Dee Perez-Scott: Loves Mexico and opposes a rational immgration policy

Mexico’s Immigration Law by J. Michael Waller

Mexico has a radical idea for a rational immigration policy that most Americans would love. However, Mexican officials haven’t been sharing that idea with us.

That’s too bad, because Mexico, which annually deports more illegal aliens than the United States does, has much to teach us about how it handles the immigration issue. Under Mexican law, it is a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.

At a time when the Supreme Court and many politicians seek to bring American law in line with foreign legal norms, it’s noteworthy that nobody has argued that the US look at how Mexico deals with immigration and what it might teach us about how best to solve our illegal immigration problem. Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:
•in the country legally;
•have the means to sustain themselves economically;
•not destined to be burdens on society;
•of economic and social benefit to society;
•of good character and have no criminal records; and
•contributors to the general well-being of the nation.

The law also ensures that:
•Immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;
•foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;
•foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;
•foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;
•foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;
•those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.

Who could disagree with such a law? It makes perfect sense. The Mexican constitution strictly defines the rights of citizens – and the denial of many fundamental rights to non-citizens, legal and illegal. Under the constitution, the Ley General de Población, or General Law on Population, spells out specifically the country’s immigration policy.

It is an interesting law – and one that should cause us all to ask, Why is our great southern neighbor pushing us to water down our own immigration laws and policies, when its own immigration restrictions are the toughest on the continent? If a felony is a crime punishable by more than one year in prison, then Mexican law makes it a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.

If the United States adopted such statutes, Mexico no doubt would denounce it as a manifestation of American racism and bigotry.

We looked at the immigration provisions of the Mexican constitution. Now let’s look at Mexico’s main immigration law.

Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:
•Foreigners are admitted into Mexico “according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress.” (Article 32)
•Immigration officials must “ensure” that “immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents. (Article 34)
•Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets “the equilibrium of the national demographics,” when foreigners are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when “they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy.” (Article 37)
•The Secretary of Governance may “suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest.” (Article 38)

Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:
•Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)
•A National Population Registry keeps track of “every single individual who comprises the population of the country,” and verifies each individual’s identity.
•(Articles 85 and 86)
•A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).

Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:
•Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)
•Foreigners who sign government documents “with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses” are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)

Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:
•Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)
•Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)
•Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico – such as working with out a permit – can also be imprisoned.

Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says:
•“A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally.” (Article 123)
•Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)
•Foreigners who “attempt against national sovereignty or security” will be deported. (Article 126)

Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:
•A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)
•Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)

All of the above runs contrary to what Mexican leaders are demanding of the United States. The stark contrast between Mexico’s immigration practices versus its American immigration preaching is telling. It gives a clear picture of the Mexican government’s agenda: to have a one-way immigration relationship with the United States. Let’s call Mexico’s bluff on its unwarranted interference in U.S. immigration policy. Let’s propose, just to make a point, that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) member nations standardize their immigration laws by using Mexico’s own law as a model.

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.

No New Amnesty!

History demonstrates that another amnesty will encourage more desperate people to come here illegally. It happened after the 1986 amnesty. In that instance, 3 million people were legalized on the premise that there would be robust immigration enforcement to stop more people from coming, according to the late Sen. Ted Kennedy. The U.S. administration failed to provide this promised enforcement and millions more came here illegally; and still coming.

Rector stated" Current immigration practices, both legal and illegal, operate like a system of trans-national welfare outreach bringing millions of fiscally dependent individuals into the U.S. This policy needs to be changed. U.S. immigration policy should encourage high-skill immigration and strictly limit low-skill immigration. In general, government policy should limit immigration to those who will be net fiscal contributors, avoiding those who will increase poverty and impose new costs on overburdened U.S. taxpayers."

Means-tested programs are typically termed welfare programs. Unlike direct benefits, means-tested programs are available only to households below specific income thresholds. Means-tested welfare programs provide cash, food, housing, medical care, and social services to poor and low-income persons. For example, children in illegal immigrant households are eligible for and do receive public education. We all know by now nobody asks for immigration status at the emergency room, whereas Americans must supply a driver’s license and SS #. So then debt collection companies can hunt YOU unmercifully for payment, while illegal aliens walk out never to be seen again.


The Us Border Patrol estimates that an average of 10,000 illegal aliens cross the border every day - over 3 million per year. A third will be caught and many of them immediately will turn around and try again. About half of those remaining will become permanent (ILLEGAL) U.S. residents.

Illegal aliens have cost billions of taxpayer-funded dollars for medical services. Dozens of hospitals in Texas, New Mexico Arizona, and California, have been forced to close or face insolvency since federally-mandated programs requiring free emergency room services to illegal aliens. Taxpayers pay half-a-billion dollars per year incarcerating illegal alien criminals.

In just the state of California in relating to birthright citizenship FAIR estimates "there are currently between 287,000 and 363,000 children born to illegal aliens each year. This figure is based on the crude birth rate of the total foreign-born population (33 births per 1000) and the size of the illegal alien population (between 8.7 and 11 million). In 1994, California paid for 74,987 deliveries to illegal alien mothers, at a total cost of $215.2 million (an average of $2,842 per delivery). Illegal alien mothers accounted for 36 percent of all Medi-Cal funded births in California that year."

EVERY INCUMBENT, CAREER POLITICIAN WHO HAS A BAD IMMIGRATION RECORD, BEGINNING WITH SEN. HARRY REID AND HIS CZARS MUST BE REMOVED FROM THEIR SEAT IN WASHINGTON. THE ASYLUM IN WASHINGTON NEEDS A CHANGE OF GUARDS? JOIN NUMBERSUSA AND AID IN FIGHTING AGAINST AMNESTY OR BENEFITS FROM THIS INVASION. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! Tell your Representative in Washington at 202-224-3121 and State level officials. Remember illegal aliens could have voted in the midterm elections? The Obama administration has shown its true colors, that illegal immigration is a great way to collect votes in the future by pacifying large minority groups.

--Brittanicus

The Lamentations of Dee Perez-Scott

Dee Perez-Scott
Don't let that chubby little smile fool you. Behind it lies a person who gives precedence to illegal aliens over the national interest.

Dee rails against everything on the Right regardless of the truth. An advocate, like Dee, or advocacy organization like La Raza, is not interested in truth -- it is committed in advocating a certain position regardless of the facts. Dee is the grand dame of the left-wing, ethnocentric CIR advocates, mainly because, in large part,CIR is synonymous with amnesty for 12 million illegal aliens and easier chain immigration. She, and her cohort, look at the illegals and say, "What is the problem?"

With enough rhetoric from the left, they are able to watch the naked emperor and exclaim, "How splendid the emperor's new clothes; how well they fit; and what a magnificent train." To avoid appearing stupid or insensitive, they see what is not there. And fail to see what is.

The liberal propagandists in the media are nothing but a feeding trough for the supporters of illegals, brewed in a caldron of bias, stirred by anti-America,left-wing statist politicians and elitist social engineers masquerading as humanitarians.
And sucking up like chubby piglets are thousands of myopic idiots. It is a blatant lie put forth by the media and in the blogosphere that attempts to portray opponents of La Raza-style CIR as fringe elements rather than those in the mainstream of America who want their country back.

Dee Perez-Scott -- Her Continuing Diatribe

Dee Perez-Scott is continuing her misguided diatribe against the Right with falsehoods and hyperbole. She says that they view their Latino opponents as,"ethno-centric Latinos foaming with rage and frenzy demanding open borders." That may not apply to all of the demonstrators in the streets of Phoenix but it certainly applies to Dee Perez-Scott herself. She has been in a rage and frenzy for some time, becoming even more vitriolic and radical since SB1070 was passed by the legislature in Arizona. She has become unhinged and no longer is interested in compromise solutions to the illegal alien problem. She may not be overtly demanding open borders but her oppostion to internal enforcement is tantamount to the same thing. If border jumpers believe they will be home free if they can escape the immediate environs of the border, they will keep coming -- a form of de facto open borders. That is Dee's agenda.

She then accuses the Right of pursuing a policy of ethnic cleansing. This is an outrageous lie designed to further foment the hate, rage and frenzy in her followers.

She accuses the Right of lying to

push its agenda

at the same time as she blatantly lies to push her own agenda. She writes about ethnic cleansing knowing full well only extreme elements on both the Left and the Right ever mention or advocate anything close to that. She also knows that the probability of sending all White people back to Europe and other citizens back to their homelands is zero and none. It doesn't matter what extreme elements say or write or do, it will never happen. And what is worse, she knows that!

She accuses the Right of having an ANTI-Latino agenda:
. Changing the 14th amendment (birthright citizenship)

Fact: Among all the developed countries, only the U.S. and Canada still allow Jus Soli or birthright citizenship. The 14th Amendment needs to be changed not as part of an anti-Latino agenda but because it continues to be abused by the large numbers of illegal aliens and tourists to have their instant citizen babies on U.S. soil. The Constitution has been amended 27 times so changes of this sort are not unusual. Some Constitutional scholars agree that it may not even be necessary to change the Amendment itself but to just bring it up to date with current social conditions by changing the implementing law. "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 [i.e. instant citizenship] to illegal entry.”

. Official English (no more Spanish in govt or voting documents)

Fact: She mentions only the Spanish language here to add fuel to her anti-Latino accusation. Ballots and other government proceedings, documents, and publications are conducted or printed in several languages. More than 100 different languages are spoken in the U.S. and Executive Order 13166 requires that documents and services be made available in all of them, not just in Spanish as Dee insinuates in her diatribe about an anti-Latino agenda. This practice is unheard of in other countries. Those with any sense on this issue are merely saying, "Let's stop all of the unnecessary spending on multi-lingual materials and require true fluency in English for citizenship." That would eliminate the need for multi-lingual ballots and most of the other services and publications. Public Interpreters could be provided for those who cannot afford one or who has no family member who can perform this function. For all others interpreters and translations would be a billable service.

. Reduce Immigration quotas from non-white countries

Fact: Dee again indulges in gross lies about immigration quotas. At one time, the quotas were designed to reflect the existing racial, ethnic, or country of origin mix in the general population. It is not clear what the current policy is. Whatever it is,it is leading to an acceleration of the Latino proportion of the population. Counting legal immigrants, illegal aliens and their progeny, Mexico by itself produces as many immigrants as the next ten countries combined. Does that seem fair to all the others who are denied admission.

Some argue that our country is fully settled and developed and therefore we have no need for more immigrants of any kind. Others believe the overall quota should be reduced to no more than 200,000 per year in all categories but focused on those who have the greatest potential for helping us to maintain our competitiveness in the global marketplace. The U.S. produces far to few engineers, physical scientists, and mathematicians than the other countries with whom we must compete. Any quotas for new immigrants should be based on that need.

If a reduction in overall legal immigration quotas falls hardest on Latinos, that is because they are by far the greatest number of involved. Legal immigrant quotas for all countries should be reduced by the best estimate that can be made of the number of illegals that arrive from those countries every year. If the reduced overall quota would admit 100,000 new immigrants from the south but the annual estimate of illegal entries is 500,000, legal immigration from Latin America should be suspended. The same rationale would be applied to all quotas and applicants, regardless of race, color, ethnicity or national origin.

. Mass Deportation of the 12M here plus their children

Fact: There is no mainstream proposal for the mass deportation of illegal aliens even though that is logistically feasible and Dee knows that. This is just another example of Dee's lies and divisive hyperbole.

If there were to be a process for repatriating large numbers but not all illegals it would have to be a slow, systematic process to sort out those who are surplus to our economy and who have displaced American workers. Everyone knows some amount of foreign labor is necessary to support the American economy, especially agricultural labor. At one time in the past, Dee agreed with a proposal that would require employers to re-advertise all of the jobs currently held by illegal aliens, [identifiable through E-Verification], offering a living wage and a hiring preference for citizens. Foreign workers who survive this test would then be offered a green card if they can also pass a background check and a medical exam. This process is a far cry from the mass deportation hysteria Dee promotes at every opportunity in her hate-filled tirades.

Citizen children of illegal aliens cannot be deported. However, what responsible parent under a removal order would abandon their minor children? The most humane policy is for minor children, regardless of citizenship, to accompany their parents under a removal order. These children undoubtedly already speak the mother tongue of their homelands because that was how the parents talk to them. As citizens, when these children reach their majority, they are free to return to the U.S. legally and even sponsor their parents. Abandoning minor children should be considered child abuse.

An Ethnocentric Mexican-American, Dee is unable to view these issues objectively. She shows no appreciation for the fact that reducing legal immigration and the number of illegal aliens in the U.S. is in her, and the Hispanics' enlightened best interests. The more there are of us, the less there will be for each of us including the Hispanics, especially water, arable land, food, timber, and minerals.

Call Them What They Are: Illegal Aliens

The push is on for providing amnesty to the estimated 12 to 20 million illegal aliens in this country. The supporters of this effort include President Barack Obama, former president George W. Bush, Senator John McCain, Majority Leader Harry Reid and New York Senator Chuck Schumer. (There is a chance that neither McCain nor Reid will be re-elected in Novmeber, 2010.) Senator Schumer is now chairman of the immigration subcommittee previously chaired by the late Senator Ted Kennedy, a major amnesty proponent.

Amnesty supporters see themselves as taking the high road and claim that amnesty opponents are opposed to all immigration, when nothing could be further from the truth. Although, most amnesty opponents favor legal immigration, they oppose any measure that grants illegal aliens the objective of their illegality, to stay in the U.S. and work. They believe the amnesty supporters are compromising the national interest, undercutting American labor, and giving the desires of foreigners precedence over the wishes of their fellow citizens.

An examination of the supporters of amnesty is revealing. First and foremost is the National Council of La Raza which many consider to be a racist organization if for no other reason than its title. Second is the group of ethnocentrists among Hispanic citizens who give precedence to the interests of their illegal ethnic brethren over the interests of their country and the wishes of their non-Hispanic fellow citizens. Third are the immigration lawyers whose bread and butter depend on a continuing flow of illegals and a complex set of immigration laws that require their expertise to negotiate. Fourth is the group of liberals who base their position on some sort of world view of human rights and social justice rather than the national interest. Shortsightedness is the common characteristic of all four groups. They do not consider the question of the long term consequences to be relevant to the discussion. They have no concern about the depletion of finite natural resources, increased pollution, and the resulting and inevitable decline in our quality of life and standard of living.

Currently, the U.S. has the highest level of legal immigration in the world. Every year, we allow 750,000 immigrants to enter the country legally and make them eligible for citizenship within five years. That is way too many. Legal immigration in all categories needs to be scaled back to no more than 250,000 per year, exclusive of students, tourists, and temporary agricultural workers. moreover, we need whatever tax and immigration reforms are necessarey to achieve a stable population within 20 years.

Legal immigrants have the right to work and earn a living; the asylees are eligible to work six months after applying to work. Therefore, to protect American workers, employers who claim that more immigrants are needed must present irrefutable evidence to support that need. The concurrence of local unions and professional organizations that might be adversely affected should be required. Government response should be constrained by the total unemployment rate in the relevant sectors of the economy. There should be a moratorium on immigration when the total unemployment rate exceeds a specified level.

If we give the current illegals amnesty, you can be sure that 20 or so years from now, there will be a clamor for another amnesty bill as the illegals will continue to pour in. The Simpson-Mazzoli bill, which was adopted by Congress in 1986, granted amnesty to 1.3 million illegals. That measure was hailed as the last amnesty bill we would need because the borders of the U.S., then a sieve, would be better protected. However, our borders continued to be porous, and the number of illegals burgeoned, and here we are again with the illegals and their supporters seeking amnesty once more for ever larger numbers, estimated to be 12 to 20 million. Thus, the number of illegal aliens has increased from 1.3 million in 1986 to a minimum of 12 million in 2010. This is a compound growth rate of at least 9.7% per year. If that growth rate were to continue, in 40 years, by the year 2050, we would have as many as 487 million illegal aliens in the U.S. (Do the math -- 12 million x 1.097^40 years = 487 million) No wonder the pro-illegal lobbyests want to sweep the problem under the carpet with another amnesty so they can start counting all over again from zero. If the 487 million were to actually materialize, it would not be unreasonable to begin to refer to the U.S. as Mexico Norte.

Given our experience since the 1986 bill, granting another amnesty would be tantamount to enacting an open borders bill. No country in the world has open borders that foreigners can cross at will, certainly not Mexico. Arizona has an estimated 500,000 illegal aliens living in the state and in 2009, the border patrol agents arrested 241,000 illegal aliens, which is why that state enacted controversial legislation out of frustration. Arizona’s citizens are outraged by the presence of many criminals among the people crossing their border – remember there is an ongoing drug war in Mexico with thousands of Mexicans being killed and wounded south of the border by other Mexicans. Arizona does not want that war to spill over into Arizona. Arizona citizens are also distressed with the demands made by illegals upon welfare, medical, and educational services.

As long as laws like the Arizona's stay within the bounds of constitutionality, they cannot be said to have gone too far. Allowing local police to ask individuals, stopped for other reasons, or who are “reasonably suspected” to be illegal immigrants for identifying papers is a reasonable thing to do given Arizona's huge problem. This approach should be extended to all of the border states. It is an especially sound and defensible policy to have the local police examine at the workplace the identity papers of all employees to ascertain whether they are legally allowed to work and, most important, to ascertain if employers , intentionally or not, had violated current U.S. laws requiring employers to check the immigration status of hired workers. Those employers who violate the law should be pursued criminally and, if convicted, go to prison. Regrettably, this is not what is happening. Part of the reason is the insertion of the term "knowingly hire" in the federal statute and in the Arizona law. This is a huge loophole that allows employers to escape prosecution by claiming "we didn't know." If that loophole was removed and the policy strictly enforced, illegal aliens would be denied jobs and would go home, since they are here primarily to get a job and send money home to their families. Recently, I saw an estimate that a million illegals, perhaps 7% of the total, had returned home because of the recession and 9.7% unemployment rate in the U.S.

Amnesty supporters, who use pejorative terms to describe their opponents, refuse to use the term "illegal aliens", preferring instead the euphemism "undocumented workers." They acknowledge that an open border policy is indefensible and irrational and has not been adopted by any other country. Yet, they would deny our country the tools it needs to control the borders. The question of whether all border violations can be stopped with improvements in border infrastructure, staffing, and rules of engagement has already been answered emphatically by the growth in the number of illegals since 1986 mentioned above. The quintessential element of in depth border security is continuous, vigorous internal enforcement. If the illegals are denied jobs and are expeditiously repatriated after serving a six month sentence working on border infrastructure, they will have little incentive to repeat their border violations.

A week ago, Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Great Britain had to apologize to a woman voter for referring to her as “bigoted” when she voiced her objections to millions of Europeans in the European Union lawfully flooding into Great Britain and taking jobs. I don’t know whether she is bigoted in her attitude toward other Europeans, but she doesn’t have to be a bigot to object to the English having to compete for jobs and services such as healthcare and education with immigrants from other countries.

In the U.S., those who favor amnesty, for lack of more substantive arguments, refer pejoratively to their opponents as nativists, bigots, racists, and xenophobes. In doing so, they ignore the adverse impact of illegal aliens on: the national interest, character, language, and sovereignty; the cost of welfare, education, and health care; and the rule of law. The states are tired of illegal aliens flooding into emergency rooms, soaking up Medicaid funds intended for citizens, crowding classrooms, and creating newborn, birthright citizens who qualify for a large range of welfare benefits at taxpayer expense.

Mark McKinnon, who was a senior adviser to John McCain and President George W. Bush, was quoted in The New York Times of April 28th, as stating, “Immigration is the most explosive issue I’ve seen in my political career.” According to The Times, Mr. McKinnon “…also supported giving illegal immigrants a path to citizenship.” But, in his view, “an election year is the worst time to move good public policy on this issue.” He does not say on what basis he has concluded that giving the never-ending flood of illegals a pathway to citizenship would constitute "good public policy." As a minimum, anyone who has entered this country illegally at any time should be permanently ineligible for citizenship. Many, if not most, should be quickly repatriated.

During the Bush presidency, amnesty proponents were twice defeated when they tried to shove their self-defined “good policy” down the throats of the voters. Amnesty advocates believed, as they do now, that they know what is best for us, but the American public stood up and said “no.” In an election year, the voters can throw the bums out, and that is why Congress fears to bring the issue up before the November elections.

I predict the Schumer legislation supported by President Obama and a whole host of prominent public officials and the media will fail. I also believe it is outrageous to threaten understandably frustrated, Arizona with boycotts because we disagree with the protective procedures it has adopted. Let’s leave the legality of those procedures to the courts. We are one country and should not be boycotting one another. Persuasion should be our tool of choice, not punishment.

An Immigration Poll

Here's a poll I would like to see:

1. Should illegal aliens be allowed to remain in the U.S. and work if they are in jobs citizens would take if offered a living wage and a hiring preference?
2. Is giving precedence to illegal aliens over the wishes of citizens an act of disloyalty to this country?
3. Is it both a right and a responsibility of a democratic society to manage immigration so that it serves the national interest?
4. Should the United States take whatever steps are necessary to preserve our national sovereignty, character, language, ideals, history, the rule of law, and the national interest?
5. Do you believe the authors of the 14th Amendment would have imagined their words would bestow citizenship to the offspring of illegal aliens, tourists, foreign students, or temporary farm workers?
6. Do you believe that there could be 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, that is 14th amendment birthright citizenship?
7. Do you believe the term "comprehensive immigration reform" (CIR) is a code term for "amnesty?"
8. Should English be the official language of the United States and used exclusively in all official documents, ballots, publications, and proceedings at all levels of government?
9. Should Public Interpreters, like Public Defenders, be provided to those who cannot afford one or who do not have a family member who can serve in this capacity?
10. Should all other interpreters be provided only on a billable basis?
11. Would a consolidated counterfeit-proof, machine-readable, biometric ID containing the information from Social Security cards, green cards, driver licenses, library cards, voter registration, proofs of auto and health insurance, thumb prints, photos, physical descriptions, coded DNA info, and a record of military service help sort out illegal aliens from citizens in border states and reduce the possibility of racial profiling?
12. Should employers be required to present irrefutable proof that they have been uable to fill their jobs with citizens workers before they are authorized to retain or hire any foreign workers?
13. Should any benefits other than those mandated by federal law be provided to illegal aliens?
14. Should illegal aliens under a removal order be required to take their minor children with them, regardless of the children's citizenship?
15. Should illegal aliens who are ill be deported after their condition has be stabilized?
16. Should foreign women who are pregnant be denied entry into the U.S. and the opportunity to have an instant 14th amendment citizen baby on U.S. soil?
17. Should chain immigrations be allowed for other than the children and spouses of U.S. citizens?
18. Should chain immigrations be counted against the overall immigration quota?
19. Should total legal immigration be reduced to the 1965 level to enable our population to be stabilized?
20. Do you believe that the "limit" of finite natural resources per capita as population grows without bounds is zero?
21. Do you believe that those who have entered our country illegally should ever be granted a pathway to citizenship?
22. Do you believe that the common understanding of amnesty is anything that permits illegal aliens to remain and work in the U.S.?
23. Are you in favor of comprehensive immigration reform if it involves amnesty for tens of millions of illegal aliens?
24. Do you think we should have objective evidence that the borders are secure before any other immigration reforms are undertaken?
25. Should true fluency in English be a requirement for citizenship?
26. Should immigration quotas be focused on applicants who can fill a demonstrated need of our economy or who possess the education, entrepreneurial spirit, innovative skills, or inventiveness needed to keep America competitive in the global economy?
27. Should citizenship be expedited for immigrants and foreign students who have successfully completed a PhD degree in engineering, physical science, math, or medicine?
28. Is focusing on the population or area where illegal aliens are most likely to be found a form of racial profiling?
29. Would less than 10,000 apprehension per year at the border and internally represent secure borders?
30. Is internal enforcement with penalties for both employers and illegal alien employees essential to achieve secure borders?
31. Can our borders ever be secure without internal enforcement?
32. Should illegal aliens who are apprehended serve at least six months working on border infrastructure before they are repatriated?
33. Should repeat offenders do hard time?
34. Should border violations be considered class 3 felonies?
35. Now that the U.S. is fully settled and developed, do we have any need or obligation to admit more immigrants?
36. Are immigrants more energetic and inventive than current citizens?
37. Is a systematic, stepwise approach to immigration reform in a series of separate shorter simpler bills a better approach than a thousand page bill?
38. Does the rule of law apply to illegal aliens?
39. Should immigration laws currently on the books be fully enforced?
40. Should any failure to enforce immigration laws be cause for termination of INS, ICE and Border Patrol agents, and higher level officials in the Administration?
50. Should we negotiate an agreement with our neighbors to permit hot pursuit of drug smugglers and the use of lethal force when they fail to halt when ordered?
51. Should an American labor protection provision be included in all immigration legislation?
52. Should deportation procedures and appeals be simplified to assure minimum detention periods and expeditious deportation?
53. Should all deportations be classified as involuntary even if the deportee agrees to self deport and does so at his own expense?
54. Should employers be held accountable for the immigration status of all employees whether or not they hired them knowingly or intentionally without regard to that status?
55. Should employers be held responsible for all the health care costs of their foreign employees and their families?
56. Should cross border traffic and work commutes be reduced to enable the Border Patrol to do a more effective job of identifying potential terrorists?
57. Should the type of work that a foreign worker is authorized to do be specified on the ID?
58. Should Executive Order 13166 requiring multi-lingual ballots be repealed?
59. Should dual citizenship and dual allegiance be allowed?
60. Should the U.S. provide free schooling for Mexican children in American schools near the borders?
61. Should there be restrictions on the display of foreign flags at other than foreign embassies and consulates except by permit for ethnic holiday parades?
62. Should illegal aliens who participate in street demonstrations be arrested?
63. Do we need a new alien and sedition act to cover illegal aliens and their fellow travelers and supporters?
64. Should any statements by foreign dignitaries regarding our immigration or other laws be treated as interference in our internal affairs?
65. Do we need a law that holds those who aid and abet border violators accountable?
66. Do we need a provision that enables local communities to enact measures to help enforce immigration laws?
67. Should local police and sheriffs' offices be required to determine the immigration status of any one apprehended for other law violations and hold any illegals until ICE takes custody?
68. Should local jurisdictions be enabled to charge illegal aliens with criminal trespass?
69. Should all zoning regulations regarding occupancy rates in private residences be fully enforced?
70. Should all foreign workers who qualify for legal status be paid at the same rate as their citizen counterparts with the same skill level and experience?
71. Should employers who fail to pay foreign workers at the American standard wage be prosecuted for unfair competition?
72. Should anyone who registers for voting using fraudulent documents be sentenced to five years in jail?
73. Should a five year jail term be imposed on anyone permitting or encouraging false voter registration?
74. Should there be a regular audit of voter registration roles to determine the extent of irregularities and to permit the prosecution of those responsible?
75. Should we set higher standards for citizenship by naturalization?
76. Should the U.S. adopt a plan to achieve a stable population?
77. Should Roy Beck be the Executive Director of the INS?
78. Should the deductions for exemptions for dependent children be limited to two per couple?
79. Should we deny cross border permits for work commuters?
80. Should NAFTA be repealed?
81. Should only American tractors be allowed on American highways?
82. Should a cap and trade policy for family size be adopted?

New Poll Confirms the Divide between Hisapanics and Other Americans

The most recent poll confirms earlier findings regarding the disconnect between Hispanics and other Americans on immigration reform. The pollster however, cautions against reading too much into this early support for CIR — given that the poll didn’t test the language that opponents of comprehensive immigration reform would use. In addition, he points out that only 19 percent of all adults say they strongly favor the legislation, which suggests soft support.

Until the polls do a better job of pinning down the details of immigration reform in a way that the average person can understand, the results of such polls will be suspect. For example, "allowing undocumented immigrants who are already in the country to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become American citizens" was viewed strongly or somewhat favorably by 65% of the respondents. However, the meaning of the phrase "go to the back of the line" is obscure and this may have affected how the respondents chose to answer that query. If it meant return to your homeland and stay there at the back of the line until your number comes up, that would elicit a strong positive response. If, however, it meant remain in this country and go to the back of the line, that might generate a different response.

Some language that opponents of the Hispanic version of CIR would like to see tested include the following:

--allow illegal aliens already in the country to receive a work visa only if they pay a fine of around five thousand dollars, pay back taxes, and pass a criminal
background check and, in addition, only if an employer can present irrefutable evidence that he or she cannot fill the job with a legal U.S. resident.

--the U.S. population is expected to double again by the end of this century. Which of the following do you believe are causes of population growth:
--high immigration quotas
--chain immigrations
--anchor babies
--14th amendment instant citizens
--legal immigrants
--illegal aliens
--the higher fertility rates of immigrants
--the children of immigrants
--the fertility rate of citizens
--a tax policy that favors larger families

--which of the following do you believe will be the result of population growth
--a long wait for access to national parks and monuments
--a lower standard of living
--a lesser quality of life
--a shortage of finite natural resources like water, arable land, & minerals
--more polluted air and water
--a greater demand for energy - nuclear, wind, solar, coal, oil, gas
--crowding and congestion on highways and streets

--do you strongly agree, somewhat agree,somewhat disagree, strongly disagree, or not sure about the following statement:

-- "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 for birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment which is perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry."

--Hispanics and other Americans strongly disagree with each other about immigration reforms. Which of the following do you believe to be the root causes of this diagreement:

--racism
--ethnocentrism
--nativism
--bigotry
--differing views about population growth
--differing views about increased pollution
--differing views increased energy demands
--the costs of social services, education, health care, and welfare
--the national debt
--crime
--corruption
--oligarchy
--the national character
--the national language
--the national interest
--national security
--national unity
--xenophobia
--nationalism

Cafferty Blasts Obama for Failure to Enforce the Law

The Reid, Schumer, Menendez Amnesty

The new Reid-Schumer-Menendez proposal comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) proposal closely resembles the 2007 Bush-Kennedy amnesty bill (S.1639). Specifically, the proposal:
. Grants amnesty to illegal aliens in the U.S. under the guise of a “broad-based registration program”;
. Creates an “H-2C” guest worker program for low-skilled workers (with apparently no cap) that contains a path to citizenship;
. Massively expands legal immigration while ignoring the adverse impact of population growth on our quality of life, standard of living, environment, and finite natural resources;
. Incorporates the DREAM Act giving even the adult children of illegal aliens rights citizens do not enjoy;
. Incorporates AgJOBS legislation that would grant amnesty to millions of illegal farm workers; and
. Preempts state and local laws designed to curb illegal immigration and facilitate immigration enforcement.
. Omits the full implementation of E-verify across the board for all employers and employees. (They don't like anything that might lead to racial profiling but deny us the tools like E-verify necessary to achieve the goal of zero tolerance they claim to support. Such hypocrisy!)

The Reid-Schumer-Menendez proposal offers all kinds of promises regarding the future enforcement of our immigration laws. But we know through years of experience and hard lessons that the federal government has broken virtually every enforcement promise it has made to the American people.

Now, Senators Reid, Schumer and Menendez go so far as to say: “there will be zero tolerance for illegal entry and reentry into the U.S.” How are they going to achieve this wildly fanciful goal? Who can believe this?"

Everyone knows that secure borders are a pipe dream without continuous, vigorous internal enforcement. As long as illegal aliens believe they will be home free if they can escape the immediate environs of the border, they will keep coming. Without vigorous internal enforcement, the entire United States is a sanctuary for illegal aliens -- just what RSM want. It's all smoke and mirrors!

This proposal is just a warmed over version of the previously discredited proposals of 2007 and 2008. The Democrats need to get real about CIR and realize that their definition of CIR is not the only one and is not acceptable to the American people.

We all need to remember Ted Kennedy's statement on the occasion of the 1986 amnesty when he stood up and said:

"This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.1 -- 1.3 million illegal aliens. We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another Amnesty Bill like this."

Sounds a little like the zero tolerance RSM are announcing, doesn't it.

Illegal immigration in Arizona

The federal government estimated that Arizona had one of thefastest growing illegal immigrant populations in the country,increasing from 330,000 in 2000 to 560,000 by 2008. Arizona has adopted other laws to deter the settlement of llegalimmigrants in the state in recent years. The federal government estimates that the illegal immigrant population dropped by 18 percent in the state from 2008 to 2009, compared to a 7 percent drop for the nation as a whole.

This may be evidence that the state enforcement efforts are having an impact. The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office has found that 22 percent of felonies in the county are committed by illegalimmigrants.Illegal immigrants are estimated to be 10 percent of the county’s adult population.

Analysis of data from State Criminal Alien Assistance Program showed that illegal immigrants were 11 percent of the state’s prison population. Illegal immigrants were estimated to be 8 percent of state’s adult population at the time of the analysis.

Approximately 17 percent of those arrested by the Border Patrol units Tucson Sector have criminal records in the United States. The issue of illegal immigration and crime is very difficult to measure, and while in Arizona there is evidence that illegal immigrants are committing a disproportionate share of crime, it is not clear this is the case nationally. In 2007, an estimated 12 percent of workers in the Arizona were illegal aliens. In 2007, illegal immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18) comprised one-fifth of those in the state living in poverty, one-third of those without health insurance, and one out of six students in the state’s schools. In 2007, one-third of households headed by illegal immigrants in Arizona used at least one major welfare program, primarily food-assistance programs or Medicaid. Benefits were typically received on behalf of U.S.-born children.

Open Letter to President Obama

President Barak Hussein Obama
The White House
Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. President,

I respectfully disagree with you regarding SB1070 recently signed by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer. Instead of being a "misguided threat to the basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans," it is an affirmation of the rule of law as the very foundation of all civilized societies. This bill might have been unnecessary had the federal government provided more leadership in identifying, apprehending, and repatriating the illegal aliens who are surplus to the needs of our economy.

Although the mass deportation of illegals at their own or their employers' expense is logistically feasible, there are few advocates for that approach. Did you know that, using a heavily damaged transportation system, eight million ethnic Germans were repatriated back to the heartland of Germany from the Eastern Territories in less than a year following WW II? Therefore, with modern transportation systems in good repair, the logistics of repatriation would not be that difficult.

Of course, no one wants illegal aliens to be treated as poorly as the German civilians were, many of whom died for lack of food and adequate clothing during the winter journey.

You warned earlier Friday that the law, "threaten[s] to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe." I disagree. Properly implemented with due regard for the rights of all of our citizens, this new law could help Arizona to regain control of its critical, crime-ridden border with Mexico. I have strongly recommended to the governor that she send a letter to all of the enforcement jurisdictions in Arizona to urge them to treat anyone that they stop with courtesy and dignity, giving them a full opportunity to prove their citizenship without the need for extended detention.

By cooperating with the police in the implementation of this law, residents of all communities will build the mutual trust needed to enable the police to keep them safe from the Mexican drug smugglers and violent gangs and rid their neighborhoods of illegal aliens.

I am surprised that you think this law undermines our basic notions of fairness. I am a fairminded citizen and I thoroughly approve of this new law. I have provided a copy of it to Colorado legislators urging similar action as soon as possible.

The gross failure of the federal government to implement effective internal enforcement policies that enable the Immigration and Naturalization Service to identify and sanction miscreant employers and apprehend illegal aliens is a travesty of the highest order. That is what violates my sense of fairness.

The E-verify system has yet to result in any citizen being permanently denied a job. Without implementation of this system across the board for all employers, public and private, and all employees, both current and potential new hires, your Administration and the Congress will always be seen as giving only lip service to border security in depth. Our borders cannot be secured without vigorous and continuous internal enforcement to buttress improvements in infrastructure, staffing and the rules of engagement at the border.

SB1070 is a essential first step toward quick and easy identification and apprehension of those who have violated our border. I ask you to ignore the noise you hear from supporters of illegal aliens. Those who give precedence to illegal aliens over the wishes of most Americans imperils the rule of law and the safety of citizens. They are being disloyal. Their allegiance to the country is highly suspect.

I favor a federal grant to Arizona to equip all of its police cruisers with communications equipment that would enable officers to check the credentials of any individual on the spot for name/social security number mismatches, duplicate social security numbers,and the names and numbers found on drivers licenses and green cards against a national data base. This equipment would be similar to the communications device already used to check auto license numbers against a list of stolen vehicles. Such a system would assure that those whose bona fides check out could be quickly on their way with the thanks of the officers for their cooperation. It is the same system that should be used by all employers on a mandatory basis.

Two of the biggest stumbling blocks to getting immigration under control are chain immigrations which multiply the number allowed to enter our country and the 14th Amendment which creates instant citizens of the offspring of tourists and illegal aliens. All these interlopers have to do is get across the border just in time to deliver their babies in American hospitals at the expense of taxpayers. It seems entirely fitting to ask the high court whether a new law could be written to interpret the 14th Amendment to require at least one parent to be a citizen before the child can achieve instant citizenship by accident or design of his or her birth on this side of the border.

There are many other related issues here such as the need for a national objective of a stable population in recognition of our finite natural resources and the desire of everyone to maintain his or her standard of living and quality of life. Those issues will have to be addressed on another occasion. We are headed toward a population of more than 458 million people by mid-century and perhaps more than a billion by end of the century. How many people is enough? Are we "fiddling while Rome is burning?" Population-driven economic growth is ultimately unsustainable. Let’s reform immigration and tax policies in ways that will enable a stable population and a soft landing for our economy.

The 2007 and 2008 CIR bills were defeated because they increased legal immigration and swept the millions of illegal aliens under the carpet by granting them what amounted to mass legalization. That is not the kind of reform we want or need. It is strictly a special interest idea that the American people do not support.

Legal immigration numbers must be tied directly to the umemployment rate by sector within our economy.

Respectfully,

Illegal Immigration

Each week, thousands of illegal immigrants cross our southern border. Although some presumably have good intentions, at least twenty percent (20%) of southern border-crossers are known criminals, drug dealers, sex traffickers, and gang lords willing to commit the most heinous crimes one can imagine to achieve their ends. Most frightening of all, mingled with those menaces are potential terrorists from countries hostile to the United States. When one contremplates the level of pedestrian and vehicular traffic crossing the borders every day, it is becomes clear how simple it would be to smuggle a dirty bomb or other device across the border. Unless we reduce that traffic by a significant amount, it will not be a question of whether but when a new terrorist attack will occur.

As the violence occurring in the Mexican border towns begins to spill across the border, it is time to consider closing the border at Juarez, Laredo, Reynoso, and Tia Juana. It is time to change the rules of engagement to enable hot pursuit of drug runners and gang lords across the border. It's time to give our border patrol agents some protection from prosecution for acts performed in the course of their duties.

America does not need another reminder, as we had on 9/11, that lax immigration law enforcement opens the door to our enemies. Of the 19 hijackers who attacked us that day, 3 were here illegally, and 15 were on visas that should have been revoked under immigration law. Many of the hijackers obtained fake ID's from illegal aliens.

Terrorists have exploited our immigration weaknesses. We continue to leave our borders open to impending catastrophe. The majority of U.S. citizens understand this threat, and know that national security cannot be achieved without border security, strict adherence to existing immigration law, appropriate use of the deportation system, mandatory E-verify across the board, and close monitoring of such privileges as visas.

The public supports stronger controls. Our elected officials know this, but they have been reluctant to fix the problem.

Officials in both major parties give precedence to the desires of illegal aliens rather than those of their own citizens. They continue to be paralyzed by political correctness and bureaucratic sclerosis. They have yet to come to grips with the reality of homicidal America-haters lurking at our doorstep--evildoers whose modus operandi is to infiltrate our country, then kill us. Our leaders have failed in one of their most basic constitutional responsibilities--to provide for the common defense--because too many special interests profit from open borders.

Illegal immigration is excused for economic reasons. Politicians in the pocket of special interests tell us our economy needs cheap, foreign, "illegal" labor. In reality, a case can be made that illegal immigration drains our resources. Illegal immigration costs taxpayers an estimated $70 billion a year in subsidies for healthcare, schooling, welfare benefits, and domestic crime-fighting. The exploitation of undocumented aliens in the job market results in lower wages and job losses for native-born Americans, naturalized citizens, and legal immigrants. Current trends, left unchecked, are expected to dramatically decrease the standard of living for everyone.

In California, for example, the overflow of foreign-born illegal aliens has given that state the most crowded cities in the country. Poverty increased more in California than anywhere else in the nation over the past decade, particularly in areas of the state with large migrant populations. The influx of low-skill immigrant workers may well have already vastly exceeded the demand for low-skill labor, and many economists and analysts not enamored of free-market theory argue it has caused lower average incomes overall and increases in unemployment.

Irresponsible hirers of illegal aliens tend to be less morally accountable and more exploitative in their treatment of illegal workers than their law-abiding business competitors are of their employees. Those who systematically cheat the system can pay lower than the minimum wage, abuse their illegal employees, and commit tax fraud--all outside the purview of government. An undocumented worker does not necessarily know his rights under U.S. law, and would tend to be afraid and reluctant to contact authorities regarding abuse and exploitation.

The smuggling of aliens is itself inhumane. Death is a frequent consequence of illicit border-crossing attempts. Those who survive often suffer disease, starvation, dehydration, and abuse from their smugglers. Women are raped, and even children are trafficked for sexual exploitation.

This is incompatible with the vision Americans have for their country. More than any other country, we have in the past extended a hand of compassion to the tired, poor, and needy when natural disasters strike. But we do it under a system of law, order, equality, and protection of the paramount rights of our citizens, not the so-called "rights" of illegal aliens and other foreigners. And we do it only to the extent that we can justify it as being in the national interest. We need look no farther than India, China, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and sub-Saharan Africa to know what unrestrained population growth will mean to our quality of life and standard of living.

Population-driven economic growth is unsustainable in the long run. The "limit" of natural resources per capita as population grows without bounds is zero. How much farther down that road does Congress thing we should go?

Americans produce 20 metric tons of pollutants per capita annually. If we add 300 million more people to our population by the end of this century, we will be adding 3 billion more tons of pollutants to the environment annually at the present rate. Even if, by some technological miracle, we were to be able to reduce our per capita output by half to that of Mexico, we still would have made no progress in reducing the present unacceptable level as our population doubles.

Our country used to be the shining torch of liberty and justice and opportunity that we exemplify to all the world. Many millions would come here every year if they could. They believe America is the land of milk and honey, a bottomless cornucopeia of jobs, welfare benefits, health care, freedom, and democracy.

In the beginning a largely unsettled continent lay before the Founding Fathers and their successors. There was a good reason then for loose immigration controls. Natural resouces like water, game, fish, minerals, energy, timber, and arable land seemed limitless. Now we know better. This is no longer the late 19th century and early 20th century when the economy was expanding and America had an industrial base second to none. It is now a time for reflection and study on how we can stabilize our population while bringing our economy into a soft landing. It is time to rebuild America's industrial base and to recover our technological and competitive edge.

This means tailoring legal immigration precisely to our needs to meet that goal. Let's give foreign PhD students in physical science, engineering, math and medicine a fast track to citizenship if they want it. Let's make sure every citizen who is capable of work at the PhD level in these areas is given the financial assistance and incentive he or she needs to succeed. And let's make sure all of our citizen graduates in engineering, math, science and medicine are fully employed before we allow any foreign students at the bachelors and masters level in these areas to achieve permanent residency or obtain visas to stay once their educations are complete.

The supposed economic benefits from illegal immigration are not worth the costs to our national unity, our prosperity, our security--and most importantly, to the integrity of the principles of justice and responsible self-government enshrined in our Declaration of Independence. So let's put an end to illegal immigration now by refusing to grant amnesty to anyone who has violated our borders. Let's establish border security in depth by continuing the improvement of border infrastructure and staffing and by using E-Verify to ferret out those illegals in our midst who are holding jobs Americans will do if offered a living wage and the hiring preference they deserve. If we require employers to present irrefutable evidence that they were unable to fill their jobs with citizen labor after extensive advertisement before they can hire any foreign labor, we will be well on our way to solving this problem once and for all.

We can no longer support a policy that suggests that America has an obligation to take all of the potential immigrants who wish to come here. They may well constitute numbers greater than our entire current population.

Contrary to what the politicians and special interest lobbyists would have us believe, our immigration system is not broken. We simply need to put the national interest first and enforce the law and secure the borders. Those who say the immigration system is broken are right only to the extent that the present system allows too many to enter our country legally and illegally. It is time to send the message that we consider our population to be optimum at its present level or lower, that we can accept only those immigrants who have the skills, entrepreneurial spirit, innovative talent, and inventiveness we need to survive in this global economy. Legal immigration including chain immigrations must be reduced to no more than 200,000-250,000 per year focused on the skills for which there is a demonstrated need with precedence given to those who are already fluent in English. This range would exclude tourists, students, and temporary migrant workers.

It is also time to end the charade of English competency for citizenship. We must require real fluency before citizenship can be offered. This does not require the repatriation of permanent residents who are unable to achieve fluency. They simply will not be able to enjoy voting and other privileges accorded to citizens. Although they may not be able to achieve fluency, their children will. We can then put an end to multi-lingual ballots and other official government documents and proceedings and we can repeal Executive Order 13166 that requires that nonsense.

Open Letter to Rep. Luis Gutierrez

March 9, 2010
Open Letter to Rep. Luis Gutierrez:

I applaud your efforts to enable legal immigrants to learn English, civics, and the tenets of good citizenship. Unfortunately your legislative agenda conveys a different message to illegal aliens, legal immigrants, and potential new immigrants: don’t wait for legal admission; ignore immigration laws; support those who are here illegally; thumb your nose at the rule of law, the very foundation of all civilized societies; ignore the long term adverse impact on the environment, the pressure on our finite natural resources, the diminution of the quality of life and our standard of living which will be the inevitable result of continued population growth. In the long run, millions of new immigrants from failed, impoverished nations unable to provide jobs for their own citizens will ultimately, by their sheer numbers, recreate the very conditions they fled their homelands to escape. Can anyone look at these countries with their poverty, crime, corruption, overpopulation, and disease and still conclude that allowing millions of them to enter the U.S will be beneficial? If Latinization of the U.S. is your goal and, considering the conditions in other Latin American countries, you think that would be a good thing, then you are doing the right thing. If you think the U.S. culture, government, ideals, and achievements are better, then some introspection and soul-searching is in order. Let’s not kill the goose that laid the golden through a misguided concern about foreigners. We should all have learned by now that the U.S. cannot solve all the world’s problems and, instead, we should be focusing our resources and those of all of the tax-exempt foundations on solving the problems of our own citizens.

In your introductory remarks for H.R. 4321 you made a number of statements that warrant a response. What you call “real immigration reform” in your bill turns out to be a complete emasculation of our immigration system and immigration laws. The kind of Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) most Americans will support is a far different thing from what you propose and what was previously proposed in the CIR bills that failed in 2007 and 2008.
The key question is whose or what CIR concept is best for our country, not just your illegal constituents? You have chosen to present a bill which you may believe to be best for you and for your illegal ethnic brethren but it is not what is best for our country. Your bill places the interests of foreigners above those of your fellow citizens. If you consider yourself a loyal American, the ethnocentrism evident in H.R. 4321 is totally inappropriate.
There are many important and significant facts that you and the Hispanic Caucus have either chosen to ignore or are completely oblivious to. While the negative impacts of illegal aliens and excessive legal immigration on the 10-17% unemployment rate and the rising health care costs play an important role in America’s antithesis to your version of CIR, they are not the only considerations by any means. Nevertheless, in these times of high unemployment it is unconscionable to suggest that we need more rather than fewer legal immigrants and that we should grant amnesty to illegal aliens rather than expediting their removal.
The legal immigration quota should be reduced to the historical level of about 200,000 per year exclusive of tourists, students, and migrant farm workers who are willing to return to their homelands when the harvest is in. What you propose is just the opposite and, if enacted, would surely have an adverse effect on the long term well-being of our country and the future of our descendents.
Illegal aliens flood our emergency rooms and hospitals and soak up Medicare funds that are badly needed by citizens. Certainly this drain must have some bearing on health care costs, the health care crisis, and the billions of dollars that are spent on Medicaid. Are illegal aliens responsible for all health care cost increases and all unemployment? Of course not! Are they important and undeniable factors in both Medicaid costs and the number of citizens unemployed? Of course!
The immigrants America is attracting these days are mostly poor and badly educated. They reproduce, fall ill, struggle with school, require hiring of paid interpreters, multi-lingual ballots and other government publications, and create instant citizens who drain the welfare and Medicaid budgets of states like Texas and California. Fifty three percent of immigrant households with children collected welfare from at least one government program in 2008. These programs include food stamps, Medicaid, Aid to Dependent Children, and free school lunches.
These are not people doing "jobs Americans won't do." These are people getting benefits that drain the coffers of states already in deep financial difficulty.
Each day at Parkland Hospital, Dallas, Texas some 32 babies of illegal alien parents, mostly Mexican, are born into instant U.S. citizenship. In fiscal 2006, that was 75 percent of the 16,489 deliveries. Medicaid pays the bill—or at least some of it, some of the time. Do you suppose there is any relationship between this and the need to increase the Medicaid budget every year reducing the funds available for other important programs?
One wonders where all of this Medicaid expense and the emergency room losses are factored into the calculations of those who praise the illegal aliens as a good labor source. Isn’t it time we required all employers to provide full family health care insurance for all of their foreign employees? Is it any wonder that our nation faces a health care crisis, that Medicare is all but bankrupt, and that gazillions have to be paid out in Medicaid? Does anyone believe Gutierrez-brand CIR will solve these problems?
Your sarcasm regarding global warming and traffic congestion is misplaced. Americans produce 20 metric tons of pollutants per capita annually. Adding another 300 million people by the end of this century will produce another 6 billion tons of pollutants annually at the present rate. Even if, by some technological miracle, we were to be able to reduce our per capita output by half, to that of Mexico’s 10 metric tons per year, we would still have made absolutely no progress toward reducing the present unacceptable level as our population doubles. Have the Hispanic Caucus and the immigration lobbies thought about that or are they ignoring this inconvenient truth?
The “limit” of finite natural resources per capita as population grows without bounds is zero. The more there are of us, the less there is for each of us. How much farther down that road does the Caucus think we should go? I hope the answer is, “No más.”
There is a limit to the amount of the water that is available for domestic and agricultural uses, especially here in the Southwest where many Hispanics live. The burgeoning populations of cities like Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Phoenix, and Denver are soaking up the water resources needed to grow the food required to feed the additional people. If you check out an atlas of California, you’ll notice that Owens Lake is filled in with white, not blue. That’s because Los Angeles sucked it dry decades ago. Las Vegas is considering similar plunder of groundwater elsewhere in Nevada. And there are many other cities—Houston and Tampa, to name a couple—that have chosen to push nature’s limits. We continue to plunder the Great Plains’ Ogallala Aquifer, the largest underground reservoir in the United States and one of the largest on the planet. It once held as much water as Lake Huron. It is a treasure that took millennia to accumulate. Remarkably, it could cease to be a water resource within another generation. We are left with yet another illustration of an all too common American mindset: short on vision, mired in denial and unable to comprehend nature’s limits.
Water rights bought up by cities means there will be land that can no longer be productive. This is clearly a losing proposition that needs recognition in any proposed immigration reform bill. With immigration, legal and illegal, adding up to 2 million people a year to a population that is already too large, we are setting ourselves up for a disaster.
Legal immigrants in excess of the historic level of about 200,000 per year, illegal aliens, their progeny, and their higher fertility rates are the main factors in population growth and the depletion of finite natural resources. The fertility rate of American women is near the replacement level of 2.1. It follows that immigration and tax policy reforms are needed to address population growth as an issue of vital importance to the future of our country. Your version of CIR flies in the face of these facts.
You may consider the immigrant blame game to be deplorable but that view ignores the real and significant adverse impacts excessive legal immigration and the presence of illegal aliens have on our country and will have on its future. This is not to deny the many contributions of legal immigrants and even some of the illegals who are willing to do the hardest work our economy requires. Nevertheless, we must limit the amount of foreign labor we import to the demonstrated needs of our economy and make sure employers pay the full cost of foreign workers rather than offloading some of it on unsuspecting taxpayers. With the current high unemployment rate this is the perfect time to enact enlightened tax and immigration policies that achieve the goal of a stable population but I suppose that is too much to expect from a Congress that hasn’t seen a true statesman who is able to rise above parochial interests since the days of the late Senator Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan.
In the immigration debate, some things are indeed constant. They never change but they are regularly ignored by those who have an axe to grind: immigration lawyers, the ethnocentric communities, and their leaders, and, of course, employers who want to be absolved of their past sins and be assured of a continuous flow of cheap labor. They are pushing an agenda that does not bode well for the America we know and love. Does any reasonable person really believe we can double or triple our population without affecting our quality of life or standard of living? Population-driven economic growth is not sustainable in the long run. As I stated above, the more there are of us, the less there is for each of us, and that includes Hispanic citizens as well as everyone else. Why is this simple fact not understood by the Hispanic community and the pro-immigration lobby?
There are lots of people out there who give lip service to border security, just as you do, but, in the next breath, would deny us the tools we need to achieve that goal. They are wolves in sheep’s clothing. If the truth were known, they would be clearly recognized as open borders advocates. They are the worst of the anti-America, pro-immigration elements in our country.
So what would it take to secure our borders? First and foremost it is clear that the borders can never be absolutely secure. It is also clear that if illegal aliens think they will be home free once they escape the immediate environs of the border, secure borders will always be just a pipe dream. Secure borders require a many- faceted approach: continuing improvements in border infrastructure and border patrol staffing, improvements in the rules of engagement, penalties for employers and foreign workers who violate the law, and vigorous and continuous internal enforcement. We desperately need mandatory E-Verify across the board for all employers and employees, new and current, public and private. It is the sine qua non of in depth border security. If we deprive illegals of job opportunities, they will have less incentive to come. If we quickly apprehend them and send them on their way, they will stop violating our borders. If we sentence them to six months work on the border infrastructure at minimum wage, they will have some time to think about their transgressions.
Separate immigration courts with judges or justices of the peace in residence at all detention centers with a mandate to make decisions within 24 hours of apprehension would also provide a disincentive for illegal entry. Certainly, appeals must be limited to one week. Contractors who operate detention facilities should be compensated based on throughput rather than detainee-days. Quick decisions could be enabled by the enactment of a rigid set of criteria to be used by these judges and JOPs. These criteria should explicitly exclude family separation as a basis for a favorable immigration decision. Adults under a removal order must take their minor children with them regardless of citizenship. Adult children who are citizens, of course, can make their own choices whether to leave with their parents or remain. This would be no different from the situations of other immigrants who left adult relatives behind when they came to this country. I have many distant relatives in Germany and Denmark who are perfectly content with the decisions of their ancestors to stay there while their brothers and sisters moved on. Those immigrants made the decision to start a new life here while their adult relatives were content to continue living in their homeland.
The issues of how many legal immigrants to admit each year, whether to end chain immigrations, and to provide yet another amnesty for illegal aliens are too important to allow mere politicians to exercise complete control without accountability to the American voters. Cynical politicians ignore what is best for America and pander to those who they believe can help them to achieve perennial re-election and the power that comes with it to do more damage to the national interest.
The comments of TV personalities are often closer to the truth than the typical politician’s rants. And the American people generally agree with them except when they indulge in some over-the-top comment that in an attempt to make a point or simply to be entertaining. For every Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh there is a Chris Mathews or Keith Olbermann. They all play the ratings game. Immigrants are only secondarily to blame for some of the economic, financial, and other woes of our country. The real culprits are the Congress and the Administration who have failed to enact, promote, and enforce immigration policies in the national interest.
The incessant promotion of illegal aliens and excessive legal immigration is the most deplorable element of public debate in our nation. We have failed to deal with the facts of excessive legal immigration, the continued violation of our borders, and their long term adverse impacts on our standard of living and quality of life. We need to look no farther than the teeming masses of China, India, Bangladesh, and Sub-Saharan Africa to know what that would be like.
Something else that has been predictable, constant, and dishonorable is the way that many of our nation’s Hispanic citizens have responded to the illegal presence of so many millions of aliens who are their ethnic brethren. They should know that their fellow non-Hispanic citizens want the immigration laws to be enforced. They want illegals to be removed unless an employer can provide irrefutable evidence that they are unable to fill their jobs with citizen labor, even after extensive advertising offering a living wage and a hiring preference. Instead of behaving as loyal Americans and making common cause with their fellow citizens to achieve real immigration reform, some Hispanics support those who have violated our borders and flaunted the rule of law, the very foundation of all civilized societies. They avoid completely any thoughts about the long term negative consequences to themselves and their descendents. In that respect, they are like most of our shortsighted politicians whose myopic approach to legislation has created many of the problems we face today: a huge national debt; perennial budget deficits; a negative balance of trade; a fading manufacturing capability; wasteful spending on multi-lingual ballots and other government publications and proceedings; the unprecedented Social Security and Medicare unfunded liabilities; the burgeoning costs of Medicaid, the special interest appropriations to organizations like ACORN and La Raza; and immigration and tax policies that do not serve the best interests of this country. The ineptness of Congress in keeping our fiscal house in order is well-known and hopefully will result in the failure of many re-election campaigns.
Does anyone believe that the importation of millions of people from failed countries run by oligarchs will improve America? What is the probability that a Latinized America will be less like the America we know and love and more like the countries the illegals fled to come here? Has anyone in the Hispanic caucus even thought about that question?
The Congress has responded to the immigration and illegal alien problems year after year with faulty legislation. While immigrant proponents have come to the table, they have failed repeatedly to craft a workable solution to our urgent crisis. Instead they offer thousand page bills containing the same old loopholes that weaken our immigration laws rather than reform them. The American people have sat patiently waiting for some statesman in the Congress to introduce a bill that meets the fundamental criteria for effective reform and that is based on a careful assessment of the long-term impact of excessive population growth and the current abandonment of the rule of law.
In the public debate, some commentators and critics have used harsh language to get the attention of the American people regarding immigration’s unarmed invasion and its deadly consequences. The opposition has responded with charges of nativism, xenophobia, and racism. Then they introduce another CIR bill that they claim will cure all the ills of the immigration system but which instead merely sweeps the illegal alien problem under the carpet by offering yet another amnesty and opens the floodgates for unneeded and unwanted population growth. They try to bully those who oppose their brand of negative reform.
Immigrant citizens marched in the street flying foreign flags and ripping the American flag from counter demonstrators’ hands. They say they are asking for fairness but those who are citizens they are already enjoying all the fairness and benefits of our great country has to offer. What they are really asking for is amnesty for their illegal alien ethnic brethren and open borders for others so that hundreds of thousands more can enter without difficulty to participate in governmental welfare and largess. They are not acting like loyal citizens. They are giving precedence to foreigners who have violated our borders over the wishes of the American people who place the national interest first.
They attend community meetings to plot how to achieve their goals. They often focus on the concept of family unity or reunification. Having created the problem themselves by entering our country illegally, they now want to be absolved so that they can remain here. It is not a question of family unity. It is a question of the rule of law. Families can remain unified by simply returning as a unit to their homeland. Minor children must always accompany their parents if they are ordered to be removed. Adult citizen children can make their own choice. A fair immigration policy is one which does not grant special favors to those who have entered our country illegally and which requires families to take responsibility for their own actions. Chain immigrations obviously should be limited to the spouses and children of those who have already become citizens. There is no need for legislation to stop tearing families apart. Everyone knows they are free to return to their countries of origin or stay there to begin with.
We all have learned something from our religious leaders, who have reminded us of these words from the good book: “You have heard it said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth’; but I say unto you, whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Indeed America has turned the other cheek a number of times through the various immigration bills and amnesties of the past. But enough is enough! The bible surely does not expect us to continue to turn the other cheek again. I believe our country has turned its cheek so many times that our collective head is spinning like a top, to use your simile.
It’s easy to be angry and frustrated about immigration but still America has turned the other cheek with patience and tolerance and dignity. But our good will and humanitarianism is not unlimited. Loyal Americans are saying, “No más!”
It is time for the Hispanic caucus to come to the table as Americans not as hyphenated Americans. It’s time to negotiate and compromise until we have determined what is in the best interests of our country, not what is in the best interests of illegal aliens or all those who wish to come here. Let’s break any comprehensive reform bill into a series of shorter bills that everyone can read and understand before any vote is taken. As you point out immigration bills need not be complicated. Neither should they be 1000 pages long.
And let’s put the debate on C-Span for all to see. Let’s begin with the reforms I have listed in the attachment. With patience, tolerance, and dignity and putting country first, we can achieve comprehensive immigration reform.
Our nation’s immigration policy should be pro-jobs, pro-rule of law, pro-secure borders, pro-stable population, pro-enforcement, and pro-security. A number of smaller bills were introduced previously in 2007 and 2008 that placed top priority on securing the borders before any other reforms could be considered. That was the correct approach but the powers that be in Congress scuttled those bills. They would have been a great beginning for immigration reform, putting the right foot forward first as it were.
Legal immigrants must indeed learn English just as my grandparents and parents did. And they should not be granted citizenship until they are fully fluent in English. Executive Order 13166 should be repealed so we can dispense with multi-lingual ballots and other government publications and proceedings. My Danish grandfather never voted because he believed he was too old to learn English. He didn’t expect the government to publish anything in Danish. Those legal residents who are unable to achieve fluency will still be free of any threat of deportation. Their children will be able to achieve citizenship as they progress through American schools learning English and Civics. The current English test for citizenship is a meaningless farce.
We’ve waited long enough. Just because America has turned its cheek in the past doesn’t mean we should turn away from what’s right, what is legal, and what is in the national interest. Just because we’ve been patient with illegal aliens, doesn’t mean we can wait forever for them to return to their homelands until they can enter legally.

America has given. America has granted amnesty. America has waited for its Hispanic citizens to act like loyal Americans and stand with other loyal Americans. And America has compromised. But there are some fundamentals that America simply cannot negotiate away and cannot wait for agreement on that one minute longer to: secure the borders; maintain family unity by returning illegal alien families to their homelands as a unit; base the opportunity for permanent residency and citizenship only on the needs of our economy; end dual citizenship and allegiance; require the payment of taxes; insure social integration, and linguistic and cultural assimilation.
We need immigration reform that will secure our borders, identify those who in our country illegally, remove those who are surplus to the needs of our economy, punish employers who exploit immigrant labor or who employ illegal aliens so they can compete unfairly with those who don’t; and reform that absolutely prohibits any more blanket amnesties regardless of any conditions that might be imposed. We must assert our values and our principles as a nation of laws. We were once a nation of immigrants but no longer should be. In the early days of our nation, a largely unsettled continent lay before the Founding Fathers. Natural resources like land, water, fish, game, timber, and minerals seemed limitless. Now we know better. We are sending our treasure to despots in the Middle East and South America to buy oil while Congress and the Administration continue to fail to exploit all of the domestic sources available. We have 300 million people in America and some would argue that is already too many. Certainly adding more people compounds the problems we are faced with in the economy, the environment, and in the availability of food, energy, and natural resources.
It is not enough to merely “…understand that we must secure our borders.” We must backup that understanding with action and objective results. We have to agree to buttress infrastructure and staffing improvements at the border with changes in the rules of engagement and continuous and vigorous internal enforcement. We must begin with mandatory E-Verify across the board for all employers, public and private, and all employees, current and new. (It is treasonous to suggest otherwise.) The minimum essentials for the kind of CIR loyal Americans are willing to accept, beginning with borders that are demonstrably secure, are listed in the enclosure. Without internal enforcement it will be impossible to achieve border security. Everyone knows that.
I hope I have not been too blunt or candid in this letter. I still harbor some hope that you will actually find the time to read it. Lest you misunderstand the important aspects of what I have written, let me add that I recognize the many contributions Hispanics have made to our society not the least of which has been the honorable service of many in our Armed Forces. The name of Medal of Honor winner M/Sgt Benevidez comes to mind. While my personal service has not achieved that level of distinction, I and three other members of my family served honorably in WW II and the Korean War. We have paid our dues and I therefore feel justified in stating with complete frankness my position on illegal aliens and the needed immigration reforms. I therefore hope that you will give these few words the thoughtful consideration they deserve.

cc Senator Schumer
Senator Graham
Senator Udall
Senator Bennett
Rep. Polis