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

Thursday, June 23, 2011

Dee Perez-Scott: Ruben is only partly right.

Ruben Navarrette recently wrote:
“It's nothing new. We live in a country that has -- for more than 220 years -- held the curious distinction of being a nation of immigrants that doesn't like immigrants. Our national motto isn't really "E Pluribus Unum." It's more like: "There goes the neighborhood." Whether they come legally, illegally, or with a letter of reference from the Queen of England, every batch of foreign arrivals to these shores is instantly considered inferior to those who came before.”

Navarrette, referring to our 220 year immigration history, misses the point entirely. Written in the late 1800s when immigration was nearing its peak and the U.S. population was only about 50 million, Emma Lazarus’s famous sonnet was an expression of her empathy for those who had fled the anti-Semitic Pogroms in Eastern Europe. It was a counterpoint to the disparaging remarks made from time to time about immgrants. The sonnet is a poignant reminder of our immigrant past but the operative word in that phrase is the word “past.”

Navarrette ignores the fact that our population has now increased six-fold. As a syndicated columnist he should fully understand that conditions are different today than they were in the mid to late 1800s. 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 a population of more than 300 million people.

Our immigrant past of the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries should not be our guide for the future. Times, society and the availability of natural resources have changed dramatically. Navarrette erred when he wrote that the U.S. does holds "the curious distinction of being a nation of immigrants that doesn't like immigrants." Foreigners have been largely treated the same whether it was the Irish who came to America, the Poles who immigrated to Ireland or the Turks who came to Germany. There is nothing unique about the U.S. in this regard. It is an altogether natural reaction to foreigners especially if they do not speak the language of the country to which they have immigrated and even more so if they have entered that country illegally. This kind of reaction to foreigners is a universal human frailty. It is a rare thing to be able to free oneself from this human condition. It is therefore unreasonable to judge the human race harshly with regard to its treatment of foreigners.

Ben Franklin, one of the Founding Fathers, did disparage Germans at one time saying that they were too stupid to learn English. Navarrette considered this to be evidence of Franklin's "ugly prejudice and nativism." But Franklin was probably not the first nor the last to have said something disparaging about the Germans. The French regularly referred to the Germans, especially the German soldiers in WW I and II, as "Boches" (rascals or cabbage heads). Others thought of the French as spineless based on their inability to defend their own country against aggressors. The French, in turn, look down their Gallic noses at just about everyone who doesn't speak French.

Yet Navarrette says, "Behold, the musings of one of our nation's first bigots: Benjamin Franklin who clearly thought the English superior and the Germans inferior." It is not bigoted to argue that a failure to acquire a common language is a barrier to acquiring a common culture essential to a functioning society. I think he judged Franklin far to harshly and clearly overstated Franklin's offhand remarks as a simple case of "ugly prejudice and nativism." This was and is a natural reaction to foreigners observable in every society on earth. That is simply the human condition the world over. The Germans turned out to be one of the most technologically advanced societies in Europe but that may not have been obvious to Franklin at the time if he was unable to communicate with them.

It's hard to say whether Ruben intended the adjective "ugly" to apply to both the words "prejudice" and "nativism" or just the former. I, like many others, consider nativism a normal expression of patriotism and a desire to preserve and protect one's quality of life and standard of living. Those qualities can easily be threatened by excessive population growth. Nativism often manifests itself as fully-justified, anti-immigrant sentiment when those immigrants are almost solely responsible for excessive population growth and demands on finite natural resources. It is important to understand that as the current and most important basis for such sentiment.

It is not unusual for a more advanced culture to consider itself superior to one that is less advanced. The national income per capita, UN rating and the number of Nobel prizes awarded might be some objective measures of this. This is neither necessarily a permanent condition nor a denial of the potential of other cultures. Rather it is a measure of what is not what could be. One has to wonder whether Navarrette considers himself to be superior say to an individual from a cannibal society.

It is clear that the pro-immigrant forces choose to use the word "Nativist" in a pejorative sense as Navarrette did above. Nativism favors the interests of certain established inhabitants of an area or nation as compared to claims of newcomers, illegal aliens or immigrants. It may also include the re-establishment, perpetuation or preservation of such individuals or their culture, a completely legitimate objective for any society.

Nativism typically means opposition to immigration, population growth,or to efforts to curb specific ethnic or cultural groups that have entered and are present in a country illegally and in such overwhelming numbers as to be considered hostile or alien to the natural culture. Depending on their numbers, it may be assumed that they cannot be or will choose not to be assimilated and will simply re-create the very culture and conditions they fled their homelands to escape: overpopulation, poverty, joblessness, crime, disease, corruption, and oligarchy.

Opposition to immigration is common in many countries because of issues of national, cultural or religious identity. The phenomenon has been studied especially in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States, as well as Europe in recent years. Thus nativism has become a general term for 'opposition to immigration' based on legitimate fears that the immigrants will distort or undermine existing cultural values and, through their higher fertility rates, reduce the quality of life and standard of living of the "natives." This opposition to immigration has been expressed through criticism of multiculturalism.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel told a gathering of young members of her conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party this year that the "multikulti" concept – where people of different backgrounds would live together happily – does not work in Germany. At "the beginning of the 1960s our country called the foreign workers to come to Germany and now they live in our country," said Ms. Merkel at the event in Potsdam, near Berlin. "We kidded ourselves a while. We said: 'They won't stay, [after some time] they will be gone,' but this isn't reality. And of course, the approach [to build] a multicultural [society] and to live side by side and to enjoy each other ... has failed, utterly failed." More than 30 percent of Germans believe Germany is "overrun by foreigners" who had come to Germany chiefly for its social benefits.

Some immigrants were indeed inferior in many respects to those who came before because of the economic conditions in the old country had made them almost subhuman. Emma Lazarus admitted as much when she referred to them as "...tired, poor,...huddled masses,...the wretched refuse of your teeming shore, the homeless, tempest-tossed." The condition and culture of the Irish that developed while they were subsisting on rotten potatoes is a good example. Frank McCourt in his Pulitzer Prize winning book Angela’s Ashes described other aspects of the Irish culture that most would find abhorrent. The Irish were discriminated against because of those characteristics. They may have seemed inferior to others because their economic situation dictated their appearance and their living conditions in the tenements. Avoiding disparaging remarks about them would have been difficult. On the other hand, it would have also been difficult to make a plausible case against their potential as human beings given the right influences and role models here in America.

Others were treated in the same manner as the Irish. I mentioned above that Ben Franklin was not favorably impressed by the Germans even though they were known to be industrious with well-maintained neighborhoods. They believed in orderliness. (Alles in ordnung!) Who knows what experiences Ben Franklin had with the Germans that caused him to lose his cool and make a public display of his low regard for them. I don't know the timing of his remarks but if they were made after the arrival of Hessian mercenaries who were quartered in private homes, one could begin to understand Franklin's antithesis to them. I recall that an innocent immigrant of German extraction was lynched somewhere in the Midwest at the time of the WW I. Some Americans were also actually arrested for speaking German over the phone. The street where my grandfather lived in Dallas, Texas was renamed from Germania Street to Liberty Street during that same time period even though German immigrants were and had been an important part of Texas and U.S. history. I understand that fully 20% of Americans are of German extraction. My German cousin once said, “I believe every American has a German grandmother!”

We are all familiar with the plight of the Japanese who were rounded up and sent to relocation or internment camps depending on where their citizenship and loyalties seem to lie. Those who were Japanese citizens and who wanted to return to Japan to fight against the Americans were interned as required by the law. As I recall, they used to drill with stick guns within the camps, making clear that they were indeed enemies of the U.S. Others were simply relocated partly to protect them from incidents like the lynching of the German I referred to above and partly to remove any possibility of espionage to aid the Japanese enemy when we were most fearful of that prospect. Unfortunately, the U.S. government not only violated their rights but did nothing to protect them from economic loss. “Snow Falling on Cedars” is one of my favorite movies. It portrays young love and mutual prejudice. Again this appears to be the human condition.

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

JOE LEGAL vs. JOSE ILLEGAL: Dee Perez-Scott pay attention

We have two families: "Joe Legal" and "Jose Illegal".
Both families have two parents, two children, and live in California .

Joe Legal works in construction, has a Social Security Number and makes
$25.00 per hour with taxes deducted.

Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number,
and gets paid $15.00 cash "under the table".

Ready? Now pay attention...

Joe Legal: $25.00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week, or $52,000.00
per year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax; Joe Legal now has

Jose Illegal: $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00 per week, or
$31,200.00 per year. Jose Illegal pays no taxes. Jose Illegal now has

Joe Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited cove rage for
his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year. Joe Legal now
has $24,031.00.

Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the state and
local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has

Joe Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or
welfare. Joe Legal pays $500.00 per month for food, or $6,000.00 per
year. Joe Legal now has $18,031.00.

Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps
and welfare. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.[Vivi, Tony [HDS]] (I would add the 6K for food stamps)

Joe Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or $14,400.00 per year. Joe
Legal now has $9,631.00.

Jose Illegal receives a $500.00 per month federal rent subsidy. Jose
Illegal pays out that $500.00 per month, or $6,000.00 per year. Jose
Illegal still has $ 31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 for insurance. Joe Legal
now has $7,231.00.

Jose Illegal says, "We don't need no stinkin' insurance!" and still has
$31,200.00. Jose hits you and you pay for him.

Joe Legal has to make his $7,231.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline,

Jose Illegal has to make his $31,200.00 stretch to pay utilities,
gasoline, and what he sends out of the country every month.

Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after

Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.

Joe Legal's and Jose Illegal's children both attend the same school. Joe
Legal pays for his children's lunches while Jose Illegal's children get
a government sponsored lunch. Jose Illegal's children have an after
school ESL program. Joe Legal's children go home.

Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the s ame police and fire services,
but Joe paid for them by paying his income taxes - and Jose did not pay.

Do you get it, now?

If you vote for - or support - any politician that supports
illegal aliens... You are part of the problem!

Sunday, June 19, 2011

Dee Perez-Scott: The Limits of Growth

Professor Bartlett's dramatic presentation of the exponential growth function and what it means to the lives of everyone.

Dee Perez-Scott: Think!


Written in the mid-1800s when immigration was nearing its first peak and the U.S. population was only about 50 million, 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" Though it is mounted on the base of the Statue of Liberty, the sonnet is now outdated and irrelevant except as an historical artifact.

Since the mid-1800s, our population has increased six-fold. No one can deny that conditions are dramatically different today than they were when Lazarus wrote her poem. Child labor, prohibition, lack of women’s suffrage, Jim Crow laws, and segregation are also all in our past. 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 a population of more than 300 million people.

One would think from the immigration reform proposals that have surfaced in the Congress from time to time that it is in favor another six-fold increase in our population. I commend to their and your viewing a presentation on public television by noted naturalistCharles Attenborough. Also, if I can persuade you to really give some attention to this subject, read eminent demographer Dr. Joel Cohen’s exhaustive book entitled How many people can the Earth Support? and a beautiful quotation, too long to include here, from the 1848 Principles of Political Economy (pp 756-57) of British philosopher John Stuart Mill in which he commends a change of values (Mill 1848, book IV, chap.VI, pp.756-57).


A comedian tells us how much easier it is to solve crime in a small town than in a city:

"The small town sheriff asks a witness, "Can you describe the suspect?"

"The witness says, "Yes, I can . . . Dwayne"."

As small towns become cities, criminals become anonymous, crimes become more difficult to solve, and crime rates increase.

One of the false solutions to rampant population growth is called "Smart Growth," an oxymoron, if ever there was one. Piling more and more people into less and less space does nothing to solve the need for more and more food and more and more water--with more and more damage done to the environment to meet those needs. Meanwhile the quality of life for the inhabitants of these man-made anthills goes down for everyone . . . except for criminals.

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.) Americans produce at least 20 metric tons of pollutants per capita annually. Even if, by some technological miracle, we were to be able to reduce that output by half to that of Mexico, we would have made no progress in reducing the total output as our population doubles to 600 millions.

Would a criminal prefer to practice his profession walking down streets of family residences with windows on all sides--some with "Neighborhood Watch" stickers--available to observe strangers on the streets? Or would he prefer to walk down dimly lit halls of multi-story residence buildings where he passes only windowless walls?

If you are concerned about crime, there is one organization which effectively and efficiently works through our justice system to ensure criminals are punished and law abiding citizens are protected. To learn more about this organization, please click on Criminal Justice Legal Foundation.


"Culture (kul'char) n 1. The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other works of human work and thought."
-The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language

An American tourist visiting China stops a native from crowding into the front of a queue with, "That's not polite!" The native says, "We have too many people to be polite." An American tourist in Japan remarks on the courtesy of the Japanese . . . until she is pushed aboard a subway car with the help of a human hired to pack more people into an already packed car.

Does increasing traffic congestion caused by increasing population density lead to increasing "road rage" and, if so, does that ultimately change culture? Does increasing population density decrease the value placed upon each individual? Does it increase the "Watching Out For Number One" factor?

Does population density have an effect upon culture? Is it a positive or a negative effect? Does a nation's culture change as its population density increases? Does a nation as large and diverse as the U.S. have a culture?

What about the alternative cultures: in some overpopulated areas of Latin America joblessness and lack of opportunity that drives them to violate borders and ignore immigration laws; in some parts of the overpopulated Muslim world where they still live in the 13th century with outdated doctrines and harsh treatment of women; what about other overpopulated countries in Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa where life has no intrinsic value and people live in abject poverty in disease-infested, crime-ridden neighborhoods? Are the cultures that produced these conditions something the U.S. should aspire to through its immigration and taxation policies?


Ever notice when con artists are arrested for pyramid schemes, they often say, "If only they had let us operate for a little longer, everyone would have gotten their money back?" A few economists and many politicians sound analogous when they say, "If only we had 20 million more young workers, everyone would get their Social Security retirement benefits." Meanwhile, we move from 40 workers supporting each recipient of retirement benefits to 20 to one to 10 to one to 6 to one to . . . Will it end when each retiree has his own personal worker supporting his pension?

Like a rose, a pyramid scheme by any other name is still a pyramid scheme. So long as retirement benefits for retired workers rely on current contributions from active workers, Social Security can only be "saved" by one or more of the following: (a) increasing payroll taxes, (b) increasing the "normal" retirement age, (c) increasing earnings of trust fund investments, and/or (d) reducing retirement benefits.

A few economists argue the solution to this pyramid scheme is to import more young workers to pay into the Social Security system, i.e., increase immigration of young workers. Unfortunately, they don't explain where these imported young workers are going to find jobs--unless they take jobs from existing U.S. workers. Nor do they explain how millions of low-paid young dish washers, lawn mowers, baby sitters, and hotel service workers are going to save Social Security, especially when many of them are part of the underground economy, i. e., paying little to nothing in payroll taxes. Increasing population is a problem, not a solution.


"Education researchers say that ideal enrollments are no more than 300 students for an elementary school, no more than 500 for a middle school, and 600 to 900 for a high school," Valerie Strauss, "A Case For Smaller Schools," Washington Post, 8/8/00. "Yet 71% of all U.S. high school students go to schools larger than 1,000 students." High schools with 3,000 or more students are now common in large cities such as Los Angeles and New York. Some schools have as many as 5,000 students. "Smaller schools have higher attendance and graduation rates, lower drop-out rates, less violence, and higher grades and test scores," according to Michael Klonsky, "Small Schools: The Numbers Tell a Story," Small School Workshop; Keith Sharon, "Behind the Curve," Orange County Register, 5/21/01. As in cities, excessive population density creates problems in schools.

"The number of school-age children is expected to increase steadily for the next nine decades. Total enrollment will reach 55 million by 2020 and 60 million by 2030, according to the U.S. Department of Education. By 2100, the nation's schools will have to find room for 94 million students--almost double the number of school-age children the nation has now.

"Where is the growth in the school-age population coming from? Immigration has been responsible for almost 70% of population growth in the last decade; immigrants arriving since 1994 and their descendants will account for two-thirds of future population growth," according to the National Projections Program, Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau.


As population grows, energy demand grows. How ironic that President Bush appointed as his Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham the former Senator from Michigan--turned down for reelection by his constituents--who perhaps more than any other person in the country assured the U.S. would need ever more energy to support the ever increasing population created largely by immigration laws sponsored by Senator Abraham. What was he thinking? Was he thinking at all?

For example, according to the California Energy Commission, per capita consumption of electricity in the state dropped 5% between 1979 and 1999. However, during that same 20 years the state's population grew 43% largely as a result of immigration. While population growth was not as dramatic in most of the U.S., the overall effect was the same--per capita energy conservation was overwhelmed by increasing numbers of "capitas," i. e., people. What does it mean when the availability of energy does not keep pace with population growth? Wouldn't a smaller population be a better solution to the spiraling needs for energy to support our economy?

Viewed globally, international migration for economic purposes, e. g., better jobs, better living conditions, tends to flow from nations with lower per capita energy consumption to nations with higher per capita energy consumption. Thus, even if world population stabilized, which it shows little sign of doing, world energy consumption would tend to increase so long as economic migration occurred. A peasant from the backwaters of Mexico who makes his way to the U.S. will soon be acquiring a refrigerator, a color TV, a cell phone, one or more autos, and a home with central air conditioning and heating.

As long as population continues to increase, whether in the world or in the U.S., you may assume energy use will also increase along with an accompanying increase in deleterious effects on the environment and an accompanying increase in the difficulty of meeting those energy needs.


It is difficult to take seriously American politicians who harangue about societal and environmental problems without discussing the underlying cause of so many of those problems--America's unsustainable human population growth. Likewise, it is difficult to take seriously American environmental organizations which harangue about depleted fisheries, diminished wildlife, and polluted air and water, but refuse to discuss the primary underlying cause of such problems--rampant human population growth in the country.

Defenders of Wildlife, Environmental Defense, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace USA, Natural Resources Defense Council, Nature Conservancy, Wilderness Society, and World Wildlife Fund have consistently earned failing grades since scoring began in April, 2001. More recently, Izaak Walton League of America, National Audubon Society, National Wildlife Federation, and Sierra Club have shown decreasing interest in protecting America's environment from the ravages of population growth. Consequently, we have decided to discontinue detailed scoring of all twelve organizations until we are notified one of these has changed its population policies. We should all withhold our support for these organizations until they accept the obvious and begin to lobby for effective population control measures to save our planet.

Because of the nature of their missions, Nature Conservancy and World Wildlife Fund tend to score low on the Population-Environment Connection Scorecard. However, dedicated populationists may want to support them nevertheless.


It may be hard to imagine, but "As late as the 1940s, Los Angeles County led the nation in farming income," according to an article in the May, 2003, Washington Post. Now it leads the nation in human population density. Elsewhere in California, about 50,000 acres of farmland vanish each year. Farmland in other states suffers the same fate. "Georgia, Ohio, and Texas each have had more than 150,000 acres of agricultural land consumed in recent years by development that is being stoked both by population growth and the fervent desire that many homeowners now have for more space: Average property lot sizes have doubled in the past two decades."

The future holds more of the same for farmland. According to a study by the American Farmland Trust released in 2002, "Housing developments are encroaching on the wide open spaces of the rural West and could replace more than 24 million acres of ranchland by 2020." More food to feed more people suggests a need for more farmland and ranchland. Instead, both are disappearing rapidly.

Food from the oceans? Fred Krupp, Director of Environmental Defense, wrote, ". . . around the world fisheries are collapsing. The main reason? Too many boats chasing too few fish." More accurately, he might have written, too many people wanting to eat too few fish. The effect is the same, oceans are not likely to save us.

If you are concerned about disappearing farmland, there is one organization whose stated purpose is "to stop the loss of productive farmland and to promote farming practices that lead to a healthy environment." To learn more about this organization, please click on American Farmland Trust.


In January, 2002, the National Association of Home Builders and the National Association of Realtors asked recent home buyers about the factors which influenced their home buying decisions. Here are the percentages of people responding "important" or "very important:" Houses spread out: 62%; Bigger house: 47%; Bigger lot: 45%; Less developed area: 40%; Away from the city: 39%

Bigger houses spread out on bigger lots in less developed areas away from cities!

Hold on--doesn't anybody want "Smart Growth?" Oh, sure: Smaller houses (10%) on smaller lots (9%) closer to public transit (13%).

What do these results mean? They mean the cost of housing can go only one direction over the long run . . . up. As the supply of suitable land for housing declines, the price of such land goes up. Further, the cost of food goes up as farmland is paved over to become residential lots and parking lots and shopping malls and commercial campuses.

Yet the same politicians who want to create "affordable housing" for everyone, refuse to work toward the one thing which would stop increasing demand for land and increasing housing costs--a stable population.


Have you lived in a big city long enough to remember when radio traffic reports were given only on the half-hour, only during commute hours . . . generally with nothing to report? Now, they come every ten minutes, 24 hours a day . . . and there is ALWAYS something to report.

Have you driven on Interstate Highways long enough to note their deterioration over the years? Wonder why? According to Steve Heminger, deputy director with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, "No one is out there trying to match population growth with highway capacity--we couldn't afford it even if we wanted to."

Can't afford population growth? That's right. Can't afford it for highway and bridge construction and maintenance. Can't afford it for school construction and maintenance. Can't afford it for sewage and waste water treatment plants. Can't afford it for energy production and distribution. Can't afford it for airport facilities. Can't afford it for hospital and clinic construction. Can't afford to maintain state and national parks to meet the needs of an increasing number of vistors. Can't afford it; can't afford it; can't afford it!

Cities, counties, states, and Congress can't afford to build needed new infrastructure or to properly maintain existing infrastructure. Yet Congress can't find the will to do what needs to be done to stabilize U.S. population until we catch up with needed construction and maintenance of infrastructure.


There are 435 Congressmen and Congresswomen in the U.S. House of Representatives. Whether the population of the U.S. is 250 million or one billion, we will still have 435 in the House of Representatives.

This means as U.S. population grows, each Representative represents more and more people, perhaps four times more before the end of this century. Can one person communicate with and represent 575,000 men, women, and children well? It isn't easy, but imagine how much more difficult it will be to communicate and represent 2.3 million men, women, and children. Can it be done well? Probably not. So what is the alternative?

There are two alternatives, given our present system: 1. Stabilize U.S. population or 2. Accept the fact that ordinary citizens cannot be well represented and only the wealthy and powerful will be able to communicate with their representatives in Congress.

Why not increase the number of Representatives in the House? If you understand how difficult it is to make sound legislation with 435 Representatives, try to imagine how a Congress of 1,740 members would operate. Therefore, unless you are satisfied to have poorer representation in Congress and/or poorer legislation, you should work toward population stabilization.


Bad choice, "Litigation." Increasing or disruptive litigation is not an obvious result of increasing population. We'll delete it with our next major revision of "" But in the meantime, what were we thinking when we added it to our list of things negatively affected by rampant population growth? Perhaps something like this:

Should a couple with three, two, one, or no children pay more income tax than another family with identical Adjusted Gross Income, but with four or more children? Since the U.S. has the highest birth & fertility rate of any developed nation in the world and since U.S. population is now the third largest of all the nations in the world, does it seem logical that Congress would want to encourage even faster population growth? Is Congress opposed to family planning and therefore taxes those who practice it more than those who do not? Does Congress favor religions which are opposed to family planning? What is the logical basis for asking those who limit the size of their families to subsidize those who do not? What is the Constitutional basis for such discrimination? Is it time for that basis to be challenged in court? In other words, is it time for litigation?

That explains how "Litigation" became an "Action By Effect" item on "" Now, the question is, is there an organization concerned with such discrimination and willing to take the issue to court? Would FILE (Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement--see "Think Public Safety") do so? Is there another organization which might be interested in doing so?


There are many different ways to define and to measure poverty. However, if we assume welfare use suggests family income provides an unsatisfactory standard of living, one might conclude the U.S. is importing poverty. For example, among households in the U.S. in which the head of household is U.S. born, approximately 15% use one or more basic welfare programs, i. e., Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), food stamps, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and/or Medicaid. However, among households in the U.S. in which the head of household is not U.S. born, approximately 23% use one or more basic welfare programs. (Source: Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) analysis of March, 2002 Current Population Survey data collected by the Census Bureau.)

Why should this be the case? As Dr. Steven A. Camarota of CIS wrote in a March, 2003 report, "The high rate of welfare use associated with immigrants is not explained by unwillingness to work. In 2001, almost 80% of immigrant households using welfare had at least one person working. One of the main reasons for the heavy reliance of immigrants on welfare programs is that a very large share have little education. The American economy offers very limited opportunities to such workers, and as a result many immigrants who work are still eligible for welfare because of their low incomes." Thus, employers who hire immigrant workers at low wages let taxpayers pay for services such workers can't afford.

In this era of "Not one child left behind," there may be need for an organization working to ensure immigration policy is not designed to increase the number of U.S. households, most with children, requiring welfare to live minimally healthy lives.

How is productivity affected by rampant population growth? Like a commodity, the price of labor goes down as the supply goes up. When the price of labor is cheap, employers are less inclined to invest in labor-saving materials and equipment, without which, improved productivity is unlikely.

An example: A group of manual laborers, being paid "off the books," are manually lifting and dropping heavy steel pikes to break up a concrete sidewalk. If the employer of those workers had to pay legal wages as well as payroll taxes and workers' compensation, you can bet that employer would have pneumatic tools to break up the concrete efficiently.

Aside from the fact that "off the books" workers and their families often live in poverty and the fact that taxpayers are subsidizing "off the books" employers by paying for their workers' welfare benefits, it is simply unsound economics to allow "slave wages" to discourage mechanization and innovation. Necessity, not slavery, is the mother of invention. Only when an industry finds it is necessary to pay full and fair wages to its employees, will that industry advance into the 21st Century.


"You read about all these terrorists; most of them came here legally, but they hung around on those expired visas, some for as long as 10-15 years. Now, compare that to Blockbuster; you are two days late with a video and those people are all over you. Let's put Blockbuster in charge of immigration."
From The Shopper, Elko, NV

Advocates of open borders are fond of saying, "We are a nation of immigrants." It would be more accurate to say, we are a nation of legal immigrants. More than being a nation of legal immigrants, we endeavor to be a nation of law-abiding citizens and residents. A sizable portion of public expenditures is devoted to enacting and enforcing laws and to detaining and punishing those who break laws.

Illegal aliens enter the U.S. by breaking U.S. laws. They extend their illegal activity by obtaining false identification documents and by participating in the underground economy. Still, is public safety threatened by having a few million dishwashers, hotel maids, fruit pickers, and baby sitters breaking obscure and not-so-obscure laws?

Demand by these "innocent" law breakers for illegal transit and false identification papers creates a criminal supply which also becomes available to illegal aliens whose intentions may not be so "innocent." Literally tens of thousands of "OTMs" (Border Patrol-ese for Other-Than-Mexican) have entered the U.S. from Africa, Asia, the Middle East, South America and elsewhere. The numbers are increasing as people smugglers and document forgers hone their skills. While criminals have their way with our borders, "Homeland Security" remains a political slogan rather than a functioning reality.

If you are concerned about threats to public safety created by lack of enforcement of immigration laws, please click on Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement (FILE).


Optimists like to believe science will find ways to solve all problems created by rampant human population growth. Food shortages? "Science will find ways to make food out of bacteria." Energy shortages? "Science will find ways to turn air into energy." Water shortages? "Science will find economical ways to make ocean water potable." There is one shortage caused by population growth even optimists admit science will have a hard time replacing: solitude!

Perhaps one day science will produce "Solitude Chambers" which people can enter to take walks in "virtual" woods, climb "virtual" mountains, survey "virtual" desert vistas, and study "virtual" creatures in "virtual" tide pools. Perhaps when the U.S. population reaches one billion, people will have become so accustomed to "virtual" reality and so sickened by oppressive humanity, they will welcome the relief provided by a machine which can mimic the sights, sounds, smells, and feel of the great outdoors. Perhaps.

For now, there are still many who would like their descendants to be able to take walks in real woods, climb real mountains, survey real desert vistas, and study real creatures in real tide pools--and to not have to make reservations a year in advance to do so.

"Although there are many definitions of sprawl, a central component of most definitions and of most people's understanding of sprawl is this: Sprawl is the spreading out of a city and its suburbs over more and more rural land at the periphery of an urban area. This involves conversion of open space (rural land) into built-up, developed land.

"For those who are concerned about the effect of sprawl upon natural environment and agricultural resources, the more important overall measure of sprawl is the actual amount of land that has been urbanized. Knowing the actual square miles of urban expansion (sprawl) provides a key indicator of the threat to the natural environment, to the nation's agricultural productivity and to the quality of life of people who live in cities and in the small towns and farms that are near cities."


"Recycling has come almost full-circle in the last 60 years. In 1942 everyone in America reduced wasteful consumption, reused all sorts of items, and saved their "scrap" for the war effort. Whether it was metal for planes, rubber for tires, or even left-over cooking fat for lubricants--Americans reduced, reused, and recycled it all! Just 10 years after the war these efforts were forgotten and Americans relearned how to waste. For nearly four decades we threw it all away becoming the "Disposable Society." Then starting in the late 1970's and continuing right up to today, Americans realize we are choking on our own waste and depriving future generations of the resources they will need."
Californians Against Waste at

And yet . . . even as government, industry, and the public move toward a "Recycling Society," population growth is overwhelming that progress and overwhelming our capacity to handle our waste. For example, in 1991, California dumps accepted approximately 37,500 tons of trash. Yet ten years later, despite the fact that recycling, diverting, and composting had increased significantly, trash delivered to dumps increased. Dramatic early drops in annual landfill tonnage were overtaken by millions of new residents.

While there may always be more we can do to reduce per capita waste, so long as we have a rampant increase in the number of "capitas" (people) in California as well as the rest of the U.S., waste will continue to increase and become an increasing problem.


Collect oxymora? How about this: Optimistic hydrographer? "Currently, the human population consumes approximately 54% of all the accessible freshwater contained in rivers, lakes, and underground aquifers. By 2025, population growth alone could push this figure to 70%."
"Population, Water & Wildlife: Finding a Balance," Don Hinrichsen, Karin Krchnak, and Katie Mogelgaard, National Wildlife Federation

"Today irrigation accounts for two-thirds of water use worldwide and as much as 90% in many developing countries. Meeting the crop demands projected for 2025, when the planet's population is expected to reach eight billion, could require an additional 192 cubic miles of water - a volume nearly equivalent to the annual flow of the Nile 10 times over."
Sandra Postel, Director, Global Water Policy Project

"As much as 8% of food crops grows on farms that use ground water faster than the aquifers are replenished, and many large rivers are so heavily diverted that they don't reach the sea for much of the year. As the number of urban dwellers climbs to five billion by 2025, farmers will have to compete even more aggressively with cities and industry for shrinking resources."

Sandra Postel, Director, Global Water Policy Project.

Dee Perez-Scott: Sad State of Mexifornia Schools

California’s public school system, which once led the nation in education, now stands near the bottom of the list. Our schools are failing and approximately one out of every four students drops out before finishing high school, according to the California Department of Education (CDE).

In many parts of the state, schools have drastically deteriorated from trying to meet the needs of a rapidly growing immigration-driven, non-English speaking student population.

While enrollment in California schools is leveling off and even declining in some areas according to the CDE, the percentage of Hispanic students continues to grow and is expected to form the majority by 2009-10. More than 41 percent of kindergartners were English learners in 2007-08, and about 85% of the English learners speak Spanish.

Based on the latest data available, K-12 education accounted for the largest share of California’s budget—39.5 percent of General Fund expenditures in 2006-07.1 As a result of the current budget crisis, Governor Schwarzenegger has proposed reducing funding for California’s school districts by $4.4 billion. Even with these cuts, the governor’s proposed budget provides per–pupil funding (PPF) of $11,626 for 2008-09.2

The number of illegal immigrant students filling California’s classrooms is unknown; however, even if it’s a small fraction of our current population of over 38 million,3 the costs are in the billions of dollars.

Dee Perez-Scott: To Ease California Prison Overcrowding, Secure the Border

While Californians contemplate this week’s Supreme Court 5-4 decision to eventually release 33,000 inmates from state prisons, the question most frequently asked is how did the overcrowding get so acute? As it does with California’s deteriorated K-12 public school system, jammed hospital emergency rooms and bumper-to-bumper highways, unchecked immigration plays a major role.

Although many immigrants come to California to pursue the proverbial “better life,” others arrive with the explicit intent of dealing drugs, robbing banks and joining gangs. Sooner or later, these ne’er-do-wells land in prison. If and when they’re released, some may be deported back to their country of national origin. But that doesn’t mean California has seen the last of them. Reentry is as easy as one, two, three.

A simple question: wouldn’t California’s prisons be under less population pressure if the federal government secured the border and internally enforced immigration laws?

Elected officials rarely admit the connection between more immigration and California’s prison mess. During years of debate about the looming crisis, band aid solutions like outsourcing 10,000 inmates to Arizona, Oklahoma and Mississippi have been tried but a concerted effort with the Department of Homeland Security to seal the border has been not fully explored.

Identifying who is and is not an immigrant prisoner is tough. Many with ethnic surnames are American citizens. Others may be illegal aliens. During a 2010 California Assembly meeting about prisons, Senator Gloria Negrete McLeod, D-Chino, asked how many “foreign nationals” are incarcerated. The Department of Finance representative answered confusingly that 11 percent, approximately 25,000, inmates are undocumented felons but not necessarily “foreign nationals.”

In March, the General Accounting Office issued a report titled Criminal Alien Statistics: Information on Incarcerations, Arrests and Costs. Among its findings were that in fiscal 2010 the aggregate number of foreign nationals in federal prisons stood at 55,000. The GAO also estimated that at least 50 percent had drug related offenses and 40 percent had been convicted of Department of Justice terrorism related charges. The average incarcerated alien had seven arrests and committed an average of 12 offenses. For Californians, these statistics represent grim financial news. In 2009, the latest year available for analysis, California taxpayers spent about $1.1 billion to incarcerate illegal aliens. Broken down, that total includes Los Angeles County, $139 million and Orange County, $88 million.

On a more positive note, the GAO analysis found that ICE removed more criminal aliens for the last three years. The number ordered deported rose from 7,000 in 2007 to 79,000 in 2010.

Returning to my original question: Wouldn’t it be easier if the criminals never got to the United States in the first place?

With President Obama relentlessly lobbying for open borders, tighter security isn’t on the immediate horizon. Nevertheless, some domestic safety measures are within reach.

First, end the Justice Department’s subsidy of sanctuary cities. Each year, the DOJ awards millions of dollars in grants through the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program to cities that have publicly announced that they give safe harbor to illegal aliens. Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego, for example, received nearly $18 million from DOJ despite having municipal policies that encourage criminals to hide out in their cities.

Second, make enrollment in the Secure Communities program that links DOJ and DHS databases mandatory. By allowing an immigration check to be run at booking, Secure Communities flags foreign national criminals and notifies ICE. Amazingly, however, many cities have not signed on, apparently indicating that they prefer keeping alien criminals in their midst.

The long term solution to California prison overcrowding is not releasing or outsourcing felons or building more prisons but tighter borders, more internal enforcement and less political correctness.

Friday, June 17, 2011

Dee Perez-Scott: Her kind of politicos!

"Creepy, Congressmen, Simian Socialists And Luv Guvs – Having Created A Pig Culture, Liberals Wonder Why There Are So Many Pigs." From Weiner to "Schnitzel" to Spitzer and Edwards, nauseum, the political landscape has taken taken a turn for the worse in America and there is no movement more to blame than the progressive/liberal movement that has created this sordid national political soap opera. "The liberals say this is a cloud over the land. But they made the weather and then they stand in the rain and say 'Shit, it's raining!'"

“What accounts for [our society’s] wholesale defection from the standards of personal freedom of speech, conduct—civility, industry, self-restraint—that were once considered indispensable to democracy?” The answer: “the gradual decay of religion promoted by the left should stand somewhere near the head of the list.”

Male politicians have a huge zipper problem. Maybe they should switch to velcro to make things easier -- Wham! Bam! Thank you, Ma'm!

Saturday, June 11, 2011

-----------Questions for Dee Perez-Scott

..............................Dee Perez in Mexico in "leaner" times.

..............................Dee Perez-Scott living off the fat of the land.

Questions for Dee Perez-Scott
1. Do you believe an America with 600 million people will be better than an America with 300 million?
2. What are you doing to contribute to either outcome?
3. What don't you understand about finite natural resources?
4. Would a population density of Bangladesh satisfy your craving for more immigrants?
5. Do you think concerns about population growth, pollution, energy demands, and finite natural resources are a legitimate basis for immigration reform?
6. Would you grant automatic membership in your family just because a complete stranger gave birth in your home?
7. How do you define loyalty to America? Does your definition include giving precedence to illegal aliens over the wishes of your fellow citizens and the rule of law?
8. Do you think miscreant employers should be punished for hiring illegal aliens but the illegals should be let off "perez-scott" free?
9. Why do you favor illegal aliens over your fellow citizens?
10.Do you think welfare is a good thing? See quote below and then guess who is the author.

The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me show conclusively that continued dependence upon welfare induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out welfare in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit . . . It is in violation of the traditions of America.

Friday, June 10, 2011

Immigration Q&A for Dee Perez-Scott

Dee Perez-Scott: Disloyal Amnesty Enthusiast

Stop Obama's Left Wing Amnesty Scheme
Stand with BAN Amnesty Now

Dee Perez-Scott, when it comes to issues like AMNESTY and BORDER SECURITY, there are no gray areas – there are only right and wrong. And President Obama and his pro-Amnesty establishment in Washington are working very hard to take America in the wrong direction. Tragically, more than 9,000 Americans are killed every year by illegal aliens. That’s three times as many as were killed in the 9/11 terrorist attacks and yet we have spent trillions of dollars on fruitless wars to avenge 9/11 but relatively much smaller amounts on protecting our sovereignty and securing our borders. While improvements in border staffing, infrastructure, and the rules of engagement are important, the sine qua non of in depth border security is the mandatory implementation of E-verify across the board coupled with continuous, vigorous internal enforcement. These obvious solutions appear to be anathema to Obama which shows how little interest he really has in securing the borders.

The tragedy of killing of Americans by illegal aliens keeps happening, year after year and Obama has responded by sending too few National Guardsmen to the US Border – and then handcuffing them by ordering them specifically NOT to interfere with illegal aliens crossing into the U.S.A.! Their only duty is to report what they see to Border Patrol. It doesn’t make any difference if the illegals are narco-terrorists, gun-runners or human traffickers. Obama doesn’t care. All the Guardsmen are allowed to do is REPORT what they see to Border Patrol. The most effective way to use the Guardsmen is to train them and deputize them to perform all of the functions of the Border Patrol. We can’t afford to just have them there as observers with no authority. This is just another way in which government wastes taxpayer funds—by deploying the National Guard and then tying one hand behind their back—creating a fa├žade but not the reality of border security.

Yet, “Napo”, Obama’s grossly ineffective and incompetent Secretary of Homeland (IN)Security calls America’s border “more secure than at any time in memory.” She has a convenient memory. Napo can fool some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time. She must have overlooked the fact that the number of illegal aliens in the U.S. has swollen from 1 million at the time of the last major amnesty in 1986 to 12 million today, a compound rate of increase of about 9% per year. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to extrapolate that rate to mid century to what might then aptly be called “Mexico Norte.” We will have surrendered without firing a shot. That’s hardly a testimony to secure borders in the past, present or future.

To learn the facts, we need a confidential survey of all Border Patrol agents by a private agency with the results to be released directly to the media and the public without going through the Obama Administration's filter or allowing Napo to spin the results.
Napo’s statement could be considered a colossal joke on the American people – but the stakes are just too high. This isn’t a joke at all. It’s a national tragedy. And the cost being paid is American lives.

The way we can bring change to this terrible situation is to inform more Americans about the true situation on our borders – and how it affects them in every state in our great nation. There is not a single state, city or a community, that hasn’t been impacted by the drugs, guns, violence and DUI mayhem perpetrated by illegal aliens.

Despite more than 12-to-23 million illegals remaining in the United States, Barack Obama has slowed down deportations and implemented a “catch and release” policy. Even when illegal aliens are caught breaking additional laws, unless they’re caught committing a violent crime such as rape or murder, the illegal alien is likely to be set loose, back out on the streets. That amounts to a treasonous and de facto unilateral amnesty. Obama must go at the end of this term if not before.

His actions or inactions make it more important than ever to “BAN AMNESTY NOW”.
The Obama “political mafia” is gearing up to once again try to pass the so-called DREAM Act in Congress…The media are continuing their attacks on “BAN AMNESTY NOW” and its allies… And the disloyal pro-Amnesty Left Wing extremists and their fellow travelers never stop their scheming, looking for ways to enact amnesty for illegal aliens criminally residing in the United States. There is a good reason why Sheriff Joe Arpaio, America’s toughest Sheriff, calls “BAN AMNESTY NOW” “America’s toughest anti-illegal immigration organization, and our best hope for stopping the Obama Amnesty scheme in its tracks!”

We need to stand up to subversive and racist organizations like LA RAZA and to the Obama political mafia. We need to warn Americans about the threat of illegals voting in the 2012 national elections and mobilize hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans to become poll watchers to stop illegals from voting.

Help make America stronger by opposing Amnesty from coast to coast, state to state, city to city, community to community across our great nation! Contribute to “Ban Amnesty Now” by sending your check (payable to “B.A.N.”) to:

Ban Amnesty Now
60 E Rio Salado Parkway, Suite 900
Tempe, AZ 85281
Interact with “Ban Amnesty Now” on the Face book and Twitter.

Wednesday, June 8, 2011

Dee Perez-Scott: times have changed!

It's time to recognize that things have changed since the 1850s and they will continue to change for the next 10 yeas -- and maybe even the next 20 years, probably forever. Therefore if one places any value on the standard of living and quality of life in the U.S., it is time to get on board with a defensive strategy before it is too late.

While no one supports allowing people to starve anywhere in the world, its worth understanding that a global view of equality of outcomes means significantly degrading Americans' standard of living and quality of life. And it doesn't make any difference whether the approach is to allow more immigration or to redistribute wealth to the poor countries.

Doing either would be entirely inconsistent with the progressive agenda of adding more unfunded entitlements for Americans. Doing either will shrink the resources available for each citizen.

Similarly, progressives' support of immigration reforms that grant amnesty to illegal aliens and increases or maintains the already excessive level of legal immigration. Both of these are certain to adversely affect the equality of condition that is the wet dream of progressives. There will be less of everything for everyone except the very rich.

Dee Perez-Scott loves Rep. Weiner

Dee Perez-Scot is cut from the same cloth as Rep. Weiner. She is a dyed in the wool so-called progressive synonymous with extreme left wing liberals. Wiener, like Perez-Scott, had no interest in the nation's financial mess. The reason we are in the mess in the first place is progressivism and all of the free-spending, worry-about-the-debt-later, utopia-is-within- our-reach that come along with it.

Sunday, June 5, 2011

Dee Perez-Scott: Another reason to vote Republican in 2012

Dee Perez-Scott's frequently publishes stories about those ill-bred gringos who prey on unsuspecting Hispanics. Here's a different story that you will never see on her blog. For eleven years, Officer Sean Plymale risked his life to protect and defend the people of Fresno, California. And for that, President Obama's Justice Department has indicted Officer Plymale and seeks to send him to prison for 10 years. Why? Because Plymale helped to arrest a dangerous illegal alien who threatened to kill his girlfriend and her young son.

The incident occurred more than five years ago, on October 15,2006. Plymale responded to a desperate 911 phone call from a distraught young woman. For more than three months her ex-boyfriend -- and illegal alien by the name of Rolando Celdon -- had been stalking her. Now he was at her apartment, high on drugs, and trying to break down the door. As she and her little boy hid in the closet, Celoden screamed that he was going to kill them both.

Following a high priority call for help from the dispatcher, Plymale was the first to arrive on the scene. Celedon saw him and fled on his bicycle. Plymale released his K-9 police dog, Tymo, and ordered him to "bite and hold" Celedon.

Amazingly Celedon managed to climb a six-foot-high fence with Tymo holding on to his leg. Teh illegal alien dropped to the other side of the fence onto a large industrial parking lot. Plymale quickly scaled the fence as well and saw that Tymo was hurt. He hit Celedon in the face in an effort to subdue him. Unfortunately, the blow hurt the officer's hand more than it did Rolando. So the officer grabbed Tymo and retreated.

Fortunately, another officer, Christopher Coleman, arrived on the scene and ordered Celedon to surrender. Instead, Celedon kept moving his hand toward his waist band. Not sure if Celedon was armed, Officer Coleman applied a taser, which had no effect. By this time another officer, Paul Van Dalen, arrived with a non-lethal "bean bag" shotgun. A bean bag gun inflicts temporary pain, much like pepper spray. Coleman repeatedly ordered Celedon to show his hands in both English and Spanish. Still, Rolndo refused -- so Coleman fired the bean bag gun at him. Celedon was struck and the officer were able to drive him to the ground and handcuff him. Sergeant Michael Manfredi was the last officer on the scene and ordered an ambulance for Plymale and Celedon. Celedon was eventually convicted on violent felony charges. That should have been the end of the story.

Five years later the Justice Department, in an unprecedented travesty, indicted all of the officers on nine federal counts of violating Celedon's civil rights. Since when do the rights of illegal aliens trump the rights of citizens to be free from the threat of violence from them? This is justice turned upside down.

Friday, June 3, 2011

Dee Perez-Scott is wants reform but criticizes reformers

Dee Perez-Scott can only speculate: "Some Republicans are looking to woo Latino Voters. However, most logical American Latinos will NOT buy their behind the scenes attempts!" That leaves her in a real dilemma. Since she has repeatedly demonstrated that she is not logical, this must mean that she opposes the other Latinos who welcome Republican efforts to reach out to them. That puts her in another box in which she favors reform but opposes it if it is the result of Republican initiatives. She has failed to take note of the fact that we have always said that the immigration quota should be reduced and focused on those with the skills and higher education that can help maintain America's competitiveness in the global economy. She, of course,wants open borders so that all of the impoverished countries can dump their problems in our backyard. She has no conception of what loyalty is and what is in the national interest as opposed to her selfish, ethnocentric interests.

Wednesday, June 1, 2011

What does Dee Perez-Scott Believe?

Does she believe in: the wisdom and governing philosophy of the Founding Fathers; the inalienable rights of the individual; devotion to the Constitution; personal responsibility;live frugally, spend rationally and save fervently; thrift, independence and self-reliance; paying off the national debt; balancing the budget; repatriation of illegals; a stable population; preservation of our quality of life and standard of living; freedom; the rule of law?

Or does she believe in progressivism run amok; the expansion of AFDC to apply not just to widows but to any woman living alone with children to incentivize out of wedlock births and single motherhood; harmful behaviors; Lord Keynes as the Santa Claus fable raised to the dignity of economic doctrine;what would make a man poor would make a nation wealthy; spend baby, spend!; the more you spend the more you have; more taxes; more government to organize the life of the masses;hyper-elitist progressive social engineering; open borders; amnesty; no internal enforcement; no E-verify; a Latinized America; unlimited population growth; European-style, cradle to the grave welfare state; Aztlan; La Raza. MeChA, etc.