Dee's Distortions and Lies

Commentary on Dee’s Tirade

1. Economy: They say they support an improved economy, yet they favor tax cuts for the rich. They favor de-regulation for big business. Under their last administration, they came in with the biggest surplus and, due to their programs, left with the largest deficit.
Many democrats agree with the Republicans that any tax increases during a recession are counterproductive. I expect the compromise that will be reached is to postpone ending all tax cuts for two or three years and then eliminate the tax cuts for the rich. Businesses, big (like the Fortune 500) or small, provide the jobs needed to put America back to work. The more our businesses are freed of taxes, the more competitive they can be in the global marketplace and the more jobs they can create.
The deficit is due to at least three things: Bush’s War, Obam's War, and the deficit. No matter what the Administration says Obamacare will add to the defict.
2. Christian Values: They say they support Christian Values, yet they support an agenda of HATE
This of course is hyperbolic nonsense and sensationalism. This is just another example of a leftwing nut misusing the word Hate for every position they disagree with. Dee is getting hysterical and it shows. Over the years she has become increasingly shrill and unreasonable. She is simply wrong about this. No sane person would even say "...they support an agenda of HATE.". She has become the purveyor of Hate. Any reasonable person can see that from her rants and outright lies repeated ad nauseum. She must be off her Lithium again.
3. American People: They say they are for the American People, yet they are against so-called “entitlement programs.” They want to end social security and Medicare. In order to do so, their first plan is to raise the retirement age to 70.
Republicans are not against all entitlement plans but have opposed any new ones in view of the fact that the existing ones are underfunded. It is a matter of fiscal discipline. Everyone knows that entitlements eat up most of the budget leaving the federal government with little discretionary money for other worthwhile projects. Candidates who suggest doing away with either program have little chance of being elected. If Dee, had been paying attention, she would have seen that people from both sides of the aisle fully recognize this problem but in general have been unable to do anything about it for fear of crossing the public that understandably considers Social Security and Medicare as sacred cows If the objective was to end Social Security, that would obviate the need to raise the retirement age to 70. Raising the age is a simple recognition that unless we increase revenues or decrease expense or a combination of both, Social Security will never be able to cover its unfunded obligations. I have long advocated removing the cap on taxable earnings so everyone pays the same percentage of their earnings into the system while freezing the maximum benefit at the present level as adjusted annually for inflation. That would be a balanced approach with more affluent paying much more without a commensurate increase in benefits. Others would just have to work longer if they can to reduce costs. If that doesn't do it, we will have to raise the combined employer/employee tax rate to 15%. Raising the Social Security tax on the rich rather than the income tax would be more palatable to the people because they could see the benefit. I believe there must be a provision to allow those who are unable to work effectively at age 70 to retire earlier with a small reduction in the benefit in accordance with the standards of the current law.
4. Jobs for Americans: They say they are for American Jobs, yet they want to reduce jobs and cut pay for teachers, police and firefighters.
This is a ridiculous statement. Some states are struggling with grave budgetary problems as a result of their profligate spending driven by the public unions who have no regard for the fiscal discipline that would allow their states to live within their means. When the country of Greece was threatened with bankruptcy for the same reasons, the European Union laid down strict rules Greece had to comply with before any loans would be forthcoming. The Republicans were asking nothing more. They want the states to step up and show what actions they have taken to put their budgets on a sustainable basis before any federal funds are provided. There are many state employees who could and should be laid off first before firemen, teachers, and police but their unions are protecting them just as the teachers’ union is trying to protect their jobs And indeed part of the plan must involve pay cuts for some who are clearly overpaid in comparison with what other states pay their employees. The governor has recognized this and attempted to take action but was thwarted by the courts and the Democrat controlled legislature. Again the greedy unions are at fault. When prison guards make six figures, part of the solution is clear.
5. Immigration: They say they support legal immigration and it is not about being “anti-Latino”, yet they support anti Latino racial profiling bills like sb1070, they support a border fence ONLY on the Mexico border, they support a racial profiling sheriff (apricot), his volunteer masked goons, his suppression sweeps, they support future immigration levels being reduced, but only from Latino or Minority countries, they support English Only, they support Mass Deportation and approve of racial profiling of Latinos; they call citizen Latino children “anchor babies” and delivering babies – “dropping them”; etc. etc.
More hyperbole. Most Americans agree that anti-illegal alien SB 1070 was badly needed and similar measures should be adopted by other states burdened with the costs of illegal aliens. Florida and Missouri have already done so.

The investment in border infrastructure and staffing obviously has to be focused where the problem is the greatest and that is clearly the Mexican border where the drug cartels’ smuggling efforts are most rampant and where millions of illegals find their way across the border. Anyone who claims to have worked for a Fortune 500 company, like Dee, certainly should have at least a minimum appreciation for the optimum deployment of resources.

A major reduction in legal immigration levels from all countries is in the best interests of our country. Since Dee favors a CIR that would increase the number of such immigrants, she is not an unbiased judge of Republican proposals. In the past, various immigration laws have focused on establishing quotas that were representative of the existing population. It is not clear what they are based on now but if the United States is being overrun with illegals from the South it would make sense to reduce the legal quota from those countries to bring the total back into balance. Nevertheless, I am not aware of any Republican proposal that would achieve that goal.

As usual Dee distorts the GOP position on a national language which is shared by many democrats by calling it “English Only” instead of “Official English.” This is an old distortion that Dee has repeated innumerable times. The Spanish language is well-preserved in many other countries of the world. Mexico does not conduct any official business in English. It just makes common sense to eliminate the cost of government publications, materials and ballots that are curently being produced in many languages, especially now that the deficit has gotten completely out of control and will go higher under the Obama Administration.

Mass deportation has never been the policy of the GOP and isn’t now. This is another of Dee’s perennial lies or distortions. The GOP recognizes that some level of foreign labor is needed in the U.S. but would like to make sure Americans have first dibs on jobs.
6. Constitution: They say they believe in and abide by the Constitution, yet this is only when it is convenient for them to do so. They advocate changing the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, and want to end birthright citizenship; they support racial profiling which is against the law.

Republicans believe in and abide by the Constitution even more than the Obama Administration. As I have patiently explained to Dee, the Constitution has been amended 27 times. This is the time for a new amendment or action to reinterpret the words “under the jurisdiction of…” to exclude the children of tourists and illegal aliens. Every developed country in the world, except the U.S. and Canada, has abandoned the concept of birthright citizenship. France did in 1993.
The 14th Amendment has been abused by those who violate the border to drop their babies on American soil. She may not like that phrase but it has been in used since time immemorial. Moreover, if it is a pejorative term, that merely reflect the level of anger at the tourists and illegals who enter our country for the sole purpose of delivering an instant citizen. The GOP merely seeks to curb the abuse of the 14th and obviously will continue to abide by the Constitution until it is changed, not just when it is convenient as Dee suggests.

Racial profiling is illegal but it inhibits the optimum deployment of resources. If one is looking for illegal aliens from the South, it is unlikely you will find them anywhere except in the Hispanic communities or among those who share their features. From a practical point of view, there are many things that can be done to avoid any imposition on Hispanic citizens who wish to cooperate with the law in apprehending illegals.
7. Pro-Life/ANTI Women’s' Choice: They say they are Pro-Life and want to end a woman’s right to choose, however they support the Death Penalty, they advocate wars (e.g. Iraq – no WMD), they advocate assault weapons. They also advocate using torture on prisoners, violating the Geneva Convention.
Everyone knows there is a deep division in the United States over the abortion issue. It was only when several anti-abortion democrat members of the House caved in at the very end, that the Health Care Reform bill was passed. Many of them will regret their change of heart in the upcoming election. It is indeed strange for a Catholic to go against the teaching of her church to advocate for Choice. The church has and may again ex-communicate those who do so. It illustrates how easily some people make up their own rules and indulge in mindless distortions.

It is a mistake to think that all members of the NRA are Republicans. The democrats voted along with everyone else to undertake the war in Iraq, after opposing it later when it became convenient to do so. Now they are trying to claim that they were responsible for the success in Iraq, even though, under the Obama Administration, Iraqis still enjoy only five hours of electricity each day and the car bombings continue -- some success!
8. Pro-Marriage/ANTI Gay Marriage: They say they are Pro-Marriage between a man and a woman, and they rally against Gay Marriage, yet they have the highest rate of members who engage in illicit affairs with male pages, interns, prostitutes and strangers. (eg: larry craig; mark foley, ed schrock; Charlie crist, jim mccrery, david dreier, etc )
Gee Dee, for a moment there I thought you were going to come right out and state your approval of gay marriages or would that be another violation of the Catholic church’s beliefs? I won’t bother to list the illicit affairs of the democrats. Everyone knows this aberration has nothing to do with party affiliation. So what is your position on gay marriage? Don’t keep it a secret from us.
9. Intelligent President: They claim they support intelligent candidates for the Presidency, yet they nominated Sarah Palin for VP.
Palin was a pure poltical choice that brought excitement to the ticket but in the end it was a big mistake. Lieberman would have been a better choice. There have been plenty of dunces and tax evaders in democratic administrations as well. Stupidity has no party boundaries.

The Other Hydra - A Gallery of Dishonor

Some people are so shortsighted that they see no reason why any average American should oppose illegal aliens. Their total focus is on the illegal aliens rather than the national interest. Anyone who disgrees with them must by definition be racists or hate mongers, even distinguished United States Senators. The thing that this other hydra misses is that "leaving the borders open to unlimited illegal entry will ultimately, and it won't take long, reduce the social, political, economic life of the United States to the level of Juarez,Guadalajara, Mexico City, El Salvador, Haiti,India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Sub-Saharan Africa. To a common peneplain of overcrowding, squalor, misery, torture, crime, corruption and rape." Does this vision of America bother them? Apparently not.

Can these folks be considered loyal to the best interests of the U.S.? Hardly! And yet they find it easy to engage in their own brand of hate mongering -- insulting U.S. Senators, the elected representatives of millions of Americans.

The Disconnect between the Will of the American People and Congress

Rep. Jared Polis, (D., 2nd CD) writing in the Denver Post on May 13, 2010 starts out well with the statement, “I have never seen such a disconnect between the will of the American people and Congress.” Polis claims that “the American people have had it with our broken immigration system” but in actuality, as all the polls show, the American people have had it with the Congress and the Administration, not our immigration system. Polis further states that “across the ideological spectrum, no one is happy with the status quo.” Of course, voters are unhappy with the status quo for a multitude of reasons. Foremost among those reasons is the fact that the Administration has done little or nothing to enforce the immigration laws already on the books. Instead of a broken immigration system, it is a failure of enforcement that has created the disconnect Polis speaks of.

Polis seems to think that states like Arizona are diverting their police officers to enforce immigration laws. This is a misrepresentation of what the new Arizona immigration law requires. Since the state is overrun with illegal aliens and the federal government has failed in its duty to the people, Arizona has enabled police officers to check the bona fides of anyone they stop for other law infractions. The officers are not being diverted from their regular duties. They are merely being allowed to check legal residency status at the same time as they check other forms of identification such as drivers’ licenses and proof of insurance. The ability of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to apprehend illegal aliens is seriously compromised when the local law enforcement authorities in sanctuary cities are directed not to cooperate or assist in the task of apprehending illegal aliens. Given the huge size of the problem and the sheer volume of illegals in some communities, ICE agents are simply overwhelmed without the help of the police. There is no other solution than the one enacted in Arizona. ICE is dependent on the active assistance of local enforcement agencies in the performance of their regular duties.

In the absence of any effort by the current Administration in Washington to deal with the problem, States like Arizona are providing the leadership needed to turn the tide of illegal aliens by enabling local authorities to provide the assistance needed by ICE to do its job. Polis, using a very unfortunate choice of words, says, “Unless Congress acts, more states, counties, and cities will likely pass thuggish and spiteful laws that scare and scapegoat American citizens of certain ethnic heritages.” These laws passed by states like Arizona are neither thuggish nor spiteful. They are legitimate attempts by duly-elected local and state representatives of the people to deal with a problem that both the Congress and the Administration have chosen to ignore. To call these efforts thuggish and spiteful is an insult to the American people. The misguided use of such words is indicative of those with a mindset that favors illegal aliens over citizens and who therefore are responsible for the disconnect.

Both the Congress and the Administration have been deaf to the pleas of citizens for the immigration laws to be vigorously enforced. The E-verification system languishes because Congress has failed make it mandatory across the border for all employers, public and private, and all employees, both current employees and potential new hires. 

Every member of congress has taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic and bear true faith and allegiance to the same. They swear or affirm that they take that obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that they will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which they are about to enter. When it comes to illegal aliens, it becomes clear that the Congress has no intention of honoring that oath. They have a different agenda and the American people are just an impediment to that agenda.

Liberal “Sens. Harry Reid, Charles Schumer and Robert Menendez (RSM) recently released a conceptual proposal for immigration reform with a simple theme: If you obey our laws, learn our language and pay our taxes, we will welcome you to America.”  Not so fast there, senators! We don’t need or want anymore impoverished immigrants to burden our social, educational, and medical services budgets and add to our crushing national debt. Instead, we need a national objective of a stable population to be achieved with a soft landing for our economy within twenty years.

The senators say nothing about the failure of the federal government to enforce the laws already on the book. Instead they trot out the tired cliché about “fixing our broken immigration system.” Before we can reach any conclusions about the effectiveness of the current immigration system, we must first make a comprehensive effort to enforce the existing immigration laws.

If the Senate proposal is turned into a bill and brought to the floor, we will see which members of Congress have the backbone to stand up for the national interest, national sovereignty, and national character and which will pander to special interest lobbies like La Raza and cheap labor interests. Polis talks about the disconnect between the Congress and the American people but fails to recognize that the RSM framework is a perfect example of that disconnect. Poll after poll has shown that the voters are opposed to amnesty for illegal aliens. Yet, Reid, Schumer, and Menendez have ignored those results and opted instead to include a form of amnesty in their framework. This will extend the disconnect not mend it.

Similarly, the House is working to pass some form of comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) that, like earlier laws, purports to secure our borders, restore the rule of law to our country, create jobs for Americans, prevent illegal immigration from occurring in our country, and provide for a new amnesty. In the minds of these legislators “CIR” is  erroneouslyconsidered to be synonymous with “amnesty.”

Some argue that what is being proposed is not amnesty. Technically, it is not amnesty if any penalty is imposed, even if it is just a slap on the wrist or some requirements that will never be enforced. However, the common understanding of amnesty is any measure that allows illegal aliens to remain in this country and work, thereby rewarding them with the object of their illegality.

The Senate outline is a tired rerun of the same provisions and promises of the bills that failed in 2007 and 2008.   The senators have tried to repackage those provisions to make it look like they have made some important compromises.  But the amnesty provision that most Americans object to is still there in one form or another.  A bill that omits the amnesty provision would garner widespread support. The other elements of the House version are important and would have a good chance for quick passage if the provisions for amnesty were removed. Our long experience with the existing laws has clearly demonstrated that none of the House provisions can be achieved without vigorous and continuous internal enforcement based on electronic verification of the work status of all employees. While adding more border patrol agents, improving border infrastructure, and revising the rules of engagement are all important, internal enforcement remains the sine qua non of in depth border security. Without internal enforcement, secure borders will remain a pipe dream. The failure of Congress to recognize this fact is part of the disconnect from will of the people.

Typically, Congress tries to candy coat each new proposal to assuage hunger of the voting public for real border security. But most of the proposals turn out to be just another snow job consisting of empty promises that will never be enforced.

No one is suggesting that all illegals should be deported en masse.  Some fireugn workers are important to our economy.  If it can be shown that illegals in certain jobs have not displaced citizen workers, then green cards should be issued on a selective basis. However, foreign workers who have entered the U.S. illegally must never be eligible for citizenship.  That is the least penalty that must be imposed to create the disincentive to violate our borders.  However, if their foreign-born children remain in school and learn English and civics, they could become eligible for naturalized citizenship at age 21.  Illegal aliens are more interested in legal status than they are in citizenship. They mainly want to be out from under the threat of deportation.

There is no reason why E-verify cannot be implemented immediately. We need it right now to detect Social Security name and number mismatches, duplicate and fraudulent Social Security numbers, and other fraudulent identification cards so that employers will no longer have any excuse for hiring or retaining individuals who are here illegally. It is against the law to “knowingly” hire illegal aliens. But employers can get off the hook easily by saying, “I didn’t know” so that loophole must be closed.

The fine for those who have worked here illegally should be based on the applicable tax bracket times the average earnings of illegals times the number of years worked. For example, if the applicable tax bracket is 15% and the average earnings of illegals is $30,000 per year and a particular individual has worked here for 10 years, his fine should be 0.15 x $30,000 x 10 or $45,000 payable over a 10 year period at $4,500 per year.

Polis quotes Edward Alden, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who studies immigration, as saying the Senate proposal "shows how far the Democrats have moved in terms of tougher and tougher enforcement" and that "across the board you see language that would be very comfortable in a proposal written by Republicans." If the Administration gives as much attention to enforcing the senate proposals as it has those already on the books, the new enforcement ideas will remain useless and meaningless.  With no intention or mechanism for enforcement, the new proposals are just hoodwink the public  and  facilitate the passage of the bill.  As long as the bill contains anything that looks like amnesty it will not represent a true effort to solve the problem.

The RSM framework represents no significant departure from the existing unenforced statutes. It is just another cynical attempt on the part of the Congress to assuage the concerns of the voting public without any real plan to enforce the result, except for any amnesty provison.  If the Congress really wanted to enact an immgration refom bill, the first step should be to remove anything that an ordinary citizen would consider to be tantamount to amnesty.

Polis asks, “Why does this disconnect persist? Should we blame the xenophobes who scream 'amnesty' at any reform effort? Or the civil libertarians who oppose any real type of verification of employment status?” The answer is: None of the above!  Polis is simply indulging in insulting hyperbole when he refers pejoratively to “screaming xenophobes.”   He doesn't mention those who fly foreign flags and demonstrate in the streets for rights they are not entitled to.

The disconnect persists because Congress has its own agenda and is not listening to the people. It would not be difficult to pass any necessary immigration reforms but the devil is in the details. If the Congress were to omit any amnesty considerations or pathways to citizenship, make internal enforcement the centerpiece of a reform bill, and make failure to enforce immigration laws an impeachable offense, the bill would have smooth sailing.

No matter what it is called or what penalties are imposed, amnesty is a nonstarter for the immigration debate. Amnesty, per se, is not immigration reform. Immigration reform is: (1) flexible immigration quotas tied to the total unemployment rate by sector; (2) a national objective of a stable population; (3) an end to chain immigrations except for the children and spouses of citizens; (4) a requirement for at least one parent to be a citizen before citizenship is granted to the child; (5) a delay in the award of citizenship until one’s 21st birthday; (6) English as the official language of the U.S.; (7) a system that requires employers to provide irrefutable evidence of need before any foreign worker can be hired; (8) a label on green cards that specifies what kind of work the aliens can perform; (9) a six month term working on border infrastructure for illegal aliens apprehended at the border or internally; (10) a rigid set of criteria for immigration decisions that excludes family separation as a valid basis for appeal; (11) a limit of no more than 250,000 legal immigrants per year in all categories including chain immigrations but excluding visas issued to students, tourists, and temporary migrant farm workers; (12) fast track citizenship for those who enlist in the armed forces for not less than 4 years and who have served at least one tour in a combat zone; (13) legal immigration quotas focused on those who possess innovative or entrepreneurial skills or who have successfully completed a PhD in a physical science, engineering, math or medicine; (14) a prohibition against citizenship for anyone who has entered the U.S. illegally; and (15) a requirement for true fluency in English before citizenship can be granted.

This framework for immigration reform that would eliminate the disconnect between the people and the Congress on this issue.  It would sidestep the contentious issue of amnesty.   Anyone opposing or delaying these immigration reforms will be seen as directly responsible for making the problem worse. Without swift and bold action, we will undoubtedly have many more illegal aliens living and working within our borders. In 1968 there were about 1.3 million illegals in the U.S. On the occasion of the 1968 amnesty bill Senator Ted Kennedy stood up and said,

“This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.1 -- 1.3 million illegal aliens. We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another Amnesty Bill like this."

Now Rep. Polis, Senators Reid, Schumer, and Menendez and others are proposing another amnesty. It is déjà vu all over again.

If the 1.3 million in 1968 has grown to 12 million today, that would represent a compound rate of increase of 9.7% per year. At that rate the 12 million will become 12 million x 1.097^40 years = 487 million by mid-century. That is a staggering figure! No wonder Congress wants to sweep the 12 million under the carpet with a mass legalization and then begin to count all over again from zero. Although the math is correct, the demographers insist that our population will be “only” about 485 million by 2050.  However, unless something is done besides putting words on paper in another useless bill, the U.S. population could easily exceed 1 billion by the end of this century.

Colorado Senators Michael Bennet and Mark Udall have ignored the cries from Main Street and have called upon Senate Majority Leader Reid to promote the same old amnesty ideas. Represenatives Ed Perlmutter, Diana DeGette and John Salazar have joined Representative Polis as co-sponsors of HR 4321, a new amnesty bill.

People shouldn't be able to cross the border without the proper documents, or to overstay their visas, and businesses shouldn't be able to exploit cheap labor off the books. This continues to happen because the Congress has yet to realize that internal enforcement is the essential ingredient. If the illegals believe that if they can escape the immediate environs of the border, they will be home free, they will keep coming no matter how many agents we assign to the border. East Germans were willing to brave mine fields, machine gun towers, and multi-layered fences and walls to escape to the West because they knew they would not be repatriated. With no such deterrents to contend with, illegal aliens will keep flooding across our borders because they know the probability of being apprehended and repatriated is nil under the current no enforcement policy. Polis is right when he says, “We must stop playing politics with a problem that we should have fixed long ago.” The fix is clear: no amnesty -- vigorous and continuous internal enforcement based on E-verification of work status. E-verify works and will become even better once we implement it across the board for all employers, public and private, and all employees, current and potential new hires.

Politicians in both parties have been barking up the wrong tree and need to come to grips with the fact that while improvements in border staffing, infrastructure, and rules of engagement are necessary, they are not sufficient without internal enforcement that conveys the message: “If you come here illegally, we will catch you and you will serve a minimum of six months working on border infrastructure before you are repatriated with the admonition that if you return you will do a minimum of two years of hard time. The East Germans found out that fences, walls, and mine fields are not enough to deter illegal border crossings. We need to take that lesson to heart and implement a bold program to apprehend and repatriate illegal aliens. Fences and border patrols are not enough.

“So let's not replay this Republican vs. Democrat game with immigration. Good ideas and solutions transcend party.” This issue is too important, and it's time for us to get behind a plan that provides border security in depth and denies jobs, citizenship, and sanctuary to illegal aliens. We know what will work. It is time to get off the amnesty bandwagon and get on with border security.

He's no environmentalist!

Immigration-Reduction Report Card for Sen. Mark Udall (D, CO)

Served in House: 1999-2009, Served in Senate: 2009-

Immigration reduction grade in this Congress  -- F-Recent

D -- Career, D -- Earth Day Sustainability Record

The grades above indicate how well this Member of Congress has been performing on one of the most important public policies affecting the United States' ability to become an environmentally sustainable society.

President Clinton's Task Force on Consumption and Population concluded that it is not possible to have environmental sustainability without dramatically reducing overall immigration to allow for a stabilizing U.S. population.

Instead, Congress has maintained immigration numbers quadruple the traditional average. Immigration policies result in new immigrants and births to immigrants that account for nearly all of the population explosion that currently challenges all U.S. environmental efforts.

Until the 1970s, the United States admitted about 250,000 immigrants each year. This policy helped make this country a great nation. However, Congress' decision to allow immigration to spiral out of control has created an unsustainable situation.


Currently, around 1 million legal immigrants and 1 million illegal aliens come to the United States each year. If Congress does not act to reform immigration, America's population will reach 458 million by 2050.  However, the immigration reform ideas currently being discussed in Congress would increase rather thant curb immigration, further exacerbating the problem.

Immigration helped make America what it is today. However, it is possible to have too much of a good thing.  Our immigrant past is exactly that, "past!" is the operable word in that phrase for all those who wish to save our environment.

February 22, 2010

Open Letter to Rep. Luis Gutierrez:

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? 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. 4321is 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 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 draining funds from 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 needed 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 employer 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 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 requires 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 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.

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 goes too far 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?

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 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 done this through a number of immigration bills and amnesties in the past but enough is enough. The bible surely does not expect anyone to continue to turn the other cheek. I believe our country has turned its cheek so many times that our collective head is spinning like a top.

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. 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.

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. Multi-lingual ballots and other government publications and proceedings should be dispensed with by repealing Executive Order 13166. 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 immediately as they progress through American schools learning English and Civics. The current English test for citizenship is a 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 America has compromised. But there are some fundamentals that America simply cannot negotiate away and cannot wait for one minute longer: secure borders, the need for illegal alien families to return to their homelands as a unit to maintain family unity, the opportunity for citizenship based only on the needs of our economy, singular citizenship and allegiance, paying taxes, 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; and reform that absolutely prohibits another amnesty or anything like it. 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 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. These are the minimum essentials for CIR beginning with border security are listed in the enclosure. Without internal enforcement it will be impossible to achieve border security. Everyone knows that.

I hope that you will give these remarks the thoughtful consideration they deserve.



cc Senator Bennett

Senator Udall

Rep. Polis



Comprehensive Immigration Reform

The essential elements of real comprehensive immigration reform in priority order are:

1. Secure our borders first before any other immigration reforms are considered.

a. Continue improvements in border infrastructure and staffing.

b. Buttress these improvements with comprehensive internal enforcement using as the primary tool mandatory E-Verify across the board for all employers, public and private, and all employees, new and current.

c. Demonstrate that the borders are secure with objective data collected by the border patrol and ICE regarding the number and trend of apprehensions at the border and internally and a valid estimate of the total number of illegals still present in the U.S.

d. Supplement objective data with secret surveys of all border patrol and ICE agents asking their opinions as to whether the borders are secure.

e. Solicit and implement ideas from the border patrol and ICE on how border security and internal enforcement can be improved.

f. Require all illegal aliens apprehended at the border or internally to spend six months working on border infrastructure at minimum wage before they are fingerprinted, photographed, DNAed, and escorted to the border.

g. Prohibit catch and release at the border and internally.

h. End voluntary self-removal by illegal aliens; all removals, self-removal or otherwise, must be considered involuntary so that if they return without the proper documents they will be considered felons and do a minimum of two years of hard time.

i. Require illegals and their employers identified via E-Verify to pay the cost of repatriation.

j. Revise the rules of engagement to permit hot pursuit of drug runners and the use of lethal force and granting immunity from prosecution for agents in the legitimate performance of their duties.

k. Establish a deadline beyond which the use of fraudulent documents and social security numbers will be considered a felony.

2. Tie legal immigration quotas to the U.S. total unemployment rate by sector, profession, or type of work. (For example, if the unemployment level among computer programmers is above the specified criterion, legal immigration in that sector would be halted.)

a. Limit legal immigration to no more than 200,000 per year. (All successful applicants must be briefed on the desirability of a stable population and the adaptation necessary to facilitate that goal and achieve a soft landing for a sustainable economy.)

b. Design immigration and tax policy to achieve a stable population, the conservation of energy and natural resources, and the reduction of environment-destroying pollution of all kinds.

c. Use “Cap and Trade” as one means for achieving a stable population. (Women who wish to have more than the replacement number of children, about 2.1 on the average per couple, will have to buy credits from those who wish to have fewer.)



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



3. Make English the official language of the United States to be used for all ballots and other government publications and proceedings at all levels of government. (Repeal Executive Order 13166 but make public interpreters available to those who cannot afford one and who do not have a family member who can serve in that capacity.)

a. Grant legal immigration priority to English speaking applicants who have the skills needed by America to stay competitive in a global environment. Give accelerated consideration to foreign PhD students in math, physical science, engineering, and MDs in medicine who wish to become American citizens and who are prepared to renounce all allegiance to foreign countries or potentates and any claim on dual citizenship.

b. Raise the bar for citizenship to real fluency in reading, writing, and speaking English rather than the current few words and phrases from a study guide. (Failure to achieve fluency would not be cause for deportation of legal residents.)



4. Require that at least one parent be a citizen of the U.S. before birthright citizenship can be granted under the 14th Amendment.

5. End chain immigrations, except for the spouses and children of those who have been granted citizenship.

6. Make Immigration Court decisions within 24 hours of apprehension. Allow only one week allowed for appeals.

7. Establish rigid criteria for successful appeals. (Successful grounds for an appeal of a removal order may include: evidence of social integration, and cultural and linguistic assimilation, testimony of employers and co-workers as well as evidence that their children are in school learning civics, citizenship and English and are willing to declare their sole allegiance to the U.S. and renounce any dual allegiance and citizenship Family unification is excluded as a basis for an appeal. All minor children, regardless of citizenship, must accompany parents under a removal order.)

8. Prohibit the flying of foreign national flags except at foreign embassies and consulates and by permit for parades on ethnic holidays honoring our immigrant past. (For example, Columbus Day, St. Patrick's Day, Bastille Day, and Cinco de Mayo.)

9. Build a string of triage and obstetric hospitals across on the other side of the borders and provide transport to those hospitals for any foreigners who show up at the border crossings who need medical assistance. Share the cost of constructing these hospitals with our neighbors but, in return, expect Mexico and Canada to staff them.

10. Prohibit unwarranted criticism of legal immigrants and violence against anyone based on race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual preference.

11. Allow employers to present irrefutable evidence that they have made a good faith effort to hire citizens by offering a living wage and a hiring preference before they can declare a hardship case for hiring foreign workers.

Comprehensive Immigration Reform

The essential elements of real comprehensive reform are not too hard to list:
1.  E-verify across the board for all employers and all employees, public and private.
2.  Legal immigration quotas tied to the U.S. unemployment rate by sector, profession, or type of work.   (For example, if the unemployment level among computer programmers is above the specified criterion, legal immigration in that sector would be halted.)
3.  Secure our borders first before considering amnesty for any illegal aliens.  (Demonstrate that the borders have been secured with objective data from the border patrol regarding the number and trend of apprehensions at the border and internally.  Supplement these objective data with the results of secret surveys or questionnaires completed by all border patrol and ICE agents.  Ask their suggestions for completing the job.)
4.  Recognize that the borders cannot be secured without vigorous and continuous enforcement based on E-Verify.
5.  Illegals under removal orders must serve six month working on border infrastructure at minimum wage; two years for repeat offenders.
6.  Grant legal immigration priority to English speaking applicants who have the skills needed by America to stay competitive in a global environment.  Give accelerated consideration to foreign PhD students in math, physical science, engineering, and MDs in medicine who wish to become American citizens and who are prepared to renounce all allegiance to foreign countries or potentates and any claim on dual citizenship.
7.  Raise the English bar for citizenship to real fluency rather than the current few words and phrases from a study guide.
8.  Require that at least one parent be a citizen of the U.S. before birthright citizenship can be granted under the 14th Amendment.
9.  End chain immigrations, except for the spouses and children of those who have been granted citizenship.
10.  Grant accelerated citizenship for aliens who enlist in the armed forces for at least 4 years and who have served at least one tour in a combat zone.
11.  Prohibit the flying of foreign national flags except at foreign embassies and consulates and by permit for parades on ethnic holidays honoring our immigrant past.  (For example, Columbus Day, St. Patrick's Day, Bastille Day, and Cinco de Mayo.)
 12.  Illegals identified through E-verify must be detained for ICE processing.
13.  Immigration court decisions should be made within 24 hours of apprehension with only one week allowed for appeals.
14.  Successful grounds for an appeal of a removal order may include evidence of social integration, and cultural and linguistic assimilation.  Testimony of employers and co-workers as well as evidence that any children are in school learning civics, citizenship and English may also be presented.  Family unification is excluded as a basis for an appeal.  All minor children, regardless of citizenship, must accompany parents under a removal order.
15.  Legal immigration should be limited the historic level of no more than 200,000 per year.  All such immigrants will be briefed on the desirability of a stable population and the adaptation necessary to facilitate that goal and achieve a soft landing for a sustainable economy.
16.  Immigration and tax policy will be designed to achieve a stable population, the conservation of energy and natural resources, and the reduction of environment-destroying pollution of all kinds.
17.  Cap and trade will be another means for achieving a stable population.  Women who wish to have more than the replacement number of children, about 2.1 on the average per couple, will have to buy credits from those who wish to have fewer.
18.  There will be no bashing of legal immigrants and no violence against anyone based on race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual preference.

U.S. Population On Track for 1.182 Billion

For some time I have been writing about excessive population growth and its consequences for the environment, our finite natural resources, and our quality of life. It now appears that my worst fears are coming to pass. In the year 2000, the United States Bureau of the Census issued three population projections(Middle Series, Lowest Series, and Highest Series respectively) for the United States. To These are the most recent projections (in thousands) that go up to the year 2100.
For the year 2009, the three series show (in thousands) 297,436; 290,018; 307,060 respectively with the figure 286,322 added to show what the result would be if immigration was reduced to zero. For the year 2100, the three series show 570,954; 282,706; 1,182,390; and 377,444 for zero immigration respectively.

So, on which trajectory do we find ourselves? Answer: The Highest Series.

The Census Bureau's "Highest Series" projected the population of the United States would be 307,060,000 on July 1, 2009.

So, what did it turn out to be? The Census Bureau now estimates that we hit 307,070,000 people as of that date. That means we are almost precisely on the Highest Series trajectory. And that means we are on track for a population of 1.182 billion persons in the year 2100. For comparison, India currently has a population of 1.16 billion, and China 1.3 billion.(1)

The United States reached a replacement level fertility rate of 2.1 children per woman in the year 1972.

The majority of population growth since 1972 has been due to post-1970 immigrants and their descendants. They will account for nearly all of our population growth the rest of this century. Not that immigrants are bad people, but they tend to come from cultures where the women have a lot of children. The United States is on track to add its next 100 million people faster than any nation in the world except for Pakistan and India. The U.S. population for the year 2100 in a scenario where immigration is halted (the “zero migration series”) is 377 million persons.

There are those who find it convenient to ignore these facts but yet claim to be patriots. They are in actuality far from it. They are more like what Thomas Paine referred to as the "sunshine soldiers and summer patriots" back in the 1700s.

The attention of all citizens is essential to making sure that the United States does not become as populated as China or India. The immigration bills that citizens helped defeat in 2006 and 2007 each would have increased legal immigration to 2 million per year, and the legalized illegal aliens would have been entitled to bring in their extended families, who in turn would have been entitled to bring in their extended families in a snowballing process of virtually unlimited chain migration. There would also have been a guest worker program, and children born here to guest workers would have been U.S. citizens under current interpretation of the law. A population of 1 billion or more by the year 2100 would have been virtually locked in by either of those bills. This is a scenario that was completely outlandish even 15 years ago, but is now a distinct possibility if you do not make your voice heard.

Notes:
1. Robert E. Lang, Mariela Alfonzo, and Casey Dawkins, American Demographics, Planning Magazine, May 2009, at p. 13 and see Arthur C. Nelson, Mega Trends: Thinking Beyond the Crisis. Presentation at the University of Pennsylvania, March 17, 2009. http://www.upenn.edu/penniur/pdf/Nelson%20Presentation.pdf, at page 3 of 49.

2. The Census Bureau’s U.S. Population Clock is actually an estimate. The year 2000 Census revealed the U.S. population to be 6.8 million persons larger than the census bureau had previously estimated. One factor that could have already reduced population growth in 2009 is the recession. There are reports that families are having fewer children due to the uncertainty. The Center for Immigration studies recently concluded that the illegal population has dropped by more than 1.5 million persons in the past year. I do not know if the census bureau has incorporated those factors into the current Population Clock estimate.

3. The Census Bureau Working Paper describing the assumptions behind the population predictions can be found by clicking here.

Nationalism, Patriotism, and Nativism

A few terms often come up in discussions about citizenship and nationality: nativism (a term used in a derogatory way by open borders advocates), nationalism (a concept carried to extremes in Nazi Germany and WW II Japan), and patriotism (usually seen as a good thing). The similarities and distinctions among these terms, however, aren't always explicitly drawn.

Merriam-Webster provides the following definitions:

Nationalism: loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially: a sense of national consciousness exalting one [nation] above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.

Nativism: a policy of favoring native inhabitants as opposed to immigrants.[A "native" is generally defined as a person who is born in a particular region or place and who therefore linked to that place. If the archaeologists are to be believed, there was a time when there were no human inhabitants in North America. Therefore, the first arrivals as well as the last can be considered to be immigrants. Thus, natives are only those who were actually born in a particular place or region. Laws enacted by governments further define who is and who is not an immigrant and, implicitly, who is a native.]

Patriotism: love for or devotion to one's country.

According to immigration lawyer, Dave Bennion, "...the dictionary definition of nationalism incorporates the definitions of both nativism and patriotism. Likewise, in the immigration context, neither nativism nor patriotism can be fully understood without reference to nationalism. To properly examine nationalism, it's necessary to step outside the context of a particular country for a moment."

Political scientist Benedict Anderson discusses nations as socially constructed "imagined communities," so-called because "the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion." Although most Americans will never meet or even know the names of 99.99% of their co-nationals, they feel they are a part of a community because they study and read about them in the media and assume that those whom they do know are proxies for or representative of all of the other Americans. Americans are famously patriotic and most feel bound together by common ideals, and a common understanding of history, especially in the face of attack or criticism from outside and perceived internal threats resulting from the deadly consequences of immigrations unarmed invasion.

Patriotism in the U.S. as a positive value is rarely questioned in the public discourse, and when it is, the political damage is swift and quickly quarantined. It is not kosher in the U.S. to too closely examine the ways that nationalism and patriotism are connected. Nationalism in its normal manifestation, like patriotism, is a positive term that reflects national self-esteem, a positive quality.

As noted above,Germany and Japan are two countries where a particularly chauvinistic, aggressive form of patriotic nationalism found full expression during World War II. According to Bennion these countries now have two of the least patriotic societies in the world. "Until recently, Japanese schools were legally limited in the extent to which they could include patriotism in the public school curriculum. Germans still feel uncomfortable with demonstrative patriotism of the kind that is common in France, China, or the U.S." These vestiges of anti-nationalism derive directly from the atrocities committed by Germany and Japan during WWII. They are not likely to be a permanent because patriotism, nationalism, and pride in one's country is the natural state of affairs, a matter of national self-esteem.

Neither Germany nor Japan was a democratic polity during WWII. But lamentably, having a democratic government does not immunize a sovereign state from committing misdeeds abroad when there is no all powerful international governing body in place. Under the anarchic international political system, might makes right, as can be seen with the U.S. invasions of Vietnam and Iraq, Russia in Afghanistan and Georgia, or China in Tibet. In each case, a powerful country, disregarding the sovereign borders, invaded a weak country for reasons it believed to be in the national interest, curbing the spread of Communism in Viet Nam and removing the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a despot in Iraq. Even in the cases Russia and China, the aggressive action was justified as a necessary defensive measure. In each case, as in the case of Germany's invasion of Poland in 1939, nothing was or could be done by the international community. In the case of the first Iraq War, some members of the international community saw fit to act as a powerful invasion force to push Iraqi troops out of Kuwait. Middle East oil resources were seen to be in jeopardy and therefore action was considered necessary. If oil had not been an issue, Kuwait might now be a part of Iraq. In each case, nothing much was done or could be done to stop the powerful state or coalitions of states.

Since supranational bodies like the UN are supported in large part by contributions from its largest and most affluent members, undertaking military action against those members would surely destroy the supranational organization as a functioning body. It most cases, military action is not even feasible.

In wartime, domestic appeals to patriotism and the characterization of the enemy as inherently evil are essential to build and sustain public support, especially in the face of escalating costs and casualties. Those patriotic appeals are expressions of nationalism that serve the national interest, which have always been the primary concern of all nation states.

Seen from a global perspective, as in the dictionary definitions, there is little to differentiate nationalism from patriotism. This has important implications for the immigration debate. Patriotism, or loyalty to country, is valuable to citizens of that country. Loyalty permits the government to collect taxes, build a public infrastructure, provide services, and defend itself. It facilitates a sense of common purpose that enables the incorporation into democratic government of existing trust networks based on religion or family or ethno-linguistic ties.

Unreserved loyalty to a democratic state usually has positive effects for citizens. Among other things, it enables elected representatives to deal more effectively and appropriately with non citizens, especially illegal aliens. Patriotism fosters national unity and focuses the citizens' attention on those who threaten national security, sovereignty, or the national interest. This loyalty has enabled effective action against immigrants from enemy nations who represented a potential internal security threat. Neolib-promoted official expressions of regret for episodes of domestic U.S. nationalist fervor triggered by legitimate concerns about national security have followed the Alien and Sedition Acts, Japanese-American internment, and the McCarthy hearings. In actuality, no apology was needed or justified for actions taken in the perceived national interest. Some compensation for economic losses property may have been appropriate. Neither the people of Viet Nam, Iraq, nor Afghanistan, nor Chinese-Americans (for the Chinese Exclusion Act) should expect an apology any time soon for actions that were deemed in the national interest at the time. The Chinese Exclusion Act prohibited Chinese for 60 years from immigrating to the U.S. or naturalizing here. The "Yellow Peril" seemed real at the time and may have been an actual problem before less discriminatory immigration laws were put in place. Even in more recent times, there have been occasions of Chinese espionage and the betrayal of national secrets.

Americans love cheap labor except when it deprives them of their chance to earn a living, especially in desperate economic times. They also love having someone to do the stoop labor and other hard jobs, except when it threatens a total change in the culture, quality of life, and standard of living Americans expect to enjoy. In the past, the deportation of thousands of non citizens during periodic economic problems and the denial of entry to thousands under immigration laws were fully justified and legal and could not have occurred except pursuant to law.

Charges of disloyalty arise when one's behavior is contrary to the desires of fellow citizens and the national interest. There is something inherently disloyal when precedence is given to the interests of illegal aliens over those of one's fellow citizens. Such charges have also been an effective tactic used against political opponents since the U.S.'s founding, from the Alien and Sedition Acts used by the Federalist Party to target Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans to George W. Bush's politicized War on Terror. Since 9/11, immigration policy has been cast by the federal government as a key component of national security. Emblematic of this shift from the left wing approach that had prevailed from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s was the incorporation in 2003 of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) into the newly-formed Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the domestic agency charged with anti-terrorism efforts. Yet, the INS's efforts to curb illegal immigration, drug and human trafficking, and potential terrorist activity have been sporadic and ineffective because of the lack of political will and the necessary tools, staffing, infrastructure, and rules of engagement. Illegal immigration has been politicized and paralyzed by immigrant organizations with familial or ethnocentric ties to the illegal alien community and by the immigration lawyers who feed off from them.

Patriotism in the U.S., coming both from the native-born and from immigrants, means that the U.S. embraces a nationalism that transcends traditional allegiances to race, religion, or ethnicity. This is a singularly important and appealing, unifying idea. The universalism of American nationalism applies to both citizens and serious citizen wannabes. But there is and should be very real legal distinctions between citizens and non citizens and loyalty and patriotism demand that those distinctions be recognized and honored.

Like nationalism based on common principles, institutional religion can create a sense of community that transcends other divisions-race, gender, nationality, age, or political opinion. But in doing so, religious affiliation can also create what may be a more lasting, significant division: an ideological distinction of identity. Nationalism in the U.S. is similar to religion in that its adherents sometimes promote it as a unifying universal ideology. Participation in a community of faith and loyalty enriches people's lives in powerful ways, and has brought security and prosperity to its citizens. The legal distinctions between citizen and non citizen represent not just the ability (or inability) to come and go at will; legitimate differences in power and access to taxpayer resources and government services serve as a valid universal unifying ideology.

If patriotism is simply a form of nationalism, then nativists do not need to be forgiven for conflating patriotism and nativism. After all, together, these two concepts together comprise the dictionary definition of positive nationalism above. It is a long standing principle of government that citizens deserve certain rights and benefits that are properly denied to non citizens. Nothing could be more universally recognized than this principle. In an international political system comprised of sovereign states, an immigration policy cannot be based on anything other than national identity. Hence, nationalism, patriotism and nativism are an inevitable consequence of the international political system. All three will continue to be a part of the U.S. policies and the immigration debate.

Adapted from Dr. David Bennion's blog at Change.org,October 06, 2008

Detention Center Reforms

If there is abuse or unsanitary conditions in the illegal alien detention centers, we all want whatever reforms may be necessary to end the abuse and improve the living conditions of the detainees. Because of two factors: (1) the kind of people employed in these facilities and (2)the more or less absolute control they exercise over the detainees, there is ample reason to expect that there will always be some degree of abuse just as there is in regular prisons. The detainees should have the primary responsibility of keeping the facilitary clean and sanitary but there is little they can do about abuse except to riot as they did recently at a detention center in Pecos, Texas.

So what is the answer? It is two fold: (1) each facility must have an independent inspector general charged with investigating any evidence of abuse or unsanitary conditions, and (2) all detainees must be processed expeditiously.

Those who wish to voluntarily accept immediate deportation should be fingerprinted, DNAed, photographed and then sent on their way. For others, an inability to provide proof of citizenship or other legal status within a relatively short time must be considered prima facie evidence of illegal entry or border violation and should be so judged within 24 hours of their arrival at the detention center. Only one week should be allowed for the appeal of this judgment. Such appeals should be based on proof of citizenship or other legal status, and any extenuating circumstances the detainee wishes to present.

Generally speaking, those who have been here for less than 5 years are not likely to have extenuating circumstances. Therefore, a summary judgment of their appeals should be issued without further ado, sending them on their way to their homeland within a week. Those who have been here 5 or more years, and can prove it with nonfraudulent documents, must also present the additional evidence they believe to be relevant in support of their appeals.
The criteria for a successful appeal should be limited, rigid, and simple. Family separation cannot be one these criteria. Abuse of the 14th Amendment with quick pregnancies to achieve birthright citizenship for anchor babies born on U.S. soil cannot be permitted as the basis for an appeal. Minor children, regardless of citizenship, must always accompany their parents if they are deported.

Justice delayed is justice denied should be the motto of the detention facilities. Immigration judges must be assigned to these facilities to assure that decisions are made within 24 hours of the arrival of the detainees. The judges must be provided with appropriate criteria to assure quick decsions and few successful appeals.

Instead of a per diem or capitation basis, contractor payments should be based on a throughput measure approach that rewards the company based on how fast they move the detainees out of their facilities and back to their homelands in accordance with the law.

14th Amendment Abuse

I have posted at length about the need to end birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens. Michael Chertoff, former head of Homeland Security, reported there are no two million criminal illegal aliens. These criminals are also in a rush to have babies and to apply for medical and welfare benefits for their instant citizens. Amost 25% of all California's births are to illegal alien women who are about 3% of the population. That one quarter represents 40% of all public funded births. Ten percent of all U.S. births now are to illegal alien women who are less than two percent of the nation's population. In California, it costs $400 million annually, and $1.2 billion nationwide just for the birth deliveries to illegal aliens. CA spent $6 billion in the last 20 years. The U.S. map indicating the highest percentage of medically uninsured shows the highest concentration in the counties all along Southern California, Arizona, New Mexico, and South Texas. Parkland Hospital in Dallas, Texas shows a similar pattern of publicly-funded illegal alien deliveries.

Pregnant women hide in car trunks or invade illegally by other methods, then wait outside hospitals, show up in emergency rooms in labor and force the U.S. taxpayer to pay the bill. Joe Riley, CEO of the McAllen Texas Medical Center, said, "Women enter in labor still wet from swimming across the Rio Grande from Mexico."

Insured citizens are forced to wait in line behind uninsured illegal aliens in crammed emergency rooms. Over 80 California hospitals, 65 emergency room, and 70 acute care facilities have closed in the last ten years. In 2007 California had $8.6 billion in unreimbursed emergency room costs. That's why everyone's health insurance costs continue to skyrocket.

And yet the illegal alien fellow travelers, sympathizers and aiders and abetters continue to blythely ignore the costs to all of us of this abuse of the 14th amendment and related laws governing emergency medical treatment for illegal aliens. Why?