population

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.

Tags:

population

immigration

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

Tags:

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

Tags:

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.” Read more about Immigration May Come Back With a Vengeance in 2015

Tags:

Open borders, anyone?

Posted by E Van Staaveren on Tue, 04/15/2014

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

Posted by E Van Staaveren on Tue, 02/18/2014

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

Swiss voters approve limitations on immigration

Swiss voters approved a ballot initiative on Sunday that limits the number of foreign citizens from European Union countries that are allowed to live and work in the country and gives preference to Swiss nationals for open jobs. Although not a member of the EU, Switzerland agreed to the free flow of labor with other EU nations in 2000.

Currently, Switzerland has immigration quotas in place, but EU nationals were exempt from those quotas. This weekend's vote will remove that exemption. The country has the highest immigrant population in Europe with 27 percent of the country's population not of Swiss citizenship.

Switzerland joins another non-EU member, Great Britain, in looking to tighten up its immigration laws. Both nations are concerned about dealing with the economic impacts of large labor pools and the strain that population puts on public welfare systems. Read more about Swiss voters approve limitations on immigration

Tags:

population

immigration

Republicans Go On an Immigration Reform Bender

Rather than twisting the political knife in the gaping wound that is Obamacare, House Republicans are off on a “comprehensive immigration reform” toot. The latest news has the Speaker putting off any action for now, and waiting until after the midterm elections in order not to anger the anti-amnesty base, and “to goose Latino turnout or to swing purple districts” in 2016, as political blogger Allahpundit put it. In other words, electoral timing rather than principle is determining what happens.

But principle, not to mention common sense, is what’s at stake here. Anyone proposing “comprehensive” anything after the debacle of Obamacare is delusional...

And please, let’s stop all the delusional dreams of Hispanic “natural conservatives” flocking to the GOP after the boon of amnesty is bestowed upon them. John McCain partnered with Teddy Kennedy in 2005 and 2007 to craft legislation to create a “path to citizenship,” and still got half as many Hispanic votes (31%) as Barack Obama did in 2008. By the way, McCain beat Mitt “self-deport” Romney by a whole 4 points with Hispanic voters...

Also ridiculous is the fear that not doing something will allow Democrats to tar Republicans with the racism or xenophobia brush. Here’s a news flash: they are going to do that no matter what Republicans do. The “preemptive cringe” as Margaret Thatcher called it is the worst form of defense...

...If we are going to debate this issue honestly, then let’s talk about the whole reality rather than ignoring the side that doesn’t advance our political interest, whether this be more Democrat voters and welfare clients, or more cheap labor. Then explain how amnesty is going to change that behavior and lower those costs.

Moreover, let’s demand that the amnesty crowd explain exactly how they plan to sort out those two sets of illegal immigrants, the ones we should keep and the ones we need to kick out...

...Don’t tell me the country that between 1940 and 1944 increased military aircraft annual production from 3660 to 96,300, that in 1942 was producing 4,000 Sherman tanks a month, 70 years later can’t fence off the 1933 miles of border between Mexico and the U.S.

Do that first, and when the border is secure, then start talking about what to do with the 11 million illegal aliens. Meanwhile, reform our immigration policies by getting rid of family reunification programs, and making admission to this country conditional on what the immigrant has to offer Americans, not what Americans have to offer immigrants. Start enforcing labor laws and putting teeth into sanctions against violating them. And most important, start returning to the old model of immigration that made it work for most of American history: assimilation to American political principles and virtues, facility in speaking English, and a rejection of self-loathing multicultural nonsense about American guilt and the superiority of the countries immigrants risk their lives to leave. Read more about Republicans Go On an Immigration Reform Bender

Tags:

Do you hear it, too?

Posted by Cynthia Kendoll on Fri, 01/31/2014

It's the sound of flushing our wonderful country going down the toilet.

Every morning, I wake up and think I must have been having a nightmare - this can't be true. And, every morning it's even worse.

Many states are under attack - just to name a few:

New Mexico continues to give driver licenses to illegal aliens - in spite of the increasing fraud and ID theft they have been struggling with for over 10 years.

Colorado now has dangerous drug cartels taking advantage of their new legalized marijuana laws.

Washington is on the brink of allowing illegal alien students (already granted an in state tuition benefit) to access grant money.

Oregon, is on the brink of granting driver privilege cards to illegal aliens, if PODL isn't successful in overturning the new law in November.

And now, the GOP leadership announces its plans and principles for immigration reform...

What the hell is going on here? I keep asking myself this question - over and over again.

Are our elected officials so indebted to big business donors, are they so swayed by lobbying bands of charismatic illegal aliens and their smooth talking advocates, are they so corrupt, or heaven forbid - are they just so stupid they don't see the handwriting on the wall. Do they stand on any principles whatsoever or do they even have any kind of moral compass? It would appear the answer to those questions is NO!

Our country is being sucked down the crapper with the guiding hand of many of our elected officials from both sides of the aisle! Our nation's sovereignty and everything our great nation stands for is at risk. These politicians are willing to flush all the men and women who fought and died for our freedom, all the immigrants who followed the rules and came here the right way and all the hard working, tax paying, law abiding citizens are going down with it.

After the big flush - think about what will be left of our country. That's where the nightmare really begins.

Every single one of you that reads this post must call your Congressman and tell them that if they don't do everything in their power to stop this train wreck of 'immigration reform', if they support it in any way, you will do everything in your power to see they never return to Washington for another term.

Let's stop this nightmare and shine a light on the politicians flushing our great country down the toilet!

Start calling today!

To find the information you need click here.

Also, please call:

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) 202-225-0600 and
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) 202-225-4000

House Republican Circulating Petition to Push Immigration Reform

The third House Republican to support the comprehensive immigration bill introduced by House Democrats is circulating a petition to House Republicans to pressure House Republican leaders to bring up comprehensive immigration reform legislation this year.

On Friday, Rep. David Valadao (R-CA) said he was "hoping to get a decent number" of signatures, according to the Washington Post.

Reps. Jeff Denham (R-CA) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) are the other two Republicans who have come out in support of the Senate's immigration bill that provides a pathway to citizenship for the country's illegal immigrants with less stringent border security provisions.

Valadao said he is not calling on House Republican leadership to hold a vote on the Democrat bill but on immigration reform in general before the end of the year.

House Republicans are reportedly working on various piecemeal bills in order to go conference with the Senate, where a pathway to citizenship provision will most likely prevail. The Congressional Budget Office determined that the Senate bill would lower the wages of working class Americans.

If House Republicans do not bring up immigration reform this year, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) recently said Republicans may try to pass comprehensive immigration reform next year--after the primaries--when Republicans do not have to fear challenges from the conservative wing of the party. Read more about House Republican Circulating Petition to Push Immigration Reform

Tags:

Search form

You are here

population

New Haven

Foreign Passport

Pages