the characteristics of the illegal population. In some cases, we assume that individuals have zero chance of being an illegal alien, such as naturalized citizens, veterans, and individuals who report that they personally receive Social Security benefits or cash assistance from a welfare program or those who are enrolled in Medicaid. However, other members of a household, mainly the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens, can and do receive these programs. We estimate that there were 8.7 million illegal aliens included in the March 2003 CPS. By design, our estimates for the size and characteristics of the illegal population are very similar to those prepared by the Census Bureau, the INS, and the Urban Institute.
Estimating the Impact of Amnesty. We assume that any amnesty that passes Congress will have Lawful Permanent Residence (LPR) as a component. Even though the President's amnesty proposal in January seems to envision "temporary" worker status, every major legalization bill in Congress, including those sponsored by Republican legislators, provides illegal aliens with LPR status at some point in the process. Moreover, Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry has indicated his strong desire to give LPR status to illegal aliens.
To estimate the likely impact of legalization, we run two different simulations. In our first simulation, we assume that legalized illegal aliens would use services and pay taxes like all households headed by legal immigrants with the same characteristics. In this simulation, we control for the education level of the household head and whether the head is from Mexico. The first simulation shows that the net fiscal deficit grows from about $2,700 to more than $6,000 per household. In the second simulation, we again control for education and whether the household head is Mexican and also assume that illegals would become like post-1986 legal immigrants, excluding refugees. Because illegals are much more like recently arrived non-refugees than legal immigrants in general, the second simulation is the more plausible. The second simulation shows that the net fiscal deficit per household would climb to $7,700.
Results Similar to Other Studies. Our overall conclusion that education level is the primary determinant of tax payments made and services used is very similar to the conclusion of the 1997 National Research Council report, "The New Americans." The results of our study also closely match the findings of a 1998 Urban Institute study, which examined tax payments by illegal aliens in New York State. In order to test our results we ran separate estimates for federal taxes and found that, when adjusted for inflation, our estimated federal taxes are almost identical to those of the Urban Institute. The results of this study are also buttressed by an analysis of illegal alien tax returns done by the Inspector General's Office of the Department of Treasury in 2004, which found that about half of illegals had no federal income tax liability, very similar to our finding of 45 percent.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Dee Perez-Scott's Prescription for America
Dee Perez-Scott's Prescription for America
1. Amnesty for 12 million illegal aliens.
2. Mexico Norte.
3. Open Borders.
4. No internal enforcement using E-verification.
5. Poverty, joblessness, crime, gangs, corruption and oligarchs like Latin America.
6. Shortages of finite natural resources -- water, minerals, timber, arable land.
7. Overpopulation leading to 1.3 billion people in the U.S.
8. More demand for energy.
9. 6 billion more tons of pollutants as the population doubles.
10. No mas gringos.
11. The Nightmare Act.
12. Official Spanish.
13. No deportations.
14. A reduced standard of living and quality of life for all.
15. Neglect of America's poor.
16. A cradle to the grave welfare state.
17. Higher taxes.
Ethnocentrist Dee Perez-Scott has amply demonstrated that she doesn't care about the rule of law,the national character,language, ideals, sovereignty, or the national interest.
Dee Perez-Scott Help Strengthen & Improve the DREAM Act
Late last year, the U.S. Senate tried but failed to muster the votes necessary to pass the so-called DREAM Act, often referred to by its opponents as the Nightmare Act. Through the courage of a few of its members, the Senate narrowly averted the terrible mistake of authorizing a deeply-flawed bill that would have afforded a backdoor approach to amnesty for hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens. But despite the near mistake of the past year, Sen. Michael Bennett (D,CO) has now joined Sen. Dick Durbin (D,NY) in re-introducing this unfortunate bill. This bill is best characterized as an effort to grant illegal aliens, far too cheaply it turns out, the opportunity to become citizens. It is basically a back door amnesty bill.
One of the Senators' selling points for the bill is the possibility of a new source of recruits for the armed forces. Actually no new legislation is necessary to give these young people a chance to give back to this country through military service. According to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, about 35,000 non-citizens already serve and 8,000 permanent resident aliens enlist in our Armed Forces every year. What’s keeping those who would come under this bill from doing likewise? That is the best way for them to prove their patriotism and loyalty to the U.S. while at the same time opening a pathway to citizenship for them. Two years of college is not nearly an adequate substitute for four years of military service.
So what needs to be done to strengthen this bill and narrow its scope to those who are especially worthy?
First of all, the military enlistment requirement needs to be increased to four years. To be eligible for consideration, each applicant must serve a four year enlistment in the armed forces. College or some other form of service is not an acceptable substitute for military service and therefore must be eliminated in the revised bill. Since almost anyone can successfully complete two years at a community college, this old DREAM Act provision provided an unwarranted opportunity to gain access to the citizenship benefits without any real commitment to this country. Countless men and women have had to put their lives and their college educations on hold while they served their country. Many citizens enlisted for four years when our country called. I was one of them and I met many more who interrupted their college educations to meet the call. An Act strengthened to require applicants to enlist for four years in the military would assist with military recruiting and readiness.
Second, the bill as written is very weak on enforcement and audit. Applicants must be required to present at least four forms of notarized documents sworn under oath and subject to perjury charges that prove they meet all of the bill’s criteria. One of these documents must be an honorable discharge from military service.
Third, this one time window of opportunity to apply must be narrowed to the six month period following the president’s signature of the bill. During that six month period there must be a continuous audit of valid statistical samples of the applications to determine the extent of attempted fraud. To discourage fraud, fraudulent applications should result in immediate deportation without recourse.
Fourth, successful applicants must be specifically prohibited from ever sponsoring other relatives for permanent residency.
An Act, strengthened as outlined above, will, by no means, be a silver bullet. The Congress must take action to tighten the immigration system to: (1) reduce the total legal immigration quota to the level of the 1950s, about 250,000 per year exclusive of foreign students, tourists and temporary farm workers; (2) level the playing field for relatives and non-relatives of citizens or permanent residents and count all of them against the overall quota; (3) limit the special consideration to the spouses and minor children of citizens; (4) secure the border through intensive and continuous internal enforcement to crack down on illegal aliens and their employers through the mandatory use of E-verification across the board for all employers , public and private, and all employees, both current and potential new hires; (5) sentence immediately every illegal alien who is apprehended to a six month term working on border infrastructure before he is deported with the admonition that if he returns he will do hard time as a repeat offender; (6) require the illegal aliens to also pay a fine and pay any back taxes that are due.
The inaction of the Congress has come at the expense of ordinary citizens who see their quality of life and standard of living being eroded by unwanted and unneeded population growth.
President Obama has spoken about “…the elusive middle ground” on immigration reform. If we think of this problem in terms of one goal line representing what amounts to mass legalization and the other as mass deportation then the illusive middle ground must be found somewhere near the 50 yard line. Yet, those who have been most vociferous in pushing their version of comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) have not moved an inch away from their amnesty goal line. These zealots are still sitting in their end zone plotting new strategies to delude the American people into thinking they have actually compromised on this issue. A pre-condition of mass amnesty or mass legalization, with or without conditions, is not the middle ground -- not even close!
But in the absence of comprehensive reform, we should work to boost our economy, strengthen our Armed Forces and help hard-working kids fulfill their full potential by writing a new DREAM Act that narrows the eligibility to those who have enlisted in the armed forces for at least 4 years and who can meet all of the other criteria. Reluctant members of Congress and the American people will support a stronger bill that eliminates the loopholes and provides for audit and enforcement, and so will a majority of the U.S. Senate. But for many kids, the clock is ticking. The Administration can and should act now to grant deferred action to illegal aliens as soon as they enlist in the armed forces. These individuals will be more mature as a result of their military service and consequently they will be better students when they are able to resume their education.
If the Congress wishes to pass an amnesty bill for a limited category of illegal aliens, then the way forward is clear. If some of the best and brightest among the illegals wish to absolve themselves of any guilt regarding their illegal entry and presence, their way forward is also clear -- the nearest armed forces recruiting office. There is no reason why the potential of some of our best and brightest students should be cut short. They and the Congress have the solution right in front of them. All it takes is action on the part of both parties. While punishment for the actions of others is not a desirable thing, neither is the rewarding of illegal behavior in a way that would promote even more illegal behavior. Again, we are looking for that illusive middle ground of a strengthened bill and a penance of sorts for the actions of those who created this problem in the first place. Honorable service in the armed forces for four years is a small price to pay. Anything else is unacceptable.
If we are going to get our fiscal house in order and preserve our quality of life and standard of living we need to pay a lot more attention to world and U.S. population growth.
One of the Senators' selling points for the bill is the possibility of a new source of recruits for the armed forces. Actually no new legislation is necessary to give these young people a chance to give back to this country through military service. According to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, about 35,000 non-citizens already serve and 8,000 permanent resident aliens enlist in our Armed Forces every year. What’s keeping those who would come under this bill from doing likewise? That is the best way for them to prove their patriotism and loyalty to the U.S. while at the same time opening a pathway to citizenship for them. Two years of college is not nearly an adequate substitute for four years of military service.
So what needs to be done to strengthen this bill and narrow its scope to those who are especially worthy?
First of all, the military enlistment requirement needs to be increased to four years. To be eligible for consideration, each applicant must serve a four year enlistment in the armed forces. College or some other form of service is not an acceptable substitute for military service and therefore must be eliminated in the revised bill. Since almost anyone can successfully complete two years at a community college, this old DREAM Act provision provided an unwarranted opportunity to gain access to the citizenship benefits without any real commitment to this country. Countless men and women have had to put their lives and their college educations on hold while they served their country. Many citizens enlisted for four years when our country called. I was one of them and I met many more who interrupted their college educations to meet the call. An Act strengthened to require applicants to enlist for four years in the military would assist with military recruiting and readiness.
Second, the bill as written is very weak on enforcement and audit. Applicants must be required to present at least four forms of notarized documents sworn under oath and subject to perjury charges that prove they meet all of the bill’s criteria. One of these documents must be an honorable discharge from military service.
Third, this one time window of opportunity to apply must be narrowed to the six month period following the president’s signature of the bill. During that six month period there must be a continuous audit of valid statistical samples of the applications to determine the extent of attempted fraud. To discourage fraud, fraudulent applications should result in immediate deportation without recourse.
Fourth, successful applicants must be specifically prohibited from ever sponsoring other relatives for permanent residency.
An Act, strengthened as outlined above, will, by no means, be a silver bullet. The Congress must take action to tighten the immigration system to: (1) reduce the total legal immigration quota to the level of the 1950s, about 250,000 per year exclusive of foreign students, tourists and temporary farm workers; (2) level the playing field for relatives and non-relatives of citizens or permanent residents and count all of them against the overall quota; (3) limit the special consideration to the spouses and minor children of citizens; (4) secure the border through intensive and continuous internal enforcement to crack down on illegal aliens and their employers through the mandatory use of E-verification across the board for all employers , public and private, and all employees, both current and potential new hires; (5) sentence immediately every illegal alien who is apprehended to a six month term working on border infrastructure before he is deported with the admonition that if he returns he will do hard time as a repeat offender; (6) require the illegal aliens to also pay a fine and pay any back taxes that are due.
The inaction of the Congress has come at the expense of ordinary citizens who see their quality of life and standard of living being eroded by unwanted and unneeded population growth.
President Obama has spoken about “…the elusive middle ground” on immigration reform. If we think of this problem in terms of one goal line representing what amounts to mass legalization and the other as mass deportation then the illusive middle ground must be found somewhere near the 50 yard line. Yet, those who have been most vociferous in pushing their version of comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) have not moved an inch away from their amnesty goal line. These zealots are still sitting in their end zone plotting new strategies to delude the American people into thinking they have actually compromised on this issue. A pre-condition of mass amnesty or mass legalization, with or without conditions, is not the middle ground -- not even close!
But in the absence of comprehensive reform, we should work to boost our economy, strengthen our Armed Forces and help hard-working kids fulfill their full potential by writing a new DREAM Act that narrows the eligibility to those who have enlisted in the armed forces for at least 4 years and who can meet all of the other criteria. Reluctant members of Congress and the American people will support a stronger bill that eliminates the loopholes and provides for audit and enforcement, and so will a majority of the U.S. Senate. But for many kids, the clock is ticking. The Administration can and should act now to grant deferred action to illegal aliens as soon as they enlist in the armed forces. These individuals will be more mature as a result of their military service and consequently they will be better students when they are able to resume their education.
If the Congress wishes to pass an amnesty bill for a limited category of illegal aliens, then the way forward is clear. If some of the best and brightest among the illegals wish to absolve themselves of any guilt regarding their illegal entry and presence, their way forward is also clear -- the nearest armed forces recruiting office. There is no reason why the potential of some of our best and brightest students should be cut short. They and the Congress have the solution right in front of them. All it takes is action on the part of both parties. While punishment for the actions of others is not a desirable thing, neither is the rewarding of illegal behavior in a way that would promote even more illegal behavior. Again, we are looking for that illusive middle ground of a strengthened bill and a penance of sorts for the actions of those who created this problem in the first place. Honorable service in the armed forces for four years is a small price to pay. Anything else is unacceptable.
If we are going to get our fiscal house in order and preserve our quality of life and standard of living we need to pay a lot more attention to world and U.S. population growth.
Monday, May 9, 2011
Dee Perez-Scott: Are you a loyal American?
You Worry Me! (In this piece I use the term Mexican-Americans because they represent the preponderance of the problem but that term serves as a proxy for all the other illegal aliens from other countries who have chosen to violate our borders and the rule of law.)
I've been trying to say this for a long time, but you worry me. I wish you didn't. I wish when I walked down the streets of this country that I love, that your color and culture still blended with the beautiful human landscape we enjoy in this country. But you don't blend in anymore. I notice you, and it worries me.
I notice you because I can't help it anymore. People from your ethnic background or homeland, professing to be seeking a better life for their families but they have been usurping the jobs of my fellow citizens ever since 1954. I don't fully understand why they feel they can ignore national borders and immigration laws, but I know that nothing can justify their ignorance of the rule of law as the foundation of all civilized societies. And that is not just some laws but all laws enacted by the duly elected representatives of the citizens of this great nation.
How often have we read the frequently suppressed stories about illegal aliens,who were driving under the influence, killing innocent mothers and children in crosswalks, carrying out the murder and mayhem dictated by gangs, brutally raping multiple women, and stabbed to death others. Their misguided fellow travelers, like Dee Perez-Scott, aid and abet these law breakers by supporting the causes of illegal aliens and then complaining about their mistreatment when they are apprehended.
So, I notice you now. I don't want to be worried. I don't want to be consumed by the same rage, hate and prejudice that have destroyed the souls of these fellow travelers and illegal aliens. But I need your help. As a rational American, trying to protect my country and family in an irrational and unsafe world, I must know how to tell the difference between you, and the illegal alien.
How do I differentiate between the Mexican American citizens and the illegal aliens in our communities who are attending our schools, enjoying our parks, and living in OUR communities under the protection of OUR constitution, while they harbor, support, defend, embrace and seek special status for themselves and other illegal aliens?
The events since the last amnesty in 1986 changed the answer. The one million illegals granted amnesty in 1986 has now grown to 12-20 million. Taking the lower of those two figures I can calculate a 25 year compound rate of increase of 10.45% per year. Extrapolation of that rate to the year 2050 leads to a number that can only mean Mexico Norte rather than the USA.
It is not my responsibility to determine which of you embraces our great country, with ALL of its religions, with ALL of its different citizens, with all of its faults. It is time for every Mexican American in this country to determine it for me.
I want to know, I demand to know and I have a right to know, whether or not you love America. Do you pledge allegiance to its flag? Do you proudly display it in front of your house, or on your car to the exclusion of all other flags? Do you pray in your churches that God will bless this nation; that He will protect it and let it prosper? Or do you pray that a compliant government will destroy the America we know and love by allowing it to be overrun with illegal aliens and foreigners who are here only for economic gain and have no interest in learning English and renouncing any dual citizenship or allegiance to foreign governments?
Are you thankful for the freedom that this nation affords all of its citizens? A freedom that was paid for by the blood of hundreds of thousands of patriots who gave their lives for this country? Are you willing to preserve this freedom by also paying the ultimate sacrifice? Do you love America? If this is your commitment, then I need YOU to start letting ME know about it. I need to hear from you that you oppose illegal immigration, that you want secure borders, and that you support vigorous and continuous enforcement to help achieve those objectives.
Your leaders in this nation should be flooding the media at this time with hard facts about illegal aliens, and what hard actions you are taking as a community and as a religion to protect the United States of America from these law breakers. Please, no more benign overtures about the minority among the illegals who actually commit heinous crimes, because I worry that you do not appreciate the full magnitude of that problem. No more benign overtures of condemnation for their unprovoked attacks on people and property, because I worry about what is unprovoked to you. Please, no more ignorance about population-driven pollution, energy demands and natural resource shortages. I am not interested in any more platitudes; I am interested only in action. What will you do for America - our great country - at this time of illegal alien crisis, at this time of the border wars?
I want to see Mexican-Americans waving the AMERICAN flag in the streets. I want to hear you singing 'God Bless America'. I want to see young potential DREAM candidates enlisting in the military for a minimum of four years. I want to see a commitment of money, time and emotion to this nation as a whole.
By various estimates, there are 12-20 million illegal aliens in this country. Many of these people live and socialize right now in the Hispanic communities. You know them.
You know where they are. Hand them over to us, now! But I have seen little action and little demonstration of this form of loyalty. Instead I have seen an already closed and secretive community close even tighter. You object to every effective measure taken by the states to apprehend and expel illegals and secure the jobs and safety of their citizens. You support the wishes of foreigners over those of your fellow citizens. You have demonstrated with the illegals for rights no visitor should expect. You have screamed for protection from enforcement and deportation. You object to descriptive terms like “anchor babies” in favor of politically correct euphemisms.
The Hispanic leaders that HAVE appeared in the media were equivocating and failed to strongly support the rule of law. They seemed more concerned with making sure that the United States grants amnesty to all of the illegal aliens who are already here. They want to protect their illegal ethnic brethren from any legal action directed towards them in the United States. They are not supporting our country and denouncing the illegal aliens and the leaders of countries that promote their border violations.
If these misguided souls really believe that unfettered immigration, legal and illegal, is good for this country, I want the chapter and verse of their rationale. I want them to counter the statement that the “limit” of finite natural resources per capita as population increases without bounds is zero. I want them to explain how pollution can be reduced at the same time as the population is doubling. I want them to explain how our fossil fuel demand will be diminished by more people. I want them to contemplate the message in the recent PBS program entitled "How many people can the earth support" with David Attenborough. I want them to decide and defend how many people we should have in the U.S.
I want statement from popular Mexican-American leaders to back it up those responses. What good is it if one’s motives are good, pure, and true, toward foreigners but the opposite toward America’s future and one’s fellow citizens?
What good is it if one incorrectly adheres to a degenerative form of the rule of law that allows one to ignore those laws with which he or she disagrees? This form has been demonstrated to us over and over again, a form whose structure is built upon a foundation of lawlessness and ignorance. A form whose members (some as young as five years old) are seen day after day, week in and week out, year after year, marching in the streets, carrying foreign flags and burning the American flag. A form whose members are disloyal converts who militate against the great United States of America, the country of their birth. They support the actions of foreign governments and their policies that promote the flow of illegals across international boundaries. A form whose rules are so twisted, that they feel free to harshly criticize and attempt to silence all those with whom they disagree. The objects of their derision from any reasonable point of view are the real “loyal Americans.” And the Mexican Americans do this in the name of illegal aliens.
They adamantly oppose any sweeps, workplace raids and other effective methods for curbing border violations. They refuse to admit that internal enforcement based on E-verification of work status is the most effective way to discourage illegal entry and presence.
We will NEVER allow illegal aliens or their fellow travelers, to take away that which is so precious to us - our rights under the greatest constitution in the world. I want to know where every Mexican-American in this country stands and I think it is my right and the right of every true citizen of this country to demand it. A right paid for by the blood of thousands of my brothers and sisters who died protecting the very constitution that is protecting you and your family.
I am pleading with you to let me know. I want you here as my brother, my neighbor, my friend, as a fellow American. But there can be no gray areas or ambivalence regarding your allegiance, and it is up to YOU, to show ME, where YOU stand. Until then, “YOU WORRY ME!”
I've been trying to say this for a long time, but you worry me. I wish you didn't. I wish when I walked down the streets of this country that I love, that your color and culture still blended with the beautiful human landscape we enjoy in this country. But you don't blend in anymore. I notice you, and it worries me.
I notice you because I can't help it anymore. People from your ethnic background or homeland, professing to be seeking a better life for their families but they have been usurping the jobs of my fellow citizens ever since 1954. I don't fully understand why they feel they can ignore national borders and immigration laws, but I know that nothing can justify their ignorance of the rule of law as the foundation of all civilized societies. And that is not just some laws but all laws enacted by the duly elected representatives of the citizens of this great nation.
How often have we read the frequently suppressed stories about illegal aliens,who were driving under the influence, killing innocent mothers and children in crosswalks, carrying out the murder and mayhem dictated by gangs, brutally raping multiple women, and stabbed to death others. Their misguided fellow travelers, like Dee Perez-Scott, aid and abet these law breakers by supporting the causes of illegal aliens and then complaining about their mistreatment when they are apprehended.
So, I notice you now. I don't want to be worried. I don't want to be consumed by the same rage, hate and prejudice that have destroyed the souls of these fellow travelers and illegal aliens. But I need your help. As a rational American, trying to protect my country and family in an irrational and unsafe world, I must know how to tell the difference between you, and the illegal alien.
How do I differentiate between the Mexican American citizens and the illegal aliens in our communities who are attending our schools, enjoying our parks, and living in OUR communities under the protection of OUR constitution, while they harbor, support, defend, embrace and seek special status for themselves and other illegal aliens?
The events since the last amnesty in 1986 changed the answer. The one million illegals granted amnesty in 1986 has now grown to 12-20 million. Taking the lower of those two figures I can calculate a 25 year compound rate of increase of 10.45% per year. Extrapolation of that rate to the year 2050 leads to a number that can only mean Mexico Norte rather than the USA.
It is not my responsibility to determine which of you embraces our great country, with ALL of its religions, with ALL of its different citizens, with all of its faults. It is time for every Mexican American in this country to determine it for me.
I want to know, I demand to know and I have a right to know, whether or not you love America. Do you pledge allegiance to its flag? Do you proudly display it in front of your house, or on your car to the exclusion of all other flags? Do you pray in your churches that God will bless this nation; that He will protect it and let it prosper? Or do you pray that a compliant government will destroy the America we know and love by allowing it to be overrun with illegal aliens and foreigners who are here only for economic gain and have no interest in learning English and renouncing any dual citizenship or allegiance to foreign governments?
Are you thankful for the freedom that this nation affords all of its citizens? A freedom that was paid for by the blood of hundreds of thousands of patriots who gave their lives for this country? Are you willing to preserve this freedom by also paying the ultimate sacrifice? Do you love America? If this is your commitment, then I need YOU to start letting ME know about it. I need to hear from you that you oppose illegal immigration, that you want secure borders, and that you support vigorous and continuous enforcement to help achieve those objectives.
Your leaders in this nation should be flooding the media at this time with hard facts about illegal aliens, and what hard actions you are taking as a community and as a religion to protect the United States of America from these law breakers. Please, no more benign overtures about the minority among the illegals who actually commit heinous crimes, because I worry that you do not appreciate the full magnitude of that problem. No more benign overtures of condemnation for their unprovoked attacks on people and property, because I worry about what is unprovoked to you. Please, no more ignorance about population-driven pollution, energy demands and natural resource shortages. I am not interested in any more platitudes; I am interested only in action. What will you do for America - our great country - at this time of illegal alien crisis, at this time of the border wars?
I want to see Mexican-Americans waving the AMERICAN flag in the streets. I want to hear you singing 'God Bless America'. I want to see young potential DREAM candidates enlisting in the military for a minimum of four years. I want to see a commitment of money, time and emotion to this nation as a whole.
By various estimates, there are 12-20 million illegal aliens in this country. Many of these people live and socialize right now in the Hispanic communities. You know them.
You know where they are. Hand them over to us, now! But I have seen little action and little demonstration of this form of loyalty. Instead I have seen an already closed and secretive community close even tighter. You object to every effective measure taken by the states to apprehend and expel illegals and secure the jobs and safety of their citizens. You support the wishes of foreigners over those of your fellow citizens. You have demonstrated with the illegals for rights no visitor should expect. You have screamed for protection from enforcement and deportation. You object to descriptive terms like “anchor babies” in favor of politically correct euphemisms.
The Hispanic leaders that HAVE appeared in the media were equivocating and failed to strongly support the rule of law. They seemed more concerned with making sure that the United States grants amnesty to all of the illegal aliens who are already here. They want to protect their illegal ethnic brethren from any legal action directed towards them in the United States. They are not supporting our country and denouncing the illegal aliens and the leaders of countries that promote their border violations.
If these misguided souls really believe that unfettered immigration, legal and illegal, is good for this country, I want the chapter and verse of their rationale. I want them to counter the statement that the “limit” of finite natural resources per capita as population increases without bounds is zero. I want them to explain how pollution can be reduced at the same time as the population is doubling. I want them to explain how our fossil fuel demand will be diminished by more people. I want them to contemplate the message in the recent PBS program entitled "How many people can the earth support" with David Attenborough. I want them to decide and defend how many people we should have in the U.S.
I want statement from popular Mexican-American leaders to back it up those responses. What good is it if one’s motives are good, pure, and true, toward foreigners but the opposite toward America’s future and one’s fellow citizens?
What good is it if one incorrectly adheres to a degenerative form of the rule of law that allows one to ignore those laws with which he or she disagrees? This form has been demonstrated to us over and over again, a form whose structure is built upon a foundation of lawlessness and ignorance. A form whose members (some as young as five years old) are seen day after day, week in and week out, year after year, marching in the streets, carrying foreign flags and burning the American flag. A form whose members are disloyal converts who militate against the great United States of America, the country of their birth. They support the actions of foreign governments and their policies that promote the flow of illegals across international boundaries. A form whose rules are so twisted, that they feel free to harshly criticize and attempt to silence all those with whom they disagree. The objects of their derision from any reasonable point of view are the real “loyal Americans.” And the Mexican Americans do this in the name of illegal aliens.
They adamantly oppose any sweeps, workplace raids and other effective methods for curbing border violations. They refuse to admit that internal enforcement based on E-verification of work status is the most effective way to discourage illegal entry and presence.
We will NEVER allow illegal aliens or their fellow travelers, to take away that which is so precious to us - our rights under the greatest constitution in the world. I want to know where every Mexican-American in this country stands and I think it is my right and the right of every true citizen of this country to demand it. A right paid for by the blood of thousands of my brothers and sisters who died protecting the very constitution that is protecting you and your family.
I am pleading with you to let me know. I want you here as my brother, my neighbor, my friend, as a fellow American. But there can be no gray areas or ambivalence regarding your allegiance, and it is up to YOU, to show ME, where YOU stand. Until then, “YOU WORRY ME!”
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Dee Perez-Scott is small minded and parsimonious in praise of the Bin Laden success
Dee Perez-Scott thinks she understands Iraq, Bin Laden’s safe house in Pakistan, and so much more. The news media have reported that the Bin Laden mission was years in the making and that its ultimate success was the result of the relentless efforts made under the direction of several presidents following various terrorist incidents around the world. She is amazed by the pictures where Bin Laden was found. She apparently believes that such an obvious location should have been discovered by Clinton, Bush, and Obama before now. She doesn’t understand how difficult it was to piece together bits and pieces of intelligence to finally pin down bin Laden’s location, especially if Pakistan was supporting him all the while. Also, Pakistan has never authorized operations on its soil and is now taking umbrage that this event occurred without its prior consent. Bin Laden probably felt quite safe there because the U.S. efforts to find him were rebuffed by Pakistan even when a strong suggestion was made by Secretary Clinton that they could locate him in a heartbeat if they wanted to. In the final analysis, the assessment was that there was only a 60% chance that Bin Laden was actually there.
Dee Perez-Scott asks why did we ever go to Iraq, suggesting that if we hadn’t we would have found Bin Laden much sooner. She asks further why did Bush have a war there for so many years? Why were so many lives lost?
Little publicity was given by the liberal media to that portion of the Wiki leaks releases last year that indicated there were
WMDs
in Iraq
WMDs2
All Dee Perez-Scott was able to say is, “Thank God for President Obama! Thank God for our Special Forces. They swooped in so quickly and served Justice so quickly." She could have been a little more generous, as Obama himself was, in recognizing the efforts of his predecessors and the intelligence analysts and CIA agents who pieced together the picture that enabled him to make the right decision. Instead she found it necessary to dump on the Iraq War and President Bush.
Dee Perez-Scott said, “It's over now! The only good thing -- we are unifying as a nation, ALL supporting our President! Let the Peace and the Allegiance last, at least for a few days! Let's join together as a nation and support our troops and our President!” Had she been a little less carping and more generous in her praise of others she might have, in her small way, actually contributed to the unification of our nation. She could have contributed even more by remembering and admitting her own warped sense of allegiance.
Dee Perez-Scott asks why did we ever go to Iraq, suggesting that if we hadn’t we would have found Bin Laden much sooner. She asks further why did Bush have a war there for so many years? Why were so many lives lost?
Little publicity was given by the liberal media to that portion of the Wiki leaks releases last year that indicated there were
WMDs
in Iraq
WMDs2
All Dee Perez-Scott was able to say is, “Thank God for President Obama! Thank God for our Special Forces. They swooped in so quickly and served Justice so quickly." She could have been a little more generous, as Obama himself was, in recognizing the efforts of his predecessors and the intelligence analysts and CIA agents who pieced together the picture that enabled him to make the right decision. Instead she found it necessary to dump on the Iraq War and President Bush.
Dee Perez-Scott said, “It's over now! The only good thing -- we are unifying as a nation, ALL supporting our President! Let the Peace and the Allegiance last, at least for a few days! Let's join together as a nation and support our troops and our President!” Had she been a little less carping and more generous in her praise of others she might have, in her small way, actually contributed to the unification of our nation. She could have contributed even more by remembering and admitting her own warped sense of allegiance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)