The sad cases of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Campean, ex-Border Patrol agents, came to a conclusion today with the last minute commutation of their sentences by President Bush on his last day in office. About two years ago, a federal jury had convicted the pair on five out of six criminal charges of assault, obstruction of justice, and civil rights violations after the three holdout jurors finally capitulated and agreed to a guilty verdict. Ramos and Campean were their own worst enemies in this affair. They failed to follow procedures which required that the incident be promptly reported since shots were fired. They then compounded this error of judgment by destroying or obscuring some evidence of their activities and then lying about those activities and the circumstances involved. The inconsistencies in their subsequent statements and oral testimonies compromised the slim chance they might have had for acquittal. Had they adhered to procedures and been open and truthful in the aftermath, these agents might have escaped with an administrative reprimand or dismissal rather than prison time. After being sentenced to 10-11 years in federal prison, although the judge in the case had no leeway, the prosecutor agreed with the assessment that the sentence was way too harsh.
According to the details of the case, Campean attempted to use the butt of his shotgun on the miscreant drug runner, Macaria Aldrete-Davila, but fell down and fell into a ditch in the process as Aldrete-Davila fled back to Mexico as Campean fired 14 shots to no avail. Ramos, a marksman, showed up at that point and fired one shot at the fleeing drug runner, hitting him in the groin. Campean proceeded to gather up his spent cartridges and threw them into the ditch. They both thought that was the end of it since the suspected drug runner had escaped to Mexico. They inspected his vehicle and found a large quantity of marijuana as they expected they would. When their supervisor showed up, they glossed over the incident and disclosed none of the details. More or less by accident, the circumstances were disclosed to another agent and the ensuing investigation led to Ramos’ and Campean’s conviction. During his stay in federal prison Ramos, of the pair asked to be released into the general prison population while Campean remained in solitary confinement in a 7 by 13 foot cell. Ramos was immediately set upon by five Hispanic inmates who shouted, “Maten a la Migra”, “Kill the Border Patrol”.
The media, especially Lou Dobbs, made a cause célèbre of the Ramos-Campean case often omitting some of the incriminating details. Congressmen and citizens picked up on it and let be known that, in spite of Dobb’s omissions, they believed the lengthy sentences to be a miscarriage of justice, not because Ramos-Campean were innocent, but because the sentence was not commensurate with the offense which depended mostly on the testimony of a drug runner who is now in jail. Bush, chintzy to the end only commuted the sentences of these men who have lost everything and who will be convicted felons for the rest of their lives unless a more benevolent president comes along who has a greater appreciation the men and women of the Border Patrol who put their lives on the line at the increasingly violent border.
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
Friday, January 16, 2009
Letter to DHS
Secretary of Homeland Security
Dr. Janet Napolitano
Department of Homeland Security January 16, 2009
Washington, D.C.
Dear Madam Secretary:
I am a native-born American Citizen. My mother was born in Kansas City, Missouri and my father in Lolland, Denmark. He is a naturalized citizen. Four members of our family served in World War II or the Korean War.
We know and understand the history of immigration during our country’s 233 year existence. In the early days, immigration was uncontrolled, and rightly so, as a vast, largely-unsettled continent lay before the Founding Fathers and their successors. In those times, our natural resources seemed limitless. Now we know better.
Gradually, immigration became more controlled and laws were passed to regulate the number of legal immigrants that were admitted and stop illegal entry.
My family and I strongly support securing our borders and ports of entry. We also believe that vigorous and continuous internal enforcement is an essential part of border security. If potential illegal aliens, terrorists, or smugglers believe that once they escape the immediate environs of the border they are home free, they will keep trying until they succeed. In fact, we saw a statistic somewhere that indicated fully 97% of those who wish to enter our country illegally are ultimately successful. Often the amount charged by coyotes includes a guarantee of such success. Some illegals make multiple tries during a single day because the catch and escort back across the border policy allows them to do so.
Some people have indicated that they are in favor of secure borders but would deny us the tools necessary to achieve that goal. While infrastructure and staffing improvements at the border and changes in the rules of engagement are essential, those improvements must be buttressed with internal enforcement based on E-Verification of work status. If we could get the terrorists, drug lords, and smugglers to sew a scarlet letter on their clothing so they could be easily identified, Homeland Security’s job would be much easier. Obviously that is not going to happen so our security depends on a comprehensive approach rather than one that tries to focus all our resources on just sorting out the violent criminal elements. We must apprehend, detain, and repatriate as many illegals and criminals as we can, with due regard for their humane treatment and the demonstrated needs of our economy.
While no one wishes to deport the illegal alien grandmother of a soldier serving in a combat zone, there are many others who deserve immediate repatriation with the admonition that if they return they will do hard time. That point could be made crystal clear by putting all of the apprehended, able-bodied, male illegals to work for six months on border infrastructure at minimum wage before they are escorted back across the border.
“Justice delayed is justice denied” so we need to expedite all immigration hearings. We believe every case should be decided within 24 hours with no more than a week for an appeal. To accomplish this, the criteria for immigration decisions should be fair but rigid. In most cases, the illegal aliens’ situation should be obvious. If they have made a conscious effort to assimilate, learn English, contribute to their larger communities, and are well thought of by employers and neighbors alike, those may be good reasons for allowing them to stay if they can pass a back ground check and a health exam, pay any back taxes, and can prove that they have been here for at least five years.
Another approach would be to require employers to re-advertise, at a living wage with a hiring preference for American workers, all of their jobs currently held by foreign workers. If irrefutable proof can be presented that a good faith effort along these lines has been made to no avail, then the same consideration stated above could be offered to these foreign employees. We should insist that employers of foreign workers provide them with full family health care insurance so that employers are unable to offload these costs on the unsuspecting public.
This approach is different from any blanket legalization or amnesty. We know from the 1986 immigration bill what the result would be of another such amnesty, no matter what we call it. We excused the behavior of a million illegals in 1986 only to find ourselves with another 12-20 million 20 years later. They came with the full expectation that another amnesty or mass legalization would be offered sooner or later and they were right as witnessed by the various comprehensive immigration reform bills that were introduced in 2007 and 2008.
The rule of law and the national interest are strong arguments for secure borders but there are many others. For example, there is a basic calculus concept called the “limit”. The limit of finite natural resources per capita as population increases without bounds is zero. So the question is: how far down that road do we want to go? We hope the answer is “no más”. Our immigration and tax policies should be consistent with that answer. Some have proposed reducing the limit on legal immigrations to no more than 200,000 per year, exclusive of students, tourists, and temporary migrant workers. We believe that is a good idea, one that is consistent with our dwindling natural resources. (As you know, water, here in the Southwest, is one such critical natural resource.) The 200,000 should be focused on those applicants who have the education, inventiveness, innovative and entrepreneurial skills we will need to survive in an increasingly competitive world. We should invite the brightest foreign PhD students in engineering and the sciences to remain here and put their intellects to work for America.
A beautiful quotation by British philosopher John Stuart in his classic 1848 Principles of Political Economy commends a change of values:
“There is room in the world, no doubt, and even in old countries [in 1848], for a great increase in population, supposing the arts of life to go on improving, and capital to increase. But even if innocuous, I confess I see very little reason for desiring it.”
Physics Professor-Emeritus Albert Bartlett of the University of Colorado put it best:
“Can you think of any problem in any area of human endeavor on any scale, from the microscopic to the global, whose long-term solution is in any demonstrable way aided, assisted, or advanced by further increases in population, locally, nationally, or globally?”
Senator Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) said,
“It is both the right and the obligation of government to make sure our immigration policies serve the national interest.”
We do not need more immigrants, legal or illegal, other than noted above. So let’s close the door on chain immigrations and excessive immigrations of all kinds. Let’s try to find a way to stop giving away birthright citizenship to the offspring of illegal aliens. We need a national objective of a stable population and a plan to achieve it within 20 years. We can achieve that goal with appropriate tax and immigration policies. The alternative is a rapid depletion of our finite natural resources and a continuing destruction of the environment. The UN estimates that the per capita output of pollutants by Americans is 20 metric tons per year. If our population increases by another 300 million people by the end of this century, we will produce another 6 billion tons of pollutants each year at the present rate. Even if we were able, through some technological miracle, to reduce the rate by half to 10 metric tons per capita, the current level of Mexico, we would not have made any progress on reducing the present unacceptable total output. When discussing environmental policies, our leaders have studiously avoided the most important factor, population growth.
There are many other legitimate reasons for continuing ICE raids on workplaces and 287(g) raids as an indirect part of our effort to secure the borders. Obviously, detention rather than catch-and-release is essential to the success of those efforts. Women and children could be allowed to choose to return immediately to their homelands or detention awaiting the expedited adjudication of their cases by an immigration judge. Male illegals 16 years of age or above must be detained or they will simply disappear. The length of stays in detention should be minimized. Family separation should almost never be a basis for allowing illegals to remain in this country. Deportees must take their minor children with them regardless of the children’s citizenship.
Any observer of the volume of vehicular and pedestrian cross-border traffic would quickly conclude that your job is hopeless unless that volume is reduced significantly. Cross-border work or educational commutes should be prohibited. Trailers should be detached at the border and re-attached to American tractors. This would take any contraband out of the hands of a driver who may be in collusion with the smugglers. It would also make our highways safer.
To provide a final emphasis on the idea of a stable population with a soft landing for our economy, I offer the following quote from the eminent demographer Joel Cohen:
“I personally am very concerned by the vast inequitable and largely avoidable burdens of hunger, disease, violence, ignorance and poverty borne by too many billions of people. But I will not try to persuade you that the world will end in the next ten years unless everybody changes to a diet of soybeans and contraceptive pills, or that a universal diet of soybeans and contraceptive pills would eliminate hunger, disease, violence, ignorance and poverty…. But I will try to persuade you that the world [or the U.S.] cannot easily and comfortably accommodate an unlimited number of people at any desirable level of material, mental and civic well-being.”
Sincerely yours,
An American
Dr. Janet Napolitano
Department of Homeland Security January 16, 2009
Washington, D.C.
Dear Madam Secretary:
I am a native-born American Citizen. My mother was born in Kansas City, Missouri and my father in Lolland, Denmark. He is a naturalized citizen. Four members of our family served in World War II or the Korean War.
We know and understand the history of immigration during our country’s 233 year existence. In the early days, immigration was uncontrolled, and rightly so, as a vast, largely-unsettled continent lay before the Founding Fathers and their successors. In those times, our natural resources seemed limitless. Now we know better.
Gradually, immigration became more controlled and laws were passed to regulate the number of legal immigrants that were admitted and stop illegal entry.
My family and I strongly support securing our borders and ports of entry. We also believe that vigorous and continuous internal enforcement is an essential part of border security. If potential illegal aliens, terrorists, or smugglers believe that once they escape the immediate environs of the border they are home free, they will keep trying until they succeed. In fact, we saw a statistic somewhere that indicated fully 97% of those who wish to enter our country illegally are ultimately successful. Often the amount charged by coyotes includes a guarantee of such success. Some illegals make multiple tries during a single day because the catch and escort back across the border policy allows them to do so.
Some people have indicated that they are in favor of secure borders but would deny us the tools necessary to achieve that goal. While infrastructure and staffing improvements at the border and changes in the rules of engagement are essential, those improvements must be buttressed with internal enforcement based on E-Verification of work status. If we could get the terrorists, drug lords, and smugglers to sew a scarlet letter on their clothing so they could be easily identified, Homeland Security’s job would be much easier. Obviously that is not going to happen so our security depends on a comprehensive approach rather than one that tries to focus all our resources on just sorting out the violent criminal elements. We must apprehend, detain, and repatriate as many illegals and criminals as we can, with due regard for their humane treatment and the demonstrated needs of our economy.
While no one wishes to deport the illegal alien grandmother of a soldier serving in a combat zone, there are many others who deserve immediate repatriation with the admonition that if they return they will do hard time. That point could be made crystal clear by putting all of the apprehended, able-bodied, male illegals to work for six months on border infrastructure at minimum wage before they are escorted back across the border.
“Justice delayed is justice denied” so we need to expedite all immigration hearings. We believe every case should be decided within 24 hours with no more than a week for an appeal. To accomplish this, the criteria for immigration decisions should be fair but rigid. In most cases, the illegal aliens’ situation should be obvious. If they have made a conscious effort to assimilate, learn English, contribute to their larger communities, and are well thought of by employers and neighbors alike, those may be good reasons for allowing them to stay if they can pass a back ground check and a health exam, pay any back taxes, and can prove that they have been here for at least five years.
Another approach would be to require employers to re-advertise, at a living wage with a hiring preference for American workers, all of their jobs currently held by foreign workers. If irrefutable proof can be presented that a good faith effort along these lines has been made to no avail, then the same consideration stated above could be offered to these foreign employees. We should insist that employers of foreign workers provide them with full family health care insurance so that employers are unable to offload these costs on the unsuspecting public.
This approach is different from any blanket legalization or amnesty. We know from the 1986 immigration bill what the result would be of another such amnesty, no matter what we call it. We excused the behavior of a million illegals in 1986 only to find ourselves with another 12-20 million 20 years later. They came with the full expectation that another amnesty or mass legalization would be offered sooner or later and they were right as witnessed by the various comprehensive immigration reform bills that were introduced in 2007 and 2008.
The rule of law and the national interest are strong arguments for secure borders but there are many others. For example, there is a basic calculus concept called the “limit”. The limit of finite natural resources per capita as population increases without bounds is zero. So the question is: how far down that road do we want to go? We hope the answer is “no más”. Our immigration and tax policies should be consistent with that answer. Some have proposed reducing the limit on legal immigrations to no more than 200,000 per year, exclusive of students, tourists, and temporary migrant workers. We believe that is a good idea, one that is consistent with our dwindling natural resources. (As you know, water, here in the Southwest, is one such critical natural resource.) The 200,000 should be focused on those applicants who have the education, inventiveness, innovative and entrepreneurial skills we will need to survive in an increasingly competitive world. We should invite the brightest foreign PhD students in engineering and the sciences to remain here and put their intellects to work for America.
A beautiful quotation by British philosopher John Stuart in his classic 1848 Principles of Political Economy commends a change of values:
“There is room in the world, no doubt, and even in old countries [in 1848], for a great increase in population, supposing the arts of life to go on improving, and capital to increase. But even if innocuous, I confess I see very little reason for desiring it.”
Physics Professor-Emeritus Albert Bartlett of the University of Colorado put it best:
“Can you think of any problem in any area of human endeavor on any scale, from the microscopic to the global, whose long-term solution is in any demonstrable way aided, assisted, or advanced by further increases in population, locally, nationally, or globally?”
Senator Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) said,
“It is both the right and the obligation of government to make sure our immigration policies serve the national interest.”
We do not need more immigrants, legal or illegal, other than noted above. So let’s close the door on chain immigrations and excessive immigrations of all kinds. Let’s try to find a way to stop giving away birthright citizenship to the offspring of illegal aliens. We need a national objective of a stable population and a plan to achieve it within 20 years. We can achieve that goal with appropriate tax and immigration policies. The alternative is a rapid depletion of our finite natural resources and a continuing destruction of the environment. The UN estimates that the per capita output of pollutants by Americans is 20 metric tons per year. If our population increases by another 300 million people by the end of this century, we will produce another 6 billion tons of pollutants each year at the present rate. Even if we were able, through some technological miracle, to reduce the rate by half to 10 metric tons per capita, the current level of Mexico, we would not have made any progress on reducing the present unacceptable total output. When discussing environmental policies, our leaders have studiously avoided the most important factor, population growth.
There are many other legitimate reasons for continuing ICE raids on workplaces and 287(g) raids as an indirect part of our effort to secure the borders. Obviously, detention rather than catch-and-release is essential to the success of those efforts. Women and children could be allowed to choose to return immediately to their homelands or detention awaiting the expedited adjudication of their cases by an immigration judge. Male illegals 16 years of age or above must be detained or they will simply disappear. The length of stays in detention should be minimized. Family separation should almost never be a basis for allowing illegals to remain in this country. Deportees must take their minor children with them regardless of the children’s citizenship.
Any observer of the volume of vehicular and pedestrian cross-border traffic would quickly conclude that your job is hopeless unless that volume is reduced significantly. Cross-border work or educational commutes should be prohibited. Trailers should be detached at the border and re-attached to American tractors. This would take any contraband out of the hands of a driver who may be in collusion with the smugglers. It would also make our highways safer.
To provide a final emphasis on the idea of a stable population with a soft landing for our economy, I offer the following quote from the eminent demographer Joel Cohen:
“I personally am very concerned by the vast inequitable and largely avoidable burdens of hunger, disease, violence, ignorance and poverty borne by too many billions of people. But I will not try to persuade you that the world will end in the next ten years unless everybody changes to a diet of soybeans and contraceptive pills, or that a universal diet of soybeans and contraceptive pills would eliminate hunger, disease, violence, ignorance and poverty…. But I will try to persuade you that the world [or the U.S.] cannot easily and comfortably accommodate an unlimited number of people at any desirable level of material, mental and civic well-being.”
Sincerely yours,
An American
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Employer of Illegals Gets Hefty Fine
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- "A company accused of encouraging hundreds to illegally enter the United States and then hiring them using fake Social Security numbers has agreed to pay the largest settlement ever in a workplace immigration bust, the Department of Justice said Friday.
IFCO Systems North America, a pallet and crate company, will pay a $20.7 million settlement, which includes $18.1 million in fines and $2.6 million for overtime violations, the Department of Justice said.
In early 2006, immigration officials raided 45 IFCO sites, arresting almost 1,200 low-level workers. Federal officials also charged several managers, accusing them of using "as a business model the systematic violation of United States law."
To date, nine IFCO managers and employees have pleaded guilty to criminal conduct, the Justice Department said. Four managers are awaiting trial on felony charges and the investigation is continuing, it said.
The Justice Department said it will not pursue criminal charges against the company if it complies with the terms of the settlement.
"The agreement severely punishes IFCO for its serious immigration and employment violations," acting U.S. Attorney Andrew Baxter said. "But it also allows the corporation to continue its operations, so that its lawful employees and innocent shareholders do not suffer the consequences of a business failure in this economy."
IFCO's violation of the law was flagrant, officials said. More than half of the company's 5,800 workers during 2005 had invalid Social Security numbers, and the company ignored at least 13 letters from the Social Security Administration about questionable Social Security numbers.
IFCO records suggests that as many as 6,000 illegal immigrants worked at company plants from 2003 to 2006, the Justice Department said.
Federal officials said Friday that IFCO "acknowledges and accepts responsibility for the unlawful conduct of its managers and employees." An IFCO official could not be reached for comment."
IFCO Systems North America, a pallet and crate company, will pay a $20.7 million settlement, which includes $18.1 million in fines and $2.6 million for overtime violations, the Department of Justice said.
In early 2006, immigration officials raided 45 IFCO sites, arresting almost 1,200 low-level workers. Federal officials also charged several managers, accusing them of using "as a business model the systematic violation of United States law."
To date, nine IFCO managers and employees have pleaded guilty to criminal conduct, the Justice Department said. Four managers are awaiting trial on felony charges and the investigation is continuing, it said.
The Justice Department said it will not pursue criminal charges against the company if it complies with the terms of the settlement.
"The agreement severely punishes IFCO for its serious immigration and employment violations," acting U.S. Attorney Andrew Baxter said. "But it also allows the corporation to continue its operations, so that its lawful employees and innocent shareholders do not suffer the consequences of a business failure in this economy."
IFCO's violation of the law was flagrant, officials said. More than half of the company's 5,800 workers during 2005 had invalid Social Security numbers, and the company ignored at least 13 letters from the Social Security Administration about questionable Social Security numbers.
IFCO records suggests that as many as 6,000 illegal immigrants worked at company plants from 2003 to 2006, the Justice Department said.
Federal officials said Friday that IFCO "acknowledges and accepts responsibility for the unlawful conduct of its managers and employees." An IFCO official could not be reached for comment."
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
The Enemy Within and Without
The Mexican Government, ACLU, NCLR, League of United Latin American Citizens, La Casa, MALDEF, Service Employees International Union, National Alliance for Immigrant Rights, American Immigrant Lawyers Foundation, Capital area Immigrants Rights Coalition, Citizens and Immigrants for Equal Justice, New American Opportunity Campaign, We Are America Alliance, National Network of Immigrant Refugee Rights, National Immigration Forum, Immigration Information Council, SPLC, Immigration Legal Resource Center, Mexicans and Americans Thinking Together, National Latino Leadership Assembly, New Unity Partnership, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, U.S. [cheap labor]Chamber of Commerce, Border Action Network, National Immigration Law Center, People for the American Way, Citizens for Border Solutions, National Council of Churches, Mississippi Immigration Rights Alliance, Human Rights Coalition of California, Mexica Movement, National Association of Latino Elected Officials, California Immigration Policy Center, Justice for Immigrants, El Comite Pro Amnistia, Center for Human Rights, American Friends Service Committee, Denver Justice and Peace Committee, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, and the Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
The Impact of Global Growth
“The most acute problem of plenty is the impact of global growth on natural resources and the environment. It is not an exaggeration to say that the world is running out of clean air, potable water, agricultural produce, and many vital commodities. Some of these problems can be fixed—by improving efficiency and developing new sources of supply—but progress so far has been far too slow [and I might add very difficult]. Agricultural productivity, for example, is rising. [Probably, not by much in the U.S. where heavy mechanization and fertilizer, insecticide, and herbicide use must mean that there would be very little return from additional investments of that sort.] But feeding a global population of eight billion, which we will get by 2025, will require crop yields to reach four tons per hectare from only three tons today. [This kind of improvement may be possible in underdeveloped countries with available arable land and a willingness to buy into the mega-agric-business concept.]
Similarly, our ability to manage and conserve water is not growing nearly as fast as our consumption of it. World population tripled in the twentieth century, but water consumption increased six fold. Americans use more than four hundred liters of water a day to drink, cook, and clean themselves [and their clothes.] People in poorer countries today are lucky to get forty, but as they get richer, their rising demands will cause greater stress. Violent clashes over water have already broken out in Africa and the Middle East. [Even in the U.S., there was a border dispute between Tennessee and Georgia when drought struck the Southeast.] Historically, people have moved to find water; if water sources dry up in the future, tens of millions of people will be forced to start moving. [In the Southwestern U.S., cities with burgeoning populations are buying up water rights leaving the land fallow and unable to grow the food needed by the additional people.]
Over the past decade, many predictions about the effects of climate change have proven to be underestimates because global [population] growth has exceeded all projection. The most recent assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was released in mid-2007. By the year’s end, scientists had shown that the polar ice caps are melting twice as fast as the report expected. There is a greater demand for electricity, more cars, and more planes than anyone imagined fifteen years ago. And it keeps growing. The McKinsey Global Institute projects that, from 2003 to 2020, the number of vehicles in China will rise from 26 million to 120 million. And then there’s India, Russia, the Middle East—the rest.
Demand for electricity is projected to rise over 4 percent a year for decades. And that electricity will come mostly from the dirtiest fuel available—coal. Coal is cheap and plentiful, so the world relies on it to produce most of its electricity. To understand the impact on global warming, consider this fact. Between 2006 and 2012, China and India will build eight hundred new coal-fired power plants—with combined CO2 emissions five times the total savings of the Kyoto accords [if they were implemented].
-- from Fareed Zakaria, "The Post American World" (on Obama's reading list)
Similarly, our ability to manage and conserve water is not growing nearly as fast as our consumption of it. World population tripled in the twentieth century, but water consumption increased six fold. Americans use more than four hundred liters of water a day to drink, cook, and clean themselves [and their clothes.] People in poorer countries today are lucky to get forty, but as they get richer, their rising demands will cause greater stress. Violent clashes over water have already broken out in Africa and the Middle East. [Even in the U.S., there was a border dispute between Tennessee and Georgia when drought struck the Southeast.] Historically, people have moved to find water; if water sources dry up in the future, tens of millions of people will be forced to start moving. [In the Southwestern U.S., cities with burgeoning populations are buying up water rights leaving the land fallow and unable to grow the food needed by the additional people.]
Over the past decade, many predictions about the effects of climate change have proven to be underestimates because global [population] growth has exceeded all projection. The most recent assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was released in mid-2007. By the year’s end, scientists had shown that the polar ice caps are melting twice as fast as the report expected. There is a greater demand for electricity, more cars, and more planes than anyone imagined fifteen years ago. And it keeps growing. The McKinsey Global Institute projects that, from 2003 to 2020, the number of vehicles in China will rise from 26 million to 120 million. And then there’s India, Russia, the Middle East—the rest.
Demand for electricity is projected to rise over 4 percent a year for decades. And that electricity will come mostly from the dirtiest fuel available—coal. Coal is cheap and plentiful, so the world relies on it to produce most of its electricity. To understand the impact on global warming, consider this fact. Between 2006 and 2012, China and India will build eight hundred new coal-fired power plants—with combined CO2 emissions five times the total savings of the Kyoto accords [if they were implemented].
-- from Fareed Zakaria, "The Post American World" (on Obama's reading list)
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Gov. Schwarzenegger says Calif. budget deficit now $14.8 bln
Looks like California has a real problem here. I wouldn't give them an extra dime until: (1) they get their house in order by apprehending and turning over to ICE for expedited repatriation all the illegals in the state and their minor progeny, regardless of citizenship; (2) they require all municipalities to renounce any official or unofficial sanctuary status and charge police with apprehending illegals and holding them for ICE; (3) petition the federal government for relief from Medicaid, emergency medical care, education and related expenses for illegals and their progeny; (4) cut state civil service employment by 50% and reduce the top compensation of all state employees to not more than $100 k per year permanently; (5) put all state employees on a four day work week except those involved in emergency services.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)