SECTION 834b - California Penal Code
(a) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws.
(b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following:
(1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding documentation to indicate his or her legal status.
(2) Notify the person of his or her apparent status as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws and inform him or her that, apart from any criminal justice proceedings, he or she must either obtain legal status or leave the United States.
(3) Notify the Attorney General of California and the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service of the apparent illegal status and provide any additional information that may be requested by any other public entity.
(c) Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city, county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent or limit the cooperation required by subdivision (a) is expressly prohibited.”
________________________________________________________________________
Showing posts with label emissions green house gases immigration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label emissions green house gases immigration. Show all posts
Monday, May 24, 2010
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Open Letter to President Obama
President Barak Hussein Obama
The White House
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. President,
I respectfully disagree with you regarding SB1070 recently signed by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer. Instead of being a "misguided threat to the basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans," it is an affirmation of the rule of law as the very foundation of all civilized societies. This bill might have been unnecessary had the federal government provided more leadership in identifying, apprehending, and repatriating the illegal aliens who are surplus to the needs of our economy.
Although the mass deportation of illegals at their own or their employers' expense is logistically feasible, there are few advocates for that approach. Did you know that, using a heavily damaged transportation system, eight million ethnic Germans were repatriated back to the heartland of Germany from the Eastern Territories in less than a year following WW II? Therefore, with modern transportation systems in good repair, the logistics of repatriation would not be that difficult.
Of course, no one wants illegal aliens to be treated as poorly as the German civilians were, many of whom died for lack of food and adequate clothing during the winter journey.
You warned earlier Friday that the law, "threaten[s] to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe." I disagree. Properly implemented with due regard for the rights of all of our citizens, this new law could help Arizona to regain control of its critical, crime-ridden border with Mexico. I have strongly recommended to the governor that she send a letter to all of the enforcement jurisdictions in Arizona to urge them to treat anyone that they stop with courtesy and dignity, giving them a full opportunity to prove their citizenship without the need for extended detention.
By cooperating with the police in the implementation of this law, residents of all communities will build the mutual trust needed to enable the police to keep them safe from the Mexican drug smugglers and violent gangs and rid their neighborhoods of illegal aliens.
I am surprised that you think this law undermines our basic notions of fairness. I am a fairminded citizen and I thoroughly approve of this new law. I have provided a copy of it to Colorado legislators urging similar action as soon as possible.
The gross failure of the federal government to implement effective internal enforcement policies that enable the Immigration and Naturalization Service to identify and sanction miscreant employers and apprehend illegal aliens is a travesty of the highest order. That is what violates my sense of fairness.
The E-verify system has yet to result in any citizen being permanently denied a job. Without implementation of this system across the board for all employers, public and private, and all employees, both current and potential new hires, your Administration and the Congress will always be seen as giving only lip service to border security in depth. Our borders cannot be secured without vigorous and continuous internal enforcement to buttress improvements in infrastructure, staffing and the rules of engagement at the border.
SB1070 is a essential first step toward quick and easy identification and apprehension of those who have violated our border. I ask you to ignore the noise you hear from supporters of illegal aliens. Those who give precedence to illegal aliens over the wishes of most Americans imperils the rule of law and the safety of citizens. They are being disloyal. Their allegiance to the country is highly suspect.
I favor a federal grant to Arizona to equip all of its police cruisers with communications equipment that would enable officers to check the credentials of any individual on the spot for name/social security number mismatches, duplicate social security numbers,and the names and numbers found on drivers licenses and green cards against a national data base. This equipment would be similar to the communications device already used to check auto license numbers against a list of stolen vehicles. Such a system would assure that those whose bona fides check out could be quickly on their way with the thanks of the officers for their cooperation. It is the same system that should be used by all employers on a mandatory basis.
Two of the biggest stumbling blocks to getting immigration under control are chain immigrations which multiply the number allowed to enter our country and the 14th Amendment which creates instant citizens of the offspring of tourists and illegal aliens. All these interlopers have to do is get across the border just in time to deliver their babies in American hospitals at the expense of taxpayers. It seems entirely fitting to ask the high court whether a new law could be written to interpret the 14th Amendment to require at least one parent to be a citizen before the child can achieve instant citizenship by accident or design of his or her birth on this side of the border.
There are many other related issues here such as the need for a national objective of a stable population in recognition of our finite natural resources and the desire of everyone to maintain his or her standard of living and quality of life. Those issues will have to be addressed on another occasion. We are headed toward a population of more than 458 million people by mid-century and perhaps more than a billion by end of the century. How many people is enough? Are we "fiddling while Rome is burning?" Population-driven economic growth is ultimately unsustainable. Let’s reform immigration and tax policies in ways that will enable a stable population and a soft landing for our economy.
The 2007 and 2008 CIR bills were defeated because they increased legal immigration and swept the millions of illegal aliens under the carpet by granting them what amounted to mass legalization. That is not the kind of reform we want or need. It is strictly a special interest idea that the American people do not support.
Legal immigration numbers must be tied directly to the umemployment rate by sector within our economy.
Respectfully,
The White House
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. President,
I respectfully disagree with you regarding SB1070 recently signed by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer. Instead of being a "misguided threat to the basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans," it is an affirmation of the rule of law as the very foundation of all civilized societies. This bill might have been unnecessary had the federal government provided more leadership in identifying, apprehending, and repatriating the illegal aliens who are surplus to the needs of our economy.
Although the mass deportation of illegals at their own or their employers' expense is logistically feasible, there are few advocates for that approach. Did you know that, using a heavily damaged transportation system, eight million ethnic Germans were repatriated back to the heartland of Germany from the Eastern Territories in less than a year following WW II? Therefore, with modern transportation systems in good repair, the logistics of repatriation would not be that difficult.
Of course, no one wants illegal aliens to be treated as poorly as the German civilians were, many of whom died for lack of food and adequate clothing during the winter journey.
You warned earlier Friday that the law, "threaten[s] to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe." I disagree. Properly implemented with due regard for the rights of all of our citizens, this new law could help Arizona to regain control of its critical, crime-ridden border with Mexico. I have strongly recommended to the governor that she send a letter to all of the enforcement jurisdictions in Arizona to urge them to treat anyone that they stop with courtesy and dignity, giving them a full opportunity to prove their citizenship without the need for extended detention.
By cooperating with the police in the implementation of this law, residents of all communities will build the mutual trust needed to enable the police to keep them safe from the Mexican drug smugglers and violent gangs and rid their neighborhoods of illegal aliens.
I am surprised that you think this law undermines our basic notions of fairness. I am a fairminded citizen and I thoroughly approve of this new law. I have provided a copy of it to Colorado legislators urging similar action as soon as possible.
The gross failure of the federal government to implement effective internal enforcement policies that enable the Immigration and Naturalization Service to identify and sanction miscreant employers and apprehend illegal aliens is a travesty of the highest order. That is what violates my sense of fairness.
The E-verify system has yet to result in any citizen being permanently denied a job. Without implementation of this system across the board for all employers, public and private, and all employees, both current and potential new hires, your Administration and the Congress will always be seen as giving only lip service to border security in depth. Our borders cannot be secured without vigorous and continuous internal enforcement to buttress improvements in infrastructure, staffing and the rules of engagement at the border.
SB1070 is a essential first step toward quick and easy identification and apprehension of those who have violated our border. I ask you to ignore the noise you hear from supporters of illegal aliens. Those who give precedence to illegal aliens over the wishes of most Americans imperils the rule of law and the safety of citizens. They are being disloyal. Their allegiance to the country is highly suspect.
I favor a federal grant to Arizona to equip all of its police cruisers with communications equipment that would enable officers to check the credentials of any individual on the spot for name/social security number mismatches, duplicate social security numbers,and the names and numbers found on drivers licenses and green cards against a national data base. This equipment would be similar to the communications device already used to check auto license numbers against a list of stolen vehicles. Such a system would assure that those whose bona fides check out could be quickly on their way with the thanks of the officers for their cooperation. It is the same system that should be used by all employers on a mandatory basis.
Two of the biggest stumbling blocks to getting immigration under control are chain immigrations which multiply the number allowed to enter our country and the 14th Amendment which creates instant citizens of the offspring of tourists and illegal aliens. All these interlopers have to do is get across the border just in time to deliver their babies in American hospitals at the expense of taxpayers. It seems entirely fitting to ask the high court whether a new law could be written to interpret the 14th Amendment to require at least one parent to be a citizen before the child can achieve instant citizenship by accident or design of his or her birth on this side of the border.
There are many other related issues here such as the need for a national objective of a stable population in recognition of our finite natural resources and the desire of everyone to maintain his or her standard of living and quality of life. Those issues will have to be addressed on another occasion. We are headed toward a population of more than 458 million people by mid-century and perhaps more than a billion by end of the century. How many people is enough? Are we "fiddling while Rome is burning?" Population-driven economic growth is ultimately unsustainable. Let’s reform immigration and tax policies in ways that will enable a stable population and a soft landing for our economy.
The 2007 and 2008 CIR bills were defeated because they increased legal immigration and swept the millions of illegal aliens under the carpet by granting them what amounted to mass legalization. That is not the kind of reform we want or need. It is strictly a special interest idea that the American people do not support.
Legal immigration numbers must be tied directly to the umemployment rate by sector within our economy.
Respectfully,
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
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
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.
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.
Friday, December 25, 2009
Study Shows Connection between Population & Carbon Emissions
Here is a link to a study done in Brazil that that links population growth and carbon emissions. Isn't time we realized this connection and structured our tax and immigration policies to help us achieve the emission reduction goals the rest of the world expects us to achieve? We need to implement a cap and trade policy on the number of children a woman can have. If she wishes to have more that the replacement level of about two children, then she and her partner must purchase credits from those who wish to have fewer.
On the immigration front, we could begin by limiting the number of legal immigrants each year to no more than 200,000, exclusive of foreign students, temporary migrant farm workers, and tourists. Of course, we must also take the necessary actions to secure our borders and locate, identify and process those illegal aliens who are already here. Only those who it can be shown are essential to our economy should be allowed to stay.
We need to put our economists to work to figure out what we must do to achieve a soft landing for our economy while we are in the process of stabilizing our population through the above measures.
On the immigration front, we could begin by limiting the number of legal immigrants each year to no more than 200,000, exclusive of foreign students, temporary migrant farm workers, and tourists. Of course, we must also take the necessary actions to secure our borders and locate, identify and process those illegal aliens who are already here. Only those who it can be shown are essential to our economy should be allowed to stay.
We need to put our economists to work to figure out what we must do to achieve a soft landing for our economy while we are in the process of stabilizing our population through the above measures.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Copenhagen Fails - Omits Discussion of Population
Previous studies on the determinants of carbon dioxide emissions have primarily focused on the
role of affluence. The impact of population growth on carbon dioxide emissions has received less attention.
A new paper takes a step forward providing such empirical evidence, using a data set of 93 countries for the
period of 1975-1996. The paper has following findings. (1) Population growth has been one of the major
driving forces behind increasing carbon dioxide emissions worldwide over the last two decades. It is
estimated that half of increase in emissions by 2025 will be contributed by future population growth alone.
(2) Rising income levels have been associated with a monotonically upward shift in emissions.
Thus, without increasing costs dramatically by imposing strict controls on emissions, much could be accomplished by just stabilizing our population.
__________________________
role of affluence. The impact of population growth on carbon dioxide emissions has received less attention.
A new paper takes a step forward providing such empirical evidence, using a data set of 93 countries for the
period of 1975-1996. The paper has following findings. (1) Population growth has been one of the major
driving forces behind increasing carbon dioxide emissions worldwide over the last two decades. It is
estimated that half of increase in emissions by 2025 will be contributed by future population growth alone.
(2) Rising income levels have been associated with a monotonically upward shift in emissions.
Thus, without increasing costs dramatically by imposing strict controls on emissions, much could be accomplished by just stabilizing our population.
__________________________
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Too many people!!!
The science of causality is an art of probability. For example, there are few scientists who will say "Smoking will kill you," but it's widely known that smoking will increase your probability of getting cancer or myriad other cardio-respiratory disorders. You might smoke 3 packs a day and live to be 100, but it's far less likely than if you quit smoking, ate right, and excercised.
Anthropogenic (people-caused) climate change is no different. We can't predict fully what the effects of dumping gigatons of carbon into our atmosphere will ultimately be because we don't yet fully understand how the climate functions. But just like you can't predict in your twenties whether those two packs a day will kill in your 50s or in your 90s, the correlation between smoking and illness, or the greenhouse gases we release and climate change, is strong enough to suggest that the most prudent option for our health would be to quit. Similarly, if people produce pollution, the prudent option is to stabilize population in the U.S. an in the world at large.
But consider that most of these fossil fuels are from ancient life. We know that the world was significantly warmer in the past, based on evidence of fossil fuels at the polar regions, suggesting that life was once abundant in these frigid extremes. We also know, based on geological evidence, that the atmosphere was much richer in carbon dioxide in those ages, as much as 6 times more carbon, suggesting a correlation between temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. It stands to reason, then, that if the fossil fuels we are burning now are essentially composed of that ancient atmospheric carbon, coverted to organic matter by photosynthesis before being trapped in sediment and fossilized into fossil fuels, then we are basically taking all that stored carbon and putting it back in our atmosphere.
The fact is, we don't really know exactly what this will do to our planet. But we do know, from the fossil evidence, that there is a definite link between carbon dioxide concentration and climate: historically, the more CO2, the higher the average global temperature.
Is this a hypothesis we really want to test?
Anthropogenic (people-caused) climate change is no different. We can't predict fully what the effects of dumping gigatons of carbon into our atmosphere will ultimately be because we don't yet fully understand how the climate functions. But just like you can't predict in your twenties whether those two packs a day will kill in your 50s or in your 90s, the correlation between smoking and illness, or the greenhouse gases we release and climate change, is strong enough to suggest that the most prudent option for our health would be to quit. Similarly, if people produce pollution, the prudent option is to stabilize population in the U.S. an in the world at large.
But consider that most of these fossil fuels are from ancient life. We know that the world was significantly warmer in the past, based on evidence of fossil fuels at the polar regions, suggesting that life was once abundant in these frigid extremes. We also know, based on geological evidence, that the atmosphere was much richer in carbon dioxide in those ages, as much as 6 times more carbon, suggesting a correlation between temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. It stands to reason, then, that if the fossil fuels we are burning now are essentially composed of that ancient atmospheric carbon, coverted to organic matter by photosynthesis before being trapped in sediment and fossilized into fossil fuels, then we are basically taking all that stored carbon and putting it back in our atmosphere.
The fact is, we don't really know exactly what this will do to our planet. But we do know, from the fossil evidence, that there is a definite link between carbon dioxide concentration and climate: historically, the more CO2, the higher the average global temperature.
Is this a hypothesis we really want to test?
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Sunday, February 8, 2009
It's not about Race, Ethnicity or Skin Color
Immigration, as it relates to population, is not a racial issue; it’s about numbers, not race, ethnicity or skin color. It is not racist to consider what doubling or tripling our population would require of our resources and environment. We condemn racism in all its forms. But we also condemn taboos that prevent open, honest public discussion about issues so vital to all of us. With two-thirds of our population growth a direct result of immigration, the American people deserve some say in whether this kind of staggering increase is desirable. Immigration policy must be designed within the framework of overall U.S. population goals and the skills and numbers needed by our economy. Population-driven economic growth is ultimately unsustainable.
"It is both a right and a responsibility of a democratic society to manage immigration so that it serves the national interest." Barbara Jordan, (D., Texas),Former U.S. Representative.
Notes from America
The Obama Watch
Pictures at an Exhibition
"It is both a right and a responsibility of a democratic society to manage immigration so that it serves the national interest." Barbara Jordan, (D., Texas),Former U.S. Representative.
Notes from America
The Obama Watch
Pictures at an Exhibition
Monday, January 19, 2009
A Message to President Obama
January 20, 2009
President Barack Obama
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President,
I have written to you and to your Change.com site extensively on the subject of immigration reform in the recent past. Now that you have been inaugurated, I believe it is appropriate to address this issue one more time. The Heritage Foundation and others have written about real immigration reform and the need for a temporary foreign worker program. I recognize that the Heritage Foundation exists to provide substance for the conservative point of view on these and other matters just as many other writers promote the neo-liberal perspective. I agree with most of what the Heritage Foundation has written but I have supplemented, changed, or adapted many of its recommendations to reflect my own views on this important problem.
Perhaps the best way to come to grips with immigration reform is to ask two questions “what are our needs and what will work?” But even before that we must decide what is or should be our objectives in the area of immigration reform. I believe our objectives should include secure borders, protection of our national sovereignty, and close attention to the national interest. In my judgment, achievement of these objectives would require the following:
1. Improvements in border infrastructure, staffing, and the rules of engagement. With regard to the last of these, we have to get much tougher on drug, human, and weapon smugglers or traffickers.
2. A permanent end to catch-and-release internally and at the border. If we simply escort the illegal aliens we apprehend back across the border, they will try again and again, often within the same day until they are successful. They must be detained for at least six months and put to work on border infrastructure before they are repatriated. They could be paid at the minimum wage with some deduction for the cost of the food provided to them while they are in detention.
3. The work status of all employees must be verified using the available electronic means. Those who fail E-verification should be given a week in which to prove their bona fides. Those who can’t must be detained and subjected to an involuntary removal order with only a week for appeal. Without E-verification and vigorous internal enforcement, other border security measures will be for naught. Obviously, this has to be an ongoing process implemented in a systematic way so that our economy is not disrupted and so that the illegal aliens are not treated inhumanely.
4. I have seen no cogent arguments for any increase in legal immigration beyond the demonstrated needs of our economy. It is a well-known fact that both China and Europe are producing more PhDs in engineering and science than we are and this places our technological lead in grave danger. It follows that we should focus our immigration quotas not on a nationality basis but on our need for people with demonstrated inventiveness, innovative and entrepreneurial skills, and the higher education that often goes with those skills. Let’s invite all foreign students who have shown a talent for engineering and science at the PhD level to stay and help our country to remain strong and competitive.
5. Let’s adopt a national objective of a stable population to be achieved within 20 years. Appointment of experts like Mark Krikorian and Roy Beck to key positions would facilitate the achievement of that objective. Population-driven economic growth is ultimately unsustainable so let’s look beyond the next election to what our country needs to remain viable and successful 50 or 100 years from now. A beginning can be made by reducing the total number of legal immigrants to the historical level of about 200,000 per year, focused as noted in 4 above. This number would be exclusive of foreign students, tourists, and real temporary workers. This would require an end to chain immigrations except for the spouses and children of those who have been granted citizenship.
6. Diligent enforcement of the law internally and at the border are what will work. Half measures are useless. We know from the 1986 amnesty that amnesty does not work. Twenty years later, that amnesty has resulted in another 12-20 illegal aliens in our country. Therefore, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to extrapolate what another amnesty will mean to the future of our country. We must create disincentives for both the illegal aliens and their employers. The message to the former must be: “If you come here illegally and are an able-bodied male, you will be caught and detained for at least six months and put to work on border infrastructure projects. Women and children will be returned to their homelands immediately. All should be admonished that if they repeat their offenses by returning, they can expect to do hard time. The message to employers must be: "You will pay dearly and promptly if you hire any illegal aliens."
7. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) must be reformed to meet the needs of our economy, protect the interest of the nation, and to allow expedited approval for those described in 4 above who can contribute the most to our economy. Our immigration policies must be based on the demonstrated needs of our economy not the demands of foreigners for entry or the size of the existing backlog. We need to send the message to all potential applicants that we can no longer take everyone who wishes to come here and that our focus will be on those with the skills and intellect needed for our continued success. They can then prepare themselves.
8. A temporary worker program should be devised for workers who are still in their home countries, waiting to come to the U.S. This new program cannot be used to grant amnesty to illegal aliens already in the U.S., as this would clearly undermine any attempt at immigration reform and create an incentive for more illegals to violate our border. This program should not in any way encourage illegal entry. Those who are here illegally must return to their home countries in order to qualify for the new program. They should begin to leave now. That is an approach that will work.
9. Ensure respect for American citizenship by protecting the temporary nature of the program. After working in the U.S. for the time allowed under the program, for example, four years, participants should be required to spend a specified amount of time in their home country before participating in the program again.
10. The temporary worker program should not become a path to citizenship. Of course, temporary worker status should not be an impediment to applying for naturalization but they must wait their turn and show why citizenship would be in the our interest. Children born in the U.S. of participants in the temporary worker program should not be guaranteed birthright U.S. citizenship. The birth certificate issued should show the country of origin of the parents as the citizenship of the child. This should be confirmed as part of the bilateral agreements and any necessary changes in U.S. law.
11. Numerical limit. There must be a yearly quota on the number of temporary worker visas allotted each year that is sufficient to meet the need of our economy--no more, no less. The number of temporary workers should also be contingent on whether past temporary workers did, in fact, return home. Create a fast-track system. Getting workers into the U.S. in a timely manner is equally important. Having a faster application process for proven participants is a great benefit to employers who frequently use seasonal workers.
12. Temporary worker programs should require employers to pay the prevailing-wage and benefits so that there is a level playing field with citizen workers and to avoid creating an underclass of workers or anything that smacks of slave labor. Contrary to the views of the Heritage Foundation, this will not result in any reduction of labor market flexibility or increase in the regulatory burden.
13. Security and health checks first. The U.S. government is responsible for keeping dangerous people out of our country. It is, therefore, necessary to complete security and health checks before the visa holders enter the country.
14. Create a biometric registry. The temporary worker program should have a registry of all participants. A single secure, biometric, machine readable registration ID card should be administered that could be used at border checkpoints for registration, entry, and exit. A system similar to the E-verification system should be used so that we know who is here and who is not and whether all visitors have left when their visas have expired.
15. Performance bonds. Employers should post bonds that are redeemable if the worker has followed certain program rules, such as leaving the country after the program has ended.
16. Security bonds. Employers should post security bonds for each temporary worker. The bonds would cover potential costs, such as emergency medical costs. Employers must not be allowed to offload these costs on the unsuspecting public.
17. Establishing an exit system. Overstays comprise a majority of those living in this country illegally. Developing an exit system is crucial but we should be liberal with extensions for PhD candidates in engineering and the natural sciences. Employees should be encouraged to exit with incentives, such as having their application fast-tracked the next time they apply for the program. Exits of visa holders should be tracked with a biometric registry.
18. Entitlements for visa holders. Since the participants of the program are citizens of another country, they do not qualify for entitlement privileges. The temporary worker program should not create entitlements for participants, nor should participants qualify for Social Security, Medicare, welfare, or free education services. Neither should there be payroll deductions for these services or any other actions that would create an entitlement or future claim except. An escrow account may be created for the normal payroll deductions to help defray the medical and other costs the foreign worker may incur.
19. Bilateral agreements. Participation in the program requires a bilateral agreement between the United States and the potential employee's home country. In order to enter into an agreement, the home country must meet certain requirements. The agreements should clarify the citizenship status of participants and their children as well as facilitate their return to their home country at the end of the program, and accept a U.S. birth certificate as proof of the children’s citizenship in the parents’ country of origin. In addition, the agreement should establish a counter-terrorism and information-sharing relationship. No bilateral agreement should be made with countries whose citizens may pose serious national security threats as determined by the Departments of State and Homeland Security, such as nations that are designated state sponsors of terrorism.
Finally, let me say that I believe that the American culture, language, standard of living, quality of life, and ideas are worth protecting. When John F. Kennedy said, “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” If they were to apply his words to our immigration dilemma, perhaps more of our ethnocentric citizens would take a different view of their support for illegal aliens and oppose any liberalization immigration quotas. That's what they can do for their country! We know all too well why immigrants wish to come to this country but there is a real danger that if there are too many of them they will simply re-create the very conditions that led them to leave their homelands: disease, poverty, natural resource shortages, crime, gangs, liack of freedom, corrupt governments, and power-hungry oligarchs. Let's begin to convey that message to all immigration special interest groups, lobbyists, and immigration lawyers. They must be made to understand where the misguided immigration policies they advocate will lead. Let's not become a society known for its myopia.
Respectfully submitted,
An American
President Barack Obama
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President,
I have written to you and to your Change.com site extensively on the subject of immigration reform in the recent past. Now that you have been inaugurated, I believe it is appropriate to address this issue one more time. The Heritage Foundation and others have written about real immigration reform and the need for a temporary foreign worker program. I recognize that the Heritage Foundation exists to provide substance for the conservative point of view on these and other matters just as many other writers promote the neo-liberal perspective. I agree with most of what the Heritage Foundation has written but I have supplemented, changed, or adapted many of its recommendations to reflect my own views on this important problem.
Perhaps the best way to come to grips with immigration reform is to ask two questions “what are our needs and what will work?” But even before that we must decide what is or should be our objectives in the area of immigration reform. I believe our objectives should include secure borders, protection of our national sovereignty, and close attention to the national interest. In my judgment, achievement of these objectives would require the following:
1. Improvements in border infrastructure, staffing, and the rules of engagement. With regard to the last of these, we have to get much tougher on drug, human, and weapon smugglers or traffickers.
2. A permanent end to catch-and-release internally and at the border. If we simply escort the illegal aliens we apprehend back across the border, they will try again and again, often within the same day until they are successful. They must be detained for at least six months and put to work on border infrastructure before they are repatriated. They could be paid at the minimum wage with some deduction for the cost of the food provided to them while they are in detention.
3. The work status of all employees must be verified using the available electronic means. Those who fail E-verification should be given a week in which to prove their bona fides. Those who can’t must be detained and subjected to an involuntary removal order with only a week for appeal. Without E-verification and vigorous internal enforcement, other border security measures will be for naught. Obviously, this has to be an ongoing process implemented in a systematic way so that our economy is not disrupted and so that the illegal aliens are not treated inhumanely.
4. I have seen no cogent arguments for any increase in legal immigration beyond the demonstrated needs of our economy. It is a well-known fact that both China and Europe are producing more PhDs in engineering and science than we are and this places our technological lead in grave danger. It follows that we should focus our immigration quotas not on a nationality basis but on our need for people with demonstrated inventiveness, innovative and entrepreneurial skills, and the higher education that often goes with those skills. Let’s invite all foreign students who have shown a talent for engineering and science at the PhD level to stay and help our country to remain strong and competitive.
5. Let’s adopt a national objective of a stable population to be achieved within 20 years. Appointment of experts like Mark Krikorian and Roy Beck to key positions would facilitate the achievement of that objective. Population-driven economic growth is ultimately unsustainable so let’s look beyond the next election to what our country needs to remain viable and successful 50 or 100 years from now. A beginning can be made by reducing the total number of legal immigrants to the historical level of about 200,000 per year, focused as noted in 4 above. This number would be exclusive of foreign students, tourists, and real temporary workers. This would require an end to chain immigrations except for the spouses and children of those who have been granted citizenship.
6. Diligent enforcement of the law internally and at the border are what will work. Half measures are useless. We know from the 1986 amnesty that amnesty does not work. Twenty years later, that amnesty has resulted in another 12-20 illegal aliens in our country. Therefore, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to extrapolate what another amnesty will mean to the future of our country. We must create disincentives for both the illegal aliens and their employers. The message to the former must be: “If you come here illegally and are an able-bodied male, you will be caught and detained for at least six months and put to work on border infrastructure projects. Women and children will be returned to their homelands immediately. All should be admonished that if they repeat their offenses by returning, they can expect to do hard time. The message to employers must be: "You will pay dearly and promptly if you hire any illegal aliens."
7. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) must be reformed to meet the needs of our economy, protect the interest of the nation, and to allow expedited approval for those described in 4 above who can contribute the most to our economy. Our immigration policies must be based on the demonstrated needs of our economy not the demands of foreigners for entry or the size of the existing backlog. We need to send the message to all potential applicants that we can no longer take everyone who wishes to come here and that our focus will be on those with the skills and intellect needed for our continued success. They can then prepare themselves.
8. A temporary worker program should be devised for workers who are still in their home countries, waiting to come to the U.S. This new program cannot be used to grant amnesty to illegal aliens already in the U.S., as this would clearly undermine any attempt at immigration reform and create an incentive for more illegals to violate our border. This program should not in any way encourage illegal entry. Those who are here illegally must return to their home countries in order to qualify for the new program. They should begin to leave now. That is an approach that will work.
9. Ensure respect for American citizenship by protecting the temporary nature of the program. After working in the U.S. for the time allowed under the program, for example, four years, participants should be required to spend a specified amount of time in their home country before participating in the program again.
10. The temporary worker program should not become a path to citizenship. Of course, temporary worker status should not be an impediment to applying for naturalization but they must wait their turn and show why citizenship would be in the our interest. Children born in the U.S. of participants in the temporary worker program should not be guaranteed birthright U.S. citizenship. The birth certificate issued should show the country of origin of the parents as the citizenship of the child. This should be confirmed as part of the bilateral agreements and any necessary changes in U.S. law.
11. Numerical limit. There must be a yearly quota on the number of temporary worker visas allotted each year that is sufficient to meet the need of our economy--no more, no less. The number of temporary workers should also be contingent on whether past temporary workers did, in fact, return home. Create a fast-track system. Getting workers into the U.S. in a timely manner is equally important. Having a faster application process for proven participants is a great benefit to employers who frequently use seasonal workers.
12. Temporary worker programs should require employers to pay the prevailing-wage and benefits so that there is a level playing field with citizen workers and to avoid creating an underclass of workers or anything that smacks of slave labor. Contrary to the views of the Heritage Foundation, this will not result in any reduction of labor market flexibility or increase in the regulatory burden.
13. Security and health checks first. The U.S. government is responsible for keeping dangerous people out of our country. It is, therefore, necessary to complete security and health checks before the visa holders enter the country.
14. Create a biometric registry. The temporary worker program should have a registry of all participants. A single secure, biometric, machine readable registration ID card should be administered that could be used at border checkpoints for registration, entry, and exit. A system similar to the E-verification system should be used so that we know who is here and who is not and whether all visitors have left when their visas have expired.
15. Performance bonds. Employers should post bonds that are redeemable if the worker has followed certain program rules, such as leaving the country after the program has ended.
16. Security bonds. Employers should post security bonds for each temporary worker. The bonds would cover potential costs, such as emergency medical costs. Employers must not be allowed to offload these costs on the unsuspecting public.
17. Establishing an exit system. Overstays comprise a majority of those living in this country illegally. Developing an exit system is crucial but we should be liberal with extensions for PhD candidates in engineering and the natural sciences. Employees should be encouraged to exit with incentives, such as having their application fast-tracked the next time they apply for the program. Exits of visa holders should be tracked with a biometric registry.
18. Entitlements for visa holders. Since the participants of the program are citizens of another country, they do not qualify for entitlement privileges. The temporary worker program should not create entitlements for participants, nor should participants qualify for Social Security, Medicare, welfare, or free education services. Neither should there be payroll deductions for these services or any other actions that would create an entitlement or future claim except. An escrow account may be created for the normal payroll deductions to help defray the medical and other costs the foreign worker may incur.
19. Bilateral agreements. Participation in the program requires a bilateral agreement between the United States and the potential employee's home country. In order to enter into an agreement, the home country must meet certain requirements. The agreements should clarify the citizenship status of participants and their children as well as facilitate their return to their home country at the end of the program, and accept a U.S. birth certificate as proof of the children’s citizenship in the parents’ country of origin. In addition, the agreement should establish a counter-terrorism and information-sharing relationship. No bilateral agreement should be made with countries whose citizens may pose serious national security threats as determined by the Departments of State and Homeland Security, such as nations that are designated state sponsors of terrorism.
Finally, let me say that I believe that the American culture, language, standard of living, quality of life, and ideas are worth protecting. When John F. Kennedy said, “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” If they were to apply his words to our immigration dilemma, perhaps more of our ethnocentric citizens would take a different view of their support for illegal aliens and oppose any liberalization immigration quotas. That's what they can do for their country! We know all too well why immigrants wish to come to this country but there is a real danger that if there are too many of them they will simply re-create the very conditions that led them to leave their homelands: disease, poverty, natural resource shortages, crime, gangs, liack of freedom, corrupt governments, and power-hungry oligarchs. Let's begin to convey that message to all immigration special interest groups, lobbyists, and immigration lawyers. They must be made to understand where the misguided immigration policies they advocate will lead. Let's not become a society known for its myopia.
Respectfully submitted,
An American
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Study: Immigration to U.S. Increases Greenhouse Gas Emissions
WASHINGTON (August 13, 2008) — The findings of a new study indicate that future levels of immigration will have a significant impact on efforts to reduce global CO2 emissions. Immigration to the United States significantly increases world-wide CO2 emissions because it transfers population from lower-polluting parts of the world to the United States, which is a higher-polluting country.
The report, entitled “Immigration to the United States and World-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” is available at http://www.cis.org/
Among the findings:
• The estimated CO2 emissions of the average immigrant (legal or illegal) in the United States are 18 percent less than those of the average native-born American.
• However, immigrants in the United States produce an estimated four times more CO2 in the United States as they would have in their countries of origin.
• U.S. immigrants produce an estimated 637 million metric tons of CO2 emissions annually – equal to Great Britain and Sweden combined.
• The estimated 637 million tons of CO2 U.S. immigrants produce annually is 482 million tons more than they would have produced had they remained in their home countries.
• If the 482-million-ton increase in global CO2 emissions caused by immigration to the United States were a separate country, it would rank 10th in the world in emissions.
• The impact of immigration to the United States on global emissions is equal to approximately 5 percent of the increase in annual world-wide CO2 emissions since 1980.
• Of the CO2 emissions caused by immigrants, 83 percent are estimated to come from legal immigrants and 17 percent from illegal immigrants.
• Legal immigrants have a much larger impact because they are more numerous than illegal immigrants and because they have higher incomes, and thus higher emissions.
• The above figures do not include the impact of children born to immigrants in the United States. If they were included, the impact would be much higher.
• Assuming no change in U.S. immigration policy, 30 million new legal and illegal immigrants are expected to settle in the United States in the next 20 years.
• In recent years, increases in U.S. CO2 emissions have been driven entirely by population increases, as per capita emissions have stabilized.
Discussion: Some may be tempted to see this analysis as “blaming immigrants” for what are really America’s failures. It is certainly reasonable to argue that Americans could do more to reduce per capita emissions. And it is certainly not our intention to imply that immigrants are particularly responsible for global warming. As we report in this study, the average immigrant produces somewhat less CO2 than the average native-born American. But to simply dismiss the large role that continuing high levels of immigration play in increasing U.S. (and thus worldwide) CO2 emissions is not only intellectually dishonest, it is also counterproductive. One must acknowledge a problem before a solution can be found.
One can still argue for high levels of immigration for any number of other reasons. However, one cannot make the argument for high immigration without at least understanding what it means for global efforts to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. Some involved in the global-warming issue have recognized immigration’s importance. For instance, chief U.S. climate negotiator and special representative for the United States, Harlan Watson, has acknowledged that high immigration to the United States is thwarting efforts to reduce the nation’s emissions. “It’s simple arithmetic,” said Watson. “If you look at mid-century, Europe will be at 1990 levels of population while ours will be nearing 60 percent above 1990 levels. So population does matter.” This research confirms Watson’s observation.
# # #
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)