Dee Perez-Scott: End of History

How long do countries have until their populations disappear?

As The Economist reports this week, many women in the richer parts of Asia have gone on “marriage strike”, preferring the single life to the marital yoke. That is one reason why their fertility rates have fallen. And they are not alone. In 83 countries and territories around the world, according to the United Nations, women will not have enough daughters to replace themselves, unless fertility rates rise. In Hong Kong, for example, a cohort of 1,000 women would be expected to give birth to just 547 daughters, at today’s fertility rates. (That gives Hong Kong a “net reproduction rate” of just 0.547, in the language of demographers.) If nothing changed, those 547 daughters would be succeeded by just 299 daughters of their own, and so on. At that rate, according to some back-of-the-envelope calculations by The Economist, it would take about 25 generations for Hong Kong’s female population to shrink from 3.75m to just one. Given that Hong Kong’s average age of childbearing is 31.4 years, it could expect to give birth to its last woman in the year 2798. (That is some time after its neighbour, Macau, which has a higher reproduction rate, but a much smaller population.) By the same unflinching logic, Japan, Germany, Russia, Italy and Spain will not see out the next millennium. Even China, which has a recorded history stretching back at least 3,700 years, has only about 1,500 years le

Dee Perez-Scott: Think!

THINK OUR IMMIGRANT PAST

Written in the mid-1800s when immigration was nearing its first peak and the U.S. population was only about 50 million, Emma Lazarus’s famous sonnet was an expression of her empathy for those who had fled the anti-Semitic Pogroms in Eastern Europe. The sonnet is a poignant reminder of our immigrant past but the operative word in that phrase is the word "past" Though it is mounted on the base of the Statue of Liberty, the sonnet is now outdated and irrelevant except as an historical artifact.

Since the mid-1800s, our population has increased six-fold. No one can deny that conditions are dramatically different today than they were when Lazarus wrote her poem. Child labor, prohibition, lack of women’s suffrage, Jim Crow laws, and segregation are also all in our past. Few thinking Americans want to go back to that “past” yet some of us continue to cling to the idea of “our immigrant past” without a second thought about its appropriateness as a model for the fully-settled and fully-developed America of today with a population of more than 300 million people.

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


THINK CRIME


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

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

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

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

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

The "limit" of finite natural resources per capita as population increases without bounds is zero. (The more there are of us, the less there is for each of us.) Americans produce at least 20 metric tons of pollutants per capita annually. Even if, by some technological miracle, we were to be able to reduce that output by half to that of Mexico, we would have made no progress in reducing the total output as our population doubles to 600 millions.

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

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

THINK CULTURE

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

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

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

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

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

THINK ECONOMICS

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

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

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

THINK EDUCATION

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

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

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

THINK ENERGY

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

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

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

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

THINK ENVIRONMENT

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

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

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

THINK FOOD & FARMS

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

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

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

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

THINK HOUSING

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

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

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

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

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

THINK INFRASTRUCTURE

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

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

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

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

THINK LEGISLATION

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

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

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

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

THINK TAXATION

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

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

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

THINK POVERTY

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

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

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

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

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

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

THINK SAFETY

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

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

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

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

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

THINK SOLITUDE

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

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

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

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

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

THINK WASTE

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

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

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

THINK WATER

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

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

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

Sandra Postel, Director, Global Water Policy Project.

Dee Perez-Scott Opposes Immigration Reform

Dee Perez-Scott opposes meaningful immigration reform and prefers to support illegal aliens.

Immigration in its many forms has become the main driver of America's population growth. Newly arriving immigrants of all categories -- legal, quasi-legal and illegal -- now add at least 1.1 million to yearly U.S. population growth of 3.3 million. Net new arrivals and births to immigrants together total 2.1 million, nearly two thirds of all current population growth, and presaging more future growth from their second and later generation descendants. The total foreign-born population reached 35 million in 2005.

Plain Talk and Tough Strategies for Immigration Curbs

There are three interacting streams in today's mass immigration: illegal immigrants, legal immigrants and "quasi-legal" (or fictional "temporary") immigrants. All bring in people for extended or permanent stays, adding them to the nation's resource-consumptive population base. The new entrants compete for jobs, particularly with less skilled residents. All streams are now largely ungoverned by any effective numerical limits or rational comprehensive management.

America needs the omplete elimination of illegal and quasi-legal immigration and reduction of current legal immigration by 80 percent.

Illegal Immigration: Raising the Costs and Risks

Illegal immigrants are those 500,000 to 600,000 aliens each year who sneak across America's borders, or use fraud to pass through our ports of entry, or acquire a temporary visitor visa and remain permanently.

Assuming an aroused public can inspire our sluggish government with a will to enforce, there are many promising ideas already circulating among restrictionist legislators, enforcement professionals, and reform-minded citizen groups.

Sustained, regular enforcement of existing rules and penalties would significantly curb illegal immigration. Effective and sustained internal enforcement based on E-verification of work status is the sine qua non of border security in depth. Continuing improvements in infrastructure, staffing and the rules of engagment at the border are essential but ineffective in the absence of total internal enforcement. Illegal aliens must understand that they will be identified, detained, and deported involuntarily. Immigration decisions need to be made within 24 hours of the aliens' apprehension. With a rigid set of guidelines, these decisions can be rendered by justices of the peace except for the most difficult poltical asylum cases. If you are here and do not have proper authorization and documentation, appeals of removal orders will be limited to one week from the date of the immigration decision. To accomplish this goal we need:

Mandatory imposition of fines and/or jail terms -- for illegal entry, illegal presence, document and visa fraud, and knowingly hiring illegal aliens -- would hasten the end of illegal immigration.

More physical and technical barriers to entry, with sufficient manpower to maintain and police them.

Better rules of engagement so lethal force can be used on gun and drug smugglers and sick persons and pregnant women are not admitted under any circumstances.

A streamlined process of deportation, which is now mired in interminable appeals.

Regular E-verification of legal immigration status during transactions with government, banking, health care and real estate sectors to detect illegal aliens and ensure their removal.

Sizable increases in the number of investigators, border patrol agents, federal attorneys, judges, immigration justices of the peace and more detention space and personnel to make these steps work. Payment of operators of detention facilities on the basis of detainee throughput rather than detainee days. Immigration justices of the peace embedded in all detention facilities.

Systematic enlistment of local and state law enforcement agencies to cooperate with the Federal government in identifying and turning over illegal aliens to the DHS (Department of Homeland Security)as suggested in Arizona's SB1070 law.

All these tougher measures would conform to prevailing public opinion, as demonstrated in the rush of congressional bills now seeking them (See House Bill HR 4437 passed in December 2005) and in opinion polls. In a 2003 poll , two-thirds or more of the respondents supported mandatory prison terms and fines for illegal immigration, detention of illegal aliens by state and local government, and strict application of fines or criminal penalties on employers who knowingly or unknowingly hire them. A documented failure of the E-vefication system is the only excuse that should be considered.

Legal and Quasi-Legal Immigration: An 80 Percent Reduction

Most of the official immigration numbers count annual grants of legal residency -- a little less than one million in 2004 -- rather than the real-world inflow of people.

And there are several million more in the pipeline for green cards and the accompanying right to bring in families. Naturalization of the alien opens the door without limits to his spouse, children and parents, and, within limits, to his adult children and his siblings. "Chain migration" powers both illegal and legal immigration. Therefore chain immigation must be eliminated. Adult relatives of citizens and permanent residents must compete on a level playing field with other applicants. Spouses and minor children of citizens and permanent residents must be counted against the over all quota.


To stop the chain migration snowball and immigrant-fed population growth, legal immigration should be cut to not more than 200,000 per year, a level supportive of eventual reduction of U.S. population. An 80 percent cut will mean eventually ending all family reunification.

The new ceiling of 200,000 admissions should be used to satisfy core U.S. national interests.

a) Humanitarian -- Up to 30,000 for permanent humanitarian admission of the most endangered refugees and asylees. All other humanitarian admissions would be for short terms only.
b) Work -- 110,000 for PhDs in physical science, engineering, math, or mediciemn, other skilled professionals, technicians, artists and entrepreneurs and their immediate families. There would be no admissions of semi-skilled or unskilled workers.
c) Special Needs -- Up to 10,000 slots to cover an array of special immigrant allocations, such as religious ministers, rare specialty workers, military recruits, and foreign employees of the U.S. government.
d) Existing so-called "temporary" visas for workers and professionals -- These now account for 220,000 "quasi-legal" immigrants a year. They should be abolished and skilled labor needs met under the 200,000 limit.
e) Transitioning Away from Family Reunification -- Family reunification should be phased out. Petitions of U.S. citizens for nuclear families approved before enactment would be honored. For five years thereafter 50,000 slots a year would be allotted for qualified spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens under strict eligibility rules. Afterward, the 50,000 numbers would be prorated among the three permanent categories.

Other steps to keep the numbers low are:

An absolute ban on amnesties and Mariel-type mass "emergency" admissions.

An end to citizenship by birth for "anchor babies" born here to illegal and temporary visa aliens, now seen as required by the 14th Amendment. Anchor babies born to illegal alien parents accounted for 380,000 births in 2004, nearly 40 percent of all births to immigrants. Bills regularly introduced in Congress would end automatic citizenship with a clarifying statute. If legislation fails, the constitution should be amended.

Gumballs II

The Other Hydra - Dee's Band of Disloyalists

Dee accuses a distinguished group of senators and all others who disagree with her of hate and racism. That is the limit of her brain power. She cannot see the broader issues. She tacitly approves of Mexico Norte as a goal. Her ethnocentrism blinds her to the relevant facts. Her intemperate blogs is a gross disservice to the senators and to many loyal Americans who see the end of the country we know and love. What she wants is to "leave the borders open to unlimited illegal entry until, and it won't take long, the social, political, economic life of the United State is reduced to the level of life in Juarez, Guadalajara, Mexico City, El Salvador, Haiti, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan. To a common peneplain of overcrowding squalor, misery,torture, crime and rape." Good luck with that vision of America, Dee.

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.

New Poll Confirms the Divide between Hisapanics and Other Americans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-- "It is difficult to imagine a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one which makes unauthorized entry into this country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides for birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment which is perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry."

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

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

Petition: Stabilize the U.S. Population

Online petition - Establish a National Objective to Stabilize the U.S. Population

Broad Approval for New Arizona Immigration Law

May 12, 2010
Democrats Divided, But Support key Provisions

The public broadly supports a new Arizona law aimed at dealing with illegal immigration and the law’s provisions giving police increased powers to stop and detain people who are suspected of being in the country illegally.

Fully 73% say they approve of requiring people to produce documents verifying their legal status if police ask for them. Two-thirds (67%) approve of allowing police to detain anyone who cannot verify their legal status, while 62% approve of allowing police to question people they think may be in the country illegally.

After being asked about the law’s provisions, 59% say that, considering everything, they approve of Arizona’s new illegal immigration law while 32% disapprove.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted May 6-9 among 994 adults, finds that Democrats are evenly split over Arizona’s new immigration law: 45% approve of the law and 46% disapprove. However, majorities of Democrats approve of two of the law’s principal provisions: requiring people to produce documents verifying legal status (65%) and allowing police to detain anyone unable to verify their legal status (55%).

Republicans overwhelmingly approve of the law and three provisions tested. Similarly, among independents there is little difference in opinions of the new Arizona law (64% approve) and its elements, which are viewed positively.

Young people are less supportive of the Arizona immigration law than are older Americans. Fewer than half (45%) of those younger than 30 approve of the new law while 47% disapprove. Majorities of older age groups – including 74% of those 65 and older – approve of the law.

However, even most young people approve of requiring people to produce documents verifying their legal status; 61% approve of this element of the law while 35% disapprove. Larger percentages of older age groups support this provision.

Most Disapprove of Obama on Immigration As has been the case since last fall, the public is highly critical of Barack Obama’s handling of immigration policy. Just 25% approve of the way Obama is handling the issue, while more than twice as many (54%) disapprove. That is little changed from last month (29% approve) and down slightly from last November (31%).

In the current survey, 76% of Republicans disapprove of Obama’s handling of immigration policy, while just 8% approve. Independents disapprove of Obama’s job on the issue by more than two-to-one (57% to 25%). Even among Democrats, as many disapprove (38%) as approve (37%) of the way he is handling the issue, while a quarter (25%) offer no opinion.

Open Letter to Rep. Luis Gutierrez

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

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

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

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

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

CIR for Loyal Americans

Comprehensive Immigration Reform for Loyal Americans
The essential elements of real comprehensive immigration reform in priority order are:
1. Secure our borders first before any other immigration reforms are considered.
a. Continue improvements in border infrastructure and staffing.
b. Buttress these improvements with comprehensive internal enforcement using as the primary tool mandatory E-Verify across the board for all employers, public and private, and all employees, new and current.
c. Demonstrate that the borders are secure with objective data collected by the border patrol and ICE regarding the number and trend of apprehensions at the border and internally.
d. Set a reasonable target for the total number of illegals still present in the U.S. to be before success can be declared.
e. Supplement objective data with secret surveys of all border patrol and ICE agents asking their opinions as to whether the borders are secure.
f. Solicit and implement ideas from the border patrol and ICE on how border security and internal enforcement can be improved.
f. Require all illegal aliens apprehended at the border or internally to spend six months working on border infrastructure at minimum wage before they are fingerprinted, photographed, DNAed, and escorted to the border with the admonition that if they return without valid documents they will do two years of hard time, five for repeat offenders.
g. Prohibit catch and release at the border and internally.
h. End voluntary self-removal by illegal aliens; all removals, self-removal or otherwise, must be considered involuntary so that if they return without the proper documents they will be considered felons and do a minimum of two years of hard time.
I. Require illegals and their employers identified via E-Verify to pay the cost of repatriation.
j. Revise the rules of engagement to permit hot pursuit of drug runners and the use of lethal force; granting immunity from prosecution for agents in the legitimate performance of their duties pursuant to these revised rules.
k. Establish a deadline beyond which the use of fraudulent documents and social security numbers will be considered a felony.

2. Tie legal immigration quotas to the U.S. total unemployment rate by sector, profession, or type of work. (For example, if the unemployment level among computer programmers is above the specified criterion, legal immigration in that sector would be halted.)
a. Limit legal immigration to no more than 200,000 per year. (All successful applicants must be briefed on the desirability of a stable population and the adaptation necessary to facilitate that goal and achieve a soft landing for a sustainable economy.)
b. Design immigration and tax policy to achieve a stable population, the conservation of energy and natural resources, and the reduction of environment-destroying pollution of all kinds.
c. Use “Cap and Trade” as one means for achieving a stable population. (Women who wish to have more than the replacement number of children, about 2.1 on the average per couple, will have to buy credits from those who wish to have fewer.)

2. Grant accelerated citizenship consideration to aliens who enlist in the armed forces for at least 4 years and who serve at least one tour in a combat zone.

3. Make English the official language of the United States to be used for all ballots and other government publications and proceedings at all levels of government. (Repeal Executive Order 13166 but make public interpreters available to those who cannot afford one and who do not have a family member who can serve in that capacity.)
a. Grant legal immigration priority to English-speaking applicants who have the skills needed by America to stay competitive in a global environment. Give accelerated consideration to foreign PhD students in math, physical science, engineering, and MDs in medicine who wish to become American citizens and who are prepared to renounce all allegiance to foreign countries or potentates and any claim to dual citizenship.
b. Raise the bar for citizenship to real fluency in reading, writing, and speaking English rather than the current few words and phrases from a study guide. (Failure to achieve fluency would not be cause for deportation of legal residents.)

4. Require that at least one parent be a citizen of the U.S. before birthright citizenship can be granted under the 14th Amendment.
5. End chain immigrations, except for the spouses and children of those who have been granted citizenship.
6. Make Immigration Court decisions within 24 hours of apprehension. Allow only one week allowed for appeals.
7. Establish rigid criteria for successful appeals. (Successful grounds for an appeal of a removal order may include: evidence of social integration, and cultural and linguistic assimilation, testimony of employers and co-workers as well as evidence that their children are in school learning civics, citizenship and English and are willing to declare their sole allegiance to the U.S. and renounce any dual allegiance and citizenship Family unification is excluded as a basis for an appeal. All minor children, regardless of citizenship, must accompany parents under a removal order.)
8. Prohibit the flying of foreign national flags except at foreign embassies and consulates and by permit for parades on ethnic holidays honoring our immigrant past. (For example, Columbus Day, St. Patrick's Day, Bastille Day, and Cinco de Mayo.)
9. Build a string of triage and obstetric hospitals across on the other side of the borders and provide transport to those hospitals for any foreigners who show up at the border crossings who need medical assistance. Share the cost of constructing these hospitals with our neighbors but, in return, expect Mexico and Canada to staff them.
10. Prohibit unwarranted criticism of legal immigrants and violence against anyone based on race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual preference.
11. Allow employers to present irrefutable evidence that they have made a good faith effort to hire citizens by offering a living wage and a hiring preference before they can declare a hardship case for hiring foreign workers.
12. Employers of foreign workers must provide full family health care insurance for them.

Copenhagen Fails - Omits Discussion of Population

Previous studies on the determinants of carbon dioxide emissions have primarily focused on the
role of affluence. The impact of population growth on carbon dioxide emissions has received less attention.
A new paper takes a step forward providing such empirical evidence, using a data set of 93 countries for the
period of 1975-1996. The paper has following findings. (1) Population growth has been one of the major
driving forces behind increasing carbon dioxide emissions worldwide over the last two decades. It is
estimated that half of increase in emissions by 2025 will be contributed by future population growth alone.
(2) Rising income levels have been associated with a monotonically upward shift in emissions.

Thus, without increasing costs dramatically by imposing strict controls on emissions, much could be accomplished by just stabilizing our population.
__________________________

Muslim Demographics - Another Point of View

The Muslims Are Coming!

District Court Rules in Favor of E-Verify Executive Order

On Wednesday, a federal court in Maryland ruled in favor of the E-Verify mandate for federal contractors, first issued by the Bush Administration. The order requires all contractors to verify the workplace eligibility of new hires, but it's been delayed four times - once by the Bush Administration and three times by the Obama Administration - pending the court's ruling. The rule is now set to become effective on Sept. 8. URGE Pres. Obama to prevent any further delays from the rule taking effect.

Also, be sure to read the blog from Dr. James Edwards who co-authored the book "The Congressional Politics of Immigration Reform". In his blog, Dr. Edwards details how the House's proposed health care bill would benefit illegal aliens.

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.

Externalities

All employers, not just corporations, seek to externalize costs. They are just trying to improve their bottom line.An externality is when the benefit or cost of a transaction is not reflected in the price arrived at by the buyer and seller when they enter into the deal. The benefit or cost is shifted onto society.

It’s very simple: Employers gain from illegal immigration because illegal immigration increases the supply of labor in the U.S. economy (by 8 million workers), which in turn reduces the cost of labor in the United States. The lower cost of labor allows employers to hire workers at lower wages and therefore make more money. If it is a small landscaping business, the owner can make more money by hiring workers at lower wages. If it is a large, public corporation, the managers can make more money by hiring at lower wages. Some of the money will go to executives in the form of higher salaries, and some of it may go to the shareholders as higher dividends. Sometimes the employer knows they are hiring illegal immigrants; many times the employer does not because the illegal workers have fake papers (which is a federal crime). Congress has had a tendency to excuse the employers if they did not "knowingly" hire illegal aliens. This loophole has yet to be closed.

But since 80% of illegal immigrants are low-skilled, they usually earn such low wages that they turn to welfare to make ends meet. So we, the taxpayers, are subsidizing illegal aliens as they break our nation’s reasonable and duly enacted laws. And we, the taxpayers, are subsidizing employers’ increased profits due to lower labor costs. Show me an illegal alien and I’ll show you a subsidy. And, if you are purposely hiring illegal workers, you are shifting your labor costs to the public and enriching yourself while the rest of us pay taxes to provide welfare to your workers.

The market is distorted. The availability of welfare benefits to illegal immigrants acts as an inducement for them to come here and accept jobs that Americans would rather not accept because the pay is so low that you cannot take the job without going on welfare. The taxpayer burden of illegal immigration is a negative externality of the cheap labor employer-employee relationship. It is a negative externality just like pollution is. The concept of the negative externality is at the heart of environmentalism. The Pro-america, pro-environment people understand that illegal immigration imposes negative externalities on society. But I think that if you put the plain evidence in front of the Anti-America/Pro-illegal crowd that illegal immigration imposes a negative externality on society, they would deny it. It wouldn’t be politically correct for them to allow logic to lead them to an honest conclusion.

(Adapted from an essay by Charles Breiterman)