Here's a poll I would like to see:
1. Should illegal aliens be allowed to remain in the U.S. and work if they are in jobs citizens would take if offered a living wage and a hiring preference?
2. Is giving precedence to illegal aliens over the wishes of citizens an act of disloyalty to this country?
3. Is it both a right and a responsibility of a democratic society to manage immigration so that it serves the national interest?
4. Should the United States take whatever steps are necessary to preserve our national sovereignty, character, language, ideals, history, the rule of law, and the national interest?
5. Do you believe the authors of the 14th Amendment would have imagined their words would bestow citizenship to the offspring of illegal aliens, tourists, foreign students, or temporary farm workers?
6. Do you believe that there could be a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one which makes unauthorized entry into this country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry, that is 14th amendment birthright citizenship?
7. Do you believe the term "comprehensive immigration reform" (CIR) is a code term for "amnesty?"
8. Should English be the official language of the United States and used exclusively in all official documents, ballots, publications, and proceedings at all levels of government?
9. Should Public Interpreters, like Public Defenders, be provided to those who cannot afford one or who do not have a family member who can serve in this capacity?
10. Should all other interpreters be provided only on a billable basis?
11. Would a consolidated counterfeit-proof, machine-readable, biometric ID containing the information from Social Security cards, green cards, driver licenses, library cards, voter registration, proofs of auto and health insurance, thumb prints, photos, physical descriptions, coded DNA info, and a record of military service help sort out illegal aliens from citizens in border states and reduce the possibility of racial profiling?
12. Should employers be required to present irrefutable proof that they have been uable to fill their jobs with citizens workers before they are authorized to retain or hire any foreign workers?
13. Should any benefits other than those mandated by federal law be provided to illegal aliens?
14. Should illegal aliens under a removal order be required to take their minor children with them, regardless of the children's citizenship?
15. Should illegal aliens who are ill be deported after their condition has be stabilized?
16. Should foreign women who are pregnant be denied entry into the U.S. and the opportunity to have an instant 14th amendment citizen baby on U.S. soil?
17. Should chain immigrations be allowed for other than the children and spouses of U.S. citizens?
18. Should chain immigrations be counted against the overall immigration quota?
19. Should total legal immigration be reduced to the 1965 level to enable our population to be stabilized?
20. Do you believe that the "limit" of finite natural resources per capita as population grows without bounds is zero?
21. Do you believe that those who have entered our country illegally should ever be granted a pathway to citizenship?
22. Do you believe that the common understanding of amnesty is anything that permits illegal aliens to remain and work in the U.S.?
23. Are you in favor of comprehensive immigration reform if it involves amnesty for tens of millions of illegal aliens?
24. Do you think we should have objective evidence that the borders are secure before any other immigration reforms are undertaken?
25. Should true fluency in English be a requirement for citizenship?
26. Should immigration quotas be focused on applicants who can fill a demonstrated need of our economy or who possess the education, entrepreneurial spirit, innovative skills, or inventiveness needed to keep America competitive in the global economy?
27. Should citizenship be expedited for immigrants and foreign students who have successfully completed a PhD degree in engineering, physical science, math, or medicine?
28. Is focusing on the population or area where illegal aliens are most likely to be found a form of racial profiling?
29. Would less than 10,000 apprehension per year at the border and internally represent secure borders?
30. Is internal enforcement with penalties for both employers and illegal alien employees essential to achieve secure borders?
31. Can our borders ever be secure without internal enforcement?
32. Should illegal aliens who are apprehended serve at least six months working on border infrastructure before they are repatriated?
33. Should repeat offenders do hard time?
34. Should border violations be considered class 3 felonies?
35. Now that the U.S. is fully settled and developed, do we have any need or obligation to admit more immigrants?
36. Are immigrants more energetic and inventive than current citizens?
37. Is a systematic, stepwise approach to immigration reform in a series of separate shorter simpler bills a better approach than a thousand page bill?
38. Does the rule of law apply to illegal aliens?
39. Should immigration laws currently on the books be fully enforced?
40. Should any failure to enforce immigration laws be cause for termination of INS, ICE and Border Patrol agents, and higher level officials in the Administration?
50. Should we negotiate an agreement with our neighbors to permit hot pursuit of drug smugglers and the use of lethal force when they fail to halt when ordered?
51. Should an American labor protection provision be included in all immigration legislation?
52. Should deportation procedures and appeals be simplified to assure minimum detention periods and expeditious deportation?
53. Should all deportations be classified as involuntary even if the deportee agrees to self deport and does so at his own expense?
54. Should employers be held accountable for the immigration status of all employees whether or not they hired them knowingly or intentionally without regard to that status?
55. Should employers be held responsible for all the health care costs of their foreign employees and their families?
56. Should cross border traffic and work commutes be reduced to enable the Border Patrol to do a more effective job of identifying potential terrorists?
57. Should the type of work that a foreign worker is authorized to do be specified on the ID?
58. Should Executive Order 13166 requiring multi-lingual ballots be repealed?
59. Should dual citizenship and dual allegiance be allowed?
60. Should the U.S. provide free schooling for Mexican children in American schools near the borders?
61. Should there be restrictions on the display of foreign flags at other than foreign embassies and consulates except by permit for ethnic holiday parades?
62. Should illegal aliens who participate in street demonstrations be arrested?
63. Do we need a new alien and sedition act to cover illegal aliens and their fellow travelers and supporters?
64. Should any statements by foreign dignitaries regarding our immigration or other laws be treated as interference in our internal affairs?
65. Do we need a law that holds those who aid and abet border violators accountable?
66. Do we need a provision that enables local communities to enact measures to help enforce immigration laws?
67. Should local police and sheriffs' offices be required to determine the immigration status of any one apprehended for other law violations and hold any illegals until ICE takes custody?
68. Should local jurisdictions be enabled to charge illegal aliens with criminal trespass?
69. Should all zoning regulations regarding occupancy rates in private residences be fully enforced?
70. Should all foreign workers who qualify for legal status be paid at the same rate as their citizen counterparts with the same skill level and experience?
71. Should employers who fail to pay foreign workers at the American standard wage be prosecuted for unfair competition?
72. Should anyone who registers for voting using fraudulent documents be sentenced to five years in jail?
73. Should a five year jail term be imposed on anyone permitting or encouraging false voter registration?
74. Should there be a regular audit of voter registration roles to determine the extent of irregularities and to permit the prosecution of those responsible?
75. Should we set higher standards for citizenship by naturalization?
76. Should the U.S. adopt a plan to achieve a stable population?
77. Should Roy Beck be the Executive Director of the INS?
78. Should the deductions for exemptions for dependent children be limited to two per couple?
79. Should we deny cross border permits for work commuters?
80. Should NAFTA be repealed?
81. Should only American tractors be allowed on American highways?
82. Should a cap and trade policy for family size be adopted?
Showing posts with label pollution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pollution. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
New Poll Confirms the Divide between Hisapanics and Other Americans
The most recent poll confirms earlier findings regarding the disconnect between Hispanics and other Americans on immigration reform. The pollster however, cautions against reading too much into this early support for CIR — given that the poll didn’t test the language that opponents of comprehensive immigration reform would use. In addition, he points out that only 19 percent of all adults say they strongly favor the legislation, which suggests soft support.
Until the polls do a better job of pinning down the details of immigration reform in a way that the average person can understand, the results of such polls will be suspect. For example, "allowing undocumented immigrants who are already in the country to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become American citizens" was viewed strongly or somewhat favorably by 65% of the respondents. However, the meaning of the phrase "go to the back of the line" is obscure and this may have affected how the respondents chose to answer that query. If it meant return to your homeland and stay there at the back of the line until your number comes up, that would elicit a strong positive response. If, however, it meant remain in this country and go to the back of the line, that might generate a different response.
Some language that opponents of the Hispanic version of CIR would like to see tested include the following:
--allow illegal aliens already in the country to receive a work visa only if they pay a fine of around five thousand dollars, pay back taxes, and pass a criminal
background check and, in addition, only if an employer can present irrefutable evidence that he or she cannot fill the job with a legal U.S. resident.
--the U.S. population is expected to double again by the end of this century. Which of the following do you believe are causes of population growth:
--high immigration quotas
--chain immigrations
--anchor babies
--14th amendment instant citizens
--legal immigrants
--illegal aliens
--the higher fertility rates of immigrants
--the children of immigrants
--the fertility rate of citizens
--a tax policy that favors larger families
--which of the following do you believe will be the result of population growth
--a long wait for access to national parks and monuments
--a lower standard of living
--a lesser quality of life
--a shortage of finite natural resources like water, arable land, & minerals
--more polluted air and water
--a greater demand for energy - nuclear, wind, solar, coal, oil, gas
--crowding and congestion on highways and streets
--do you strongly agree, somewhat agree,somewhat disagree, strongly disagree, or not sure about the following statement:
-- "It is difficult to imagine a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one which makes unauthorized entry into this country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides for birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment which is perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry."
--Hispanics and other Americans strongly disagree with each other about immigration reforms. Which of the following do you believe to be the root causes of this diagreement:
--racism
--ethnocentrism
--nativism
--bigotry
--differing views about population growth
--differing views about increased pollution
--differing views increased energy demands
--the costs of social services, education, health care, and welfare
--the national debt
--crime
--corruption
--oligarchy
--the national character
--the national language
--the national interest
--national security
--national unity
--xenophobia
--nationalism
Until the polls do a better job of pinning down the details of immigration reform in a way that the average person can understand, the results of such polls will be suspect. For example, "allowing undocumented immigrants who are already in the country to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become American citizens" was viewed strongly or somewhat favorably by 65% of the respondents. However, the meaning of the phrase "go to the back of the line" is obscure and this may have affected how the respondents chose to answer that query. If it meant return to your homeland and stay there at the back of the line until your number comes up, that would elicit a strong positive response. If, however, it meant remain in this country and go to the back of the line, that might generate a different response.
Some language that opponents of the Hispanic version of CIR would like to see tested include the following:
--allow illegal aliens already in the country to receive a work visa only if they pay a fine of around five thousand dollars, pay back taxes, and pass a criminal
background check and, in addition, only if an employer can present irrefutable evidence that he or she cannot fill the job with a legal U.S. resident.
--the U.S. population is expected to double again by the end of this century. Which of the following do you believe are causes of population growth:
--high immigration quotas
--chain immigrations
--anchor babies
--14th amendment instant citizens
--legal immigrants
--illegal aliens
--the higher fertility rates of immigrants
--the children of immigrants
--the fertility rate of citizens
--a tax policy that favors larger families
--which of the following do you believe will be the result of population growth
--a long wait for access to national parks and monuments
--a lower standard of living
--a lesser quality of life
--a shortage of finite natural resources like water, arable land, & minerals
--more polluted air and water
--a greater demand for energy - nuclear, wind, solar, coal, oil, gas
--crowding and congestion on highways and streets
--do you strongly agree, somewhat agree,somewhat disagree, strongly disagree, or not sure about the following statement:
-- "It is difficult to imagine a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one which makes unauthorized entry into this country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides for birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment which is perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry."
--Hispanics and other Americans strongly disagree with each other about immigration reforms. Which of the following do you believe to be the root causes of this diagreement:
--racism
--ethnocentrism
--nativism
--bigotry
--differing views about population growth
--differing views about increased pollution
--differing views increased energy demands
--the costs of social services, education, health care, and welfare
--the national debt
--crime
--corruption
--oligarchy
--the national character
--the national language
--the national interest
--national security
--national unity
--xenophobia
--nationalism
Thursday, May 13, 2010
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
Friday, October 24, 2008
Too Many People Part VIII
The global demand for energy grew twice as fast as the population over the past 50 years. When per capita energy consumption is high, even a low rate of population growth can have significant effects on total energy demand. World oil production per capita reached a high in 1970 and has since declined by 23% and will continue to decline as the population grows, signaling future price shocks as long as oil remains the world’s dominant fuel.[1]
Waste is another critical problem. A ballooning population creates mountains of new waste—garbage, sewer and industrial waste. This will pose a difficult and expensive problem for municipal and national authorities.
The challenge for us and for world leaders is to help countries like Mexico and regions like Sub-Saharan Africa, Asia and the Middle East to achieve sustainability by keeping both birth and death rates low. In a world where both grain output and fish catch per person are falling, a strong case can be made on humanitarian grounds to stabilize world and U.S. population. Physics Professor Emeritus Dr. Albert Bartlett of the University of Colorado sums it all up as follows: “Can you think of any problem in any area of human endeavor on any scale, from the microscopic to global, whose long-term solution is in any demonstrable way aided, assisted, or advanced by further increases in population, locally, nationally, or globally?”
[1] Excerpted from “Increased Population is Causing a Global Ecological Disaster,” by Lester R. Brown, Gary Gardner, and Brian Halwell, originally published in The Futurist, February 1999 presented here with the permission of The World Future Society.
Too Many People Part VII
A full 75% of the loss of global forests occurred in the 20th century and there are signs that this rapid deforestation is continuing. Not only has the rising population created a greater total demand for forest products but the per capita global use of paper and paperboard has nearly tripled since 1961. The loss of forest areas reduces habitat for wildlife and carbon storage which is key to regulating climate. Moreover, the loss of forest areas compromises erosion control, the provision of water across rainy and dry seasons, and the regulation of rainfall.
Climate change is much on the minds of many scientists. Over the last half century, carbon emissions from fossil-fuel burning expanded at nearly twice the rate of population growth, boosting atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas, by 30% over pre-industrial periods. Emissions from developing countries will nearly quadruple over the next half century, while those from industrial nations will increase by 30%. Former Senator and Democrat Presidential candidate Al Gore’s excellent fact-filled presentation on the subject of global warming runs entirely counter to any idea that population is not a problem. The UN estimates conservatively that America produces 20 metric tons of pollutants per capita annually. If America's population increases by 300 million by the end of this century, an additional six billion tons of pollutants will be produced per year at the present rate. Even if by some technological miracle we were to be able to cut our per capita output in half to that of Mexico, we would have made no progress on reducing the present unacceptable total output.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)