Showing posts with label immigration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label immigration. Show all posts
Sunday, March 10, 2013
Thursday, August 2, 2012
Dee Perez-Scott: The Limits of Immigration and Propagation
Even Dee Perez-Scott should appreciate the in-depth, multi-part series on global population growth in the Lost Angeles Times. The series, by Kenneth Weiss , touches briefly on U.S. population growth, which is the fastest in the developed world, and hints at immigration and migration factors. Hopefully, the series will cause some people to question why the United States sets such a poor example for the rest of the world by forcing U.S. population growth at a time when other countries are desperate to stabilize.
As most people know, it is rare for today's media to take a careful look at any kind of population issues. In particular, the media have failed in its duty to inform the public regularly and repeatedly on the causes, consequences and limits of population growth in America. As is article points out, there are limits to such finite natural resources as water, arable land and minerals and therefore the more people there are, the more poverty and hunger there will be. In the U.S., a declining standard of living, already in evidence, and a reduction in the quality of life will be among the results for the common people who cannot affluent to live in a gated communities or enjoy the other material things affluence can provide.
But there will be people like Dee who will turn a blind eye to this trend as long as they can avoid all but the imperceptible consequences of population growth driven by inane immigration and tax policies. They will not wake up until it is too late.
To read the full series see
Beyond 7 Billion
As most people know, it is rare for today's media to take a careful look at any kind of population issues. In particular, the media have failed in its duty to inform the public regularly and repeatedly on the causes, consequences and limits of population growth in America. As is article points out, there are limits to such finite natural resources as water, arable land and minerals and therefore the more people there are, the more poverty and hunger there will be. In the U.S., a declining standard of living, already in evidence, and a reduction in the quality of life will be among the results for the common people who cannot affluent to live in a gated communities or enjoy the other material things affluence can provide.
But there will be people like Dee who will turn a blind eye to this trend as long as they can avoid all but the imperceptible consequences of population growth driven by inane immigration and tax policies. They will not wake up until it is too late.
To read the full series see
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Dee Perez-Scott: Loyalty, Racism and Population
The open society of modern America—combining individual rights, a market economy and a modest safety net—is the closest the world has yet come to the good society. Mass illegal entry combined with excessive legal immigration into the U.S., without the appropriate metering and integration of newcomers, is endangering that unique combination of individual liberty and social unity.
It is doing so by changing the face of many towns and cities too rapidly, eroding the belief that existing citizens come first and weakening a sense of mutual obligation expressed through the tax and benefit system. Citizens who are the ethnic brethren of immigrants or illegal aliens often abandon their obligations to their fellow citizens, choosing instead to give precedence to the newcomers without regard to the cost and the tearing of the social fabric that results.
There is nothing mystical about the nation-state. Anyone can join (if invited) so long as they learn the language and respect the traditions of the country. A commitment to a nation-state requires loyalty and support for national sovereignty. After a long and often bloody pre-history the modern nation-state is still the only institution that can currently deliver what citizens, of both right and left, want: democratic legitimacy for the exercise of power; cross-ethnicity, cross-class and cross-generational unity and cohesiveness and even a sense of collective identification that is bigger, better and more tangible than ethnic identities, families and neighborhoods. There is little sign that any other type of organization would be an improvement over the nation-state.
And for the nation-state to work it must entail borders and boundaries and it must "belong" to existing citizens—on important matters they must have special rights over non-citizens. That means immigration must be managed with the interests of existing citizens in mind. The question is what are those interests? First and foremost must be the maintenance of the standard of living and quality of life of the existing citizens. Second, of course, is a feeling of solidarity regarding the national interest. Third and unbending loyalty to the nation-state rather than to any foreigners or foreign interest or potentates.
Immigration does not in itself endanger the nation-state, but when it happens illegally, very quickly and on a very large scale and when many illegal aliens and immigrants choose to live in cultural enclaves it does do so.
That, alas, is what has been happening in America. The intended or unintended consequences of the failure of government to enforce immigration policies combined with multicultural politics convey the message that you can enter and remain here illegally and that the rule of law means nothing. This state of affairs has alienated voters across the U.S and given rise to populist parties that assert that taxes are too high because of the demands of the immigrants, illegal aliens and their progeny and their fellow-travelers among the liberals, progressives and disloyal citizens.
In several European countries the immigrant and ethnic minority population is rising to 15% or 20%. One leading demographer has said that on current trends Britain will be "majority minority" by 2066. Even in America there are now those who chortle about the rising majority-minority. Some large towns are already have a high percentage of minorities. This sudden and largely unplanned demographic shift has damaged trust between citizens and generated segregation, fear and unwarranted accusations of racism or hate.
The sheer size of some minority communities has made it easier to live apart in "little Kabul" or "little Havana", and so on. The rising influence of racist orgainzations like La Raza, MEChA and MALDEF is a harbinger of America's political future. A conservative Islam, insistent on Sharia Law first for their own communities and then for all of America, is yet another indication of a failed immigration policy that has balkanized a once united America. And unlike the America of a few years ago where hard work acted as an integrating force, today's overly-generous welfare system has created too many immigrant dependents and 14th Amendment baby families, triggering resentment among mainstream taxpayers who have to pick up the tab.
There is, of course, good immigration too. Supporters like to overstate the creativity and dynamism of some young migrants, their willingness to do dirty or under-rewarded jobs (like stoop labor) that few natives want, their relative youth in an ageing America. But these benefits would have to be very large, and demonstrable, to compensate for the cost and cultural and social disruption caused by over-rapid immigration and illegal entry. style="font-weight:bold;"> But they are not! Almost all the economic analyses of mass immigration in recent years have found that the positive effects on employment, wages and per head growth in economic activity is, at best, marginal. Similarly, on the question of fiscal benefit, productive immigrants like Poles probably pay in more than they take out, but less productive ones like Somalis (in Britain, only 25% of them work) do the opposite.
Moreover, costs and benefits are unevenly distributed: employers and richer people benefit, as do many consumers and, of course, immigrants themselves. But low-skilled workers (often recent migrants) face lower wages, and while immigrants create as well as take jobs, the creating takes longer than the taking. Because it is concentrated at the top and bottom, mass immigration reinforces inequality and reduces social mobility (one-third of professional jobs in London are taken by people born outside Britain). It adds to urban congestion, increases pressure on public services and housing, and discourages employers from training, especially hard-to-reach youngsters such as those who have been busy looting in recent days in London.
No sensible person wants a complete halt to immigration, but America needs a dramatic slowdown(like the "pause" from 1920 to 1965) to absorb the large inflows of recent decades and a re-focusing of the quotas on skilled or well-educated immigrants who are likely and There will be some economic costs of a slowdown, but if democratic politics fails to deal with this existential issue on which there is such a settled popular will the resulting backlash will threaten the sharp decline in overt racism of the past 30 years. Young people now have a somewhat liberal view of race and gender but they have become much less generous on welfare, poverty and redistribution of wealth. That is not just because of the mishandling of mass immigration—affluence. Individualism has played a role too. But that makes it even more important to rein in mass immigration before America loses its unique balance between individual rights and mutual obligation.
It is doing so by changing the face of many towns and cities too rapidly, eroding the belief that existing citizens come first and weakening a sense of mutual obligation expressed through the tax and benefit system. Citizens who are the ethnic brethren of immigrants or illegal aliens often abandon their obligations to their fellow citizens, choosing instead to give precedence to the newcomers without regard to the cost and the tearing of the social fabric that results.
There is nothing mystical about the nation-state. Anyone can join (if invited) so long as they learn the language and respect the traditions of the country. A commitment to a nation-state requires loyalty and support for national sovereignty. After a long and often bloody pre-history the modern nation-state is still the only institution that can currently deliver what citizens, of both right and left, want: democratic legitimacy for the exercise of power; cross-ethnicity, cross-class and cross-generational unity and cohesiveness and even a sense of collective identification that is bigger, better and more tangible than ethnic identities, families and neighborhoods. There is little sign that any other type of organization would be an improvement over the nation-state.
And for the nation-state to work it must entail borders and boundaries and it must "belong" to existing citizens—on important matters they must have special rights over non-citizens. That means immigration must be managed with the interests of existing citizens in mind. The question is what are those interests? First and foremost must be the maintenance of the standard of living and quality of life of the existing citizens. Second, of course, is a feeling of solidarity regarding the national interest. Third and unbending loyalty to the nation-state rather than to any foreigners or foreign interest or potentates.
Immigration does not in itself endanger the nation-state, but when it happens illegally, very quickly and on a very large scale and when many illegal aliens and immigrants choose to live in cultural enclaves it does do so.
That, alas, is what has been happening in America. The intended or unintended consequences of the failure of government to enforce immigration policies combined with multicultural politics convey the message that you can enter and remain here illegally and that the rule of law means nothing. This state of affairs has alienated voters across the U.S and given rise to populist parties that assert that taxes are too high because of the demands of the immigrants, illegal aliens and their progeny and their fellow-travelers among the liberals, progressives and disloyal citizens.
In several European countries the immigrant and ethnic minority population is rising to 15% or 20%. One leading demographer has said that on current trends Britain will be "majority minority" by 2066. Even in America there are now those who chortle about the rising majority-minority. Some large towns are already have a high percentage of minorities. This sudden and largely unplanned demographic shift has damaged trust between citizens and generated segregation, fear and unwarranted accusations of racism or hate.
The sheer size of some minority communities has made it easier to live apart in "little Kabul" or "little Havana", and so on. The rising influence of racist orgainzations like La Raza, MEChA and MALDEF is a harbinger of America's political future. A conservative Islam, insistent on Sharia Law first for their own communities and then for all of America, is yet another indication of a failed immigration policy that has balkanized a once united America. And unlike the America of a few years ago where hard work acted as an integrating force, today's overly-generous welfare system has created too many immigrant dependents and 14th Amendment baby families, triggering resentment among mainstream taxpayers who have to pick up the tab.
There is, of course, good immigration too. Supporters like to overstate the creativity and dynamism of some young migrants, their willingness to do dirty or under-rewarded jobs (like stoop labor) that few natives want, their relative youth in an ageing America. But these benefits would have to be very large, and demonstrable, to compensate for the cost and cultural and social disruption caused by over-rapid immigration and illegal entry. style="font-weight:bold;"> But they are not! Almost all the economic analyses of mass immigration in recent years have found that the positive effects on employment, wages and per head growth in economic activity is, at best, marginal. Similarly, on the question of fiscal benefit, productive immigrants like Poles probably pay in more than they take out, but less productive ones like Somalis (in Britain, only 25% of them work) do the opposite.
Moreover, costs and benefits are unevenly distributed: employers and richer people benefit, as do many consumers and, of course, immigrants themselves. But low-skilled workers (often recent migrants) face lower wages, and while immigrants create as well as take jobs, the creating takes longer than the taking. Because it is concentrated at the top and bottom, mass immigration reinforces inequality and reduces social mobility (one-third of professional jobs in London are taken by people born outside Britain). It adds to urban congestion, increases pressure on public services and housing, and discourages employers from training, especially hard-to-reach youngsters such as those who have been busy looting in recent days in London.
No sensible person wants a complete halt to immigration, but America needs a dramatic slowdown(like the "pause" from 1920 to 1965) to absorb the large inflows of recent decades and a re-focusing of the quotas on skilled or well-educated immigrants who are likely and There will be some economic costs of a slowdown, but if democratic politics fails to deal with this existential issue on which there is such a settled popular will the resulting backlash will threaten the sharp decline in overt racism of the past 30 years. Young people now have a somewhat liberal view of race and gender but they have become much less generous on welfare, poverty and redistribution of wealth. That is not just because of the mishandling of mass immigration—affluence. Individualism has played a role too. But that makes it even more important to rein in mass immigration before America loses its unique balance between individual rights and mutual obligation.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Dee Perez-Scott: Ruben is only partly right.
Ruben Navarrette recently wrote:
“It's nothing new. We live in a country that has -- for more than 220 years -- held the curious distinction of being a nation of immigrants that doesn't like immigrants. Our national motto isn't really "E Pluribus Unum." It's more like: "There goes the neighborhood." Whether they come legally, illegally, or with a letter of reference from the Queen of England, every batch of foreign arrivals to these shores is instantly considered inferior to those who came before.”
Navarrette, referring to our 220 year immigration history, misses the point entirely. Written in the late 1800s when immigration was nearing its peak and the U.S. population was only about 50 million, Emma Lazarus’s famous sonnet was an expression of her empathy for those who had fled the anti-Semitic Pogroms in Eastern Europe. It was a counterpoint to the disparaging remarks made from time to time about immgrants. The sonnet is a poignant reminder of our immigrant past but the operative word in that phrase is the word “past.”
Navarrette ignores the fact that our population has now increased six-fold. As a syndicated columnist he should fully understand that conditions are different today than they were in the mid to late 1800s. There are many things in our past: child labor, prohibition, lack of women’s suffrage, Jim Crow laws, and segregation. Few thinking Americans want to go back to that “past” yet some of us continue to cling to the idea of “our immigrant past” without a second thought about its appropriateness as a model for the fully-settled and fully-developed America of today with a population of more than 300 million people.
Our immigrant past of the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries should not be our guide for the future. Times, society and the availability of natural resources have changed dramatically. Navarrette erred when he wrote that the U.S. does holds "the curious distinction of being a nation of immigrants that doesn't like immigrants." Foreigners have been largely treated the same whether it was the Irish who came to America, the Poles who immigrated to Ireland or the Turks who came to Germany. There is nothing unique about the U.S. in this regard. It is an altogether natural reaction to foreigners especially if they do not speak the language of the country to which they have immigrated and even more so if they have entered that country illegally. This kind of reaction to foreigners is a universal human frailty. It is a rare thing to be able to free oneself from this human condition. It is therefore unreasonable to judge the human race harshly with regard to its treatment of foreigners.
Ben Franklin, one of the Founding Fathers, did disparage Germans at one time saying that they were too stupid to learn English. Navarrette considered this to be evidence of Franklin's "ugly prejudice and nativism." But Franklin was probably not the first nor the last to have said something disparaging about the Germans. The French regularly referred to the Germans, especially the German soldiers in WW I and II, as "Boches" (rascals or cabbage heads). Others thought of the French as spineless based on their inability to defend their own country against aggressors. The French, in turn, look down their Gallic noses at just about everyone who doesn't speak French.
Yet Navarrette says, "Behold, the musings of one of our nation's first bigots: Benjamin Franklin who clearly thought the English superior and the Germans inferior." It is not bigoted to argue that a failure to acquire a common language is a barrier to acquiring a common culture essential to a functioning society. I think he judged Franklin far to harshly and clearly overstated Franklin's offhand remarks as a simple case of "ugly prejudice and nativism." This was and is a natural reaction to foreigners observable in every society on earth. That is simply the human condition the world over. The Germans turned out to be one of the most technologically advanced societies in Europe but that may not have been obvious to Franklin at the time if he was unable to communicate with them.
It's hard to say whether Ruben intended the adjective "ugly" to apply to both the words "prejudice" and "nativism" or just the former. I, like many others, consider nativism a normal expression of patriotism and a desire to preserve and protect one's quality of life and standard of living. Those qualities can easily be threatened by excessive population growth. Nativism often manifests itself as fully-justified, anti-immigrant sentiment when those immigrants are almost solely responsible for excessive population growth and demands on finite natural resources. It is important to understand that as the current and most important basis for such sentiment.
It is not unusual for a more advanced culture to consider itself superior to one that is less advanced. The national income per capita, UN rating and the number of Nobel prizes awarded might be some objective measures of this. This is neither necessarily a permanent condition nor a denial of the potential of other cultures. Rather it is a measure of what is not what could be. One has to wonder whether Navarrette considers himself to be superior say to an individual from a cannibal society.
It is clear that the pro-immigrant forces choose to use the word "Nativist" in a pejorative sense as Navarrette did above. Nativism favors the interests of certain established inhabitants of an area or nation as compared to claims of newcomers, illegal aliens or immigrants. It may also include the re-establishment, perpetuation or preservation of such individuals or their culture, a completely legitimate objective for any society.
Nativism typically means opposition to immigration, population growth,or to efforts to curb specific ethnic or cultural groups that have entered and are present in a country illegally and in such overwhelming numbers as to be considered hostile or alien to the natural culture. Depending on their numbers, it may be assumed that they cannot be or will choose not to be assimilated and will simply re-create the very culture and conditions they fled their homelands to escape: overpopulation, poverty, joblessness, crime, disease, corruption, and oligarchy.
Opposition to immigration is common in many countries because of issues of national, cultural or religious identity. The phenomenon has been studied especially in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States, as well as Europe in recent years. Thus nativism has become a general term for 'opposition to immigration' based on legitimate fears that the immigrants will distort or undermine existing cultural values and, through their higher fertility rates, reduce the quality of life and standard of living of the "natives." This opposition to immigration has been expressed through criticism of multiculturalism.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel told a gathering of young members of her conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party this year that the "multikulti" concept – where people of different backgrounds would live together happily – does not work in Germany. At "the beginning of the 1960s our country called the foreign workers to come to Germany and now they live in our country," said Ms. Merkel at the event in Potsdam, near Berlin. "We kidded ourselves a while. We said: 'They won't stay, [after some time] they will be gone,' but this isn't reality. And of course, the approach [to build] a multicultural [society] and to live side by side and to enjoy each other ... has failed, utterly failed." More than 30 percent of Germans believe Germany is "overrun by foreigners" who had come to Germany chiefly for its social benefits.
Some immigrants were indeed inferior in many respects to those who came before because of the economic conditions in the old country had made them almost subhuman. Emma Lazarus admitted as much when she referred to them as "...tired, poor,...huddled masses,...the wretched refuse of your teeming shore, the homeless, tempest-tossed." The condition and culture of the Irish that developed while they were subsisting on rotten potatoes is a good example. Frank McCourt in his Pulitzer Prize winning book Angela’s Ashes described other aspects of the Irish culture that most would find abhorrent. The Irish were discriminated against because of those characteristics. They may have seemed inferior to others because their economic situation dictated their appearance and their living conditions in the tenements. Avoiding disparaging remarks about them would have been difficult. On the other hand, it would have also been difficult to make a plausible case against their potential as human beings given the right influences and role models here in America.
Others were treated in the same manner as the Irish. I mentioned above that Ben Franklin was not favorably impressed by the Germans even though they were known to be industrious with well-maintained neighborhoods. They believed in orderliness. (Alles in ordnung!) Who knows what experiences Ben Franklin had with the Germans that caused him to lose his cool and make a public display of his low regard for them. I don't know the timing of his remarks but if they were made after the arrival of Hessian mercenaries who were quartered in private homes, one could begin to understand Franklin's antithesis to them. I recall that an innocent immigrant of German extraction was lynched somewhere in the Midwest at the time of the WW I. Some Americans were also actually arrested for speaking German over the phone. The street where my grandfather lived in Dallas, Texas was renamed from Germania Street to Liberty Street during that same time period even though German immigrants were and had been an important part of Texas and U.S. history. I understand that fully 20% of Americans are of German extraction. My German cousin once said, “I believe every American has a German grandmother!”
We are all familiar with the plight of the Japanese who were rounded up and sent to relocation or internment camps depending on where their citizenship and loyalties seem to lie. Those who were Japanese citizens and who wanted to return to Japan to fight against the Americans were interned as required by the law. As I recall, they used to drill with stick guns within the camps, making clear that they were indeed enemies of the U.S. Others were simply relocated partly to protect them from incidents like the lynching of the German I referred to above and partly to remove any possibility of espionage to aid the Japanese enemy when we were most fearful of that prospect. Unfortunately, the U.S. government not only violated their rights but did nothing to protect them from economic loss. “Snow Falling on Cedars” is one of my favorite movies. It portrays young love and mutual prejudice. Again this appears to be the human condition.
“It's nothing new. We live in a country that has -- for more than 220 years -- held the curious distinction of being a nation of immigrants that doesn't like immigrants. Our national motto isn't really "E Pluribus Unum." It's more like: "There goes the neighborhood." Whether they come legally, illegally, or with a letter of reference from the Queen of England, every batch of foreign arrivals to these shores is instantly considered inferior to those who came before.”
Navarrette, referring to our 220 year immigration history, misses the point entirely. Written in the late 1800s when immigration was nearing its peak and the U.S. population was only about 50 million, Emma Lazarus’s famous sonnet was an expression of her empathy for those who had fled the anti-Semitic Pogroms in Eastern Europe. It was a counterpoint to the disparaging remarks made from time to time about immgrants. The sonnet is a poignant reminder of our immigrant past but the operative word in that phrase is the word “past.”
Navarrette ignores the fact that our population has now increased six-fold. As a syndicated columnist he should fully understand that conditions are different today than they were in the mid to late 1800s. There are many things in our past: child labor, prohibition, lack of women’s suffrage, Jim Crow laws, and segregation. Few thinking Americans want to go back to that “past” yet some of us continue to cling to the idea of “our immigrant past” without a second thought about its appropriateness as a model for the fully-settled and fully-developed America of today with a population of more than 300 million people.
Our immigrant past of the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries should not be our guide for the future. Times, society and the availability of natural resources have changed dramatically. Navarrette erred when he wrote that the U.S. does holds "the curious distinction of being a nation of immigrants that doesn't like immigrants." Foreigners have been largely treated the same whether it was the Irish who came to America, the Poles who immigrated to Ireland or the Turks who came to Germany. There is nothing unique about the U.S. in this regard. It is an altogether natural reaction to foreigners especially if they do not speak the language of the country to which they have immigrated and even more so if they have entered that country illegally. This kind of reaction to foreigners is a universal human frailty. It is a rare thing to be able to free oneself from this human condition. It is therefore unreasonable to judge the human race harshly with regard to its treatment of foreigners.
Ben Franklin, one of the Founding Fathers, did disparage Germans at one time saying that they were too stupid to learn English. Navarrette considered this to be evidence of Franklin's "ugly prejudice and nativism." But Franklin was probably not the first nor the last to have said something disparaging about the Germans. The French regularly referred to the Germans, especially the German soldiers in WW I and II, as "Boches" (rascals or cabbage heads). Others thought of the French as spineless based on their inability to defend their own country against aggressors. The French, in turn, look down their Gallic noses at just about everyone who doesn't speak French.
Yet Navarrette says, "Behold, the musings of one of our nation's first bigots: Benjamin Franklin who clearly thought the English superior and the Germans inferior." It is not bigoted to argue that a failure to acquire a common language is a barrier to acquiring a common culture essential to a functioning society. I think he judged Franklin far to harshly and clearly overstated Franklin's offhand remarks as a simple case of "ugly prejudice and nativism." This was and is a natural reaction to foreigners observable in every society on earth. That is simply the human condition the world over. The Germans turned out to be one of the most technologically advanced societies in Europe but that may not have been obvious to Franklin at the time if he was unable to communicate with them.
It's hard to say whether Ruben intended the adjective "ugly" to apply to both the words "prejudice" and "nativism" or just the former. I, like many others, consider nativism a normal expression of patriotism and a desire to preserve and protect one's quality of life and standard of living. Those qualities can easily be threatened by excessive population growth. Nativism often manifests itself as fully-justified, anti-immigrant sentiment when those immigrants are almost solely responsible for excessive population growth and demands on finite natural resources. It is important to understand that as the current and most important basis for such sentiment.
It is not unusual for a more advanced culture to consider itself superior to one that is less advanced. The national income per capita, UN rating and the number of Nobel prizes awarded might be some objective measures of this. This is neither necessarily a permanent condition nor a denial of the potential of other cultures. Rather it is a measure of what is not what could be. One has to wonder whether Navarrette considers himself to be superior say to an individual from a cannibal society.
It is clear that the pro-immigrant forces choose to use the word "Nativist" in a pejorative sense as Navarrette did above. Nativism favors the interests of certain established inhabitants of an area or nation as compared to claims of newcomers, illegal aliens or immigrants. It may also include the re-establishment, perpetuation or preservation of such individuals or their culture, a completely legitimate objective for any society.
Nativism typically means opposition to immigration, population growth,or to efforts to curb specific ethnic or cultural groups that have entered and are present in a country illegally and in such overwhelming numbers as to be considered hostile or alien to the natural culture. Depending on their numbers, it may be assumed that they cannot be or will choose not to be assimilated and will simply re-create the very culture and conditions they fled their homelands to escape: overpopulation, poverty, joblessness, crime, disease, corruption, and oligarchy.
Opposition to immigration is common in many countries because of issues of national, cultural or religious identity. The phenomenon has been studied especially in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States, as well as Europe in recent years. Thus nativism has become a general term for 'opposition to immigration' based on legitimate fears that the immigrants will distort or undermine existing cultural values and, through their higher fertility rates, reduce the quality of life and standard of living of the "natives." This opposition to immigration has been expressed through criticism of multiculturalism.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel told a gathering of young members of her conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party this year that the "multikulti" concept – where people of different backgrounds would live together happily – does not work in Germany. At "the beginning of the 1960s our country called the foreign workers to come to Germany and now they live in our country," said Ms. Merkel at the event in Potsdam, near Berlin. "We kidded ourselves a while. We said: 'They won't stay, [after some time] they will be gone,' but this isn't reality. And of course, the approach [to build] a multicultural [society] and to live side by side and to enjoy each other ... has failed, utterly failed." More than 30 percent of Germans believe Germany is "overrun by foreigners" who had come to Germany chiefly for its social benefits.
Some immigrants were indeed inferior in many respects to those who came before because of the economic conditions in the old country had made them almost subhuman. Emma Lazarus admitted as much when she referred to them as "...tired, poor,...huddled masses,...the wretched refuse of your teeming shore, the homeless, tempest-tossed." The condition and culture of the Irish that developed while they were subsisting on rotten potatoes is a good example. Frank McCourt in his Pulitzer Prize winning book Angela’s Ashes described other aspects of the Irish culture that most would find abhorrent. The Irish were discriminated against because of those characteristics. They may have seemed inferior to others because their economic situation dictated their appearance and their living conditions in the tenements. Avoiding disparaging remarks about them would have been difficult. On the other hand, it would have also been difficult to make a plausible case against their potential as human beings given the right influences and role models here in America.
Others were treated in the same manner as the Irish. I mentioned above that Ben Franklin was not favorably impressed by the Germans even though they were known to be industrious with well-maintained neighborhoods. They believed in orderliness. (Alles in ordnung!) Who knows what experiences Ben Franklin had with the Germans that caused him to lose his cool and make a public display of his low regard for them. I don't know the timing of his remarks but if they were made after the arrival of Hessian mercenaries who were quartered in private homes, one could begin to understand Franklin's antithesis to them. I recall that an innocent immigrant of German extraction was lynched somewhere in the Midwest at the time of the WW I. Some Americans were also actually arrested for speaking German over the phone. The street where my grandfather lived in Dallas, Texas was renamed from Germania Street to Liberty Street during that same time period even though German immigrants were and had been an important part of Texas and U.S. history. I understand that fully 20% of Americans are of German extraction. My German cousin once said, “I believe every American has a German grandmother!”
We are all familiar with the plight of the Japanese who were rounded up and sent to relocation or internment camps depending on where their citizenship and loyalties seem to lie. Those who were Japanese citizens and who wanted to return to Japan to fight against the Americans were interned as required by the law. As I recall, they used to drill with stick guns within the camps, making clear that they were indeed enemies of the U.S. Others were simply relocated partly to protect them from incidents like the lynching of the German I referred to above and partly to remove any possibility of espionage to aid the Japanese enemy when we were most fearful of that prospect. Unfortunately, the U.S. government not only violated their rights but did nothing to protect them from economic loss. “Snow Falling on Cedars” is one of my favorite movies. It portrays young love and mutual prejudice. Again this appears to be the human condition.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Friday, October 1, 2010
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Immigration Laws in Missouri
On July 7, 2008, Governor Matt Blunt signed a comprehensive immigration bill that implements new restrictions on illegal immigrants
and imposes new requirements on government officials and businesses. In addition to the provisions discussed in more detail below,
the legislation requires law enforcement agencies to verify the legal status of arrested persons, establishes penalties for those who assist
illegal aliens in obtaining driver’s licenses and prohibits local governments from creating sanctuaries for persons who are in the United
States illegally. Most of the provisions of the new law concerning businesses will take effect January 1, 2009.
Four principal provisions of the legislation that may affect a business are related to the following topics:
• Use of a federal electronic employment eligibility verification program, known as “E-Verify”
• Agreements between general (or sub-) contractors and direct subcontractors regarding the employment of illegal immigrants
• Proper classification of workers: Are they employees or independent contractors?
• Transporting illegal immigrants for employment purposes
Electronic Verification of Employment Authorization Mandatory for Some Employers
The law makes clear that business entities and employers are prohibited from knowingly employing, hiring, or continuing to employ
illegal immigrants to perform work in Missouri.
Under the new law, all Missouri public employers must use E-Verify, a federal employment eligibility verification program that
searches records from the Social Security Administration and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. In addition, as a condition
for the award of a state (or political subdivision) contract or grant in excess of $5,000, or to qualify for a state-administered tax credit,
tax abatement, or loan from the state, business entities must use E-Verify for employees working in connection with the contracted
services.
Private employers do not have to use E-Verify, but they may want to consider doing so, because, under the new law, participation in
the program is an affirmative defense to an allegation that a business entity knowingly employs an illegal immigrant.
The Attorney General’s Office is charged with enforcing these provisions, and, to that end, may bring a civil action if it reasonably
believes a business entity knowingly employed an illegal immigrant.
Penalties include suspension of business permit, license or exemption of the business for 14 days (for first violations), for one year
(for second violations) or permanently (three or more violations). In addition, an employer will be expected to correct the violations
by either terminating the unauthorized employee or requesting secondary verification through E-Verify, and submit a sworn affidavit
explaining how the violations were corrected and documentation proving that the employer has enrolled in E-Verify.
In addition to the above penalties, state contractors and entities receiving tax abatements, etc. that knowingly employ an unauthorized
immigrant will be deemed in breach of contract, and the state may terminate the contract or suspend or debar the entity from doing
business with the state for a period of three years (for first violations) or permanently (for two or more violations). In addition, the
state may withhold up to 25 percent of the total amount due to the business entity upon termination of the contract.
A business entity that terminates an employee in accordance with the new law will not be liable for any claims regarding the termination
brought under the Missouri Human Rights Act.
and imposes new requirements on government officials and businesses. In addition to the provisions discussed in more detail below,
the legislation requires law enforcement agencies to verify the legal status of arrested persons, establishes penalties for those who assist
illegal aliens in obtaining driver’s licenses and prohibits local governments from creating sanctuaries for persons who are in the United
States illegally. Most of the provisions of the new law concerning businesses will take effect January 1, 2009.
Four principal provisions of the legislation that may affect a business are related to the following topics:
• Use of a federal electronic employment eligibility verification program, known as “E-Verify”
• Agreements between general (or sub-) contractors and direct subcontractors regarding the employment of illegal immigrants
• Proper classification of workers: Are they employees or independent contractors?
• Transporting illegal immigrants for employment purposes
Electronic Verification of Employment Authorization Mandatory for Some Employers
The law makes clear that business entities and employers are prohibited from knowingly employing, hiring, or continuing to employ
illegal immigrants to perform work in Missouri.
Under the new law, all Missouri public employers must use E-Verify, a federal employment eligibility verification program that
searches records from the Social Security Administration and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. In addition, as a condition
for the award of a state (or political subdivision) contract or grant in excess of $5,000, or to qualify for a state-administered tax credit,
tax abatement, or loan from the state, business entities must use E-Verify for employees working in connection with the contracted
services.
Private employers do not have to use E-Verify, but they may want to consider doing so, because, under the new law, participation in
the program is an affirmative defense to an allegation that a business entity knowingly employs an illegal immigrant.
The Attorney General’s Office is charged with enforcing these provisions, and, to that end, may bring a civil action if it reasonably
believes a business entity knowingly employed an illegal immigrant.
Penalties include suspension of business permit, license or exemption of the business for 14 days (for first violations), for one year
(for second violations) or permanently (three or more violations). In addition, an employer will be expected to correct the violations
by either terminating the unauthorized employee or requesting secondary verification through E-Verify, and submit a sworn affidavit
explaining how the violations were corrected and documentation proving that the employer has enrolled in E-Verify.
In addition to the above penalties, state contractors and entities receiving tax abatements, etc. that knowingly employ an unauthorized
immigrant will be deemed in breach of contract, and the state may terminate the contract or suspend or debar the entity from doing
business with the state for a period of three years (for first violations) or permanently (for two or more violations). In addition, the
state may withhold up to 25 percent of the total amount due to the business entity upon termination of the contract.
A business entity that terminates an employee in accordance with the new law will not be liable for any claims regarding the termination
brought under the Missouri Human Rights Act.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Call Them What They Are: Illegal Aliens
The push is on for providing amnesty to the estimated 12 to 20 million illegal aliens in this country. The supporters of this effort include President Barack Obama, former president George W. Bush, Senator John McCain, Majority Leader Harry Reid and New York Senator Chuck Schumer. (There is a chance that neither McCain nor Reid will be re-elected in Novmeber, 2010.) Senator Schumer is now chairman of the immigration subcommittee previously chaired by the late Senator Ted Kennedy, a major amnesty proponent.
Amnesty supporters see themselves as taking the high road and claim that amnesty opponents are opposed to all immigration, when nothing could be further from the truth. Although, most amnesty opponents favor legal immigration, they oppose any measure that grants illegal aliens the objective of their illegality, to stay in the U.S. and work. They believe the amnesty supporters are compromising the national interest, undercutting American labor, and giving the desires of foreigners precedence over the wishes of their fellow citizens.
An examination of the supporters of amnesty is revealing. First and foremost is the National Council of La Raza which many consider to be a racist organization if for no other reason than its title. Second is the group of ethnocentrists among Hispanic citizens who give precedence to the interests of their illegal ethnic brethren over the interests of their country and the wishes of their non-Hispanic fellow citizens. Third are the immigration lawyers whose bread and butter depend on a continuing flow of illegals and a complex set of immigration laws that require their expertise to negotiate. Fourth is the group of liberals who base their position on some sort of world view of human rights and social justice rather than the national interest. Shortsightedness is the common characteristic of all four groups. They do not consider the question of the long term consequences to be relevant to the discussion. They have no concern about the depletion of finite natural resources, increased pollution, and the resulting and inevitable decline in our quality of life and standard of living.
Currently, the U.S. has the highest level of legal immigration in the world. Every year, we allow 750,000 immigrants to enter the country legally and make them eligible for citizenship within five years. That is way too many. Legal immigration in all categories needs to be scaled back to no more than 250,000 per year, exclusive of students, tourists, and temporary agricultural workers. moreover, we need whatever tax and immigration reforms are necessarey to achieve a stable population within 20 years.
Legal immigrants have the right to work and earn a living; the asylees are eligible to work six months after applying to work. Therefore, to protect American workers, employers who claim that more immigrants are needed must present irrefutable evidence to support that need. The concurrence of local unions and professional organizations that might be adversely affected should be required. Government response should be constrained by the total unemployment rate in the relevant sectors of the economy. There should be a moratorium on immigration when the total unemployment rate exceeds a specified level.
If we give the current illegals amnesty, you can be sure that 20 or so years from now, there will be a clamor for another amnesty bill as the illegals will continue to pour in. The Simpson-Mazzoli bill, which was adopted by Congress in 1986, granted amnesty to 1.3 million illegals. That measure was hailed as the last amnesty bill we would need because the borders of the U.S., then a sieve, would be better protected. However, our borders continued to be porous, and the number of illegals burgeoned, and here we are again with the illegals and their supporters seeking amnesty once more for ever larger numbers, estimated to be 12 to 20 million. Thus, the number of illegal aliens has increased from 1.3 million in 1986 to a minimum of 12 million in 2010. This is a compound growth rate of at least 9.7% per year. If that growth rate were to continue, in 40 years, by the year 2050, we would have as many as 487 million illegal aliens in the U.S. (Do the math -- 12 million x 1.097^40 years = 487 million) No wonder the pro-illegal lobbyests want to sweep the problem under the carpet with another amnesty so they can start counting all over again from zero. If the 487 million were to actually materialize, it would not be unreasonable to begin to refer to the U.S. as Mexico Norte.
Given our experience since the 1986 bill, granting another amnesty would be tantamount to enacting an open borders bill. No country in the world has open borders that foreigners can cross at will, certainly not Mexico. Arizona has an estimated 500,000 illegal aliens living in the state and in 2009, the border patrol agents arrested 241,000 illegal aliens, which is why that state enacted controversial legislation out of frustration. Arizona’s citizens are outraged by the presence of many criminals among the people crossing their border – remember there is an ongoing drug war in Mexico with thousands of Mexicans being killed and wounded south of the border by other Mexicans. Arizona does not want that war to spill over into Arizona. Arizona citizens are also distressed with the demands made by illegals upon welfare, medical, and educational services.
As long as laws like the Arizona's stay within the bounds of constitutionality, they cannot be said to have gone too far. Allowing local police to ask individuals, stopped for other reasons, or who are “reasonably suspected” to be illegal immigrants for identifying papers is a reasonable thing to do given Arizona's huge problem. This approach should be extended to all of the border states. It is an especially sound and defensible policy to have the local police examine at the workplace the identity papers of all employees to ascertain whether they are legally allowed to work and, most important, to ascertain if employers , intentionally or not, had violated current U.S. laws requiring employers to check the immigration status of hired workers. Those employers who violate the law should be pursued criminally and, if convicted, go to prison. Regrettably, this is not what is happening. Part of the reason is the insertion of the term "knowingly hire" in the federal statute and in the Arizona law. This is a huge loophole that allows employers to escape prosecution by claiming "we didn't know." If that loophole was removed and the policy strictly enforced, illegal aliens would be denied jobs and would go home, since they are here primarily to get a job and send money home to their families. Recently, I saw an estimate that a million illegals, perhaps 7% of the total, had returned home because of the recession and 9.7% unemployment rate in the U.S.
Amnesty supporters, who use pejorative terms to describe their opponents, refuse to use the term "illegal aliens", preferring instead the euphemism "undocumented workers." They acknowledge that an open border policy is indefensible and irrational and has not been adopted by any other country. Yet, they would deny our country the tools it needs to control the borders. The question of whether all border violations can be stopped with improvements in border infrastructure, staffing, and rules of engagement has already been answered emphatically by the growth in the number of illegals since 1986 mentioned above. The quintessential element of in depth border security is continuous, vigorous internal enforcement. If the illegals are denied jobs and are expeditiously repatriated after serving a six month sentence working on border infrastructure, they will have little incentive to repeat their border violations.
A week ago, Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Great Britain had to apologize to a woman voter for referring to her as “bigoted” when she voiced her objections to millions of Europeans in the European Union lawfully flooding into Great Britain and taking jobs. I don’t know whether she is bigoted in her attitude toward other Europeans, but she doesn’t have to be a bigot to object to the English having to compete for jobs and services such as healthcare and education with immigrants from other countries.
In the U.S., those who favor amnesty, for lack of more substantive arguments, refer pejoratively to their opponents as nativists, bigots, racists, and xenophobes. In doing so, they ignore the adverse impact of illegal aliens on: the national interest, character, language, and sovereignty; the cost of welfare, education, and health care; and the rule of law. The states are tired of illegal aliens flooding into emergency rooms, soaking up Medicaid funds intended for citizens, crowding classrooms, and creating newborn, birthright citizens who qualify for a large range of welfare benefits at taxpayer expense.
Mark McKinnon, who was a senior adviser to John McCain and President George W. Bush, was quoted in The New York Times of April 28th, as stating, “Immigration is the most explosive issue I’ve seen in my political career.” According to The Times, Mr. McKinnon “…also supported giving illegal immigrants a path to citizenship.” But, in his view, “an election year is the worst time to move good public policy on this issue.” He does not say on what basis he has concluded that giving the never-ending flood of illegals a pathway to citizenship would constitute "good public policy." As a minimum, anyone who has entered this country illegally at any time should be permanently ineligible for citizenship. Many, if not most, should be quickly repatriated.
During the Bush presidency, amnesty proponents were twice defeated when they tried to shove their self-defined “good policy” down the throats of the voters. Amnesty advocates believed, as they do now, that they know what is best for us, but the American public stood up and said “no.” In an election year, the voters can throw the bums out, and that is why Congress fears to bring the issue up before the November elections.
I predict the Schumer legislation supported by President Obama and a whole host of prominent public officials and the media will fail. I also believe it is outrageous to threaten understandably frustrated, Arizona with boycotts because we disagree with the protective procedures it has adopted. Let’s leave the legality of those procedures to the courts. We are one country and should not be boycotting one another. Persuasion should be our tool of choice, not punishment.
Amnesty supporters see themselves as taking the high road and claim that amnesty opponents are opposed to all immigration, when nothing could be further from the truth. Although, most amnesty opponents favor legal immigration, they oppose any measure that grants illegal aliens the objective of their illegality, to stay in the U.S. and work. They believe the amnesty supporters are compromising the national interest, undercutting American labor, and giving the desires of foreigners precedence over the wishes of their fellow citizens.
An examination of the supporters of amnesty is revealing. First and foremost is the National Council of La Raza which many consider to be a racist organization if for no other reason than its title. Second is the group of ethnocentrists among Hispanic citizens who give precedence to the interests of their illegal ethnic brethren over the interests of their country and the wishes of their non-Hispanic fellow citizens. Third are the immigration lawyers whose bread and butter depend on a continuing flow of illegals and a complex set of immigration laws that require their expertise to negotiate. Fourth is the group of liberals who base their position on some sort of world view of human rights and social justice rather than the national interest. Shortsightedness is the common characteristic of all four groups. They do not consider the question of the long term consequences to be relevant to the discussion. They have no concern about the depletion of finite natural resources, increased pollution, and the resulting and inevitable decline in our quality of life and standard of living.
Currently, the U.S. has the highest level of legal immigration in the world. Every year, we allow 750,000 immigrants to enter the country legally and make them eligible for citizenship within five years. That is way too many. Legal immigration in all categories needs to be scaled back to no more than 250,000 per year, exclusive of students, tourists, and temporary agricultural workers. moreover, we need whatever tax and immigration reforms are necessarey to achieve a stable population within 20 years.
Legal immigrants have the right to work and earn a living; the asylees are eligible to work six months after applying to work. Therefore, to protect American workers, employers who claim that more immigrants are needed must present irrefutable evidence to support that need. The concurrence of local unions and professional organizations that might be adversely affected should be required. Government response should be constrained by the total unemployment rate in the relevant sectors of the economy. There should be a moratorium on immigration when the total unemployment rate exceeds a specified level.
If we give the current illegals amnesty, you can be sure that 20 or so years from now, there will be a clamor for another amnesty bill as the illegals will continue to pour in. The Simpson-Mazzoli bill, which was adopted by Congress in 1986, granted amnesty to 1.3 million illegals. That measure was hailed as the last amnesty bill we would need because the borders of the U.S., then a sieve, would be better protected. However, our borders continued to be porous, and the number of illegals burgeoned, and here we are again with the illegals and their supporters seeking amnesty once more for ever larger numbers, estimated to be 12 to 20 million. Thus, the number of illegal aliens has increased from 1.3 million in 1986 to a minimum of 12 million in 2010. This is a compound growth rate of at least 9.7% per year. If that growth rate were to continue, in 40 years, by the year 2050, we would have as many as 487 million illegal aliens in the U.S. (Do the math -- 12 million x 1.097^40 years = 487 million) No wonder the pro-illegal lobbyests want to sweep the problem under the carpet with another amnesty so they can start counting all over again from zero. If the 487 million were to actually materialize, it would not be unreasonable to begin to refer to the U.S. as Mexico Norte.
Given our experience since the 1986 bill, granting another amnesty would be tantamount to enacting an open borders bill. No country in the world has open borders that foreigners can cross at will, certainly not Mexico. Arizona has an estimated 500,000 illegal aliens living in the state and in 2009, the border patrol agents arrested 241,000 illegal aliens, which is why that state enacted controversial legislation out of frustration. Arizona’s citizens are outraged by the presence of many criminals among the people crossing their border – remember there is an ongoing drug war in Mexico with thousands of Mexicans being killed and wounded south of the border by other Mexicans. Arizona does not want that war to spill over into Arizona. Arizona citizens are also distressed with the demands made by illegals upon welfare, medical, and educational services.
As long as laws like the Arizona's stay within the bounds of constitutionality, they cannot be said to have gone too far. Allowing local police to ask individuals, stopped for other reasons, or who are “reasonably suspected” to be illegal immigrants for identifying papers is a reasonable thing to do given Arizona's huge problem. This approach should be extended to all of the border states. It is an especially sound and defensible policy to have the local police examine at the workplace the identity papers of all employees to ascertain whether they are legally allowed to work and, most important, to ascertain if employers , intentionally or not, had violated current U.S. laws requiring employers to check the immigration status of hired workers. Those employers who violate the law should be pursued criminally and, if convicted, go to prison. Regrettably, this is not what is happening. Part of the reason is the insertion of the term "knowingly hire" in the federal statute and in the Arizona law. This is a huge loophole that allows employers to escape prosecution by claiming "we didn't know." If that loophole was removed and the policy strictly enforced, illegal aliens would be denied jobs and would go home, since they are here primarily to get a job and send money home to their families. Recently, I saw an estimate that a million illegals, perhaps 7% of the total, had returned home because of the recession and 9.7% unemployment rate in the U.S.
Amnesty supporters, who use pejorative terms to describe their opponents, refuse to use the term "illegal aliens", preferring instead the euphemism "undocumented workers." They acknowledge that an open border policy is indefensible and irrational and has not been adopted by any other country. Yet, they would deny our country the tools it needs to control the borders. The question of whether all border violations can be stopped with improvements in border infrastructure, staffing, and rules of engagement has already been answered emphatically by the growth in the number of illegals since 1986 mentioned above. The quintessential element of in depth border security is continuous, vigorous internal enforcement. If the illegals are denied jobs and are expeditiously repatriated after serving a six month sentence working on border infrastructure, they will have little incentive to repeat their border violations.
A week ago, Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Great Britain had to apologize to a woman voter for referring to her as “bigoted” when she voiced her objections to millions of Europeans in the European Union lawfully flooding into Great Britain and taking jobs. I don’t know whether she is bigoted in her attitude toward other Europeans, but she doesn’t have to be a bigot to object to the English having to compete for jobs and services such as healthcare and education with immigrants from other countries.
In the U.S., those who favor amnesty, for lack of more substantive arguments, refer pejoratively to their opponents as nativists, bigots, racists, and xenophobes. In doing so, they ignore the adverse impact of illegal aliens on: the national interest, character, language, and sovereignty; the cost of welfare, education, and health care; and the rule of law. The states are tired of illegal aliens flooding into emergency rooms, soaking up Medicaid funds intended for citizens, crowding classrooms, and creating newborn, birthright citizens who qualify for a large range of welfare benefits at taxpayer expense.
Mark McKinnon, who was a senior adviser to John McCain and President George W. Bush, was quoted in The New York Times of April 28th, as stating, “Immigration is the most explosive issue I’ve seen in my political career.” According to The Times, Mr. McKinnon “…also supported giving illegal immigrants a path to citizenship.” But, in his view, “an election year is the worst time to move good public policy on this issue.” He does not say on what basis he has concluded that giving the never-ending flood of illegals a pathway to citizenship would constitute "good public policy." As a minimum, anyone who has entered this country illegally at any time should be permanently ineligible for citizenship. Many, if not most, should be quickly repatriated.
During the Bush presidency, amnesty proponents were twice defeated when they tried to shove their self-defined “good policy” down the throats of the voters. Amnesty advocates believed, as they do now, that they know what is best for us, but the American public stood up and said “no.” In an election year, the voters can throw the bums out, and that is why Congress fears to bring the issue up before the November elections.
I predict the Schumer legislation supported by President Obama and a whole host of prominent public officials and the media will fail. I also believe it is outrageous to threaten understandably frustrated, Arizona with boycotts because we disagree with the protective procedures it has adopted. Let’s leave the legality of those procedures to the courts. We are one country and should not be boycotting one another. Persuasion should be our tool of choice, not punishment.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
An Immigration Poll
Here's a poll I would like to see:
1. Should illegal aliens be allowed to remain in the U.S. and work if they are in jobs citizens would take if offered a living wage and a hiring preference?
2. Is giving precedence to illegal aliens over the wishes of citizens an act of disloyalty to this country?
3. Is it both a right and a responsibility of a democratic society to manage immigration so that it serves the national interest?
4. Should the United States take whatever steps are necessary to preserve our national sovereignty, character, language, ideals, history, the rule of law, and the national interest?
5. Do you believe the authors of the 14th Amendment would have imagined their words would bestow citizenship to the offspring of illegal aliens, tourists, foreign students, or temporary farm workers?
6. Do you believe that there could be a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one which makes unauthorized entry into this country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry, that is 14th amendment birthright citizenship?
7. Do you believe the term "comprehensive immigration reform" (CIR) is a code term for "amnesty?"
8. Should English be the official language of the United States and used exclusively in all official documents, ballots, publications, and proceedings at all levels of government?
9. Should Public Interpreters, like Public Defenders, be provided to those who cannot afford one or who do not have a family member who can serve in this capacity?
10. Should all other interpreters be provided only on a billable basis?
11. Would a consolidated counterfeit-proof, machine-readable, biometric ID containing the information from Social Security cards, green cards, driver licenses, library cards, voter registration, proofs of auto and health insurance, thumb prints, photos, physical descriptions, coded DNA info, and a record of military service help sort out illegal aliens from citizens in border states and reduce the possibility of racial profiling?
12. Should employers be required to present irrefutable proof that they have been uable to fill their jobs with citizens workers before they are authorized to retain or hire any foreign workers?
13. Should any benefits other than those mandated by federal law be provided to illegal aliens?
14. Should illegal aliens under a removal order be required to take their minor children with them, regardless of the children's citizenship?
15. Should illegal aliens who are ill be deported after their condition has be stabilized?
16. Should foreign women who are pregnant be denied entry into the U.S. and the opportunity to have an instant 14th amendment citizen baby on U.S. soil?
17. Should chain immigrations be allowed for other than the children and spouses of U.S. citizens?
18. Should chain immigrations be counted against the overall immigration quota?
19. Should total legal immigration be reduced to the 1965 level to enable our population to be stabilized?
20. Do you believe that the "limit" of finite natural resources per capita as population grows without bounds is zero?
21. Do you believe that those who have entered our country illegally should ever be granted a pathway to citizenship?
22. Do you believe that the common understanding of amnesty is anything that permits illegal aliens to remain and work in the U.S.?
23. Are you in favor of comprehensive immigration reform if it involves amnesty for tens of millions of illegal aliens?
24. Do you think we should have objective evidence that the borders are secure before any other immigration reforms are undertaken?
25. Should true fluency in English be a requirement for citizenship?
26. Should immigration quotas be focused on applicants who can fill a demonstrated need of our economy or who possess the education, entrepreneurial spirit, innovative skills, or inventiveness needed to keep America competitive in the global economy?
27. Should citizenship be expedited for immigrants and foreign students who have successfully completed a PhD degree in engineering, physical science, math, or medicine?
28. Is focusing on the population or area where illegal aliens are most likely to be found a form of racial profiling?
29. Would less than 10,000 apprehension per year at the border and internally represent secure borders?
30. Is internal enforcement with penalties for both employers and illegal alien employees essential to achieve secure borders?
31. Can our borders ever be secure without internal enforcement?
32. Should illegal aliens who are apprehended serve at least six months working on border infrastructure before they are repatriated?
33. Should repeat offenders do hard time?
34. Should border violations be considered class 3 felonies?
35. Now that the U.S. is fully settled and developed, do we have any need or obligation to admit more immigrants?
36. Are immigrants more energetic and inventive than current citizens?
37. Is a systematic, stepwise approach to immigration reform in a series of separate shorter simpler bills a better approach than a thousand page bill?
38. Does the rule of law apply to illegal aliens?
39. Should immigration laws currently on the books be fully enforced?
40. Should any failure to enforce immigration laws be cause for termination of INS, ICE and Border Patrol agents, and higher level officials in the Administration?
50. Should we negotiate an agreement with our neighbors to permit hot pursuit of drug smugglers and the use of lethal force when they fail to halt when ordered?
51. Should an American labor protection provision be included in all immigration legislation?
52. Should deportation procedures and appeals be simplified to assure minimum detention periods and expeditious deportation?
53. Should all deportations be classified as involuntary even if the deportee agrees to self deport and does so at his own expense?
54. Should employers be held accountable for the immigration status of all employees whether or not they hired them knowingly or intentionally without regard to that status?
55. Should employers be held responsible for all the health care costs of their foreign employees and their families?
56. Should cross border traffic and work commutes be reduced to enable the Border Patrol to do a more effective job of identifying potential terrorists?
57. Should the type of work that a foreign worker is authorized to do be specified on the ID?
58. Should Executive Order 13166 requiring multi-lingual ballots be repealed?
59. Should dual citizenship and dual allegiance be allowed?
60. Should the U.S. provide free schooling for Mexican children in American schools near the borders?
61. Should there be restrictions on the display of foreign flags at other than foreign embassies and consulates except by permit for ethnic holiday parades?
62. Should illegal aliens who participate in street demonstrations be arrested?
63. Do we need a new alien and sedition act to cover illegal aliens and their fellow travelers and supporters?
64. Should any statements by foreign dignitaries regarding our immigration or other laws be treated as interference in our internal affairs?
65. Do we need a law that holds those who aid and abet border violators accountable?
66. Do we need a provision that enables local communities to enact measures to help enforce immigration laws?
67. Should local police and sheriffs' offices be required to determine the immigration status of any one apprehended for other law violations and hold any illegals until ICE takes custody?
68. Should local jurisdictions be enabled to charge illegal aliens with criminal trespass?
69. Should all zoning regulations regarding occupancy rates in private residences be fully enforced?
70. Should all foreign workers who qualify for legal status be paid at the same rate as their citizen counterparts with the same skill level and experience?
71. Should employers who fail to pay foreign workers at the American standard wage be prosecuted for unfair competition?
72. Should anyone who registers for voting using fraudulent documents be sentenced to five years in jail?
73. Should a five year jail term be imposed on anyone permitting or encouraging false voter registration?
74. Should there be a regular audit of voter registration roles to determine the extent of irregularities and to permit the prosecution of those responsible?
75. Should we set higher standards for citizenship by naturalization?
76. Should the U.S. adopt a plan to achieve a stable population?
77. Should Roy Beck be the Executive Director of the INS?
78. Should the deductions for exemptions for dependent children be limited to two per couple?
79. Should we deny cross border permits for work commuters?
80. Should NAFTA be repealed?
81. Should only American tractors be allowed on American highways?
82. Should a cap and trade policy for family size be adopted?
1. Should illegal aliens be allowed to remain in the U.S. and work if they are in jobs citizens would take if offered a living wage and a hiring preference?
2. Is giving precedence to illegal aliens over the wishes of citizens an act of disloyalty to this country?
3. Is it both a right and a responsibility of a democratic society to manage immigration so that it serves the national interest?
4. Should the United States take whatever steps are necessary to preserve our national sovereignty, character, language, ideals, history, the rule of law, and the national interest?
5. Do you believe the authors of the 14th Amendment would have imagined their words would bestow citizenship to the offspring of illegal aliens, tourists, foreign students, or temporary farm workers?
6. Do you believe that there could be a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one which makes unauthorized entry into this country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry, that is 14th amendment birthright citizenship?
7. Do you believe the term "comprehensive immigration reform" (CIR) is a code term for "amnesty?"
8. Should English be the official language of the United States and used exclusively in all official documents, ballots, publications, and proceedings at all levels of government?
9. Should Public Interpreters, like Public Defenders, be provided to those who cannot afford one or who do not have a family member who can serve in this capacity?
10. Should all other interpreters be provided only on a billable basis?
11. Would a consolidated counterfeit-proof, machine-readable, biometric ID containing the information from Social Security cards, green cards, driver licenses, library cards, voter registration, proofs of auto and health insurance, thumb prints, photos, physical descriptions, coded DNA info, and a record of military service help sort out illegal aliens from citizens in border states and reduce the possibility of racial profiling?
12. Should employers be required to present irrefutable proof that they have been uable to fill their jobs with citizens workers before they are authorized to retain or hire any foreign workers?
13. Should any benefits other than those mandated by federal law be provided to illegal aliens?
14. Should illegal aliens under a removal order be required to take their minor children with them, regardless of the children's citizenship?
15. Should illegal aliens who are ill be deported after their condition has be stabilized?
16. Should foreign women who are pregnant be denied entry into the U.S. and the opportunity to have an instant 14th amendment citizen baby on U.S. soil?
17. Should chain immigrations be allowed for other than the children and spouses of U.S. citizens?
18. Should chain immigrations be counted against the overall immigration quota?
19. Should total legal immigration be reduced to the 1965 level to enable our population to be stabilized?
20. Do you believe that the "limit" of finite natural resources per capita as population grows without bounds is zero?
21. Do you believe that those who have entered our country illegally should ever be granted a pathway to citizenship?
22. Do you believe that the common understanding of amnesty is anything that permits illegal aliens to remain and work in the U.S.?
23. Are you in favor of comprehensive immigration reform if it involves amnesty for tens of millions of illegal aliens?
24. Do you think we should have objective evidence that the borders are secure before any other immigration reforms are undertaken?
25. Should true fluency in English be a requirement for citizenship?
26. Should immigration quotas be focused on applicants who can fill a demonstrated need of our economy or who possess the education, entrepreneurial spirit, innovative skills, or inventiveness needed to keep America competitive in the global economy?
27. Should citizenship be expedited for immigrants and foreign students who have successfully completed a PhD degree in engineering, physical science, math, or medicine?
28. Is focusing on the population or area where illegal aliens are most likely to be found a form of racial profiling?
29. Would less than 10,000 apprehension per year at the border and internally represent secure borders?
30. Is internal enforcement with penalties for both employers and illegal alien employees essential to achieve secure borders?
31. Can our borders ever be secure without internal enforcement?
32. Should illegal aliens who are apprehended serve at least six months working on border infrastructure before they are repatriated?
33. Should repeat offenders do hard time?
34. Should border violations be considered class 3 felonies?
35. Now that the U.S. is fully settled and developed, do we have any need or obligation to admit more immigrants?
36. Are immigrants more energetic and inventive than current citizens?
37. Is a systematic, stepwise approach to immigration reform in a series of separate shorter simpler bills a better approach than a thousand page bill?
38. Does the rule of law apply to illegal aliens?
39. Should immigration laws currently on the books be fully enforced?
40. Should any failure to enforce immigration laws be cause for termination of INS, ICE and Border Patrol agents, and higher level officials in the Administration?
50. Should we negotiate an agreement with our neighbors to permit hot pursuit of drug smugglers and the use of lethal force when they fail to halt when ordered?
51. Should an American labor protection provision be included in all immigration legislation?
52. Should deportation procedures and appeals be simplified to assure minimum detention periods and expeditious deportation?
53. Should all deportations be classified as involuntary even if the deportee agrees to self deport and does so at his own expense?
54. Should employers be held accountable for the immigration status of all employees whether or not they hired them knowingly or intentionally without regard to that status?
55. Should employers be held responsible for all the health care costs of their foreign employees and their families?
56. Should cross border traffic and work commutes be reduced to enable the Border Patrol to do a more effective job of identifying potential terrorists?
57. Should the type of work that a foreign worker is authorized to do be specified on the ID?
58. Should Executive Order 13166 requiring multi-lingual ballots be repealed?
59. Should dual citizenship and dual allegiance be allowed?
60. Should the U.S. provide free schooling for Mexican children in American schools near the borders?
61. Should there be restrictions on the display of foreign flags at other than foreign embassies and consulates except by permit for ethnic holiday parades?
62. Should illegal aliens who participate in street demonstrations be arrested?
63. Do we need a new alien and sedition act to cover illegal aliens and their fellow travelers and supporters?
64. Should any statements by foreign dignitaries regarding our immigration or other laws be treated as interference in our internal affairs?
65. Do we need a law that holds those who aid and abet border violators accountable?
66. Do we need a provision that enables local communities to enact measures to help enforce immigration laws?
67. Should local police and sheriffs' offices be required to determine the immigration status of any one apprehended for other law violations and hold any illegals until ICE takes custody?
68. Should local jurisdictions be enabled to charge illegal aliens with criminal trespass?
69. Should all zoning regulations regarding occupancy rates in private residences be fully enforced?
70. Should all foreign workers who qualify for legal status be paid at the same rate as their citizen counterparts with the same skill level and experience?
71. Should employers who fail to pay foreign workers at the American standard wage be prosecuted for unfair competition?
72. Should anyone who registers for voting using fraudulent documents be sentenced to five years in jail?
73. Should a five year jail term be imposed on anyone permitting or encouraging false voter registration?
74. Should there be a regular audit of voter registration roles to determine the extent of irregularities and to permit the prosecution of those responsible?
75. Should we set higher standards for citizenship by naturalization?
76. Should the U.S. adopt a plan to achieve a stable population?
77. Should Roy Beck be the Executive Director of the INS?
78. Should the deductions for exemptions for dependent children be limited to two per couple?
79. Should we deny cross border permits for work commuters?
80. Should NAFTA be repealed?
81. Should only American tractors be allowed on American highways?
82. Should a cap and trade policy for family size be adopted?
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Immigration Reform
An editorial in the Washington Post characterized the new immigration reform proposals as sensible and workable. How soon we forget! I have dealt with the amnesty issue in an earlier post. Below I expose the other ommissions and deficiencies of the current proposals.
A provision is needed in the reform proposals that mandates English as the official language of the U.S. to be used for all official publications, proceedings, and documents at all levels of government. Public Interpreters should be authorized for those who cannot afford one or who do not have a family member who can fulfill this role.
True fluency in English must be required for citizenship. The bill should provide funding for teaching English and testing for fluency.
Carefully constructed language needs to be inserted to reinterpret the 14th amendment in the light of the current unanticipated state of affairs regarding illegal aliens, tourists, and students who abuse the law by producing birthright citizens for the purposes of gaining government benefits for their children and
laying the groundwork for subsequent chain immigrations.
Chain immigrations should be limited to the children and spouses of U.S. citizens. The U.S. should not obligate itself to expedite immigration for any other adult relatives of a citizen. They must get in the same line as those without a citizen relative. All chain immigrations must be counted against the overall immigration quota.
Total immigration should not exceed 250,000 per year, exclusive of students, tourists, and temporary migrant farm workers, and should be focused on those who have the greatest potential for increasing the competitiveness of the U.S. in the global economy. Immigration should be tied to the unemployment rate by sector. If the total unemployment rate in any given sector is greater than a specifired level, immigration in that sector should be suspended. The bill should establish a stable population as a national goal to be achieved within 20 years based on tax and immigration reforms.
A provision is needed in the reform proposals that mandates English as the official language of the U.S. to be used for all official publications, proceedings, and documents at all levels of government. Public Interpreters should be authorized for those who cannot afford one or who do not have a family member who can fulfill this role.
True fluency in English must be required for citizenship. The bill should provide funding for teaching English and testing for fluency.
Carefully constructed language needs to be inserted to reinterpret the 14th amendment in the light of the current unanticipated state of affairs regarding illegal aliens, tourists, and students who abuse the law by producing birthright citizens for the purposes of gaining government benefits for their children and
laying the groundwork for subsequent chain immigrations.
Chain immigrations should be limited to the children and spouses of U.S. citizens. The U.S. should not obligate itself to expedite immigration for any other adult relatives of a citizen. They must get in the same line as those without a citizen relative. All chain immigrations must be counted against the overall immigration quota.
Total immigration should not exceed 250,000 per year, exclusive of students, tourists, and temporary migrant farm workers, and should be focused on those who have the greatest potential for increasing the competitiveness of the U.S. in the global economy. Immigration should be tied to the unemployment rate by sector. If the total unemployment rate in any given sector is greater than a specifired level, immigration in that sector should be suspended. The bill should establish a stable population as a national goal to be achieved within 20 years based on tax and immigration reforms.
The Disconnect between Hispanics and Other Americans
The recent ruckus about the new Arizona immigration law highlights the disconnect between Hispanics and Other Americans. Some like to draw a parallel between U.S. border security measures and the Berlin Wall. Of course, the situations are totally different. The Berlin Wall separated East Germans from their countrymen in the West. It was designed to keep people in rather than keep them out.
The East Germans, to their dismay, found out that mine fields, machine gun towers, and multi-layered fences and walls were not enough to stop people from escaping or attempting to escape to the West. Why? Because the people were willing to take incredible risks because they knew if they could escape to the West, they would never be repatriated back to the repressive regime in the East.
Similarly, in the U.S., illegal aliens know that if they can escape the immediate environs of the border or ports of entry, they will be home free because of the lack of vigorous internal enforcement and the lack of the threat of detention and repatriation. This is the lesson we should have learned from the East German experience. Unless there is a high probability that border violators will be apprehended, denied jobs, and repatriated, our borders will never be secure. Instead of repatriation, some Hispanics want all of the illegals currently in this country to be granted amnesty. This is a recipe for failure even worse than that of the East Germans.
This is the major stumbling block in the current immigration reform proposals. Some claim that the bill already represents a compromise and that therefore it deserves to be passed. But there has been no compromise on the amnesty issue. If an illegal has managed to enter the U.S. illegally, even it is just the day before the bill is enacted, he could qualify for amnesty eventually.
Why is it so hard to understand that amnesty simply doesn’t work? It would merely sweep the problem under the carpet and allow the counting of illegals to start all over again from zero. The number of illegals in the U.S. grew from the 1.3 million who were granted amnesty in 1986 to an estimated 12 million today. What will it be in another 25 years if another amnesty is granted?
We need to find a workable compromise on this single issue without delay. To send the right message, the compromise needs to result in the repatriation of a large number of the illegals. We need to be very selective about those who are allowed to stay and work. They should not be eligible for jobs citizens would do if offered a living wage and a hiring preference. Employers must demonstrate with irrefutable evidence that they are unable to fill their jobs with citizens before they can hire hire or retain any foreign workers. Employers must also pay any foreign workers at the same rate as citizen workers with the same skill level and experience. They should also be required to provide full family health care coverage for their foreign workers so that this expense is not offloaded on the unsuspecting public through higher insurance premiums.
The East Germans, to their dismay, found out that mine fields, machine gun towers, and multi-layered fences and walls were not enough to stop people from escaping or attempting to escape to the West. Why? Because the people were willing to take incredible risks because they knew if they could escape to the West, they would never be repatriated back to the repressive regime in the East.
Similarly, in the U.S., illegal aliens know that if they can escape the immediate environs of the border or ports of entry, they will be home free because of the lack of vigorous internal enforcement and the lack of the threat of detention and repatriation. This is the lesson we should have learned from the East German experience. Unless there is a high probability that border violators will be apprehended, denied jobs, and repatriated, our borders will never be secure. Instead of repatriation, some Hispanics want all of the illegals currently in this country to be granted amnesty. This is a recipe for failure even worse than that of the East Germans.
This is the major stumbling block in the current immigration reform proposals. Some claim that the bill already represents a compromise and that therefore it deserves to be passed. But there has been no compromise on the amnesty issue. If an illegal has managed to enter the U.S. illegally, even it is just the day before the bill is enacted, he could qualify for amnesty eventually.
Why is it so hard to understand that amnesty simply doesn’t work? It would merely sweep the problem under the carpet and allow the counting of illegals to start all over again from zero. The number of illegals in the U.S. grew from the 1.3 million who were granted amnesty in 1986 to an estimated 12 million today. What will it be in another 25 years if another amnesty is granted?
We need to find a workable compromise on this single issue without delay. To send the right message, the compromise needs to result in the repatriation of a large number of the illegals. We need to be very selective about those who are allowed to stay and work. They should not be eligible for jobs citizens would do if offered a living wage and a hiring preference. Employers must demonstrate with irrefutable evidence that they are unable to fill their jobs with citizens before they can hire hire or retain any foreign workers. Employers must also pay any foreign workers at the same rate as citizen workers with the same skill level and experience. They should also be required to provide full family health care coverage for their foreign workers so that this expense is not offloaded on the unsuspecting public through higher insurance premiums.
The Disconnect between Hispanics and Other Americans
The recent ruckus about the new Arizona immigration law highlights the disconnect between Hispanics and Other Americans. Some like to draw a parallel between U.S. border security measures and the Berlin Wall. Of course, the situations are totally different. The Berlin Wall separated East Germans from their countrymen in the West. It was designed to keep people in rather than keep them out.
The East Germans, to their dismay, found out that mine fields, machine gun towers, and multi-layered fences and walls were not enough to stop people from escaping or attempting to escape to the West. Why? What was the missing ingredient? The people were willing to take these incredible risks because they knew if they could escape to the West, they would never be repatriated back to the repressive regime in the East.
Similarly, in the U.S., illegal aliens know that if they can escape the immediate environs of the border or ports of entry, they will be home free because of the lack of vigorous internal enforcement and the threat of repatriation. This is the lesson we should have learned from the East German experience. Unless there is a high probability that border violators will be apprehended, denied jobs, and repatriated, our borders will never be secure. Instead of repatriation, some Hispanics want all of the illegals currently in this country to be granted amnesty. This is a recipe for failure like that of the East Germans.
This is the major stumbling block in the current immigration reform proposals. Some claim that the bill already represents a compromise and that therefore it deserves to be passed. But there has been no compromise on the amnesty issue. If an illegal has managed to enter the U.S. illegally the day before the bill is enacted, he would qualify for the Reid, Schumer, Menendez amnesty. Why is it so hard to understand that this approach simply won’t work? The number of illegals in the U.S. grew from the 1.3 million who were granted amnesty in 1986 to an estimated 12 million today. What will it be in another 25 years if another amnesty is granted? We need to find a workable compromise on this single issue without delay. To send the right message, the compromise needs to result in the repatriation of a large number of the illegals. We need to be very selective about those who are allowed to stay and work. They cannot be eligible for jobs citizens would do if offered a living wage and a hiring preference. Employers must pay foreign workers at the same rate as citizen workers with the same skill level and experience. They should also be required to provide full family health care coverage for their foreign workers so that this expense is not offloaded on the unsuspecting public through higher insurance premiums.
The East Germans, to their dismay, found out that mine fields, machine gun towers, and multi-layered fences and walls were not enough to stop people from escaping or attempting to escape to the West. Why? What was the missing ingredient? The people were willing to take these incredible risks because they knew if they could escape to the West, they would never be repatriated back to the repressive regime in the East.
Similarly, in the U.S., illegal aliens know that if they can escape the immediate environs of the border or ports of entry, they will be home free because of the lack of vigorous internal enforcement and the threat of repatriation. This is the lesson we should have learned from the East German experience. Unless there is a high probability that border violators will be apprehended, denied jobs, and repatriated, our borders will never be secure. Instead of repatriation, some Hispanics want all of the illegals currently in this country to be granted amnesty. This is a recipe for failure like that of the East Germans.
This is the major stumbling block in the current immigration reform proposals. Some claim that the bill already represents a compromise and that therefore it deserves to be passed. But there has been no compromise on the amnesty issue. If an illegal has managed to enter the U.S. illegally the day before the bill is enacted, he would qualify for the Reid, Schumer, Menendez amnesty. Why is it so hard to understand that this approach simply won’t work? The number of illegals in the U.S. grew from the 1.3 million who were granted amnesty in 1986 to an estimated 12 million today. What will it be in another 25 years if another amnesty is granted? We need to find a workable compromise on this single issue without delay. To send the right message, the compromise needs to result in the repatriation of a large number of the illegals. We need to be very selective about those who are allowed to stay and work. They cannot be eligible for jobs citizens would do if offered a living wage and a hiring preference. Employers must pay foreign workers at the same rate as citizen workers with the same skill level and experience. They should also be required to provide full family health care coverage for their foreign workers so that this expense is not offloaded on the unsuspecting public through higher insurance premiums.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Thursday, May 27, 2010
The Abandoned Children of Visa Overstays and Other Illegals
On Wednesday, the Today Show NBC's Natalie Morales introduced Telemundo's Maria Celeste Arraras to tell the story of a South Florida family that has been separated by immigration laws. It is the tale of a Colombian mother deported back to her home country because, like 40% of the illegal aliens in the U.S, she overstayed her visa. Many people will say to the children, “Well, this is a very sad case but too bad, your mother was not a citizen and should not have come here in the first place. Moreover, your mother chose to leave you behind or you chose not to accompany her. So whose fault is this? Since she wasn’t a citizen she should not have been here and, in some sense, neither should you, even though the 14th amendment gives you that right if you were born here.
In the U.S., one of the strongest incentives for border violations is the 14th amendment which grants citizenship to anyone who is born in this country.
Originally, the 14th amendment was designed to give full citizenship status to former slaves and their offspring. The authors of the 14th Amendment never would have imagined their words bestowing citizenship to the offspring of illegal aliens, tourists, foreign students, or temporary farm workers.
In the U.S., one of the strongest incentives for border violations is the 14th amendment which grants citizenship to anyone who is born in this country.
It is difficult to imagine a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one which makes unauthorized entry into this country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry.
Originally, the 14th amendment was designed to give full citizenship status to former slaves and their offspring. The authors of the 14th Amendment never would have imagined their words bestowing citizenship to the offspring of illegal aliens, tourists, foreign students, or temporary farm workers.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Saturday, October 24, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)