Reference

Reference, facts and research on mass immigration

The US-Mexico border is 1,940 miles long. Up to 10,000 illegal aliens cross the border every day - over 3 million per year. One third will be caught and many will try again. About half of those remaining will become permanent U.S. residents (3,500 per day).

There are an estimated 11 million to 40 million illegal aliens in the U.S. A quarter-million illegal aliens from the Middle-east currently live in the U.S, and a growing number are entering via the Mexican border.

80% of cocaine and 50% of heroin in the U.S. is smuggled across the border by Mexican nationals. Drug cartels spend a half-billion dollars per year bribing Mexico's corrupt generals and police officials, and armed confrontations between the Mexican army and U.S. Border Patrol agents are a real threat. There have been over 118 documented incursions by the Mexican military in the last decade.

Illegal aliens have cost billions of taxpayer-funded dollars for medical services. Dozens of hospitals in Texas, New Mexico Arizona, and California, have been forced to close or face bankruptcy because of federally-mandated programs requiring free emergency room services to illegal aliens. Taxpayers pay a half-billion dollars per year incarcerating illegal alien criminals.

$60 billion dollars are earned by illegal aliens in the U.S. each year, and one of Mexico's largest revenue streams consists of remittances sent home by illegal aliens working in the U.S.

(Based on the Washington Times article and series, "Chaos along the border", October 6, 2002.)

Quick facts on population and immigration

Here are quick facts on mass immigration and population growth in the United States. (Updated 2007).

The Census Bureau projects that U.S. population will double this century, practically within the lifetimes of children born today. 70% of this doubling will be due to mass immigration - that is, due to new immigrants and their descendents.

Colorado currently has 4.3 million residents and is the third-fastest growing state in the U.S. Colorado is suffering from overcrowded schools, and traffic, congestion, smog, and sprawl. Every hour, ten acres of our farmland and open space are lost to development.

  • Immigration from 1925 to 1965 averaged 178,000 per year. Now, we're taking in approximately 1.1 million legal immigrants and up to 700,000 illegal aliens annually3.
  • Under current policy, U.S. population will double this century - practically within the lifetimes of today's children - and will continue to grow2.
  • In 1995, only 5% of legal immigrants were skilled workers.
  • 72% of Black Americans want immigration reduction.
  • 1.3 million acres, an area the size of Delaware, are being black topped each year.
  • Immigration made sense when we were an empty continent, not now when the ecological carrying capacity of the U.S. is being stretch to its limit5.
  • Immigrants accounted for more than 45 percent of the growth in Colorado's population in the past two years1. An estimated 33.1 million immigrants now live in the United States, about 11.5 percent of the total population, according to the report's figures, based on still-unreleased U.S. Census Bureau data collected in March 20022.
     
    In Colorado, the number of immigrants has grown from 8.6 percent of the population two years ago to just under 10 percent now. Of the 165,000 residents new to Colorado between April 2000 and March 2002, 75,000 were born outside the United States, according to Center for Immigration Studies7.
     
    Almost 52 percent of immigrant families earn less than two times the official poverty level, while that rate among U.S.-born households is 21.6 percent. Nearly 20 percent of immigrant-headed households in Colorado receive some form of welfare benefit.6
  • A new report by the Center for Immigration Studies concludes that over 33 million legal immigrants and illegal aliens now live in the United States, an increase of 2 million immigrants since the recent April 2000 Census7. How significant is an increate of 33 million people?
    • 33 million is larger than the current population of Canada.
    • 33 million is the combined populations of the 20 largest cities in the U.S in 2000, according to the U.S. Census Bureau: New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Diego, Dallas, San Antonio, Detroit, San Jose, Indianapolis, San Francisco, Jacksonville, Columbus, Austin, Baltimore, Memphis, and Milwaukee.
    • 33 million people in the U.S. would require over 12 million housing units8, would require 15.8 million more passenger cars9, and would consume about 825 million barrels of oil a year (25 barrels per person per year). 33 million Americans will consume all of the economically recoverable oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in less than four years time.10
    • 33 million people can be expected to consume 2.26 billion cubic feet of roundwood per year (80 cubic feet per person). Over 75 million acres of forest will be needed to supply 33 million people with their paper and wood needs.11
  • Post 1970 immigrants and their descendants have added more than 55 million people to our country; this is the equivalent of absorbing all of Central America in thirty years. Yet Central America's, Mexico's, and China's populations have grown even larger. Clearly, we are not able to address the world's problems by attempting to absorb their excess population.
  • The Population Reference Bureau projects the U.S. will add 140 million people to it population between 2002 and 2050, thus increasing the population of the U.S from 287 million to 420 million12.
  • In 2002, the fertility rate of the U.S. was higher than that of 70 other countries, "including less developed China, Korea and Thailand." Indeed, four other less developed countries also have a fertility rate lower than that of the U.S.: Iran, Cuba, Singapore, and Sri Lanka.
  • Former U.S. Census Bureau demographer Jeffrey Passel (now with the Urban Institute) issued a conservative estimate there are "at least 8.5 million undocumented foreigners in the United States." This means that the population of illegal aliens in the U.S. is larger than the population of any one of the following 41 states: Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, Massachusetts, Indiana, Washington, Tennessee, Missouri, Wisconsin, Maryland, Arizona, Minnesota, Louisiana, Alabama, Colorado, Kentucky, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Connecticut, Iowa, Mississippi, Kansas, Arkansas, Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, West Virginia, Nebraska, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska, Vermont, or Wyoming.
  • About 70 percent of the foreign-born population in the U.S. in 2000 entered the U.S. after 1980, and more than 40 percent entered the U.S. after 1990. The Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy discussed in 1980 implementing a cap on immigrant admissions of 425,000 per year. In 1982 the "Bumpers Amendment" to cap legal immigrant admissions at this level was nearly passed by the U.S. Senate.13 Yet it did not pass, in good part because some senators believed the numbers to be still too high and opposed amnesties for illegal aliens. In 1986, however, an amnesty did pass with no cap on legal immigrant admissions. Today legal immigration alone into the U.S. is running at over twice the level called for in the above-mentioned "Bumpers Amendment".
  • Approximately one out of five babies born in the U.S. in 2000 had a foreign-born mother.

More quick facts

Population growth

  • U.S. population will double this century, within the lifetimes of children born today. Leaving such a legacy has been described as a hate crime against future generations.
  • Colorado's State demographer projects Colorado's population to surge to 7 million by 2030. 60,000 will arrive each year, most moving to the Front Range. The fastest-growing areas include the Western Slope and weld County. (Denver Post article, June 19, 2003).
  • Over past 50 years, Colorado's population has tripled in size. In 1950, Colorado had 1.3 million people. In 1980, Colorado;s population was approaching 3 million. Then we added 1 million, about 275 people per day. We now have 4.3 million in 2003.
  • Colorado grew 30% in the 1990's - the third fastest-growing state in the U.S., home to 5 of the nation's 10 fastest-growing counties. Metro Denver grew from 2 million to over 2.4 million in the 1990's.
  • In the 1990's, natural increase (births minus deaths) accounted for 38% of growth, half of growth was from migration from other states, and remainder was due to secondary migration from other countries. 25% of migration into Colorado in the 1990's came from California. Colorado is Projected to add 1 million people next 10-20 years. (Denver Post article, June 19, 2003).

Schools

  • Colorado K-12 enrolment grew by 29% in the 1990's. Colorado's elementary and high school enrollment increased 32% in the 1990's. In the next 10 years, number of students could increase by 100,000 from 790,000 in 2000. We could easily surpass one million students by 2025.
  • Colorado spends $50 million per year educating immigrant children from Mexico alone. This will require 5,000 new teachers to be hired annually and building 20 new schools annually. The Rocky Mountain News reported construction and renovation would cost $165-175 million.
  • State has proposed $500 million in additional funding for rural schools in the southern part of the state. The number of Spanish-speaking only students has increase five-fold in the past 5 years.Non-English speaking students statewide nearly doubled to 16,715 from 1992-1996, and accounted for nearly all enrolment growth in Aurora, Commerce City, Lamar, 74% of the increase in Denver, and 40%-60% of the increase in Leadville and West Yuma.

Traffic

  • 11% of Colorado workers travel more than 40 minutes to work. The commute time likely double by 2025. Denver ranks 5th in the nation for time lost in traffic - estimated at 35 hours per year per commuter. Total cost for this wasted time and fuel is estimated at $1.4 billion each year.
  • The Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) projects a need for 2,300 lane-miles over the next 20 years to prevent congestion. Yet their long-range plan accounts for only half of that required growth.

Water

  • Governor's Commission on Saving Open Spaces, Farms, and Ranches found : "Rapid growth, inadequate water supply and extremely dry conditions have left cities thirsty for more water."
  • In 2002 Colorado water shortages forced farmers to cut crop yields by 50% and liquidate 70% of their cattle herds.
  • A June 21, 2003 Rocky Mountain News article, Do or dry for mountain towns, stated: "During next 30 years, nearly two dozen fast-growing communities in Summit and Grand counties will face water shortages as Front Range cities siphon off larger and larger amounts to quench their thirsts..." "This about allocating the last drop", said Dan Luecke, a water expert.
  • "Grand County will quadruple in next 30 to 50 years." And "In Summit County, water use is expected to more than double.
  • Colorado may need up to 500,000 new acre-feet of new water within the next 30 years.

U.S. Immigration

  • Over 1 million legal immigrants, and approximately 700,000 illegal aliens enter into the U.S. each year. That's 80,000 illegal aliens per month. Currently 9 to 11 million illegal aliens in U.S., double 1994 level.
  • Illegal alien population in the U.S. is larger than the populations of any one of a list of 41 U.S. states.
  • A quarter-million illegal aliens from Middle-East countries currently live in the U.S., many now entering across the Arizona-Mexico border.
  • Colorado ranks 11th in illegal migration, with over 45,000 illegal aliens residing in Colorado in 1996.
  • Historically, 178,000 legal per year migrated to the U.S., between 1925-1965. An average of 230,000 legal immigrants per year migrated here between 1776-1976.
  • California has practically doubled in population in the last 35 years. 96% of its growth in the 1990's was due to immigration. California now has 35 million, and is larger than most countries of the world.
  • A recent Center for Immigration studies report shows 33 million legal immigrants and illegal aliens now reside in the U.S. This 33 million is larger than the entire population of Canada. This 33 million is equal to the combined populations of the 20 largest cities in the U.S.
  • Post 1970 immigrants and their descendents have added more than 55 million people to our country - equivalent to absorbing all of Central America, excluding Mexico, in 30 years.
  • Colorado's immigrant stock (immigrants and their descendents) was 19.6% in 1997 - the 13th highest in the country.
  • Colorado's foreign-born increased 160% during the 1990's.

Economic costs

  • 40-50% of wage loss among low-skilled Americans is due to immigration of low-skilled workers.
  • 1,880,000 American workers are displaced from their jobs by immigration. The cost for providing welfare and assistance to displaced Americans is over $15 billion/year.
  • The net annual cost of immigration is between $67 and $87 per year.
  • The National Academy of Sciences found the net fiscal drain on American taxpayers is $166-226 per year for each native household. Even studies showing modest economic gain from immigration ($1-10 billion per year) find it is outweighed by the fiscal cost of $15-20 billion per year.
  • Approximately 52% of immigrant families earn less than two times the officil poverty level. Nearly 20% of immigrant-headed households in Colorado receive some form of welfare benefit.

Ski resorts

  • As many as 7,000 illegal aliens work at Colorado ski resorts. In Summit County, approximately 10% are foreign-born.

Drugs

  • 80% of cocaine and 50% of heroin in the U.S. are smuggled across the border by Mexican nationals.
  • Drug cartels spend a half-billion dollars per year bribing corrupt Mexican army and police officials.

Hospitals

  • Dozens of hospitals in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California have been forced to close or face bankruptcy because of providing coverage to illegal aliens.

Anchor babies

  • There are 287,000-363,000 children born to illegal aliens each year.
  • In 1994, California paid for 74,987 deliveries to illegal alien mothers at a total cost of $215.2 million.
  • Illegal alien mothers accounted for 36% of all Medi-Cal funded births in California in 1994.
  • Losses are approximately $79 million in California, $74 million in Texas, $31 million in Arizona, and $6 million in New Mexico.
  • In Colorado, Medicaid paid approximately $30 million in costs for approximately 6,000 illegal alien mothers, 40% of all births paid for by Medicaid in Colorado. These 6,000 anchor babies immediately became U.S. citizens and qualified for full Medicaid services, with a cost yet to be determined.

Prisons

  • Taxpayers pay half a billion dollars per year incarcerating illegal alien criminals. This costs Colorado taxpayers approximately $14 million annually.

Transfer of wealth

  • $60 billion earned by illegal aliens in the U.S. each year.
  • $10 billion are sent back to Mexico annually, equal to the amount Mexico earns from tourism.

Sprawl

  • Denver has the fourth worst sprawl in the nation, according to Fannie Mae Foundation.
  • Housing costs for the elderly have increase to more than 50% of their average income.
  • Colorado workers who make minimum wage must work 124 hours per week in order to afford a two-bedroom apartment.
  • Approximately 1 acre of open land is lost through urbanization and degradation for each person added to the U.S. - about 3 million people and therefore 3 million acres lost each year.
  • Yet many experts agree on a sustainable population of 150 million in the U.S.
  • In Colorado, every hour, 10 acres of farmland and open space are lost to development.
  • Colorado's population density rose from 32 people per square mile in 1990 to 41 people per square mile in 2000, a 28% increase.
  • Each year, Colorado loses 22,500 acres of open space and farmland tue to development.
  • Colorado has the 2nd largest growth in housing development in the nation.

Nations originally controlling the western United States

  • In the Adams-Onis Treaty of 1819, the U.S. ceded to Spain the possession of Texas, California and New Mexico (lands included present-day Nevada, Utah, Arizona parts of Wyoming and Colorado). Other territories, including the Oregon territory, were ceded to the U.S. by Spain.
  • Mexico was not an independent nation until 1821.
  • By 1836 the Republic of Texas had established itself separate from Mexico and by 1846 Mexican control of California was in considerable question. Except (arguably) for the Civil War, Texas has been part of the United States since 1846.
  • In the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the U.S. paid Mexico approximately $20 million for all of present-day California, Nevada, and Utah, and parts of present-day Arisona, Colorado, New Mexico and Wyoming. The nation of Mexico by then had officially controlled California and the mentioned territories for less than thirty years.
  • Los Angeles was named by Father Juan Crespi, a Spanish Franciscan priest and missionary who was born in Palma. He hailed from Europe.
  • San Antonio was named "San Antonio de Padua" by Spaniard Domingo Teran de los Rios in 1691. Teran, remembered today as the first provincial governor of Texas, was a member of the Spanish military who previously had spent twenty years in Spanish service in Peru.
  • San Francisco was named by Portuguese explorer Sebastian Rodriguez Cermeno, who claimed it for Spain.

References

1. Population Environment Balance
2. U.S. Census Bureau.
3. NumbersUSA.com, and Center for Immigration Studies.
4. SUSPS data and numbers.
5. EcoFuture Ecological Footprint references.
6. Immigrants account for 45% of Colorados growth, by Michael Riley, The Denver Post, November 27, 2002.
7. Immigrants in the United States - 2002 - A Snapshot of America's Foreign-Born Population, by Steven A. Camarota, Center for Immigration Studies, November, 2002.
8. The Impact of Immigration on U.S. Population Growth, Steven Camarota, Center for Immigration Studies, Testimony prepared for the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims, August 2,2001.
9. Population and Natural Resources, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2000.
10. Drilling For Oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Won't Address National Security or Consumer Needs, Sierra Club; and U.S. Per-Capita Use of Petroleum Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 1997, DOE/EIA.
11. Indicator 29 - Value and volume of wood and wood products production, including value added through downstream, 2003 National Report on Sustainable Forest Management, USDA Forest Service; and Indicator 31 - Supply and consumption of wood and wood products, including consumption per capita, 2003 National Report on Sustainable Forest Management, USDA Forest Service.
12. What Drives U.S. Population Growth?, Population Reference Bureau, December, 2002.
13. 97th Congress State Record Vote Analysis, 1982.

287(g) program

The 287(g) program has been a highly successful program where state and local law enforcement agencies worked with ICE to enforce existing US immigration law. Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides framework for state and local enforcement to investigate, detain, and arrest illegal aliens on criminal and civil grounds.

Yet the Obama administration, as part of its "administrative amnesty program", directed ICE not to renew 287(g) contracts in 2013. 

From ICE on 287(g):

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the largest investigative agency in the Department of Homeland Security, enforces federal immigration laws as part of its homeland security mission. ICE works closely with federal, state and local law enforcement partners in this mission.

The 287(g) program, one of ICE’s top partnership initiatives, allows a state and local law enforcement entity to enter into a partnership with ICE, under a joint Memorandum of Agreement (MOA).  The state or local entity receives delegated authority for immigration enforcement within their jurisdictions.

Section 287(g) Is the Right Answer for State and Local Immigration Enforcement, Heritage Foundation, March 6, 2006

Any comprehensive border and immigration security legislation by Congress should include provisions for strengthen­ing and expanding programs authorized under §287(g)...

The 287(g) Program: Protecting Home Towns and Homeland, Center for Immigration Studies, October, 2009

... the Obama administration, in a move consistent with other recent steps to scale back immigration law enforcement, recently announced its intent to impose new rules for the 287(g) program that unduly constrain the local partners and could allow too many alien scofflaws identified by local agencies to remain here. But even with these changes... the 287(g) program still remains an effective tool in immigration law enforcement and local crime-fighting...

About 1,000 officers from 67 law enforcement agencies have been trained and participate in the program. With 9 new agencies joining and a handful of agencies dropping out in 2009, the total number of participating agencies as of October 2009 is 73.

287(g) officers lodged immigration charges on more than 81,000 illegal or criminal aliens between January 2006 and November 2008, according to data provided to us by ICE...

Obama’s Administrative Amnesty, FAIR, February 14, 2014

On February 13, 2012, President Obama introduced his 2013 budget, proposing to slash immigration enforcement programs. In addition to cutting funding for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) by 4 percent, the White House proposal sought reducing the 287(g) federal-local law enforcement program by $17 million—a whopping 25 percent.

Despite Congress refusing to enact President Obama’s budget, he nonetheless got his way when buried in the bottom of an ICE press release ten months later, his Administration declared it would not be renewing any 287(g) task force model agreements in 2013. The release stated, “ICE has... decided not to renew any of its agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies that operate task forces under the 287(g) program.” In effect, Obama’s move was more significant than the $17 million cut initially sought, effectively cutting the state and local law enforcement program in half.

Despite the effectiveness and popularity of the 287(g) program, the Obama Administration has from the beginning been working to dismantle it. Just months after taking office, President Obama restricted the 287(g) program to ensure participating law enforcement agencies enforced immigration laws only against “dangerous criminal aliens.”

President Obama’s Record of Dismantling Immigration Enforcement, FAIR (read the full report)

...A review of the Obama Administration's record shows:

The Administration's conscious effort to end policies that effectively enforce and deter illegal immigration. This includes the cessation of meaningful worksite enforcement against employers who hire illegal aliens and the removal of the illegal workers. It also includes ending effective partnership programs with state and local governments, such as the 287(g) program, that provide a structure through which state and local agencies may enforce immigration laws...

Barbara Jordan and the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform

Barbara Jordan (1936-1996) was a Civil Rights leader and was the first African-American woman elected to the Texas Senate, in 1966. She was the elected to the U.S Congress and served from 1973 to 1979. She was the first African-American to deliver the keynote address at a Democratic National Convention, in 1976.

Barbara Jordan was appointed chair of the bi-partisan U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform in 1993 by President Bill Clinton. She served in that role until her death in January 1996. She definitively stated:

Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave."
- Barbara Jordan, February 24, 1995

The Immigration Act of 1990 required that a bipartisan commission be created to examine the impacts of immigration on the United States and to make recommendations on immigration policy. Chair Barbara Jordan held a press conference in 1995 to release the Commission's recommendations on legal immigration. The Commission then issued its final report in 1997. The Jordan Commission specifically called for:

  • an end to Chain Migration,
  • the end of the Visa Lottery,
  • an annual immigration flow of 550,000 new immigrants per year with a focus on highly-skilled workers, the nuclear family members of U.S. citizens and permanent residents,
  • and United States' fair share of refugees and asylees (50,000 per year).

Watch Barbara Jordan's presentation at the 1995 press conference:

 
 
The Jordan Commission Recommendations to Prevent Illegal Immigration, compiled by FAIR, include:
  • Border management needs to be reinforced in order to prevent illegal immigration and facilitate legal entries. Increased resources are necessary for additional Border Patrol officers, inspectors, and operational support.
  • Employment magnets for illegal aliens need to be eliminated through worksite enforcement. Economic gains and employment prospects are major pull factors of immigrants- including over-stayers. As Jordan (1995) noted, "roughly one-half of the nation's illegal alien problem results from visitors who entered legally but who do not leave when their time is up. Let me tell you in three simple words why that is: they get jobs…"
  • Eligibility of illegal aliens for publicly-funded services or assistance (except those made available on an emergency basis) is ruled out: "Decisions about eligibility should support our immigration objectives. Accordingly, the Commission recommended against eligibility for illegal aliens "except in most unusual circumstances" (Jordan 1995).
  • Coordinated strategies with foreign governments to address the causes of illegal immigration in sending countries. This can be done through development programs in an attempt to reduce the push factors of migration. Coordination with Mexico is fundamental, given its geographical proximity to the United States and its large flow of migrants.
  • Increase the capacity in detention centers to facilitate the processing and removal of deportable aliens. A credible immigration policy requires the deportation of immigrants who have no right of residence. Going from the premise that "unlawful immigration is unacceptable," the Commission warned against rewarding illegal aliens. If aliens believe they can remain in the States indefinitely, they will be encouraged to enter or reside illegally.
  • Amnesty is out of the question and "deportation is crucial."
 
The Jordan Commission Recommendations on Immigrant Admissions, compiled by FAIR, include:
  • Reduce immigrant admission by 30 percent (from 822,000 to 550,000 admissions per year).
  • Favor the admission of skilled immigrants instead of admitting immigrants based on extended family relations. The Commission found no justification for the continued entry of low-skilled foreign nationals.
  • End chain migration by allowing immigrants to sponsor only spouses and minor children.
  • Prevent the expansion of guest worker programs for low-skilled workers. The Commission found that low-skilled workers have far too few opportunities open to them: "When immigrants are less well-educated and less skilled, they may pose economic hardships for the most vulnerable of Americans."
  • Eliminate the Visa Lottery (55,000 immigrant visas awarded randomly every year).
  • Scrutinize the basic rules of naturalization. Naturalization should not be an avenue to welfare.
  • Give more attention to the integration process and not just admission policies. The Commission found a great need to emphasize Americanization.

Barbara Jordan emphasized that Americanization (assimilation) was the most important component in the immigration process. She stated in 1995, "That word earned a bad reputation when it was stolen by racists and xenophobes in the 1920s. But it is our word, and we are taking it back."

Barbara Jordan made a number of important statements on immigration policy, some of which include:

The Commission decries hostility and discrimination against immigrants as antithetical to the traditions and interests of this country. At the same time, we disagree with those who would label efforts to control immigration as being inherently anti-immigrant. Rather, it is both a right and a responsibility of a democratic society to manage immigration so that it serves the national interest."
Immigration is far too important to who we are as a nation to become a wedge issue in Presidential politics. We have seen that kind of thing happen before, and it is not productive. I, for one, wish that we would do away with all the hyphenation and just be Americans, together."– February 24, 1995
Immigration policy must protect U.S. workers against unfair competition from foreign workers, with an appropriately higher level of protection to the most vulnerable in our society”– June 28, 1995
Cultural and religious diversity does not pose a threat to the national interest as long as public policies ensure civic unity. Such policies should help newcomers learn to speak, read, and write English effectively. They should strengthen civic education in the teaching of American history for all Americans.... [I]mmigration to the United States should be understood as a privilege, not a right. Immigration carries with it obligations to embrace the common core of the American civic culture, to seek to become able to communicate – to the extent possible – in English with other citizens and residents, and to adapt to fundamental constitutional principles and democratic institutions." – June 28, 1995
As a nation of immigrants committed to the rule of law, this country must set limits on who can enter and back up these limits with effective enforcement of our immigration law." – August 3, 1994
Unless there is a compelling national interest to do otherwise, immigrants should be chosen on the basis of the skills they contribute to the U.S. economy. The Commission believes that admission of nuclear family members and refugees provide such a compelling national interest, even if they are low-skilled. Reunification of adult children and siblings of adult citizens solely because of their family relationship is not as compelling." – June 28, 1995

Read more about Barbara Jordan:

Barbara Jordan’s Vision of Immigration Reform, NumbersUSA.

Barbara Jordan's Legal Immigration Recommendations, NumbersUSA.

The gulf between Barack Obama's immigration stance and Barbara Jordan's, NumbersUSA, November 30, 2012.

Recalling The Americanization Ideal - The Legacy of Barbara Jordan, FAIR.

U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform (2003), FAIR.

 

Books - recommended reading

Here are some books on immigration, population, and sustainability that you might find interesting. This is not an exhaustive list, but it is a fairly comprehensive selection.

 

  Excellent   Huddled Cliches is a short, 59-page, free online book by Lawrence Auster that effectively counters the mindless cliches used by the open borders lobby to further their agenda. The book was written in 1997 and revised in 2008. The immigration issue is still pressing upon the fate of America. Huddled Cliches is definitely worth a read by concerned Americans, especially since it is free! You can read Huddled Cliches in PDF format, or read Huddled Cliches in html format

  Excellent   Illegal Entries by retired Border Patrol Special Agent John Slagle, ISBN 4-4140-4327-9. Available through AuthorHouse.com for $12.50 paperback; $4.50 electronic version.

Illegal Entries is about the U.S. Border Patrol, illegal immigration, narcotics interdictions, terrorist factions and failed political policies spanning three decades. The book recounts first-hand field experience and provides an explanation of why 10 to 12 million illegal aliens are now in the US. Politicians from both parties in Congress, in a quest for cheap labor and votes, created the monster that is devouring the United States from within.

  Excellent   Alien Nation: Common Sense About America's Immigration Disaster, Peter Brimelow; 1996, Harper Perennial Publishers (351p, $13).
Brimelow, an immigrant, maintains that besides the ill effects present immigration has on law enforcement, social service provision, public health, and the environment, it is undermining the sense of the U.S. as a nation. Throughout American history, immigration has occurred, not continuously, but in several waves that have alternated with long periods of assimilation--this is the pattern that built the nation and that the immigration tsunami touched off by the 1965 Immigration Act and complicated by the political resistance to assimilation known as multiculturalism has broken. The U.S. badly needs to drastically reduce immigration now, absorb the last 30 years' worth of new Americans, and rethink its immigration policies. (From Booklist, March 15, 1995).

  America Balkanized: Immigration's Challenge to Government, Brent A. Nelson; American Immigration Control Foundation, Box 525, Monterey, VA 24465, ISBN 0936247142 (148p, $10).

  Excellent  Americans No More, The Death Of Citizenship Georgie Anne Geyer; Atlantic Monthly Press, 1996, ISBN 0-87113-650-3, (352p, $23).
A controversial but much-needed book asking the questions posed by our founding fathers: "What makes an American citizen? Who belongs to the American polity, and why?"

  Blurred Boundaries: Migration, Ethnicity, Citizenship, Rainer Baubock (Ed.), John Rundell (Ed.); Ashgate Publishing, 1999, ISBN 1840148934, ($42).
From the publisher: The underlying theme of the book are new forms of cultural diversity which result from migration and globalization. The book addresses two tasks: 1) To compare different national contexts and types of ethnic groups (immigrant and indigenous, linguistic and religious minorities) and to discuss how policies of multicultural integration have to be adapted in order to cope with such differences. 2) To evaluate the impact of common trends of globalization which link societies and encourage convergence between national models of multicultural integration.

  BIAS: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News, Bernard Goldberg; Regnery Publishing, 2002 (232 p).
Goldberg, an old-fashioned liberal, clearly shows how the media repeatedly ignores their primary mission of objective, disinterested reporting. He blows the whistle on the media and shows how they slant coverage while insisting that they're just reporting the facts.

  Excellent   Coloring the News: How Crusading for Diversity Has Corrupted American Journalism, William McGowan; Encounter Books, 2002, ISBN 1-893554-28-7 (278 p).
McGowan thoroughly examines the premise of newspaper reporters and editors that promoting 'diversity' in the newsroom has produced better reporting and journalism. Instead, quota hiring and 'diversity' reporting practices have discouraged good journalism in favor of biased, one-sided journalism. The overview section alone provides excellent insight into the pervasive problems resulting from the misguided emphasis on 'diversity' reporting today.

  Common Sense on Mass Immigration, The Social Contract Press, 2004 ($1).
This small booklet contains 20 articles on mass immigration. This booklet is an excellent introduction to the topic and is ideal to distribute to those who are not fully informed on the issue.

  Excellent   Elephants in the Volkswagen Lindsay Grant; ed. W.H. Freeman & Co., 1992, ISBN 0-7167-2267-4, $22.95. 0-7167-2268-2 (pbk.), (272p, $13.95). Available from The Social Contract Press, Petoskey, MI 49770, 800.352.4843, ISBN 0-7167-2268-2, (272p, $15).
A series of essays courageously attacking the hard questions about overpopulation. The reader may be surprised to learn that we really can do something about overpopulation.

  Fences and Neighbors: The Political Geography of Immigration Control, Jeannette Money; Cornell Univ Press, 1999, ISBN 0801435706, (264p, $40).
The author draws on detailed evidence from Britain, France, Australia, and the United States, to demonstrate that local support for immigration is contingent upon economic conditions, as also dependent on the number of foreigners entering the country and their access to the welfare state. Only if local constituencies are critical to maintaining a national electoral majority will local pressures be translated into national immigration policies.

  Fifty Million Californians, Leon Bouvier; 1991, ISBN: 1881290247, (93p, $10).
In this state-specific study, Dr. Bouvier outlines the impact of heavy immigration on various states and the disastrous future to which it leads.

  Excellent   Fighting Immigration Anarchy - American Patriots Battle to Save the Nation, Daniel Sheehy; Authorhouse, 2005, ISBN 1-4208-6631-1 (hardcover, $24), ISBN 1-4208-6632-X (softcover, $16), (329 p).
This book is a frightening alarm of the ethnic disorder and financial breakdown that are created by the corrupt political, business, and media elites pursuing a globalist agenda. But the book also provides hope that America can be preserved as a unique nation under the rule of law. The tales of individual citizens seizing the initiative to do the job Washington won’t — protect the country from foreign invasion — are both an inspiration and a playbook. In the spirit of 1776, dedicated patriots show how it’s done, and prove that individual courage still matters.

  Excellent   Fixing the INSanity, Neville W. Cramer, Special Agent, INS (Retired), Immigration Enforcement Solutions, LLC, 2005, ISBN: 0976282003, (197p, $20)

  Florida in the 21st Century, Leon Bouvier; ($11).
In this state-specific study, Dr. Bouvier outlines the impact of heavy immigration on various states and the disastrous future to which it leads.

  Global Futures: Migration, Environment, and Globalization, Avtar Brah (Ed.), Mary J. Hickman (Ed.), Mairtin Mac an Ghaill (Ed.), St Martins Press, 1999, ISBN 0312221355, (288p, $69).

  Excellent   Heaven's Door: Immigration Policy and the American Economy, George J. Borjas; Princeton Univ Press, 1999, ISBN 0691059667, (264p, $28), (review).
The U.S. took in more than a million immigrants per year in the late 1990s, more than at any other time in history. For humanitarian and many other reasons, this may be good news. But as George Borjas shows in Heaven's Door, it's decidedly mixed news for the American economy--and positively bad news for the country's poorest citizens.

  How Many Americans: Population, Immigration, and the Environment, Leon F. Bouvier & Lindsey Grant.
The population of the United States has tripled within this century, and our over-consumption of resources is a leading cause of many international environmental problems including acid rain and global warming. Lowering mass immigration levels becomes necessary in order to achieve environmental sustainability.

  How to Win the Immigration Debate, Scipio Garling; Federation for American Immigration Reform, 1997, ISBN 0935776249, (150p, $5).

  Importing Revolution: Open Borders and the Radical Agenda, William R. Hawkins; American Immigration Control Foundation, Box 525, Monterey, VA 24465, 1994, ISBN 0936247150, (209p, $8).

  Excellent   Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores, Michelle Malkin; Regnery Publishing, 2002, ISBN 0-89526-146-4, (332 p).
An important book and a stunning indictment of how our government lets known terrorists, murders, and criminals into the U.S. Malkin shows how political correctness, liberal bias, and outright fraud have endangered and cost American lives.

Read the transcript of Brian Lamb's interview of Michelle Malkin on C-Span's booknotes.

  Mexican Migration to the United States: The Role of Migration Networks and Human Capital Accumulation, Steven Zahniser; Garland Publishing, 1999, ISBN 0815331991, (250p, $79).
From the Garland Studies in the History of American Labor.

  Mexifornia: A State of Becoming, Victor Davis Hanson, Encounter Books, 2003, ISBN 1893554732.
A valuable and truly insightful analysis; readers genuinely interested in the subject would do well to take in what he has to report.

  Misplaced Blame: The Real Roots of Population Growth, Alan Thein Durning and Christopher D. Crowther; Northwest Environment Watch; ISBN 1886093059, (1997).
The authors argue that much of the population growth overrunning parts of North America springs from rarely-noted root causes: poverty, sexual abuse, underfunded family planning services, subsidies to domestic migration, and ill-guided immigration policy. From Center for Immigration Studies: Each chapter identifies one "root" of population growth, including Root 5, Misguided Immigration Laws. While strongly defending immigrants' rights, the report notes that supporting recent immigrants is not the same as supporting open-throttle immigration, and concludes that proper immigration reform would end up closing the immigration door quite a bit --perhaps reducing immigration rates by half, perhaps by more.

  Excellent   Overshoot, The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change, William R. Catton, Jr.; University of Illinois Press, 1980, ISBN 0-252-00818-9 (hard cover), (270p, $30), ISBN 0-252-00988-6 (paperback).
An important book - well written with a rich bibliography.

  Population Growth -- The Neglected Dimension of America's Persistent Energy/Environmental Problems by Leon Kolankiewicz , NumbersUSA Education and Research Foundation

  Population Growth Control: The Next Move is America's, Stephen D. Mumford; 1977, ISBN 0802222005, (out of print).

  Excellent   Re-charting America's Future: Responses to Arguments Against Stabilizing U.S. Population, Roy Beck; The Social Contract Press, Petoskey, MI 49770, 1994, 800.352.4843, ISBN 1881780066, (217p, $10).
Examines the arguments used to justify federal immigration policies that force U.S. population growth, both of which are opposed by the majority of Americans.

  Immigration Statistics: Information Gaps, Quality Issues Limit Utility of Federal Data to Policymakers, Eric M. Larson; Diane Publishing, ISBN: 0788177338, (87 p, $20), (order directly from publisher).

  Excellent  Stalking the Wild Taboo, Garret Hardin; Social Contract Press; ISBN 1881780112, (376p, $16).
This first volume in the Garrett Hardin Reprint Series has over sixty pages of new material including a new preface and three never-before-published essays. Dr. Hardin undertakes to shatter the misconceptions that haunt and confuse many of the most important topics of our times.

  State Profiles: The Population & Economy of Each U.S. State (State Profiles, 1999), Courtenay M. Slater (Ed.), Martha Davis; Bernan Associates, 1999, ISBN 0890591598, (450p, $65).
Locate economic and demographic data for each U.S. state presented in compact, standardized state chapters using charts, tables and interpretive text. Population, income, employment, earnings by industry, education, exports and government finances are among the topics covered. The standardized format facilitates easy comparisons of data among the states. Comparable national and regional data also are included.

  Excellent     The Case Against Immigration, Roy Beck; W.W. Norton & Co., 1996, ISBN 0-393-03915-3, (287p, $24). This book is not anti-immigrant, but makes a convincing case that the impact of mass immigration is devastating and the need for new legislation urgent.

  The Death of the West, Patrick J. Buchanan; St. Martin's Press, 2002, ISBN 0-312-28548-5 (308p, $26).

The Environmentalist's Guide to a Sensible Immigration Policy Scipio Garling, Ira Mehlman; Federation for American Immigration Reform, 1999, ISBN 0-935776-26-5, (63 p, $10).
A well-written and easily-read booklet presenting the environmental impacts of the population and mass immigration problem.

  The Immigration Debate, Ed. James P. Smith; National Academy Press, 1998, ISBN 0309059984, (300p, $47). [This book is available online - see The Impact of Recent Immigration on Population Redistributrion Within the United States.
Includes case studies of the fiscal effects of immigration in New Jersey and California, studies of the impact of immigration on population redistribution and on crime in the United States, and much more.

  Excellent   The Immigration Dilemma: Avoiding the Tragedy of the Commons, Garrett Hardin; Federation For Immigration Reform, ISBN 0-935776-15-X, 1995, (140p, $5).
This collection of Hardin's writings shows how timely his warnings have been that too many people pursuing scarce resources spell ultimate disaster. A sorely-needed moral compass on the issues of immigration.

  Mechanics of Immigration Control: A Comparative Analysis of European Regulation Policies, Tomas Hammar, Grete Brochmann; New York University Press, 1999, ISBN 1859732674, (316p, $65).

  The Immigration Invasion, Wayne Lutton & John Tanton; 1994, The Social Contract Press, Petoskey, MI 49770, 800.352.4843, (190p, $5).
The authors present an ethical framework for setting immigration policy, followed by detailed and specific recommendations for changes.

  The Life and Death of NSSM 200 ("National Security Study Memorandum 200") - How the Destruction of Political Will Doomed a U.S. Population Policy, Stephen D. Mumford, Center for Research on Population and Security, P.O. Box 13067, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709, 919.933.7491, ISBN 093730705X, (580p. hard cover: $43, paper: $19).
Read the overview! (The full text and summary is also available at www.pop.org/students/nssm200.html).

  The Path To National Suicide, Lawrence Auster; American Immigration Control Foundation, PO Box 525, Monterey, VA 24465, 1990, ISBN 0-936247-12-6, (94p).

  Thirty Million Texans, Leon Bouvier; ISBN 1881290204, (93p, $11). In this state-specific study, Dr. Bouvier outlines the impact of heavy immigration on various states and the disastrous future to which it leads.

  Unguarded Gates - A History of America's Immigration Crisis by Otis L. Graham, Jr. (Rowman & Littlefield, 2004, ISBN 0-7425-2228-8). (Read reviews on Amazon.com).

  Unwelcome Strangers: American Identity and the Turn Against Immigration, David M. Reimers; Columbia Univ Press, 1999, ISBN 0231109571, ($18).
A definitive history of the current immigration reduction movement. This book discusses both sides of the economic, social, and environmental arguments against mass immigration. Excellent reading for both historians and current policy makers.

  Whatever It Takes, J. D. Hayworth, Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2006, ISBN 089526028X, (256 p, $18). An excellent and informative read exposing the illegal immigration and border security crisis. (Review).

  World Population, Leon F. Bouvier, Jane T. Bertrand; Seven Locks Press, 1999, ISBN: 0929765664, (203 p, $13).
"Readable, insightful, scholarly, and objective. Whatever your view on population growth, few disagree that it presents the future with some major challenges. An important book about a fast developing, worldwide problem." -- Richard D. Lamm.
"Bouvier and Bertrand's new book offers a measured and informed appraisal - for those who would prefer to actually understand." -- Michael S. Teitelbaum.

  World War III, Population and the Biosphere At the End of the Millennium, Michael Tobias; Continuum Pub Group, 1997, ISBN 0826410855, (300p, $16); (review essay). Also available from DESIP bookstore.
Tobias argues that humanity is waging a war of aggression against the planet. He travels around China, Indonesia, India, Kenya, the US, and Antarctica and returns, laden with fact and anecdote, to tell us that there are too many of us and that rapine economic development is killing the planet. At current birth and death rates, the world is adding a Los Angeles every three weeks. Tobias is both knowledgeable and passionate in his presentation.

Cloward–Piven strategy - fundamentally transforming America

What is the Cloward–Piven strategy?

The Cloward–Piven strategy was developed in 1966 by Americans Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven - both sociologists and political activists. The Cloward–Piven strategy focused on overloading the United States public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis, which would ultimately lead to replacing the welfare system with a national system of "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty".

An ancillary consequence of the strategy includes shoring up of the Democratic Party, which at the time was splintered by pluralistic interests. Another side effect would be relieving local and state governments of public welfare burdens, since the burden would be shifted to the federal government - in other words, in a manifestation of socialism. Taxpayers, of course, would cover the cost in either case.

Cloward and Piven focused primarily on redistribution of income, stating that full enrollment in welfare programs:

"would produce bureaucratic disruption in welfare agencies and fiscal disruption in local and state governments" that would: "...deepen existing divisions among elements in the big-city Democratic coalition: the remaining white middle class, the working-class ethnic groups and the growing minority poor. To avoid a further weakening of that historic coalition, a national Democratic administration would be constrained to advance a federal solution to poverty that would override local welfare failures, local class and racial conflicts and local revenue dilemmas."...

The ultimate objective of this strategy—to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income—will be questioned by some. Because the ideal of individual social and economic mobility has deep roots, even activists seem reluctant to call for national programs to eliminate poverty by the outright redistribution of income.

Near-term effects of the Cloward–Piven strategy

In a new 2010 introduction to the original article, Frances Fox Piven wrote in The Nation:

Our objective was not, as later critics of the Glenn Beck variety later charged, to propose a strategy to bring down American capitalism. We were not so ambitious. But we did think that the minority poor and their allies might create sufficient disturbance to force reforms in the American income support programs. And we were not entirely wrong.

Political commentator James McWhorter wrote in his 2006 book Winning the Race that the rise in the welfare state after the 1960s could be attributed to the Cloward Piven strategy. He reported that the strategy unfortunately "created generations of black people for whom working for a living is an abstraction."

Whether or not the above point is wholly true, the strategy has affected change, as noted by Piven,. 

Long-term effects of the Cloward–Piven strategy

The strategy, while originally intended to bring about a socialistic guaranteed national income, remains a viable way to transform an entire nation. Indeed, many of the changes we see in America today are consistent within the framework of the Cloward–Piven strategy. A few examples are provided follow:

1965 Immigration Act

The 1965 Immigration Act marked the turning point when American immigration was no longer managed for the American interest. In his article The Collapse of America - A Plan Decades in the Making, David Risselada states:

In my article "Amnesty and the Immigration Act of 1965", I discussed the origins of the immigration crisis we are now facing and how it was nothing but a plot to secure more voters for the Democrat Party. This was based on the ideas of Marxism and the teachings of Antonio Gramsci, who taught that America's culture would have to be changed incrementally from within. The immigration act of 1965 was signed into law by Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson. This is the same president who promised Americas black communities free welfare for their votes...

At the time America's immigration laws were based on a quota system, meaning that immigrants from any part of the world were allowed in based on the number of existing immigrants already in country from that part of the world. This was done in an effort to maintain national identity and ensure that people with useful skills and a desire to assimilate into our culture would be the ones to immigrate here. This meant that most of the people who were immigrating here were of European ancestry and just as is the case today, people referred to this as a racist system...

It should be noted that this act resulted in ever-increasing numbers of foreigners - both legal and illegal - entering America who would become dependent on America's generous taxpayer-paid welfare system.

2008 financial crisis

From the article: Chandler: The Cloward-Piven strategy, The Washington Times, October 15, 2008.

There is plenty blame to go around for the financial crash. Yet, there is a distinct odor of the shadowy Cloward-Piven strategy as the taproot of abusive practices that triggered the crisis. The strategy’s goal is to bring about the fall of capitalism by overloading and undermining government bureaucracy.

Its supporting tactics include flooding government with impossible demands until it slowly cranks to a stop; overloading electoral systems with successive tidal waves of new voters, many of them bogus; shaking down banks, politicians in Congress, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development for affirmative-action borrowing; and, now, pulling down the national financial system by demanding exotic, subprime mortgages for low-income Americans with little hope of repaying their loans. These toxic mortgages are an important source of the foul smell engulfing the entire financial bailout...

Stanley Kurtz of the Ethics and Public Policy Center explained that "community organizers help to undermine America’s economy by pushing the banking system into a sink-hole of bad loans."...

2014 Border crisis - Unaccompanied Alien Children

In Summer 2014, a massive influx of unaccompanied alien children (UACs) inundated our southern border.  Barak Obama's immigration actions (or lack thereof) seemed to be an efficacious implementation of the Cloward–Piven strategy. Elizabeth Lee Vliet, M.D. warned that "Carried by this tsunami of illegals are the invisible “travelers” our politicians don’t like to mention: diseases the U.S. had controlled or virtually eradicated: tuberculosis (TB), Chagas disease, dengue fever, hepatitis, malaria, measles, plus more."

Obama invited these minors into the US. He has virtually gutted America's immigration enforcement system, and has taken even more outrageous executive actions. Of course, both political parties are culpable, as there is an active bipartisan amnesty exponent in Congress.

The 2014 border crisis was a manufactured crisis of the first order, which in the short term backfired. Virginia voters immediately fired House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), predominantly because he signed on to the Republican amnesty plan and expressed intent to work with Obama on a "Kids Act"  for Dreamers. But the long-term damage remains. 

2015 Syrian refugees - importing terrorism

After the November 2015 Paris Islamic terrorist attacks, Obama recommitted to bring Syrian "refugees" into the United States. This was notwithstanding the facts that a sizeable proportion are not from Syria, a majority are young men of military age, and that the U.S. government has no way to vet those coming in as "refugees".

Such refugees would become an additional burden on American taxpayers and could indeed comprise a very real terrorist threat.

Read more - see Syrian refugees and national security the Refugee Resettlement racket.

The end result - fundamentally transforming America

In the 2014 article, Why the White House Wants Amnesty, Ben Shapiro writes:

Cloward-Piven’s goal was to create impetus for government to guarantee a universal living. The modern Democratic Party is significantly less interested in guaranteed benefits than for an economic leveling. The motivating factor of the left is not caring for the poor but tearing down the wealthy...

And so the Democrats will move to bankrupt the system. No welfare state can survive with open borders. That is a truism. And yet that’s exactly what Democrats are now promoting: open borders with a full welfare state. Why? Not because Democrats believe that the homegrown poor in America will be better off with more people joining them on the dole; they won’t. Rather, Democrats love the size and scope of the state and despise the rival the state faces in individual success. A growing welfare base requires higher taxation, more degradation of individual success. That is the goal...

The Cloward–Piven strategy remains an active instrument of change in America. Ultimately, it is the tool by which multicultural elites aim to "fundamentally transform America."

 

References

The Collapse of America - A Plan Decades in the Making, David Risselada, Freedom Outpost, July 16, 2014. (This article contains a many additional references.)

The Cloward–Piven strategy, Richard Chandler, The Washington Times, October 15, 2008.

The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty, Richard Cloward and Frances Piven, The Nation, March 8, 2010 (original 1966 article with updated introduction).

The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty, Richard Cloward and Frances Piven, Common Dreams, March 24, 2010 (original 1966 article from The Nation).

Bad News for Liberals May Be Good News for a Liberal Magazine, Jeremy W. Peters, The New York Times, November 7, 2010.

John McWhorter: How Welfare Went Wrong NPR, John McWhorter, August 9, 2006.

Chandler: The Cloward-Piven strategy, Robert Chandler, The Washington Times, October 15, 2008.

Cloward-Piven at the border, John Hayward, Human Events, June 10, 2014.

Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) - Illegal alien kiddie colonists invited by Obama administration, CAIRCO, August 21, 2014.

Deadly diseases crossing border with illegals, Elizabeth Lee Vliet, M.D., World Net Daily, June 20, 2014.

Colorado won't block Syrian refugees, November 17, 2015.

Syrian refugees and national security.

The Refugee Resettlement racket.

Colorado legislative process

Here is basic information on the Colorado legislative process. The legislative session begins in January and lasts 120 days. During the session, bills will be introduced. In general, deadline requirements require bills to be introduced by the end of January.

After a bill is introduced, it will be heard before committee. At least one of the committee hearings will allow public testimony, where elected public servants' bosses (citizens of Colorado - that's you) can give a three-minute testimony in favor of or in opposition to a bill.

You can also contact cosponsors of bills and find opponents of a bill to express your position on the bill.

More information:

See this diagram on how a bill becomes Colorado law.

Find bills in the Colorado Legislature.

Here is the deadline schedule for the 2014 Colorado General Assembly.

Here are Colorado legislative committees. See information on committee meetings both during legislative session and during the interim. 

Here is how to contact Colorado state legislators in your district / city / county.

Sign up for CAIRCO alerts on immigration issues.

Congressional voting records and grade cards

In order to track U.S. Congressional voting on immigration issues, FAIR issues periodic Voting Reports. Here are voting reports from the 114th Congress, First Session (January, 2016): House and Senate.

NumbersUSA also produces comprehensive Congressional Immigration-Reduction Grades. Here are the Congressional immigration grades for Colorado.

Here is how to contact your US Senators and Representatives from Colorado. Here is how to contact Colorado state legislators in your district / city / county.

Delphi Technique - how to manipulate public meetings

Tags: 

Public meetings concerning refugee resettlement can be covertly manipulated in order to achieve precise results desired by the facilitator. This method is being used in several settings to short-circuit legitimate concerns of local residents regarding forced resettlement of Syrian refugees in their communities.


How many refugees does your state accept?

As pointed out in the article Beware the Delphi Technique! This time in Billings, Montana, a Billings Montana Presbyterian Church plans to hold a community meeting about Syrian refugees. The Delphi Technique will be used to implicitly manipulate the outcome of the meeting:

"Participants will join in small groups, with some members in favor of settling Syrian refugees in Montana and others who are concerned about the safety and security of citizens if Syrian refugees are permitted. A facilitator will encourage each person to tell his or her story and background, after which participants will explore any areas of common agreement. [Keep in mind that this ‘story and background’ mumbo jumbo is just one more strategy used to play on your emotions and stop logical debate.—ed]"

The Delphi Technique was developed in the 1950s by the RAND Corporation for the U.S. Department of Defense. It was originally intended as a psychological weapon for use during the cold war. However, the technique is effective in manipulating any meeting toward a predetermined end. The steps of the technique include:

  1. The facilitator (the change agent) must be someone with whom most of the audience can identify.
  2. The facilitator initially identifies potential opponents and frames them as foolish, aggressive, etc., thus warming the rest of the audience to the facilitator.
  3. The audience is broken into six or eight discussion groups, with topics chosen by the facilitator. Typically, members are asked to write down concerns and turn them in to the facilitator.
  4. The facilitator selects only concerns from the compilation that are consistent with the desired outcome. These concerns are then addressed in the final discussion, which ultimately supports the desired results. 
  5. The participants and the community at large are told that the conclusions reached at the meeting were the result of open public participation. 

Here is more information about the Delphi Technique:

The Delphi Technique: Let's Stop Being Manipulated! by Albert V. Burns, Virginia Land Rights Coalition. This article describes the technique and includes approaches that can be used to neutralize the technique, which include:
  • Never, never lose your temper!
  • Stay focused! Write down your questions and statements in advance.
  • Facilitators are trained to twist things to make anyone not acceding to their agenda look foolish or aggressive. Wait until the facilitator finishes speaking and then bring them back to your question. Be persistent!
  • Go with like-minded people, but don't sit together as a group. When the facilitator avoids addressing your question and moves to someone else in the audience, another compatriot can ask a related question.
  • Turn the technique back on the facilitator and isolate them as the kook.
  • As noted in the article below, do not congregate during recesses. Spotters will infiltrate dissident groups and report back to the facilitator, who will then avoid calling on those individuals.

Using the Delphi Technique to Achieve Consensus - How it is leading us away from representative government to an illusion of citizen participation, Education Reporter, Eagle Forum, 1998:

The Delphi Technique and consensus building are both founded in the same principle - the Hegelian dialectic of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, with synthesis becoming the new thesis. The goal is a continual evolution to "oneness of mind" (consensus means solidarity of belief) - the collective mind, the wholistic society, the wholistic earth, etc. In thesis and antithesis, opinions or views are presented on a subject to establish views and opposing views. In synthesis, opposites are brought together to form the new thesis. All participants in the process are then to accept ownership of the new thesis and support it, changing their views to align with the new thesis. Through a continual process of evolution, "oneness of mind" will supposedly occur.

In group settings, the Delphi Technique is an unethical method of achieving consensus on controversial topics. It requires well-trained professionals, known as "facilitators" or "change agents," who deliberately escalate tension among group members, pitting one faction against another to make a preordained viewpoint appear "sensible," while making opposing views appear ridiculous...

The Delphi Technique works. It is very effective with parents, teachers, school children, and community groups. The "targets" rarely, if ever, realize that they are being manipulated. If they do suspect what is happening, they do not know how to end the process. The facilitator seeks to polarize the group in order to become an accepted member of the group and of the process. The desired idea is then placed on the table and individual opinions are sought during discussion. Soon, associates from the divided group begin to adopt the idea as if it were their own, and they pressure the entire group to accept their proposition...

While the Delphi Technique can be used to achieve a hidden agenda that is in opposition to public interest, it is most certainly an unethical technique when used in the context of public meetings. The means of defeating the technique are awareness of its use, and a few simple steps as noted above.

E-Verify program

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 prohibits employers from knowingly hiring illegal workers. To comply with this law, employers must collect information regarding an employee's identity and employment eligibility and document that information on Form I-9. An employee must provide certain information on the form, such as name and date of birth, as well as present supporting documents.

E-Verify is an Internet-based system that allows businesses to determine the eligibility of their employees to work in the United States. E-Verify offers employers a powerful tool in protecting themselves against those who try to cheat the system. The E-verify program verifies the status of newly hired employees, while the IMAGE certification program examines older hiring records in order to detect phony documents used by illegal alien workers.

E-Verify is fast, free and easy to use, and it's the best way employers can ensure a legal workforce. E-Verify compares information from an employee's Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, to data from U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration records to confirm employment eligibility.

U.S. law requires companies to employ only individuals who may legally work in the United States - either U.S. citizens, or foreign citizens who have the necessary authorization.

More than 409,000 employers, large and small, across the United States use E-Verify to check the employment eligibility of their employees, with about 1,300 new businesses signing up each week.

While participation in E-Verify is voluntary for most businesses, some companies may be required by state law or federal regulation to use E-Verify. For example, most employers in Arizona and Mississippi are required to use E-Verify. E-Verify is also mandatory for employers with federal contracts or subcontracts that contain the Federal Acquisition Regulation E-Verify clause.

E-Verify's most impressive features are its speed and accuracy. E-Verify is the only service that verifies employees' data against millions of government records and provides results within seconds. There's no other program that provides the same peace of mind in such little time.

E-Verify compares the information an employee provides on Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, against millions of government records and generally provides results in three to five seconds. If the information matches, that employee is eligible to work in the United States. If there's a mismatch, E-Verify will alert the employer and the employee will be allowed to work while he or she resolves the problem.

How E-Verify works

E-Verify is closely linked to Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, and exists to strengthen the Form I-9 employment eligibility verification process that all employers, by law, must follow. While participation in E-Verify is voluntary for most employers, completion of Form I-9 is required of all employers.

E-Verify works by comparing information entered from an employee's Form I-9 to 455 million Social Security Administration (SSA) records and 80 million U.S. Department of Homeland Security records.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security databases contain records about employment-based visas, immigration and naturalization status, and U.S. passport issuance, which allow E-Verify to compare information against a wide variety of sources.

By adding E-Verify to the existing Form I-9 employment eligibility verification process, a company can benefit from the peace of mind of knowing that it maintains a legal workforce.

Before a company can use E-Verify to verify the employment eligibility of its employees, the company and employee must first complete Form I-9. All of the Form I-9 rules that companies followed before signing up for E-Verify still apply with two exceptions.

  • Employees must provide their Social Security numbers on Form I-9. (Providing a Social Security number on Form I-9 is voluntary unless the employer participates in E-Verify.)
  • Any List B document that employees present must contain a photo. (Some List B documents without photos are acceptable unless the employer participates in E-Verify.)

Once Form I-9 is completed, the company enters the information from Form I-9 into E Verify. Depending on the documents an employee provides, the employer may have to compare a photo displayed on a computer screen to the photo on the employee's document. The photos should match, which ensures the document photo is genuine and hasn't been altered.

Once the information has been entered and submitted, E-Verify will compare it against millions of government records. If the information entered matches, E-Verify will return an "Employment Authorized" result. This confirms the employee is authorized to work in the United States. After printing the results page and attaching it to the employee's Form I-9 (or recording the employee's E-Verify case verification number on the form itself), the employer simply closes the case to complete the E-Verify process.

If there is  a mismatch, E-Verify will return a "Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC)" result. If this happens, the employer needs to print and review a notice with the employee that explains the cause of the mismatch and what it means for the employee.

If the employee decides to contest the mismatch, the employer will refer the case in E-Verify to the appropriate agency (either the U.S. Department of Homeland Security or Social Security Administration) and print a letter that it must give to the employee. The letter contains important instructions and contact information that the employee will need to resolve the mismatch. The employee then has eight federal government work days from the date the case was referred in E-Verify to resolve the problem.

E-Verify will alert the employer of an update in the employee's case. If the employee successfully resolves the mismatch, E-Verify will return a result of employment authorized. If the employee doesn't resolve the mismatch, E-Verify will return a final nonconfirmation result. Only after an employee receives a final nonconfirmation may an employer terminate an employee based on E-Verify.

In rare cases, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security or the Social Security Administration might need more time to verify the employee's employment eligibility.

When this happens, E-Verify will return a case in continuance result. When an employee's case is in continuance the employer must allow the employee to continue to work until E-Verify gives a final result of "Employment Authorized" or a "Final Nonconfirmation."

This page provides general information about E-Verify and is meant to provide an overview of the program. For instructions and policy guidance, visit the For Employers and For Employees sections of the website.

Business-Friendly E-Verify Features

Companies are already required by law to complete Form I-9 for each newly hired employee, and E-Verify works seamlessly with the Form I-9 process to confirm employment eligibility.

  • Secure 24-hour access: Access E-Verify anytime, anywhere with no special software required. All that is needed is a Web browser and Internet access.
  • Instant results: Employment eligibility results for most employees are displayed in three to five seconds.
  • Error checking: E-Verify can alert employees to mismatches and possible errors in their government records. Clearing up errors sooner rather than later saves employees time and frustration down the road.
  • Photo matching: E-Verify features a photo matching tool to combat document fraud and ensure the documents that employees present are genuine.
  • Compliance peace of mind: Companies that properly use E-Verify get a rebuttable presumption that they are in compliance with Form I-9 and employment eligibility laws.
  • User access flexibility: With two different user roles to choose from, companies can select what their users can see and do in E-Verify.
  • Usage reports: E-Verify offers companies the ability to monitor usage to assist with their compliance efforts.
  • Implementation flexibility: With E-Verify, companies can decide their participation on a location-by-location basis (state laws and federal regulations may limit use of this feature).
  • Support for large companies: E-Verify offers features through its corporate administrator access method that allow companies to link and manage their locations that use E-Verify.
  • Interactive training: E-Verify offers a comprehensive online tutorial as well as quick reference guides, user manuals and other publications to assist users.
  • Customer service: You're never on your own with E-Verify. E-Verify customer support is available to provide you with technical and program assistance.

More information about E-Verify

US Citizenship and Immigration Services E-Verify resources.

Questions and Answers about E-Verify by NumbersUSA.

USCIS E-Verify Employers Search Tool. The tool is simple to use, but the biggest problem here is knowing the legal name of the company and their E-Verify address. You might call the company and ask for their company name and legal address, and while you are at it, ask if they use E-Verify. If they don't, ask how they make sure their workers are legal. Let them know it is important to you.

The federal contractor E-Verify list is not easy to use as it does not list by state or by alphabetical order. Colorado's State contractors are required to use E-Verify. See if the contractors on your bid list do business with the state.

Another perspective: E-Verify And The Deep Duplicity Of Our Government On Immigration, John Derbyshire, VDare, April 16, 2016.

Exponential growth, doubling time, and the Rule of 70

Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist"
- Kenneth Boulding

Exponential growth is growth that occurs at a constant rate, such as an investment that grows at an annual 7 percent rate. The Rule of 70 provides a quick and easy way to determine how long it will take for an amount to double at a given growth rate. Simply divide the percentage number into 70 to obtain the approximate number of years required to double. A more detailed description is given below.

Populations can grow at a constant rate, thus the Rule of 70 can be used to approximate the doubling time of a population that is growing at a fixed rate of growth. 

Human population has generally grown in an exponential manner throughout human history, and projections of exponential doubling times have been applicable.

Current dynamics of population growth are more complex and population growth can no longer be considered to be precisely exponential. Population issues of the 21st Century include migration and immigration, aging, Baby Boomers and the youth bulge, as well as continued population growth in developing countries - all of which result in pressure on sustaining resources and the environment.

Many countries will continue to double their population. The United States is projected to double its population this century, practically within the lifetimes of children born today. Therefore it is appropriate to reference the time in which these countries will double their population. Doubling time is perhaps the most illuminating manner of presenting population growth to the lay person. However, it should be noted that the explanations below refer to a constant rate of growth, which as we note, is not as applicable to countries now as it was in the past.

Exponential Growth

A quantity grows exponentially when its increase is proportional to what is already there. A common example is compound interest, where $100 invested at 7% per year annual compound interest will double in 10 years. Similarly, if a population grows at 7% per year, it, too, will double in 10 years.

Exponential growth has surprising consequences. $100 invested at a 7% annual return will double in 10 years to approximately $200, double in another 10 years to approximately $400, and double again in the next 10 years to approximately $800. Significant gains can be made by simply relying on exponential growth over time. One way of saying this is that the longer you wait on your investment, the faster your returns come in. In the following graph, you can see that over time, returns increase dramatically.

Exponential interest growth graph

There are also clear disadvantages to exponential growth. When populations continue to grow, the impact of growth becomes increasingly significant over time. Because of the nature of exponential growth, "when things get bad, they get bad in a hurry".

Consider a city with 100,000 people, growing at 7% per year. In 10 years, the population will double to 200,000 people, in another 10 years it will double again to 400,000 people, and ten years after that it will double again to 800,000 people. The following graph shows this exponential population growth. The shape of the curve is identical to the interest rate graph above!

Exponential population growth graph

The Rule of 70

The Rule of 70 states that to find the doubling time of a quantity growing at a given annual percentage rate, divide the percentage number into 70 to obtain the approximate number of years required to double. For example, at a 10% annual growth rate, doubling time is 70 / 10 = 7 years.

Similarly, to get the annual growth rate, divide 70 by the doubling time. For example, 70 / 14 years doubling time = 5, or a 5% annual growth rate.

Doubling times

The following table shows some common doubling times:

Growth Rate
(% per year)
Doubling Time
in years
0.1 700
0.5 140
1 70
2 35
3 23
4 18
5 14
6 12
7 10
10 7

 

Understanding Exponential Growth

Interactive tutorial on Understanding Exponential Growth

World Population Balance has prepared an excellent interactive tutorial on exponential growth: Understanding Exponential Growth.


The Math Behind the Rule of 70

The use of natural logs arises from integrating the basic differential equation for exponential growth: dN/dt = rN, over the period from t=0 to t = the time period in question, where N is the quantity growing and r is the growth rate.

The integral of that equation is:

N(t) = N(0) x ert

where N(t) is the size of a quantity after t intervals have elapsed, N(0) is the initial value of the quantity, e is the base of the natural logarithm, r is the average growth rate over the interval in question, and t is the number of intervals. Natural logarithms (that is, logarithms to the base e) come in from this integration. Natural logs are sometimes abbreviated ln to distinguish them from "common" logarithms of base 10.

In our case, t is usually given in years and r is the average annual growth rate. However, the formula works for seconds, weeks, centuries, etc.

The ratio of the final to the initial values of N is N(t)/N(0), and is equal to ert power. (Dividing through by N(0).)

The natural logarithm of the ratio N(t)/N(0) is equal to rt. (Taking the natural log of e raised to a power is simply the power itself.)

The growth rate r is then given by natural log N(t)/N(0) divided by t.

Alternatively, if one knows the final and initial values of N and the average growth rate, one can find the time it takes at that average growth rate for the quantity to grow from its initial value to the final value.

t = ln [ N(t)/N(0) ] / r

A special case is the doubling time, which is the time when N(t)/N(0) = 2, that is the quantity has doubled from its initial value. At that point

rt = ln 2 = 0.69

If one knows the growth rate as a decimal fraction, then the doubling time t2 = 0.69 / r.

If the growth rate is given in percent, then 0.69 must be multiplied by 100, and the doubling time = 69/r. This is the origin of the rule of 70, i.e., 69 is rounded up to 70.

For the results to be accurate, all of these calculations assume that the growth rate remains unchanged throughout the interval in question, that is, that the growth is exponential at the average rate for the entire period. Most quantities don't really grow that way (compound interest is an exception), so this method is generally an approximation for the real world.

When considering growth over a period of years, it is important to note that taking the natural logarithm of the ratio of the final value to the initial value and dividing by the time period in years gives the average annual growth rate.

For example, metro Denver population grew 15% from 1990 to 1996. The simple arithmetic average of growth is 2.5% per year (15% / 6 years = 2.5%/year). Strictly speaking the rule of 70 applies to exponential growth, which means that the compound average population growth rate must be divided into 70 to get the doubling time.

The compound average growth rate involves natural logarithms. To find the compound growth rate, take the natural log of the ratio of the final to the initial populations and divide this by 6 years. 15% growth means that the ratio of final to initial populations is 1.15. (The final population is 115% of the initial population, considered to be 100%; 115% / 100% = 1.15.) The natural log of 1.15 is 0.14. Dividing 0.14 by 6 years = 0.023/year, or an average geometric increase of 2.3% / year.

Finally, divide 70 by 2.3 to give a doubling time of 30 years.

Fertility and Population Momentum

US Population

China and India are the world's two most populous countries. The United States, with a population of over 315 million is the third most populated country. (See the Census Bureau population clock). The US has highest population growth rate of all industrialized countries.1

Fertility - Children per Woman

Fertility is defined as the average number of children per woman over the woman's lifetime. Fertility tends to be higher in less developed countries than in industrialized countries.

Replacement level fertility in the United States is approximately 2.1 children per woman (slightly higher than 2 because of child mortality). Women in the United States voluntarily achieved replacement level fertility in 1972. Yet US population has continued to grow because of two factors: mass immigration and population momentum.

Population Momentum

Population Momentum Population momentum is the tendency for population to continue to grow even after replacement-level fertility (2.1 children per woman) has been achieved. It is caused by a relatively high concentration of people in their childbearing years - that is, by a population that is age-biased toward youth.

It takes a period of time equal to the average life expectancy (approximately three generations or 73 years in the U.S.) for a reduction in fertility to be manifested as a change in actual population numbers. The following graph shows how population keeps growing long after fertility is reduced.

U.S. fertility first dropped to slightly below replacement level fertility in 1972. Because of population momentum, however, U.S. population would have continued to increase to 255 million by 2020 - without any additional immigration - and then would have gradually declined.2,3,4

It is therefore crucial that this time delay be considered when targeting future population numbers and that steps to reduce fertility are taken sooner rather than later. Any attempt to achieve U.S. population stabilization must consider the long-term impact of both birth rates as well as immigration.

Precise definitions of terms

Fertility:

(1) The actual reproductive performance of an individual, a couple, a group, or a population. See general fertility rate.

(2) The term fertility is used instead of natality when births are put in relation with the number of women of fertile age. The fertility of a generation can be summarized by completed fertility and mean age at childbirth, whereas the total period fertility rate measures the fertility rate for the year.

General Fertility Rate: The number of live births per 1,000 women ages 15-44 or 15-49 years in a given year.

Total Fertility Rate (TFR):

(1) The average number of children that would be born alive to a woman (or group of women) during her lifetime if she were to pass through her childbearing years conforming to the age-specific fertility rates of a given year. This rate is sometimes stated as the number of children women are having today. See also gross reproduction rate and net reproduction rate.

(2) An estimate of the average number of children that would be born to each woman if the current age-specific birth rates remained constant.

(3) A hypothetical estimate of completed fertility. It indicates how many births a woman would have by the end of her reproductive life, if, for all of her childbearing years, she was to experience the age-specific birth rates for that given year. (From U.S. Census Bureau Fertility of American Women: June 2000).

References

1. Population Reference Bureau World Population Data Sheet, various years. 

2. Demographer Leon Bouvier, Tulane University, www.NumbersUSA.com "U.S. Overpopulation Facts".

3. National Audubon Society Population and Habitat Campaign Fact sheet on population momentum

4. U.S. Birth Rates and Population Growth, www.SUSPS.org.

5. World Fertility - The World's Most Important Graph.

How to report tax fraud, social security fraud, and illegal aliens

How to report Social Security fraud

  • Use the Social Security Administration online Fraud Reporting form;
  • Call the Fraud Hotline number at 1-800-269-0271 (TTY 1-866-501-2101) between 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday;
  • Fax the SSA at: 410-597-0118, or
  • Write to: Social Security OIG Hotline
    P.O. Box 17785
    Baltimore, Maryland 21235-7785.

For more information, see Reporting Social Security fraud.

How to report tax fraud

If you suspect or know of an individual or company that is not complying with tax law, you may report this activity by completing IRS Form 3949-A. You may fill out Form 3949-A online, print it and mail it to:

  • Internal Revenue Service
  • Fresno, CA 93888

If you do not wish to use Form 3949-A, you may send a letter to the address above. Please include the following information, if available:

  • Name and address of the person you are reporting
  • The taxpayer identification number (social security number for an individual or employer identification number for a business)
  • A brief description of the alleged violation, including how you became aware of or obtained the information
  • The years involved
  • The estimated dollar amount of any unreported income
  • Your name, address and daytime telephone number


Although you are not required to identify yourself, it is helpful to do so. Your identity can be kept confidential.

For more information, see How Do You Report Suspected Tax Fraud Activity?

How to report illegal aliens

If you suspect someone of being an illegal alien who snuck into our country and evaded apprehension at our border, you can quickly and easily file a report to government agencies at the (non-government) website www.ReportIllegals.com. Depending on the data you provide, ReportIllegals.com will in most cases file a report to ICE and in many cases to federal agencies such as CIS, CBP, DOL, DEA, DSS, FBI, HUD, IRS, SSA, TSA, or other foreign, federal, state, county and local governmental agencies.

To report suspected illegal aliens directly, contact:

Contact the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS, formerly INS), under the Dept of Homeland Security.

You can call the CIS National Service Center at 1-800-375-5283 to find your local office to report illegal aliens. Note that the default language of this U.S. government office is some foreign language - not English! Press 1 to speak in English, the native language of the United States of America. Then press 9 to speak to a real person. They should be able to help find a local office to take the report.

Also, see the article: "How To Report Illegal Aliens - Updated DHS Version!"

IMAGE certification program

Section 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act requires employers to verify that all employees are authorized to work and have established their identities using the Form I-9.

The IMAGE program was created in 2006, as a joint government and private sector initiative designed to build cooperative relationships that strengthen hiring practices and encourage employer compliance. The IMAGE program is is a voluntary partnership initiative between the federal government and private sector employers, designed to strengthen overall hiring practices. The program provides for employer self-compliance within the workplace, by which employers can achieve a lawful workforce via self-policing of their hiring practices.

IMAGE is a phony document detection service developed by  ICE to offer assistance to employers seeking to avoid hiring illegal aliens. While the E-verify program verifies the status of newly hired employees, the IMAGE system examines older hiring records

Illegal aliens drawn to the United States in search of jobs. By law, U.S. companies face fines and owners face possible imprisonment if they violate laws related to employment and employment eligibility. The IMAGE program serves to foster improved relations with private sector employers, and to help employers to better understand their legal responsibilities when hiring.

While industry self-policing will allow ICE to focus on other aspects of its homeland security mission, the use of voluntary-only workplace enforcement has its obvious pitfalls.

IMAGE was designed as a partnership initiative between the government and private sector employers. To that end, ICE is committed to working with IMAGE participants in the following ways:

  • ICE will waive potential fines if substantive violations are discovered on fewer than 50 percent of the required Forms I-9.
  • In instances where more than 50 percent of the Forms I-9 contain substantive violations, ICE will mitigate fines or issue fines at the statutory minimum of $110 per violation.
  • ICE will not conduct another Form I-9 inspection of the company for a two-year period.
  • ICE will provide information and training before, during and after inspection.


What happens if an employer correctly complete an I-9 form and perform an E-Verify query and ICE subsequently determines the individual to be unauthorized to work in the U.S.?

  • E-Verify is an Web-based system that compares information from an employee's Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, to data from U.S Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration records to confirm employment eligibility.


If the employee presented the employer with documents that reasonably appeared to be genuine and relate to the employee presenting them, the employer can not be charged with a verification violation. This type of circumstance underscores the importance of why ICE is advocating participation in E-Verify for all employers.

Benefits of using IMAGE

  • By following the prescribed steps of IMAGE, a company could lessen the likelihood of being found in violation of employment laws. IMAGE participation may be considered a mitigating factor in the determination of civil penalty (fine) amounts should they be levied.
  • IMAGE membership can enhance a corporate image by associating a company with sound hiring practices.
  • IMAGE helps secure the homeland by reducing opportunities to inadvertently hire unauthorized illegal alien workers.
  • Public recognition of the employer�s IMAGE certification;
  • Avoidance of lawsuits and other legal actions resulting from unauthorized employment;
  • Brand name protection;
  • Fine mitigation;
  • A stable workforce;
  • No Form I-9 inspection for a minimum of two years;
  • ICE provided training and guidance on proper hiring procedures and fraudulent document awareness

Streamlined IMAGE certification process

Under the streamlined IMAGE certification process, employers will:

  1. Enroll in the E-Verify program within 60 days;
  2. Establish a written hiring and employment eligibility verification policy that includes internal Form I-9 audits at least once per year; and
  3. Submit to a Form I-9 inspection.

In return, ICE agrees to:

  1. Waive potential fines if substantive violations are discovered on fewer than 50% of the required Forms I-9;
  2. In instances where more than 50% of the Forms I-9 contain substantive violations, mitigate fines or issue at the statutory minimum of $110 per violation;
  3. Not conduct another Form I-9 inspection of the company for a two-year period; and
  4. Provide information and training

IMAGE best employment practices

  1. Use E-Verify, the DHS employment eligibility verification program, to verify the employment eligibility of all new hires.
  2. Use the Social Security Number Verification Service (SSNVS) for wage reporting purposes. Make a good faith effort to correct and verify the names and Social Security numbers of the current workforce and work with employees to resolve any discrepancies.
  3. Establish a written hiring and employment eligibility verification policy.
  4. Establish an internal compliance and training program related to the hiring and employment verification process, including completion of Form I-9, how to detect fraudulent use of documents in the verification process, and how to use E-Verify and SSNVS.
  5. Require the Form I-9 and E-Verify process to be conducted only by individuals who have received appropriate training and include a secondary review as part of each employee�s verification to minimize the potential for a single individual to subvert the process.
  6. Arrange for annual Form I-9 audits by an external auditing firm or a trained employee not otherwise involved in the Form I-9 process.
  7. Establish a procedure to report to ICE credible information of suspected criminal misconduct in the employment eligibility verification process.
  8. Ensure that contractors and/or subcontractors establish procedures to comply with employment eligibility verification requirements. Encourage contractors and/or subcontractors to incorporate IMAGE Best Practices and when practicable incorporate the use of E-Verify in subcontractor agreements.
  9. Establish a protocol for responding to letters or other information received from federal and state government agencies indicating that there is a discrepancy between the agency�s information and the information provided by the employer or employee (for example, �no match� letters received from the Social Security Administration) and provide employees with an opportunity to make a good faith effort to resolve the discrepancy when it is not due to employer error.
  10. Establish a tip line mechanism (inbox, email, etc.) for employees to report activity relating to the employment of unauthorized workers, and a protocol for responding to credible employee tips.
  11. Establish and maintain appropriate policies, practices and safeguards to ensure that authorized workers are not treated differently with respect to hiring, firing, or recruitment or referral for a fee or during the Form I-9, E-Verify or SSNVS processes because of citizenship status or national origin.
  12. Maintain copies of any documents accepted as proof.

For more information, see ICE information on IMAGE certification.

Letters to the Editor - List of Colorado Newspapers

Tags: 

Send Letters to the Editor regarding mass immigration, population, and sustainability. Letters to the Editor (LTE) should be short - approximately 150 words. However, some newspapers will publish longer letters. Opinion pieces (op-eds) are typically 700 words.

Here is an example of a well-researched and well-written 500 word LTE: Gang of Eight Bill a Disaster.

Major Colorado Newspapers

Here is where to send Letters to the Editor in Colorado - these are the major newspapers. Most newspapers require that letters the author's full name, address and daytime phone number for verification (but street address, email, and phone will not be published). Anonymous or pen name letters generally will not be accepted.

 

Denver: Denver Post
101 W. Colfax Ave, Denver, Colorado, 80202
303.954.1010
www.denverpost.com
Send letters to: openforum@denverpost.com

 

Boulder: Daily Camera
5450 Western Ave., Boulder, Colorado 80301
303.442.1202
www.dailycamera.com
Send letters to: openforum@dailycamera.com

 

Colorado Springs: Gazette
30 S. Prospect, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903
719.632.5511
www.gazette.com
Send letters to opinion@gazette.com
or submit letters to the editor

 

Ft Collins: Coloradoan
1300 Riverside Ave., Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
www.coloradoan.com
Submit letters to the editor

 

Glenwood Springs: Post Independent
824 Grand Ave, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
970.945.8515
www.postindependent.com
Send letters to: dmunro@postindependent.com

 

Glenwood Springs / Rifle: Citizen Telegram
125 West 4th Street,Suite 206, Rifle, Colorado 81650
970.384.9171
www.postindependent.com
Send letters to the Citizen Telegram: news@citizentelegram.com

 

Grand Junction: Free Press
145 N. Fourth St., Grand Junction, Colorado 81501
970.243.2200
www.postindependent.com
Send letters to: editor@gjfreepress.com

 

Grand Junction: Grand Junction Sentinel
734 S. Seventh St., Grand Junction, Colorado 81501
970.242.5050
www.gjsentinel.com
Send letters to: letters@gjsentinel.com
Or submit letters to the editor

 

Complete List of Colorado Newspapers

Alamosa: Valley Courier
Arvada: MileHighNews.com
Aspen: Aspen Daily News
Aspen: Aspen Times
Aurora: Aurora Sentinel
Bailey: Republican and Fairplay Flume
Bayfield: Pine River Times
Berthoud: Weekly Surveyor
Boulder: Boulder County Business Report
Boulder: Boulder Dirt
Boulder: Boulder Weekly
Boulder: Colorado Daily
Boulder: Daily Camera
Brighton: Sentinel Express
Brighton: Standard Blade
Broomfield: Broomfield Enterprise
Brush: Brush News Tribune
Buena Vista: Chaffee County Times
Calhan: High Plains View
Cañon City: Daily Record
Carbondale: Carbondale Valley Journal
Castle Rock: Douglas County News Press
Cedaredge: Mountain Valley News
Colorado Springs: Business Journal
Colorado Springs: Independent
Colorado Springs: Gazette
Colorado Springs: South Side Business News
Colorado Springs: Woodmen Edition
Commerce City: Sentinel Express
Cortez: Cortez Journal
Craig: Craig Daily Press
Craig: Moffat County Morning News
Crested Butte: Crested Butte News
Crested Butte: Crested Butte Weekly
Delta: Delta County Independent
Denver: Colorado Statesman
Denver: Denver Business Journal
Denver: Denver Post
Denver: Westword
Dolores: Dolores Star
Durango: Durango Herald
Durango: Durango Telegraph
Eads: Kiowa County Press
Eagle: Eagle Valley Enterprise
Eaton: North Weld Herald
Estes Park: Estes Park Trail-Gazette
Evergreen: Canyon Courier
Fort Collins: Coloradoan
Fort Collins: Fort Collins Weekly
Fort Collins: Northern CO Business Report
Fort Lupton: Fort Lupton Express
Fort Morgan: Fort Morgan Times
Fountain: Fountain Valley News
Fowler: Fowler Tribune
Frederick: Farmer and Miner
Frisco: Summit Daily News
Glenwood Springs: Post Independent
Golden: Jefferson County Transcript
Granby: Sky-Hi News
Grand Junction: GJ Free Press
Grand Junction: Daily Sentinel
Grand Lake: Grand Lake Prospector
Greeley: Greeley Tribune
Gunnison: Country Times
Haxtun: Haxtun-Fleming Herald
Hugo: Eastern Colorado Plainsman
Johnstown: Johnstown Breeze
La Junta: AgJournalOnline
La Junta: La Junta Tribune-Democrat
Lafayette: LaFayette News
Lakewood: Jefferson Sentinel
Lakewood Lakewood Edge
Lamar: Lamar Daily News
Laporte: North Forty News
Leadville: Leadville Herald Democrat
Littleton: Centennial Citizen
Littleton Littleton Gazette
Longmont: Daily Times-Call
Loveland: Daily Reporter-Herald
Lyons: Lyons Recorder
Mancos: Mancos Times
Meeker: Rio Blanco Herald Times
Montrose: Montrose Daily Press
Nederland: Mountain Ear
Norwood: Norwood Post
Ouray: Ouray News
Pagosa Springs: Pogosa Springs Daily Post
Pagosa Springs: Pagosa Springs Sun
Palisade: Palisade Tribune
Paonia: High Country News
Pueblo: Pueblo Chieftain
Rangely: Rangely Herald Times
Rico: Rico Bugle
Rifle: Citizen Telegram
Saguache: Saguache Crescent
Salida: Mountain Mail
Silverton: Silverton Standard
Snowmass: Snowmass Village Sun
Steamboat Springs: Steamboat Pilot
Sterling: Sterling Journal-Advocate
Telluride: Telluride Daily Planet
Telluride: Telluride Watch
Trinidad: Chronicle News
Trinidad: Trinidad Times Independent
Vail: Vail Daily
Vail: Vail Trail
Wellington: Wellington Tribune
Westcliffe: Wet Mountain Tribune
West Slope: Sunshine Express
Westcliffe: Wet Mountain Tribune
Windsor: Windsor Tribune

College Newspapers in Colorado

Colorado Mesa University: College Criterion
Colorado State Ft. Collins: Rocky Mountain Collegian
Colorado State Ft. Collins: Ram Republic
Fort Lewis College: Independent
Metropolitan State Denver: Metropolitan
University of Colorado Denver: The Advocate
University of Colorado Colorado Springs: The Scribe
University of Denver: Clarion
University of North Colorado: Mirror

Links to other websites

Here is a small collection of referenced and other websites. We are not responsible for the content of other websites - view at your own discretion.

National Organizations

Informational Websites and Organizations

State and Regional Organizations

Personal websites

Contact elected officials

U.S. Government information

Natural Born Citizen Explained

This video by Publius Huldah explains "natural born Citizen" in Article II, Sec. 1, clause 5, US Constitution: How our first Presidents were "naturalized citizens" and had to be exempted from the "natural born citizen" (NBC) requirement; shows the common understanding of Natural Born Citizen at the time our Constitution was drafted and ratified; explains 14th Amendment citizenship; and shows why Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz are not Natural Born Citizens.

 

“A natural born citizen is one who is born of citizens — so a natural born citizen inherits his citizenship from his parents. Just as he inherits his eye color he inherits his citizenship. No provision in the Constitution makes him a citizen and no act of Congress makes him a citizen. Just as no provision in the Constitution or no act of Congress determines his eye color — it’s inherited from his parents — it’s in his blood.”

 


Related articles

Explained: Natural Born Citizen & Naturalized Citizen, Tim Brown, Freedom Outpost,  March 1, 2016:

To understand what the term natural born citizen means, one must understand that before July 4, 1776, everyone born in the new world was born a subject of the King of England, not a citizen. In fact, our first presidents were all born as subjects of the King of England:

    George Washington
    John Adams
    Thomas Jefferson
    James Madison
    James Monroe
    John Quincy Adams
    Andrew Jackson
    William Henry Harrison

Each of these men, along with their fellow countrymen were transformed into citizens on July 4, 1776 by means of the Declaration of Independence.

So, what does that mean for those presidents according to the Constitution’s requirement that a president be a natural born citizen? It means that they were naturalized via the Declaration of Independence, which would later be written out in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Our first presidents were simply eligible because they were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. The point is that the framers knew what a natural born citizen was and they knew they were not natural born citizens. Therefore, they had to grandfather themselves into the requirement. However, after that first generation, all subsequent presidents were required to be natural born citizens.

Instead of allowing people to define natural born citizen however they like, just as they have with Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Soebarkah, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio, the framers knew what the definition was because Vattel had defined the term in his book Law of Nations. From letter and other documents, we know that Vattel’s work was studied in the universities and the framers had it in their possession when they wrote the Constitution. So, there is no doubt as to the meaning of the term natural born citizen. So, how did Vattel define natural born citizen?

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. (Emphasis mine)

 

 

What Our Framers Knew: The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”. Publius Huldah,  September 29, 2014.

A version of this article appeared as: What Our Framers Knew: The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”, The Washington Standard, July 9, 2015.

The Difference Between a U.S. Citizen and a Natural Born Citizen, Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D., D.C. Clothesline, January 10, 2015:

Many members of the political-media establishment are either deliberately misrepresenting facts for political reasons or they are simply ignorant of those facts, that is, the manner in which one becomes a citizen as opposed to the concept of natural born citizenship.

Those who equate “citizen” with “natural born citizen” often misinterpret Constitutional law and statute law, the latter meaning that Congress may pass laws only defining the manner in which one becomes a citizen, either citizen by birth or a naturalized citizen, not the Constitutional concept of natural born citizenship.

In addition, many people mistakenly cite English Common Law as the origin of the natural born citizen concept, which, in that regard, the Founders rejected; rather than its true origin, the codification of natural law described by Emerich de Vattel in his 1758 book “The Law of Nations.”...

As understood by the Founders and as applied to the U.S. Constitution, the term “natural born citizen” derived its meaning less from English Common Law, than from Vattel’s “The Law of Nations.”

They knew from reading Vattel that a “natural born citizen” had a different standard from just “citizen,” for he or she was a child born in the country to two citizen parents (Vattel, Section 212 in original French and English translation).

That is the definition of a “natural born citizen,” as recognized by numerous U.S. Supreme Court and lower court decisions...

 

Ted Cruz is NOT ELIGIBLE to be POTUS, nor is Rubio: Confirmed, Intellihub, February 25, 2016:

As per the definition used by the original framers of the U.S. Constitution, ratified on July 4, 1776, Republican Presidential Candidate Ted Cruz can in no way be eligible to hold the seat of President of the United States and should be considered nothing less than an illegal foreign entity attempting to breach and or ‘salt’ the White House via Canada and or Cuba.

In fact, not only was Rafael Edward Cruz, A.K.A. Ted Cruz, himself born outside of the U.S., but so was his father Rafael Bienvenido, making his campaign one-hundred percent null and void...

Indeed one could argue that Cruz doesn’t have to be born inside the U.S. to be president which is technically true, but this instance is only valid if Cruz’s father were to be a “natural born citizen” as laid out by the renown Emer de Vattel in his 1758 book Law of Nations. But that’s just it — Ted Cruz’s father was not a “natural born citizen,” fully disqualifying Cruz to be the next POTUS altogether. Make no mistake, Cruz is not an eligible candidate.

However, despite the evidence, Cruz tried desperately to circumvent this issue, in an attempt to hide it from the public by filing for a “renunciation” of his Canadian citizenship on May 14, 2014...

Taking a look at the Constitution, ratified June 21, 1788, one can clearly see our forefathers intentions.

Article 2, Sec. 1, Clause 5 reads:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

So the bottom line is Cruz, like Obama, was never eligible...

Moreover Marco Rubio is not a “natural born citizen” as he was born to Cuban Nationals making Rubio a “resident alien.”

Law Center Issues Threat to Ted Cruz: Quit by the 17th & Admit You’re a Fraud – Or We will Expose You as One, April 10, 2016.

Constitutional Eligibility is a Matter of National Security – The Family Time Line of Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz, D.C. Clothesline / Freedom Outpost, April 21, 2016.

 

References

The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, with Three Early Essays on the Origin and Nature of Natural Law and on Luxury (LF ed.), Emer de Vattel, 1797 [see Sections 212-217]

Dissertation on the Manner of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of Citizen of the United States, David Ramsay, 1789

Certificate of Renunciation of Canadian Citizenship

Population and Immigration Data, Projections and Graphs - Colorado

Colorado population projections

From Colorado State Fact Sheet, NPG, updated September, 2014.

Colorado population density:

People per square mile in 2000: 41.5.
People per square mile in 2010: 48.5

Census year and population:

1790 0 1880 194,327 1970 2,209,596
1800 0 1890 413,249 1980 2,889,735
1810 0 1900 539,700 1990 3,294,394
1820 0 1910 799,024 2000 4,301,261
1830 0 1920 939,629 2010 5,029,196
1840 0 1930 1,035,791    
1850 0 1940 1,123,296 2030 5,792,357
1860 34,277 1950 1,325,089    
1870 39,864 1960 1,753,947  

Colorado population by county

Population By County Census 2010 Population Census 2000 Population Change from 2000 Percent Change
Colorado 5,029,196 4,301,261 727,935 16.92%

(See original Colorado State Fact Sheet for complete county data.)

 

Colorado population data

Updated May, 2013.

Unemployment in Colorado

Current unemployment in Colorado  (U3 rate) according to latest BLS report = 95,000.
Additional Colorado unemployed not counted in official U3 unemployment number (April 2013 CRS report) = 108,000.
Actual total unemployed in Colorado = 95,000 + 108,000 = 203,000.

USIS estimate of number of illegal aliens in Colorado eligible for amnesty under S.744

Colorado total is 1.9% of US total = 216,000.
(Colorado has 1.9% of all illegal aliens according to official USCIS data, so that figure is used to calculate some of the other numbers. Some numbers are rounded.) 

Estimated Number of Visa Overstays in Colorado

US Immigration and Customs Enforcement union estimate of total visa overstays in the US = 4.5 million.
Colorado share of visa overstays = 1.9% of 4.5 million = 85,500.

H1-B workers in the USA ("high-tech") (3-year terms but renewable)

USCIS estimate of cumulative total of current H1-B Visa high tech workers in US = 750,000.
Estimate total in Colorado = 2% of 750,000 = 15,000.

Data on eligible population for Deferred Action - Childhood Arrivals (DACA)

DHS data for total DACA applications accepted to date = 497,960.
Applications remaining under review = 206,101.
Total approved after review = 291,859.
Percentage rejected after review =  0.8 % (less than one percent).
Percentage approved after review =    99.2%.
Pew Center estimate of total eligible DACA population in US = 1.8 million.
Colorado share of 1.8 million eligible DACA applicants = 1.9% of 1.8 million = 34,200.  
 

Profile of Colorado's illegal aliens population

Selected data from Profile of the Unauthorized Population: Colorado, Migration Population Instutite - analysis of 2008-2012 data:

Demographics Estimate % of Total
Illegal alien population 180,000 100%

Top Countries of Birth
Mexico 145,000 81%
Guatemala 4,000 2%
El Salvador 3,000 2%

Years of U.S. Residence
Less than 5 34,000 19%
5 to 9 53,000 29%
10 to 14 52,000 29%
15 to 19 21,000 12%
20 or more 20,000 11%

Age
Under 16 15,000 9%
16 to 24 32,000 18%
25 to 34 58,000 32%
35 to 44 45,000 25%
45 to 54 20,000 11%
55 and over 10,000 6%

School Enrollment of Children and Youth
Population ages 3 to 17 19,000 100%

English Proficiency
Population ages 5 and older 179,000 00%
Speak only English 9,000 5%
Speak English "very well" 40,000 22%
Speak English "well" 39,000 22%
Speak English "not well"/"not at all" 91,000 51

Family Income
Below 50% of the poverty level 26,000 14%
50-99% of the poverty level 39,000 22%
100-149% of the poverty level 35,000 20%
150-199% of the poverty level 27,000 15%
At or above 200% of the poverty level 53,000 30%

Deferred Action
Childhood arrivals (DACA) 23,000 13%

Colorado's Population in 2050: A Road Paved with Good Intentions

Excerpts from the report Colorado's Population in 2050: A Road Paved with Good Intentions, by Leon F. Bouvier and Sharon McCloe Stein, NPG; originally published in Population-Environment Balance, 2001.

In 1950, Colorado's population was just over 1.3 million. By 1980, numbers were approaching 3 million. During the 1990s, the state added over one million inhabitants, or about 275 people each day. In 2000, Colorado had ballooned to 4.3 million residents. Thus, over the past 50 years, Colorado's population has more than tripled in size. In the past ten years alone, it has grown by almost one-third. There are now more people living along the Front Range than there were living in the entire state ten years ago.

What accounts for this growth? Populations grow or shrink as a result of shifts in three demographic variables: fertility, migration, and mortality. Changes in population size are dependent on net migration (people moving into the state minus people moving out of the state) and natural factors (births minus deaths). Between April 1, 1990 and July 1, 1999, natural increase in Colorado accounted for net growth of 288,209. During the same period, the Census Bureau estimates net domestic migration for Colorado at 402,832 and net international migration at 65,380. Thus, natural increase accounted for 38 percent of all growth during that period, over half came from migration from other states, and the remainder was due to migration from other countries.

In the 1990s, Colorado was home to five of the nation's ten fastest growing counties. Douglas County, the fastest growing county in the nation, almost tripled, growing from 60,000 to 176,000. Elbert County was third with a 105 percent growth rate and says it fears its population explosion will soon overwhelm the area's law enforcement, roads and bridges, and social services. Park, Custer, and Archuleta were also in the top ten.

In Summit, the sixth fastest growing county in the state, county commissioner Bill Wallace says the population growth means "we have more traffic lights and more asphalt. A lot more people commute for work. Lots that were vacant are no longer vacant. Housing is expensive. Child care is impossible to find." Even small towns are being affected. Especially on the Eastern Slope, small mountain towns and hamlets are becoming cities overnight. In Elizabeth, a town of about 1,400 people, new construction is raising concerns; one proposed development would build about 750 new homes, bringing an increase of about 1,900 people. If the political mood remains as it is today, Colorado's growth can be expected to continue and the state's population could easily reach and probably surpass the 6.4 million projected for 2025. The seven million mark, or even higher, could be reached by 2050. These numbers will impact nearly every aspect of life in Colorado.

Colorado school enrollment (K-12), which grew by 29 percent in the last decade, will continue to grow rapidly. In just ten years, the number of students could increase by over 100,000 - from 790,000 in 2000 to 900,000 in 2010. It could easily surpass one million by 2025. To maintain its 1999 student-teacher ratio, approximately 5,000 new teachers will have to be hired annually. Another 10,000 public school students per year means building at least 20 new schools every year. In Douglas County alone, a planning committee has estimated the county will need ten new schools in the next five years to keep up with its ballooning population. The Denver Rocky Mountain News reported that construction and renovation to ease overcrowding would cost 165 million to 175 million dollars.

Eleven percent of Colorado workers travel more than 40 minutes to work. If trends continue, the average metro area motorist will spend twice as much time in traffic by 2020.

During the 1990s, the population of metropolitan Denver grew from under 2 million to over 2.4 million. The Denver Regional Council of Government's (DRCOG's) growth forecast for 2020 predicts that more than one million more people will come to the metro area within the next 20 years. More than one in five of the new residents will live in Adams County, meaning Adams County will gain an average of 11,400 new residents a year. The Colorado Public Interest Research Group report on sprawl writes, "If we don't take action now, the metro Denver area is well on its way to becoming another L.A."

The Denver Post reports of pollution levels in Denver, which regularly violates the federal standards for ground-level ozone: "The brown cloud no longer is a winter phenomenon limited to Downtown, but a year-round problem blanketing the entire area." These problems extend beyond the metropolitan areas, as suburban sprawl contributes to increased air pollution throughout most of the state. Population drives water consumption as well. Colorado's fast-growing cities may eventually face water shortages unless local utilities find new supplies. The Governor's Commission on Saving Open Spaces, Farms, and Ranches found, "Rapid growth, inadequate water supply and extremely dry conditions have left cities thirsty for more water."

The Census Bureau's new projections indicate that immigration will account for two-thirds of all growth nationwide over the next century. In Colorado, most population growth comes from domestic interstate migration (people moving in from other states). Yet this is often caused by immigration (people moving in from other countries), through what is known as secondary migration. Secondary migration occurs when people leave crowded areas in search of more space. This is happening around the U.S., as massive immigration drives the native population to move to less crowded areas. Colorado has been a magnet for such migrants - notably, Californians trying to escape the effects of the states record population growth - growth that has been driven by high immigration levels. A full quarter of migration into Colorado in the past decade has come from California.

As long as federal immigration levels remain at their present non-traditional highs of nearly one million each year, the pressures that immigration puts on border states will continue to affect every state. On top of legal immigration is the pressure from illegal immigration; it is estimated that over five million illegal aliens reside in the U.S., and 300,000 new illegal aliens settle in the country each year. Colorado ranks eleventh in illegal immigration, with over 45,000 illegal aliens residing in the state as of 1996, the latest year for which numbers are available. If federal legislation limiting immigration to more traditional levels of 200,000 to 300,000 annually were passed and if illegal immigration were drastically reduced, migration levels into Colorado could be drastically reduced.

Additional information

For additional information, data, graphs, and projections, see the following:

Nativity and Place of Birth - Colorado 2000 Census, from the Colorado Demography Office. This table shows the percentage of native- and foreign-born in each Colorado city.

Colorado State Fact Sheet, NPG, updated September, 2014.

FAIR Colorado data - an extensive reference page.

Colorado's Population in 2050: A Road Paved with Good Intentions, by Leon F. Bouvier and Sharon McCloe Stein, NPG; originally published in Population-Environment Balance, 2001.

Population and Immigration Data, Projections and Graphs - United States

The following graph shows that even though the U.S. had started to achieve a stable population in 1970, mass immigration is driving our population ever upwards.

graph of US growth from mass immigration

Sources: US Census Bureau; demographer Leon Bouvier;
Roy Beck, Numbers USA

The top line of the above graph shows actual US population from 1970 to 1993, and the US Census Bureau "medium projection" of total population size from 1994 to 2050. It assumes fertility, mortality, and mass immigration levels will remain similar to 1993. In fact, overall immigration has continued to rise significantly, meaning that population growth will actually be higher than shown here.

The green lower portion of the graph represents growth from 1970 Americans and their descendants. There were 203 million people living in the US in 1970. The projection of growth in 1970-stock Americans and their descendants from 1994 to 2050 is based on recent native-born fertility and mortality rates. This growth would occur despite below replacement-level fertility rates because of population momentum, where current and future children of the current generation will grow up to have their own children, all during the lifetime of the current generation. Nevertheless, this segment of Americans is on track to peak at 247 million in 2030 and then gradually decline.

The red upper portion of the graph represents the difference between the number of 1970-stock Americans and the total population. The tens of millions of people represented by this block are the immigrants who have arrived, or are projected to arrive, since 1970, plus their descendents, minus deaths. They are projected to comprise 90% of all US population growth between 1993 and 2050.

See the NumbersUSA website at www.numbersusa.com for a more thorough and interesting presentation of these facts.

The following table shows how the current level of mass immigration vastly exceeds traditional levels.

 1820-2010

* Projections and graph courtesy Population Environment Balance, email uspop at balance dot org
Sources: US Census Bureau; Statistical Yearbook, Immigration and Naturalization Service
Averages: 178,000 per year from 1925-1965, 195,000 per year from 1921-1970

History shows the U.S. has traditionally allowed relatively small numbers to immigrate, thus allowing for decades of assimilation. After the peak of about 8.7 million in the first decade of the 20th century, numbers went steadily down. Immigration averaged only 178,000 per year from 1925 through 1965!

Priority Enforcement Program (PEP) and Secure Communities Program

What is the Priority Enforcement Program (PEP)?

The Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Priority Enforcement Program (PEP) enables DHS to work with state and local law enforcement to take custody of individuals who pose a danger to public safety before those individuals are released into our communities. PEP was established at the direction of DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson in a November 20, 2014 memorandum, entitled Secure Communities, that discontinued the Secure Communities program. PEP focuses on convicted criminals and others who pose a danger to public safety.

Under PEP, ICE will seek the transfer of a removable individual when that individual has been convicted of an offense listed under the DHS civil immigration enforcement priorities, has intentionally participated in an organized criminal gang to further the illegal activity of the gang, or poses a danger to national security.

Here is a comparison of the Secure Communities and Priority Enforcement Programs.

What was the Secure Communities Program (SCP)?

The highly effective Secure Communities Program was discontinued under the Obama administration.

Secure Communities was a program administered by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). 

It was degraded to only focus its limited resources on those who have been arrested for breaking criminal laws. Simply being unlawfully present in the United States would no longer gain the attention of ICE under the Secure Communities Program.1,4

Secure Communities is a way to carry out ICE's priorities. It uses an already-existing federal information-sharing partnership between ICE and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that helps to identify criminal aliens without imposing new or additional requirements on state and local law enforcement. For decades, local jurisdictions have shared the fingerprints of individuals who are arrested or booked into custody with the FBI to see if they have a criminal record.

Under Secure Communities, the FBI automatically sends the fingerprints to DHS to check against its immigration databases. If these checks reveal that an individual is unlawfully present in the United States or otherwise removable (can be deported) due to a criminal conviction, ICE takes enforcement action – prioritizing the removal (deporting) of individuals who present the most significant threats to public safety as determined by the severity of their crime, their criminal history, and other factors – as well as those who have repeatedly violated immigration laws.

Secure Communities imposes no new or additional requirements on state and local law enforcement. The federal government, not the state or local law enforcement agency, determines what immigration enforcement action, if any, is appropriate.

State and local jurisdictions cannot opt out of Secure Communities. A jurisdiction may choose not to receive the identifications that result from processing the fingerprints through DHS's biometric system that are provided to the local ICE field office. In the past, this option has been mischaracterized as a mechanism for a jurisdiction to opt out of the program. In fact, a jurisdiction's decision not to receive this information directly does not affect whether the local ICE field office in that jurisdiction will or will not take enforcement action based on those results.2

Only federal DHS officers make immigration enforcement decisions, and they do so only after an individual is arrested for a criminal violation of local, state, or federal law, separate and apart from any violations of immigration law.

Secure Communities Program limitations under the Obama administration

The highly effective Secure Communities Program was discontinued under the Obama administration.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) receives annual appropriations from Congress sufficient to remove a limited number of the more than 10 million [to 40 million] individuals estimated to be in the U.S. who lack lawful status or are removable because of a criminal conviction. Given this reality, ICE must set priorities.

Under the Obama administration, ICE has set clear priorities for immigration enforcement focused on identifying and removing those aliens with criminal convictions. In addition to criminal aliens, ICE focuses on recent illegal entrants, repeat violators who game the immigration system, those who fail to appear at immigration hearings, and fugitives who have already been ordered removed by an immigration judge.

Between fiscal years 2008 and 2011 the number of convicted criminals that ICE removed from the United States increased by 89 percent, while the number of non-criminals removed dropped by 29 percent - from 25 percent in 2008 to 4 percent in 2012. According to ICE, deportations of "other" (non-criminal) removable illegal aliens was only 14,674 in 2012, or 4 percent of all removals.3

Secure Communities Program deficiencies

The SCP is a purely an administrative creation and is not a program established by act of Congress. Therefore, it can be modified or discontinued by the President or Secretary of the Interior at any time. 

Enforcement of the Secure Communities Program is dependent on two factors:

  1. Crimes that partisan bureaucrats in the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency consider worthy of detention and deportation.  As noted above, as of first quarter 2013, this only includes violent crimes, not serial DUIs or other misdemeanors.
     
  2. Actions, if any, that local sheriffs choose to take in response to the information provided by federal authorities.

An important point is that all such decisions are purely discretionary. A local sheriff can completely ignore the information ICE provides about his jail inmates who are illegal aliens - and yet that sheriff would still be in full compliance with SCP.

For example, if the Denver County Sheriff chooses to disregard a notification that one of his jail inmates is an illegal alien who has been twice deported and is wanted for felony reentry, and the sheriff then releases that illegal alien on bond, the sheriff is not in violation of federal law.

Secure Communities Program notes

1. Secure Communities, ICE, April 1, 2013.

2. Secure Communities: Get the Facts, ICE, April 1, 2013.

3. Secure Communities Program Removal Statistics, ICE, April 1, 2013.

4. Democrats plot to betray citizens on amnesty, Tom Tancredo, March 30, 2013.

5.  Map: Immigration Enforcement Activity Hubs - Secure Communities Removals by County, 2008-2015, Center for Immigration Studies, May 2015.

This map shows the total cumulative number of aliens who were removed by ICE in each county between October 2008, and February 2015, after identification through the Secure Communities program.
 
The total number of removals shown is 406,441, which is a subset of all ICE removals. The three counties with the most cumulative removals over the period were Los Angeles County, Calif.; Maricopa County, Ariz.; and Harris County, Texas, which all were among the first places in the country where Secure Communities was activated.
 
The cumulative totals are a function of several factors in combination: 1) the number of non-citizens who were arrested and identified in each jurisdiction; 2) ICE's ability to take custody and process the aliens who are identified; and 3) the extent of cooperation provided by county sheriffs. The greater the number of criminal alien arrests, ICE capacity, and local cooperation in a jurisdiction, the greater the number of removals ICE can carry out and, by extension, the greater the public safety benefits for each county.
 
The Secure Communities program was discontinued as part of President Obama's executive actions of November 2014. It was replaced by the Priority Enforcement Program, which has set up significant logistical and political hurdles for ICE in taking custody of criminal aliens. 

Research, resources, and contact information

Here are various reference and research items, and selected contact information for various entities. Check back for updated information.

Contact your legislators

How to contact your Colorado legislators and US Senators and Representatives

National contact information

Department of Homeland Security
Operator Number: 202-282-8000
Comment Line: 202-282-8495

Legal

Immigration Court
Denver, CO 80294
303-844-5815

State contact information

Colorado State Refugee Coordinator: Paul Stein 303-863-8217

 

Please check back for updated information.

SPLC - Southern Poverty Law Center hate group

Decades ago, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) made a name for itself fighting genuinely extremist groups like the Ku Klux Klan. Those groups have pretty much disappeared, leaving the SPLC suddenly at a loss for issues on which to fundraise. The solution was to find a hate group under every rock and around every corner. Thousands are still waiting to be uncovered! The job of the SPLC will never be done, and it will take a huge amount of donor support to continue this crusade.

Here is a compilation of some of the articles, resources, and references exposing the SPLC fundraising machine.

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has been rated "poor" by Charity Navigator, stating that net assets were $152 million.

Immigration and the SPLC, Jerry Kammer, Center for Immigration Studies, March 2010:

Rather than engage in a debate, La Raza and its allies have waged a campaign to have the other side shunned by the press, civil society, and elected officials. It is an effort to destroy the reputations of its targets. It also seeks to intimidate and coerce others into silence. It undermines basic principles of civil society and democratic discussion...

Crazy SPLC smears black woman as white nationalist, Fred Elbel, CAIRCO, November 5, 2015.

Southern Poverty Law Center: Wellspring of Manufactured Hate, James Simpson, Organization Trends, Capital Research Center, September 25, 2012:

SPLC senior fellow Mark Potok doesn’t mince words about illegal-immigration opponents:

“Sometimes the press will describe us as monitoring hate crimes and so on … I want to say plainly that our aim in life is to destroy these groups, to completely destroy them.…” [Watch video]...

Though trained as a lawyer, [SPLC Founder Morris] Dees is best known for his fundraising ability...

With over $238 million in net assets, the SPLC is one of the wealthiest nonprofit organizations in the United States. Despite this massive endowment, the Center devotes almost 20 percent of its $34.5 million operating expenses – $6.5 million in 2011 – to fundraising. This includes $1 million for fundraising services and $5.5 million in fundraising staff salaries and administrative expenses.

Meanwhile, the group spent only $11 million on its supposed primary mission: “providing legal services to victims of civil rights injustices and hate crimes.”...

Poverty Palace - How the Southern Poverty Law Center got rich fighting the Klan, John Egerton, The Progressive, July 1988:

Dees and [partner Millard Fuller] were in hot pursuit of their first million dollars, and each of them reached that goal in 1964. "Morris and I, from the first day of our partnership, shared the overriding purpose of making a pile of money," Fuller wrote in a book some years later. "We were not particular about how we did it; we just wanted to be independently rich. During the eight years we worked together, we never wavered in that resolve."

Southern Poverty Law Center – Manufacturing Hate for Fun and Profit, James Simpson, Breitbart, February 16, 2016.

Associated Press: SPLC Using Hate Group Label to Target 'Conservative Viewpoints', Breitbart, January 22, 2016.

The SPLC exposed - Southern Poverty Law Center - Morris Dees and hate crimes, The Social Contract.

King of Fearmongers - Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center, scaring donors since 1971, Charlotte Allen, The Weekley Standard, April 15, 2013:

What has infuriated the SPLC’s liberal critics is their suspicion that Morris Dees has used the SPLC primarily as a fundraising machine fueled by his direct-mail talents that generates a nice living for himself (the SPLC’s 2010 tax filing lists a compensation package of $345,000 for him as the organization’s chief trial counsel and highest-paid employee) and a handful of other high ranking SPLC officials plus luxurious offices and perks, but that does relatively little in the way of providing the legal services to poor people that its name implies.

CharityWatch (formerly the American Institute of Philanthropy), an independent organization that monitors and rates leading nonprofits for their fundraising efficiency, has consistently given the SPLC its lowest grade of “F” (i.e., “poor”) for its stockpiling of assets far beyond what CharityWatch deems a reasonable reserve (three years’ worth of operating expenses) to tide it over during donation-lean years. But even if the SPLC weren’t sitting on an unspent $256 million, according to CharityWatch, it would still be a mediocre (“C+”) performer among nonprofits.

Southern Poverty Law Center's Lucrative 'Hate Group' Label, Rosslyn Smith, American Thinker. August 22, 2012.

Racial Racketeering for Fun and Profit: The Southern Poverty Law Center Scam, Thomas J. DiLorenzo, published on LewRockwell.com, June 22, 2011:

There have never been any left-wing groups on the SPLC’s lengthy list of "hate groups." It’s "Hate Watch" Web site clearly states that it is supposedly "Keeping and Eye on the Radical Right." There is no mention of the Radical Left, such as the organizations the SPLC’s board members all have founded or belong to and associate with. When pressed, the professional political haters at the SPLC will admit, as Mark Potok, author of the laughingly-named "Intelligence Report" did, that his "hate group" list is "all about ideology," as Menzies writes.

CIS: SPLC Manipulated the media with smear campaign, Center for Immigration Studies.

King of the Hate Business, Alexander Cockburn, Creators, 2009:

The sun is dipping low in the evening sky over the Republican Party as the Other Leading Brand... It's also horrible news for people who raise money and make money selling the notion there's a right resurgence out there in the hinterland with massed legions of haters, ready to march down Main Street draped in Klan robes, a copy of "Mein Kampf" tucked under one arm and a Bible under the other.

What is the arch-salesman of hate mongering, Mr. Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center, going to do now?...

Dees and his hate-seekers scour the landscape for hate like the arms manufacturers inventing new threats and for the same reason: It's their staple.

The Church of Morris Dees, Ken Silverstein, Originally published by Harpers Magazine, November, 2000:

In 1986, the center's entire legal staff quit in protest of Dees's refusal to address issues--such as homelessness, voter registration, and affirmative action--that they considered far more pertinent to poor minorities, if far less marketable to affluent benefactors, than fighting the KKK. Another lawyer, Gloria Browne, who resigned a few years later, told reporters that the center's programs were calculated to cash in on "black pain and white guilt."

Lump of Coal, Fairfax Journal, December 16, 2003:

... human nature being what it is, there always seems to be a lump of coal lurking among the sugarplums. We were reminded of this unpleasant fact again by a Journal reader in Arlington who considered making a contribution to the Southern Poverty Law Center, listed as No. 0454 in the Combined Federal Campaign...

In fact, unknown to most CFC donors, the tax-exempt SPLC flunked an audit by the Arlington-based Better Business Bureau's Wise Giving Alliance, which requires that "a reasonable percentage, at least 50 percent of total income from all sources, should be applied to programs and activities directly related to the purposes for which the organization exists."

...SPLC...spent 89 percent of its total income on fund-raising and administrative costs...

Granted, administrative costs tend to run high when executive salaries are in the six-figure range. For example,... Morris Dees, SPLC's chief trial lawyer, pulls down a cool $280,699...

... give your hard-earned dollars to a real charity, not a bunch of slick, parasitic hucksters who live high on the hog by raising money on behalf of needy people who never see a dime of it.

When a hate crime is something to love, Wesley Pruden, Editor in Chief, The Washington Times, February, 2004:

...Morris Dees [founder of the Southern Poverty Law Center] won a judgment for a black woman whose son was killed by Klansmen. She received $51,875 as settlement. Mr. Dees, according to an investigation by the Montgomery Advertiser, pulled in $9 million from fund-raising solicitation letters that featured a particularly gruesome photograph of the grieving mother's son. Mr. Dees, who pays himself an annual salary of $275,000, offered the grieving mother none of the $9 million her son's death made for him.

Mr. Dees, in fact, earns - or is paid, which is not necessarily the same thing - more than nearly any officer of other advocacy groups surveyed by the National Journal, more than the chairmen of the ACLU, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and the Children's Defense Fund.

"You are a fraud and a con man," Stephen Bright, director of the Southern Center for Human Rights, which actually takes on dozens of death-penalty appeals for poor blacks every year, once told him. "You spend so much, accomplish so little, and promote yourself so shamelessly."...

White guilt can be manipulated with black pain, but it has to be done carefully. It's a sordid scam. Some people would call what Morris Dees does a hate crime, but it's a living, and a very good one.

The Southern Poverty Law Center: A Twisted Definition of Hate, Matthew Vadum, Capital Research Center, November, 2006.

The truth about 'hate crimes' and the racial justice racket, Ron Smith, Baltimore Sun, December 3, 2008.

The Southern Poverty Law Center - No Artistry in its Smears, Don Feder, DiscoverTheNetworks.org, February 8, 2001.

Mission Creep and the Southern Poverty Law Center's Misguided Focus, Carol M. Swain, Political Analyst, Professor of Political Science and Law at Vanderbilt University (original article, August 10, 2009).

Who is the Southern Poverty Law Center and What is Their Role in the Campaign Against Prop. 200?, FAIR, August 24, 2004.

Intolerance Identified - Morris Dees and The Southern Poverty Law Center, Karen De Coster, originally published on ZolaTimes.com, December, 2000, and The Laissez Faire City Times, December, 2000.

Wypijewski Replies on the Southern Poverty Law Center, JoAnn Wypijewski, The Nation, February 8, 2001.

Hate and Slander for Profit - Dissecting the Southern Poverty Law Center Report, Digger's Realm, August, 2009.

Morris Dees Fact Sheet, Originally published by The Patriotist.

Morris Dees background information, Discover the Networks.

Morris Dees Personal Information, references and video compiled by The Social Contract.

Charity Navigator gave the SPLC an overall rating of only one star and a score of only 39 in 2004.

The American Institute of Philanthropy's Charity Watch gave the SPLC an overall rating of F from 1999 through August, 2009.

The Southern Poverty Law Center - A Special Report, The Social Contract, Spring 2010. The entire issue covers the SPLC. Articles include:

 

Wacky SPLC furthers repressive Sharia agenda, Fred Elbel, CAIRCO, February 16, 2016.

Frank Gaffney discusses the SPLC on Tipping Point with Liz Wheeler, February 10, 2016:

Video: Pamela Geller: SPLC Hit List, February 22, 2016:

 

 
 

Here is a collection of articles exposing the SPLC that are archived on CAIRCO.

SPLC targets Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform for Punishment, Stephen Byron Gassaway, Global Gulag, February 19, 2016.

To make a long story short, out of the blue, the Southern Poverty Law Center put Ranch Rescue Colorado on their notorious Hate Map. Apparently, for the SPLC, the mere act of defending a White person before the INS was all the evidence they needed to brand our organization as "anti-immigrant" and racist. All of a sudden, our support for the Afrikaaner woman became toxic to her case and the INS dismissed her claim of political, racial and religious persecution and had her deported back to South Africa, where she was murdered shortly after her return.
 
Southern Poverty Law Center Transfers Millions in Cash to Offshore Entities - Left-wing nonprofit pays lucrative six-figure salaries to top management, by Joe Schoffstall, Washington Free Beacon, August 31, 2017.

Hate Profiteering: The SPLC Hate Hustlers, by Mark Alexander, Patriot Post, August 30, 2017.

SPLC Truth Report

 

 

And finally:

Oh no! The hateful SPLC hate group hates us!, Fred Elbel, CAIRCO, February 17, 2016:

Can you believe it? The Denver Pravda Post called the Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform a hate group! Here's the article: Colorado had 16 hate groups in 2015, says Southern Poverty Law Center.

What a hoot!

Can you imagine? The discredited SPLC moneymaking machine has christened the Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform a hate group!

CAIRCO.org has been active in Colorado since the mid 1990s. Our primary focus is - and always has been - issues of sustainability, and the environmental and societal consequences of unending immigration-driven population growth.

Franklin D. Roosevelt remarked, "I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made."

Unfortunately, the SPLC is in a (bottom-dwelling) class of their own. They aren't capable of debating serious issues on their own merits, so they presumptuously resort to name calling in faltering attempts at intimidation.

You know, that's a formal debating tactic. It's called an ad hominem attack - something to be used in last resort when all serious logical arguments fail. As such, we really can't consider the SPLC an enemy of substance. But they tried.

I am embarrassed for Noelle Phillips and the Denver Post for regurgitating this tripe without surmounting the modicum of energy required to initiate even so much as a perfunctory email to CAIRCO to confirm this imputation. Can you smell media laziness? Media bias?

In any case, it's an honor - albeit an indiscernible one - to be included on the hateful SPLC's hate list.

Fred Elbel
Director, Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform
CAIRCO.org

 

Statue of Liberty - Liberty Enlightening the World

The Statue of Liberty was erected in 1886, when world population was little more than one billion and United States population was 60 million. Many do not realize that the Statue of Liberty was a gift to the United States from France, with the title, "Liberty Enlightening the World". The statue and its symbolism had nothing to do with immigration, but rather hope that the rest of the world would adopt Democracy. The Emma Lazurus plaque (it is not chiseled in the base), "send me your huddled masses" was added ten years later during the immigration peak of that age.

The sonnet, "New Colossus", was written by Emma Lazarus in 1883 as part of a literary campaign to raise funds for the completion of the Statue's pedestal. Not much attention was paid to it until the tide of immigration surged at the turn of the century. Proceeds that were raised from its auction were used to complete the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty. This plaque memorialized the sonnet in 1903 and was placed on the inner wall of the Statue's pedestal. It currently is displayed inside the Statue of Liberty museum.

Since then, U.S. population has expanded by a factor of five.

Roberto Suro clarified the misinterpretation of the Lazarus poem in his July 5, 2009 Washington Post article, The Statue of Liberty's Real Stand:

... Let's get rid of The Poem.

I'm talking about "Give me your tired, your poor..." -- that poem, "The New Colossus" by Emma Lazarus, which sometimes seems to define us as a nation even more than Lady Liberty herself.

Inscribed on a small brass plaque mounted inside the statue's stone base, the poem is an appendix, added belatedly, and it can safely be removed, shrouded or at least marked with a big asterisk. We live in a different era of immigration, and the schmaltzy sonnet offers a dangerously distorted picture of the relationship between newcomers and their new land.

The most enduring meaning conveyed by Lady Liberty has nothing do with immigration, and I say let's go back to that. The statue's original name is "Liberty Enlightening the World," and the tablet the lady holds in her left hand reads "July IV, MDCCLXXVI" to commemorate the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Lady Liberty celebrates U.S. political values as a force for the betterment of humanity, as well as the bond of friendship among freedom-loving nations. That's a powerful and worthy message...

Born into a wealthy family that traced its roots to New York City's earliest Jewish residents, Lazarus was a social activist as well as an accomplished writer. She lent a hand at the station on Wards Island where destitute immigrants were detained, and she helped set up a training school in the tenements. When Lazarus wrote the poem in 1883, she was a prominent advocate for Jews fleeing the pogroms of imperial Russia.

It took a long time for Lady Liberty and the huddled masses to become completely intertwined. Most of the early mythologizing of the statue played on its patriotic appeal. The poem, written for a charity auction that raised money for the statue's pedestal, was never commercially published and got no mention at the statue's grand opening in 1886. Lazarus died a year later at age 38. In 1903, her friend from New York high society, Georgina Schuyler, had the plaque made to honor Lazarus. There was no ceremony when it was placed on a stairway landing inside the pedestal. For decades it went largely unnoticed, a memorial to a writer and reformer who died young rather than a defining inscription for the statue...

Look back with caution is my advice. Bad poetry makes for bad policy...

Also see this article: A Symbol Transformed - The Statue of Liberty, by Elizabeth Koed, The Social Contract, Summer 2005:

When French sculptor Frederic-Auguste Bartholdi assembled his 152-foot statue atop a pedestal on small Bedloe's Island in 1886, however, the symbol we so readily acknowledge today did not exist. Rather, this gift from the French nation celebrated the successful American experiment in republicanism. It was a gesture of friendship and alliance. It commemorated the ties that bound the two nations together as they strove to achieve their goals of liberty and equality. But over Liberty's first century, this original intent has been transformed into quite a different symbol. Although attributed to the familiar sonnet by Emma Lazarus, the "Mother of Exiles" symbol has been largely the product of, first, coincidence, and then of many decades of gradual incorporation as the statue became a familiar image that could be used for many purposes. The symbol has strayed far from the original idea. As historian David McCullough explained, "The idea, of course, is liberty, and liberty is what we Americans have always wanted first of all. It was what the Revolution was fought for, what the country was founded for. 'Hail, Liberty!' was the cry on the day the statue was unveiled." Unfortunately, by the time Liberty turned 100 those lofty ideals were all but lost, replaced in the ceremonial pomp by glitzy tributes to America's immigrant population and the "golden doors."

Terminology

Definitions of important terms are included below. For additional information, also see the section Islamic terminology you should know.

Undocumented immigrant versus illegal alien

The terms "undocumented worker", "undocumented immigrant", "unlawful immigrant", "undocumented alien", "undocumented student", "undocumented migrant", "unauthorized immigrant", and "illegal immigrant" are often used to describe those who have broken the law of our land to enter and work in our country illegally. These are all misleading terms, deliberately used to "soften" the issue of illegal entry into the United States.

The term "undocumented" implies that foreign nationals have the unconditional right to violate America's borders and immigration laws, and that the worst offense they may have committed was forgetting to complete some paperwork. The reality of the situation is the illegal aliens have all kinds of Social Security cards and other documents - it's just that those documents are forged or stolen.

An "immigrant" is an invited guest - a person who comes to a country where they are not a citizen in order to settle there. The term "immigrant" implies permanent, legal, residency. (Although because of amnesties and status adjustments, about 25% of currently legal immigrants first came here illegally).

The accurate description of a foreign national illegally residing in America is "illegal alien". An illegal alien is a criminal subject to as much as six months in jail for first offense and subject to federal felony charges for subsequent entries after deportation.

For more information, see:

Ad hominem attack

The ad hominem attack is a formal debating tactic of attacking your opponent's character as opposed to answering their argument. It is a de facto admission of the inability to win the debate on the merits of one's argument alone. Example: calling an immigration reductionist racist, nativist, or xenophobe. The ad hominem attack is a tool of cultural Marxism.

Alien

An alien is defined by the U.S. Citizenship and Naturalization Services as "any person not a citizen or national of the United States". The term is defined by United States statute, in Section 1101(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (with amendments by Congress through 2001). Aliens can be either legally or illegally present in the U.S.

The term "alien" is purposefully and appropriately used in US Government documents, such as in:

"AR-11, Alien’s Change of Address Card", and

"Immigration and Nationality Act(INA) — An Act of Congress that, along with other immigration laws, treaties, and conventions of the United States, relates to the immigration, temporary admission, naturalization and removal of aliens".

For more information, see:

Anchor baby

An anchor baby is a child born to illegal alien parents within the borders of the United States. The child is born as an American citizen and under the 1965 immigration Act, can be used to facilitate citizenship for the immediate - and ultimately the extended - family.

The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. The amendment states that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..." In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing: "Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens to defy U.S. law at taxpayer expense.

For more information, see the 14th Amendment and Anchor Babies website.

Anti-immigrant

One who dislikes and discriminates against individual immigrants.

Open borders proponents often label those who favor reducing immigration numbers as "anti-immigrant". Their intent is to discredit immigration reductionists by making false associations with racism, nativism, and xenophobia. The correct term is immigration reductionist. The truth is that nearly all immigration reductionists favor immigrants and immigration, but at a drastically reduced level.

Supporting replacement-level immigration does not mean that one hates immigrants, any more than supporting replacement-level levels of births means that one hates babies.

Balkanization

Balkanization is the separation of a country or region into smaller units, often hostile to each other, sometimes involving the forcible expulsion of entire populations from their homelands by stronger powers. High levels of immigration without assimilation may lead to balkanization.

Carrying capacity

The maximum population of a given species that can be supported indefinitely in a defined habitat without permanently impairing the productivity and functioning of that habitat.

Humanity has been able temporarily to avoid carrying capacity issues through the use technology, preemption of supporting ecosystems normally used to sustain other species, and by transporting and importing resources. Thus, a more appropriate definition of carrying capacity with regard to humanity is the maximum "load" that can safely be imposed on an environment by humanity without permanently impairing the productivity and functioning of that environment. Shrinking carrying capacity may soon become the single most important issue facing humanity.

Comprehensive Immigration Reform

Comprehensive Immigration Reform is code for amnesty for illegal aliens. The code phrase is used by open borders radicals, liberal Democrats, and establishment politicians such as Marco Rubio.

Conservationist

One who wants to preserve our sustaining natural resources for the benefit of future generations and for the living organisms who exist in our natural environment. By definition, conservationism is conservative, but not all conservatives are conservationists.

Cornucopianist

The belief that natural resources are essentially of limitless supply and that technology will find solutions to environmental, overpopulation, energy, and resource depletion problems.

Diversity

Diversity is defined as noticeable heterogeneity, and often is used in a social context to mean noticeable presence of multiple races and cultures, without significant assimilation. Diversity is frequently promoted as the desirable condition for American society by those who favor open borders and unlimited immigration.

Diversity monger

One who promotes cultural and racial diversity at the expense of an indigenous culture and society, without regard for ecological and social consequences.

Ecological Footprint

The effective land area and corresponding resources required by an individual, city, or nation in order to supply resources and dispose of wastes. It is a measurement of capital stocks, physical flows, and corresponding ecosystem areas required to support a given human population and economy.

For more information, see EcoFuture environmental information.

Fertility

Fertility is the actual reproductive performance of an individual, a couple, a group, or a population. It is typically used in reference to the average number of live births per woman. Native-born Americans voluntarily achieved replacement-level fertility (2.1 children per woman) in 1972. See EcoFuture Population Terms and Definitions.

Hate group

A hate group is an organization that practices hatred or hostility against another group, based on unsubstantiated premises. A hate group may also be an organization that practices unfounded hatred or hostility against other groups or individuals in order to enforce political correctness or to bolster their bottom line. For example, the SPLC - Southern Poverty Law Center hate group.

Hispanic

An artificial ethnicity contrived in 1976, originally meaning "Americans of Spanish origin or descent", but subsequently changed to mean "A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race".

In the 1930s, "Hispanics," led by LULAC, opposed identifying Mexicans as "non-white." After affirmative action programs were implemented for Blacks in the 1970s, "Hispanics," dominated by LULAC and La Raza (The Race), changed their racial identity from "white" to "non-white" in order to be eligible for affirmative action programs.

The "Hispanic" category was created on June 16, 1976 by Public Law 94-311, "Economic and Social Statistics for Americans of Spanish Origin." The law contained two significant components: 1) the subject: "Americans of Spanish origin or descent" and 2) the legal status: "American citizens." Both of these qualifiers were soon dropped in an effort to magnify political influence by maximizing numeric size.

In 1977, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) adopted the title of "Hispanic". Subsequently, "Hispanic" has come to be de defined as "A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race."

According to Mark Lopez of the Pew Hispanic Center:

[A]bout two-thirds of Hispanic-Americans identify themselves not as belonging to the general Latino culture, but to their specific country of origin or their parents' homeland.

"The notion of a pan-ethnic identity is actually an American concept," said Lopez, an American citizen whose grandparents emigrated from Mexico. "If I go to El Salvador and I say I'm Hispanic, they're going to think I'm from Spain, or they're not going to know what that means. They don't see a pan-ethnic identity. They see themselves as Salvadoran."

See:
Funding Hate - Foundations and the Radical Hispanic Lobby, Part I, The Social Contract, Fall, 2000.
Hispanics Extend Reach Beyond Enclaves, Wall Street Journal, March 19, 2003.
The Origin of the Term ‘Hispanic’, Hartford Guardian, July 27, 2009.
Illegal Alien Propaganda: A Critical Lesson in Terminology and Tactics, Accuracy in Media, April 12, 2013.

Human Biodiversity

Human Biodiversity (HBD) is the diversity found among and between human populations that has a biological basis.

Resources on HBD include:

HBD Fundamentals by JayMan.
HBD Bibliography.
HBD chick - blog focusing on research and analysis.
West Hunter - blog related to HBD by Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending, authors of The Ten Thousand Year Explosion which discusses human evolution.
DNA Explained - blog on genetic genealogy.

Illegal alien

An illegal alien is "a foreigner who has entered or resides in a country unlawfully or without the country's authorization." An illegal alien is an alien - that is, a foreign national - who has illegally entered the United States, or who enters legally and then deliberately overstays their visa. An illegal alien is a criminal subject to as much as six months in jail for first offense and subject to federal felony charges for subsequent entries after initial deportation.

Colorado defines an illegal alien as "anyone who has entered the United States illegally and is deportable, or anyone who has 'overstayed a visa' or otherwise violated the terms of his or her legal admission into the United States. Sometimes known as an 'illegal immigrant.'" (From Implementation of Senate Bill 06-090 Performance Audit, Colorado State Auditor, Department of Public Safety, Department of Local Affairs, May 2009.)

The term "illegal alien" is purposefully and appropriately used in US Government documents, such as:

"Immigration Investigations, Enforcement, Detention and Removal: For information about immigration investigations, enforcement, detention or removal of aliens from the U.S., or to report suspected illegal aliens or other illegal immigration activity, please visit the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement website at www.ice.gov." and

"An illegal alien who entered the United States without inspection, for example, would be strictly defined as an immigrant under the INA but is not a permanent resident alien." and

"Certain illegal aliens who were eligible to apply for temporary resident status under the legalization provision of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986."

For more information, see:

Immigrant

An immigrant is "a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence". An immigrant is an invited guest - a person who comes to a country where they are not a citizen in order to settle there. The term "immigrant" implies permanent, legal, residency. (Although because of amnesties and status adjustments, about 25% of currently legal immigrants first came to the U.S. illegally).

See:
Merriam-Websiter dictionary - immigrant.

Immigration reform

The term immigration reform originated in the mid 1990s to mean true reform of incongruous United States immigration policy which blatantly ignored laws regarding interior immigration enforcement and US border security. Over time, open borders radical groups sought to preempt the term "Immigration Reform" to codify their agenda to open American Borders to illegal aliens and to legalize foreign job-seekers who were successful in sneaking into America and avoiding capture at our border. To be clear, one might refer to patriotic immigration reform, as opposed to the open borders kind, which amounts to treason.

Immigration reductionist

An immigration reductionist is one who favors a return to sustainable immigration numbers. Often those favoring immigration reduction are called racist or anti-immigrant, but the truth is that nearly all immigration reductionists favor immigrants and immigration, but at a drastically reduced level.

Immigrant rights

Immigrants rights advocates promote the rights of legal immigrants - this is a productive and valuable effort. Often open borders advocates and organizations are referred to as "immigrant rights" advocates and organizations. This is a misnomer, designed to be deliberately misleading. Supporting illegal immigration and open borders under this umbrella is by no means supporting immigrant rights; it is supporting the nonexistent rights of illegal aliens to enter our country. The most salient right of illegal aliens who escaped apprehension at our border is to be treated humanely as they are returned to their home countries to reunite with their families.

Intergenerational justice

The concern about the well-being of future generations. This concern is often discounted in light of short-term issues. See the article Intergenerational Justice.

Multiculturalism
Emphasis on proximal but distinct cultures within a given region or country.
The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of continuing to be a nation at all would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities."
Nativism

Nativism is the policy of favoring native inhabitants over immigrants. Establishing a goal of stabilizing U.S. population requires addressing both fertility and immigration numbers; however this is not a nativist agenda. Calling an immigration reductionist a nativist is an ad hominem attack.

Open borders proponent

One who supports the anti-American agenda of illegal immigration and open borders, notwithstanding the express intent of the laws of the land. Typically this is coincident with an anti-nationalist perspective.

Political correctness and cultural Marxism

Political correctness is a belief that language and practices that could offend a minority group should be actively suppressed. Taken to extremes, political correctness becomes a filter that prevents a society from understanding the true nature of issues and events. For example, immigration-driven population growth is often not discussed because of the fear of racist allegations or of being called a hate group. Political correctness is a form of cultural Marxism.

Population momentum

Population momentum is the tendency for population growth to continue beyond the time that replacement-level fertility has been achieved because of the relatively high concentration of people in the childbearing years. It takes a period of time equal to the average life expectancy (approximately three generations or 73 years in the U.S.) for a reduction in fertility to be manifested as a change in actual population numbers. See additional information on fertility and population momentum. Also see this short discussion of population momentum, and Population Terms and Definitions.

Racism

Racism is the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races. Some racists indeed might want to eliminate immigration of certain races. However, immigration reductionists are not inherently racist, and the goal of stabilizing U.S. population is not predicated upon a racist agenda. Calling an immigration reductionist a racist is an ad hominem attack.

Reverse racism

Reverse racism is the predisposition and bias against native-born Americans, and those of historical European descent and traditional American culture.

Sustainability

Preserving natural ecosystems and keeping resources intact for future generations - of humans and all species.

Xenophobia

Xenophobia is an irrational fear of foreigners or strangers. Americans have every right to establish a population and immigration policy for their own country, based upon the goal of population stabilization and a rational fear of unending population growth. This has nothing to do with fear of other people. Calling an immigration reductionist a xenophobe is an ad hominem attack.

Zero population growth

Zero population growth means that a population is in equilibrium, with a growth rate of zero, and is achieved when births plus immigration equal deaths plus emigration. See EcoFuture Population Terms and Definitions.

 

For additional information, also see the section Islamic terminology you should know.

Terminology history and usage: alien and illegal alien

Definitions

An immigrant is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as "a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence".

An immigrant is defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101 : US Code - Section 1101 as:

(15) The term "immigrant" means every alien except an alien who is within one of the following classes of nonimmigrant aliens... (F)(i) an alien having a residence in a foreign country which he has no intention of abandoning, who is a bona fide student qualified to pursue a full course of study and who seeks to enter the United States temporarily and solely for the purpose of pursuing such a course of study... as "any person not a citizen or national of the United States". The term is defined by United States statute, in Section 1101(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (with amendments by Congress through 2001). Aliens can be either legally or illegally present in the U.S.

Thus, an immigrant is an invited guest - a person who comes to a country where they are not a citizen in order to settle there. The term "immigrant" implies permanent, legal, residency. (Although because of amnesties and status adjustments, about 25% of currently legal immigrants first came to the U.S. illegally).

An alien is defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101 : US Code - Section 1101 as "any person not a citizen or national of the United States. 8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien states:

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts

Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

(b) Improper time or place; civil penalties

Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of—

(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or

(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection.
Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.

An illegal alien is defined in the Department of Homeland Security Media Resources Glossary as "A foreign national who (a) entered the United States without inspection or with fraudulent documentation or (b) who, after entering legally as a non-immigrant, violated status and remained in the United States without authority."

Thus, an illegal alien is "a foreigner who has entered or resides in a country unlawfully or without the country's authorization." An illegal alien is an alien - that is, a foreign national - who has illegally entered the United States, or who enters legally and then deliberately overstays their visa. An illegal alien is a criminal subject to as much as six months in jail for first offense and subject to federal felony charges for subsequent entries after initial deportation. (From What is an alien?, Juan Mann's Frequently Asked Questions About Immigration and the Law, VDare.com, December 11, 2002.)

The term illegal alien was coined by a Federal Appeals Court in 1950.

Colorado defines an illegal alien as "anyone who has entered the United States illegally and is deportable, or anyone who has 'overstayed a visa' or otherwise violated the terms of his or her legal admission into the United States. Sometimes known as an 'illegal immigrant.'" (From Implementation of Senate Bill 06-090 Performance Audit, Colorado State Auditor, Department of Public Safety, Department of Local Affairs, May 2009.)

U.S. Government law and legal definitions

Laws, Regulations, and Guides Immigration and Nationality Act, summary by the U.S. Citizenship and Naturalization Services:

The Immigration and Nationality Act, or INA, was created in 1952. Before the INA, a variety of statutes governed immigration law but were not organized in one location. The McCarran-Walter bill of 1952, Public Law No. 82-414, collected and codified many existing provisions and reorganized the structure of immigration law. The Act has been amended many times over the years, but is still the basic body of immigration law.

The INA is divided into titles, chapters, and sections. Although it stands alone as a body of law, the Act is also contained in the United States Code (U.S.C.). The code is a collection of all the laws of the United States. It is arranged in fifty subject titles by general alphabetic order. Title 8 of the U.S. Code is but one of the fifty titles and deals with "Aliens and Nationality". When browsing the INA or other statutes you will often see reference to the U.S. Code citation. For example, Section 208 of the INA deals with asylum, and is also contained in 8 U.S.C. 1158. Although it is correct to refer to a specific section by either its INA citation or its U.S. code, the INA citation is more commonly used.

Title 8, Code of Federal Regulations, summary by the U.S. Citizenship and Naturalization Services:

The general provisions of laws enacted by Congress are interpreted and implemented by regulations issued by various agencies. These regulations apply the law to daily situations. After regulations are published in the Federal Register, they are collected and published in the Code of Federal Regulations, commonly referred to as the CFR. The CFR is arranged by subject title and generally parallels the structure of the United States Code. Thus, Title 8 of the CFR deals with "Aliens and Nationality", as does Title 8 of the U.S. Code.

Search 8 U.S.C. § 1101 : US Code - Section 1101: Definitions, Findlaw, April 13, 2016:

(3) The term "alien" means any person not a citizen or national of the United States.

(15) The term "immigrant" means every alien except an alien who is within one of the following classes of nonimmigrant aliens... (F)(i) an alien having a residence in a foreign country which he has no intention of abandoning, who is a bona fide student qualified to pursue a full course of study and who seeks to enter the United States temporarily and solely for the purpose of pursuing such a course of study...

8 U.S. Code § 1365 – Reimbursement of States for costs of incarcerating illegal aliens and certain Cuban nationals

(a) Reimbursement of States
Subject to the amounts provided in advance in appropriation Acts, the Attorney General shall reimburse a State for the costs incurred by the State for the imprisonment of any *illegal alien or Cuban national who is convicted of a felony by such State.
(b) *Illegal aliens convicted of a felony
An *illegal alien referred to in subsection (a) of this section is any alien who is any alien convicted of a felony who is in the United States unlawfully...

INA: Act 274A - Unlawful Employment of Aliens: Sec. 274A. [8 U.S.C. 1324a].

Definition of unauthorized alien. As used in this section, the term "unauthorized alien" means, with respect to the employment of an alien at a particular time, that the alien is not at that time either (A) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or (B) authorized to be so employed by this Act or by the Attorney General.

Inspection and Expedited Removal of Aliens Detention and Removal of Aliens; Conduct of Removal Proceedings; Asylum Procedures [62 FR 10312] [FR 10-97].

Internal Revenue Service: Taxation of Nonresident Aliens: An alien is any individual who is not a U.S. citizen or U.S. national. A nonresident alien is an alien who has not passed the green card test or the substantial presence test...

U.S. Government usage of terminology

The legal terms "alien" and "illegal alien" are used extensively in U.S. government publications. Some, but certainly not all, usages are included below.

Usage by the U.S. Citizenship and Naturalization Services: Glossary of Terms

From the U.S. Citizenship and Naturalization Services, Glossary of Terms, April 10, 2016:

Alien: Any person not a citizen or national of the United States. From U.S. Citizenship and Naturalization Services, Glossary of Terms, April 10, 2016.

Legalized Aliens, U.S. Citizenship and Naturalization Services, Glossary of Terms, April 10, 2016:

Certain illegal aliens who were eligible to apply for temporary resident status under the legalization provision of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. To be eligible, aliens must have continuously resided in the United States in an unlawful status since January 1, 1982, not be excludable, and have entered the United States either 1) illegally before January 1, 1982, or 2) as temporary visitors before January 1, 1982, with their authorized stay expiring before that date or with the Government’s knowledge of their unlawful status before that date. Legalization consists of two stages--temporary and then permanent residency. In order to adjust to permanent status aliens must have had continuous residence in the United States, be admissible as an immigrant, and demonstrate at least a minimal understanding and knowledge of the English language and U.S. history and government.

Permanent Resident Alien, U.S. Citizenship and Naturalization Services, Glossary of Terms, April 10, 2016:

An alien admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident. Permanent residents are also commonly referred to as immigrants; however, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) broadly defines an immigrant as any alien in the United States, except one legally admitted under specific nonimmigrant categories (INA section 101(a)(15)). An illegal alien who entered the United States without inspection, for example, would be strictly defined as an immigrant under the INA but is not a permanent resident alien. Lawful permanent residents are legally accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States. They may be issued immigrant visas by the Department of State overseas or adjusted to permanent resident status by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in the United States.

Resident Alien, U.S. Citizenship and Naturalization Services, Glossary of Terms, April 10, 2016:

Applies to non-U.S. citizens currently residing in the United States. The term is applied in three different manners; please see Permanent Resident, Conditional Resident, and Returning Resident

Deportation

The formal removal of an alien from the United States when the alien has been found removable for violating the immigration laws. Deportation is ordered by an immigration judge without any punishment being imposed or contemplated. Prior to April 1997 deportation and exclusion were separate removal procedures. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 consolidated these procedures. After April 1, 1997, aliens in and admitted to the United States may be subject to removal based on deportability. Now called Removal, this function is managed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Usage by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services: Services Help Center

Questions related to: "Unaccompanied Alien Child", April 10, 2016:

Who is an Unaccompanied Alien Child (UAC)? Unaccompanied Alien Child (UAC) is a legal term referring to a child who: has no lawful immigration status in the United States; has not attained 18 years of age; and has no parent or legal guardian in the United States, or for whom no parent or legal guardian in the United States is available to provide care and physical custody.

Usage by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services: various

USCIS Service and Office Locator: Other Government Agencies Involved in the Immigration Process, April 13, 2016:

Immigration Investigations, Enforcement, Detention and Removal:

For information about immigration investigations, enforcement, detention or removal of aliens from the U.S., or to report suspected illegal aliens or other illegal immigration activity, please visit the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement website at www.ice.gov

Penalties: Employers must not: Hire, recruit for a fee, or refer for a fee aliens he or she knows to be unauthorized to work in the United States.

Sponsor: There are many ways to sponsor an alien.

Information for Employers and Employees: If the alien is not already a permanent resident, you will need to file a petition... No alien may accept employment in the United States unless they have been authorized to do so... Aliens employed in the U.S. may have a U.S. tax obligation.

Petition Filing and Processing Procedures for Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker.

Parole of Aliens.

Title 8, Code of Federal Regulations: Title 8 of the CFR deals with "Aliens and Nationality", as does Title 8 of the U.S. Code.

INA: Act 274A - Unlawful Employment of Aliens.

Inspection and Expedited Removal of Aliens.

Usage by the Department of Homeland Security: Media Resources Glossary

From the Department of Homeland Security Media Resources Glossary, April 10, 2016:

Illegal Alien - A foreign national who (a) entered the United States without inspection or with fraudulent documentation or (b) who, after entering legally as a non-immigrant, violated status and remained in the United States without authority.

Usage by the Internal Revenue Service

Immigration Terms and Definitions Involving Aliens, IRS, April 13, 2016:

Alien: An individual who is not a U.S. citizen or U.S. national.

Immigrant: An alien who has been granted the right by the USCIS to reside permanently in the United States and to work without restrictions in the United States.

Nonimmigrant: An alien who has been granted the right by the USCIS to reside temporarily in the United States.

Illegal Alien: Also known as an "Undocumented Alien," is an alien who has entered the United States illegally and is deportable if apprehended, or an alien who entered the United States legally but who has fallen "out of status" and is deportable.

Taxation of U.S. Resident Aliens: Taxable Income: A U.S. resident alien's income is generally subject to tax in the same manner as a U.S. citizen. If you are a U.S. resident alien... U.S. resident aliens can claim the same itemized deductions as U.S. citizens.

Taxation of Nonresident Aliens: An alien is any individual who is not a U.S. citizen or U.S. national. A nonresident alien is an alien who has not passed the green card test or the substantial presence test... If you are any of the following, you must file a return: A nonresident alien individual engaged or considered to be engaged in a trade or business in the United States during the year.

Nonresident aliens who are required to file an income tax return must use: Form 1040NR, U.S. Nonresident Alien Income Tax Return, or Form 1040NR-EZ, U.S. Income Tax Return for Certain Nonresident Aliens With No Dependents.

For additional details, refer to When To File in the Filing Information chapter of Publication 519, U.S. Tax Guide for Aliens.

The Taxation of Capital Gains of Nonresident Alien Students, Scholars and Employees of Foreign Governments.

Usage by the U.S. Court of Appeals

On November 9, 2015, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled against Obama's immigration plan. Read the ruling here. The ruling contains approximately 39 references to the term illegal alien. Footnote 14 on pages 4-5 explains the terminology:

14. Although “[a]s a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States,” it is a civil offense. Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2505 (2012); see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(9)(B)(i), 1227(a)(1)(A)–(B). This opinion therefore refers to such persons as “illegal aliens”:

The usual and preferable term in [American English] is illegal alien. The other forms have arisen as needless euphemisms, and should be avoided as near-gobbledygook. The problem with undocumented is that it is intended to mean, by those who use it in this phrase, “not having the requisite documents to enter or stay in a country legally.” But the word strongly suggests “unaccounted for” to those unfamiliar with this quasi-legal jargon, and it may therefore obscure the meaning.

More than one writer has argued in favor of undocumented alien . . . [to] avoid[] the implication that one’s unauthorized presence in the United States is a crime . . . . Moreover, it is wrong to equate illegality with criminality, since many illegal acts are not criminal. Illegal alien is not an opprobrious epithet: it describes one present in a country in violation of the immigration laws (hence “illegal”).

BRYAN A. GARNER, GARNER’S DICTIONARY OF LEGAL USAGE 912 (Oxford 3d ed. 2011) (citations omitted). And as the district court pointed out, “it is the term used by the Supreme Court in its latest pronouncement pertaining to this area of the law.” Dist. Ct. Op., 86 F. Supp. 3d at 605 n.2 (citing Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2497 (2012)). “[I]legal alien has going for it both history and well-documented, generally accepted use.” Matthew Salzwedel, The Lawyer’s Struggle to Write, 16 SCRIBES JOURNAL OF LEGAL WRITING 69, 76 (2015).

Usage in the U.S. Supreme Court

Plyler v Doe, Decided: June 15, 1982

(a) The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a “person” in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court’s prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are “persons” protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments...

Arizona Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting - When the U.S. Chamber of Commerce teamed up with the ACLU and La Raza to kill the Arizona E-Verify law designed to protect jobs and wages from illegal aliens:

Wikipedia: “Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting was a United States Supreme Court case which dealt with the question of whether the Legal Arizona Workers Act was invalid under federal statutes, in particular the Immigration Reform and Control Act. On May 26, 2011, the Supreme Court ruled, in a 5-3 decision, that The Legal Arizona Workers Act was not preempted by federal legislation...

Illegal alien was used three (3) times. Once by Justice Sonia Sotomayor

Arizona v. United States (2012)

“Illegal alien” is used either ten or eleven times and seven or eight times by Sotomayor.

Usage in Presidential Executive Orders

High Seas Interdiction of Illegal Aliens: Proclamation No. 4865, Ronald Reagan, Sept . 29, 1981, 46 F.R. 48107.

Interdiction of Illegal Aliens, Executive Order No. 12807, George Bush, 1992.

Presidential statements

Video: President Bill Clinton on illegal aliens and illegal immigration, 1995.

Colorado law and legal definitions

Implementation of Senate Bill 06-090, Department of Public Safety, Department of Local Affairs, Performance Audit, May 2009:

Glossary: Illegal Alien - anyone who has entered the United States illegally and is deportable, or anyone who has “overstayed a visa” or otherwise violated the terms of his or her legal admission into the United States. Sometimes known as an “illegal immigrant.”

Senate Bill 06-090:

Prohibits local governments from enacting such policies. In addition, the bill requires local law enforcement personnel to report suspected illegal aliens to the u.s. Immigration and customs enforcement office.

House Bill 06-1343 - Article 17.5 Illegal Aliens - Public Contracts for Services:

Concerning measures to ensure that an illegal alien does not perform work on a public contract for services, and making an appropriation in connection therewith.

House Bill 06s-1009 deny business permits to illegal aliens

House Bill 06s-1017:

(d) "unauthorized alien" has the same meaning as set forth in 8 u.s.c. Sec. 1324a (h) (3).

House Billl 06s-1023:

Issue Brief number 06-04 a legislative council publication, May 26, 2006:

Immigration in colorado: state impact and recent legislation

One study estimated the number of illegal alien students in colorado at 25,000 in 2000. Based on this estimate adjusted for the growth in Colorado's population between 2000 and 2004, Colorado schools expended approximately $157.9 million to educate undocumented alien students in fy 2003-04.

References

Illegal alien, illegal alien, illegal alien – save this for when the illegal alien lobby tells you there is no such legal term as “illegal alien”, D.A. King, The Dustin Inman Society, November 10, 2015.

U.S. Appeals Court consistently uses the correct terminology 'illegal alien', CAIRCO, November 10, 2015.

It’s Official–A Federal Appeals Court Coined The Term “Illegal Alien” In 1950, Paul Nachman, VDare, October 19, 2015.

Opposition To ‘Illegal Aliens’ Is Opposition To Borders, by Jon Feere, Legal Policy Analyst, Center for Immigration Studies, Daily Caller, May 25, 2016.

Those who are driving the effort to control and contort language in the immigration debate are not truly motivated by the notion that the term “illegal alien” is a pejorative. This is a distraction. The real goal of those demanding that media outlets, courts, and now the Library of Congress supplant accurate legal terminology with activist-created terms is to eradicate the distinction between citizen and non-citizen, between legal activity and illegal activity, between “us” and “them” so that the concept of borders and the nation state slowly slip away. Any official heading an organization or governmental agency who thinks they are being sensitive by bowing to demands to alter their use of language is being played by the open-border crowd...

In reality, we’re a nation of citizens. And as citizens, we have a right to decide who gets to immigrate here, how many people get to immigrate here, and also set the conditions they must abide by if they want to stay. Anything less than that destroys the concept of citizenship and sovereignty. Media shouldn’t help the open-border crowd achieve its goal.

 

The Political Spectrum

The political spectrum is a representation of differing political positions in relation to each another. A familiar representation is the traditional horizontal axis representing left - moderate - right.

A more complex spectrum developed by Dickenson shows how various political positions relate to each other:1

Dickenson's Political Spectrum

Definitions for terms describing political positions, such as "progressive," "liberal," and "conservative" are not universally accepted. Political scientist and philosopher W.B. Gallie calles them contested concepts:3

… concepts the proper use of which inevitably involves endless disputes about their proper uses on the part of their users [that] cannot be settled by appeal to empirical evidence, linguistic usage, or the canons of logic alone.

 

References

1. What are ‘Liberals,’ What are ‘Progressives,’ and Why the Difference Matters, Crissie Brown, PoliticsUSA, June 15, 2013.

2. Political spectrum, Rational Wiki.

3. Contested Concepts in Cognitive Social Science, Alan Schwartz, University of California, Berkeley, May 1992.

 

An overview of the ten ideologies of America

The following article presents a good overview: The Ten Ideologies of America: As Donald Trump Overthrows the Old Order, a Look at the New, by Virgil, Breitbart, March 20, 2016. The entire article is a good read. Here are some excerpts:

We all know that the old ideological labels, such as “conservative” and “liberal,” are worn out. Okay, so what are the new labels? What are the new ideologies?
 
Let’s get right to it: These, below, are the belief systems of most Americans. We will examine them in alphabetical order. But first, for reference, here’s the full list:
 
  1.     Cosmopolitanism
  2.     Establishmentism
  3.     Green Malthusianism
  4.     Leftism
  5.     Libertarianism
  6.     Libertinism
  7.     Nationalism
  8.     Neoconservatism
  9.     Paleoconservatism
  10.     Populism
 
 
1. Cosmopolitanism 
 
Cosmopolitanism is the view that we are all, everywhere, a part of a single world community, and that such things as nation-states, including the United States, only slow down the fulfillment of our true destiny— coming together in a global harmonic convergence. As John Lennon sang, “Imagine there’s no countries.” Most ordinary citizens probably like the country that they live in, but for many in the globetrotting elite, that’s not good enough; they want to be citizens of the world...
 
Left Cosmopolitanism means support for open borders, of course, and also for multiculturalism. As might be said, “Celebrate diversity—or else!”
 
In addition, Left Cosmos love international organizations, such as the United Nations; to them, that’s the future—one big New World Order.
 
Right Cosmopolitans also support open borders. In addition, being good capitalists, they support free trade and anything else that multinational corporations might wish for. And since they are private-sector-loving corporatists, they avidly embrace pro-business international combines, such as the World Trade Organization...
 
Yes, this is an old story: the Establishment hiring courtiers and henchmen, tasking them with keeping the peasants quiescent.
 
We might dub these henchmen—and, to be fair, henchwomen—as Compradores. That’s a Portuguese word for middleman, which historians have used to lump together all the in-country agents of old colonialism...
 
Here in America today, we can observe a variant on the Compradore system. As we have seen, smug journalists are happy to tell the “yokels” that they should be more grateful for all the good things they have.
 
And yet for some Compradores today, there’s a further cruel edge: They don’t seek to soothe the masses with oily bromides; instead, they attack them with rhetorical viciousness.
 
 
2. Establishmentism
 
Some people just like the status quo. They identify with power; they instinctively take the go-along-get-along position. One might call them “stand-patters,” or “sticks-in-the-mud,” or “kneejerk moderates.”...
 
...we can also observe that Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), the Tea Partier-turned-Gang-of-Eight-dealmaker, made the mistake of “outing” himself as an Establishmentist a little bit too soon. For his sake, he should have waited till after the GOP presidential primaries were over before  showing off his “Scarlet E.”...
 
...condescension is a key part of Establishmentist thinking, we can also note a more brutal aspect: the process of bludgeoning the lower orders into submission...
 
 
3. Green Malthusianism  
 
...What is it that drives the Greens? Some say they are fulfilling some pagan religious ritual. Others insist that they just like to enjoy a lake- or ocean-front view without any riffraff cluttering things up. Both views, of course, could be true...
 
[CAIRCO note: the article omits the primary driving force of environmentalists / Greens: to protect and preserve our sustaining environment for future generations.]
 
 
4. Leftism
 
Everybody knows the Left, and everybody knows that Leftism has never recovered from the collapse of communism.
 
Yet still, something interesting is happening here in the US: Even though Republicans control most of the important political offices at the federal and state level, the country is moving in a liberal, progressive direction. That’s what untrammeled corporate power will do—it will provoke a backlash...
 
In truth, today’s Democrats aren’t much interested in the well-being of working stiffs. Instead, they are enraptured with new plans to advance identity politics, co-ed bathrooms, and #BlackLivesMatter. All the while, of course, keeping the border open...
 
 
5. Libertarianism
 
...it’s important to emphasize, once again, that Libertarians loom large in the wonk-chattering class. It’s hard to find a Republican economist, for instance, who is not a “classical liberal.”...
 
 
6. Libertinism
 
Libertinism poses a challenge to the American social fabric. In our history, the Founding Fathers strongly believed in personal freedom, but they also strongly believed in personal morality. “Liberty,” John Adams wrote, “can no more exist without virtue and independence than the body can live and move without a soul.”...
 
Yet for most, Libertinism seems to offer no political lessons; it’s just an appetite: Do whatever you want...
 
 
7. Nationalism 
 
For the last 400 years, the nation-state has been the preferred form of political organization—and certainly the most powerful...
 
...today, in 2016, Nationalism has made a “yuge” comeback, thanks to Donald Trump. His signature line, “Make America Great Again,” clearly plucks Nationalist notes in our mystic chords of memory...
 
 
8. Neoconservatism
 
In many ways, Neoconservatism resembles Libertarianism: It is an ivory-tower theory, and thus it connects better to theoreticians than to actual voters.
 
Indeed, if anything, Neoconservatism is even less broadly popular than Libertarianism: Not many Republicans, for example, look forward to a return to the days of the Iraq War—the signature project of the Neocons...
 
Most of today’s Neocons would trace their intellectual lineage back to Woodrow Wilson. It was our 28th president who gave us such seductive abstractions as, “teach [other countries] to elect good men,” fight a “war to end war,” and achieve “peace without victory.”
 
In addition, Wilson also gave us such ivory-tower gems as this, from his “Fourteen Points” speech to Congress in 1918: “Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private international understandings of any kind but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view.”
 
No private understandings? No secret treaties? That’s how the world works? Really?...
 
 
9. Paleoconservatism
 
As noted, Christianity hasn’t been a source of much real-world political science since the 17th century; the theocrats were defeated, first by the autocrats and aristocrats, and then, more recently, by the democrats...
 
 
10. Populism 
 
The Populist worldview can be expressed simply: The big boys are out to get you! So get there first and burn it down, or blow it up—whatever it is!...
 
Moreover, we can add that Karl Marx was right: The state is a tool of the ruling class. Of course, the challenge is to define “ruling class” correctly—to see that it’s not just arch-capitalists and their governmental hirelings, it’s also top dogs in foundations, law firms, media, NGOs, thinktanks, and universities....

 

 
Related article
 
 
Americans should take note: Upcoming elections in two English-speaking countries, the United Kingdom and India, are likely to tell a common story; in both nations, conservative nationalism is likely to defeat liberal multiculturalism. That’s good news for conservatives, and an inspiration for Americans, as they look to their own November 2014 elections. And yet, as we shall see, it’s not obvious that the Republican Party will draw the same positive lessons...

 

Conservative, Liberal, or both?

In the article Top Five Reasons Not to Vote, Doug Casey notes in a Libertarian missive that "voting encourages politicians". Actually, the opposite is more accurate - that if you don't vote you encourage politicians. In other words, voting is the primary constraint that sovereign Americans can impose on their elected public servants. As in "vote the bums out!"

But who do you vote for as a candidate? Are you a liberal (left) or a conservative (right)? Where do the candidates fall along the liberal - conservative line?

Casey points out that the single liberal conservative dimension is particularly constraining. Not only do these abstract terms change with every politician, they change over time. He notes that:

In the 19th century, a liberal was someone who believed in free speech, social mobility, limited government, and strict property rights. The term has since been appropriated by those who, although sometimes still believing in limited free speech, always support strong government and weak property rights, and who see everyone as a member of a class or group.

Conservatives have always tended to believe in strong government and nationalism... Today's conservatives are sometimes seen as defenders of economic liberty and free markets, although that is mostly true only when those concepts are perceived to coincide with the interests of big business and economic nationalism.

Bracketing political beliefs on an illogical scale, running only from left to right, results in constrained thinking...

Politics is the theory and practice of government. It concerns itself with how force should be applied in controlling people, which is to say, in restricting their freedom. It should be analyzed on that basis...

Casey delineates two fundamental types of freedom: social and economic. He then suggests that the political spectrum can be more accurately portrayed in a two-dimensional chart representing both social and economic freedom. 


Social and Economic Freedom

Thus, for example, a person or a candidate may lean toward personal freedom but not economic freedom - in other words, the government should not interfere with personal lifestyle choices, but it should direct the economy. Or a person or candidate may favor the opposite, or may fall anywhere within the chart.

The Nolan Chart

Casey's chart is a derivative of the Nolan Chart, which is a political view assessment diagram created by David Nolan in 1969. The chart represents political opinion along two axes: economic and personal. It presents political views according to degrees of economic and personal freedom. Nolan stated that when someone views this chart, it causes an irreversible change: viewers subsequently view the political orientations in two dimensions instead of one.

Nolan Chart - liberal versus conservative

Economic freedom relates to what people do as producers and consumers and what they do with their money. For example: where they work, ability to start a business, and ability to buy a home. Personal freedom relates to self-expression, and what people do with their minds and bodies. For example: recreational activities, membership in organizations, and drugs and foods they consume. 

Most government control and involvement falls within these two arenas of economics and personal activity. Wikipedia notes that:

The extremes are no government at all in either area (anarchism) or total or near-total government control of everything (various forms of totalitarianism). Most political philosophies fall somewhere in between. In broad terms:

• Conservatives and those on the right tend to favor more freedom in economic areas (example: a free market), but more government intervention in personal matters (example: drug laws).

• Liberals and those on the left (by the common US meanings of those terms) tend to favor more freedom in personal areas (example: no military draft), but more government activism or control in economics (example: a government-mandated minimum wage).

• Libertarians favor both personal and economic freedom, and oppose most (or all) government intervention in both areas. Like conservatives, libertarians believe that people should be free to make economic choices for themselves. Like liberals, libertarians believe in personal freedom.

• Statists favor a lot of government control in both the personal and economic areas. Different versions of the chart, as well as Nolan's original chart, use terms such as "communitarian" or "populist" to label this corner of the chart.

Here's another version of the Nolan Chart which uses traditional left (red) versus conservative (blue) coloration:


(The above two charts courtesy Wikipedia).

Additional dimensions

Of course, there exist political categories or dimensions other than personal and economic. For example, the environmental dimension extends along an axis from:

nature is there for man's taking (anthropocentrism)

balancing human impact with nature (environmentalism)

protecting future generations - of all species (deep ecology)

Thus, it would be possible to be an environmentalist and a liberal (it seems that many environmentalists fall into this category). But it would also be consistent to be a deep ecologist while being fundamentally conservative (indeed, the late Middle English root of "conservative" is to conserve or preserve).

Similarly, additional dimensions might include international versus domestic priorities, free market system versus social collectivism, empire-building warfare versus peace, etc.

Where do you stand?

A number of self-administered quizzes are available for you to find out where you fit. They aren't perfect, but they are interesting to take. Here are a few:

The World's Smallest Political Quiz

Best Political Quiz - This quiz measures political positions along five axes: Overall Standing, International Affairs, Social, Environment, and Economic.

The Enhanced Precision Political Quiz...in 2D

I Side With: 2016 Presidential Election - How do your beliefs align with the potential candidates?

(When taking any quiz online, don't provide personal information that could be used for tracking purposes.)

Bull Moose Progressives and the liberal paradigm

Bull Moose Progressives

When President McKinley was assassinated in 1901, Theodore Roosevelt at age 42 became the youngest President in history. As the 25th President of the United States, Roosevelt held office from 1901 until 1909. He lead the country into the Progressive Era, and championed a "Square Deal" for Americans. The Progressive party called for major reforms including breaking trusts, women's suffrage, railroad regulation, worker's compensation, farm relief, and pure food and drugs.

Roosevelt highly valued conservation. He established new national monuments, parks, and forests with the intent of preserving America's natural resources. He began construction of the Panama Canal.

When asked whether he was fit to be president in 1912, he responded that he was as fit as a "bull moose." The name stuck.

The Platform of the Progressive Party, August 7, 1912, reads in part:

...This country belongs to the people who inhabit it. Its resources, its business, its institutions and its laws should be utilized, maintained or altered in whatever manner will best promote the general interest...

The Old Parties

Political parties exist to secure responsible government and to execute the will of the people.

From these great tasks both of the old parties have turned aside. Instead of instruments to promote the general welfare, they have become the tools of corrupt interests which use them impartially to serve their selfish purposes. Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government, owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.

To destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.

The deliberate betrayal of its trust by the Republican Party, and the fatal incapacity of the Democratic Party to deal with the new issues of the new time, have compelled the people to forge a new instrument of government through which to give effect to their will in laws and institutions.

Unhampered by tradition, uncorrupted by power, undismayed by the magnitude of the task, the new party offers itself as the instrument of the people to sweep away old abuses, to build a new and nobler commonwealth.

A Covenant with the People

This declaration is our covenant with the people, and we hereby bind the party and its candidates in State and Nation to the pledges made herein.

The Rule of the People

The Progressive Party, committed to the principle of government by a self-controlled democracy expressing its will through representatives of the people, pledges itself to secure such alterations in the fundamental law of the several States and of the United States as shall insure the representative character of the Government.

In particular, the party declares for direct primaries for nomination of State and National officers, for Nation-wide preferential primaries for candidates for the Presidency, for the direct election of United States Senators by the people; and we urge on the States the policy of the short ballot, with responsibility to the people secured by the initiative, referendum and recall.

Reflecting on the platform, it appears that special interests and political corruption were as much of an issue one hundred years ago as they are today.

Liberalism

Liberalism in American can be considered a political ideology which is framed by values that include equal opportunity, freedom of thought, individual freedom, and democratic government. Government intervention is typically embraced as the mechanism by which these values are implemented and enforced.

The Heritage Foundation notes that:

The Progressives were united in their contempt for what they called the "individualism" of the Founding. Instead of a government that protects natural rights through limited, decentralized powers, they envisioned an expansive government, a "living" and evolving Constitution, and the rule of "experts" in nationally centralized administrative agencies...

Whereas the Founders believed the government had a well-defined and limited role to play in the lives of citizens - essentially leaving people alone to lead their lives - the Progressives favored a much more active role for the government in overseeing civil society, regulating the economy, and redistributing wealth.

These two fundamentally different understandings of the role of government grow out of two different understandings of freedom. For the Progressives, freedom is not secured when government protects natural rights and otherwise leaves citizens to rule themselves. True freedom, by this view, demands an active government that provides equal means to self-fulfillment for all. It is not enough to create the conditions that allow people to pursue their own happiness - equal opportunity - since some citizens start with more advantages than others. Government must set out to level the playing field and determine outcomes...

Liberalism can be understood in two very different ways. Liberalism, or what some call "classical liberalism," is a political philosophy based on individual liberty and limited government. Over the last century, however, liberalism has come to take on a different meaning. The contemporary understanding of liberalism is based not on individual liberty, but on the use of government to grant benefits and advantages in order to give everyone the ability to achieve a certain standard of living and reduce inequalities. Therefore, modern liberalism encourages an extensive network of interest groups that receive benefits from government and organize in order to preserve those benefits.

Modern liberalism grows out of the Progressive rejection of American constitutionalism and an embrace of a new conception of freedom, anchored in big government.

The Progressive versus Liberal paradigm

Philosopher and political scientist W.B. Gallie called the terminology of "progressive" and "liberals" contested concepts:

...concepts the proper use of which inevitably involves endless disputes about their proper uses on the part of their users [that] cannot be settled by appeal to empirical evidence, linguistic usage, or the canons of logic alone.

There is no singularly accepted definition for these terms. In the article What are 'Liberals,' What are 'Progressives,' and Why the Difference Matters, Crissie Brown notes that:

More recently, cognitive linguists have explored contested concepts in the context of frame semantics... That is, we define words relative to other ideas that come to mind when we hear, read, or think about them. Those other ideas form the "frame" within which we find meaning for a word. Both "liberal" and "progressive" exist in the POLITICS frame and - in the U.S. - both imply opposition to "conservative." Add to that the fact that conservatives have for decades used "liberal" as an epithet, and many people have come to believe that "progressive" is simply a euphemism for "liberal." But those two terms have different histories and hallmarks.

Brown points out that:

Liberalism is a set of ideals grounded in the social contract (rule by consent of the governed for mutual benefit), both negative liberty (freedom from unreasonable interference) and positive liberty (access to basic resources to pursue one's goals), and both equality in law (legal rights and privileges), and equality of opportunity (social mobility). Liberalism is an ideology, and over three hundred years of history have shown that it can be robust and successful. Indeed the past three centuries can reasonably be summarized as the rise and spread of liberal ideals.

Brown notes that not all progressives are liberal:

Progressivism is a problem-solving method. Historians generally date Progressive Era as 1890-1920, but the progressive method did not end with that date. The progressive method is not an ideology but a pragmatic search for solutions that work, grounded in a healthy skepticism.

Thus, for example, Prohibition was a progressive project and was based on the social science of that era , but 'The Great Experiment' of Prohibition failed in practice and progressives also worked for its repeal. The 20th century can reasonably be summarized as the rise and spread of the progressive method.

In support of Progressivism, Brown observes that:

In short, it's not enough to practice the progressive method. That method must be applied toward goals grounded in liberal ideals, and it we must recognize when it's time to 'fish or cut bait' and be willing to advocate the best solutions we can find with confidence, even as we recognize that we will need to adapt to new information and changing conditions.


References

1. Theodore Roosevelt, Wikipedia.

2. Bull Moose Party - The Progressive Party of 1912, American History.

3. Platform of the Progressive Party, August 7, 1912.

4. Progressivism and Liberalism, The Heritage Foundation

5. What are ‘Liberals,’ What are ‘Progressives,’ and Why the Difference Matters, Crissie Brown, PoliticsUSA, June 15, 2013.

6. How to tell the difference between a progressive and a liberal.

7. What is Progressive?, Andrew Garb, Alternet, July 25, 2005.

Neoliberalism

Neoliberalism (or neo-liberalism) originated as an European economic philosophy in the 1930s. The intent was to bridge the conflicting ideologies of classical liberalism and socialist planning in order to avoid economic failures like those which occurred in the early 1930s. Neoliberalism at first referred to theories at odds with classical liberal laissez-faire doctrine. It promoted a market economy guided by a strong state, which was referred to as the social market economy.

During this 1980s the term gained a negative connotation. The term shifted to mean a more radical laissez-faire economic approach. Scholars began to associate neoliberalism with Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek. Neoliberalism currently refers to market-oriented policies such as deregulating capital markets, eliminating price controls, lowering trade barriers, and reducing state influence on the economy - especially through privatization and austerity.

This new meaning of neoliberalism is common among Spanish-speaking scholars, but the term is used less frequently in the United States.

 

References

Neoliberalism, Wikipedia.

What is Neoliberalism? A Brief Definition for Activists, by Elizabeth Martinez and Arnoldo Garcia, Global Exchange, February 26th, 2000.

What is Neoliberalism, Investopedia.

Conservatism, Paleoconservatism, and Neoconservatism

Conservatism

Conservatism is a political approach which promotes retaining social institutions in the context of civilization and culture. Quintin Hogg, chairman of the British Conservative Party in 1959, "Conservatism is not so much a philosophy as an attitude, a constant force, performing a timeless function in the development of a free society, and corresponding to a deep and permanent requirement of human nature itself."1

Conservatism has different meanings and traditions in different countries. Conservative political parties vary from country to country depending on their goals and objectives, and often define themselves by their opposition to liberal agendas.

Conservatism in the United States is rooted in the American Revolution and its commitment to sovereignty of the people, republicanism, and individual rights and liberties. Most European conservatives consider American conservatism to be a variety of liberalism and do not think of it as genuine conservatism.1

Conservatism can take many forms, including the traditional forms of:
  • Liberal conservatism: combines conservative values and policies with classical liberal positions.
  • Conservative liberalism: combines liberal values and policies with conservative positions.
  • Libertarian conservatism: in the United States, combine libertarian economic issues with other aspects of conservatism.
  • Fiscal conservatism: economic philosophy of prudence in government spending and debt.
  • National and traditional conservatism: in Europe, concentrates more on national interests.
  • Cultural and social conservatism: preserving the heritage of a nation or a shared culture.
  • Religious conservatism: seeks to apply the teachings of particular religions to politics.
  • Progressive conservatism: stresses the importance of a social safety net and supports limited redistribution of wealth along with government regulation.1
Environmentalism can also be considered a form of conservatism, since it derives from the objectives of conservation and preserving the natural environment. It differs from traditional conservatism in that it does not encompass social issues.

Paleoconservatism

In the United States, Paleoconservatism stresses tradition, limited government, civil society, along with religious, national, and regional Western identity. Paleoconservatives disagree with neoconservatives, on issues such as illegal immigration, high rates of legal immigration, multiculturalism, affirmative action, foreign aid, and free trade. They also criticize social democracy and social welfare, referring to it as the "welfare-warfare state"2 As such, they may be considered "classical conservatives."

Paleocons typically take the "long view" toward US conservatism. Samuel T. Francis observed that:

What paleoconservatism tries to tell Americans is that the dominant forces in their society are no longer committed to conserving the traditions, institutions, and values that created and formed it, and, therefore, that those who are really conservative in any serious sense and wish to live under those traditions, institutions, and values need to oppose the dominant forces and form new ones...

We believe that the United States derives from and is an integral part of European civilization and the European people and that the American people and government should remain European in their composition and character... We believe that illegal immigration must be stopped, if necessary by military force and placing troops on our national borders; that illegal aliens must be returned to their own countries; and that legal immigration must be severely restricted or halted through appropriate changes in our laws and policies.2

Paleoconservatives contend that human nature is finite and limited. Attempts to engineer a man-made utopia are fraught with pitfalls. Paleoconservatives prefer tradition, family, classical learning, and religious institutions to provide guidance. They tend to believe that we have lost touch with our Western heritage and indeed may be in danger of losing our civilization.2

Neoconservatism

The Neoconservatism movement originated in the 1960s with Democrats who were disillusioned with the party's foreign and domestic policies. Since that time, Noconservative ideology has continued to influence American foreign policy. Neoconservatives typically advocate for promotion of democracy and of American interests in international affairs, including by use of military force. Neocons disdain communism and political radicalism. They do, however, endorse some social welfare programs that are rejected by Paleoconservatives.3

In a 2004 article, Michael Lind wrote:

Neoconservatism ... originated in the 1970s as a movement of anti-Soviet liberals and social democrats in the tradition of Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey and Henry ('Scoop') Jackson, many of whom preferred to call themselves 'paleoliberals.' [After the end of the Cold War] ... many 'paleoliberals' drifted back to the Democratic center ... Today's neocons are a shrunken remnant of the original broad neocon coalition. Nevertheless, the origins of their ideology on the left are still apparent. The fact that most of the younger neocons were never on the left is irrelevant; they are the intellectual (and, in the case of William Kristol and John Podhoretz, the literal) heirs of older ex-leftists.3

Former Nebraska Republican U.S. senator and Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, was critical of the Bush administration's adoption of neoconservative ideology. He wrote in his book America: Our Next Chapter:

So why did we invade Iraq? I believe it was the triumph of the so-called neo-conservative ideology, as well as Bush administration arrogance and incompetence that took America into this war of choice. . . . They obviously made a convincing case to a president with very limited national security and foreign policy experience, who keenly felt the burden of leading the nation in the wake of the deadliest terrorist attack ever on American soil.3

Comparison

Paleoconservatives tend to be traditionalist, isolationist, and America first. Their socially conservative ideology is rooted in fundamentalist Protestantism. They generally oppose social legislation and welfare programs.

Neoconservatives support an engaged and activist foreign policy. They believe in American exceptionalism, and are concerned about the "clash of civilizations" implicit in threats such Communism and Islam. They are less motivated by religion than Paleoconservatives.4

Paleoconservatives and Neoconservatives disagree on issues including immigration, foreign wars, and Middle East policy. Neocons espouse strong support for Israel and believe that America should help ensure the security of the Jewish state.5 Paleo historian Thomas Woods elaborated:

The conservative’s traditional sympathy for the American South and its people and heritage, evident in the works of such great American conservatives as Richard M. Weaver and Russell Kirk, began to disappear... [T]he neocons are heavily influenced by Woodrow Wilson, with perhaps a hint of Theodore Roosevelt. ... They believe in an aggressive U.S. presence practically everywhere, and in the spread of democracy around the world, by force if necessary. ... Neoconservatives tend to want more efficient government agencies; paleoconservatives want fewer government agencies. [Neoconservatives] generally admire President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his heavily interventionist New Deal policies. Neoconservatives have not exactly been known for their budget consciousness, and you won't hear them talking about making any serious inroads into the federal apparatus.5

From the article 3 Basic Differences Between Conservatism and Neoconservatism:

  1. Neoconservatives believe the GOP should be converted to embrace a "modern democracy," aka a welfare state in the mold of FDR and the Great Society. Neoconservatives don't want to disassemble the federal government in order to rebalance divided powers between federal, state, and local governments; they just think they can pilot Leviathan better than the Democrats.
  2. Neoconservatives are largely secular intellectuals who ally with Bible-based people out of cynical pragmatism, not a genuine, shared love for the God of Israel.
  3. Neoconservatives naively think they can democratize the Muslim world with American military power.7

 

References

1. Modern conservatism in different countries, Wikipedia.

2. Paleoconservatism, Wikipedia.

3. Neoconservatism, Wikipedia.

4. What's the difference between Paleo-Conservatives and Neoconservatives?, About.com.

5. Neoconservatism and paleoconservatism, Wikipedia.

6. Paleoconservatism vs. Neoconservatism, Jack Kerwick, About.com.

7. 3 Basic Differences Between Conservatism and Neoconservatism, Dave Swindle, PJ Media, December 27, 2013.
 

Cultural Marxism and Political Correctness

Political Correctness is a deadly serious form of Cultural Marxism, which views culture as the basis of class struggle. Cultural Marxism relies on deconstruction to undermine underlying cultural values in order to pave the way to fundamentally transform a society. 

An informative synopsis of Political Correctness / Cultural Marxism, by Discover the Networks1 is included below (adapted from Lind's Political Correctness: A Short History of an Ideology).2

America today is dominated by a system of beliefs, attitudes and values that we have come to know as “Political Correctness.” For many it is an annoyance and a self parodying joke. But Political Correctness is deadly serious in its aims, seeking to impose a uniformity of thought and behavior on all Americans. It is therefore totalitarian in nature. Its roots lie in a version of Marxism which sees culture, rather than the economy, as the site of class struggle.

Under Marxist economic theory, the oppressed workers were supposed to be the beneficiaries of a social revolution that would place them on top of the power structure. When these revolutionary opportunities presented themselves, however, the workers did not respond. The Marxist revolutionaries did not blame their theory for these failures; instead they blamed the “ruling class,” which had bought off the workers by giving them “rights,” and had blinded them with a “false consciousness” that led them to support national governments and liberal democracy.

One group of Marxist intellectuals resolved this apparent contradiction of Marxist theory by an analysis that focused on society’s cultural “superstructure” rather than on the economic “base” as Marx did. The Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci and Hungarian Marxist Georg Lukacs contributed the most to this new cultural Marxism.

Among Marxists, Gramsci is noted for his theory that cultural hegemony is the means to class dominance. In his view, a new “Communist man” had to be created through a changed culture before any political revolution was possible. This led to a focus on the efforts of intellectuals in the fields of education and media.

Georg Lukacs believed that for a new Marxist culture to emerge, the existing culture must be destroyed. He said, “I saw the revolutionary destruction of society as the one and only solution to the cultural contradictions of the epoch.... Such a worldwide overturning of values cannot take place without the annihilation of the old values and the creation of new ones by the revolutionaries.”

In 1923, Lukacs and other Marxist intellectuals associated with the Communist Party of Germany founded the Institute of Social Research at Frankfurt University in Frankfurt, Germany. The Institute, which became known as the Frankfurt School, was modeled after the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow. In 1933, when Nazis came to power in Germany, the members of the Frankfurt School fled. Most came to the United States and many became influential in American universities. The Frankfurt School’s studies combined Marxist analysis with Freudian psychoanalysis to form the basis of what became known as “Critical Theory.”

Critical Theory was essentially destructive criticism of the main elements of Western culture, including Christianity, capitalism, authority, the family, patriarchy, hierarchy, morality, tradition, sexual restraint, loyalty, patriotism, nationalism, heredity, ethnocentrism, convention and conservatism.

Critical Theorists recognized that traditional beliefs and the existing social structure would have to be destroyed and then replaced with a “new thinking” that would become as much a part of elementary consciousness as the old one had been. Their theories took hold in the tumultuous 1960s, when the Vietnam War opened a Pandora’s Box of reevaluaton and revolution. The student radicals of the era were strongly influenced by revolutionary ideas, among them those of Herbert Marcuse, a member of the Frankfurt School who preach the “Great Refusal,” a rejection of all basic Western concepts and an embrace of sexual liberation, and the merits of feminist and black revolutions. His primary thesis was that university students, ghetto blacks, the alienated, the asocial, and the Third World could take the place of the proletariat in the coming Communist revolution.

Marcuse may be the most important member of the Frankfurt School in terms of the origins of Political Correctness, because he was the critical link to the counterculture of the 1960s. His objective was clear: “One can rightfully speak of a cultural revolution, since the protest is directed toward the whole cultural establishment, including morality of existing society.”

When addressing the general public, contemporary advocates of Political Correctness – or Cultural Marxism, as it might just as easily be called – present their beliefs with appealing simplicity as merely a commitment to being “sensitive” to other people and embracing values such as “tolerance” and “diversity.”

The reality is different. Political Correctness is the use of culture as a sharp weapon to enforce new norms and to stigmatize those who dissent from the new dispensation; to stigmatize those who insist on values that will impede the new "PC" regime: free speech and free and objective intellectual inquiry.

Adapted from: "Political Correctness": A Short History of an Ideology," edited by William Lind (November 2004).2

Deconstruction

Author William Lind describes in the article The Origins of Political Correctness how the agenda of Cultural Marxism is implicitly deconstructionist:3

...We have it primarily on college campuses, but it is spreading throughout the whole society. Were does it come from? What is it?

We call it “Political Correctness.” The name originated as something of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think of it as only half-serious. In fact, it’s deadly serious. It is the great disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world. It is the disease of ideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious.

If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious.

First of all, both are totalitarian ideologies...

... the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness, like economic Marxism, has a single factor explanation of history. Economic Marxism says that all of history is determined by ownership of means of production. Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, says that all history is determined by power, by which groups defined in terms of race, sex, etc., have power over which other groups. Nothing else matters. All literature, indeed, is about that. Everything in the past is about that one thing.

... just as in classical economic Marxism certain groups, i.e. workers and peasants, are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil. In the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness certain groups are good – feminist women, (only feminist women, non-feminist women are deemed not to exist) blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals. These groups are determined to be “victims,” and therefore automatically good regardless of what any of them do. Similarly, white males are determined automatically to be evil, thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic Marxism.

... both economic and cultural Marxism rely on expropriation. When the classical Marxists, the communists, took over a country like Russia, they expropriated the bourgeoisie, they took away their property. Similarly, when the cultural Marxists take over a university campus, they expropriate through things like quotas for admissions...

For the cultural Marxist, it’s deconstruction. Deconstruction essentially takes any text, removes all meaning from it and re-inserts any meaning desired... So the parallels are very evident between the classical Marxism that we’re familiar with in the old Soviet Union and the cultural Marxism that we see today as Political Correctness...

History

Chuck Rogér summarizes Cultural Marxist history:4

... In the 1920s and 1930s Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci, who argued that traditional values must be obliterated in order to free "oppressed" social groups, called for eliminating social decorum and glorifying perverse behavior in order to destroy the Western middle class and collapse society from within. Translated into today's terminology, the plan prescribed the commandeering of news and entertainment media, religious and financial institutions, organized labor, health care, and education.

Gramsci's cultural Marxism began to reach throughout society when Frankfurt University's Institute for Marxism -- renamed the Institute for Social Research and informally called the Frankfurt School - fled Nazi Germany, took up temporary residence at Columbia University in 1933, and then, during World War II, began using Gramsci-derived "critical theory" to "deconstruct" American society. German-born philosopher-writer Herbert Marcuse and other Marxists carried cultural Marxism beyond Columbia, and progressives adopted the disease as a weapon of "change" to be deployed within the education system...

So camouflaged has been the use of Gramsci's brainchild that most education school indoctrinees -- K-12 teachers -- have never really weighed the consequences of conditioning students to reject a moral and prosperous America...

Critical Theory

An integral component of Cultural Marxism is Critical Theory. Lind describes it as:2,3

Critical Theory was essentially destructive criticism of the main elements of Western culture, including Christianity, capitalism, authority, the family, patriarchy, hierarchy, morality, tradition, sexual restraint, loyalty, patriotism, nationalism, heredity, ethnocentrism, convention and conservatism.

Critical Theorists recognized that traditional beliefs and the existing social structure would have to be destroyed and then replaced with a “new thinking” that would become as much a part of elementary consciousness as the old one had been...

... the radical feminism, the women’s studies departments, the gay studies departments, the black studies departments – all these things are branches of Critical Theory. What the Frankfurt School essentially does is draw on both Marx and Freud in the 1930s to create this theory called Critical Theory. The term is ingenious because you’re tempted to ask, “What is the theory?” The theory is to criticize. The theory is that the way to bring down Western culture and the capitalist order is not to lay down an alternative. They explicitly refuse to do that. They say it can’t be done, that we can’t imagine what a free society would look like (their definition of a free society). As long as we’re living under repression – the repression of a capitalistic economic order which creates (in their theory) the Freudian condition, the conditions that Freud describes in individuals of repression – we can’t even imagine it.

What Critical Theory is about is simply criticizing. It calls for the most destructive criticism possible, in every possible way, designed to bring the current order down. And, of course, when we hear from the feminists that the whole of society is just out to get women and so on, that kind of criticism is a derivative of Critical Theory. It is all coming from the 1930s, not the 1960s...

Critical Theory is used by leftist deconstructionists to reframe the political debate from discourse about good and bad ideas to good and bad people. The far left believes that their battle is not about political ideas, but about bad people - that is, the Republicans - who should be taken out via every means possible, including violence.

Multiculturalism

Linda Kimball points out that multiculturalism is but another facet of Cultural Marxism:5

Both communism and the New Left are alive and thriving here in America. They favor code words: tolerance, social justice, economic justice, peace, reproductive rights, sex education and safe sex, safe schools, inclusion, diversity, and sensitivity. All together, this is Cultural Marxism disguised as multiculturalism.

The blogger Fjordman notes that:6

Not only has Marxism survived, it is thriving and has in some ways grown stronger. Leftist ideas about Multiculturalism and de-facto open borders have achieved a virtual hegemony in public discourse, their critics vilified and demonized. By hiding their intentions under labels such as “anti-racism” and “tolerance,” Leftists have achieved a degree of censorship of public discourse they could never have dreamt of had they openly stated that their intention was to radically transform Western civilization and destroy its foundations.

The Left have become ideological orphans after the Cold War, or perhaps we should call them ideological mercenaries. Although the viable economic alternative to capitalism didn’t work out, their hatred for this system never subsided, it merely transformed into other forms. Multiculturalism is just a different word for “divide and conquer,” pitting various ethnic and cultural groups against each other and destroying the coherence of Western society from within.

At the very least, the people living in the former Communist countries knew and admitted that they were taking part in a gigantic social experiment, and that the media and the authorities were serving them propaganda to shore up support for this project. Yet in the supposedly free West, we are taking part in a gigantic social experiment of Multiculturalism and Muslim immigration every bit as radical, utopian and potentially dangerous as Communism, seeking to transform our entire society from top to bottom, and still we refuse to even acknowledge that this is going on.


 

References

1. Political Correctness / Cultural Marxism, Discover the Networks.

2. Political Correctness: A Short History of an Ideology, Edited by William Lind, November 2004. Read the entire book (pdf).

3. The Origins of Political Correctness, by William Lind, Accuracy in Academia, February 5, 2000.

4. Cultural Marxism in Education: The Gathering Revolt, by Chuck Roger, American Thinker, April 18, 2010.

5. Cultural Marxism, by Linda Kimball, American Thinker, February 15, 2007.

6. Political Correctness: The Revenge of Marxism, by Fjordam, Gates of Vienna, June 14, 2006.

7. Who Stole Our Culture?, by William Lind, World Net Daily, May 24, 2007.

8. Why There Is A Culture War: Gramsci and Tocqueville in America

9. What Is the Frankfurt School (And Its Effect on America)?, by Dr. Gerald L. Atkinson, Western Voices World News, August 1, 1999.

10. Multiculturalism and Marxism, by Frank Ellis, Discover the Networks, November, 1999.

11. A Guide for the Perplexed: A Brief History of Political Correctness and Its Origins, by Cartes A. Jouer, Pamela Geller - Atlas Shrugged, September 3, 2012.

12. What is Cultural Marxism?, Destroy Cultural Marxism, January 8, 2013.

13. A Progressive's Guide to Political Correctness, Washington Post Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist George Will:

 

14. What Is Cultural Marxism?, Katehon:

...In brief, a Cultural Marxist is one who believes that that cultural/civilizational factors are irrelevant in understanding any type of social, political, or international form of relations, and in order to advance their "cultural-blind" end goal ideology, they:

(1) first support the dilution and then abolishment of majority cultures via the ‘politically correct’ dominance of minority/immigrant cultures, typically using slurring accusations of “racism”, “fascism”, and “white supremacy” to attack those who oppose this radical platform;

(2) and then afterwards ‘smoothing over’ all the remaining cultural mass into an amorpheous and unoriginal ‘blob’ which loses all aspects of its former cultural identity and is thenceforth molded into a new and unprecedented form of being.

Stage one is in process all throughout the EU and parts of the US...

15. The Democrats’ Second Secession & America’s New Civil War - How to look at the bizarre turn our political life has taken, by David Horowitz, FrontPage Mag, May 26, 2017.

16. A Long History of Leftist Hatred, by Pat Buchanan, American Renaissance, June 16, 2017.

17. How leftist philosophy fuels political violence, by Nate Madden, Conservative Review, June 16, 2017.

Fascism - a phenomenon of the left

Today it's commonplace for leftist liberals to call conservatives fascists. But the reality is that fascism derives from traditional liberalism. Fascism is a liberal / progressive concept, and has nothing to do with conservatism.

Modern liberalism derived from twentieth-century progressivism, and shared commonality with European fascism, where it was expressed as militant nationalism with blatant racist overtones.

Before World War II, fascism was viewed as a positive, progressive social movement in both America and Europe. Then the Holocaust completely changed our view of fascism to that of evil nationalism and genocidal racism.

Under FDR’s presidency the term “liberalism” came to replace “progressivism” to describe center-left politics. In order to purport that the totalitarian New Deal was the opposite of fascism, liberals then created a straw man out of the conservative movement. The term “right-wing” had already been used to describe a position opposed to Roosevelt, so it was a relatively small incremental step to associate the American right with despised Nazi fascism.

Today’s liberalism embodies a soft, yet still totalitarian, form of fascism. Fascism in the United States is expressed in the milder form of progressivism - as a softer form of totalitarianism more in alignment with American culture. We see in the U.S. a form of liberal fascism manifested as an ever-expanding nanny state.

Notable author Dinesh D'Souza writes in his August 11, 2017 FrontPage Mag article, Big Liar - How Theodor Adorno redefined Fascism:

Fascism and Nazism are both phenomena of the left. This makes ideological sense, because at their core they represent ideologies of the centralized, all-powerful state. Moreover, fascism grew out of Marxism, and fascism’s founder Benito Mussolini, was a Marxist and lifelong socialist. Hitler, too, was a socialist who headed the National Socialist Party and in fact changed the name of the German Workers Party to make it the National Socialist German Workers Party.

How, then, did progressives in America re-define fascism and Nazism as phenomena of the right? This sleight-of-hand occurred after World War II, once fascism and Nazism were discredited with the reputation of Holocaust. Then progressives recognized it was important to cover up the leftist roots of fascism and Nazism and to move them from the left-wing column into the right-wing column.

The man most responsible for the progressive redefinition of fascism is Theodor Adorno, a German Marxist intellectual and a member of the influential Institute for Social Research, otherwise known as the Frankfurt School. The Frankfurt School scholars were leftists and most of them were refugees from Nazi Germany. Some settled in Europe; others like Adorno and Herbert Marcuse came to the United States.

Adorno’s influence in defining how fascism came to be understood in America cannot be underestimated...

Adorno decided to repackage fascism as a form of capitalism and moral traditionalism. In effect, they reinvented fascism as a phenomenon of the political right. In this preposterous interpretation, fascism was remade into two things that real fascists despised: free markets and support for a traditional moral order...

Here, after all, was a German Jewish scholar declaring fascism a phenomenon of the right. Clearly he was sticking fascism on conservatives who supported capitalism and affirmed religion and traditional families. This was a lie—real fascists detest those institutions and want to destroy them—but it was a politically convenient lie.

So the progressives delightedly climbed aboard the bandwagon and cheered him on, and the cheering continues...

Adorno’s value to such people is that he empowers them to say, “Down with fascism! Now let’s get rid of conservatism and expose those evil people on the right.” And today Adorno’s deception enables the left to call Trump a fascist and Republicans the modern incarnation of the Nazi Party. Only by understanding this big lie can we inoculate ourselves against it and correctly locate fascism and Nazism where they have always belonged—on the political left.

Dinesh D’Souzaha has published a new book The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left.

Dinesh D’Souza was politically persecuted under the Obama administration

 

The article Outing Left Wing Fascists-Nazis, by Jim Oneill, Canada Free Press, August 16, 2017 also explains leftist fascism:

I like most of my fellow Republicans and conservatives was a victim of the progressive paradigm, embedded in all our institutions of culture, from academia to Hollywood to the media. ...the story that we had accepted, like suckers, was the idea that fascism and Nazism are inherently “right wing.”—Dinesh D’Souza “The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left

... For some years now I have been shouting from the rooftops that the Fascists/Nazis were, are, and always will be a Left-wing phenomenon. I have called it the “Big Lie” (e.g. “Right Wing Nazis: The Big Lie”), and I am delighted to see that Dinesh D’Souza sees this outrageous falsehood in the same light—naming his most recent book “The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left.” (Unless otherwise stated all of the quotes in this article come from D’Souza’s book).

I say I am “delighted” because D’Souza has a much larger megaphone than I do, and in addition has a professional resume to die for. That’s why Dinesh earns the big bucks, and I don’t. On a more serious note, that is also why D’Souza has been incarcerated as a political prisoner in the United States and I have not...

Let me start by defining some terms. What is a conservative? Politically speaking a conservative is, not surprisingly, someone who wishes to conserve, to save, something. Not to put too fine a point on it, that something that we wish to conserve is freedom, our individual liberty. That means that conservatives try to rein in or restrain government (for as government grows freedom shrinks).

Opposed to the conservative viewpoint is the, well, it goes under a variety of names…I’ll simply call it the liberal/progressive/globalist/communist/socialist/statist, or fascist viewpoint—which is in favor of a huge, bloated, bureaucratic government that controls every aspect of our lives, to one degree or another...

Now might be a good time to bring up the question: what is fascism exactly? The Left would have us believe that either (1) fascism is a right-wing ideology, or (2) the answer is so muddled, arcane, obscure, and convoluted that no simple answer is possible. Both of the “answers” that the Left tries to palm off on us are nonsense. They are lies, big lies. 

Fascism is a Big Government ideology, and as such belongs firmly on the left side of the political spectrum (on the side opposite from the restrained and reined in government, right-wing side of things)...

Do not buy into that leftist nonsense that patriotism is synonymous with fascism... Mahatma Gandhi was a nationalist, so was Nelson Mandela. Winston Churchill, who led Britain’s courageous fight against the fascists and Nazis, was a patriot of the first order.

Conflating love of country with fascism is absolute rubbish. It’s a sad specimen of humanity who takes no pride in where they live. Wanting to protect and cherish your home turf is not fascist...

So, who is our enemy? All those who would muzzle us, shackle us, rob us and scorn us. I think you know who I mean...

The Main Stream Media is by and large either clueless or intentionally lying 99% of the time (in case you haven’t figured that out yet)...

The riot in Charlottesville was not Left against Right, as the media would have us believe. It was an internecine fight between two leftist factions. In short, it was Left against Left. I doubt that any of the people involved realize that fact, but nonetheless it is true. (I understand that there were also people there simply defending Confederate history, and/or protecting the right to free speech—I leave them out of this discussion).

The Nazi ANTIFA thugs were obviously left-wing, but what about the white supremacists, surely they were right-wing, right? Wrong.

The so-called “Neo-Nazis,” or “Alt-Right” white supremacists are basically “Old Guard” leftist thugs, cast adrift by shifting leftist loyalties. Anyone who has done their due diligence researching the history of the Democratic Party (without ideological blinders on) knows that the Ku Klux Klan and the Democratic Party were thick as thieves for a century.

As Dinesh D’Souza recently said in a “Fox News” interview “These white nationalists, who really belong in the Democratic Party, are in a sense politically homeless, because if they show up at multicultural picnic they’re Satan.” My how the mighty have fallen. The Democratic Party now has a “black racists only” policy—whites need not apply.

 

Is Fascism Right or Left?, by Dinesh D'Souza, Prager U, December 4, 2017:

CAIRCO Research

Liberals’ Fascist Inversion - How liberals have permuted the meaning of the term ‘fascism’, by Fred Elbel, The Social Contract, Winter, 2017: Book review of: Liberal Fascism - The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change, by Jonah Goldberg.

Liberalism sure isn't what it used to be, by Fred Elbel, CAIRCO, January 22, 2017.

The Political Persecution of Dinesh D’Souza, by Fred Elbel, CAIRCO, July 16, 2015.

Those Cultural Marxists sure have a way with words, by Fred Elbel, CAIRCO, April 24, 2017.

Ritual Defamation - controlling values, opinions, and beliefs, by Fred Elbel, CAIRCO, August 16, 2017.

The Political Spectrum

Cultural Marxism and Political Correctness

Identity Politics: squabbling factions

Theodore Roosevelt observed:

The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, or preventing all possibility of its continuing as a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities.

Former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm similarly observed that It is a Blessing for an Individual to be Bilingual; It is a Curse for a Society to be Bilingual.

Yet Identity Politics fragments society more deeply than does national origin, which accedes over time to assimilation.

Identity Politics is defined by Dictionary.com as "political activity or movements based on or catering to the cultural, ethnic, gender, racial, religious, or social interests that characterize a group identity."

Rational Wiki expands on the definition:

Identity Politics as a political style that focuses on the issues relevant to various groups defined by a wide variety of shared characteristics, including, but not limited to, race, social class, religion, sex, gender, ethnicity, ideology, nationality, sexual orientation, gender expression, culture, currency, shared history, medical conditions, profession, and other of the many ways in which people differ from each other, and into which they may be classified or classify themselves.

Appeal to these shared commonalities, or disdain for similarly constituted groups seen as undesirable or aberrant, has likely been a feature of primate politics since before the emergence of Homo sapiens. It is not obvious from the broadest definition, but identity politics as usually understood under the label is a variant of Marxism, and as such it is a political style strongly associated with the hard political left.

Identity politics is distinguishable from political nationalism. A nationalist political movement asserts the unity of an ethnic identity and its entitlement to dominate a territory. Identity politics, by contrast, arises out of the universalist claims of Western democracies that embraced capitalism to at least some extent...

A universal assumption is that certain identity groups that are alleged to be historically oppressed are granted automatic moral worth and sympathy as a result. Who is chosen as the most deserving will of course depend on your perspective.

Wikia observes that: "identity politics means more than the sole recognition of social identity such as religion, ethnicity, or culture. Rather, identity politics seeks to carry this social identity forward, beyond mere self-identification, to a political framework based upon that identity..."

Identity Politics thus attempts to facilitate group empowerment by asserting group difference rather than equality. Identity Politics typically embraces real or imagined group victimhood and oppression by the dominant culture or race. Identity based groups typically strive to accentuate their differences from society rather than strive for equality within society.

Another aspect of identity politics is that it is used to obfuscate an ongoing class war. This was the case when, during the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton lambasted millions of voters as "a basket of deplorables, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic - you name it". Race and gender of identity politics was used to conceal the ongoing and hugely important conflict between globalist elites and patriotic nationalists.

History of Identity Politics

brief history of Identity Politics published by NPR, July 12, 2011, mentions the rise of La Raza (The Race) in 1970.

From Identity Politics by Vasiliki Neofotistos, Oxford Bibliographies, October 29, 2013:

Additionally, identity politics refers to tensions and struggles over the right to map and define the contours and fixed “essence” of specific groups. The phrase has become increasingly common in political anthropology since the second half of the 20th century with the emergence of a wide diversity of social movements, including the women’s movement, the African American civil rights movement, and the gay and lesbian movement, as well as nationalist and postcolonial movements. Central to the practice of identity politics are the notions of sameness and difference, and thus the anthropological study of identity politics involves the study of the politics of difference.

Rational Wiki sheds more light on the historical evolution of Identity Politics.

The current political version of American multiculturalism is described by Stanley Renshon in the February 8, 2011, Center for Immigration Studies article: Multiculturalism in the U.S.: Cultural Narcissism and the Politics of Recognition:

It is a term that gathered force in the aftermath of the 1960s when cultural narcissism and identity politics became fused into the multicultural movement. The historian Christopher Lasch brilliantly captured the first of these trends in his book The Cultural of Narcissism.

In it, he argued that the traditional American cultural of individualism and self-reliance was eroding in the face of growing self-absorption and a society that increasingly seemed to reward it. This set of developments gained momentum in the context of general demands of groups that had not been "mainstream" to become so and have society validate that new status politically and culturally. The absolute legitimacy of the demand by Americans of African descent for full political and legal rights and their public acceptance was the foundation on which other groups based their own demands for "recognition."

There followed group after group demanding public validation, social acceptance, and government policies to redress the historical wrongs – some very real, others exaggerated – that they used to press their claims.

Not America's history

America hasn't always been a multiculturalist, identity-driven nation. As Stephen Steinlight points out in his April 2004 Center for Immigration Studies article, High Noon to Midnight: Why Current Immigration Policy Dooms American Jewry,

Perhaps the chief distinction between today’s immigration and that of yesteryear is the absence of the tacit and overt pressures that assimilated even the most recalcitrant. These forces have been weakened by multiculturalist ideology that legitimizes and reinforces identity politics; the demise of Americanization programs; the death of civic education; the rise of bilingualism; and the elimination of obligatory national service.

Similarly, Peter Brimelow, author of Alien Nation, observes in his 2002 VDare article Peter Brimelow (“a once-respected conservative voice”) on Goldberg of National Review:

Contrary to the melting pot myth, America has not always been a multicultural, multiracial kaleidoscope held together by some abstract principles. At the time of the Revolution, it was completely white, overwhelmingly Protestant (98%), heavily British (80%), significantly English (60%). (There were of course black slaves, but they were not part of the political nation.) Over time, immigration did gradually alter this, but less than immigration enthusiasts think – demographers estimate that the population of the U.S. would be about half of what it is now if there had been no immigration at all after 1790. When non-traditional groups arrived, there was always intense debate which, if the inflow did not abate spontaneously (the Irish after 1850), resulted in government cut-offs (the Chinese, the Japanese, the “new immigrants” 1880-1921). And blacks were painfully integrated. But the U.S. was 90% white as late as 1960.

Jonah lovingly quotes Ramesh Ponnuru disparaging immigration reform as “identity politics for white people.” (Why can`t whites have identity politics, incidentally, if blacks and Hispanics —or Hindus or Indians— can?) But, historically, “white identity politics” would have been called simply— “American identity politics.”

You can approve of this historical fact or not. But you cannot deny it.

Leftist agenda

Identity Politics is a relatively new phenomenon in American politics which has been embraced by leftists, progressives, and the Democrat Party - particularly under the Obama administration. While initially serving to differentiate the party from conservative agendas, it is beginning to short-circuit the party's efficacy.

In a May 18, 2015 USA Today article, Democrats sic identity politics on their own - The left has handicapped its ability to debate policy, even among themselves, Glenn Harlan Reynolds observes that:

In my experience, people argue identity when they don't want to argue policy. And the reason they don't want to argue policy, usually, is that they're wrong. But in arguing that everyone who disagrees with them is a racist, or a sexist, or a tool of Big Money, or whatever, the Democrats run the risk of self-destruction. This is basically what happened to the the Labour Party in Britain: A reliance on easy tropes that please the base but alienate other voters...

Likewise, too many prominent Democrats and supporters have spent the past six years calling everyone who doesn't agree with Obama a racist...

Joe Klein expresses a similar concern in the September 10, 2012 TIME article, One for All and All for One - It's time for Democrats to move away from identity politics:

The Democrats have a serious problem. It is a problem that stems from the party's greatest strength: its long-term support for inclusion and equal rights for all, its support of racial integration and equal rights for women and homosexuals and its humane stand on immigration reform. Those heroic positions, which I celebrate, cost the Democrats more than a few elections in the past. And they caused an understandable, if misguided, overreaction within the party--a drift toward identity politics, toward special pleading. Inclusion became exclusive...

If the Democrat Party truly wants to be a party of inclusion, it must reach out to those who are currently excluded from its identity politics...

In summary

More than just a nation of squabbling nationalities, America is fast becoming a nation of squabbling identity groups vying for elevated victimhood status. In essence, identity groups are striving to dis-assimilate from mainstream culture, resulting in a fragmented society and loss of cultural cohesion in America.

Perhaps a modernized version of Roosevelt's quote should read:

The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, or preventing all possibility of its continuing as a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling identity factions.

Additional reading

Adolph Reed: Identity Politics Is Neoliberalism, bennorton.com, June 29, 2015:

Political scientist and race theorist Adolph Reed has long maintained that identity politics is a form of neoliberalism. In a June article, he explains: [Identity] politics is not an alternative to class politics; it is a class politics, the politics of the left-wing of neoliberalism...

Reed condemns identity politics for, despite its putative good intentions, disguising objectively right-wing, neoliberal ideology with superficially “progressive” rhetorical window dressing...

Islamic Jihad: Symptom of a Western Cause, Raymond Ibrahim, PJ Media, December 16, 2015:

Yet it still remains unclear whether objective thinking will eventually overthrow the current narrative of relativism, anti-Westernism, and asinine emotionalism.

Simply put, celebrating multiculturalism and defeating the jihad is impossible.

The Delusions of Left-Wing Identity Politics, Jonal Goldberg, National Review, June 27, 2015:

...identity politics is fueled by generous subsidies from higher education, foundations, and other institutions designed to transfer resources to the Griping Industry. But if you spend enough time teaching people to think that way, guess what? They’ll think that way...

What’s Wrong With Identity Politics (and Intersectionality Theory)? A Response to Mark Fisher’s “Exiting the Vampire Castle” (And Its Critics), The North Star, Michael Rectenwald, December 2, 2013:

The problem with identity politics, then, is that it is one-sided and undialectical. It treats identities as static entities, and its methods only serve to further reify those categories. It aims to liberate identity groups (or members thereof) qua identity groups (or individuals), rather than aiming to liberate them from identity itself. Identity politics fails not because it begins with various subaltern groups and aims at their liberation, but because it ends with them and thus cannot deliver their liberation. It makes identities and their equality with other “privileged” groups the basis of political activity, rather than making the overcoming of the alienated identity, for themselves and all identity groups, the goal. The abolition of the one-sidedness of identity – as worker, woman, man, or what have you – represents real human emancipation. Always failing this, identity politics settles for mere linguistic emancipation...

Identity Politics Play a Role in US Elections, Jeffrey Young, Voice of America, June 20, 2012.

Donald Trump: Last Chance For Conservatism–Or First Sign Of White Identity Politics? Maybe Both, James Kirkpatrick, VDare, August 30, 2015.

Identity Politics: Fool Us Twice, Shame on Us, by Lloyd Marcus, American Thinker, October 3, 2014.

Socialism, Democratic Socialism, and Social Democracy

Socialism

Norman Thomas, Socialist Party presidential candidate in 1940, 1944 and 1948, proclaimed that:

The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But under the name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without knowing how it happened.”

Socialism is defined by Merriam-Webster as "a system of society or group living in which there is no private property... a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state."  

An additional definition is that Socialism is "a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done." The New Oxford American Dictionary similarly defines socialism as "(in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism." There are many varieties of socialism. The dictionary notes that "The term 'socialism' has been used to describe positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet state communism, and social democracy; however, it necessarily implies an opposition to the untrammeled workings of the economic market.The socialist parties that have arisen in most European countries from the late 19th century have generally tended toward social democracy."

Dictionary.com notes that "Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists."

Difference.com describes how capitalism and socialism are contrasted:

Capitalism and socialism are somewhat opposing schools of thought in economics. The central arguments in the socialism vs. capitalism debate are about economic equality and the role of government. Socialists believe economic inequality is bad for society, and the government is responsible for reducing it via programs that benefit the poor (e.g., free public education, free or subsidized healthcare, social security for the elderly, higher taxes on the rich). On the other hand, capitalists believe that the government does not use economic resources as efficiently as private enterprises do, and therefore society is better off with the free market determining economic winners and losers.

The U.S. is widely considered the bastion of capitalism, and large parts of Scandinavia and Western Europe are considered socialist democracies. However, the truth is every developed country has some programs that are socialist.

An extreme form of socialism is communism.

The article continues with a comparison chart listing key differences between capitalism and socialism.

Socialist political movement

Wikipedia has an excellent series on socialism, which differentiates between economic socialism as defined above and the socialist political movement, which is concerned with addressing social problems resulting from capitalism. Wikipedia observes that:

Social ownership may refer to forms of public, cooperative, or collective ownership; to citizen ownership of equity; or to any combination of these. Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them, social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.

Socialism can be divided into both non-market and market forms. Non-market socialism involves the substitution of an economic mechanism based on engineering and technical criteria centered around calculation performed in-kind for factor markets, money and the accumulation of capital; therefore functioning according to different economic laws than those of capitalism. Non-market socialism aims to circumvent the inefficiencies and crises traditionally associated with the profit system. By contrast, market socialism retains the use of monetary prices and factor markets for the allocation of capital goods between socially-owned enterprises and, in some cases, the profit motive with respect to their operation...

The socialist political movement includes a diverse array of political philosophies that originated amid the revolutionary movements of the mid-to-late 1700s out of general concern for the social problems that were associated with capitalism. In addition to the debate over markets and planning, the varieties of socialism differ in their form of social ownership, how management is to be organized within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism. Core dichotomies associated with these concerns include reformism versus revolutionary socialism, and state socialism versus libertarian socialism.

Democratic Socialism

Democratic socialism involves democratic control over the socialist means of economic production. In other words, economic socialism is implemented by politically democratic government control. Wikipedia notes that:

Democratic socialism is a political system wherein there is democratic control of a socialist economic system. It thus combines political democracy with social ownership of significant elements of the means of production. Sometimes used synonymously with "socialism", the adjective "democratic" is often added to distinguish itself from the Marxist-Leninist brand of socialism, which is widely viewed as being non-democratic.

Democratic socialism is distinguished from both the Soviet model of centralized socialism and from social democracy, where "social democracy" refers to support for political democracy, regulation of the capitalist economy, and a welfare state...

That is, whereas social democrats only seek to "humanize" capitalism through state intervention, democratic socialists see capitalism as inherently incompatible with the democratic values of liberty, equality and solidarity; and believe that the issues inherent to capitalism can only be solved by superseding private ownership with some form of social ownership.

Social Democracy

Social democracy focuses on socialist state intervention in order to further social justice, particularly in Europe. RationalWiki explains that:

Social democracy is the idea that the state needs to provide security and equality for its people and should actively reorder society in a way that is conducive to such developments, but that such changes should be brought about gradually, legitimated by a democratically-elected majority.

It is native to Europe, where social democrats regularly feature as one of the major parties and have led (or at least participated in) governments in most states at some point in time, most notably in Scandinavia (up to being nicknamed the "Nordic model"). Social democrats typically regard government intervention as a force for good, constraining markets and engaging in redistributive efforts for the benefit of the lower classes in order to establish a more equitable society.

Oxford Bibliographies notes that:

As a political theory, European social democracy has its origins in the development of the workers’ movement, inspired by Marxist and utopian socialist ideas, in the second half of the 19th century. This movement spawned political parties with the label “social democratic,” “socialist,” or “labor” in practically every European country...

Social democratic parties went on to establish themselves as mainstream political forces, participating in government or forming the main opposition, in almost every European country. Where social democrats were electorally successful, they were able to promote institutions such as the welfare state and corporatist bargaining in the workplace, and in some countries they brought parts of the private economy under government control.

Wikipedia describes social democracy:

Social democracy is a political ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy, and a policy regime involving collective bargaining arrangements, a commitment to representative democracy, measures for income redistribution, regulation of the economy in the general interest and welfare state provisions. Social democracy thus aims to create the conditions for capitalism to lead to greater democratic, egalitarian and solidaristic outcomes; and is often associated with the set of socioeconomic policies that became prominent in Northern and Western Europe—particularly the Nordic model in the Nordic countries—during the latter half of the 20th century.

Social democracy originated as a political ideology that advocated an evolutionary and peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism using established political processes in contrast to the revolutionary approach to transition associated with orthodox Marxism...

Modern social democracy is characterized by a commitment to policies aimed at curbing inequality, oppression of underprivileged groups, and poverty; including support for universally accessible public services like care for the elderly, child care, education, health care and workers' compensation. The social democratic movement also has strong connections with the labour movement and trade unions, and is supportive of collective bargaining rights for workers...

Transnational Progressives vs. Democratic Nationalists - Who Should Govern?

In the article: Ideologies Have Consequences - Transnational Progressives v Democratic Nationalists, Quadrant, February 27, 2016, author John Foote, explains that:

What might be called "transnational progressivism" is the ideology for an age once thought not to need one. President Obama, for example, was hailed as 'not a doctinaire liberal' and 'centrist and pragmatic'. The truth, as eight sorry years have shown, is very different...

Hoover Institution scholar Peter Berkowitz noted that, in fact, Obama does share similarities with the pragmatist philosophers in the sense that he is, as they were, a progressive ideologue promoting a decidedly ideological agenda (think John Dewey), while masquerading as a rational non-partisan “pragmatist” committed to “what works” rather than to a progressive utopian vision of the future...

Foot observes how modern politics has been fragmented into a quagmire of identity politics - groups competing for a share of the political power once considered the domain of mainstream America. He notes that this fragmentation has been dramatically advanced by the Obama Progressive administration:

Whether one examines national health care, immigration, racial and gender politics, LGBT rights, executive orders, aggressive “diversity” initiatives promoting “substantive equality” throughout the federal government in education, housing, energy, defence and elsewhere, judicial appointments, and foreign policy openings to Iran and Cuba—after seven years, it is clear that the current American President is the most ideological since Ronald Reagan. After all, the stated goal of the Obama administration is the “fundamental transformation of the United States of America”, which suggests neither a “centrist” nor “pragmatic” agenda.

Obama’s ideology is progressivism, an American branch of a global ideology that could be described as transnational progressivism or global progressivism. The American wing of progressivism (sometimes confusingly called liberalism) shares a broad worldview with the Western Left generally.

Foote describes how the ideology of transnational progressivism is strongly infused  among Western elites...

At home, global progressives focus on promoting what they call “marginalised” groups, such as women, LGBT people, racial minorities, linguistic minorities, immigrants, particularly Muslims. For example, the Western Left calls for “gender parity” (imposed proportional representation) across the board in all institutions of civic life, by fiat if necessary (violating the tenets of a free society)...

These new (post-1960s) fault lines are based on ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, immigration, language, religion, globalism and other issues that are even more divisive for national cohesion than traditional class struggle...

Abroad, Western Leftists promote (in varying degrees and where politically possible) what they call “global governance”, meaning the building of supranational institutions and policies that diminish the role of the nation-state, including the democratic nation-state. The ultimate goal of this grand ideological project is the creation of an increasingly integrated global order with laws and institutions that are superior to those of the nation-state...

Western progressives appear to approach external and internal politics with sharply different mindsets. International relations are viewed through the prism of “win-win”...

On the other hand, the progressives view domestic politics as strictly a zero-sum game. Their opponents at home, Western conservatives, are often excoriated as racists, xenophobes and reactionary retrogrades...

Foot notes that this ideological struggle highlights one of the most important political questions facing Western civilization: Who should govern?

First and foremost, in the West today, an intense ideological struggle is raging non-stop over the most momentous issues of world politics, including the singular, primary political question: Who should govern? The current migrant crisis and the ongoing issues of mass immigration, multiculturalism and cultural assimilation highlight this ideological conflict throughout Western politics.

Who decides immigration policy: democratic nation-states or hundreds of thousands or millions of migrants on their own? Who accommodates to whom: host nationals or newcomers? What principles determine policy: government by consent of the governed or evolving concepts of global human rights? If the latter, who decides what those universal human rights are?...

...principled democratic nationalists, whether Reaganite-Thatcherite or Gaullist, have more in common with each other than with their leftist opponents who emphasise identity politics...

What is at stake in determining refugee-immigration-assimilation policy (which must be seen as one interdependent issue) is the right of societal preservation and societal reproduction: Does a free people have the right to perpetuate its way of life or not?...

Do the French, British, Poles, Hungarians, Czechs, Americans and Australians have the right to decide for themselves whether or not to perpetuate their cultures, institutions and ways of life? Or will these questions be decided for them (and against their will) by transnational elites (through ideologically partisan interpretations of global human rights) and/or by millions of migrants from the developing world “voting with their feet” and arriving without the consent of the host nation’s citizens?...

Western civilization is at a turning point. The nation-state is under attack both from within via the Progressive agenda and from without via mass immigration and the trans-national corporatist agenda of globalist elites. The paramount question indeed is: Who should govern?


 

Related book

Sovereignty or Submission: Will Americans Rule Themselves or be Ruled by Others?, by John Fonte
ISBN-10: 1594035296, ISBN-13: 978-1594035296

The Alternative Right

A very good discussion of the alternative right is presented in the Breitbart article: An Establishment Conservative’s Guide To The Alt-Right, by Allum Bokhari & Milo Yiannopoulos, March 30, 2016. The authors describe the alt-right as an amorphous movement, young, and eager to commit secular heresies - the public enemy of beltway conservatives. The alternative right appeared on the scene in 2015 and speaks in youthful, taboo-jarring rhetoric.

Excerpts from the article follow, in which the authors reveal what the members of the alt-right stand for.

The Intellectuals

There are many things that separate the alternative right from old-school racist skinheads... The alternative right are a much smarter group of people - which perhaps suggests why the Left hates them so much. They’re dangerously bright...

The media empire of the modern-day alternative right coalesced around Richard Spencer during his editorship of Taki’s Magazine. In 2012, Spencer founded AlternativeRight.com, which would become a center of alt-right thought.

Alongside other nodes like Steve Sailer’s blog, VDARE and American Renaissance, AlternativeRight.com became a gathering point for an eclectic mix of renegades who objected to the established political consensus in some form or another. All of these websites have been accused of racism...

Steve Sailer, meanwhile, helped sparked the “human biodiversity” movement, a group of bloggers and researchers who strode eagerly into the minefield of scientific race differences — in a much less measured tone than former New York Times science editor Nicholas Wade...

...[LessWrong.com] began a gleeful demolition of the age-old biases of western political discourse. Liberalism, democracy and egalitarianism were all put under the microscope of the neoreactionaries, who found them wanting.

Liberal democracy, they argued, had no better a historical track record than monarchy, while egalitarianism flew in the face of every piece of research on hereditary intelligence...

Of course, it should be noted that accusation of racism is a form of an ad hominem attack - a formal debating tactic of attacking your opponent's character as opposed to answering their argument. It is a de facto admission of the inability to win the debate on the merits of one's argument alone.

Natural Conservatives

Natural conservatives can broadly be described as the group that the intellectuals above were writing for. They are mostly white, mostly male middle-American radicals, who are unapologetically embracing a new identity politics that prioritises the interests of their own demographic.

In their politics, these new conservatives are only following their natural instincts — the same instincts that motivate conservatives across the globe. These motivations have been painstakingly researched by social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, and an instinct keenly felt by a huge swathe of the political population: the conservative instinct.

Acclaimed social psychologist Jonathan Haidt described the conservative instinct in his 2012 book The Righteous Mind.

The conservative instinct, as described by Haidt, includes a preference for homogeneity over diversity, for stability over change, and for hierarchy and order over radical egalitarianism...

For natural conservatives, culture, not economic efficiency, is the paramount value. More specifically, they value the greatest cultural expressions of their tribe. Their perfect society does not necessarily produce a soaring GDP, but it does produce symphonies, basilicas and Old Masters. The natural conservative tendency within the alt-right points to these apotheoses of western European culture and declares them valuable and worth preserving and protecting...

...they doubt that full “integration” is ever possible. If it is, it won’t be successful in the “kumbaya” sense. Border walls are a much safer option...

It’s arguable that natural conservatives haven’t had real political representation for decades. Since the 1980s, establishment Republicans have obsessed over economics and foreign policy, fiercely defending the Reagan-Thatcher economic consensus at home and neoconservative interventionism abroad. In matters of culture and morality, the issues that natural conservatives really care about, all territory has been ceded to the Left, which now controls the academy, the entertainment industry and the press...

For decades, the concerns of those who cherish western culture have been openly ridiculed and dismissed as racist. The alt-right is the inevitable result. No matter how silly, irrational, tribal or even hateful the Establishment may think the alt-right’s concerns are, they can’t be ignored, because they aren’t going anywhere. As Haidt reminds us, their politics is a reflection of their natural inclinations.

In other words, the Left can’t language-police and name-call them away, which have for the last twenty years been the only progressive responses to dissent, and the Right can’t snobbishly dissociate itself from them and hope they go away either...

Millennials aren’t old enough to remember the Second World War or the horrors of the Holocaust... Racism, for them, is a monster under the bed... Millennials have trouble believing it’s actually real...

For decades – since the 1960s, in fact – the media and political establishment have held a consensus over what’s acceptable and unacceptable to discuss in polite society. The politics of identity, when it comes from women, LGBT people, blacks and other non-white, non-straight, non-male demographics is seen as acceptable — even when it descends into outright hatred.

Any discussion of white identity, or white interests, is seen as a heretical offence...

The pressure to self-censor must be almost overwhelming for straight white men - and, for most of them, it appears to be, which explains why so much of the alt-right operates anonymously...

The article points out that the alternative right is not going away and that we can no longer pretend that differences on free trade and health care represent the full gamut of the political spectrum.


 

Additional reading

Voxplaining the Alt Right, Alexander Hart, American Renaissance, April 21, 2016. A good explanation of the history of the alt right.

A pretty good discussion of conservatism and immigration

I came across a pretty good discussion of conservatism and how immigration is the predominant conservative issue - if we don't constrain mass immigration, all of the other prized conservative values will pretty much fall by the wayside.

I think the article is a good read. It focuses mostly on the conflict of abstract conservative principles versus realistic fundamental interests. Here are some excerpts:

National Review’s Conservatism of Values, Ideas, and Principles, Kevin MacDonald, January 25, 2016:

The National Review assault on Donald Trump brings up the issue of basing one’s political views on values, ideas, and principles. The problem is simply that these abstractions may or may not reflect fundamental interests, and the Trump candidacy is bringing this to the fore. The NR commentary is essentially a brief for the priority of principles, ideas, and values over interests...

Concerns about “limited government” and respect for the Constitution are the main themes running through the comments. Trump just hasn’t been mouthing adherence to either of them, and his critics point to instances, mainly in the past, where he has strayed from these abstractions. (Yes, the Constitution is an abstraction, because as Joe Sobran said (and quoted by Gregory Hood), “the Constitution poses no serious threat to our form of government.”

In all of this, there is no mention of fundamental interests that might  be compromised by adhering to the principles they espouse. As I noted in a recent article on the response to Trump, “Conservatism Inc. may argue that Trump is not a ‘conservative.’ But the reality is that Trump voters are focusing on his big issues—immigration first and foremost. Unless we win the immigration battle, none of the other battles can possibly be won.”

Immigration, more than any other issue, reflects fundamental interests in the ethnic composition of the United States. As an obvious example, limited government is not going to repatriate millions of illegal immigrants, or keep them out in the future. It is an enduring Utopian ideal that limited, constitutional government and individual freedom can survive importing millions of people from radically different cultures—cultures with no history of limited, constitutional government or individual freedom, and often with hatred toward the peoples and cultures of the West. Only the most reality-detached ideologue could believe that it’s all going to work out and something resembling traditional American institutions will be around in a few decades time if current trends continue.

As Jared Taylor points out, “Do they really believe that Mexicans and Haitians and Guatemalans and Vietnamese and Bangladeshis and Chinese are ever going to be made to care about the Second Amendment or Madisonian democracy or limited government?”...

This mindset among NR conservatives reflects a common defect among liberal Protestants that surfaced originally in the nineteenth century — the idea that the very different people crowding the shores of the U.S. would become “just like us.” These immigrants would eventually become good Protestants. What we are seeing now is how important segments of non-White immigrants, most obviously Muslims, are in fact unassimilable. They are never going to “become like us” and be concerned about the principles and values so near and dear to conservatives. It was the realization that so many of the post-1890 immigrants were infected with radical political beliefs that finally made Americans realize that immigrants don’t automatically turn into patriotic Americans. This realization was an important impetus for the 1924 immigration law...

... intellectual rationales for curtailing speech critical of the multicultural ideal are already common in the legal community in the U.S., while in Europe, police-state controls on thought and  behavior intended to buttress the the multicultural revolution are firmly ensconced. For Germany reeling under the migrant onslaught, the first priority is to manage nativist anger, not restricting migration or repatriating migrants...

We have to understand that this way of thinking is the result of the counter-cultural revolution of the 1960s, the intellectual basis for which is discussed in The Culture of Critique. In CofC I discuss a paper by Roger Smith, who shows that until the triumph of the cultural pluralist model with the countercultural revolution of the 1960s, there were three competing models of American identity: the “liberal” individualist legacy of the Enlightenment based on “natural rights”; the “republican” ideal of a cohesive, socially homogeneous society; and the “ethnocultural” strand emphasizing the importance of Anglo-Saxon ethnicity in the development and preservation of American cultural forms. [1] These three strands are compatible with each other, but only if the US had retained its traditional homogeneous White underpinnings. Recall that the Immigration Restriction Act of 1924, with its built-in sense of White identity politics (i.e., biasing immigration to people from Northwest Europe), was essentially upheld over presidential veto not that long ago, in 1952. Yet these principled conservatives act as if their ideals have always been the guiding principles of the Republic. Fundamentally, they have plugged into the leftist zeitgeist in order to make themselves palatable to the powers that be...

The problem is that these self-described conservatives have thrown out all of this except the Enlightenment ideals. By denigrating and religiously avoiding the traditional ethnocultural strand of American identity as well as the republican ideal of a cohesive and socially homogeneous society, these “conservatives” have wholeheartedly gone along with this revolution. It is a revolution that amounts to the suicide of the West. In the end, it is anything but conservative...

If we are in fact seeing the beginning of a politics of more-or-less explicit White identity, the irrelevant cuckservatives at at the dying NR [National Review] must receive a great deal of the credit. And for that we can be thankful.

This article focuses on the importance of practical conservative interests over abstract principles. However, it doesn't focus on another component of so-called "conservatism": the donor class - wealthy and powerful elites who want an unending stream of cheap foreign labor to bolster the bottom line. It's well-known that "immigrants" vote Democratic and essentially Socialistic, which patently illustrates that the elitist agenda of dismantling America with mass immigration in no way represents either conservative interests or principles.


Related blog post and collection of articles

Conservatism, Inc's jihad against American conservatives, Fred Elbel, CAIRCO, January 26, 2016.

Movement Conservatism, Neoconservative orthodoxy, and Trump

A recent article on Unz Review sheds a lot of light on the current discord within the Republican Party. The article focuses on the two leading Republican candidates in a manner that includes a lot of perspective and historical context.

Here are some excerpts:

Why I Support Donald Trump and Not Ted Cruz, Boyd D. Cathey, Unz Review, January 27, 2016.

...I think it is important to begin with a review of some essential history, a brief exploration of the evolution of what is now called “Movement Conservatism” and its symbiotic relationship to the modern Republican Party. Understanding this background is critical to comprehending what has happened and is happening, politically and culturally, to what remains of the American republic in 2016. The transformation of the intellectual brain trust for the Republican Party has fundamentally affected and influenced the successive evolution of the positions the Republican Party has taken over the past fifty years.

Before discussing this history, I think it is necessary that we recall that the GOP Establishment, in fact, never gave up its virtual control of the party structure, despite Ronald Reagan...

It was my mentor and friend, the late Dr. Russell Kirk, whose volume The Conservative Mind actually initiated what became the older, scholarly “conservatism” in the 1950s. “Conservatism,” as Kirk explained it, encompassed an inherent distrust of liberal democracy, staunch opposition to egalitarianism, and an extreme reluctance to commit the United States to global “crusades” to impose American “values” on “unenlightened” countries around the world. Conservatives should celebrate local traditions, customs, and the inherited legacies of other peoples, and not attempt to destroy them. America, Kirk insisted, was not founded on a democratic, hegemonic ideology, but as an expression and continuation of European traditions and strong localist, familial and religious belief...

Beginning in the 1970s into the 1980s there was an influx of former Leftist and ex-Trotskyite intellectuals and writers, who had become anti-Communists and who began to move to the right into the older conservative movement. These were denominated the Neoconservatives, or Neocons. At first the Neocons were welcomed as ex-Marxists “coming in from the cold.” The problem was, and still is, that the Neocons brought with them not only their welcomed and spirited anti-Communism, but also their intellectual template of across-the-board egalitarianism, internationalism, and an a priori liberal and global interventionist foreign policy, which has, as its underlying principle, an almost chiliastic belief in imposed “liberal democracy” as the “final stage” of human (and secular) progress. And it is that Idea of (irreversible) Progress, which means the destruction of older traditions, customs, and those things considered “reactionary” that stand in the way of Progress, that characterizes most of Neocon thinking. Such ideas, needless to say, run counter to traditional conservative principles.

With strong academic connections and financial sources, the Neocons soon took control of most of the older conservative foundations, think tanks, and publications, and they did so with an iron hand, reminiscent of older days, when their Marxism was readily visible. And, more significantly, through this control of most “conservative” institutions, especially those centered in Washington, D. C., they very soon began to provide experts and advisors to the national Republican Party and its candidates. Their dominance manifested itself in organs such as the Ethics and Public Policy Center, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), and in publications like Commentary, The Public Interest, and National Review (which shed its previous attachments to the older conservatism). The advent of the Rupert Murdoch media empire, with Fox News television, The Wall Street Journal, The Weekly Standard, and the New York Post as its notable voices, cemented this influence, which manifested itself abundantly in post-Reagan GOP policies and prescriptions...

Thus, in a very real sense, what is commonly termed “conservatism” today has not been truly conservative in the traditional sense for probably three or four decades, at least...

Trump, is not a “movement conservative,” that is, he is not a Republican candidate schooled in the narrative of Neoconservatism (while Marco Rubio wallows in it)...

Trump is the candidate who has been bold and farsighted enough to raise the real issues that are affecting every day Americans, not just “movement conservatives.” Most importantly, there is the supremely significant issue of illegal immigration. Consider, for example, what has happened to California, that up to the 1980s was considered a reliably “conservative” state, but after the 1986 Immigration Act, and three-to-four million new immigrants from Latin America, most illegal, will no longer ever vote for a Republican, much less any kind of conservative. The question is: do we want this to continue to happen? Who will be the candidate who will actually stop—and reverse—this?...

Then, there is the issue of Muslims coming to America. Trump’s plan to temporarily bar them coming in until a proper and secure screening system is put into place, is not only logical, it is completely constitutional and legal...

The case of Ted Cruz is mixed. He has on the Senate floor, opposed some of the measures pushed by the GOP Establishment, and he is not a member of the exclusive congressional “club,” but he is still part and parcel of the GOP/ Neocon “movement” fabric...

The essential question for me is this: as much as I might respect Ted Cruz’s senate career, I sincerely don’t think he would be able to withstand or take on the powerful Establishment in the same no-holds-barred and independent manner as the Donald. I don’t think Cruz would dislodge the Neocon intellectual stranglehold over the GOP policy; I think he would end up accepting and confirming it...

What is needed in this nation now is dramatic, even radical change. What is needed is not someone who will simply raise Hell, but someone who will be more like a bull loosed in a terrified china shop. Half measures and regular politicians, “mainstream conservatives” like Ted Cruz, I don’t think can pull it off. Trump, I believe, just maybe can...


 

Related articles

Conservatism, Inc's jihad against American conservatives

Media bias: Fox News Money Flows into Open Borders Group

Trump's words on illegal immigration ring true

Is Trump a solution to the Post-Constitutional Presidency?

Videos - selected short videos on the impact of mass immigration and population growth

Here are selected videos on mass immigration. These short videos focus on the tremendous impact mass immigration is having on the United States - an impact that America's children of all races, creeds, and colors will have to bear.

You can also view all articles tagged with video - this will present a list of articles containing video or linking to video.

Human Population Through Time

Video by the American Museum of Natural History. It took 200,000 years for our human population to reach 1 billion—and only 200 years to reach 7 billion. But growth has begun slowing, as women have fewer babies on average. When will our global population peak? And how can we minimize our impact on Earth’s resources, even as we approach 11 billion?

Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs

Immigration - Global humanitarian reasons for current U.S. immigration are tested in this updated version of immigration author and journalist Roy Beck's colorful presentation of data from the World Bank and U.S. Census Bureau. The 1996 version of this immigration gumballs presentation has been one of the most viewed immigration policy presentations on the internet.

Change the Numbers

"Change the Numbers" is an excellent two-minute educational video from NumbersUSA on how Congress is using mass immigration to drive up United States population. 

The video also has an interactive mode where you can set your own immigration numbers in order to observe the resulting impact on US population. Watch the video.

.

The high cost of illegal immigration

The high cost of illegal immigration

Illegal immigration costs the U.S. over $100 billion dollars a year. This video from the Federation for American Immigration Reform lays out the reasons why illegal immigration costs Americans billions in taxes.

They Come to America

They Come to America I

"The film focuses on the human and financial costs of illegal immigration. We filmed over the span of 14-months (Oct 2010 - Nov 2011) and journeyed through many states including but not limited to Arizona, Illinois, Florida, DC, New York and Colorado. The debates, events, people, and places we captured on film is simply amazing. When it comes to the topic of illegal immigration, this is a first-of-its-kind film." - Filmmaker Dennis Michael Lynch. See more information. Watch the documentary.

Remember 1986 - the 1986 amnesty debate revisited

1986 amnesty debate revisited

This 8 minute video takes a trip 27 years into the past to the 1986 "one time" amnesty debate where we find that the same arguments for legalization that were made in 1986 are being made today. It's deju-vu all over again.

They Come to America II

They Come to America II

"Every time the Gang of 8, President Obama and Janet Napolitano spew artificial facts and rhetoric about the borders being secure and the impact of amnesty, they forget the Americans who have sacrificed their lives for this country. Based on what I have seen during my travels, an amnesty for 20 million illegal immigrants will push America over the cliff." - Filmmaker Dennis Michael Lynch. Watch the documentary.

Immigration 'reform' adds 33 million competitors to jobless Americans

immigration reform amnesty will result in 33 million job competitors to jobless Americans

20 million Americans want a full-time job but cannot find one. This disenfranchised population is disproportionately less educated (no college), disabled, veterans and Black and Hispanic Americans).
 
More than a thousand lobbyists for corporate special interests are pushing legislation to keep the U.S. labor market loose and to lower the wages of most U.S. workers, both foreign-born and U.S.-born.
 
The Senate Gang of Eight immigration bill would offer a minimum of 33 million lifetime work permits in the first decade alone (11 million [to 40 million] to current illegal aliens), 11 million to new legal immigrants in a continuation of the current system, another 5 million chain migration relatives of immigrants who have applied but are waiting for their slot in other countries and 6 million new immigrants through new categories and expanded existing categories of immigration). The 33 million in a single decade is almost half of all immigrants who have ever entered the U.S. in its history.

Off the Charts

This is an abridged version of "Immigration by the Numbers - Off the Charts", which was included in David Michael Lynch's video "They Come to America".

You can also view all CAIRCO articles tagged with video - this will present a list of articles containing video or linking to video.