population

OFIR President returns from Washington DC conference

OFIR President Cynthia Kendoll has just returned from the Writer's Workshop conference held in Arlington, VA. 

A plethora of experts laid out sound, compelling arguments about why and how we need to regain control of our borders, ramp up interior enforcement and actually enforce our immigration laws.  Topics included:

Job competition and falling wages

The human cost of illegal alien crime

The disregard for the rule of law and our own government is the worst offender

Importing refugees, the impending threat to National security and who is paying for it all

The environmental strain with an increasing population

What borders?  Are we enforcing our own laws?

The status of lawsuits regarding immigration and Executive Amnesty etc.

And, much, much more...

All of the speakers were very interesting, knowledgeable and passionate about their topic, but most compelling of all were the gut wrenching stories of two men - one lost a son, the other lost his brother.  Both were ruthlessly murdered by illegal aliens. 

Maria Espinoza, who leads the charge of The Remembrance Project organized a press conference at the National Press Club as she geared up for the National Remembrance Day, which was Nov. 1.

At the conference, Cynthia was one of several leaders invited to host a round-table discussion.  The two initiatives OFIR is working to advance in Oregon were the topic of discussion.  Both initiatives, making English the Official language in the State of Oregon and requiring employers with 5 or more employees to use E-Verify are currently working their way through the legal challenge process. 

When it becomes available, OFIR will post a link to the streaming video of all of the presentations.  To view past Writer's Workshop video's click here.  Last year (2014), Cynthia addressed the conference and told about the Measure 88 campaign.

Immigrant population hits record 42.1 million

WASHINGTON, DC (August 13, 2015) — A new analysis of monthly Census Bureau data by the Center for Immigration Studies shows that the nation's immigrant population (legal and illegal) hit a record high of 42.1 million in the second quarter of this year — an increase of 1.7 million since the same quarter of 2014. The population of immigrants from Mexico, after falling or growing little in recent years, seems to be growing again. Growth in the immigrant population in the last year was led by a 740,000 increase in the number of Mexican immigrants. The monthly Census Bureau data is released before other data. As more information becomes available, this trend should be confirmed.

"Illegal immigration came up in the presidential debates, but there has been little discussion of the level of immigration; this at a time when total immigration is surging according to the latest data," said Steven Camarota, co-author of new report and the Center's Director of Research. "The rapid growth in the immigrant population was foreseeable given the cutbacks in enforcement, our expansive legal immigration system, and the improvement in the economy. But the question remains, is it in the nation's interest?"

View the entire report at: http://cis.org/Immigrant-Population-Hits-Record-Second-Quarter-2015

Among the findings:

• The nation's immigrant or foreign-born population, which includes legal and illegal immigrants, grew by 4.1 million from the second quarter of 2011 to the second quarter of 2015 — 1.7 million in just the last year.

• Immigrants are 13.3 percent of the nation's total population — the largest share in 105 years.

• Growth in the last year was led by a rebound in the number of Mexican immigrants, which increased by 740,000 from 2014 to 2015 — accounting for 44 percent of the increase in the total immigrant population in the last year.

• The total Mexican immigrant population (legal and illegal) reached 12.1 million in the second quarter of 2015 — the highest quarterly total ever.

• Prior research has indicated that net migration (the number coming vs. the number leaving) from Mexico had fallen to zero; the recent growth indicates that the period of zero net migration from Mexico has ended.

• In addition to Mexico, growth in the immigrant population was led by a 449,000 increase in the last year from countries in Latin America other than Mexico.

• The Department of Homeland Security and other researchers have estimated that eight in 10 illegal immigrants are from Mexico and Latin America, so the increase in immigrants from these countries is an indication that illegal immigration has begun growing again.

• The number of immigrants in the United States is now enormous, but it must be recognized that most immigrants, including those from Latin America, are in the country legally. Absent a change in legal immigration policy, the immigrant population will continue to increase.

 

Revealed: The Secret Immigration Chapter in Obama’s Trade Agreement

...secretive Obamatrade documents released by Wikileaks are key details on how technically any Republican voting for Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) that would fast-track trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal would technically also be voting to massively expand President Obama’s executive authority when it comes to immigration matters.

The mainstream media covered the Wikileaks document dump extensively, but did not mention the immigration chapter contained within it, so Breitbart News took the documents to immigration experts to get their take on it...

The president’s Trade in Services Act (TiSA) documents, which is one of the three different close-to-completely-negotiated deals that would be fast-tracked making up the president’s trade agreement, show Obamatrade in fact unilaterally alters current U.S. immigration law. TiSA, like TPP or the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) deals, are international trade agreements that President Obama is trying to force through to final approval. The way he can do so is by getting Congress to give him fast-track authority through TPA.

TiSA is even more secretive than TPP...

Voting for TPA, of course, would essentially ensure the final passage of each TPP, T-TIP, and TiSA by Congress, since in the history of fast-track any deal that’s ever started on fast-track has been approved.

Roughly 10 pages of this TiSA agreement document leak are specifically about immigration...

Obama will be able to finalize all three of the Obamatrade deals, without any Congressional input, if Congress grants him fast-track authority by passing TPA...

The Senate passed the TPA last month, so it is up to the House to put the brakes on Obama’s unilateral power...

“This Trade and Services Agreement is specifically mentioned in TPA as being covered by fast-track authority, so why would Congress be passing a Trade Promotion Authority Act that covers this agreement, if the U.S. weren’t intended to be a party to this agreement – so at the very least, there should be specific places where the U.S. exempts itself from these provisions and there are not,” explained Jenks.

...this is a draft, but at this point “certainly the implication is that the U.S. intends to be a party to all or some of the provisions of this agreement. There is nothing in there that says otherwise, and there is no question in my mind that some of the provisions in this Trade and Services Agreement would require the United States to change its immigration laws.”

In 2003, the Senate unanimously passed a resolution that said no immigration provision should be in trade agreements – and in fact, former Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) voted for this resolution.

The existence of these 10 pages is in clear violation of that earlier unanimous decision, and also in violation of the statements made by the U.S. Trade Representative.

“He has told members of Congress very specifically the U.S. is not negotiating immigration – or at least is not negotiating any immigration provisions that would require us to change our laws. So, unless major changes are made to the Trade and Services Agreement – that is not true,” said Jenks.

There are three examples within the 10 pages of areas where the U.S. would have to alter current immigration law.

First, on page 4 and 5 of the agreement, roughly 40 industries are listed where potentially the U.S. visa processes would have to change to accommodate the requirements within the agreement.

Jenks explained that under the agreement, the terms don’t have an economic needs based test, which currently U.S. law requires for some types of visa applications in order to show there aren’t American workers available to fill positions.

Secondly, on page 7 of the agreement, it suggests, “The period of processing applications may not exceed 30 days.”

Jenks said this is a massive problem for the U.S. because so many visa applications take longer than 30 days.

“We will not be able to meet those requirements without essentially our government becoming a rubber stamp because it very often takes more than 30 days to process a temporary worker visa,” she said.

Jenks also spotted another issue with the application process.

“The fact that there’s a footnote in this agreement that says that face to face interviews are too burdensome … we’re supposed to be doing face to face interviews with applicants for temporary visas,” she added.

“According to the State Department Consular Officer, it’s the in person interviews that really gives the Consular Officer an opportunity to determine – is this person is a criminal, is this person a terrorist … all of those things are more easily determined when you’re sitting face to face with someone and asking those questions.”

The third issue is present on page 4 of the agreement. It only provides an “[X]” where the number of years would be filled in for the entry or temporary stay.

Jenks explained that for example, with L visas under current U.S. immigration law, the time limit is seven years – so if the agreement were to go beyond seven years, it would change current U.S. law.

This wouldn’t be unconstitutional if Obama has fast-track authority under TPA, as Congress would essentially have given him the power to finalize all aspects of the negotiations, including altering immigration law.

“I think this whole thing makes it very clear that this administration is negotiating immigration...

Idaho sees rise in unauthorized immigrants

SPOKANE, Wash. — Idaho was among seven states, most concentrated in the eastern U.S., where the number of unauthorized immigrants increased between 2009 and 2012, according to a report released Tuesday by the Pew Research Center.

The report found unauthorized immigrants decreased in 14 states, including Oregon, in that time period. The number stayed relatively stable in the remaining states, including Washington.

Nationally, the number of unauthorized immigrants remained stable at 11.2 million between 2009 and 2012, the report found....

The report showed the long-term growth in unauthorized immigrants in each state.

Idaho grew from 10,000 unauthorized immigrants in 1990 to 50,000 in 2012; Oregon grew from 25,000 in 1990 to 120,000 in 2012; and Washington grew from 40,000 in 1990 to 230,000 in 2012.
 

What Is The Optimum Level of Immigration To The United States?

The above question presumes that there is a rational immigration policy that serves the national interest. But, there isn’t. What serves as a policy is a hodge-podge of disparate provisions that respond to particular interests. The largest of those interests is that of earlier immigrants who want to sponsor family members and other co-nationals. Employers in various sectors of the economy have vested interest in an increased supply of workers looking for work. Real estate developers and home builders are buoyed by a growing population fueled by immigration. And among these and many other special interests are those who simply believe the policy should be based on taking in the ‘tired and poor yearning to breathe free’ and one-worlders who reject the idea of borders.
 
All of those vested interests and ideological or religious positions fail to recognize a need for immigration limits – or at least a limit that would run counter to their position. Add to this mix of interests promoting mass immigration the fact that most politicians – at both the local and national level – see immigration as a political issue on which they can accommodate constituent interests by supporting increases in various categories of immigration.
 
FAIR is one of the few organizations that advocates for an immigration policy in the national interest. Our view that there must be rational limits to immigration is not unique, however. The last time a national commission was established to study immigration policy and make recommendations was when the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform (USCIR) was established in the early 1990s. It issued a series of reports between 1994 and 1997. Among its recommendations, “It concluded that the current immigration system’s core element of chain migration [family–sponsored preferences] was not in accord with national interests and urged the adoption of a new system scaling back significantly on overall immigration levels. See U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform. The recommended base annual level was set at 550,000 immigrants per year. That was about a third lower than the level of entries at that time, and much lower than the current rate of more than a million new legal immigrants per year. The Commission also found that admitting unskilled immigrants sponsored by an employer made no sense because of the competition with the nation’s own unskilled workers, and it found no justification for continuing a visa lottery to promote greater diversity in the flow of immigrants.
 
FAIR supported the recommendations of the Commission, although they did not go as far as necessary, in FAIR’s opinion, in reducing immigration as would be necessary to bring immigration policy into line with long-term national interests.
 
What is the long-term interest? That focus is consistently missed in the plethora of speeches and policy papers and studies focused on immigration policy, including the reports of the USCIR. The long-term focuses on the fact that we live in a world of limited resources – land, food production, fresh water, hydrocarbons (wood, coal, petroleum, etc.), minerals, etc. The world’s rapidly growing population is increasingly challenging those limits. That is the consensus of national and international experts including those of the United Nations Population Division. There is international consensus on the need to stop the rapid population growth currently projected to result in a global population of about 11 billion people by the end of the century – up from about 7.2 billion today. That projection has dire implications for all of the reasons related to limited resources – especially food production.
 
The United States is much better able to cope with dwindling world resources than other countries because we are endowed with a vast area and natural resources, but that does not mean that we can ignore the fact that we too face finite limits. The country is already facing fresh water scarcity in large areas of the country and currently enhanced petroleum extraction does not mean that finite national supplies are limitless.
 
The U.S. population soared from less than 180 million persons in 1960 to 319 million today according to Census Bureau statistics. That is an increase of nearly 80 percent in 54 years. Immigration is the largest component of that increase. At the present time about 75 percent of U.S. population increase is due to new immigration and the children born here to those new immigrants. That share of overall population increase has been steadily rising and is projected by the Pew Hispanic Center to rise to about 82 percent by 2050, based on current immigrant intake. But Congress has been considering a so-called ‘comprehensive immigration reform’ proposal – passed by the U.S. Senate last year – that would vastly expand the volume of immigrant arrivals.
 
The proponents of this ‘comprehensive’ measure represent the same collection of vested interests that has resisted the reform recommendations of the USCIR and has asserted that the reforms that would benefit them would be in the country’s interest. They ignore entirely the issue of long-term limits. That is one of the key why FAIR has opposed this legislation even though it includes a few of the policy changes recommended by the USCIR.
 
So what would be the immigration limits that would be in the U.S. national interest and why?
 
Obviously, the United States cannot stop world population growth by limiting U.S. population growth, but it can contribute to it. By working towards a stable U.S. population at a level that is sustainable in the long term, the country will be increasing its capability to assist other countries that are not as fortunate in natural resources.
 
The first objective of a rational long-term immigration policy should be one that contributes to U.S. population stability. That does not mean stopping immigration, but it does mean bringing the quantity of newcomers admitted into line with the number of U.S. residents leaving the country to live abroad. That level at present is estimated to be about 350,000 persons annually. That level is significantly higher than the average annual immigration intake between1925-1975. Clearly with a reduced level of immigration, the policy should assure that those arriving are those invited to join our society rather than those who arrive in violation of our immigration law.
 
Longer term, immigration policy should be tied to the country’s ability to support the population, i.e., its carrying capacity. Within that limit, it is fair for the vested interests that benefit from immigration to make their case for their interests, but only within the limits dictated by the overall long-term interests of the nation.
 
A succinct academic look at the issue of international population increase and carrying capacity is here.    
 

Immigration: Portland agency to expand in response to surge of unaccompanied minors at Mexico border

When word got out last week that unaccompanied children from Central America would be arriving in Oregon, demonstrators zeroed in on the Portland nonprofit tasked with finding them long-term placement....

Federal officials subsequently confirmed that 50 children had been placed with sponsors in the state...

Refugee Resettlement, which falls under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, contracts with Morrison to temporarily house unaccompanied minors in this state. The 50 children the federal agency placed with sponsors in Oregon were among those apprehended at the border from Jan. 1 to July 7. By comparison, 211 went to Washington state, eight to Idaho and 3,150 to California during that period.

Most local officials closest to the issue have refused to talk....

But immigration experts estimate that hundreds of unaccompanied minors have been processed in the Portland area this year alone....

A review of job openings posted online last month shows that Morrison is opening a new Refugee Resettlement shelter in downtown Portland...

Morrison operates three locations for unaccompanied minors...

Morrison received nearly $3.7 million this year in federal grants to house unaccompanied immigrant children...

The Refugee Resettlement office has $868 million dedicated to unaccompanied immigrant children this year, and received an additional $44 million due to the surge.

Wait times

... In Oregon, immigrants had to wait 1,178 days on average -- or more than three years -- to get their cases resolved in court, based on data in October 2013. That was the second longest in the nation at the time, shorter only than Nebraska. Now immigration courts are speeding up hearings for the tens of thousands of Central American children caught on the U.S. border after criticism about the backlogged system, giving each child an initial court hearing within three weeks.
-- Associated Press

 

New York to Issue ID Cards for Undocumented Immigrants

New York City’s 500,000 undocumented immigrants will be able to open bank accounts, visit libraries and use medical clinics, thanks to an official municipal identification card approved by the City Council.

The measure, backed by Mayor Bill de Blasio, passed in a 43 to 3 vote today with two abstentions. The photo IDs will display the holder’s name, birth date, address and -- at the cardholder’s option -- a self-designated gender.

“It sends a simple and clear message that we are a city that believes in including everyone,” Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito said before the vote. “We don’t accept that some people can be left out because of their immigration status, how they identify their gender or whether they may be homeless.”

In a city where 40 percent of residents were born outside the U.S., politicians may gain support backing legislation that would help undocumented newcomers lease an apartment or apply for school or city services. Democrats outnumber Republicans by more than 6 to 1 , and as much as 20 percent of party voters are Latino, said Jerry Skurnik, a New York-based demographic-political consultant.

“Hispanics who are citizens and voters are pro-immigration; they want their families, friends and countrymen to come here,” Skurnik said in an interview. “And in a liberal city like New York, most people are pro-immigration anyway.”

New Haven

Similar cards have been created in Los Angeles, San Francisco and New Haven, Connecticut, which began its program in 2007 in response to a series of street robberies of undocumented immigrants who carried cash because they lacked access to banks. The victims’ status made them reluctant to report the crimes, said Officer David Hartman, a New Haven police spokesman.

New York’s program would be the largest in the U.S., costing $8.4 million when it goes into effect next year, decreasing to $5.6 million annually over the next three years, Mark-Viverito said. The city will seek sponsors to offer discounts and other inducements for residents to carry the card so that its use would expand beyond undocumented immigrants, Mark-Viverito said. Details of how the card would be administered are still being worked out, she said.

“If you can’t sign a lease, if you can’t get a bank account, if you can’t do the basics, if you can’t even prove who you are, it doesn’t feel like you truly belong,” de Blasio, a 53-year-old Democrat, said in April, in support of the card.“These half-million New Yorkers are building this city alongside all of us every single day, and we will do better by them.”

Foreign Passport

Documents that would be acceptable to apply for a card include a U.S. or foreign passport, a domestic or foreign driver’s license and a birth certificate or proof of foreign military service. An applicant would also have to show proof of city residence, such as a utility bill or bank statement.

Aside from immigrants, those supporting New York’s bill include transgendered individuals who want the right to identify themselves as they see fit, regardless of what their birth certificate or driver’s license may say.

Democratic Council members Mark Treyger and Alan Maisel ofBrooklyn were among several who raised concerns that the program could create a list of undocumented immigrants who could be targeted for deportation.

To contact the reporter on this story: Henry Goldman in New York at hgoldman@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Mark Schoifet at mschoifet@bloomberg.netStephen Merelman, Pete Young

 

Immigration May Come Back With a Vengeance in 2015

Republicans are already in the beginning stages of planning their legislative agenda if they take control of the Senate in November, and many say immigration reform would be a top priority, even while President Obama's trustworthiness as a legislative partner remains in doubt.

“I don’t know anyone who thinks the immigration system is working the way it should, so we’re gonna have some ideas and we’re going to move them across the floor in smaller consensus — on a consensus basis. And not the sort of divisive, all-or-nothing, pig-in-the-python sort of method,” Senate Minority Whip John Cornyn told Breitbart News last week when asked about the prospect of a GOP-controlled Senate pushing its own immigration reform agenda.

Days earlier, Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio said Republicans would “absolutely” try to pass better immigration reform legislation if the GOP wins the Senate in November.

Even some noted anti-amnesty hawks sounded relatively optimistic.

“I think there is a better prospect that we would go forward with some immigration initiative if the Republicans control the Senate, but we still have the problem of trusting the president. But I think we’d be in a better position to try and enforce the law if we have both the House and the Senate,” Texas Republican Lamar Smith told Breitbart Tuesday.

House Republicans are quick to point out the lack of confidence many have in the Obama administration’s willingness to fully implement what Congress passes.

South Carolina Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy noted that the GOP has controlled the Senate before without passing immigration reform and alluded to concerns about Obama’s lack of enforcement of immigration law.

“That is a very legitimate concern,” Gowdy said of Obama’s enforcement of the law, “and releasing detainees, some of whom have criminal records, really undercuts the authenticity of the president’s argument that he wants to do something.” Gowdy added, “That is impossible to explain.”

A recent report revealed that last year the Obama administration released more than 36,000 criminal immigrants, convicted of nearly 88,000 crimes and awaiting the outcome of deportation proceedings.

The Obama factor is not lost on one of the most vocal Republican backers of immigration reform, but for another reason.

“No matter who pushes immigration, here is your dilemma: We’re not going to get the visas we want, or the border security we want, and the employer verification we want without dealing with the 11 million,” said South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham, who helped pass an immigration reform bill in the Senate last year.

“President Obama is still going to be president, there is no way he is going to sign a bill into law that doesn’t have some kind of firm, fair treatment of the 11 million, so that’s reality. We may have the House and the Senate but we don’t have the White House,” he added.

While many Republicans say they are for immigration reform, Alabama Republican Rep. Mo Brooks said it is all in the definitions.

“I would say that over 90 percent of congressmen and senators are for immigration reform,” Brooks said Monday, adding that he is for immigration reform himself. “The problem is we have wildly different meanings when we use the phrase immigration reform. To me, for example, getting someone in the White House who enforces our laws and deports illegal aliens, that’s immigration reform. But that is not what Chuck Schumer, or Harry Reid, or Barack Obama mean.”

According to Brooks, Schumer, Reid, and Obama are looking at the current illegal immigrant population as future voters who will influence elections for the Democratic party.

Florida Republican Rep. Mario Diaz Balart (R-FL), on the other hand, has previously warned that Obama may unilaterally enact amnesty, blowing up the chances of a legislative deal. Asked about 2015, he was circumspect.

“I don’t want to talk about hypotheticals, but just a mathematical reality is that we need to do something based on Republican, conservative principles; but we’re going to have to get a few Democrats, obviously, otherwise we’re not going to be able to pass it,” he said.

Schumer told The Hill last week that Democrats likely would not be on board with the idea of immigration reform through separate bills and argued that, if the House did not pass immigration reform before August, it will not happen until 2017 or later.

Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King said he would need to see the details of any proposal and expressed optimism that, should the GOP take the Senate, Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley would likely be the next chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. King said if that were the case, he “would get more sleep at night” and that he believed such an effort “would look dramatically different than the one that came out of the Senate.”

King argued, however, that while lawmakers should have the debate, any new immigration legislation should be saved for another president’s desk.

“My counsel would be let’s have the debate, let's set the groundwork, let’s get to an American consensus, let’s put it on the desk of the next president, because this one has decried his own oath of office,” King said.

“This president will not enforce any law he does not like,” he added. “Plus, you put it on his desk, he’ll veto it, so why make a deal with him? If you make a deal with him you get a bill on his desk that he will sign, he will enforce the parts of the bill he likes; he’ll not enforce the parts he doesn’t like. That’s what he’s doing now.”

Indeed, Tuesday House Speaker Boehner, who has reportedly said he is “hell-bent” on passing immigration reform this year, did not point to the Democratically controlled Senate as the reason the House has not moved forward with immigration reform to date. He pointed to President Obama.

“We’ve talked about this literally every week for the last 18 months, and I think it's clear over the last several months that until the president gives us some reason, some confidence that we can trust him to implement an immigration reform bill, we’re really not going to have much to talk about,” Boehner said. "The ball is in the president’s court.”

Open borders, anyone?

by Elizabeth Van Staaveren

In Thomas Stewart’s opinion piece, “The influx of people has a long, rich history,” (Oregonian, 4/6), we hear the voice of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce loud and clear, a voice that is always calling for more and more cheap labor.  To sensible citizens, this sales talk for open borders falls flat.
 
First, the U.S. has not “always been a nation of immigrants.”  It was founded by colonists almost entirely from England and the British Isles at a time when “immigrant” was a word in little use.  They were colonists, not immigrants; there was no nation here in the usual sense of the word.  For many years after the U.S. became a nation, “immigration” was negligible. 
 
We’ve been blessed with many wonderful immigrants who have contributed much to advance the U.S.  In recent years, however, for each immigrant founder of a Fortune 500 company, there probably are a million or more other immigrants who simply add to the population.
 
Stewart argues for keeping immigrant Ph.D. holders, but why shouldn’t they return to their own countries and devote their talents to improving the quality of life of their fellow citizens?  That would be a good thing.  We should expect them to use their knowledge to help their own countries and in their own countries.
 
U.S. citizens don’t object to limited numbers of immigrants. and we welcome those who truly contribute unusual abilities not found here.  Nor do we object to giving safe harbor to a fair share of the world’s bona fide refugees.  We do object to huge numbers of unskilled immigrants.  This country already has more than enough people to do unskilled labor.  It’s a fact that recent high immigration levels have already depressed wages and income, especially among the most vulnerable populations of citizens who do unskilled labor.  Joblessness is shockingly high and many people have been out of work for more than a year. 
 
Our visa system is riddled with fraud, in all categories, but especially in the H-1B group.  It has allowed companies to fire citizens and replace them with foreign workers that are kept in a kind of indentured servitude, paid less than American wages, and made afraid to complain.
 
There has not been adequate immigration law enforcement for many decades.  At this point, the most humane step would be to make E-Verify mandatory for all employers, for both new hires and current work forces.  E-Verify, the federal program that now enables employers to check the legal status of new hires, is accurate, despite false accusations made against it.  It is ready for expansion.  Over half a million honest, patriotic employers use it voluntarily, like it, give it high marks.
 
We should have another amnesty, Mr. Stewart?  No!  Seven amnesties have been enacted in Congress beginning in 1986, each one only resulting in more waves of illegal immigration.  Any proposal giving legalization of any sort to illegal aliens is amnesty and is wrong morally, economically, and socially.
 
There is not, as Stewart blithely claims, an unlimited capacity of this or any other country to absorb immigrants.  The U.S. is overpopulated now.  Our natural environment is in tatters from too many people.  Based on Census figures, the Center for Immigration Studies estimated that 80.4% of population growth between 2000 and 2010 was due to immigration (immigrants and children of immigrants.)  We need to reduce population by setting a moratorium on immigration for an extended period.
 
No nation can retain sovereignty without controlling its territorial borders and immigration into the country – witness Ukraine.
 

Population Growth, Immigration, and Amnesty

By Elizabeth Van Staaveren

Must the U.S. grow to one billion people or more?  We don’t have to, but unless present immigration policies are changed, we will.

Current U.S. population is well over 317 million, with one international migrant coming every 36 seconds and a net gain of one person every 15 seconds, according to the Census Bureau’s population clock.   

Birth rates among the native-born have been barely at replacement level for years.[i]  The huge increases in population are due to high levels of immigration,[ii] both legal and illegal.

Levels of immigration are set by Congress, supposedly acting in the public interest.  But various lobbies representing businesses, ethnic groups, and idealists who think national borders should not exist, have influenced the course of immigration over recent decades, pushing levels of immigration higher and higher. 

Rates of increase in immigration in recent years are astounding.  The immigrant population doubled from 1990 to 2000.  It has nearly tripled since 1980, and quadrupled since 1970.

Instead of reducing levels of immigration, as would be prudent for quality of life, or a healthy, sustainable environment, we see the various lobbies combining efforts in a push for vastly expanded immigration. 

S.744, the Senate’s so-called Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill, would double legal immigration and greatly increase guest worker programs for both low- and high-skilled foreign workers.  All 52 Democratic Senators including Oregon’s Wyden and Merkley, plus 14 Republicans, and 2 Independents voted for it.  The 32 No votes were all from Republican Senators.

The GOP’s recently released “Standards for Immigration Reform” are a deceptively worded version of  S.744, showing that the leadership of both parties wants amnesty for 11 million or more illegal aliens now, in spite of the fact that 7 amnesties have been passed in Congress from 1986 onward, and immigration law enforcement has been grossly inadequate for decades. 

Pending in the House is H.R. 15, which nearly mirrors S.744.  Four of Oregon’s five Representatives signed as sponsors: Suzanne Bonamici, Earl Blumenauer, Kurt Schrader, and Peter DeFazio.  Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) didn’t sign, but amnesty advocates claim he supports them.

Although leadership in both major parties favors amnesty, and all Democrats in Congress appear to be solidly in favor, Republican members are far from unified on the issue.  Over half of the Republicans in the Senate voted against S.744.  Opposition to amnesty among most House Republicans has so far prevented amnesty bills from coming to the floor. 

Honest polls report majorities of voters nationwide want the immigration laws enforced.  It’s clear that our legislators and presidents are not listening – we need to find replacements who will put the interests of citizens first.  The purpose of immigration law is to protect the citizens of this country.

Common sense argues for a moratorium for an extended period.  With birth rates among the native-born holding steady or falling, the U.S. could then begin to balance population and environment, stop forcing citizens to compete with illegal aliens for jobs, reduce unemployment, and sustain an improved quality of life here.

 


References

[i] http://www.cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/articles/2001/forsaking/forsaking.pdf

Forsaking Fundamentals; The Environmental Establishment Abandons U.S. Population Stabilization, By Leon Kolankiewicz and Roy Beck.  Center for Immigration Studies, 2001.  See Executive Summary section on Dropping fertility. 

Also:  http://cis.org/articles/2001/forsaking/why.html.  Why the change? (Center paper 18, 2001)  page 1. 

Also:  http://www.fairus.org/DocServer/research-pub/BirthsPopandEcon_2013.pdf.  Birth rates, population growth, and the economy, by Jack Martin, FAIR, 2013. 

[ii] Table 6, p.19

 

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - population