population

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.

  Read more about Why the U.S. should not take in Muslim immigrants

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. Read more about Frosty Wooldridge explains how America is losing her ethos and why Trump is rising

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.

 

  Read more about Refugee resettlement - keep moving, nothing to see here

Syrian refugees - a crisis in the making

The United States is easily the most compassionate country on earth.  But, will our blind compassion ultimately be our downfall? 

Read this in-depth article about the Syrian refugee crisis and our national security, then decide for yourself if the American people are being duped by the very government whose job, first and foremost, is to protect us.

Fred Elbel, director of Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform (CAIRCO) has compiled an extensive number of sources for his compelling article.

Oregon's Governor, Kate Brown, is one of a diminishing number of Governor's who are welcoming the refugees to Oregon.  OFIR urges you to contact the Governor's office and express your opinion about her decision.


  Read more about Syrian refugees - a crisis in the making

Appeals court rules against Obama immigration plan

NEW ORLEANS –  President Obama's plan to protect from deportation an estimated 5 million people living in the United States illegally suffered another setback Monday in a ruling from a New Orleans-based federal appeals court.

In a 2-1 ruling, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Texas-based federal judge's injunction blocking the administration's immigration initiative.

...Twenty-six states challenged the plan in court.

The administration argued that the executive branch was within its rights...

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott was praised the ruling.

"President Obama should abandon his lawless executive amnesty program and start enforcing the law today," Abbott said in a news release.

The ruling further dims prospects of implementation of the executive action before Obama leaves office in 2017...

...The other major part, Deferred Action for Parents of Americans, would extend deportation protections to parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents who have been in the country for years.

The 70-page majority opinion by Judge Jerry Smith, joined by Jennifer Walker Elrod, rejected administration arguments that the district judge abused his discretion with a nationwide order and that the states lacked standing to challenge Obama's executive orders.

They acknowledged an argument that an adverse ruling would discourage potential beneficiaries of the plan from cooperating with law enforcement authorities or paying taxes...

In a 53-page dissent, Judge Carolyn Dineen King said the administration was within the law, casting the decision to defer action on some deportations as "quintessential exercises of prosecutorial discretion," and noting that the Department of Homeland Security has limited resources.

"Although there are approximately 11.3 million removable aliens in this country today, for the last several years Congress has provided the Department of Homeland Security with only enough resources to remove approximately 400,000 of those aliens per year," King wrote. Read more about Appeals court rules against Obama immigration plan

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. Read more about OFIR President returns from Washington DC conference

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.

  Read more about Immigrant population hits record 42.1 million

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... Read more about Revealed: The Secret Immigration Chapter in Obama’s Trade Agreement

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.
  Read more about Idaho sees rise in unauthorized immigrants

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.    
 

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - population