immigration

Governor Brown and AG Rosenbaum push for open borders

Governor Brown and Attorney General Rosenbaum show their true colors again, and they’re not red, white, and blue. 

Both Brown and Rosenbaum exalt the interests of migrants over the interests of U.S. citizens, and have done so repeatedly during their time in office.  See here and here.  Their actions in advancing unlimited immigration have harmed this state. 

Rosenbaum will be up for reelection in 2020. She already has a campaign website requesting donations and listing her recent edicts.  Gov. Brown’s term of office extends through 2022.

Here’s the latest evidence that their first loyalties are with international migrants, not U.S. citizens:  Oregon Challenges Trump Administration’s “Public Charge Rule.”

Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum and Oregon Governor Kate Brown today joined four other states in filing a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California challenging the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) “Public Charge Rule”.

Rosenbaum has also sued previously, usually with Brown’s enthusiastic approval, to stop several other actions by Pres. Trump that would control immigration.

The necessity of a public charge rule is obvious if we are to avoid inundation by all the poor of the world and the collapse of our nation.  Such a policy existed here even in colonial days before the U.S. became an independent nation, and was enacted into law long ago. 

In his article in The National Review, Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies gives a concise history of the policy and explains why it’s important.

Excerpt:

The newly finalized rule about immigrant welfare use is 837 pages long, but it boils down to two things: Foreigners who can’t pay their bills shouldn’t be allowed to move here, and “welfare” doesn’t just mean cash benefits.

As to the first: The first comprehensive immigration law at the federal level was the 1882 Immigration Act, which, among other things, excluded anyone who was “unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge.” That principle — the “public-charge doctrine,” as it’s called — has been included in all subsequent immigration legislation, including the 1996 immigration and welfare-reform laws.

But the exclusion of “public charges” didn’t start in the 19th century, but well before that, when immigration law was handled by the states. In fact, preventing the immigration of people who couldn’t support themselves was the subject of the very first immigration law ever passed in the colonies, in Massachusetts Bay in 1645. It’s not too much to say that the public-charge doctrine is the founding principle of American immigration policy. …

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Acting Director Ken Cuccinelli, in an interview with Fox News, gives many interesting details about the new rule and why it’s needed.  He said that the rule “is entirely in line with the president keeping his promises to make the immigration system work better for America.”  Read Cuccinelli’s comments here.

The Oregon State Fair starts Friday!

Alert date: 
2019-08-16
Alert body: 

It's that time of year! The Oregon State Fair will be opening Friday, August 23 and will run through Monday, Labor Day, Sept. 2.

OFIR will be hosting a booth at the State Fair inside the Jackman Long building again this year.  We do hope you will drop by and say hello!

You can find us in booth #235 inside the Jackman Long Building which is located just to the south of the Red Gate.

If you are interested in volunteering for a shift in our booth - just give us a call at 503.435.0141 or send us an email through our website at  www.oregonir.org

Hope to see you at the Oregon State Fair!

 

What you're not supposed to know

Fortunately, some people and institutions dig around, find, and publish, solid information to measure the full scope of the crisis at U.S. borders now, where thousands of people are pouring in from all over the world, with no end in sight. 

Statistics are hard going to read and think about, but they do exist.  The Center for Immigration Studies deals with them routinely.  Here’s one of their reports, with information you’re not likely to see in the general media, nor hear from your Congressperson: 

Revealing Numbers from DOJ and DHS; Quantifying the scope of the border disaster, and its effects, by Andrew R. Arthur, July 21, 2019.

In his article, Arthur describes how figures in official releases “quantify the scope of the disaster that has been unfolding over the last few months on the border, the reasons for that disaster, and its effects on our immigration system.” He highlights the most important figures, for example:  "Recent initiatives to track family unit [FMU] cases revealed that close to 82 percent of completed cases have resulted in an in absentia order of removal." This means that 82% of the refugee or asylum claims among this group of migrants are bogus.

He quotes from a DHS report:  “The many cases that lack merit occupy a large portion of limited docket time and absorb scarce government resources, exacerbating the immigration-court backlog and diverting attention from other meritorious cases. Indeed, despite DOJ deploying the largest number of immigration judges in history and completing historic numbers of cases, a significant backlog remains. There are more than 900,000 pending cases in immigration courts, at least 436,000 of which include an asylum application [Emphasis added].”

Arthur concludes:

The situation at the Southwest border is bad and getting worse, as the figures in the IFR demonstrate. It is not only an issue for our overburdened immigration courts, and DHS employees and resources, but it also imposes a tragic toll on the migrants themselves, who are subject to abuse and exploitation on the way to the United States (as I noted in my last post).

Notwithstanding these facts, Congress has failed to act to plug the loopholes that are being exploited by smugglers and migrants alike. Instead, it simply holds hearings purporting to examine how the administration has acted "inhumanely" with respect to the flood of migrants with which it must contend, or its members send out sanctimonious tweets exploiting the human tragedy that is occurring on its watch and largely because of its inaction. As a former staffer, I can assure you that legislating is hard. The figures in the IFR demonstrate, however, that it is necessary, now more than ever.   [END]

And what do we hear from Oregon’s Congressional delegation?  Mostly wailing about the poor migrants and no concern for the effects of massive immigration on U.S. citizens.  Check out Oregon delegates’ voting records, tracked by NumbersUSA at: https://www.numbersusa.com/content/my/tools/grades/list/0/CONGRESS/or/A/Grade/Active.  For the current Congress, 6 of the 7 get F-. Senator Merkley and all 5 Representatives are up for reelection in 2020, Senator Wyden in 2022.

Ann Coulter: How we became the world's suckers on immigration

Looking at our immigration policies compared to the rest of the world, you’d think America lost a bet.

The United States is one of only two developed countries in the world (the other is Canada, and even it has some restrictions we don’t have) with full “birthright citizenship,” meaning that any child born when his mother was physically present within the geographical borders of the U.S. automatically gets a U.S. birth certificate and a Social Security card.

That means legal immigrants, pregnant women sneaking in on tourist visas, travelers on a three-week vacation, cheap foreign workers on “temporary” visas and, in some cases, foreign diplomats.

There are laws on the books that say the kids born to diplomats don’t automatically become citizens simply by being born here but — like so many of our immigration laws — these are treated as mere suggestions.

And that’s not all.

We’re the only country but two that confers automatic citizenship on children born to illegal aliens, or “anchor babies.” This is not “birthright citizenship,” which refers to children born to legal immigrants. (There’s nothing vulgar, bigoted, racial or sexual about the term “anchor baby.” It’s a boating metaphor: A geographical U.S. birth “anchors” the child’s entire family in this country by virtue of the baby’s citizenship.)

The other two countries that grant citizenship to anchor babies are Canada and Tanzania. Canada doesn’t have Latin America on its border, of course — and Tanzania is reconsidering the policy.

Here’s a fun fact: Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman — the notorious Mexican drug lord, sentenced on July 17 to life plus 30 years for drug trafficking and multiple murder conspiracies — has two children who are American, born in sunny California to his wife, who’s an anchor baby herself.

Why would any country make the calculated decision to reward illegal immigration by granting the full privileges of citizenship to the children of illegals or foreign visitors who arrange to have the births take place on its soil?

As a matter of fact, “we” didn’t make such a decision.

The late Supreme Court Justice William Brennan invented the anchor-baby policy out of whole cloth and snuck it into a footnote of an opinion written in 1982. Yes, this ancient bedrock principle, this essence of “Who We Are,” dates all the way back to the Reagan administration.

The Brennan footnote was not part of the decision. It does not have the force of law. Yet, today, we act as if Brennan’s absurd dicta is the law of the land for no reason other than: a) sheer ignorance and b) a fear of being called “racist.”

No U.S. Congress or Supreme Court ever debated and then approved the idea that children born to mothers illegally present in the country should automatically become citizens. Consequently, any president or Congress could simply state that children born to illegal aliens are not citizens. If only we had a president or Congress that would do so.

Which reminds me: No other country fawns over illegal immigrants brought in as minors, day in and day out, calling them “Dreamers.”

The U.S. is one of the rare countries that makes citizens of people who can’t speak the language — along with the masochistic Swedes. (How did they terrorize the world 800 years ago?) The United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, Australia, Norway and the Netherlands all have the crazy idea that citizens should be able to communicate with one another. We have a language requirement on the books but, it turns out, that too is merely a suggestion. 

No other country holds a “lottery” in which the prize is U.S. citizenship. Ireland has a lottery but, for whatever sick and twisted reason, the Irish give the winners money, not citizenship in their country.

We bring in 50,000 lucky lottery winners each year, literally for no reason at all. (Thanks, First President Bush!) To enter, you must be from a specified country, like the Congo, Nepal, Ethiopia or Uzbekistan. You submit your name to the State Department and, if your name is pulled out of a hat, WELCOME TO AMERICA!

This rigorous system for choosing our fellow citizens gave us, for example, Egyptian national Hesham Mohamed Ali Hedayet, who opened fire at the El Al Airlines ticket counter at Los Angeles International Airport in 2002, murdering two people. His wife had won the lottery five years after he came here on a tourist visa.

It got us Sayfullo Saipov, the Uzbeki who plowed a rented truck into a crowd of bicyclists and pedestrians on Halloween 2017 in New York City, killing eight and injuring many more.

It bestowed upon us Akayed Ullah, the Bangladeshi national who got in as the nephew of a lottery winner. Ullah enriched us by detonating a bomb in New York City’s Port Authority in December 2017.

Speaking of nephews of Bangladeshi lottery winners trying to blow up the Port Authority, no other major country in the world issues a majority of its visas to people based on the fact that they have a relative already living here. 

We’re not talking about the spouses and minor children of immigrants we really want. These are adult siblings, nephews and nieces — who have their own adult children, elderly parents and mothers-in-law. Two-thirds of all legal immigrants to the U.S. come in on these “family reunification” visas. (We wouldn’t want our immigrants to be illiterate, poor and lonesome.)

Even the New York Times — despite its decidedly anti-MAGA bent — has described our “family reunification” system as wildly out of step with the rest of the world. 

We’re in a buyer’s market but, instead of taking the top draft picks, we aggressively recruit the desperately poor, the culturally deprived, the sick and the needy. All because American elites seem to believe that it’s unfair — even snooty — to try to bring in the best immigrants we can.

Ann Coulter is a lawyer, a syndicated columnist and conservative commentator, and the author of 13 New York Times bestsellers. The most recent, “Resistance Is Futile! How the Trump-Hating Left Lost Its Collective Mind,” was published in 2018. Follow her on Twitter @AnnCoulter

http://www.oregonir.org/blog/ann-coulter-how-we-became-worlds-suckers-im...

Can we accommodate the poor of the whole world?

We hear so much angst from the media about compassion, welcoming the stranger, the Statue of Liberty, immigrants made this country, etc. – below is a sober, up-to-date, realistic account showing the fast-approaching consequences of open borders policies being forced on citizens by current politicians.

We need to elect sensible, honest people to Congress and state legislatures who put the interests of U.S. citizens first, respect our history and laws, and will actually enforce necessary limits on immigration.  “Throw the bums out!”   See here to learn who the Oregon bums in Congress are.  Some more information on Oregon’s bums and braves is here.  Let’s look around for replacements of the bums.

----------------------

The Next Influx: The Entire World's Poor and Dispossessed;

Tens of Thousands of "Exotics" and "Extra-Continentals" from around the Globe Moving Through Panama, by Todd Bensman, Center for Immigration Studies, July 1, 2019

EXCERPTS ONLY: See the complete article here.

Like the proverbial "bulge in the belly of the snake," unusually high numbers of non-Latino migrants, obviously not from Central America, are now reportedly passing from Colombia through Panama on their way to the U.S. southern border. Their numbers range to the tens of thousands, whose vanguards we have already seen at the U.S. Southwest Border in recent months: Cameroonians, Ghanaians, Congolese, Haitians, Cubans, and some from the Middle East.

Word of their successful entries into the United States this year clearly reached home countries because now a swell numbering as many as 35,000 is on an infamous migrant passage through which migrants have long funneled from South America to North America: the Darien Gap.

I am told this by two eye-witnesses who have just returned from the Colombia-Panama region on either side of the Gap. One of them is Panama-based author and freelance journalist Chuck Holton, who just visited the Colombian side in the frontier border town of Turbo, which is notorious as a migrant staging area for U.S.-bound migrants to be smuggled through the Darien Gap passage into Panama. The other source is Diane Edrington, a Mississippi-based nurse practitioner who has worked for years as a Panama Missions volunteer and who just returned from camps I visited in December on the Panama side of the Darien Gap.  ...

Holton told me he interviewed many migrants on the Colombian side who uniformly told him they decided to go to America, claim asylum, and take advantage of the disarray and laws about which they've all heard, from media reporting and those who already made it, that guarantee they will get to live and work for years in the United States, and probably permanently.

"'Trump wants to keep us out, but he can’t do it,'" Holton said he was repeatedly told in Turbo, Colombia as African migrants were preparing to board boats to the jungle trails for 10-day, smuggler-led wilderness treks into Panama. "They were very clear about that. 'If I can get in now, I'm going to get while the getting’s good.'"

Holton said everyone knew to go to American "sanctuary cities," where local authorities won’t cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

"They have some level of understanding of what a sanctuary city is. 'If we can get to one of those they won’t mess with us; They won’t get us out.'"

The migrants he interviewed also were well aware of the time it takes for their asylum claims to be processed in a severely backlogged American system and that this was a major factor in deciding to leave home. (Migrating for improved lifestyle or economic reasons is not among the factors covered by U.S. asylum law).  ...

Control Flow Policy Out of Control

After my own trip to Panama and Costa Rica, I disclosed the existence of a formal bilateral policy by which both countries systematically transport migrants coming off the Darien Gap through their own territories and on to Nicaragua, where the smugglers can pick them up and keep them moving to the U.S. border.

Controlled Flow would likely spark controversy in the United States if anyone knew about it. The way it works is that Panama feeds, houses, shelters, and medically treats the migrants it collects out of the Darien jungle, then puts them on buses and hands them off to the Costa Ricans, who likewise move them to Nicaragua’s border. In this way, neither country gets stuck for long with large numbers of unwanted migrants, even though this just passes the hot potato problem to the U.S. southern border.

But now, according to Edrington and Holton, the policy is out of control due to the overwhelming pressure of the new influx. …

Of National Security and Marshall Plans

The policy implications of this new higher traffic coming at the border is at the very least two-fold.

During the Democrat presidential debates, candidates put forth as a primary solution to the Central American illegal immigration crisis at the southern border a "Marshall Plan," ala the economic rehabilitation of Europe after World War II, by which Americans would invest billions to build the economies of Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala. The idea, according to candidates like San Antonio’s Julian Castro, is that a Marshall Plan would reduce the economic push factors driving hundreds of thousands of migrants to the southern border.

The new influx on its way to the American border puts this idea to a harsh logic fallacy test.

If a Marshall Plan is the ideal solution for mass migration influxes from wherever, what then about Cameroon, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ghana, Haiti, Cuba and any other country whose population suddenly decide to transfer over the American border? How about a Marshall Plan for the entire world of impoverished nations? These questions should be raised when this particular influx hits the border in earnest.

Secondly, the new influx also must raise security questions when it starts to wash over the border. Migrants from the Middle East and Muslim-majority nations where terrorist organizations operate are in this extra-continental flow and often arrive with no verifiable identification. That’s a national security vulnerability that must be adequately acknowledged and dealt with, especially when one considers reporting about this reputed ISIS plot to send operatives over the U.S.-Mexico border and the recent apprehension in Nicaragua of two Iraqis and two Egyptians reputed to be affiliated with ISIS.  …

Lastly, American lawmakers will need to consider the broader question of how to turn off this flow at its Panamanian and Costa Rican spigot, wide open now due to the Controlled Flow policy. One way, as I've also suggested among this list of eight policy recommendations, is for the United States to help Panama pay for a nonstop airlift of repatriation flights to homelands all over the world. …

-------------------------------------

Read the full article at:  https://cis.org/Bensman/Next-Influx-Entire-Worlds-Poor-and-Dispossessed

New High in U.S. Say Immigration Most Important Problem

Story Highlights

  • 23% mention immigration as most important problem, highest in Gallup trends
  • The government is the most commonly mentioned problem, at 26%
  • Most Americans still say immigration a good thing for the U.S.

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Americans' concern with immigration continues to be heightened, as 23% name it the most important problem facing the country. This is by one percentage point the highest Gallup has ever measured for the issue since it first began recording mentions of immigration in 1993.

Line graph. Americans’ mentions of immigration as the country’s most important problem reached a high of 23% in June.

The June 3-16 poll was conducted as the U.S. continues to grapple with how to handle a surge of Central American immigrants at the U.S.-Mexican border. Gallup has previously found spikes in mentions of immigration as the most important U.S. problem at other times when the immigration debate intensified, including:

  • 22% in July 2018 amid controversy over a U.S. policy to separate children and parents who were trying to enter the U.S. illegally
  • 17% in July 2014, when a wave of young immigrants from Central American countries crossed the U.S. border illegally
  • 19% in April 2006 as the Senate worked toward passage of a comprehensive immigration reform bill it later passed but ultimately was not considered by the House of Representatives

Mentions of immigration have been higher on average in 2019 than in any prior year. The 20% average to date compares with 14% in 2018, and no more than 10% in any other year.

Yet immigration has typically finished behind the government as the nation's top problem over the past three years, and did so again this month, when 26% of Americans named the government. Government has finished ahead of immigration in all but two months since February 2017 (July and November 2018). This included a record 35% naming the government in February.

Concern about the government is broadly distributed across the three major partisan groups, with 32% of Democrats and 23% of both Republicans and independents currently identifying it as the most important problem. In contrast, immigration mentions are far more common among Republicans (42%) than Democrats (7%). Twenty-one percent of independents name it.

One in Three Want Immigration Levels Decreased

Asked their preferences for U.S. immigration levels, 37% of Americans say it should be kept at its present level, while more say it should be decreased (35%) than increased (27%). The percentage wanting immigration reduced is higher than the average 30% holding this view in Gallup's two prior surveys, in January 2019 and July 2018. However, in the past, many more Americans have called for a reduction than do so now, including 41% in June 2014, 58% in October 2001 (after 9/11), and a record 65% in the mid-1990s during a surge of illegal immigration in California.

In recent years, there has been an uptick in the percentage who want immigration to the U.S. increased. Before 2012, the percentage never reached 20%, but it has been above that mark since, including a record 30% in January.

Line graph. Among Americans, 37% want immigration kept at current levels, 35% would prefer it decreased and 27% increased.

As their differences in perceptions of immigration as the most important problem would suggest, partisans have divergent views on U.S. immigration levels. A slim majority of Republicans, 54%, want them decreased, while 31% want them kept the same and 13% increased. Democrats are about equally likely to prefer increased immigration (43%) as to want current levels maintained (42%); just 13% want immigration cut. Independents' views essentially match those of all U.S. adults.

Public Mixed in Assessment of Immigration's Effects

Even as they acknowledge immigration as one of the nation's most pressing problems, Americans still view immigration positively in general, with 76% describing it as a good thing for the country today and 19% as a bad thing. Since Gallup first asked this question in 2001, no fewer than 52% have affirmed immigration's value, with the current year's figure the highest to date by one point.

Line graph. Three-quarters, 76%, of Americans say immigration is good for the country, 19% say it is bad for the U.S.

Notably, two-thirds of Americans who identify immigration as the most important problem still believe it is a good thing for the country.

Democrats (87%) are much more likely than Republicans (62%) to say immigration is a good thing, with 78% of independents holding that view.

Americans' assessments of the effect of immigration on six aspects of U.S. society are mixed. In two areas -- the economy and food, music, and the arts -- more believe immigration has made the situation better than made it worse. The public is divided as to immigration's effects on social and moral values and job opportunities for their family, but more evaluate immigration's effect on crime and taxes negatively than positively.

Americans' Views of Immigration's Impact Mixed
For each of the following areas, please say whether immigrants to the United States are making the situation in the country better or worse, or not having much effect. How about -- [RANDOM ORDER]?

 

Better

Worse

No effect

Net (% Better - % Worse)

 

%

%

%

pct. pts.

Food, music and the arts

The economy in general

Social and moral values

Job opportunities for you and your family

Taxes

The crime situation

Gallup, June 3-16, 2019
57 10 32 +47
43 31 25 +12
31 28 39 +3
19 25 56 -6
20 42 37 -22
7 42 50 -35
 

Americans' opinions on the impact immigration has on these aspects of society have shifted in a more positive direction over the past two decades. Specifically, the public is much more positive today about immigration's effect on the economy and job opportunities than they were in 2001, when Gallup first asked the question. While still negative overall today, Americans are less negative about immigration's effect on taxes and the crime situation than they were 18 years ago.

Probing further on immigration's impact on the economy, the poll asked Americans whether immigrants "mostly help the economy by providing low-cost labor" or "mostly hurt the economy by driving down wages for many Americans." For the first time, a majority of Americans say immigrants mostly help the economy, with 55% holding this view, compared with 37% who see immigrants as harming the economy. In 1993 and 2004 surveys, large majorities of Americans saw immigrants as detrimental to the economy.

Line graph. More than half, 55%, of Americans see immigrants as mostly helping the U.S. economy; 37% see them as hurting it.

Republicans disagree with Democrats and independents on the effect of immigration on the economy. Whereas 60% of Republicans see immigration as hurting the economy, 72% of Democrats and 58% of independents believe it helps.

Implications

At a time when Americans are more likely to name immigration as the most important problem facing the country than any in recent memory, they hold mixed views about it. They still see immigration as a good thing for the country, and more believe it benefits than harms the economy. About one-third want to see immigration levels reduced, but that is a lower proportion than in past surveys, including times when fewer Americans viewed immigration as a pressing U.S. problem.

The issue continues to challenge U.S. lawmakers, as Congress and Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump have been unable to enact meaningful legislation to stem the flow of illegal immigrants to the country and develop a plan for immigrants living in the U.S. illegally. As such, the issue promises to remain a major one in the coming presidential election.

View complete question responses and trends.

Learn more about how the Gallup Poll Social Series works.

 

Alert on HB 2932, to provide privacy protection for criminal aliens

Alert date: 
2019-05-13
Alert body: 

HB 2932 is a bill protecting illegal aliens charged with crimes.  It “prohibits courts from inquiring into defendant's immigration status or requiring defendant to disclose defendant's immigration status at time of plea or at any other time during criminal proceeding.  Requires court to allow defendant, upon request, additional time for plea decision after informing defendant about possible adverse immigration consequences of plea. Declares emergency, effective on passage.”

This bill, which legitimizes illegal immigration, opening our borders to the world without limit, is being sped through the legislature now.  A hearing was held by the House Judiciary Committee on March 18, and several OFIR members spoke against it or sent written testimony to the Committee.  But the Committee passed the bill, as did, on April 16, the full House.

The Senate Judiciary Committee held a Hearing on April 25 and will hold a Work Session to vote on the bill on May 13This Work Session is the last chance we have to voice objections to the bill, which is dangerous because it shelters criminal illegal aliens and encourages the acceptance of illegal immigration generally, threatening the sovereignty of our country.

If you can send a written statement of opposition to the Senate Judiciary Committee, please do.

HOW TO EMAIL A STATEMENT TO THE COMMITTEE

Visit the website of the Senate Judiciary Committee at https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Committees/SJUD/Overview

Scroll down to near the bottom of the page and see a line starting with “To Submit Testimony.” There is a link there to use for sending your statement directly to the Committee.

OR you can use this email address displayed at top of the PDF version of the Agenda pagesjud.exhibits@oregonlegislature.gov

Remember that your statement is considered testimony and will be part of the official legislative history of the bill, viewable online by anyone.  You need only to give your name and your county in your statement.  It’s recommended that individuals not include their full addresses.

In the email subject line, please identify the bill number (HB 2932), the name of the committee (Senate Judiciary Committee) holding the meeting, and the date of meeting (May 13).  The statement must arrive before meeting time, 8:30 a.m, May 13.

THEY ASK THAT YOU SEND YOUR STATEMENT IN PDF FORMAT IF POSSIBLE, but that it is not a requirement.

You can view statements previously sent on HB 2932 here.

Mass Migration Harms the Environment – Earth Day Message

OFIR was founded partly because of the need to alert Oregonians and U.S. citizens to the environmental consequences of excessive immigration levels.

Following is an excellent summary reminding us of the destructive effects on our environment caused by mass migration.  The statement was issued by the Immigration Reform law Institute, on the occasion of Earth Day, 2019Earth Day is observed annually on April 22, throughout the world.

-------------------------

“On Earth Day, we should all recognize our responsibility to be good stewards of our environment,” said Dale L. Wilcox, executive director and general counsel of IRLI. “Those who advocate against borders and reasonable immigration controls are acting irresponsibly and causing great damage to our planet. An effective plan to protect our environment must recognize the role that mass migration plays in boosting CO2 emissions and pollution to dangerous levels.”  

637 million metric tons of CO2 emissions annually

Immigration-generated population growth is fueling an increase in energy demand and the waste product that accompanies it. Immigrants to the United States alone produce about four times more CO2 in the United States as they would have in their countries of origin. U.S. immigrants produce an estimated 637 million metric tons of CO2 emissions annually — equal to Great Britain and Sweden combined. Strangely, governments that stress the urgency of addressing climate change are also some of the biggest opponents of border enforcement and immigration limits.

Mass migration grows America’s carbon footprint

One of the most popular talking points of climate change advocates is that the United States has less than five percent of the world’s population, yet consumes about a quarter of the world’s fossil fuel resources. If that is true, then why do some of the same people support immigration policies that significantly increase American fuel consumption as well as its carbon footprint? The two positions are wildly inconsistent.

Global climate hypocrisy 

While issuing apocalyptic warnings about climate change, the United Nations simultaneously encourages countries to accept even more migrants. After the Trump administration pulled the United States out of the UN’s Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Bulgaria followed suit. Austria and Slovakia have also indicated they will act similarly. Their objection is that the pact may encourage more illegal alien arrivals and is not in the interests of the host country. 

Border trash is piling up

The environmental damage from mass migration extends beyond just increased CO2 output. The land around our southern border is riddled with trash, and it is directly proportional to the numbers of those who make the perilous journey to enter our country illegally. 

According to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, in fiscal years 2011 and 2012, when Arizona was experiencing over 120,000 border apprehensions, over 65,000 pounds of border trash was being collected annually. That’s more than 32 tons of garbage—plastic water bottles, abandoned vehicles, human waste, medical products and much more—on the ground. In the following years, as apprehensions fell as low as 70,000, border trash collections dropped as well – reaching a low of just 19,000 pounds in fiscal year 2015 before jumping back up in 2016. This is only one of our four southern border states, and not even the largest.

Our government needs to act

With this kind of pollution caused by mass migration, surely our federal government is on the case. That assumption would be wrong. IRLI has argued that federal immigration-regulating agencies—in particular, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security—have ignored the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), our nation’s preeminent environmental law, for decades. Since it became law nearly a half century ago, NEPA has required any agency, before implementing actions or programs that will affect the environment, to issue an Environmental Impact Statement analyzing and publicizing those effects. The federal government’s immigration programs are probably the most environmentally consequential programs there are, yet no such analysis has ever been done.

See the news release as issued by IRLI at:  https://www.irli.org/single-post/2019/04/21/Earth-Day-Message-Mass-Migration-Harms-the-Environment

Unchecked immigration brings dangerous health risks to U.S.

With the unending caravans of migrants overwhelming U.S. law enforcement, there are huge risks to the health of U.S. citizens.  In earlier waves of high immigration, the health of incoming migrants was a chief point of concern.  There was a careful watch to exclude those with communicable diseases.  Now migrants are pouring in completely uninspected.

Some independent voices are trying to raise the alarm, warning of the epidemics of sickness that might spread quickly through our population.

Contagion invasion, by Daniel Horowitz (Part 1):  What ever happened to the principle of protecting our borders against dangerous diseases?  April 17, 2019.  (Part 2):  The untold public health endemic at our borders and beyond   April 18, 2019.

Here are some other good reports on the situation:

Infectious Diseases Making the Border Crisis Worse, by Andrew Arthur, Center for Immigration Studies, March 13, 2019.

Mumps and Other Infectious Diseases Know No Borders, by Matt O’Brien, Federation for American Immigration Reform, March 6, 2019.

“Crisis” of Seriously Ill Migrants Slams Border Patrol — TB, Pneumonia, Influenza, Parasites, report issued by Judicial Watch, Jan. 7, 2019. 

 

Can the President shut down the border?

In response to the endless stream of Central American migrants currently attempting to access the U.S. by any means, lawful or otherwise, President Trump has threatened to shut down the border.

Predictably, the armchair jurists in the media have opined that the president doesn’t have the authority to close the border and will be sued if he tries. The Washington Post proclaimed, “The only way Trump could potentially shut down the border would be through trade.” (Although, the legal sages at the Post didn’t go into any detail about how that would actually work, since the object of any border shutdown would be keeping out the people currently trying to get in.)

So what’s the real deal? Can the president shut down the border? He can. And the Supreme Court has repeatedly said so:

  • 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), unequivocally grants the president the authority to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens” whenever he finds that their entry would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”  
  • In Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc., decided in 1993, the Supreme Court held that, 1182(f) was intended to give the president the authority to prevent unauthorized mass migrations. Therefore, it delegates “ample power” to impose entry restrictions on foreign nationals, in response to emergent situations that threaten America’s interests. In fact, the Court found that 1182(f) was a more than sufficient basis for the naval blockade which ended the mass migration from Haiti during the Clinton administration.
  • More recently, in Trump v. Hawaii, the high Court reaffirmed Sale holding that, “Fairly read, [1182(f)] vests authority in the President to impose additional limitations on entry beyond the grounds for exclusion set forth in the [Immigration and Nationality Act] — including in response to circumstances that might affect the vetting system or other ‘interests of the United States.’” The court also noted that, “By its terms, §1182(f) exudes deference to the President in every clause.”

Based on the Supreme Court’s holdings in Sale and Trump v. Hawaii, 1182(f), it would appear to grant the president more than ample authority to close ports of entry because they are being overrun by people seeking to enter the U.S. by any means, lawful or illegal.

That the mainstream media has repeatedly presented its inaccurate opinions on this issue as a factual statement of the applicable law is completely unconscionable.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - immigration