population

Trump scraps Obama policy that protected immigrant parents from deportation

An Obama-era immigration program intended to protect parents of U.S. citizens and legal residents from deportation has been formally cancelled, fulfilling a key campaign promise from President Trump, the Homeland Security Department announced late Thursday.

Homeland Security John Kelly formally revoked a policy memo that created the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans program...

The program to protect parents was announced by President Obama in November 2014 but was never fully launched because it was blocked by a federal court, according to Reuters.

It was intended to keep the immigrant parents safe from deportation and provide them with a renewable work permit good for two years, but it was blocked by a federal judge in Texas...

Republicans decried the effort as “backdoor amnesty” and argued that Obama overstepped his authority...

The protection program for parents, like the one for young immigrants, was created with a policy memo during the Obama administration...

Revoking the memo and ending the stalled program fulfill a key campaign promise by Trump....

...As of March 31, about 787,000 young immigrants have been approved for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, according to government data.

Arrests of immigrants in the interior of the country have increased under the Trump administration, but deportations are slightly down as fewer people have been caught crossing the Mexican border into the United States illegally.

Trump has made immigration enforcement a top priority and has vowed to continue a crackdown...

Reuters reported that Trump previously said that his administration was considering different options.

“They shouldn’t be very worried,” Trump told ABC News in January, referring to DACA recipients. “I do have a big heart. 

The Associated Press contributed to this report

Some thoughts for Earth Day, 2017

 

Earth Day, celebrated annually on April 22, is supposed to inspire appreciation for our natural environment and action to preserve it in a healthful condition, recognizing that all life depends on air, water and soil.
 
Too many environmental organizations have lost their way and morphed into political groups that will not face the topmost threat to the environment – overpopulation, caused in the U.S. by excessive immigration.   See Ann Coulter’s analysis of what happened to the Sierra Club here.
 
Also, Joe Guzzardi, a long-time writer on immigration and the environment, presents this concise summary of the problem, with his recommendations for remedy. The article below was published in the Greeneville Sun, Greeneville TN.
 
 
 
Apr 20, 2017
 
As a Californians for Population Stabilization Senior Writing Fellow, each Earth Day and on many other days during the year I address the key words that my organization strives for — population stabilization.
 
Environmentalists have written volumes about the importance of achieving sustainable population. On Earth Day, politicians pay token attention to how overpopulation contributes to the environment’s fragile condition. Yet the only change since the first 1970 Earth Day is that more people have been added. Today, global population is 7.5 billion, more than three times what many consider a sustainable total, and U.S. population is 325 million, more than twice what some scientists agree is the optimum number of humans.
 
In the U.S., population growth is less an individual family choice than the direct result of conscious congressional decisions to expand immigration that date back to 1965. During the Senate hearing about the effect the 1965 Immigration Act might have on population, New York Senator Robert Kennedy, responding to North Carolina Senator Sam Ervin’s questions, acknowledged that the legislation would eventually double U.S. population, and that mass immigration to America couldn’t and wouldn’t solve global overpopulation. Senators Ervin and Kennedy were right in their analysis, but wrong in their votes to pass the legislation. Both sides of the aisle overwhelmingly voted for the 1965 Immigration Act.
 
The Pew Research Center, in its retrospective on the 1965 Immigration Act, found that since its passage and through 2015, new immigrants, their children and grandchildren added 72 million people to the U.S., which accounted for 55 percent of the nation’s population growth.
 
The modern immigration wave vastly exceeds previous migration flows: between 1840 and 1889, 14.3 million immigrants came to the U.S., and between 1890 and 1919, an additional 18.2 million arrived.
 
Assuming continued decline in native fertility rates and a modest decline in net immigration, the Census Bureau calculates that in 2051 the U.S. population will hit 400 million.
 
But the Census Bureau is a government entity, politically motivated to calculate conservatively. Other independent studies, namely Pew and Decision Demographics, estimate that by mid-decade U.S. population will increase to more than 435 million. The same researchers concluded that if immigration were cut in half, population would grow only 70 million; if eliminated, only 31 million.
 
More than half a century has passed since the 1965 Immigration Act was enacted. Millions more live in our overcrowded nation. The question that Congress must answer is how many immigrants should be admitted annually to guarantee the best quality of life for future generations. Arguments to reduce immigration should not be confused as anti-immigrant, but rather pro-environment. Congress has numerous options that could establish sensible immigration that would help immigrants and native-born alike.
 
They include:
 
- A sharp reduction in employment-based visas for all but the truly exceptional. Visa holders’ U.S.-born children are automatically granted citizenship which helps permanently anchor their parents in the U.S. Students, tourists and family visitors must return home when their temporary visas expire. Congress passed an entry-exit plan 30 years ago that hasn’t yet been implemented.
 
- Pass mandatory E-Verify, which would ensure that only citizens and legal immigrants are employed. E-Verify eliminates the jobs magnet that lures illegal immigrants.
 
- End the visa lottery, and promote refugee resettlement near their home nations.
 
- Pass Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton’s RAISE Act that would cut legal immigration from more than 1 million annually to 500,000. Less immigration creates tighter labor markets and puts upward pressure on long-stagnant wages.
 
The U.S. has no population policy, and therefore no understanding of the limits to growth.
 
Congress must act to reject the political correctness, which has made the mere mention of population stabilization taboo, and act quickly to create an improved quality of life for all.
 

Feds: 275,000 born to illegals in one year, would fill city the size of Orlando

Moms in the United States illegally gave birth to 275,000 babies in 2014, enough birthright U.S. citizens to fill a city the size of Orlando, Florida, according to an analysis of data from the National Center for Health Statistics.

The data showed that newborns to illegals accounted for 7 percent of all births in 2014, according to the analysis from the Pew Research Center.

"In 2014, about 275,000 babies were born to unauthorized-immigrant parents in the U.S., accounting for about 7 percent of all U.S. births, and 32 percent of all U.S. births to foreign-born mothers," said Pew's newly released report.

The report reviews births to unmarried foreign-born and American born women....

"A third of all births to foreign-born mothers were to unmarried women...

The analysis also found that the growth in the birthrate of America is entirely driven by immigrants.

Tribute to Dr. John Tanton

John H. Tanton, M.D. - retired ophthalmologist and eye surgeon is recognized as the founder of the modern immigration immigration reform movement.  A video tribute to John H. Tanton, M.D. is now available.  Tanton is also publisher and former editor of The Social Contract.

As a strong conservationist and leading advocate for the environment, Dr. John Tanton founded the Petoskey, Michigan regional Audubon Society. He has been active in a number of environmental organizations, both locally and nationally. Dr. Tanton recognized that continued human population growth is a significant contributor to environmental problems and he therefore became involved with the Sierra Club Population Committee and became President and board member of Zero Population Growth.

As immigration became the driving force behind unending U.S. population growth, John Tanton founded FAIR - the Federation for American Immigration Reform. John Tanton is pro-immigrant and pro-legal immigration, but at reduced, sustainable numbers. He states:

"The stresses caused by population growth cannot be solved by international migration. They must be confronted by and within each individual nation. Fundamental to the concept of national rights and responsibilities is the duty of each nation to match its population with its political, social, and environmental resources, in both the short and the long term. No nation should exceed what the biologists call its 'carrying capacity.'"

This video is a tribute to the life and accomplishments of Dr. John Tanton. For more information, see:

The John Tanton website
http://johntanton.org/

The Social Contract
http://www.thesocialcontract.com/

So what, another Earth Day comes and goes

Oregonians for Immigration Reform was founded 16 years ago by just a handful of people that were very concerned about the impact on our environment of unfettered illegal immigration and excessive legal immigration. 

The roots of many organizations across the country working to stop illegal immigration and slow legal immigration to a more sustainable level often start with concerns about the environment and the impact of more and more people coming to the US.

OFIR has since expanded it's membership to include thousands of members across the state with those same concerns and many more, i.e. national security, terrorism, jobs, stagnant wages, over-crowded schools, crime, drugs, disease, a culture of corruption, gangs and on and on.

CAIRCO's Fred Elbel wrote of his experiences with the Sierra Club, a group that chose to ignore the impact of immigration on our fragile environment and our own quality of life.  They made that choice - for money.  He included an informative article written by Ian Smith and published in the Daily Caller that explains just how it happened.

NOTE:  The CAIRCO website is a treasure trove of information for anyone wanting to learn more about immigration.

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

Yesterday was Earth Day. 

I once was a member of the Sierra Club in the mid-1990s, back when their population policy included addressing mass immigration as the root cause of US Population growth. At that time, environmentalists had a lot of common sense. 

Some environmentalists still do, but most environmental organizations today are feel-good social justice corporate profit centers. Take the Sierra Club as a case in point. They sold out to immigration political correctness to the tune of $100 million!

This excellent article by Ian Smith explains the gory details. It's a good read.

Earth Day: A Time To Remember When Tightening The Border Topped The Green Agenda, The Daily Caller, April 22, 2016.

I was a member and a director of SUSPS, which in the late 1990s fought to reinstate the Sierra Club's long-standing, sensible immigration policy:

"Since 1996, leaders of the Sierra Club have refused to admit that immigration driven, rapid U.S. population growth causes massive environmental problems. And they have refused to acknowledge the need to reduce U.S. immigration levels in order to stabilize the U.S. population and protect our natural resources. Their refusal to do what common sense says is best for the environment was a mystery for nearly a decade.

Then, on Oct. 27, 2004, the Los Angeles Times revealed the answer: David Gelbaum, a super rich donor, had demanded this position from the Sierra Club in return for huge donations! Kenneth Weiss, author of the LA Times article that broke the story, quoted what David Gelbaum said to Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope:

"I did tell Carl Pope in 1994 or 1995 that if they ever came out anti-immigration, they would never get a dollar from me."

In 1996 and again in 1998, the Club's leaders proved their loyalty to Gelbaum's position on immigration, first by enacting a policy of neutrality on immigration and then by aggressively opposing a referendum to overturn that policy. In 2000 and 2001, Gelbaum rewarded the Club with total donations to the Sierra Club Foundation exceeding $100 million. In 2004 and 2005, the Club's top leaders and management showed their gratitude for the donations by stifling dissent and vehemently opposing member efforts to enact an immigration reduction policy...

Read more at SUSPS.

Here is a formal Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on United States Immigration Policy. Immigration driven US population growth really does have environmental consequences - which most politicians gladly ignore in exchange for support from their donor base.

 

Sincerely,
 

Fred Elbel
Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform

 

Backsliding on communicable diseases brought to the US by illegal aliens

Rick Oltman has described, in no uncertain terms, the threats brought right into our nation's living room by the utter disregard for the well being of the citizens of this great country.

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

A Weapon of Mass Destruction – A Weapon of Cultural Destruction?

By Rick Oltman, February 29, 2016

Back as early as the mid-1990s, parents of grade schoolers in California were learning that diseases that were once believed to have been eliminated were back in the public schools.  Head lice was epidemic in many schools.  Products, once discontinued, were brought back to market to deal with the disgusting infection.

Measles and whooping cough were spreading rapidly.  To many Californians, the cause was obvious:   illegal alien students were bringing these infections back into the schools...

Scarlet fever also reappeared.

A polio-like disease caused partial paralysis in California children.

Remember H1N1, aka “swine flu,” from a few years ago?...

We seemed to have escaped widespread infection from Ebola.  Will it be the same with the Zika virus?

More recently, as a result of the massive influx of (not only) illegal alien children from Central America who were not being medically screened, the U.S. has had outbreaks of other illnesses that were once eradicated; TB:  Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Chickenpox and Smallpox.

MDR – TB, multiple drug resistant tuberculosis, rampant in South East Asia, has been coming across the southern border for years.

Multiple drug resistant diseases are the result of improper use and overuse of antibiotics.  Evolution and natural selection can produce organisms that we cannot defeat.  And, in an environment where diseases can travel halfway around the world in a single day, the possibility of an outbreak of a deadly epidemic is as real as your worse science fiction nightmare.

However, just this week, Health and Human Services has announced that in a month, on March 28th, three sexually transmitted infections will no longer bar you from entering our country....

What is a Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD)?

WMD is often referred to by the collection of modalities that make up the set of weapons:  chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive.

WMD is defined in U.S. law (18 USC §2332a) as “Any weapon involving a disease organism.” ...

Now, ask yourself, “What possible benefit to America is there in allowing people infected with communicable diseases to come into our country, legally or illegally?  What possible explanation can there be for a government to be so irresponsible as to expose our populace to any disease like those listed above?”

Read the full article at USInc.com

1,019 refugees received in Oregon in 2014

The Federation for Immigration Reform has issued a new 2-part report on distribution of refugees in each state in the U.S. from Oct. 1, 2013 through Sept. 30, 2014.

The report is based on statistics from federal sources. FAIR prepared charts showing the distribution in each state 

Below is FAIR’s chart of the 1,019 refugees admitted to Oregon, showing the country of originClick here to see the chart.

The page about Oregon is shown on page 29 of the 50 pages in FAIR’s summary. Because Delaware, Montana, and Wyoming have not yet received any refugees, they are not included in the list.

According to this chart, the percentage distribution of refugees by country of origin that were received in Oregon from Oct. 1 2013 to Sept. 30, 2014 are as follows:

Iraq - 28%

Somalia - 21%

Burma – 19%

Bhutan - 10%

Dem Rep Congo - 7%

Iran - 4%

Ukraine - 2%

Afghanistan - 2%

Other - 7%  (includes Cuba, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Moldova, Sudan, Russia, Vietnam, Belarus, China, and Kazakhstan)

For more detailed information about issues related to refugee resettlement in the United States and our national security,  please visit the CAIRCO website

Why the U.S. should not take in Muslim immigrants

Islamic turmoil never fails to dominate the headlines, and the West is yet again split on how to deal with the polarizing issue of Islamic immigration. But liberals can no longer afford to be motivated by only political short-term goals expressed with the usual shouting, name-calling and emotion. This issue can really hurt liberal and progressive causes, as well as conservative causes.

Looking at the big picture of relocating populations, the first thing that comes to mind is that it should benefit and not hurt either the Muslim nations that are sending the immigrants out or Western nations that are absorbing the immigrants in.

If by absorbing large numbers of moderate Muslims from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan etc., are we really helping these nations to reform? The answer is no, and this is why.

Western governments are reassuring their alarmed citizens that they are vetting the Muslim immigrants and bringing in only the good and peace-loving Muslims, which is questionable...

But let us assume that Western governments this time will succeed in vetting Muslim immigrants. The important questions we should also ask ourselves are:

1- If we keep taking in the so-called “moderate Muslims” from the Middle East and leave the terrorists and bad guys, who will be left to fight ISIS, Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, Boko Haram or whatever the future name might be for the next Islamic terror group?...

2- Who will lead the badly needed reform movement in Islam in the heart of the Middle East if most or all moderates move to the West?

3- Are we giving the wrong message to the Muslim world and showing them that we are serious about calling for an Islamic reformation...

It is also good to ask, before we allow them in, if large numbers of Muslims immigrant will benefit the West?

That should not be difficult to answer, since we have 1400 years of history of Islamic conquest and immigration around the world. The one thing we must learn is that Muslims do not assimilate and are forbidden from doing that by Sharia. The political and social structure and culture of every country that absorbs large number of Muslims was challenged and changed....

I have no doubt that many immigrants to the US from the Middle East, of whom I am one, both Muslim and Christian, have assimilated and positively contributed to America.

But unfortunately, it is a fact that a good portion of Muslim immigrants to the West have jihadist goals...

The West must also ask itself: what is the West rescuing Muslim refugees from? The honest answer would be from Islam itself...

Political Islam is in control of the Muslim world today and is expanding. There are about 49 to 50 majority Muslim countries around the world taking about 1/3 of the habitable land on Earth....

Western leadership and media are sympathetic to rescuing Muslims, but are obviously ignoring the fears of their own citizens...

Last night, I was told by a Middle East source that ISIS is in fact encouraging and intentionally herding desperate refugees merged with ISIS infiltrators towards its Northwest borders...

What the West does not understand is that Muslim governments are dependent on and in need of getting rid of their ever-expanding population to the West...

What the West needs to know is that by constantly absorbing the moderate Muslim population that wants reform, the West is not doing the Islamic reformation movement a favor, but just the opposite; it is delaying any hope for a reformation when the West releases the pressure on Muslim governments by absorbing those who want change.

If the West is serious about helping bring about an Islamic reformation in the heart of Islam, it should do just the opposite of what its policy has been for the last decades. It should stop immigration from Muslim countries...

This post includes excerpts from the full article.

 

Frosty Wooldridge explains how America is losing her ethos and why Trump is rising

America Losing Her Ethos: Why Trump Rises

By Frosty Wooldridge
December 15, 2015
NewsWithViews.com

With every third world immigrant entering the United States of America, our country loses its ethos. It loses its culture. It loses its language and it loses its religion. Ultimately, it loses its identity. It loses its way in the world. Final breakdown: sociological disintegration...

...Before that Immigration Reform Act, whether black, white or brown—Americans identified with being “Americans”...

Additionally, minority groups such as Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and Indians will become major voting blocks to change the “character” of America into a multicultural polyglot of minorities...

Who drives this deformation of America? Every Congress since 1965 and every president [that] failed to secure America’s borders...

Read the complete article.

Refugee resettlement - keep moving, nothing to see here

"Trump’s surge this week, in the teeth of universal denunciation, suggests that a large slice of America agrees with his indictment—that our political-media establishment is dumb as a box of rocks and leading us down a path to national suicide," says Patrick J. Buchanan.

But, even the most detached, eyes down citizen can tell that something is amiss.  That's why Trump, in his ever brash style, has touched a nerve with the American people. 

We are being bombarded by the press and establishment politicians that all is good, there's nothing to see here, the plans to bring thousands of Syrian refugees into the US is the right thing to do.

But wait - is it the right thing to do for our country and our future?

According to a recent VDare.com article by Patrick J. Buchanan, we are not only being duped, we are being led down a very dangerous road.

Michelle Malkin, in her article on VDare.com explains what our forefathers had in mind when immigration guidelines were developed.  HINT:  the purpose of immigration is not to provide cheap labor, or voters committed to a particular party.

Still not convinced?  A recent article by Leo Hohmann in World Net Daily puts an even sharper point on the issue of Syrian refugees swarming into the US.

To learn more about the Syrian refugee crisis read the extensive, well researched articles and information posted on the CAIRCO website.

 

 

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - population