Showing posts with label illegal aliens amnesty border security border traffic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label illegal aliens amnesty border security border traffic. Show all posts
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Professor of Law Explains SB 1070
Kris Kobach, a professor of law and lawyer in Missouri who helped draft Arizona's tough new immigration bill, talks about Senate Bill 1070.
1. Professor Kobach, have you been surprised by the national - and even international - reaction to passage of Senate Bill 1070 that you helped draft?
The national reaction has been surprising, for two reasons. First, numerous national figures (including President Obama) significantly mischaracterized SB 1070 in their criticism of it. It is clear that much of the hyperventilating reaction to the bill came from people who did not bother to actually read it. Second, in 2007, the Arizona Legislature passed the Legal Arizona Workers Act—making Arizona the first state in the nation to require all employers to use the internet-based E-Verify system to ensure that their employees are authorized to work in the United States, and taking business licenses away from employers who knowingly hire unauthorized aliens. (I assisted in the drafting of that law as well.) The 2007 law had a much broader impact than the 2010 law, yet there was very little attention devoted to it outside of Arizona. So why all of the controversy over a narrower bill? I suspect it has everything to do with the 2010 elections and the desire of some organizations to use this issue to motivate voters.
2. Is the intent of the legislation to permit suspicion of illegal status to be pursued independently or only as a follow-up on some other offense?
Only as a follow-up to some other offense. Section 2 of the law stipulates that a law enforcement officer must first make a "lawful stop, detention, or arrest … in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state." If the officer, during the enforcement of that other offense, develops reasonable suspicion that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, then the officer must contact ICE if practicable to verify the alien's immigration status. Many city, county, and state law enforcement officers already did this before SB 1070 was enacted. Opponents of the law evidently think law enforcement officers in the state should turn a blind eye to such violations of federal law that they come across during their routine duties.
3. Why make illegal immigration a state crime? Why not just have local law enforcement turn illegal immigrants over to ICE?
SB 1070 doesn't make illegal immigration a state crime. Rather, it makes the failure of an alien to register or to carry certain registration documents a state crime. Since 1940, it has been a federal crime for aliens to fail to keep certain registration documents on their person. SB 1070 simply cites these federal statutes and prohibits aliens from violating them (8 U.S.C. §§ 1304(a) and 1306(e)). In other words, the Arizona law merely adds a layer of state penalty to what was already a crime under federal law. Ironically, open-borders activists have insisted for years that we use the term "undocumented" when referring to illegal aliens. Now, when a state takes seriously the documentation requirements of federal law, they become apoplectic.
SB 1070 thereby gives state and local law enforcement a third option that may be applicable when they encounter illegal aliens in the enforcement of other laws. Law enforcement officers already had the option to turn the illegal aliens over to ICE, or to make a case under Arizona's human smuggling statute. The documentation provisions of SB 1070 offer a third course of action. But if a county sheriff's office prefers to turn all illegal aliens that they encounter over to ICE, they certainly can continue to do so. Nothing in the law requires them to change their protocol.
4. Under the bill, do legal residents have to have proof of citizenship with them at all times? What are the consequences of not having it?
SB 1070 does not require U.S. citizens to carry any identification whatsoever.
Aliens who are lawfully present in the United States were already required by federal law to carry certain documents with them. For legal permanent resident aliens, the relevant document is a green card. The consequences of violating the Arizona law are the same as the consequences of violating the federal law: a fine of up to $100 and/or imprisonment of up to 30 days.
Any American who has travelled abroad knows that just about every country in the world imposes the same documentation requirements on U.S. citizens. It is hardly unfair or unusual to enforce our own laws on the subject.
5. What is the biggest misperception about the bill that you think needs to be corrected?
The biggest misperception about SB 1070 is the claim that it somehow encourages racial profiling. The people making this claim either haven't read the bill or they are willfully misrepresenting it. SB 1070 expressly prohibits racial profiling. In four different places, the law provides that "a law enforcement official … may not consider race, color or national origin in the enforcement of this section …." Race may not be considered in making any stops or determining immigration status. So if race were considered in any particular case, in violation of the law, the prosecution would not hold up in court. In addition, all normal Fourth Amendment protections against racial profiling will continue to apply. Most state and federal statutes do not include such special protection in the text of the statute; SB 1070 goes to extraordinary lengths to protect against racial profiling.
6. If someone calls the police and reports what he claims is someone else who is in the country illegally, do the police have an obligation under the bill to investigate?
No.
7. What's the basis for believing that the state has the authority to enforce federal immigration laws?
The U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized that states may enact statutes that are designed to discourage illegal immigration, without being preempted by federal law. That was the landmark 1976 case of De Canas v. Bica, in which the Supreme Court sustained a California law that prohibited employers from knowingly hiring unauthorized aliens. As long as Congress hasn't expressly barred states from taking the action in question, and Congress has not displaced all state laws from the field, and the statute doesn't conflict with federal law, it is permitted.
With respect to police officers making arrests of illegal aliens in order to assist the federal government, the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals have all recognized the inherent authority of state and local officers to do so. And with respect to the authority of Arizona to make it a state misdemeanor for aliens to fail to carry the documents required by federal law, the relevant question is whether the state law conflicts with federal law. Since SB 1070 mirrors federal law exactly, there is no conflict. Indeed, state and federal law are in perfect harmony.
Some of the people who are now declaring SB 1070 to be unconstitutional made the same claims regarding previous Arizona laws. Arizona's last three major laws concerning illegal immigration were all challenged in court—Proposition 200 in 2004, the Human Smuggling Act in 2005, and Legal Arizona Workers Act in 2007. (I assisted in the defense of the last two.) In every case, the law was upheld. Most recently Arizona won an impressive victory in the Ninth Circuit when the Legal Arizona Workers Act was sustained. So Arizona is three-for-three in court. I expect that when the dust settles after the current legal scrap is over, Arizona will be four-for-four.
1. Professor Kobach, have you been surprised by the national - and even international - reaction to passage of Senate Bill 1070 that you helped draft?
The national reaction has been surprising, for two reasons. First, numerous national figures (including President Obama) significantly mischaracterized SB 1070 in their criticism of it. It is clear that much of the hyperventilating reaction to the bill came from people who did not bother to actually read it. Second, in 2007, the Arizona Legislature passed the Legal Arizona Workers Act—making Arizona the first state in the nation to require all employers to use the internet-based E-Verify system to ensure that their employees are authorized to work in the United States, and taking business licenses away from employers who knowingly hire unauthorized aliens. (I assisted in the drafting of that law as well.) The 2007 law had a much broader impact than the 2010 law, yet there was very little attention devoted to it outside of Arizona. So why all of the controversy over a narrower bill? I suspect it has everything to do with the 2010 elections and the desire of some organizations to use this issue to motivate voters.
2. Is the intent of the legislation to permit suspicion of illegal status to be pursued independently or only as a follow-up on some other offense?
Only as a follow-up to some other offense. Section 2 of the law stipulates that a law enforcement officer must first make a "lawful stop, detention, or arrest … in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state." If the officer, during the enforcement of that other offense, develops reasonable suspicion that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, then the officer must contact ICE if practicable to verify the alien's immigration status. Many city, county, and state law enforcement officers already did this before SB 1070 was enacted. Opponents of the law evidently think law enforcement officers in the state should turn a blind eye to such violations of federal law that they come across during their routine duties.
3. Why make illegal immigration a state crime? Why not just have local law enforcement turn illegal immigrants over to ICE?
SB 1070 doesn't make illegal immigration a state crime. Rather, it makes the failure of an alien to register or to carry certain registration documents a state crime. Since 1940, it has been a federal crime for aliens to fail to keep certain registration documents on their person. SB 1070 simply cites these federal statutes and prohibits aliens from violating them (8 U.S.C. §§ 1304(a) and 1306(e)). In other words, the Arizona law merely adds a layer of state penalty to what was already a crime under federal law. Ironically, open-borders activists have insisted for years that we use the term "undocumented" when referring to illegal aliens. Now, when a state takes seriously the documentation requirements of federal law, they become apoplectic.
SB 1070 thereby gives state and local law enforcement a third option that may be applicable when they encounter illegal aliens in the enforcement of other laws. Law enforcement officers already had the option to turn the illegal aliens over to ICE, or to make a case under Arizona's human smuggling statute. The documentation provisions of SB 1070 offer a third course of action. But if a county sheriff's office prefers to turn all illegal aliens that they encounter over to ICE, they certainly can continue to do so. Nothing in the law requires them to change their protocol.
4. Under the bill, do legal residents have to have proof of citizenship with them at all times? What are the consequences of not having it?
SB 1070 does not require U.S. citizens to carry any identification whatsoever.
Aliens who are lawfully present in the United States were already required by federal law to carry certain documents with them. For legal permanent resident aliens, the relevant document is a green card. The consequences of violating the Arizona law are the same as the consequences of violating the federal law: a fine of up to $100 and/or imprisonment of up to 30 days.
Any American who has travelled abroad knows that just about every country in the world imposes the same documentation requirements on U.S. citizens. It is hardly unfair or unusual to enforce our own laws on the subject.
5. What is the biggest misperception about the bill that you think needs to be corrected?
The biggest misperception about SB 1070 is the claim that it somehow encourages racial profiling. The people making this claim either haven't read the bill or they are willfully misrepresenting it. SB 1070 expressly prohibits racial profiling. In four different places, the law provides that "a law enforcement official … may not consider race, color or national origin in the enforcement of this section …." Race may not be considered in making any stops or determining immigration status. So if race were considered in any particular case, in violation of the law, the prosecution would not hold up in court. In addition, all normal Fourth Amendment protections against racial profiling will continue to apply. Most state and federal statutes do not include such special protection in the text of the statute; SB 1070 goes to extraordinary lengths to protect against racial profiling.
6. If someone calls the police and reports what he claims is someone else who is in the country illegally, do the police have an obligation under the bill to investigate?
No.
7. What's the basis for believing that the state has the authority to enforce federal immigration laws?
The U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized that states may enact statutes that are designed to discourage illegal immigration, without being preempted by federal law. That was the landmark 1976 case of De Canas v. Bica, in which the Supreme Court sustained a California law that prohibited employers from knowingly hiring unauthorized aliens. As long as Congress hasn't expressly barred states from taking the action in question, and Congress has not displaced all state laws from the field, and the statute doesn't conflict with federal law, it is permitted.
With respect to police officers making arrests of illegal aliens in order to assist the federal government, the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals have all recognized the inherent authority of state and local officers to do so. And with respect to the authority of Arizona to make it a state misdemeanor for aliens to fail to carry the documents required by federal law, the relevant question is whether the state law conflicts with federal law. Since SB 1070 mirrors federal law exactly, there is no conflict. Indeed, state and federal law are in perfect harmony.
Some of the people who are now declaring SB 1070 to be unconstitutional made the same claims regarding previous Arizona laws. Arizona's last three major laws concerning illegal immigration were all challenged in court—Proposition 200 in 2004, the Human Smuggling Act in 2005, and Legal Arizona Workers Act in 2007. (I assisted in the defense of the last two.) In every case, the law was upheld. Most recently Arizona won an impressive victory in the Ninth Circuit when the Legal Arizona Workers Act was sustained. So Arizona is three-for-three in court. I expect that when the dust settles after the current legal scrap is over, Arizona will be four-for-four.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
CIR for Loyal Americans
Comprehensive Immigration Reform for Loyal Americans
The essential elements of real comprehensive immigration reform in priority order are:
1. Secure our borders first before any other immigration reforms are considered.
a. Continue improvements in border infrastructure and staffing.
b. Buttress these improvements with comprehensive internal enforcement using as the primary tool mandatory E-Verify across the board for all employers, public and private, and all employees, new and current.
c. Demonstrate that the borders are secure with objective data collected by the border patrol and ICE regarding the number and trend of apprehensions at the border and internally.
d. Set a reasonable target for the total number of illegals still present in the U.S. to be before success can be declared.
e. Supplement objective data with secret surveys of all border patrol and ICE agents asking their opinions as to whether the borders are secure.
f. Solicit and implement ideas from the border patrol and ICE on how border security and internal enforcement can be improved.
f. Require all illegal aliens apprehended at the border or internally to spend six months working on border infrastructure at minimum wage before they are fingerprinted, photographed, DNAed, and escorted to the border with the admonition that if they return without valid documents they will do two years of hard time, five for repeat offenders.
g. Prohibit catch and release at the border and internally.
h. End voluntary self-removal by illegal aliens; all removals, self-removal or otherwise, must be considered involuntary so that if they return without the proper documents they will be considered felons and do a minimum of two years of hard time.
I. Require illegals and their employers identified via E-Verify to pay the cost of repatriation.
j. Revise the rules of engagement to permit hot pursuit of drug runners and the use of lethal force; granting immunity from prosecution for agents in the legitimate performance of their duties pursuant to these revised rules.
k. Establish a deadline beyond which the use of fraudulent documents and social security numbers will be considered a felony.
2. Tie legal immigration quotas to the U.S. total unemployment rate by sector, profession, or type of work. (For example, if the unemployment level among computer programmers is above the specified criterion, legal immigration in that sector would be halted.)
a. Limit legal immigration to no more than 200,000 per year. (All successful applicants must be briefed on the desirability of a stable population and the adaptation necessary to facilitate that goal and achieve a soft landing for a sustainable economy.)
b. Design immigration and tax policy to achieve a stable population, the conservation of energy and natural resources, and the reduction of environment-destroying pollution of all kinds.
c. Use “Cap and Trade” as one means for achieving a stable population. (Women who wish to have more than the replacement number of children, about 2.1 on the average per couple, will have to buy credits from those who wish to have fewer.)
2. Grant accelerated citizenship consideration to aliens who enlist in the armed forces for at least 4 years and who serve at least one tour in a combat zone.
3. Make English the official language of the United States to be used for all ballots and other government publications and proceedings at all levels of government. (Repeal Executive Order 13166 but make public interpreters available to those who cannot afford one and who do not have a family member who can serve in that capacity.)
a. Grant legal immigration priority to English-speaking applicants who have the skills needed by America to stay competitive in a global environment. Give accelerated consideration to foreign PhD students in math, physical science, engineering, and MDs in medicine who wish to become American citizens and who are prepared to renounce all allegiance to foreign countries or potentates and any claim to dual citizenship.
b. Raise the bar for citizenship to real fluency in reading, writing, and speaking English rather than the current few words and phrases from a study guide. (Failure to achieve fluency would not be cause for deportation of legal residents.)
4. Require that at least one parent be a citizen of the U.S. before birthright citizenship can be granted under the 14th Amendment.
5. End chain immigrations, except for the spouses and children of those who have been granted citizenship.
6. Make Immigration Court decisions within 24 hours of apprehension. Allow only one week allowed for appeals.
7. Establish rigid criteria for successful appeals. (Successful grounds for an appeal of a removal order may include: evidence of social integration, and cultural and linguistic assimilation, testimony of employers and co-workers as well as evidence that their children are in school learning civics, citizenship and English and are willing to declare their sole allegiance to the U.S. and renounce any dual allegiance and citizenship Family unification is excluded as a basis for an appeal. All minor children, regardless of citizenship, must accompany parents under a removal order.)
8. Prohibit the flying of foreign national flags except at foreign embassies and consulates and by permit for parades on ethnic holidays honoring our immigrant past. (For example, Columbus Day, St. Patrick's Day, Bastille Day, and Cinco de Mayo.)
9. Build a string of triage and obstetric hospitals across on the other side of the borders and provide transport to those hospitals for any foreigners who show up at the border crossings who need medical assistance. Share the cost of constructing these hospitals with our neighbors but, in return, expect Mexico and Canada to staff them.
10. Prohibit unwarranted criticism of legal immigrants and violence against anyone based on race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual preference.
11. Allow employers to present irrefutable evidence that they have made a good faith effort to hire citizens by offering a living wage and a hiring preference before they can declare a hardship case for hiring foreign workers.
12. Employers of foreign workers must provide full family health care insurance for them.
The essential elements of real comprehensive immigration reform in priority order are:
1. Secure our borders first before any other immigration reforms are considered.
a. Continue improvements in border infrastructure and staffing.
b. Buttress these improvements with comprehensive internal enforcement using as the primary tool mandatory E-Verify across the board for all employers, public and private, and all employees, new and current.
c. Demonstrate that the borders are secure with objective data collected by the border patrol and ICE regarding the number and trend of apprehensions at the border and internally.
d. Set a reasonable target for the total number of illegals still present in the U.S. to be before success can be declared.
e. Supplement objective data with secret surveys of all border patrol and ICE agents asking their opinions as to whether the borders are secure.
f. Solicit and implement ideas from the border patrol and ICE on how border security and internal enforcement can be improved.
f. Require all illegal aliens apprehended at the border or internally to spend six months working on border infrastructure at minimum wage before they are fingerprinted, photographed, DNAed, and escorted to the border with the admonition that if they return without valid documents they will do two years of hard time, five for repeat offenders.
g. Prohibit catch and release at the border and internally.
h. End voluntary self-removal by illegal aliens; all removals, self-removal or otherwise, must be considered involuntary so that if they return without the proper documents they will be considered felons and do a minimum of two years of hard time.
I. Require illegals and their employers identified via E-Verify to pay the cost of repatriation.
j. Revise the rules of engagement to permit hot pursuit of drug runners and the use of lethal force; granting immunity from prosecution for agents in the legitimate performance of their duties pursuant to these revised rules.
k. Establish a deadline beyond which the use of fraudulent documents and social security numbers will be considered a felony.
2. Tie legal immigration quotas to the U.S. total unemployment rate by sector, profession, or type of work. (For example, if the unemployment level among computer programmers is above the specified criterion, legal immigration in that sector would be halted.)
a. Limit legal immigration to no more than 200,000 per year. (All successful applicants must be briefed on the desirability of a stable population and the adaptation necessary to facilitate that goal and achieve a soft landing for a sustainable economy.)
b. Design immigration and tax policy to achieve a stable population, the conservation of energy and natural resources, and the reduction of environment-destroying pollution of all kinds.
c. Use “Cap and Trade” as one means for achieving a stable population. (Women who wish to have more than the replacement number of children, about 2.1 on the average per couple, will have to buy credits from those who wish to have fewer.)
2. Grant accelerated citizenship consideration to aliens who enlist in the armed forces for at least 4 years and who serve at least one tour in a combat zone.
3. Make English the official language of the United States to be used for all ballots and other government publications and proceedings at all levels of government. (Repeal Executive Order 13166 but make public interpreters available to those who cannot afford one and who do not have a family member who can serve in that capacity.)
a. Grant legal immigration priority to English-speaking applicants who have the skills needed by America to stay competitive in a global environment. Give accelerated consideration to foreign PhD students in math, physical science, engineering, and MDs in medicine who wish to become American citizens and who are prepared to renounce all allegiance to foreign countries or potentates and any claim to dual citizenship.
b. Raise the bar for citizenship to real fluency in reading, writing, and speaking English rather than the current few words and phrases from a study guide. (Failure to achieve fluency would not be cause for deportation of legal residents.)
4. Require that at least one parent be a citizen of the U.S. before birthright citizenship can be granted under the 14th Amendment.
5. End chain immigrations, except for the spouses and children of those who have been granted citizenship.
6. Make Immigration Court decisions within 24 hours of apprehension. Allow only one week allowed for appeals.
7. Establish rigid criteria for successful appeals. (Successful grounds for an appeal of a removal order may include: evidence of social integration, and cultural and linguistic assimilation, testimony of employers and co-workers as well as evidence that their children are in school learning civics, citizenship and English and are willing to declare their sole allegiance to the U.S. and renounce any dual allegiance and citizenship Family unification is excluded as a basis for an appeal. All minor children, regardless of citizenship, must accompany parents under a removal order.)
8. Prohibit the flying of foreign national flags except at foreign embassies and consulates and by permit for parades on ethnic holidays honoring our immigrant past. (For example, Columbus Day, St. Patrick's Day, Bastille Day, and Cinco de Mayo.)
9. Build a string of triage and obstetric hospitals across on the other side of the borders and provide transport to those hospitals for any foreigners who show up at the border crossings who need medical assistance. Share the cost of constructing these hospitals with our neighbors but, in return, expect Mexico and Canada to staff them.
10. Prohibit unwarranted criticism of legal immigrants and violence against anyone based on race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual preference.
11. Allow employers to present irrefutable evidence that they have made a good faith effort to hire citizens by offering a living wage and a hiring preference before they can declare a hardship case for hiring foreign workers.
12. Employers of foreign workers must provide full family health care insurance for them.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Copenhagen Fails - Omits Discussion of Population
Previous studies on the determinants of carbon dioxide emissions have primarily focused on the
role of affluence. The impact of population growth on carbon dioxide emissions has received less attention.
A new paper takes a step forward providing such empirical evidence, using a data set of 93 countries for the
period of 1975-1996. The paper has following findings. (1) Population growth has been one of the major
driving forces behind increasing carbon dioxide emissions worldwide over the last two decades. It is
estimated that half of increase in emissions by 2025 will be contributed by future population growth alone.
(2) Rising income levels have been associated with a monotonically upward shift in emissions.
Thus, without increasing costs dramatically by imposing strict controls on emissions, much could be accomplished by just stabilizing our population.
__________________________
role of affluence. The impact of population growth on carbon dioxide emissions has received less attention.
A new paper takes a step forward providing such empirical evidence, using a data set of 93 countries for the
period of 1975-1996. The paper has following findings. (1) Population growth has been one of the major
driving forces behind increasing carbon dioxide emissions worldwide over the last two decades. It is
estimated that half of increase in emissions by 2025 will be contributed by future population growth alone.
(2) Rising income levels have been associated with a monotonically upward shift in emissions.
Thus, without increasing costs dramatically by imposing strict controls on emissions, much could be accomplished by just stabilizing our population.
__________________________
Monday, July 27, 2009
Realities and the Pro-America Agenda
Realities
1. The Browning of America is an undeniable and irreversible fact.
2. With 50 million Hispanics, 40 million Blacks, and millions more Asian, India Indians, and Native Americans it is utter nonsense to even speak of the bleaching of America as anyone's serious agenda.
The Pro-America Agenda
1. Secure the borders
a. Improve infrastructure and staffing
b. Change the rules of engagement
c. Vigorous and continuous internal enforcement using e-verify
d. Modify the 14th amendment to jus sanguinis, requiring at least one parent to be a citizen for the child to have birthright citizenship.
e. Deny employment opportunities to illegals
f. Require a six month term working on border infrastructure for all male adult illegals who are apprehended at the border or internally
g. Create other disincentives as necessary to achieve border security
2. Treat all apprehended illegals humanely
3. Reduce legal immigration to no more than 200,000 per year (exclusive of tourists, students, political refugees, and temporary migrant workers)focused on needed skills.
4. Close the borders to pregnant women
5. Make English the official language of the United States for all purposes of government at all levels
6. Require fluency in English for citizenship rather than just the knowledge of a few words of English; this would make multi-lingual ballots unnecessary and inappropriate. Provide Public Interpreters for noncitizens who demonstrably cannot afford one.
7. Reduce cross-border traffic of all kinds; eliminate cross-border work commutes; if you work here, you must live here and you must be here legally.
8. Strengthen the treason, sedition, and un-American laws to enable the incarceration of those who aid and abet illegal aliens or otherwise undermine the rule of law.
9. Provide tutors and teaching assistants to enable a phase out of bilingual education at the earliest effective grade level; encourage parents to take advantage of free, community-based English instruction.
10. Encourage the study of foreign languages for those who plan careers where such knowledge would be of use; place no restrictions on such study or the use of any language in private conversation or private business, except as specified by the business owner.
11. Re-advertise all jobs currently held by foreign workers at a living wage and with a hiring preference for citizens.
12. Allow foreign workers only if an employer can present irrefutable proof of need.
13. Pay and benefits for foreign workers must be at the prevailing wage for citizen workers in the same occupations with the same level of experience and skill.
14. Require employers to provide full family health care coverage for all foreign employees.
15. Photograph, fingerprint, DNA all illegal aliens before repatriation after they have served their sentences; admonish them that if they return, they will do hard time.
16. Institute a biometric ID card for all foreigners; make it optional for those who may wish to have one as ready proof of citizenship or legal status.
17. End chain immigrations except for spouses and minor children of permanent residents or citizens.
18. Declare delivery rooms to be the temporary sovereign territory of the homeland of the mother; issue birth certificate showing that homeland as the citizenship of the child.
19 Build a string of triage/obstetric hospitals above the northern and below the southern borders, jointly funded by the U.S. and its neighbors but staffed by the the countries in which they are located. Provide helicopters and ambulances at border ports of entry to transport aliens who are ill to one of these hospitals.
20. Stabilize illegals who seek treatment and then transport to one of these hospitals.
21. Allow work permits (green cards) only when the U.S. unemployment rate is below a certain level as specified by the U.S. government in conjunction with local unions and professional organizations
22. No immigrant bashing
23. Establish as a national objective a stable population with a soft landing for our economy
24. Immediate deportation without recourse for imams who preach jihad or use the word infidel
25. Outlaw burqas, headscarves, yarmulkes, and other religious symbols in public schools.
26. Eliminate federal funding for ACORN,racist organizations, and separatist schools.
27. Outlaw public employee unions, card check, and other corrosive labor practices.
28. Eliminate foreign language TV and radio stations but not a limited number individual foreign language programs as inconsistent with the objective of encouraging a common unity language and culture.
29. Prosecute those guilty of intolerance to the full extent of the law.
30. Require objective evidence of secure borders before considering amnesty, even for needed workers.
31. Give amnesty priority for those who passed the employment re-advertisement test above and who can present evidence that they have been paid over the table, paid all applicable taxes, are socially integrated and culturally and linguistically assimilated,have children in school learning English and civics.
32. Give priority to legal immigration applicants who are fluent in English.
33. Expedite citizenship for foreign-born PhD students in science, math and engineering who wish to become citizens.
34. Require illegals ordered to be removed to pay the costs of their removal.
35. Require illegals ordered to be removed to take their minor children with them regardless of the childrens' citizenship
36. Minimize detention times by compensating contractors on the basis of throughput rather than detainee-days.
37. Provide for resident immigration judges or justices of the peace and inspectors general in all detention facilities to assure quick decisions and human treatment.
38. Establish rigid criteria for the successful appeal of removal orders; family separation should be explicitly excluded from these criteria since 35. above requires minor children to remain with their parents.
39. Develop a method for precisely metering the number of foreigners admitted to our needs rather than to the demand. The U.S. has no obligation to admit any immigrants.
40. Deal as harshly with anyone convicted of crimes against immigrants and illegals as we do with illegals or citizens who commit similar crimes against citizens.
41. Shun any ideas of mass overnight deportation of all illegals.
42. Base repatriation of illegals on a systematic and gradual approach over a significant amount of time using e-verify as the primary tool to identify them; make adjustments and allow appeals as necessary to avoid economic disruption and to assure that demonstrated labor needs are met
43. Depend primarily on self-deportation resulting from denial of employment opportunities.
44. Negotiate bi-lateral treaties with our neighbors to enable reimbursement for the cost of apprehending, detaining and repatriating illegals; failing this reduce any foreign aid provided to those countries to offset these costs (send 'em a message); the illegals and their employers must bear the primary fiscal responsibilty. Remittances should also be taxed as necessary to make repatriation a no net cost operation to the government.
45. Determine in advance which donor countries are guilty of political persecution, apply sanctions, and reduce the detainment time for refugees from these countries.
46. Negotiate a treaty that lays out the behavior expected of neighboring countries regarding the control, reimbursement and repatriation of border violators.
47. Eliminate cross-border busing to schools in the U.S.
48. Require schools, hospitals, and public service offices to establish the bona fides of all students, patients and applicants.
49. Reduce federal aid to sanctuary cities
50. Require local law enforcement to determine the immigration status of all those who are stopped or arrested for other violations and hold the illegals for ICE or transport them immediately to the nearest detention facility.
51. Train the national guard to perform the same functions as the border patrol; employ the guard, during the two weeks of active duty each year, at gaps in the fence and where illegal traffic is heaviest, as necessary and as requested by the border patrol.
52. Negotiate treaties with our neighbors to allow reciprocal hot pursuit of human and drug smugglers across the border; grant the border patrol authority to arrest or use lethal force as necessary within 10 miles north or south of the border.
53. Impose a mandatory sentence of 5 years for the first offense and 10 for each subsequent human smuggling offense; 10 and 20 years at hard labor for drug smugglers
54. Incarcerate Islamic illegals indefinitely as potential terrorists if they come from countries designated as supporters of terrorism.
55. Require Islamic legal immigrants to abjure jihad, sharia, mistretment of women, and death penalties for apostacy.
56. Allow in the U.S. only Korans revised to denounce jihad, sharia, female mistreatment, and anti-apostacy actions; encourage the voluntary removal and replacement of imams who preach jihad or the denial of human rights guaranteed citizens under the constitution.
57. Limit deductions for exemptions to two children per female; cap and trade for more.
58. Base tax and immigration policies and reform on the stable population objective.
59. Declare that America is a multi-racial society and will remain so; advocacy of ethnic cleansing or bleaching is illegal except as permitted by the constitution
60. Those who accuse segments of the population of advocating ethnic cleansing or
"bleaching" may be found guilty of incitement and/or libel.
Corrections, improvements, additions, edits, etc. are solicited.
1. The Browning of America is an undeniable and irreversible fact.
2. With 50 million Hispanics, 40 million Blacks, and millions more Asian, India Indians, and Native Americans it is utter nonsense to even speak of the bleaching of America as anyone's serious agenda.
The Pro-America Agenda
1. Secure the borders
a. Improve infrastructure and staffing
b. Change the rules of engagement
c. Vigorous and continuous internal enforcement using e-verify
d. Modify the 14th amendment to jus sanguinis, requiring at least one parent to be a citizen for the child to have birthright citizenship.
e. Deny employment opportunities to illegals
f. Require a six month term working on border infrastructure for all male adult illegals who are apprehended at the border or internally
g. Create other disincentives as necessary to achieve border security
2. Treat all apprehended illegals humanely
3. Reduce legal immigration to no more than 200,000 per year (exclusive of tourists, students, political refugees, and temporary migrant workers)focused on needed skills.
4. Close the borders to pregnant women
5. Make English the official language of the United States for all purposes of government at all levels
6. Require fluency in English for citizenship rather than just the knowledge of a few words of English; this would make multi-lingual ballots unnecessary and inappropriate. Provide Public Interpreters for noncitizens who demonstrably cannot afford one.
7. Reduce cross-border traffic of all kinds; eliminate cross-border work commutes; if you work here, you must live here and you must be here legally.
8. Strengthen the treason, sedition, and un-American laws to enable the incarceration of those who aid and abet illegal aliens or otherwise undermine the rule of law.
9. Provide tutors and teaching assistants to enable a phase out of bilingual education at the earliest effective grade level; encourage parents to take advantage of free, community-based English instruction.
10. Encourage the study of foreign languages for those who plan careers where such knowledge would be of use; place no restrictions on such study or the use of any language in private conversation or private business, except as specified by the business owner.
11. Re-advertise all jobs currently held by foreign workers at a living wage and with a hiring preference for citizens.
12. Allow foreign workers only if an employer can present irrefutable proof of need.
13. Pay and benefits for foreign workers must be at the prevailing wage for citizen workers in the same occupations with the same level of experience and skill.
14. Require employers to provide full family health care coverage for all foreign employees.
15. Photograph, fingerprint, DNA all illegal aliens before repatriation after they have served their sentences; admonish them that if they return, they will do hard time.
16. Institute a biometric ID card for all foreigners; make it optional for those who may wish to have one as ready proof of citizenship or legal status.
17. End chain immigrations except for spouses and minor children of permanent residents or citizens.
18. Declare delivery rooms to be the temporary sovereign territory of the homeland of the mother; issue birth certificate showing that homeland as the citizenship of the child.
19 Build a string of triage/obstetric hospitals above the northern and below the southern borders, jointly funded by the U.S. and its neighbors but staffed by the the countries in which they are located. Provide helicopters and ambulances at border ports of entry to transport aliens who are ill to one of these hospitals.
20. Stabilize illegals who seek treatment and then transport to one of these hospitals.
21. Allow work permits (green cards) only when the U.S. unemployment rate is below a certain level as specified by the U.S. government in conjunction with local unions and professional organizations
22. No immigrant bashing
23. Establish as a national objective a stable population with a soft landing for our economy
24. Immediate deportation without recourse for imams who preach jihad or use the word infidel
25. Outlaw burqas, headscarves, yarmulkes, and other religious symbols in public schools.
26. Eliminate federal funding for ACORN,racist organizations, and separatist schools.
27. Outlaw public employee unions, card check, and other corrosive labor practices.
28. Eliminate foreign language TV and radio stations but not a limited number individual foreign language programs as inconsistent with the objective of encouraging a common unity language and culture.
29. Prosecute those guilty of intolerance to the full extent of the law.
30. Require objective evidence of secure borders before considering amnesty, even for needed workers.
31. Give amnesty priority for those who passed the employment re-advertisement test above and who can present evidence that they have been paid over the table, paid all applicable taxes, are socially integrated and culturally and linguistically assimilated,have children in school learning English and civics.
32. Give priority to legal immigration applicants who are fluent in English.
33. Expedite citizenship for foreign-born PhD students in science, math and engineering who wish to become citizens.
34. Require illegals ordered to be removed to pay the costs of their removal.
35. Require illegals ordered to be removed to take their minor children with them regardless of the childrens' citizenship
36. Minimize detention times by compensating contractors on the basis of throughput rather than detainee-days.
37. Provide for resident immigration judges or justices of the peace and inspectors general in all detention facilities to assure quick decisions and human treatment.
38. Establish rigid criteria for the successful appeal of removal orders; family separation should be explicitly excluded from these criteria since 35. above requires minor children to remain with their parents.
39. Develop a method for precisely metering the number of foreigners admitted to our needs rather than to the demand. The U.S. has no obligation to admit any immigrants.
40. Deal as harshly with anyone convicted of crimes against immigrants and illegals as we do with illegals or citizens who commit similar crimes against citizens.
41. Shun any ideas of mass overnight deportation of all illegals.
42. Base repatriation of illegals on a systematic and gradual approach over a significant amount of time using e-verify as the primary tool to identify them; make adjustments and allow appeals as necessary to avoid economic disruption and to assure that demonstrated labor needs are met
43. Depend primarily on self-deportation resulting from denial of employment opportunities.
44. Negotiate bi-lateral treaties with our neighbors to enable reimbursement for the cost of apprehending, detaining and repatriating illegals; failing this reduce any foreign aid provided to those countries to offset these costs (send 'em a message); the illegals and their employers must bear the primary fiscal responsibilty. Remittances should also be taxed as necessary to make repatriation a no net cost operation to the government.
45. Determine in advance which donor countries are guilty of political persecution, apply sanctions, and reduce the detainment time for refugees from these countries.
46. Negotiate a treaty that lays out the behavior expected of neighboring countries regarding the control, reimbursement and repatriation of border violators.
47. Eliminate cross-border busing to schools in the U.S.
48. Require schools, hospitals, and public service offices to establish the bona fides of all students, patients and applicants.
49. Reduce federal aid to sanctuary cities
50. Require local law enforcement to determine the immigration status of all those who are stopped or arrested for other violations and hold the illegals for ICE or transport them immediately to the nearest detention facility.
51. Train the national guard to perform the same functions as the border patrol; employ the guard, during the two weeks of active duty each year, at gaps in the fence and where illegal traffic is heaviest, as necessary and as requested by the border patrol.
52. Negotiate treaties with our neighbors to allow reciprocal hot pursuit of human and drug smugglers across the border; grant the border patrol authority to arrest or use lethal force as necessary within 10 miles north or south of the border.
53. Impose a mandatory sentence of 5 years for the first offense and 10 for each subsequent human smuggling offense; 10 and 20 years at hard labor for drug smugglers
54. Incarcerate Islamic illegals indefinitely as potential terrorists if they come from countries designated as supporters of terrorism.
55. Require Islamic legal immigrants to abjure jihad, sharia, mistretment of women, and death penalties for apostacy.
56. Allow in the U.S. only Korans revised to denounce jihad, sharia, female mistreatment, and anti-apostacy actions; encourage the voluntary removal and replacement of imams who preach jihad or the denial of human rights guaranteed citizens under the constitution.
57. Limit deductions for exemptions to two children per female; cap and trade for more.
58. Base tax and immigration policies and reform on the stable population objective.
59. Declare that America is a multi-racial society and will remain so; advocacy of ethnic cleansing or bleaching is illegal except as permitted by the constitution
60. Those who accuse segments of the population of advocating ethnic cleansing or
"bleaching" may be found guilty of incitement and/or libel.
Corrections, improvements, additions, edits, etc. are solicited.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Sunday, August 24, 2008
A Corporate Model for Dealing with Illegal Aliens
Following World War II, in 1945-46, more than 8 million ethnic Germans were expelled from the Eastern Territories in less than a year. Although this amply demonstrated the logistic feasibility of a mass repatriation of foreign nationals, few Americans believe it is desirable or necessary to undertake a similar effort now to rid the U.S. of most of its 12 million illegal aliens. In any event, everyone knows it couldn’t be done overnight even with our modern transportation systems. That, of course, does not deter the mass legalization proponents from claiming time and again that mass overnight deportation is the only model under consideration.
Krikorian has suggested a different and more suitable model from the business world.[1] When a business needs to down size it may (1) institute a hiring freeze, (2) make some layoffs, and/or (3) create incentives for early retirement. The analogues for illegal aliens would be (1) secure borders to stop new illegal violations and settlements, (2) conventional deportations, and (3) the creation of incentives for self-deportation by denying employment opportunities to the illegals.
This is a suitable model because, properly administered, it could be very effective. It is fair because it incorporates the same general rules under which citizens, who have a much higher degree of entitlement, must work.
Even Ruben Navarrette, columnist for the San Diego Union and the darling of the pro-illegals, has conceded the need for some if not all of these measures.[2] He says by way of enforcement that we need to stiffen penalties on employers. This certainly is a way of denying employment opportunities to illegals particularly if those penalties are on an escalating scale. Moreover, he agrees that the word “knowingly” must be removed from any future reform proposals because that loophole permits employers to escape punishment merely by claiming they “didn’t know” an employee was illegal. The elimination of this single word is therefore of vital importance.
Navarrette is serious about enforcement. He would add an identification card, better tools for the border patrol, continued workplace raids, accelerated deportations, arrest of an employer once in a while, and an extension of the deployment of the National Guard at the border. These are all good ways to help enforce the law.
On the other hand, Navarrette wants to legalize those aliens who can prove they have been here 5 years or longer. This is not an unreasonable proposal when it is coupled with his other requirements: irrefutable proof of length of time in the U.S., fluency in English, a $5,000 fine, and a criminal background check. In addition, illegals would have to initiate and process applications for legal entry in their homelands and then accept a position at the back of the line of all prior applicants. Navarrette would also impose a lifetime ban on welfare, food stamps and Medicaid but allow those whose applications are approved to collect whatever they had contributed to Social security.
Krikorian’s “conventional deportations” could be construed to be applicable only to the illegals who have been here less than five years. Limiting deportations to more recent arrivals would be consistent with Navarrette’s recommendation. But since many deportees are back in the U.S. within 24 hours and since 97% of those who attempt to violate the border are ultimately successful, simple deportation is not a solution. Without some additional penalty, deportation is not much of a disincentive for the illegal who wishes to return.
Many will disagree with Navarrette regarding his proposal to increase the allotment of green cards, including H1B visas for highly skilled workers and triple the number of legal immigrants admitted annually to 3 million. The former might be reasonable if that increase is precisely tailored to the demonstrated needs of our economy and approved by local unions and professional organizations. Of course, citizens must be assured first dibs on all jobs at the standard wage rate for citizens with equal credentials and experience.
The proposal to triple the number of legal immigrants ignores all the changes in our society, economy, government, education, technology, natural resources, demography and lifestyles that have occurred since the previous immigration waves of the 19th and early 20th centuries. When proposals of this nature are made there is never any reasonable rationale whereas there is an ample rationale for reducing the number of annual legal immigrants allowed. Declining natural resources, congested highways and streets, and environmental damage are only a few of the many reasons to reduce that number to more like the 200,000 per year. This was the level just a few years ago. According to the UN, the annual output of pollutants by Americans is 20 metric tons per capita. This means that as our population increases by another 300 million people before the end of this century, we will produce another 6 billion tons of pollutants annually at the present rate. Even if we were to be able to reduce our annual output to 10 metric tons per capita (the output of Mexico) we would still be unable to reduce our total annual production of green house gases below the present level, leaving us with the status quo ante.
Labor demands are certainly important as Navarrette suggests but families should be required to apply as a group to avoid the family reunification ploy. Nevertheless, in a competitive world, education and skills cannot be ignored and are certainly far from “silly” as Navarrette has condescendingly called them.
No democratically-elected government, however firm the demands or wishes of their constituents might be, has been able to move quickly to solve problems that profoundly affect the country they are sworn to protect against enemies, foreign and domestic.[3] Often, in its attempts to act, government is unable to avoid policies that have unintended consequences because policymakers rarely understand the scope and long term impact of their actions. Likewise, although members of Congress and the President may understand the need for action they may not fully appreciate the danger or cost or long term effect of further delays. As a result of this lack of a sense of urgency, they fail to expend the energy necessary to achieve compromise on bipartisan solutions to the important problems facing our country. Moreover, they tend to evaluate new proposals in terms of the here and now rather than what those proposals, if enacted, might mean to the long term viability of the American culture, language, ideals, environment, natural resources and prosperity. Their prodigious myopia leads to another set of unintended consequences later when it may be too late to correct their errors.
Just as often it means that Congress and the Administration have failed to comprehend the import of the dramatic changes that have occurred in our country over the last 100 years. Many of them are still living in the past. Their thinking is still constrained by the false idea that since America was once a nation of immigrants with seemingly unlimited natural resources, it should or can always be. They are deluded into thinking the status quo in that regard is in the national interest.
Does this sound like they have changed with the times? Does it sound like they have fully digested all of the changes in our government, economy, population, natural resources, education, technology, demography and lifestyles that should affect their thinking about major problems like immigration, illegal aliens, birthright citizenship, and population growth. The present Administration and the Congress have neither responded to these changes nor to the exigencies of long term population growth occasioned by excessive legal immigration and the uncontrolled, unarmed invasion by illegal aliens, some of whom would do us great harm.
Many proclaim the importance of secure borders but at the same time propose a mass legalization of the illegals already present in the U.S., granting to them what many call, with some justification, an outright amnesty not unlike the failed one of 1986. The 1986 measure assumed that once amnesty was granted to those already here, the borders could then be secured to avoid future problems. Instead, that amnesty gave a green light and extended an open invitation to millions of additional illegals. Obviously, the borders should have been secured before any amnesty was granted and yet, in spite of the aftermath of the 1986 measure, a significant number of those in Congress want to repeat that mistake. It doesn’t matter whether there are some conditions imposed for legalization, this approach will still be perceived as an open invitation for additional millions of illegals. Those who cannot meet the conditions will simply stay on illegally while their progeny acquire birthright citizenship.
The greatest perfidy of many of those who claim that they support secure border is that they offer only lip service and continue to deny the DHS the tools it needs to achieve that goal. Anyone with knowledge about horrendous amount of vehicular and pedestrian traffic and the others circumstances at the borders knows that only the most stringent measures have any hope of success. Improvements in staffing and infrastructure at the borders are bound to fail unless they are buttressed by changes in the rules of engagement and a defense in depth.
The rules of engagement must permit hot pursuit and the use of lethal force against drug runners and other violent criminals encountered in the immediate environs of the border. Other illegals who are apprehended must be detained and required to work on border infrastructure projects at minimum wage for an appropriate time before they are released with the admonition that if they ever return illegally they will do hard time for two years for the first repeat offense and five years for each subsequent offense. No form of catch and release can be permitted even for those apprehended immediately at ports of entry. If illegals are simply escorted back across the border, they will try again and again, sometimes in the same day, with an ultimate success rate of 97%. Obviously, a policy of immediate expulsion is utterly useless and ineffective.
Defense in depth means a program of vigorous and continuous internal enforcement using mandatory E-verification of work status as one of its most important tools. Both employers and employees that violate the rules must face an escalating schedule of penalties sufficient to deter future violations. To be effective the cost of breaking the law must always dramatically exceed the benefits.
Other features of the failed comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) proposals of the past include new forms of visas, major increases in the number of visas granted, and a huge temporary worker program without any teeth to assure that these workers are indeed temporary and that they promptly return to their homelands when their visas expire.
While no one wishes to deny employers the labor they need, immigration policies must assure that foreign workers are paid at the same rate as their citizen counterparts and that they are provided with full family health care coverage so that that cost is not offloaded on the unsuspecting public. Employers must demonstrate that they have been unable to meet their needs by offering their jobs to qualified citizens at a living wage. Otherwise, the importation of cheap foreign labor would constitute unfair competition with citizen workers.
There is a broader issue related to our ability to assimilate large numbers of legal immigrants and illegal aliens or foreign workers. Krikorian has pointed out how the changes in American society have made it much more difficult if not impossible to achieve the kind of assimilation that occurred following past waves of immigration.[4] Trans-nationalism, a cousin of globalism, facilitated by modern communication, is only one of several factors that reduce the probability of assimilation.
The characteristics of our newest immigrants are not that different from those of a century ago. Their faces and their languages may be different but their aspirations, work ethic, and desire to improve their lives and those of their families are not much different from those of the earlier immigrants. They are not necessarily the poorest of the poor but now they come from what many of us would call third world countries. The earlier immigrants from Europe were often poor but they came from countries that were never considered third world. Those countries were the font of learning and scientific achievement.
So what is different today that justifies a more critical view of the newest immigrants and illegal aliens? It is the changes in America itself more than the differences in the immigrants. The society, economy, government and technology of the past, which were so fundamental to our success in dealing with the waves of immigration extending from the middle of the 19th century to the early 20th century, no longer exist. The changes that define modern America mean we can no longer depend on what once worked to assure the assimilation of millions of foreign-born immigrants and illegal aliens.
A vast unsettled continent lay before the Founding Fathers and their successors. Its natural resources were virtually untapped and appeared limitless. Arable land and water were abundant. Family farms were scattered across the landscape and farming, hunting, fishing and herding employed more Americans than any other occupation. Now thirsty cities are buying up water rights to serve their burgeoning populations leaving behind the land made unproductive by the lack of water resources. The ranches and farms will no longer be able to produce the food needed to feed the growing numbers of Americans as our population doubles again by the end of this century to 600 million people.
When one young leader spoke eloquently and passionately in 1933 about the need for change and denounced the old system, the people were receptive.[5] Elsewhere, in 1950, another such leader sounded a similar note. The press fell in love with both and never questioned who their friends were or what they really believed in, until it was too late and the moment had passed. When they said they would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, the adulation was predictable. When they promised to restore lost power and bring justice and equality to all, the people said, Heil!” or “Viva Fidel”. When these leaders said, “I will be for change and I’ll bring you change” the cheers were unending. Does that sound familiar?
But nobody asked about the change, so by the time the concentration camps were set up and the executioner’s guns rang out, the people’s guns had been taken away. By the time everyone was equal, they had no rights and equality was worth nothing. By the time the press noticed, it was too late because it was now controlled by the government or the propaganda ministry. The endings of these stories are well-known. Millions died, treasuries were depleted, and more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes to escape the tyranny of change.
Luckily, in America, we would never fall for a young leader who promised change without asking, what change? How will you carry it out? What will it cost America? How is the change you offer different from the change all politicians offer? And the free media would never be seduced by political rhetoric of change. Instead it would examine all of the consequences of proposed changes and ask the hard questions about how these changes would be paid for while paying down the national debt, balancing the budget, restoring the value of the dollar, and repairing America’s decaying infrastructure. No, we wouldn’t do that in America, would we?
To suggest that the main reason for the opposition to excessive legal immigration and the flood of illegal aliens is the fact that they are not from Northern Europe is at once an error and a gross oversimplification. Nevertheless, this is the chief argument of those like Ruben Navarrette who refers disdainfully to those who disagree with him as “nativists”.
Immigrants in the past were largely white, but now they are not; they used to want to assimilate, but now they don’t; they used to be self-sufficient, but now they seek out government assistance. We’ve all heard those laments and they are largely true. But the America of our ancestors no longer exists and that is a fact. Change, of course, is inevitable. Some changes will be good; other changes will be bad as they were in the Germany of the 1930s and the Cuba of the 1950s and beyond. We all welcome the spread of cheap communications and transportation but mourn the weakening of our communities; the establishment of trans-national communities; acceptance dual citizenship; the failure to enforce, language, citizenship and immigration laws; the use of drugs; the spread of fast foods; the dumbing down of our schools, the excessive cost of education and health care; and the inactivity and increasing obesity of our children.
Certain changes have been embraced by some but not by others; the growth in government, for instance, is seen by the Left as recognition of our social responsibility to the poor and the marginalized but feared by the Right as likely to erode liberty and personal responsibility and require confiscatory taxes. One presidential candidate promises higher taxes, the other advocates making the present tax rates permanent. Neither discusses paying down the national debt, balancing budget, fixing our decaying infrastructure or restoring world confidence in the dollar as the international medium of exchange. One proposes various alternative energy initiatives coupled with a new push for conservation but opposes development of known oil fields and nuclear power. The other sees offshore drilling as essential to provide oil during the lengthy transition period to alternative energy sources and for the other uses of oil and petrochemicals that cannot easily be replaced.
We are all familiar with the inherent characteristics of our modern society and how they affect the way we live. Fewer understand or even think about how immigration undermines many of the objectives that our modern, middle-class society sets for itself and exacerbates many of the problems brought on by modernization. As Mark Krikorian put it, “…mass immigration is incompatible with a modern society”. John Fonte, a Hudson Institute scholar, stated it even more succinctly, “It’s not 1900 anymore.” Those who keep haranguing us about our immigrant past fail to see how changes in our society make it a whole new ball game that needs fresh thinking rather than remaining mired in the past.
The process of Americanizing immigrants was tumultuous and wrenching for everyone involved but eventually successful. Those prior immigrants have indeed become one people because American nationality is not based on blood relations, like a biological family, but is more like a family growing partly by adoption, where new immigrants attach themselves to their new country and embrace the cultural and civic values of their native-born brethren as their own. Instead of rejecting the moral underpinnings of our republic as the archaic thoughts of some crusty old men, the earlier immigrants earned the right to claim those moral principles as their own as though they were blood of blood, and flesh of flesh of the men who wrote the Declaration of Independence, and so they are.
This was illustrated poignantly in 1920 when Japanese American children in Honolulu’s McKinley High School referred to “our Pilgrim forefathers” and were able to recite the Gettysburg Address from memory. And they had every right to do so because they had adopted those moral principles on which our country was founded and which were totally foreign to the country of origin of their parents.
The changes in America since the mid 1800s and early 1900s are many. Some examples of those changes are as follows:[6]
Economy: A century ago, what economists call the primary sector of the economy (farming, fishing, hunting, and herding) still employed more Americans than any other, as it had from the dawn of humankind. Today only 2 percent of our workforce occupies itself in this way. Meanwhile, the tertiary sector (service industries) now employs 80 percent of working Americans, and the percentage is climbing.
Education: Along with the change in the economy, education has become more widespread. Nearly a quarter of American adults had less than 5 years of schooling in 1910; as of 2000, that figure is less than 2 percent. Likewise, the percentage that had completed high school increased six fold, from about 13 percent of the totals to 84 percent. And the percent of college graduates increased tenfold from 2.7 to 27 percent. Another way to look at it is that in 1900, only a little more than 10 percent of high-school age children were actually enrolled in school; in 2001, nearly 95 percent were.
Technology: In 1915, a three-minute call from New York to San Francisco cost about $20.70 (about $343 in 2000 dollars); the same call in 2000 cost 36 cents. In 1908, a Model T cost more than two years’ worth of the typical worker’s wages; a Ford Taurus in 1997 (a much better car) cost eight months’ work. A thousand-mile airline trip in 1920 would have cost the average American 220 work hours; by 2000, it cost perhaps 11 work hours.
Demography: The birthrate fell by half during the past century, while infant mortality fell by 93 percent. In 1915, sixty-one out of 10,000 mothers died during childbirth; in 2001, only one out of 100,000 did. Life expectancy went from 47 years in 1900 to 77 years a century later, while people 65 and older have tripled as a share of the nation’s population, from about 4 percent to more than 12 percent.
Government: In 1900, total government spending at all levels equaled about 5.5 percent of the economy; by 2003, it was more than 36 percent. Total government employment (federal, state and local) went from little more than 1 million in 1900 (about 4 percent of the workforce) to more than 22 million in 2000 (more than 16 percent of the workforce).
Lifestyle: America’s population was still 60 percent rural in 1900; in 2000, only 21 percent of Americans lived in rural areas (and only a tiny fraction was involved in farming). The average household went from more than 4.5 people to a little more than 2.5, while the number of people per room in the average house fell from 1.1 in 1910 to 0.4 in 1997.
These major changes require new policies and outlooks regarding immigration and our ability to maintain the cohesiveness of our country through effective assimilation and the discouragement of trans-national enclaves and communities. The original ideal of our country are timeless but the willingness of legal immigrants and illegal aliens to accept them is in doubt
This is not to say that the national goal should be zero net immigration. Again Krikorian has the right idea.[7] He suggests a zero-based budgeting approach. This would mean that rather than dealing with reductions from the previous level of immigration we should start with zero immigration and then work up. “From zero we must then consider what categories of immigrants are so important to the national interest that their admission warrants risking the kinds of problems…” [8] inherent in excessive immigration numbers. The three major categories that must be considered are: family-based, skills-based, and humanitarian immigration. Navarrette again agrees with Krikorian that family-based immigration makes no sense except for spouses and minor children. “The others are grown adults with their own lives, for whom “family reunification” is a misnomer.[9] Navarrette would abandon the skills-education criterion and shift it to a needs basis. In other words, if we need nurses, our immigration policies should enable a fast track for the admission of those with skills and credentials in this area. I would add fluency in English as a criterion for those professions, like medicine, where this is important. In fact, I would give special consideration and priority to all applicants who are fluent in English. Krikorian suggests that aliens of extraordinary ability and outstanding professors and researchers should also be admitted quickly with a minimum of bureaucratic delay.
Policymakers have not changed with the times. They have not have fully digested all of the changes in our government, economy, population, natural resources, education, technology, demography and lifestyles that should affect their thinking about major problems like immigration, illegal aliens, birthright citizenship, and population growth. The present administration and the Congress have neither responded to these changes nor to the exigencies of long term population growth occasioned by excessive legal immigration and the uncontrolled, unarmed invasion by illegal aliens, some of whom would do us great harm.
There is a broader issue related our ability to assimilate large numbers of legal immigrants and illegal aliens or foreign workers. Krikorian has pointed out how the changes in American society have made it much more difficult if not impossible to achieve the kind of assimilation that occurred as a result of past waves of immigration.[10]
The characteristics of our newest immigrants are not that different from those of a century ago. Their faces and their languages may be different but their aspirations, work ethic, and desire to improve their lives and those of their families are not much different from those of the earlier immigrants. They are not necessarily the poorest of the poor but now they come from what many of us would call third world countries. The earlier immigrants from Europe were often poor but they came from countries that were never considered third world.
So what is different today that justifies a more critical view of the newest immigrants and illegal aliens? It is the changes in America itself more than the differences in the immigrants. The society, economy, government and technology of the past, which were so fundamental to our success in dealing with the waves of immigration extending from the middle of the 19th century to the early 20th century, no longer exist. The changes that define modern America mean we can no longer depend on what once worked to assure the assimilation of millions of foreign-born immigrants and illegal aliens.
A vast unsettled continent lay before the Founding Fathers and their successors. Its natural resources were virtually untapped and appeared limitless. Arable land and water were abundant. Family farms were scattered across the landscape and farming, hunting, fishing and herding employed more Americans than any other occupation. Now thirsty cities are buying up water rights to serve their burgeoning populations leaving behind the land made unproductive by the lack of water resources. The ranches and farms will no longer be able to produce the food needed to feed the growing numbers of Americans as our population doubles by the end of this century. It appears no one is paying attention.
[1] Mark Krikorian, The New Case against Immigration, (New York: Penguin Group,2008),p. 217
[2] http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/23/navarrette/index.html
[3] [3] Adapted from Karen Kornbluh, “Families Valued”, Democracy, A Journal of Ideas, Issue #2, fall 2006, p.1.
[4] Krikorian, Op.Cit., p.10.
[5] Adapted from Manuel Alvarez, Jr.’s letter to the Richmond, VA Times Dispatch, “Beware of charismatic men who preach change”, July 7, 2008
[6] Krikorian, Op.Cit., pp. 2-4.
[7] Krikorian, Op.Cit., P.228.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Krikorian, Op. Cit., p. 227
[10] Krikorian, Op.Cit., pp. 10-45.
Krikorian has suggested a different and more suitable model from the business world.[1] When a business needs to down size it may (1) institute a hiring freeze, (2) make some layoffs, and/or (3) create incentives for early retirement. The analogues for illegal aliens would be (1) secure borders to stop new illegal violations and settlements, (2) conventional deportations, and (3) the creation of incentives for self-deportation by denying employment opportunities to the illegals.
This is a suitable model because, properly administered, it could be very effective. It is fair because it incorporates the same general rules under which citizens, who have a much higher degree of entitlement, must work.
Even Ruben Navarrette, columnist for the San Diego Union and the darling of the pro-illegals, has conceded the need for some if not all of these measures.[2] He says by way of enforcement that we need to stiffen penalties on employers. This certainly is a way of denying employment opportunities to illegals particularly if those penalties are on an escalating scale. Moreover, he agrees that the word “knowingly” must be removed from any future reform proposals because that loophole permits employers to escape punishment merely by claiming they “didn’t know” an employee was illegal. The elimination of this single word is therefore of vital importance.
Navarrette is serious about enforcement. He would add an identification card, better tools for the border patrol, continued workplace raids, accelerated deportations, arrest of an employer once in a while, and an extension of the deployment of the National Guard at the border. These are all good ways to help enforce the law.
On the other hand, Navarrette wants to legalize those aliens who can prove they have been here 5 years or longer. This is not an unreasonable proposal when it is coupled with his other requirements: irrefutable proof of length of time in the U.S., fluency in English, a $5,000 fine, and a criminal background check. In addition, illegals would have to initiate and process applications for legal entry in their homelands and then accept a position at the back of the line of all prior applicants. Navarrette would also impose a lifetime ban on welfare, food stamps and Medicaid but allow those whose applications are approved to collect whatever they had contributed to Social security.
Krikorian’s “conventional deportations” could be construed to be applicable only to the illegals who have been here less than five years. Limiting deportations to more recent arrivals would be consistent with Navarrette’s recommendation. But since many deportees are back in the U.S. within 24 hours and since 97% of those who attempt to violate the border are ultimately successful, simple deportation is not a solution. Without some additional penalty, deportation is not much of a disincentive for the illegal who wishes to return.
Many will disagree with Navarrette regarding his proposal to increase the allotment of green cards, including H1B visas for highly skilled workers and triple the number of legal immigrants admitted annually to 3 million. The former might be reasonable if that increase is precisely tailored to the demonstrated needs of our economy and approved by local unions and professional organizations. Of course, citizens must be assured first dibs on all jobs at the standard wage rate for citizens with equal credentials and experience.
The proposal to triple the number of legal immigrants ignores all the changes in our society, economy, government, education, technology, natural resources, demography and lifestyles that have occurred since the previous immigration waves of the 19th and early 20th centuries. When proposals of this nature are made there is never any reasonable rationale whereas there is an ample rationale for reducing the number of annual legal immigrants allowed. Declining natural resources, congested highways and streets, and environmental damage are only a few of the many reasons to reduce that number to more like the 200,000 per year. This was the level just a few years ago. According to the UN, the annual output of pollutants by Americans is 20 metric tons per capita. This means that as our population increases by another 300 million people before the end of this century, we will produce another 6 billion tons of pollutants annually at the present rate. Even if we were to be able to reduce our annual output to 10 metric tons per capita (the output of Mexico) we would still be unable to reduce our total annual production of green house gases below the present level, leaving us with the status quo ante.
Labor demands are certainly important as Navarrette suggests but families should be required to apply as a group to avoid the family reunification ploy. Nevertheless, in a competitive world, education and skills cannot be ignored and are certainly far from “silly” as Navarrette has condescendingly called them.
No democratically-elected government, however firm the demands or wishes of their constituents might be, has been able to move quickly to solve problems that profoundly affect the country they are sworn to protect against enemies, foreign and domestic.[3] Often, in its attempts to act, government is unable to avoid policies that have unintended consequences because policymakers rarely understand the scope and long term impact of their actions. Likewise, although members of Congress and the President may understand the need for action they may not fully appreciate the danger or cost or long term effect of further delays. As a result of this lack of a sense of urgency, they fail to expend the energy necessary to achieve compromise on bipartisan solutions to the important problems facing our country. Moreover, they tend to evaluate new proposals in terms of the here and now rather than what those proposals, if enacted, might mean to the long term viability of the American culture, language, ideals, environment, natural resources and prosperity. Their prodigious myopia leads to another set of unintended consequences later when it may be too late to correct their errors.
Just as often it means that Congress and the Administration have failed to comprehend the import of the dramatic changes that have occurred in our country over the last 100 years. Many of them are still living in the past. Their thinking is still constrained by the false idea that since America was once a nation of immigrants with seemingly unlimited natural resources, it should or can always be. They are deluded into thinking the status quo in that regard is in the national interest.
Does this sound like they have changed with the times? Does it sound like they have fully digested all of the changes in our government, economy, population, natural resources, education, technology, demography and lifestyles that should affect their thinking about major problems like immigration, illegal aliens, birthright citizenship, and population growth. The present Administration and the Congress have neither responded to these changes nor to the exigencies of long term population growth occasioned by excessive legal immigration and the uncontrolled, unarmed invasion by illegal aliens, some of whom would do us great harm.
Many proclaim the importance of secure borders but at the same time propose a mass legalization of the illegals already present in the U.S., granting to them what many call, with some justification, an outright amnesty not unlike the failed one of 1986. The 1986 measure assumed that once amnesty was granted to those already here, the borders could then be secured to avoid future problems. Instead, that amnesty gave a green light and extended an open invitation to millions of additional illegals. Obviously, the borders should have been secured before any amnesty was granted and yet, in spite of the aftermath of the 1986 measure, a significant number of those in Congress want to repeat that mistake. It doesn’t matter whether there are some conditions imposed for legalization, this approach will still be perceived as an open invitation for additional millions of illegals. Those who cannot meet the conditions will simply stay on illegally while their progeny acquire birthright citizenship.
The greatest perfidy of many of those who claim that they support secure border is that they offer only lip service and continue to deny the DHS the tools it needs to achieve that goal. Anyone with knowledge about horrendous amount of vehicular and pedestrian traffic and the others circumstances at the borders knows that only the most stringent measures have any hope of success. Improvements in staffing and infrastructure at the borders are bound to fail unless they are buttressed by changes in the rules of engagement and a defense in depth.
The rules of engagement must permit hot pursuit and the use of lethal force against drug runners and other violent criminals encountered in the immediate environs of the border. Other illegals who are apprehended must be detained and required to work on border infrastructure projects at minimum wage for an appropriate time before they are released with the admonition that if they ever return illegally they will do hard time for two years for the first repeat offense and five years for each subsequent offense. No form of catch and release can be permitted even for those apprehended immediately at ports of entry. If illegals are simply escorted back across the border, they will try again and again, sometimes in the same day, with an ultimate success rate of 97%. Obviously, a policy of immediate expulsion is utterly useless and ineffective.
Defense in depth means a program of vigorous and continuous internal enforcement using mandatory E-verification of work status as one of its most important tools. Both employers and employees that violate the rules must face an escalating schedule of penalties sufficient to deter future violations. To be effective the cost of breaking the law must always dramatically exceed the benefits.
Other features of the failed comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) proposals of the past include new forms of visas, major increases in the number of visas granted, and a huge temporary worker program without any teeth to assure that these workers are indeed temporary and that they promptly return to their homelands when their visas expire.
While no one wishes to deny employers the labor they need, immigration policies must assure that foreign workers are paid at the same rate as their citizen counterparts and that they are provided with full family health care coverage so that that cost is not offloaded on the unsuspecting public. Employers must demonstrate that they have been unable to meet their needs by offering their jobs to qualified citizens at a living wage. Otherwise, the importation of cheap foreign labor would constitute unfair competition with citizen workers.
There is a broader issue related to our ability to assimilate large numbers of legal immigrants and illegal aliens or foreign workers. Krikorian has pointed out how the changes in American society have made it much more difficult if not impossible to achieve the kind of assimilation that occurred following past waves of immigration.[4] Trans-nationalism, a cousin of globalism, facilitated by modern communication, is only one of several factors that reduce the probability of assimilation.
The characteristics of our newest immigrants are not that different from those of a century ago. Their faces and their languages may be different but their aspirations, work ethic, and desire to improve their lives and those of their families are not much different from those of the earlier immigrants. They are not necessarily the poorest of the poor but now they come from what many of us would call third world countries. The earlier immigrants from Europe were often poor but they came from countries that were never considered third world. Those countries were the font of learning and scientific achievement.
So what is different today that justifies a more critical view of the newest immigrants and illegal aliens? It is the changes in America itself more than the differences in the immigrants. The society, economy, government and technology of the past, which were so fundamental to our success in dealing with the waves of immigration extending from the middle of the 19th century to the early 20th century, no longer exist. The changes that define modern America mean we can no longer depend on what once worked to assure the assimilation of millions of foreign-born immigrants and illegal aliens.
A vast unsettled continent lay before the Founding Fathers and their successors. Its natural resources were virtually untapped and appeared limitless. Arable land and water were abundant. Family farms were scattered across the landscape and farming, hunting, fishing and herding employed more Americans than any other occupation. Now thirsty cities are buying up water rights to serve their burgeoning populations leaving behind the land made unproductive by the lack of water resources. The ranches and farms will no longer be able to produce the food needed to feed the growing numbers of Americans as our population doubles again by the end of this century to 600 million people.
When one young leader spoke eloquently and passionately in 1933 about the need for change and denounced the old system, the people were receptive.[5] Elsewhere, in 1950, another such leader sounded a similar note. The press fell in love with both and never questioned who their friends were or what they really believed in, until it was too late and the moment had passed. When they said they would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, the adulation was predictable. When they promised to restore lost power and bring justice and equality to all, the people said, Heil!” or “Viva Fidel”. When these leaders said, “I will be for change and I’ll bring you change” the cheers were unending. Does that sound familiar?
But nobody asked about the change, so by the time the concentration camps were set up and the executioner’s guns rang out, the people’s guns had been taken away. By the time everyone was equal, they had no rights and equality was worth nothing. By the time the press noticed, it was too late because it was now controlled by the government or the propaganda ministry. The endings of these stories are well-known. Millions died, treasuries were depleted, and more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes to escape the tyranny of change.
Luckily, in America, we would never fall for a young leader who promised change without asking, what change? How will you carry it out? What will it cost America? How is the change you offer different from the change all politicians offer? And the free media would never be seduced by political rhetoric of change. Instead it would examine all of the consequences of proposed changes and ask the hard questions about how these changes would be paid for while paying down the national debt, balancing the budget, restoring the value of the dollar, and repairing America’s decaying infrastructure. No, we wouldn’t do that in America, would we?
To suggest that the main reason for the opposition to excessive legal immigration and the flood of illegal aliens is the fact that they are not from Northern Europe is at once an error and a gross oversimplification. Nevertheless, this is the chief argument of those like Ruben Navarrette who refers disdainfully to those who disagree with him as “nativists”.
Immigrants in the past were largely white, but now they are not; they used to want to assimilate, but now they don’t; they used to be self-sufficient, but now they seek out government assistance. We’ve all heard those laments and they are largely true. But the America of our ancestors no longer exists and that is a fact. Change, of course, is inevitable. Some changes will be good; other changes will be bad as they were in the Germany of the 1930s and the Cuba of the 1950s and beyond. We all welcome the spread of cheap communications and transportation but mourn the weakening of our communities; the establishment of trans-national communities; acceptance dual citizenship; the failure to enforce, language, citizenship and immigration laws; the use of drugs; the spread of fast foods; the dumbing down of our schools, the excessive cost of education and health care; and the inactivity and increasing obesity of our children.
Certain changes have been embraced by some but not by others; the growth in government, for instance, is seen by the Left as recognition of our social responsibility to the poor and the marginalized but feared by the Right as likely to erode liberty and personal responsibility and require confiscatory taxes. One presidential candidate promises higher taxes, the other advocates making the present tax rates permanent. Neither discusses paying down the national debt, balancing budget, fixing our decaying infrastructure or restoring world confidence in the dollar as the international medium of exchange. One proposes various alternative energy initiatives coupled with a new push for conservation but opposes development of known oil fields and nuclear power. The other sees offshore drilling as essential to provide oil during the lengthy transition period to alternative energy sources and for the other uses of oil and petrochemicals that cannot easily be replaced.
We are all familiar with the inherent characteristics of our modern society and how they affect the way we live. Fewer understand or even think about how immigration undermines many of the objectives that our modern, middle-class society sets for itself and exacerbates many of the problems brought on by modernization. As Mark Krikorian put it, “…mass immigration is incompatible with a modern society”. John Fonte, a Hudson Institute scholar, stated it even more succinctly, “It’s not 1900 anymore.” Those who keep haranguing us about our immigrant past fail to see how changes in our society make it a whole new ball game that needs fresh thinking rather than remaining mired in the past.
The process of Americanizing immigrants was tumultuous and wrenching for everyone involved but eventually successful. Those prior immigrants have indeed become one people because American nationality is not based on blood relations, like a biological family, but is more like a family growing partly by adoption, where new immigrants attach themselves to their new country and embrace the cultural and civic values of their native-born brethren as their own. Instead of rejecting the moral underpinnings of our republic as the archaic thoughts of some crusty old men, the earlier immigrants earned the right to claim those moral principles as their own as though they were blood of blood, and flesh of flesh of the men who wrote the Declaration of Independence, and so they are.
This was illustrated poignantly in 1920 when Japanese American children in Honolulu’s McKinley High School referred to “our Pilgrim forefathers” and were able to recite the Gettysburg Address from memory. And they had every right to do so because they had adopted those moral principles on which our country was founded and which were totally foreign to the country of origin of their parents.
The changes in America since the mid 1800s and early 1900s are many. Some examples of those changes are as follows:[6]
Economy: A century ago, what economists call the primary sector of the economy (farming, fishing, hunting, and herding) still employed more Americans than any other, as it had from the dawn of humankind. Today only 2 percent of our workforce occupies itself in this way. Meanwhile, the tertiary sector (service industries) now employs 80 percent of working Americans, and the percentage is climbing.
Education: Along with the change in the economy, education has become more widespread. Nearly a quarter of American adults had less than 5 years of schooling in 1910; as of 2000, that figure is less than 2 percent. Likewise, the percentage that had completed high school increased six fold, from about 13 percent of the totals to 84 percent. And the percent of college graduates increased tenfold from 2.7 to 27 percent. Another way to look at it is that in 1900, only a little more than 10 percent of high-school age children were actually enrolled in school; in 2001, nearly 95 percent were.
Technology: In 1915, a three-minute call from New York to San Francisco cost about $20.70 (about $343 in 2000 dollars); the same call in 2000 cost 36 cents. In 1908, a Model T cost more than two years’ worth of the typical worker’s wages; a Ford Taurus in 1997 (a much better car) cost eight months’ work. A thousand-mile airline trip in 1920 would have cost the average American 220 work hours; by 2000, it cost perhaps 11 work hours.
Demography: The birthrate fell by half during the past century, while infant mortality fell by 93 percent. In 1915, sixty-one out of 10,000 mothers died during childbirth; in 2001, only one out of 100,000 did. Life expectancy went from 47 years in 1900 to 77 years a century later, while people 65 and older have tripled as a share of the nation’s population, from about 4 percent to more than 12 percent.
Government: In 1900, total government spending at all levels equaled about 5.5 percent of the economy; by 2003, it was more than 36 percent. Total government employment (federal, state and local) went from little more than 1 million in 1900 (about 4 percent of the workforce) to more than 22 million in 2000 (more than 16 percent of the workforce).
Lifestyle: America’s population was still 60 percent rural in 1900; in 2000, only 21 percent of Americans lived in rural areas (and only a tiny fraction was involved in farming). The average household went from more than 4.5 people to a little more than 2.5, while the number of people per room in the average house fell from 1.1 in 1910 to 0.4 in 1997.
These major changes require new policies and outlooks regarding immigration and our ability to maintain the cohesiveness of our country through effective assimilation and the discouragement of trans-national enclaves and communities. The original ideal of our country are timeless but the willingness of legal immigrants and illegal aliens to accept them is in doubt
This is not to say that the national goal should be zero net immigration. Again Krikorian has the right idea.[7] He suggests a zero-based budgeting approach. This would mean that rather than dealing with reductions from the previous level of immigration we should start with zero immigration and then work up. “From zero we must then consider what categories of immigrants are so important to the national interest that their admission warrants risking the kinds of problems…” [8] inherent in excessive immigration numbers. The three major categories that must be considered are: family-based, skills-based, and humanitarian immigration. Navarrette again agrees with Krikorian that family-based immigration makes no sense except for spouses and minor children. “The others are grown adults with their own lives, for whom “family reunification” is a misnomer.[9] Navarrette would abandon the skills-education criterion and shift it to a needs basis. In other words, if we need nurses, our immigration policies should enable a fast track for the admission of those with skills and credentials in this area. I would add fluency in English as a criterion for those professions, like medicine, where this is important. In fact, I would give special consideration and priority to all applicants who are fluent in English. Krikorian suggests that aliens of extraordinary ability and outstanding professors and researchers should also be admitted quickly with a minimum of bureaucratic delay.
Policymakers have not changed with the times. They have not have fully digested all of the changes in our government, economy, population, natural resources, education, technology, demography and lifestyles that should affect their thinking about major problems like immigration, illegal aliens, birthright citizenship, and population growth. The present administration and the Congress have neither responded to these changes nor to the exigencies of long term population growth occasioned by excessive legal immigration and the uncontrolled, unarmed invasion by illegal aliens, some of whom would do us great harm.
There is a broader issue related our ability to assimilate large numbers of legal immigrants and illegal aliens or foreign workers. Krikorian has pointed out how the changes in American society have made it much more difficult if not impossible to achieve the kind of assimilation that occurred as a result of past waves of immigration.[10]
The characteristics of our newest immigrants are not that different from those of a century ago. Their faces and their languages may be different but their aspirations, work ethic, and desire to improve their lives and those of their families are not much different from those of the earlier immigrants. They are not necessarily the poorest of the poor but now they come from what many of us would call third world countries. The earlier immigrants from Europe were often poor but they came from countries that were never considered third world.
So what is different today that justifies a more critical view of the newest immigrants and illegal aliens? It is the changes in America itself more than the differences in the immigrants. The society, economy, government and technology of the past, which were so fundamental to our success in dealing with the waves of immigration extending from the middle of the 19th century to the early 20th century, no longer exist. The changes that define modern America mean we can no longer depend on what once worked to assure the assimilation of millions of foreign-born immigrants and illegal aliens.
A vast unsettled continent lay before the Founding Fathers and their successors. Its natural resources were virtually untapped and appeared limitless. Arable land and water were abundant. Family farms were scattered across the landscape and farming, hunting, fishing and herding employed more Americans than any other occupation. Now thirsty cities are buying up water rights to serve their burgeoning populations leaving behind the land made unproductive by the lack of water resources. The ranches and farms will no longer be able to produce the food needed to feed the growing numbers of Americans as our population doubles by the end of this century. It appears no one is paying attention.
[1] Mark Krikorian, The New Case against Immigration, (New York: Penguin Group,2008),p. 217
[2] http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/23/navarrette/index.html
[3] [3] Adapted from Karen Kornbluh, “Families Valued”, Democracy, A Journal of Ideas, Issue #2, fall 2006, p.1.
[4] Krikorian, Op.Cit., p.10.
[5] Adapted from Manuel Alvarez, Jr.’s letter to the Richmond, VA Times Dispatch, “Beware of charismatic men who preach change”, July 7, 2008
[6] Krikorian, Op.Cit., pp. 2-4.
[7] Krikorian, Op.Cit., P.228.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Krikorian, Op. Cit., p. 227
[10] Krikorian, Op.Cit., pp. 10-45.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)