Immigration Issues

Welcome to the CAIRCO immigration issues section. Issues are presented in the list below. You can click on an issue to view information contained under the issue. When issues have several sub-sections, you will be able to "drill down" to read each section, then go back up to the main list of issues when you are finished.

"The incapacity of a weak and distracted government may often assume the appearance, and produce the effects, of a treasonable correspondence with the public enemy."
- Gibbons, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

Immigration issues:

 

A brief history of US immigration policy and laws

As a young nation, the vast open spaces of the United States were populated during its expansive years by American settlers, some of whom were immigrants. Immigration policy developed over time as our population grew and our nation became settled. Essentially unrestricted immigration was manifested by the Great Wave beginning in 1880 and lasting for 35 years. As our country became more populated, our immigration policies changed to reflect the changing needs of our nation. Unfortunately, these changes in immigration policies diverged from those that were in the best national interest, beginning in 1965. 

A brief history of U.S. immigration law

Prior to 1790, immigration policy was controlled by the individual states. In 1790 immigration policy was brought under U.S. Government control with a two-year residency requirement.

In 1819, Congress enacted America's first significant immigration legislation, strengthening U.S. control over immigration policy. This control was further centralized in 1864. In 1875, prostitutes and convicts were prevented from entering our country.

Chinese immigration was curbed in 1882 with the Chinese Exclusion Act. It also prevented entry of persons likely to become public charges, as well as those who had committed public offenses. In 1885, contract laborers were banned from entry. Then in 1888, provisions were adopted addressing expulsion of aliens from our country.

In 1891 the Bureau of Immigration was established. It administered all immigration laws except the Chinese Exclusion Act.

The Great Wave of immigration began in 1890 and lasted for thirty-five years. During that period, 20 million immigrants were admitted into the United States. The book Not Like Us: Immigrants and Minorities in America, 1890-1924 discusses the history and practical realities of admitting so many immigrants en masse.

In 1903, political radicals and polygamists were excluded from entry. In 1906, an understanding of English was required to immigrate into the United States. In 1917 psychopathic persons, illiterates, alcoholics, stowaways, vagrants, and those entering for immoral purposes were excluded from entry. 1921 marked the first immigration law quantifying the number of immigrants taken in to our country.

The Border Patrol was established in 1924, as was the first permanent immigration quota law. This law established a consular control system, a preference quota system, and nonquota status. These quotas were made permanent in 1929.

The Bracero Program was implemented in 1943, which imported agricultural workers. The Chinese Exclusion laws were repealed.

In 1948 laws were enacted to admit those fleeing persecution. The quota was established at 205,000 and later expanded in 1953 to 415,000 every two years.

In 1950 the Internal Security Act was passed to deal with subversives. Aliens had to report their address annually.

In 1952 the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952 was enacted, which reaffirmed the national origins quota system and tightened screening procedures. It also restricted immigration from the Eastern Hemisphere, and established preferences for skilled workers and relatives of U.S. citizens. It embodied a major revision of immigration law, but retained the essence of the 1917 and 1924 Acts and continued to exclude Communists.

The Immigration Reform and Nationality Act of 1965 marked a turning point in American immigration policy. It eliminated traditional immigration emphasis on Europeans and shifted preference from applicants who qualified with special skills to family members of those already here. It retained the principle of numerical restriction with an annual limit of 170,000 Hemispheric and 20,000 per country, as well as a seven-category preference system. A 120,000 annual limit was established for the Western Hemisphere. Regarding the Eastern Hemisphere, it favored close relatives of U.S. citizens and permanent resident aliens, refugees, and those with occupational skills.

With elimination of quotas, the 1965 Act represented the most significant change in immigration policy since the 1920s. By favoring family reunification, it paved the way for subsequent immigration amnesties which would alter American demographics and lead to a permanently multicultural America.

In 1976 limits were adjusted, but Hemispheric limits were retained until 1978, when they were combined into a one-world limit of 290,000.

The Refugee Act of 1980 removed refugees as a preference category.

1986 IRCA

The comprehensive Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 legalized aliens who had resided unlawfully in the United States since January 1, 1982 - in other words, it granted a massive amnesty. It prohibited employers from hiring and recruiting aliens unauthorized to work in the U.S. It created a temporary agricultural worker and legalized some of them, and established a visa waiver pilot program which provided entry to certain non-immigrants without visas. Separate legislation addressed immigrants based on marriage.

The amnesty of 1986 was clearly stated by Congress to be a "one time only" amnesty. Yet including the 1986 amnesty, Congress has passed a total of 7 amnesties for illegal aliens.

Comprehensive immigration legislation passed in 1990 increased total immigration with a limit of 700,000 from 1992 through 1994, then a flexible limit of 675,000 immigrants in 1995. It also created separate categories for employment-based, family-sponsored, and diversity immigrants.

The U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform (Barbara Jordan Commission) recommended a dramatic scaling back of family chain migration to Congress in 1997. It recommended focusing on skilled immigrants - that is, individuals who would directly benefit our society. The report was ignored, primarily for political reasons.

The turning point - 1965 INA

The Immigration Reform and Nationality Act of 1965 represents the most significant turning point when immigration policy no longer represented the interests of America and Americans.

By focusing on family reunification, the 1965 act paved the way for fundamentally changing American demographics, and for numerous amnesties for illegal aliens living in America.

The late Lawrence Auster noted of Congress that “they did not want or expect their bill to result in a huge increase in immigration or in a fundamental change in the growth rate and ethnic make-up of the U.S. population. But that is exactly what happened.” Auster concludes that “the 1965 Act was passed through a combination of thoughtlessness and deceit.”

Historian Otis Graham, Jr., noted that the 1924 Immigration Act created “a forty-year breathing space of relatively low immigration, with effects favorable to assimilation.” Yet "The 1965 law, and subsequent policy changes consistent with its expansionist goals, shifted the nation from a population-stabilization to a population-growth path, with far-reaching and worrisome consequences.” (Sources: The Social Contract Editor's Note, below).

Americans are now living in a time when they have a limited window of opportunity to change relatively recent unsound immigration policies imposed by our feckless government.

More information on U.S. immigration laws and policies

Amnesty for illegal aliens, legalization and comprehensive immigration reform, CAIRCO.

Deportation immigration law enforcement, CAIRCO.

A History of U.S. Immigration Laws, FAIR. This is a comprehensive history with perspective on various immigration eras.

Comparisons of 20th Century Growth by Decade, NumbersUSA.

Our Immigration Traditions, NumbersUSA.

Change the Numbers, a two minute video by NumbersUSA.

Immigration by the Numbers - Off the Charts, video by numbersUSA.

The U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform (Barbara Jordan Commission), NumbersUSA.

Articles on the 1965 Immigration Reform and Nationality Act, Center for Immigration Studies.

Articles on the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), Center for Immigration Studies.

The Fall 2015 Social Contract Journal focuses on the disastrous consequences of the 1965 Immigration Act. The issue is titled "The Unmaking of America? The 1965 Immigration Act after 50 years". Here are direct links to the articles:

  1. Editor's Note: The 1965 Immigration Act - Intent and Consequences 50 Years On
  2. The 1965 Immigration Act - Its Intent, Its Consequences
  3. America's Demographic Tipping Point
  4. Reflecting on the Immigration Act of 1965 - 50th anniversary of the landmark transformation of the United States
  5. A Vast Social Experiment - The Immigration Act of 1965
  6. LBJ on Immigration - Remarks of President Lyndon B. Johnson at the signing of the Immigration Bill, Liberty Island, New York, October 3, 1965
  7. So Much for Promises... Selected quotes from congressional sponsors of the 1965 Immigration Act
  8. The Economic Impact of the 1965 Immigration Act
  9. Let's Consider a Half-Century of Lies - The 1965 Immigration Act in perspective
  10. Rising Public Support Emboldens Immigration-Control Candidates
  11. 'Maritime Ping Pong' in the Bay of Bengal
  12. 'Alien' Too Accurate? Maybe the entire California legal code will be soon re-written in Emojis
  13. Straight Talk on Immigration
  14. Dangerous Times - Federal immigration policy and resettling the Hijra to America
  15. Immigration Wars - Jeb Bush, Clint Bolick, and the Elitist Libertarian Opposition to Sane Immigration Policy

The Law that Changed the Face of America: The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, book by Margaret Sands Orchowski.

A Dismal Anniversary—50 Years Of The Immigration Act Of 1965

The 1965 Immigration Act after 50 years - Fall 2015 Social Contract issue

A brief history of US immigration policy and laws

The Ideology of Unrestricted Immigration, Chilton Williamson, Jr., Intercollegiate Studies Institute, Summer 2016. See summary of the article: Unrestricted immigration - a radical ideology, by Fred Elbel, CAIRCO, December 5, 2016.

Amnesty for illegal aliens, legalization and comprehensive immigration reform

An amnesty is a reward to those breaking the law. Giving amnesty to illegal aliens forgives their act of illegally entering the United States and in addition forgives related illegal activities such as driving illegally and working using false documents. An amnesty results in large numbers of foreigners who illegally entered the United States being given legal status as a reward for breaking the law. Amnesties encourage additional illegal immigration into the United States.

Politicians and the mainstream media often use code phrases to refer to amnesty for illegal aliens, such as "legalization for undocumented immigrants", "earned legal status", "earned path to citizenship", "pathway to citizenship",  "comprehensive immigration reform", and "legal status for illegal immigrants". Terminology is used to obscure the issue.

Indeed, the first objective of incremental amnesty proponents is basic legalization of illegal aliens. Even though a full amnesty may not be granted, allowing illegal aliens to live, go to school, and work in the United States - legally - achieves the fundamental objective of giving illegal aliens legal status. Thus, when questioning elected public servants on their position on amnesty, one must really ask them for their position on legalization for illegal aliens in order to get a definitive reply.

The 2013 version of amnesty for illegal aliens is the "Gang of 8" Senate Bill 744, "Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act", introduced on April 16, 2013. This is the worst amnesty bill in United States History.

The United states, for over 200 years, gave amnesty only in individual cases and never to large numbers of illegal aliens. Then in 1986, Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) giving amnesty to all illegal aliens who had evaded law enforcement for at least four years or who were working illegally in agriculture.

The 1986 amnesty resulted in 2.8 million illegal aliens being admitted as legal immigrants to the United States. Because of chain migration, those granted amnesty subsequently brought in an additional 142,000 dependents - relatives brought in to the United States to join family members now amnestied.

The amnesty of 1986 was clearly stated by Congress to be a "one time only" amnesty. Yet including the 1986 amnesty, Congress has passed a total of 7 amnesties for illegal aliens:

  • The Immigration and Reform Control Act (IRCA) Amnesty of 1986 - the "one-time only" blanket amnesty for some 2.8 million illegal aliens. The Act amnestied long-term illegal aliens who paid fees, passed criminal background checks, and took English classes and classes on US history and civics. This Act for the first time prohibited employment of illegal aliens. Enforcement was specified in the Act, but was virtually ignored. Indeed, in 2004, only three employers in the entire nation were fined for hiring illegal aliens.
  • Section 245(i) The Amnesty of 1994 - a temporary rolling amnesty for 578,000 illegal aliens.
  • Section 245(i) The Extension Amnesty of 1997 - an extension of the rolling amnesty created in 1994.
  • The Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) Amnesty of 1997 - an amnesty for nearly one million illegal aliens from Central America.
  • The Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act Amnesty (HRIFA) of 1998 - an amnesty for 125,000 illegal aliens from Haiti.
  • The Late Amnesty of 2000 - an amnesty for approximately 400,000 illegal aliens who claimed they should have been amnestied under the 1986 IRCA amnesty.
  • The LIFE Act Amnesty of 2000 - a reinstatement of the rolling Section 245(i) amnesty to an estimated 900,000 illegal aliens.

    (For more information, see The Seven Amnesties Passed by Congress, NumbersUSA.com.)

In 2007, Ted Kennedy and John McCain floated yet another amnesty for illegal aliens under the Bush administration. It collapsed due to conservative Republican opposition and immense pressure from the American people who saw it for the sham that it was.

In 2013, the Gang of 8 tried to force yet another gang amnesty for illegal aliens upon the American People. As the Russians say, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

On November 20, 2014, President Obama, in an unconstitutional royal decree, declared amnesty for 5 million illegal aliens.

It must be noted that:

An amnesty benefits neither our society nor those being amnestied, but it does benefit employers who hire low-wage immigrant labor. An Immigration and Naturalization Service study found that after living in the United States for 10 years, the average amnestied illegal alien had only a seventh grade education and earned less than $9,000 a year. Amnestied illegal aliens have no sponsor to support them financially. Instead, by enacting an amnesty, Congress places a staggering financial burden on American taxpayers to support those amnestied.

The total net cost of the 1986 IRCA amnesty (direct and indirect costs of services and benefits to the former illegal aliens, less their tax contributions) amounted to over $78 billion in the ten years following the amnesty. (Center for Immigration Studies study).

Congress has paved the way for more amnesties. In 2001, Mexico's President Vicente Fox began to lobby the United States to "regularize" the status of millions of illegal aliens from Mexico living in the United States. Both U.S. political parties, in attempts to pander to the Hispanic vote, speak of amnesties in various forms for illegal aliens. The Democratic Party wants the immigrant vote and the Republican Party wants cheap labor. Neither wants what is best for our country - to uphold our rule of law.

By granting amnesties, Congress has set a dangerous precedent that threatens homeland security. Our normal immigration process involves screening to block potential criminals and terrorists from entering the United States. Yet millions of illegal aliens have avoided this screening and an amnesty would allow them to permanently bypass such screening.

Census Bureau 2000 data indicate that 700,000 to 800,000 illegal aliens settle in the U.S. each year, with approximately 8-11 million illegal aliens now currently living in the United States (up to 12 million, according to Department of Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge). Note that the stale and deliberately underestimated government figure of 11 million is not reliable. Researchers have estimated up to 40 million illegal aliens to be living in the United States.

In January, 2004 President Bush Proposed a guest worker program for illegal aliens - an amnesty in disguise. He revived this proposal in November, 2004, just after the election. President Bush's announcement directly caused at least a 15% to 25% increase in illegals entering the United States. (See The Promise of Amnesty.)

Numerous polls showed that nearly 70% of Americans oppose amnesty for all illegal aliens and that Hispanics were less likely to reelect President Bush because he supported amnesty.

Amnesty is but one aspect of the Congress' policy of opening US borders to foreign job seekers. Deliberately not enforcing immigration law is another. See Enforcement of immigration law - or lack thereof.

 


References

1. Before Considering Another Amnesty, Look at IRCA’s Lessons, Center for Immigration Studies, January, 2015.

2. Revaluating the 1989 Report "The U.S. Alien Legalization Program", Center for Immigration Studies, March, 2015.

Anchor babies, birthright citizenship, and the 14th Amendment

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."

Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).

Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. 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. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.

Senator Jacob Howard worked closely with Abraham Lincoln in drafting and passing the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery. He also served on the Senate Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

Over a century ago, the Supreme Court correctly confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called 'Slaughter-House cases' [83 US 36 (1873)] and in [112 US 94 (1884)]. In Elk v.Wilkins, the phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' excluded from its operation 'children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States.' In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be 'not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.'

Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.

The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be over 300,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965.

Australia rescinded birthright citizenship in 2007, as did New Zealand in 2006, Ireland in 2005, France in 1993, and the United Kingdom in 1983. This leaves the United States and Canada as the only remaining industrialized nations to grant automatic citizenship to every person born within the borders of the country, irrespective of their parents' nationality or immigration status.

American citizens must be wary of elected politicians voting to illegally extend our generous social benefits to illegal aliens and other criminals.

For more information, see:

Alien Birthright Citizenship: A Fable That Lives Through Ignorance

By P.A. Madison, The Federalist Blog, December 17, 2005

Ever since the subject of Congress taking up Birthright Citizenship have we seen the power of ignorance at work through the MSM [MainStream Media]. It is difficult to find any editorial or wire story that correctly gives the reader an honest and accurate historical account of the Fourteenth Amendment in regards to children born to foreign parents within the United States. Most often the media presents a fabled and inaccurate account of just what the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment means.

Recent story lines go something like this: "Currently the Constitution says that a person born in this country is an American citizen. That's it. No caveats." The problem with these sort of statements other than being plainly false is that it reinforces a falsehood that has become viewed as a almost certain fact through such false assertions over time.

This is like insisting the sun rotates around the earth while ignoring the body of evidence to the contrary.

During the reconstruction period following the civil war the view on citizenship was that only children born to American parents owing allegiance to no other foreign power could be declared an American Citizen upon birth on U.S. soil. This is exactly the language of the civil rights bill of 1866: "All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States."

The author of the Fourteenth Amendment, Rep. John A Bingham (OH), responded to the above declaration as follows: "I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen."

Already before we get to the Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship Clause we have the entire Congress declaring only children born to parents who owe no foreign allegiance shall be citizens. We also have the author of the Fourteenth Amendment declaring this is law of the land. It just gets worst for advocates who want to either believe or, revise history, to support their fable that the Fourteenth Amendment somehow magically makes anyone born in the United States regardless of the allegiance of their parents a natural born citizen.

Sen. Jacob Howard, who wrote the Fourteenth's Citizenship Clause believed the same thing as Bingham as evidenced by his introduction of the clause to the US Senate as follows:

[T]his amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that 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.

Advocates for birthright citizenship for aliens either through ignorance, or deception, attempt to pretend "subject to the jurisdiction" means only one thing: location at time of birth. It does not, and never had such a meaning during the time period in question. The record of law is full of references to jurisdiction that had nothing to do with physical location. Take for example title XXX of 1875, sec 2165 where is states:

[Any] alien who was residing within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States...

Simply being on US soil (limits) does not automatically put you under US jurisdiction like some pro alien advocates would like to believe. Under the common myth of the meaning -- simply being within the limits of a State automatically places an alien under US jurisdiction for Fourteenth Amendment purposes. It does not as Bingham and Howard plainly makes clear as well as laws regarding the subject at the time also make clear.

So than, what exactly did subject to the jurisdiction mean? Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, framer of the Thirteenth Amendment told us in clear language what the phrase means under the Fourteenth:

[T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

Sen. Jacob M. Howard, responded to Trumbull's construction by saying:

[I] concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.

One might wonder why did Jacob Howard use the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" rather than the language of the civil rights bill of 1866 and 1870? The answer is simple: there was confusion over what a Indian’s allegiance might be and most everyone in Congress at the time did not want to give blanket citizenship to all Indians across the board.

In other words, it was feared by some that an Indian might be considered to owe no allegiance to any foreign power, and therefore, could become a citizen at birth. Since Indians were not under the direct jurisdiction of the United States (they were under the jurisdiction of their respected tribes) the language of the Fourteenth Amendment would disqualify them. This is why the language of the Citizenship Clause ended up different than the language of the civil rights bill of 1866 and 1870 and made more restrictive as to who could become a citizen by birth.

Myths can be difficult to dispose of, and birthright citizenship to aliens is no exception. Pro immigration advocates will refer to the Supreme Court ruling U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark as a desperate attempt to keep the fable alive. The problem with relying on Wong Kim Ark is that it draws zero support from the Fourteenth Amendment. In fact, the ruling had nothing to with the Fourteenth Amendment at all, but everything to do with English Common Law, something the Fourteenth's Citizenship Clause had no connection because it was a virtue of "national law."

There is other significant problems with the Wong Kim Ark ruling other than having no basis in Fourteenth Amendment text, intent and history that will never hold up under review -- and that is how will any court with a straight face attempt to reconcile the civil rights bill of 1870. Remember that civil rights bill declared those children born to parents subject to a foreign power cannot be declared United States citizens.

You cannot simply revise he Fourteenth's Citizenship Clause to mean yes, it really was the intent of the Congress to grant citizenship to alien children born on US soil when the same Congress enacted law afterwards that did just the reverse. Try and explain why Congress would pass a Constitutional Amendment that grants citizenship to ANYONE born in the US and then turn around and pass a law that would deny automatic citizenship to aliens? Because you cannot, only leads us back to the to the exact construction of the clause for which it was intended and written to mean.

The Wong Kim Ark ruling is so badly flawed and irrelevant probably lead to the US Supreme Court in 1982 to say they "had never confirmed birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens."

By far the most relevant Supreme Court ruling on the subject to date, and indeed, fully supported by the Fourteenth Amendment itself came in Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884), where the court held that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" requires "direct and immediate allegiance" to the United States, not just physical presence.

If pro immigration groups or individuals want to continue in believing the Fourteenth Amendment grants citizenship to anyone born in the country regardless of their allegiance, fine -- but to continue to insist the Fourteenth Amendment supports their fable is both feeble and a disrespect to American history.

Reproduced under Creative Commons license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/)

Read the complete article.

Change U.S. law on anchor babies

By Al Knight, Denver Post, June 22, 2005

 

There's nothing quite as important as timing in politics. A fact that might go unnoticed for years can, at the right moment, help change the direction of national policy.

Consider the issue of anchor babies and what, if anything, should be done about them. Anchor babies, for those not yet familiar with the term, is the description given to babies of illegal immigrants who are delivered in the United States. These babies, under current interpretation of U.S. law, automatically become U.S. citizens and most qualify immediately for a variety of benefits, including Medicaid. Over time, they can open the door to citizenship to other family members.

Last week, there was a flurry of national news stories announcing the current estimate that 300,000 such babies are born each year in this country.

... Most people, however, would find the number somewhat shocking. Indeed, the news stories set off a new flurry of debate over whether the existing provisions relating to what is called birthright citizenship can or should be changed.

There is a special intensity in this discussion in some states - including California, Texas and Florida - with high anchor baby populations. But the issue is also being noticed in places like Georgia, where the number of anchor babies doubled from 5,133 in 2000 to 11,180 in 2002. Several years ago in Colorado, the number of such births was estimated at more than 6,000.

A measure pending in Congress would change the Constitution to deny citizenship rights to babies born to illegal immigrants. The proposed amendment is currently given little or no chance of passage but it certainly helps to focus attention on the nature of the problem.

More than a dozen years ago, Peter Schuck and Rogers Smith put it this way in their article "Consensual Citizenship," in the magazine Chronicles: "The present guarantee under American law of automatic birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens can operate ... as one more incentive to illegal migration and violation by nonimmigrant aliens already here. When this attraction is combined with the powerful lure of expanded entitlements conferred upon citizen children and their families by the modern welfare state, the total incentive effect of birthright citizenship may well become significant."

That passage was written in 1992 when the number of such births was estimated at less than 150,000 per year. Since then, the number has more than doubled.

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States."

At the time the amendment was approved, the author of the clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard, said the phrase relating to jurisdiction meant, "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners ... ."

In subsequent years, the courts invalidated the assurances of Howard; at this stage, an amendment to the Constitution seems the only means available to change the law....

Not so long ago in Ireland, there was a policy of granting residency and possible citizenship to anyone who had a baby there. In Dublin hospitals, births to foreigners made up 25 percent of the total. That fact forced a change in Ireland's constitution in 2004. It now reads:

"Notwithstanding any other provision, a person born on the island of Ireland who does not have at the time of birth of that person at least one parent who is an Irish citizen or entitled to be an Irish citizen is not entitled to Irish citizenship or nationality unless provided by law."

Change a couple of words, and it is a safe bet that that amendment would receive a high level of popular support in the United States.

A Denver talk show host recently announced confidently that the current policy on anchor babies could never be changed in this country. But then, a few years ago, no one in Ireland thought that the country's constitution could be amended, either.

Al Knight of Fairplay is a former member of The Post's editorial-page staff. His columns appear on Wednesday.

The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans

By P.A. Madison
Former Research Fellow in Constitutional Studies
February 1, 2005

We well know how the courts and laws have spoken on the subject of children born to non-citizens (illegal aliens) within the jurisdiction of the United States by declaring them to be American citizens. But what does the constitution of the United States say about the issue of giving American citizenship to anyone born within its borders? As we explore the constitutions citizenship clause, as found in the Fourteenth Amendment, we can find no constitutional authority to grant such citizenship to persons born to non-American citizens within the limits of the United States of America.

We are, or should be, familiar with the phrase, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the States wherein they reside." This can be referred to as the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but what does "subject to the jurisdiction" mean? Jurisdiction can take on different meanings that can have nothing to do with physical boundaries alone--and if the framers meant geographical boundaries they would have simply used the term "limits" rather than "jurisdiction" since that was the custom at the time when distinguishing between physical boundaries and reach of law.

Fortunately, we have the highest possible authority on record to answer this question of how the term "jurisdiction" was to be interpreted and applied, the author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI) to tell us exactly what it means and its intended scope as he introduced it to the United States Senate in 1866:

Mr. HOWARD: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.
The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that 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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.[1]

It is clear the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had no intention of freely giving away American citizenship to just anyone simply because they may have been born on American soil, something our courts have wrongfully assumed. But what exactly did "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment? Again, we are fortunate to have on record the highest authority to tell us, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:

[T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
Trumbull continues, "Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldn't make treaties with them...It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.[2]

Sen. Howard concurs with Trumbull's construction:

Mr. HOWARD: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.[3]

In other words, only children born to American citizens can be considered citizens of the United States since only a American citizen could enjoy the "extent and quality" of jurisdiction of an American citizen now. Sen. Johnson, speaking on the Senate floor, offers his comments and understanding of the proposed new amendment to the constitution:

[Now], all this amendment [citizenship clause] provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power--for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us--shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born to parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.[4]

No doubt in the Senate as to what the citizenship clause means as further evidenced by Sen. W. Williams:

In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense. Take the child of an embassador. In one sense, that child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because if that child commits the crime of murder, or commits any other crime against the laws of the country, to a certain extent he is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but not in every respect; and so with these Indians. All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here, 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,' to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.[5]

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:

[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...[6]

Further convincing evidence for the demand of complete allegiance required for citizenship can be found in the "Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America," an oath required to become an American citizen of the United States. It reads in part:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen...

Of course, this very oath leaves no room for dual-citizenship, but that is another troubling disregard for our National principles by modern government. Fewer today are willing to renounce completely their allegiance to their natural country of origin, further making a mockery of our citizenship laws. In fact, recently in Los Angeles you could find the American flag discarded for the flag of Mexico in celebration after taking the American Citizenship Oath.

It's noteworthy to point out a Supreme Court ruling in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), where the court completely discarded the fourteenth's Citizenship Clause scope and intent by replacing it with their own invented Citizenship Clause. The court in effect, ruled that fourteenth amendment had elevated citizenship to a new constitutionally protected right, and thus, prevents the cancellation of a persons citizenship unless they assent.

Unfortunately for the court, Sen. Howard effectively shoots down this feeble attempt to replace his clause with their own homegrown Citizenship Clause. Firstly, Howard finds no incompatibility with expatriation and the fourteenth's Citizenship Clause when he says: "I take it for granted that when a man becomes a citizen of the United States under the Constitution he cannot cease to be a citizen, except by expatriation for the commission of some crime by which his citizenship shall be forfeited."

Secondly, Sen. Howard expressly stated, "I am not yet prepared to pass a sweeping act of naturalization by which all the Indian savages, wild or tame, belonging to a tribal relation, are to become my fellow-citizens and go to the polls and vote with me and hold lands and deal in every other way that a citizen of the United States has a right to do."

The question begs: If Howard had no intention of passing a sweeping act of naturalization--how does the court elevate Howard's Citizenship Clause to a new constitutionally protected right that cannot be taken away since this would certainly require a sweeping act with explicit language to enumerate such a new constitutional right? Remember, the court cannot create new rights that are not already expressly granted by the constitution.

A third problem for the court is the fact both Howard and Bingham viewed the citizenship clause as simply "declaratory" of what they regarded "as the law of the land already." This then requires flights of fantasy to elevate Howard's express purpose of inserting the Citizenship Clause as simply removing "all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States," and not to elevate citizenship to a new protected constitutional right. Citizenship is a privilege, not a right as say the right to freedom of religion is, and therefore, can be taken away just as any other privilege can be.

James Madison defined who America seeked to be citizens among us along with some words of wisdom:

When we are considering the advantages that may result from an easy mode of naturalization, we ought also to consider the cautions necessary to guard against abuse. It is no doubt very desirable that we should hold out as many inducements as possible for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours. But why is this desirable? Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, it is to increase the wealth and strength of the community; and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community are not the people we are in want of.[7]

What does it all mean?

In a nutshell, it means this: The constitution of the United States does not grant citizenship at birth to just anyone who happens to be born within American borders. It is the allegiance (complete jurisdiction) of the child’s birth parents at the time of birth that determines the child’s citizenship--not geographical location. If the United States does not have complete jurisdiction, for example, to compel a child’s parents to Jury Duty–then the U.S. does not have the total, complete jurisdiction demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment to make their child a citizen of the United States by birth. How could it possibly be any other way?

The framers succeeded in their desire to remove all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. They also succeeded in making both their intent and construction clear for future generations of courts and government. Whether our government or courts will start to honor and uphold the supreme law of the land for which they are obligated to by oath, is another very disturbing matter.

Footnotes

[1]. Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890
[2]. Id. at 2893
[3]. Id. at 2895
[4]. Id. at 2893
[5]. Id. at 2897
[6]. Id. at 1291
[7]. James Madison on Rule of Naturalization, 1st Congress, Feb. 3, 1790.

Permission is granted to use, copy or republish this article in its entirely only.

Track 'anchor babies'

By Al Knight, Denver Post, September 11, 2002 

The term "anchor baby" is unfamiliar to most Americans, but it nicely describes one of the more troubling aspects of American immigration policy.

Put simply, an anchor baby is the offspring of an illegal immigrant who, under current legal interpretation, becomes a U.S. citizen at birth and, in turn, is the means by which parents and relatives can also obtain citizenship for themselves by using the family reunification features of immigration law.

It's estimated there may be as many as 200,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S. No single agency keeps track, but there is abundant, if fragmented, evidence that births are not limited to areas near the Mexican border.

In a recent year in Colorado, the state's emergency Medicaid program paid an estimated $30 million in hospital and physician delivery costs for about 6,000 illegal immigrant mothers. And the Nashville Tennessean reported last year that the Metro General Hospital in Davidson County had recorded 511 births during a one-year period, two-thirds of them to illegal immigrants.

...Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement, claims, "There is a huge and growing industry in Asia that arranges tourist visas for pregnant woman so they can fly to the United States and give birth to an American."

Although the exact number of such births is unknown, what is known is that, except for a limited exception applying to children of diplomats, every child born on U.S. soil currently earns what is called "birthright citizenship."

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads, in part, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

That same amendment also says, "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

Congress, of course, has done no such thing, although legislation has been introduced that would deny citizenship to a child whose mother is "neither a citizen or national of the United States nor admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident."...

No government agency keeps track of anchor births; hospitals rarely keep accurate information on immigration status, public schools and other agencies are virtually forbidden from tracking immigration status, and so the public has no clue as to the real effects of current policy. Because detailed information is lacking, it is easy enough to those who favor the status quo to simply announce that the effects are completely benign.

But saying it doesn't make it so, does it?

Al Knight is a member of the Denver Post editorial board. His column appears Wednesday and Sunday.

Border security and porous United States - Mexico border wall / fence

The following video reveals how dangerous our porous US-Mexico border is and the danger that cartel operations pose to America. In this 40 minute NAFBPO video, Zack Taylor of the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers (NAFBPO) reveals critical information about our porous border. It is well worth watching.

 

The two fundamental ways to protect America from unauthorized aliens entering our country, evading apprehension at our border, and displacing American workers in the workplace are to:

  1. Secure our border - particularly the US - Mexico border, and
  2. Enforce existing laws which make it illegal to aid, abet, and hire illegal aliens. Mandatory use of the federal E-verify and IMAGE programs would go a long way toward achieving that objective.

The Secure Fence Act of 2006 called for at least 700 miles of double layered fencing along the US - Mexico Border.

As of February, 2009, The Department of Homeland Security had constructed only 5% of the border fence called for by the Secure Fence Act of 2006, yet in locations where the fence was built it has significantly cut illegal immigration.

This following video reports comprehensive research conducted by American Border Patrol on the Border Fence, Where it is, and How it Works.

 

This interactive map allows you to view the border fence - or lack thereof - at various locations. It is evident that only small portions of our porous border actually have been secured with appropriate fencing.

 

This video explains how the Department of Homeland Security has misled the mainstream media and the American people on border fence security. Border Fence Fraud - This is Not a Fence.

The video reports that on December 18, 2008, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff stated that "we now have over 500 miles of fence". On December 10, 2008 and January 7, 2009, American Border Patrol flew survey missions along the border, concluding that 527 miles of "something" were built, but it was not fencing. A December 20, 2008 DHS press release explained that the government was counting 248 miles of vehicle barriers in the total. Excluding vehicle barriers, only 274 miles of fencing had been built as of January 6, 2009. When old existing mat fencing is subtracted from the total, only 199 miles of new fencing had been built by DHS, not the 700 miles as demanded by Congress.

Indeed, the Arizona Republic newspaper reported that drug smugglers were now using portable ramps to get over the vehicle barriers. Flimsy vehicle barriers do not count as a fence and do not follow the mandate of Congress.

 

In the following video, American Border Patrol explains how near San Diego, a 10 mile double layer fence has cut illegal entry by 90%. Unfortunately, hundreds of miles of old, broken fence still exist along our border.

Border Fence Cover Up.

 

The video The Fence and the Mexican Drug War explains that secure fencing actually works.

The video documents Customs and Border Inspection reports that when 6.07 miles of pedestrian fencing was completed near the Columbus, New Mexico port of entry, apprehensions in that corridor also dropped more than 60 percent from 2007 to 2008. Narcotics transport dropped by 100 percent during the same time period. The video shows that as of September 24, 2007, a new fence had cut off hundreds of vehicle trails across the border.

Recommendation

In order to secure our nation from illegal entry, Congress should reinstate the Secure Fence Act of 2006, extending fence construction to 1,000 miles of double-layered fencing. Construction and maintenance must be fully funded. A 1,951-mile full-length border fence would cost only 3.2 percent of the $104 billion spent on highway construction annually.1

Advanced technology

Advanced technology has been developed by ABP to detect traffic across the border. The system, named IDENTISEIS, uses seismic detection equipment used by major oil companies, modified to detect surface disturbances. It can detect people walking at a distance of 600 feet, as compared to sensors used by the Border Patrol, which detect traffic only at a distance of 30 feet. IDENTISEIS also detects vehicles and low flying airplanes.

Integration of US border technology and IDENTISEIS intrusion detection.

 

 

 

Expert Exposes DHS at GovSec West 2013: Speaking before the November 20, 2013 GOVSEC West conference on government security, Glenn Spencer, head of American Border Patrol, makes the case for a new approach to border security. In the first 15 minutes of this 55 minute video, Glenn Spencer describes border fence situation in detail.


 

Additional information and resources

1. How Come We Can Have 40,000 miles Of Interstate, But Not 2,000 Miles Of Border Fence? by Ed Rubenstein, October, 2004.

This article explains that a 1,951-mile full-length border fence would cost only:

  • 3.2 percent of the $104 billion spent on highway construction annually, or
  • 0.7 percent of the defense budget for FY2004 ($452 billion), or
  • 0.14 percent of the entire U.S. Federal budget for FY2004.

2. Do We Want A Border Fence - Or 14 Days of Iraq War? Etc... Ed Rubenstein, August 2, 2006:

From the time U.S. forces invaded Iraq in March 2003, $254 billion has been spent on U.S. military activities [CBO, “Estimated Costs of U.S. Operations in Iraq Under Two Specified Scenarios,” July 16, 2006. PDF] there, according to the Congressional Budget Office.  (This does not include $14 billion spent to train and equip Iraqi forces and $22 billion for reconstruction and relief efforts.) In the current fiscal year, the Pentagon is spending about $7.25 billion a month on the war in Iraq, or about $240 million per day...

A serious commitment to border security would require fencing off the entire southern border -all 1,891 miles of it. (For comparison, we have 40,000 miles of Interstate highways.) At $1.7 million per mile (the cost of the first 10 mile stretch in San Diego), the entire U.S.-Mexican border could be sealed off for $3.3 billion dollars.

Iraq spending equivalent: 13.8 days...

3. The Case for the Border Fence, Conservative Review, August 28, 2015:

The 245-mile security fence in Israel cost $450 million, averaging $1.8 million per mile. Assuming the completion of our security fence would cost the same amount, the total tab would come in at just under $2 billion. Even if we use higher estimates of 9 million per mile, as estimated by DHS for the cost of the San Diego fence, that would amount to roughly $6 billion for the project.

Now consider the cost savings of each illegal alien inhibited from entering the country. According to a conservative estimate by Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, for every illegal alien that returns home (or is prevented from crossing the border), taxpayers save $700,000. That means we would reach the break-even point after preventing just the first 8,500 illegal immigrants from crossing...

4. Secure Border Intel conducts analysis of border patrol radio activity and geo-maps that activity. They also provide hidden video of illegal entry into the United States.

5. Desert Invasion reveals the amount of destruction to sensitive environmental border areas caused by tens of thousands of illegal border crossers.

6. Video: Living on US-Mexico Border, Native Americans Face Daily Struggles

This investigative video reveals that drugs and illegal aliens cross the US-Mexico border into the Tohono O'odham Nation. Drug cartels are becoming more aggressive in smuggling drugs into the United States, while the US Border Patrol is becomming more aggressive in trying to halt criminal activity. Native Americans on the Tohono O'odham Nation are significantly impacted with breakins, vehicle theft, and crime.

A tribal leader states, "When they say that the borders are secure on the US-Mexican border, that is not true. They are not secure. If you come to Tohono O'odham, they are not secure."

7. Video: Border Patrol Insider Speaks Out: “They’re Anticipating A Large National Crisis... Something Drastic”, July 18, 2014.

 

8. Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) - Illegal alien kiddie colonists invited by Obama administration.

9. Trump's Wall, by Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh, Canada Free Press, January 28, 2017.

10. Halting Invasion Will Pay for Trump’s Wall 4x Over Every Year, The New Observer, January 27, 2016.

11. Which costs more: Trump's border wall or illegal aliens? - U.S. taxpayers suffer $100 billion annual burden from influx, World Net Daily, February 7, 2017.

12. The Cost of a Border Wall vs. the Cost of Illegal Immigration - Wall only needs to stop 9% to 12% of illegal crossings to cover costs, Center for Immigration Studies, February 16, 2017.

13. Border fences work, by Daniel Horowitz, Conservative Review, January 25, 2017.

14. How to pay for the wall, by Andy Schlafly, World Net Daily, May 10, 2017.

15. Video: Hermes the drone tours America's southern border, American Border Patrol, November 17, 2017.

Chain migration and family reunification

Chain migration involves family unification that extends beyond an immigrant's immediate family. It is one of the predominant factors that has caused immigration numbers to explode in recent decades.

US immigration policy through the 1950s extended nuclear family reunification only to spouses and minor children of immigrants. In 1965, Congress changed immigration law to allow immigrants to be able to send for adult children, siblings, and parents in their country of origin. This expanding chain of immigration has resulted in a never-ending stream of millions upon millions of immigrants coming to America.

Indeed, current chain migration policy provides an incentive for legal relatives of immigrants in the US to overstay their visas once invited here for reunification purposes. The promise of amnesty for these new illegal aliens then acts as yet another incentive for them remain in the US.

As of 2008, only 11.2 percent of legal immigrants initiate their own immigration. The rest are nominated by US residents under chain migration, or are nominated by US employers looking for low skilled labor. 

Chain migration is purportedly for the purpose of family reunification. Yet legal immigrants and illegal aliens who wish to reunite with their extended families are free to return to their home countries at any time to do so. Those who immigrate to America have no implicit right to bring along dozens - and ultimately hundreds - of relatives. America has a right and an implicit obligation to future generations of Americans to manage our immigration policy for the best interests of Americans, not foreign job seekers.

References

Citizenship and dual nationality

United States Citizenship

Those who are born in the United States are issued automatic U.S. citizenship. Due to a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, those born to illegal alien parents are also issued United States citizenship.1

Foreign nationals - aliens - can also apply for U.S. citizenship via the process of naturalization.2

Dual citizenship / dual nationality

A person is considered a dual national when he or she owes allegiance to more than one country simultaneously. A dual national may, while in the jurisdiction of either country that considers that person its national, be subject to all of its laws. However, there is no internationally agreed upon principle governing dual citizenship.3

Although U.S. naturalization requires that a foreigner renounce foreign citizenship,3 other countries such as Mexico ignore such renunciation and consider the naturalized U.S. citizen a citizen of both countries. In practice, the Oath of Citizenship is even disregarded by the U.S. Government. Indeed, the United States Consulate states that "Being a dual national and carrying the passport of two countries is perfectly legal. Under U.S. law, naturalizing as a citizen of a foreign state will not in and of itself cause you to lose your U.S. citizenship."4

The Mexican Constitution declares that Mexicans by birth include individuals born abroad if one or both of their parents was a Mexican national.5,6 In 1997, the Mexican Constitution was amended to allow any Mexican who obtains another nationality to retain his or her Mexican nationality.7

The following countries allow dual citizenship after U.S. naturalization:8

Albania
Algeria
Andorra
Antigua
Barbados
Belarus
Belize
Benin
Botswana
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cambodia
Canada
Cape Verde
Central African Republic
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Cote D'Ivoire
Croatia
Cyprus
Djibouti
Dominica
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
El Salvador
France
Ghana
Greece
Grenada
Guatemala
Hungary
Iran
Iraq
Ireland
Israel Jamaica
Kiribati
Latvia
Lesotho
Libya
Liechtenstein Maldives
Mali
Mexico
New Zealand
Nigeria
Morocco
Namibia
Pakistan
Palau
Panama
Peru
Poland
Portugal
Romania
St. Kitts and Nevis
St. Lucia
Slovenia
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Sweden
Switzerland
Syria
Taiwan
Togo
Tunisia
Turkey
Tuvalu
Uganda
United Kingdom
Venezuela
Vietnam
Yemen

More information

1. Anchor babies, birthright citizenship, and the 14th Amendment. Also see 14thAmendment.us.

2. A Guide to Naturalization, U.S. Citizenship and Naturalization Services.

3. Dual Nationality, Federation for American Immigration Reform.

A person is considered a dual national when he or she owes allegiance to more than one country at the same time. A claim to allegiance may be based on facts of birth, marriage, parentage, or naturalization. A dual national may, while in the jurisdiction of either country that considers that person its national, be subject to all of its laws, including being conscripted for military service. There is no internationally agreed upon principle governing dual citizenship. Each country is free to determine how it will treat an individual who is a national of both that country and of another.

According to the State Department, dual citizenship remains more tolerated than explicitly accepted by the U.S. government, and by many other countries...

The State Department then notes that: "[w]hile recognizing the existence of dual nationality and permitting Americans to have other nationalities, the U.S. government does not endorse dual nationality as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries upon dual-national U.S. citizens often place them in situations where obligations to one country are in conflict with the laws of the other...

By allowing Mexicans in the United States to remain Mexicans if they become Americans, the Mexican government would be attempting to maintain the allegiance of a huge voting bloc in U.S. elections especially at the state and local level where immigrant populations are concentrated. It would also encourage even more migration north by those who might otherwise be reluctant to sever ties south of the border and build constituencies in the U.S. for other political issues in which Mexico takes interest...

The Oath of Citizenship:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform non-combatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

4. Dual Nationality, Consulate General of the United States, Guadalajara, Mexico:

"Being a dual national and carrying the passport of two countries is perfectly legal. Under U.S. law, naturalizing as a citizen of a foreign state will not in and of itself cause you to lose your U.S. citizenship. General information about dual nationality is available on the Department of State website Dual Nationality section."

5. Mexican nationality law, Wikipedia.

6. Mexico: Dual Nationality, Politics, Migration News, U.C. Davis, March 2000.

"Beginning March 20, 1998, changes in Mexico's nationality laws took effect. Henceforth, Mexican citizens who naturalize in the US or elsewhere will generally retain Mexican nationality. Mexicans who had already naturalized abroad before March 20, 1998 could re-acquire rights as Mexican nationals... Until March 1998, Mexicans who became naturalized US citizens lost their Mexican nationality. This is no longer the case: Mexican-born people as well as their children born abroad can maintain their Mexican ties if they wish..."

7. Former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo at the National Council of La Raza (The Race) Soiree, Chicago on July 23, 1997. (Watch video.) Zedillo stated:

I have proudly affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders and that Mexican migrants are an important - a very important - part of it. For that reason, my government proposed a constitutional amendment to allow any Mexican with the right and the desire to acquire another nationality to do so without being forced to first give up his or her Mexican nationality. Fortunately, the amendment was passed almost unanimously by our present congress, and is now part of our constitution."

8. Dual Citizenship, City University of New York. Includes full list of countries allowing and not allowing dual citizenship after U.S. naturalization.

9. Memo From Mexico | Mexico's Nationality / Citizenship Shell Game, Alan Wall, VDare, 2003.

10. Remittances - a massive transfer of wealth out of America.

11. Zogby America Poll, June 6, 2002.

Part II. Mexico Poll

Zogby International conducted interviews of 801 adults chosen at random throughout Mexico, from Friday, May 25 to Saturday, May26, 2002. Slight weights were applied to age and education to more accurately reflect the population. The survey has a margin of sampling error of +/- 3.5%. Margins of error are higher among sub-groups.

POLL QUESTIONS

Do you agree or disagree that the territory of the United States' Southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico?

Agree 58%
Disagree 28%
Not sure/Don't know 14%

By two to one, more Mexican respondents agree (58%) than disagree (28%) that the territory of the United States' Southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico. One in seven (14%) is not sure.

Do you agree or disagree that Mexicans should have the right to enter the U.S. without U.S. permission?

Agree 57%
Disagree 35%
Not sure/Don't know 7

 

Cost of illegal immigration to Colorado taxpayers

For more information, see the Fact Sheet - Taxpayer Costs of Criminal Aliens in Colorado Jails and Prisons.

 
Q. How many illegal aliens are there in Colorado?
A. There is no annual update of Census Bureau estimates by state, but a 2010 Center for Immigration Studies report estimated the number at 166,000. That number grew by 34% between 2000 and 2010.1
Q. What are the costs of public services provided to illegal aliens?
A. A 2010 study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform estimated Colorado’s total net cost to taxpayers at $1,388,700,000 annually in state and federal tax dollars.2
Q. What are the main components of that cost estimate?
A. That study examined the cost of public services in three areas, education, health, and law enforcement:
 
EDUCATION COSTS (P-12): $967.2 million
HEALTH: $251.6 million
LAW ENFORCEMENT 146.9 million
OTHER / GENERAL 84.8 million
TOTAL COSTS: $1,450,500,000
Q. But they also pay taxes, which offset those costs - right?
A. Illegal aliens pay sales and excise taxes like everyone else, but few pay significant income taxes. The FAIR study estimates that the total taxes paid by illegal aliens in Colorado at $61.8 million. That leaves a net annual cost to Colorado taxpayers of $1,388,700,000.
Q. But the federal government reimburses Colorado for some of those costs, like the cost of incarcerating criminal aliens in jails and prisons. Right?
A. The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) administered by the US Dept. of Justice reimburses each state for some of the costs of incarceration of criminal aliens. However, several studies, including a 2006 report by the Colorado Dept. of Corrections, showed that the reimbursement is only ten cents on the dollar. Since 2009, the Obama administration has been trying to abolish that reimbursement funding.
Q. What is the annual per-household cost for Colorado taxpayers?
A. With a state population of 5.3 million and 1.9 million households, the net cost of $1,388,700,000 is a burden on the average household of over $730 annually.
Q. But hasn’t the number of illegal aliens crossing the border been declining recently?
A. The number of official, reported apprehensions on the southwest border reached its zenith at 1.8 million in the year 2000 and declined to 516,000 in 2010. However, with Obama's "DACA" amnesty and the continual talk of an impending general amnesty since 2011, that number has been increasing. In 2013 the number surpassed 600,000. In 2012, over 2,000 were apprehended from countries identified as having terrorist cells.
Q. The cost of relocating children who enter the country illegally is being covered by federal grants, right?
A. That federal money will cover only the initial costs, not the long-term costs. As they are placed with families and attain permanent legal status, their educational, health care and welfare costs will be borne by Colorado taxpayers.
 

References

1. "Immigrants in the United States, 2010: A Profile of America's Foreign-Born Population", Center for Immigration Studies, August, 2012.

2. All taxpayer cost data is from the report: "The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on U.S. Taxpayers (2010)", Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

 

Print this document

You can print this document as a one-page FAQ.

 

CAIRCO Research

For more information, see the Fact Sheet - Taxpayer Costs of Criminal Aliens in Colorado Jails and Prisons.

Economic costs of legal and illegal immigration.

How many illegal aliens reside in the United States? - Independent studies indicate that the stale, unchanging, official number of illegal aliens in the United States represents a significant underestimate.

 

Crime and illegal aliens in Colorado

Here are some highlights of crime related to illegal aliens in Colorado (updated 2005):

  • The most reliable estimates are that Colorado has from 250,000 to 300,000 illegal aliens, or about 5% of the state's population. In 2004, over 6,000 illegal aliens passed through the states jails and prisons according to the U.S. Department of Justice, which is about 20% of the state's total jail population at any given moment.
  • Colorado's counties and the state Department of Corrections were reimbursed a total of $5,791,648 in 2004 by the federal government for the costs of incarcerating illegal aliens. The federal reimbursement formula covers only the pro-rata cost of correctional officers' salaries, not capital costs, food, health care, recreation, equipment and supplies, court proceedings, transportation or police functions.
  • The actual cost of incarcerating illegal aliens was estimated by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department in 2001 to be four times the amount of the federal reimbursement. This would be over $22 million annually in Colorado's case. Over the decade since 1995, Colorado's state prisons were reimbursed $36,550,989 for incarcerating illegal aliens, so Colorado's true costs over that decade were probably over $140 million.
  • The Denver Immigration enforcement office no longer does routine checks of all jail bookings. Based on the federal data, on average less than 10% of illegal aliens arrested in Colorado cities and towns are ever deported, and the others are released back into the community. Unfortunately, there is no reliable data on the total number of illegal aliens arrested or prosecuted annually in Colorado.
  • There is no serious effort made in Colorado to enforce laws against employment of illegal aliens. Not a single Colorado employer was fined for this unlawful activity in 2004. Immigration enforcement officers site lack of manpower and cost of investigations as the reason. Meanwhile, thousands of citizens are losing jobs in construction, manufacturing and retail service industries to the unfair competition of low-wage illegal workers.
  • Denver, Boulder, Pueblo and other Colorado cities have policies making them "sanctuary cities. They do not allow police officers to check the immigration status of people they encounter in routine police work. Many other towns and cities follow the same policy unofficially. Criminal aliens in these cities do not have to worry about being turned over to ICE for deportation unless they are caught committing a very serious crime. An illegal alien who goes to jail in a "sanctuary city" has less than a 20% chance of being deported.
  • One in every four fugitive murder warrants issued in Colorado is for someone who flees to Mexico. A majority of these fugitives are most likely illegal aliens. The total number of murders committed by illegal aliens in Colorado is unknown, since no one in Colorado government is monitoring this category of crime.
  • Mexico will not extradite a Mexican citizen who faces a possible death sentence or life in prison. When Mexico does arrest and prosecute a person who committed a murder in Colorado (or any state), Mexican law prohibits a sentence of the death penalty or life in prison. More information on this problem is available at two web sites: www.escapingjustice.com and www.no2Mexico.com.
  • In July of 2004, a young man on a motorcycle was killed by a hit-and-run driver in Thornton, Colorado. The illegal alien who was arrested for that crime had six prior arrests since 1996, but no court or police authority in Adams County or Boulder County asked for him to be deported. The number of similar cases in Colorado, where a violent crime has been committed by an illegal alien with a prior Colorado arrest record, is unknown.
  • The suspect being sought in the May 2005 shooting death of a Denver police officer is an illegal alien who had been stopped three times previously for traffic violations and appeared in court twice, but was never reported to ICE for deportation. The suspect worked illegally in a restaurant whose part owner is the Mayor of Denver.

NOTE: Colorado correctional institutions and agencies do not publish data on illegal aliens incarcerated in jails and prisons. The inmate data in this Fact Sheet is taken from the U.S. Department of Justice 2004 grant awards report for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP). Some county jails do not participate in that program -- for example, Jefferson County-so data from those counties is not included.

Prepared as a Public Service by
The National Center for Citizenship and Immigration
Rep. Tom Tancredo, Founder and Honorary Chairman - A Non-profit Organization
P. O. Box 3044, Littleton, CO 80161

Crime and illegal aliens in the U.S.

2015 research on illegal alien crime

Illegal alien crime significantly threatens the welfare and safety of Americans.

Sadly for Americans, the Obama administration has ordered criminal illegal aliens to be released by ICE. An extensive report revealing convictions of criminal aliens released and placed in non-custodial settings in 2015 was submitted to the U.S. House of Representatives. See: Criminal convictions of illegal aliens released by ICE in 2015.

Excerpts from the article Illegal Alien Violence and Crime by the Numbers - We’re All Victims, The Conservative Papers, July 15, 2015, reveal the following startling facts:

  • The New York Times reports that about 4.5 million illegal aliens in the U.S. drive on a regular basis, many without licenses or insurance, or even the ability to read road signs written in English.
  • the Office of Immigration Statistics reported that of the 188,382 deportations of illegal aliens in 2011, 23 percent had committed criminal traffic offenses (primarily driving under the influence). Congressman Steve King (R-IA) estimates that illegal alien drunk drivers kill 13 Americans every day — that’s a death toll of 4,745 per year.
  • According to the Center for Immigration Studies, another 23 percent, more than 43,000 illegal aliens, were convicted of drug offenses. The violent crime category of assault, robbery, sexual assault, and family offenses comes to 12 percent. 
  • Pinal County is roughly 70 miles north of the border. In 2010, the U.S. Border Patrol reported 212,202 illegal aliens were caught in the Tucson sector alone. The Border Patrol admits for everyone captured, another 2.7 make it into the United States undetected. Of the individuals who are apprehended, as many as 30% of them already have a criminal record in the United States. 
  • The liberal Huffington Post writer Chris Kirkham recently noted that, “this year, more than 60 percent of all federal criminal convictions have been for immigration-related crimes, federal data show.”... 
  • illegal reentry under Title 8, Section 1326 of the United States Code was the most commonly recorded lead charge brought by federal prosecutors during the first half of FY 2011. It alone accounted for 47 percent of all criminal immigration prosecutions filed. The average prison sentence was 14 months for those convicted
  • arrests by the U.S. Border Patrol of individuals from countries other than Mexico have increased from 59,000 in FY 2010 to 99,000 in FY 2012.
  • In a 2007 Government Accountability Office study of 55,322 illegal aliens, analysts discovered that they were arrested at least a total of 459,614 times, averaging about eight arrests per illegal alien: 70 percent had between two and 10 arrests, and 26 percent (about 15,000) had 11 or more arrests.
  • An FBI crime study shows that 75 percent of those on the most wanted criminals list in Los Angeles, Phoenix and Albuquerque are illegal aliens.
  • One quarter of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals, as are more than 40 percent of all inmates in Arizona and 48 percent in New Mexico jails.
  • Over 53 percent of all investigated burglaries reported in California, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and Texas are perpetrated by illegal aliens.
  • 63 percent of cited drivers in Arizona have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that number, 97 percent are illegal aliens. 66 percent of cited drivers in New Mexico have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 66 percent, 98 percent are illegal aliens.
  • there are at least 70,000 MS-13 gang members operating between Central America and the United States.
 
2005 research on illegal alien crime
 
Highlights of crimes related to illegal aliens in the United States (updated 2005) include:
  • In fiscal year 2002, 33.6% of criminals sentenced in federal district courts under Federal Sentencing Guidelines were non-citizens, and 55% of these non-citizens were illegal aliens. This means that illegal aliens accounted for 17.5% of all crimes prosecuted in federal courts, whereas they are less than 6% of the adult population.
  • There are 400,000 illegal aliens being sought by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as "Absconders," and 100,000 of them are criminals. They have been ordered deported but cannot be located.
  • From 1980 to 1999, the number of illegal aliens in federal and state prisons grew from 9,000 to 68,000. Today, criminal aliens account for about 30% of the inmates in federal prisons and 15-25% in many local jails. Incarceration costs to the taxpayers were estimated by the Justice Department in 2002 to be $891 million for federal prison inmates and $624 million for inmates in state prisons.
  • In 2004, the federal government reimbursed states and counties almost $300 million for over 200,000 illegal aliens in custody in jails and prisons. This number does not include illegal aliens in jail in jurisdictions that did not request reimbursement (such as Illinois and Wisconsin), nor does it include thousands sentenced to probation instead of jail time.
  • From 1995 to 1999, the INS released over 35,000 criminal aliens instead of deporting them. Over 11,000 of them later committed serious crimes. The data for 2000-2004 has not been released.
  • In 2003, the ICE Detention and Removal Office in Los Angeles had the manpower to process only 10-12% of the estimated 40,000 illegal aliens who passed through the county jail (24% of the total of 170,000). Over 35,000 were released back into the community.
  • Over 23,000 individuals with criminal histories were apprehended by the Border Patrol in 2004 trying to enter the U.S. illegally. No one knows how many crossed our open borders successfully.
  • The Los Angeles County District Attorney's office says there are over 300 murder warrants outstanding in L.A. County for illegal aliens who have fled to Mexico. They estimate there are 800 to 1,000 such warrants statewide in California and possibly 3,000 nationwide.
  • Frequently, an illegal alien arrested for a crime can accept "voluntary removal" instead of going to trial for his crime. He is sent home but not counted as being deported. Thus, he has no criminal record if he re-enters the country. Local prosecutors make this deal to save money, but because of our open borders such criminals often return and commit additional crimes. No one has yet calculated the cost of this practice.
  • Although all illegal aliens are subject to deportation by law, only the most serious criminals are detained and deported from local jails because of inadequate ICE manpower. Over 200,000 illegal aliens who were incarcerated for minor crimes in 2004 were released back into the community instead of being deported.
  • In 2004, over 50,000 apprehended "Other-than-Mexican" illegal aliens were released by the Border Patrol due to a lack of detention space. Most of them did not show up for their immigration court hearing.
  • The Border Patrol does not routinely arrest "coyotes" who smuggle illegal aliens into the country. They are merely sent back across the border with their "clients." They are arrested and prosecuted for human trafficking only after the coyote's file has numerous apprehensions and five documented re-entries after deportation.
  • Illegal aliens are often released because of lack of detention space, yet the federal agency responsible for detention facilities, ICE/DRO, has never requested the funds to build adequate detention facilities.

    Prepared as a Public Service by The National Center for Citizenship and Immigration
    Rep. Tom Tancredo, Founder and Honorary Chairman - A Non-profit Organization, Littleton, CO.

Further research on illegal alien crime

Search for CAIRCO articles on illegal alien crime.

Ignoring Detainers, Endangering Communities: State/local agencies release criminals rather than obey law, Center for Immigration Studies, July 13, 2015.

State and local sanctuary policies caused the release of more than 8,000 criminal alien offenders sought by ICE for deportation in 276 jurisdictions around the country over an eight-month period, according to ICE records obtained by the Center for Immigration Studies in a FOIA request. Sixty-three percent of the individuals freed by local authorities had prior criminal histories or were labeled a public safety concern at the time of their release. Nearly 1,900 of the released offenders subsequently were arrested for another crime within that eight-month period. ICE arrested approximately 750 of the recidivists, but just over 1,000 (60 percent) remained at large.

276 Jurisdictions Had Sanctuary Policies.

From January 1, 2014, to August 31, 2014, local law enforcement agencies refused to comply with a total of 8,811 detainers, resulting in aliens being released from custody.

As of June 2015 more than 17,000 detainers had been refused by local sanctuary jurisdictions. Most Offenders Released Had Priors; One-Fourth Were Already Felons. The majority (63 percent) of the individuals freed by local agencies had serious prior criminal records. 1,900 Released Offenders Were Later Arrested 4,300 Times; Most Are Apparently Still at Large, even after Re-Offending. Of the 8,145 individual aliens freed by local agencies, there were 1,867 (23 percent) who were subsequently arrested again for a criminal offense. 

How Sanctuary Policies Have Directly Led to Thousands of Crimes Against Americans, Hans von Spakovsky, The Daily Signal, July 12, 2015.
 
No Interior Enforcement Is The New Interior Enforcement, Edwin S. Rubenstein, VDare, July 12, 2015.
 
A recent Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) report [ICE Records Reveal Steep Drop in Worksite Enforcement Since 2013, June 2015] reveals that employer arrests declined in FY2009, and has virtually collapsed in the current fiscal year. 
 
Donald Trump Raises Uncomfortable Truths, David Paulin, American Thinker, July 10, 2015.
 
The Twin Crises: Immigration and Crime, Edwin S. Rubenstein, Volume 21, Number 4 (Summer 2011).
 
ISIS: 0; Ted Kennedy: too many to count, Ann Coulter, July 8, 2015.

DACA illegal alien teachers in public schools

In April, 2014, it was discovered that Denver Public Schools (DPS) is working with the Teach for America program to use illegal aliens with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival status as teachers. Teach for America is a program that brings people of diverse backgrounds into the classroom to enhance learning. Members of the Walton family, the family that founded Wal-Mart, made a large private donation to help pay for illegal aliens with DACA status to enroll in the Teach for America program.2,3

DACA instructors are not licensed teachers but they are issued an alternative license6 from the State of Colorado to teach. These "teachers" are enrolled in classes to attain their traditional teaching license after one year.3

Under Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (DACA), illegal aliens are offered two years of amnesty ("deferred action" - meaning a stay of deportation), are given a social security number, and are allowed to apply for a work permit. The two-year DACA stay of deportation may be renewed on a case-by-case basis, but it does not confer lawful immigration status, provide a path to citizenship (amnesty), or alter an illegal alien's existing immigration status.

Denver Public Schools (DPS) superintendent Tom Boasberg estimates that 10 percent to 20 percent of the district's population are illegal aliens. About one-third of Denver's 87,400 students are "English-language learners," and the majority of those are Spanish speakers. The district does not track how many students lack legal immigration status. Boasberg plans to increase the number of DACA teachers to more than ten for the 2014-15 school year.3,4,11

CAIRCO concerns about DACA illegal alien teachers in public schools

CAIRCO has many concerns about this issue. Several are as follows:

  • There are at least 20 million Americans who either do not have a full-time job or are underemployed.10 This includes teachers. It is neither fair nor appropriate to hire unqualified foreign nationals to replace qualified and experienced American teachers.
  • It is unlikely that most of the illegal aliens with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) status are adequately trained, qualified, and certified as educators. Indeed, DACA status requires attainment of only a high school diploma or a GED certificate. Using unqualified individuals as "educators" does a tremendous disservice not only to students of all races and nationalities, but to our entire educational system.
  • DACA teachers are being issued a Colorado "Alternative License".6,9 Yet HB 1009 was passed in the 2006 special session to mandate that Colorado will deny state business permits and professional licenses to illegal aliens.8 DACA status does not confir citizenship or legalization.1
  • The Binational Migrant Education Program supports the Binational Teacher Exchange Program in order to improve educational continuity for migrant students. The effort began in 1976 and a US - Mexico Memorandum of Understanding was established in 1990. Thus, a program already exists to educate students who truly migrate between the United States and foreign nations.
  • In 2010, the DREAM Act (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors) failed to pass the House. In spite of this, President Obama unilaterally implemented the program called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) in 2012 which grants illegal aliens a renewable two-year timeframe during which they can displace American workers. Indefinite renewal of these work permits should not be anticipated, which means that any on-the-job experience that illegal alien "educators" obtain will be lost when they relinquish their jobs to qualified teachers.
  • For over 200 years, immigrants who came to America adopted English, the native language of the United States, as well as American culture. They were proud to do so. Our schools instructed them in English. Now, DPS is trying to reverse the role of our educational system by teaching students in foreign languages. Sadly, this inverted focus will harm foreign students, penalize American students, and serve to fragment our society.

 


Contact Denver Public Schools Board of Education

Denver Public Schools (DPS)
Tom Boasberg, Superintendent 

720.423.3300
superintendent@dpsk12.org
 

 
DPS Board of Education
 
Board of Education
900 Grant Street
Denver, Colorado 80203
720-423-3210
board@dpsk12.org
http://board.dpsk12.org
 

Happy Haynes – President
Term – 2011 – 2015
Happy_Haynes@dpsk12.org

Anne Rowe  Vice President
Term – 2011-2015
Anne_Rowe@dpsk12.org

Barbara O’Brien – At Large
Term – 2013 – 2017
barbara_obrien@dpsk12.org

Rosemary Rodriguez  Secretary
Term – 2013 – 2017
rosemary_rodriguez@dpsk12.org

Mike Johnson Treasurer
Term – 2013 – 2017
mike_johnson@dpsk12.org

Landri Taylor
Term – 2013 – 2017
Landri_Taylor@dpsk12.org

Arturo Jimenez
Term – 2011 – 2015
jimenez.arturo72@gmail.com

 


References

1. CAIRCO research on DREAMers and DACA - Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

2. Teach for America - Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals.

All applicants, regardless of their citizenship status, must possess at least a 2.50 undergraduate GPA and a bachelor’s degree by June 2014 to be eligible... applicants with deferred action for childhood arrival status must have a social security number and an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) at the time of their final interview...

All applicants who are invited to a final interview are eligible to apply for transitional grants and loans, including those who are DACA recipients...

If a corps member’s Employment Authorization Document is set to expire during their two-year commitment, Teach For America will provide the appropriate legal assistance to ensure they are able to apply for a renewal...

For the 2014 corps, we will place accepted DACA recipients in the Bay Area, Colorado, Houston, Dallas Fort-Worth, Los Angeles, New Mexico, Phoenix, the Rio Grande Valley, Sacramento, San Antonio, and San Diego...

3. DPS to hire previously undocumented immigrants [illegal aliens], 9News, April 11, 2014 (see full article).

4. Denver hires teachers who came to U.S. illegally as children, Chicago Tribune, April 11, 2014 (see full article).

5. Colorado Department of Education - Apply for a Teacher Exchange

Teachers and other licensed school personnel are invited to apply for a one-year exchange with educators in other countries. Exchange opportunities are currently available in Taiwan. Additionally, there are opportunities in various countries, including Australia, as offered through the Colorado International Teacher's Exchange League. The exchange is an excellent opportunity for growth and development as an educator, providing for the exchange of ideas, experience in different teaching and learning styles, as well as immersion into a different culture.

To qualify, eligible educators must, at a minimum:

  • be a U.S. Citizen,
  • hold a bachelor's degree or higher from a regionally accredited college/university,
  • hold a valid state-issued teaching license,
  • be eligible for travel outside of the United States.

6. Colorado Department of Education - Routes to Licensure in Colorado

There are three ways to qualify for a license in Colorado:

  • Completion of an approved educator preparation program through an accepted, regionally accredited institution of higher education outside the state of Colorado. Your program must be comparable to one of our Colorado state-approved programs.
  • Completion of an alternative teacher preparation program in your preparing state.
  • Completion of a certification program in a foreign country.

There are four types of licenses in Colorado:

  • Teacher
  • Special Services Provider
  • Principal
  • Administrator (Superintendent or Director of Special Education).

Alternative Licenses:

Alternative Teacher Licensing Programs are offered statewide. Candidates teach full-time under the supervision of a professional support team, while completing an alternative program offered by a Designated Agency. Upon successful completion of the program, candidates can apply for an Initial Colorado Teacher’s License.

Prior to acceptance into an Alternative Teacher Licensing Program, applicants must be issued a Statement of Eligibility from the Colorado Department of Education.

Requirements for a Colorado Initial Teacher License:

An Initial Teacher License may be issued to an applicant who:

  • Holds a bachelor's or higher degree from an accepted, regionally accredited institution of higher education.
  • Has completed an approved teacher preparation program at an accepted institute of higher education.
  • Has provided an approved program verification form.
  • Has submitted a complete application for licensure, including official transcripts, associated fees, and other supporting documentation.
  • Has demonstrated professional competencies in the subject areas by completing 24 semester hours of course credit as demonstrated through transcript evaluation, or passage of the Colorado State Board of Education-approved content assessment relevant to the area of endorsement sought.

    Note: All elementary education teachers and special education generalists must pass the Colorado State Board of Education-approved elementary education content exam.

Colorado Department of Education - Alternative Teacher Preparation Programs FAQ:

1.  Individuals enrolled in an Alternative program in the content area of special education may take up to 3 years to complete the program requirements. 

7. Is a Statement of Eligibility a license? No. The Statement of Eligibility is used to indicate to a Designated Agency that you meet the state requirements to enter the program. It is not a license.

 

7. Guidelines to Sponsor for Permanent Residency at Denver Public Schools, Page 5 and 6, Denver public Schools:

4. What prerequisites does a candidate need to be sponsored by DPS?...

  • Can obtain a Colorado Teaching License...
  • If the candidate is currently present in the US, he/she must be able to demonstrate legal status in the country under any type of visa category and illegibility to change status to a H1B work authorization...

8. HB 1009 was passed in the 2006 special session: Colorado will deny state business permits and professional licenses to illegal aliens. Effective January 1, 2007. 

Session Laws of Colorado 2006S First Extraordinary Session, 65th General Assembly:

Compliance with the Provisions of Colorado Revised Statute (CRS) 24-76.5-103
VERIFICATION OF LAWFUL PRESENCE

Pursuant to Section 24-76.5-103, Colorado Revised Statutes, only persons lawfully present in the United States will be issued a Colorado educator license or authorization. (This includes adding an endorsement or renewing a license or authorization). Each applicant for a Colorado educator license or authorization must provide the Colorado Department of Education with an accepted form of identification at the time of application, January, 2007.

Colorado Department of Agriculture Measurement Standards - Citizenship / Immigration Status Verification Form Affidavit:

Colorado Revised Statutes section 24-76.5-103 requires all state agencies to verify the lawful presence in the United States of all natural persons (individuals and individuals doing business as sole proprietors) who apply for certain public benefits, including the license, permit or registration for which you are applying. This requirement applies only to natural persons. It does not apply to partnerships, corporations or other business entities that apply for state benefits.

9. DACA teachers license(s) in State of CO (search Colorado licenses):

Alejandro Antonio Fuentes Mena:
License Number:  93112; License Type: Alternative License; Issue Date: 09/01/2013; Expires: 9/01/2014 (one year).
License Number:  85695; License Type: ALT: Statement of Eligibility;  Issue Date: 07/25/2013; Expires: 07/25/2016 (3 years!).

10. Video: Immigration 'reform' adds 33 million competitors to jobless Americans, NumbersUSA. "20 million Americans want a full-time job but cannot find one."

11. DPS wants Colorado to make training to teach English learners mandatory, Denver Post, May 12, 2013

...Colorado has a shortage of teachers with specialized English-learner training...

English learners... represent more than 160 languages...

DPS leaders said most teachers applying for jobs at the district are not certified to work with English learners because it is not a requirement for teacher licensure... Nearly 36,000 of DPS's 84,000 students are English learners...

Recruiting qualified educators who can work with those students is a key priority as DPS seeks to meet conditions laid out in a federal court order governing the education of English learners. The agreement requires DPS to hire fully qualified educators to teach English learners, but also allows the district to provide on-the-job training, which will cost about $700,000 next year.

About 1,800 of the district's more than 5,200 educators are fully qualified to teach English learners. Only about 600 of those teachers are bilingual. DPS officials said about 1,400 teachers are in training programs...

 

DREAMers and DACA - Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

DREAM Act

In 2010, the DREAM Act (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors) failed to pass the House. It specified a six-year path for illegal aliens to eventually become US citizens if:

  • they were brought to the US before the age of 16, are pursuing education or military service
  • they have been in the country for five years continuously
  • they have a clean criminal record
  • they are between the ages of 12 and 35 at the time of the bill’s enactment.

DREAMers

While the DREAM Act failed, the name stuck, and now the term DREAMers applies generally to illegal aliens under the age of 35 seeking full or partial legalization / amnesty and/or taxpayer subsidized tuition.

DACA - Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

In 2012, President Obama unilaterally implemented a new program called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The Migration Policy Institute (MPI) estimates there are 1.2 million DREAMers to whom this action applies. Under DACA, illegal aliens are offered two years of amnesty ("deferred action" - meaning a stay of deportation), are given a social security number, and are allowed to apply for a work permit.

It should be noted that a grant of DACA status does not confer lawful immigration status, provide a path to citizenship (amnesty), or alter an illegal alien's existing immigration status.

In August, 2012, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, stated:

The president"s amnesty program is a magnet for fraud and abuse. While potentially millions of illegal immigrants will be permitted to compete with American workers for scarce jobs, there seems to be little if any mechanism in place for vetting fraudulent applications and documentation submitted by illegal immigrants."

The Binational Migrant Education Program

The Binational Migrant Education Program supports the Binational Teacher Exchange Program in order to improve educational continuity for migrant students. The effort began in 1976 and a US - Mexico Memorandum of Understanding was established in 1990.

DACA illegal alien teachers in public schools

In April, 2014, it was discovered that Denver Public Schools (DPS) is working with the Teach for America program to use illegal aliens with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival status as teachers.

In-state tuition for illegal aliens

Another category to which the term DREAMers applies is those illegal aliens seeking or given in-state college tuition for illegal aliens. Federal law mandates that if instate rates are given to illegals, those rates must also be given to all applicants to Colorado's colleges and universities from the other 49 states. Federal Law Title 8, Chapter 14, Sec. 1623 states:

"an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State... for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit."

Although the law is not actively enforced, giving in-state tuition to illegal aliens is a clear violation of federal law. In-state tuition for illegals is in fact an amnesty disguised as an educational initiative.

The was signed into law on April 29, 2013. It goes overboard to provide financial aid to illegal alien students. The bill makes illegal aliens eligible for College Opportunity Trust funds and full institutional financial aid. The bill also exempts persons receiving educational services or benefits from providing any required documentation of lawful presence in the United States. This specifically overrides 2006 HB 1023 - the most important immigration sanity bill to come out of the 2006 special legislative session.

HB 1023 requires each applicant who applies for public benefits to affirm that they are lawfully present in the country.

For more information, see In-state college tuition for illegal aliens.

 

References

1. Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals - DHS:

You may request consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals if you:
  • Were under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012;
  • Came to the United States before reaching your 16th birthday;
  • Have continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007, up to the present time;
  • Were physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012, and at the time of making your request for consideration of deferred action with USCIS;
  • Entered without inspection before June 15, 2012, or your lawful immigration status expired as of June 15, 2012;
  • Are currently in school, have graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, have obtained a general education development (GED) certificate, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States; and
  • Have not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.

Also see Frequently Asked Questions about DACA:

Q1: What is deferred action?

A1:Deferred action is a discretionary determination to defer removal action of an individual as an act of prosecutorial discretion. Deferred action does not confer lawful status upon an individual. In addition, although an individual whose case is deferred will not be considered to be accruing unlawful presence in the United States during the period deferred action is in effect, deferred action does not excuse individuals of any previous or subsequent periods of unlawful presence.

Q6: If my case is deferred, am I in lawful status for the period of deferral?

A6: No. Although action on your case has been deferred and you do not accrue unlawful presence during the period of deferred action, deferred action does not confer any lawful status. There is a significant difference between “unlawful presence” and “unlawful status.” Unlawful presence refers to a period an individual is present in the United States (1) without being admitted or paroled or (2) after the expiration of a period of stay authorized by the Department of Homeland Security (such as after the period of stay authorized by a visa has expired). Unlawful presence is relevant only with respect to determining whether the inadmissibility bars for unlawful presence, set forth in the Immigration and Nationality Act at Section 212(a)(9), apply to an individual if he or she departs the United States and subsequently seeks to re-enter. (These unlawful presence bars are commonly known as the 3- and 10-Year Bars.)

The fact that you are not accruing unlawful presence does not change whether you are in lawful status while you remain in the United States. Because you lack lawful status at the time DHS defers action in your case, you remain subject to all legal restrictions and prohibitions on individuals in unlawful status.

Under existing regulations, an individual whose case has been deferred is eligible to receive employment authorization for the period of deferred action, provided he or she can demonstrate “an economic necessity for employment.” DHS can terminate or renew deferred action at any time at the agency’s discretion.

Q7: Does deferred action provide me with a path to permanent residence status or citizenship?

A7: No. Deferred action is a form of prosecutorial discretion that does not confer lawful permanent resident status or a path to citizenship. Only the Congress, acting through its legislative authority, can confer these rights.

2. Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Process - Update for DACA Renewals April 9, 2014, USCIS.

3. Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals - Guidance for Employers

On June 15, 2012, the Secretary of Homeland Security announced that certain people who came to the United States as children and meet several key guidelines may request consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (deferred action) and are eligible to apply for work authorization. Individuals whose cases are deferred and who are granted work authorization will be issued an Employment Authorization Document (EAD)...

4. Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals - Statistics August 2012 to May, 2013, USCIS.

5. Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals at the One-Year Mark: A Profile of Currently Eligible Youth and Applicants, Migraion Policy Institute, August, 2013 (view brief).

Based on an innovative methodology to analyze U.S. Census Bureau data, MPI estimates that up to 1.9 million unauthorized immigrants [illegal aliens] under age 31 are potentially eligible for DACA — with 1.09 million currently meeting the age, education, length of residence and other criteria; 423,000 appearing to fulfill all but the education requirements; and 392,000 who are too young to apply now but would become eligible once they reach age 15 if they stay in school or obtain a high school degree or equivalent.

The brief highlights that there may be substantial barriers for a significant portion of the unauthorized population in meeting DACA's requirements. Of the individuals who fulfill all about the education requirements, MPI estimates that 58 percent have completed some high school, while 42 percent have not completed any high school grades. Over two-thirds (69 percent) are limited English proficient. These factors, along with low income levels, parenting responsibilities and other issues, make it difficult for many to enroll in the adult education or career training programs that would make them eligible for DACA...

6. U.S. will stop deporting some illegal immigrants who came here as children, WP Politics, June 15, 2012.

Obama... [granted] a two-year reprieve from deportation for certain eligible immigrants [illegal aliens] but not granting them legal status... Eligible immigrants [illegal aliens] will now receive “deferred action,” which essentially means a two-year reprieve from deportation along with the chance to apply for a work permit...

7. As Many as 1.76 Million Unauthorized Immigrant Youth Could Gain Relief from Deportation under Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Initiative, Migraion Policy Institute, August 7, 2012.

8. The Binational Migrant Education Program.

9. Indiscrete Discretion - Obama proxies suggest there’s ample precedent for his planned massive executive amnesty - there isn’t, Mark Krikorian, National Review Online, August 16, 2014.

DACA... confers work permits, Social Security numbers, driver’s licenses, documents allowing foreign travel, eligibility for the Earned Income Tax Credit and affirmative-action preferences, and more. It’s an actual amnesty, “green-card lite,” if you will...

Nor is there anything genuinely temporary about it; the limited period merely requires a pro forma renewal every two years, something that is already underway...

Regardless of the president’s authority in foreign affairs, such [execurive amnesty] actions impinged on Congress’s plenary power over immigration policy. Congress grew uncomfortable with the executive’s unilateral ad-hocism, so in 1990 it created something called “Temporary Protected Status” (TPS), in an effort to regularize and subject to statutory control the executive’s exercise of unilateral amnesty.

TPS is itself a fraud perpetrated against the public (no one with such “temporary” protection in the U.S. has ever been made to leave — ever)...

But as fraudulent as TPS may be, it’s a statutory tool created by Congress in an attempt to preserve the flexibility needed by the executive but to strictly control it. Grants of TPS require Federal Register notices and formal estimates of the number likely to benefit, and may not last longer than 18 months (though they may be renewed). What’s more, the statute narrowly defines when TPS may be used to amnesty illegal aliens, rendering it pretty much useless for Obama’s mass-amnesty purposes. It can be applied only if the illegals’ home country is experiencing “ongoing armed conflict,” “earthquake, flood, drought, epidemic, or other environmental disaster in the state resulting in a substantial, but temporary, disruption of living conditions,” or “extraordinary and temporary conditions . . . that prevent aliens who are nationals of the state from returning to the state in safety.”

In other words, Congress acted in 1990 to prevent unilateral, extra-legal grants of amnesty by the executive...

10. Obama's immigration plan isn't worth the paper it's printed on, The Hill, November 21, 2014.

11. DACA at the Two-Year Mark: A National and State Profile of Youth Eligible and Applying for Deferred Action, Migration Policy Institute, August, 2014:

Since the Obama administration launched the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program in 2012, which offers temporary relief from deportation and the right to apply for work authorization for certain unauthorized immigrants who came to the United States as children, 55 percent of the 1.2 million youth who immediately met the program's criteria have applied, according to MPI estimates. As the first two-year eligibility period draws to a close, early DACA beneficiaries have begun to apply for renewal, with nearly 25,000 renewal applications submitted as of July 20, 2014.

This report provides the most up-to-date estimates available for the size, countries of origin, educational attainment, employment, English proficiency, age, gender, and poverty rates for the DACA population nationally and for key states, based on an analysis of U.S. Census data. The report also offers DACA application rates nationally and in key states, as well as for particular national-origin groups. The report is accompanied by a new data tool that offers estimates of the current and potentially eligible DACA populations for 41 states, as well as detailed profiles for the United States and 25 states.

The MPI researchers find that slightly more than 2.1 million unauthorized immigrants [illegal aliens] who came to the United States as children are potentially eligible for DACA...

From the report: Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Profile: Colorado:

Total: 40,000
Immediately Eligible (ages 15 and over): 20,000
Eligible but for Education (ages 15 and over): 8,000
Eligible in the Future (under age 15): 12,000

12. DHS Confirms Obama's Amnesty Isn't Temporary, Townhall, February 13, 2015.

13. Why Trump must end DACA, by Dale Wilcox, The Hill, January 29, 2017.

14. Betrayal! Trump grants amnesty to 125,000 illegals in 3 months, by Daniel Horowitz, Conservative Review, June 9, 2017:

We will immediately terminate President Obama’s two illegal executive amnesties in which he defied federal law and the Constitution to give amnesty to approximately 5 million illegal immigrants, five million. And how about all the millions that are waiting on line, going through the process legally? So unfair. ~ Donald Trump, August 31, 2016

Today, we have unveiled a real scandal in the Trump administration. And no, it has nothing to do with James Comey.

While much of the conservative media is consumed with Comey and Russia, they are missing the irony of defending an administration without even securing some key policy outcomes. The latest betrayal to the Right is the confirmation that Trump’s DHS has issued almost 125,000 “DACA” cards (per Obama’s unlawful Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals order) to illegal aliens through the second quarter of this fiscal year (January through March).

According to newly published data from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Trump administration has issued 17,275 initial amnesty cards and over 107,500 renewals of existing status.

This surpasses the 122,000 level of amnesty cards issued during the final quarter of Obama’s presidency (Oct. 1-Dec. 31, 2016), which means the Trump administration is not even slowing down the pace! And although the first 20 days of this quarter were still under Obama’s tenure, the Trump amnesty is likely close to 200,000 by now, when extrapolating in the number of presumed cards issued during April and May...

The jarring thing here is that Trump could fulfill a core campaign promise simply by refusing to renew existing DACA cards...

Obama’s executive amnesty was not merely the suspension of deportations of certain classes of illegal aliens; it offered them benefits and affirmative legal status, with Social Security cards, work permits, and thousands of dollars in refundable tax credit welfare payments. In fact, well over 500,000 illegals had received Social Security cards by 2014 (more likely to be 800,000 by now).

According to a Congressional Research Service memo, illegal families could receive as much as $35,000 in retroactive EITC benefits the first year after being approved for Obama’s executive amnesty.

15. How DACA Will End: A Timeline of Expiration, David Bier, CATO, December 16, 2017:

How DACA operates

There are essentially three parts of DACA, which are detailed in a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) memorandum from Secretary Janet Napolitano. The first part is the deprioritization of removal of non-criminal unauthorized immigrants...

The second part of DACA essentially formalizes that decision not remove them. DACA recipients apply for and are issued a Notice of Action I-797 form (below) stating that removal action against them has been “deferred” for two years...

Finally, this receipt of deferred action authorizes the immigrants to request an employment authorization document (EAD) similar to the one below, which is also valid for two years. Under current law, any person in the United States—legally or illegally—can legally seek employment, but it is illegal for an employer to employ a noncitizen who is not authorized to work...

Trump could easily cancel the second part of DACA on day 1, telling U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to cease accepting applications for I-797 deferred action forms. These forms are technically valid for two years, but they clearly state that they were issued as part of DACA. Deleting DACA recipients from ICE databases that list them as “lawfully present” could be more time-consuming, but probably not technically impossible...

How DACA would naturally wind down

Even if it wanted to, the Trump administration would likely be dissuaded from ending DACA immediately by the practicalities of cancelling all 800,000 EADs alone. But it makes especially little sense to do this when a majority of the EADs will expire within a year of Trump assuming office in any case...

More than 85 percent of all DACA EADs are 2-year authorizations. Another 108,000 are 3-year authorizations that were issued in late 2014 and early 2015...

Worst case and best case scenario for DACA recipients under President Trump

The worst case scenario for DACA recipients would be that the Trump administration stops accepting new DACA applications and eliminates any kind of priorities for removal, allowing agents to apprehend any unauthorized immigrant that they meet...

At the other extreme, the Trump administration could continue the current priorities for removal and allow current recipients of DACA to use their EADs until they expire, while not accepting new applications or renewals. This would be the least controversial and most practical decision that would also be consistent with Trump’s campaign promises.

16. The DACA Amnesty Must Be Ended, Kris Kobach, Breitbart, August 30, 2017. Specific and crucial reasons why DACA is illegal.

17. DACA and REAL ID, a Contradiction in Terms?, by Andrew R. Arthur, Center for Immigration Studies, October 16, 2017.

Deportation and immigration law enforcement

Deportation of illegal aliens

Those who claim that we can not possibly round up and deport 11 million illegal aliens are offering a false choice. There is no need to round up and deport the 11 to 38 million illegal aliens living in the U.S. If we enforce existing laws, deny public benefits to illegal aliens, and make e-Verify mandatory so that aliens can not work illegally in our country, they will voluntarily return home to reunite with their families. 

This report explains the false choice: Mass Deportations or Mass Legalizations: A False Choice, Center for Immigration Studies, October 2015. The report divides illegal aliens into three groups:

  1. those who would return home of their own accord if we left them alone ("voluntary returnees");
  2. those who would not ("reluctant returnees"); and
  3. those who need not return because they have been awarded lawful status under a program similar to the 1986 amnesty (which legalized approximately three million illegal aliens).

Voluntary returnees

Many illegal aliens will voluntarily return home if they can not find work in the United States. The CIS report notes that "Unless we entice them to stay through a legalization program, many will voluntarily repatriate because they are homesick, cannot find a steady job, or have achieved their financial objectives, such as building a home in their village. Many, if not most, never intended to make the United States their permanent home."

Reluctant returnees

The CIS report notes that According to the 2013 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, published by the Department of Homeland Security, approximately 173 million nonimmigrant aliens entered the United States in 2013 - that is, approximately 10 million every three weeks. Yet we do not rely on forcible deportation to remove those whose visas have expired. Instead, we rely on the "soft power" of withholding employment, non-emergency government benefits, driver's licenses, etc.

As noted in the report, there are three ways to magnify "soft-power" removal of illegal aliens:

  • Make e-Verify universally mandatory.
  • SSNVS. The SSA has established the Social Security Number Verification Service, a version of E-Verify that enables employers, without involvement of USCIS, to verify the SSNs not only of newly hired employees, but also of their entire current payroll.
  • No-Match Letters. The SSA also has a longstanding program of notifying employers of mismatches between names and SSNs on Forms W-2 (so-called "no-match letters"), but not all employers get letters, and those that do face no meaningful consequences if they ignore them. 

Legalized Aliens

If yet another amnesty for illegal aliens is enacted by Congress, the result will be to encourage more illegal immigration and to encourage voluntary returnees and reluctant returnees to remain in the U.S.he CIS report points out that "arguments for legalization should be made on their merits and not under the wholly specious presumptioU.Sn that those who are not legalized must then be hunted down and physically deported."

Deportation history

Four presidents have conducted deportations:

  • Beginning in 1931, both presidents Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt (FDR) initiated repatriation programs in order to protect American jobs during the Great Depression. This was termed repatriation because it was being done at the local level and by local authorities, as opposed to the federal government. Hoover’s goal was to have local authorities repatriate 500,000 illegal aliens.
  • Harry Truman initiated repatriation of 3.3 million Illegal aliens. Yet, only about 130,000 were removed by the government; the other 3.2 million self-deported. Once the repatriation program was announced, the United States government only had to deport about 4% of all who left. The rest voluntarily self-deported.
  • In June, 1954, President Eisenhower initiated what was called "Operation Wetback" (a non-derogatory term in those non-politically correct times.). Because political resistance was lower in California and Arizona, the roundup of aliens began there. Some 750 agents swept northward through agricultural areas with a goal of 1,000 apprehensions a day. By the end of July, over 50,000 aliens were caught in the two states. Another 488,000, fearing arrest, had fled the country. For more information, see:

    How Eisenhower solved illegal border crossings from Mexico, Christian Science Monitor, July 6, 2006.

    Ike and those pesky wetbacks, Fred Elbel on May 9, 2014.

From 1931, when Hoover began deportations, through Eisenhower's term in 1959, approximately 5.5 million illegal aliens left the United States. Yet fewer than 500,000 (less than 10%) were actually physically removed. The rest self-deported to voluntarily return home to reunite with their families. For more information, see:

Four American Presidents Conducted Deportations, D.C. Clothesline, November 16, 2015.

Immigration law enforcement

Much can be said about enforcement of immigration law because so little has been done. Here is a summary of federal immigration laws where the enforcement component has been effectively ignored or circumvented.

Immigration enforcement ignored at the federal level

1986: the Immigration and Reform Control Act (IRCA) Amnesty of 1986 - the "one-time only" blanket amnesty for some 2.8 million illegal aliens. The Act amnestied long-term illegal aliens who paid fees, passed criminal background checks, and took English classes and classes on US history and civics. This Act for the first time prohibited employment of illegal aliens. Enforcement was specified in the Act, but was virtually ignored. Indeed, in 2004, only three employers in the entire nation were fined for hiring illegal aliens.

1996: the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act was passed in the aftermath of the first World Trade Center bombing. This wide-ranging law included a requirement to develop an automated entry / exit system for foreign visitors in order to identify visa overstays. In fact, Congress mandated such a system five more times, including the USA Patriot Act - which required a biometric identification system, based on recommendations from the 9/11 Commission. This system has never been implemented.

2005: The REAL ID Act required state driver licenses to meet minimum standards in order to be used for federal purposes, including boarding airlines. The requirements included requiring proof of legal presence in the United States - especially important, because driver's licenses are "breeder documents" used by illegal aliens to embed themselves in society. The Act originally required state compliance by 2008, however, the deadline was postponed to 2011, then to 2013, and then to 2017.

As long as this deadline continues to be pushed back, states can continue to issue drivers licenses to illegal aliens. Indeed, in 2013, the Democratic Colorado legislature passed a law giving drivers licenses to illegal aliens. The Oregon legislature passed a similar law in 2013, however, Oregon citizens immediately began a referendum process to place the law on the ballot so that voters could decide for themselves whether to implement the law. 

2006: The Secure Fence Act required secure border fencing along approximately 650 miles of the US- Mexico border. The law specifically required “at least 2 layers of reinforced fencing”. To-date, less than 40 miles of mandated secure fencing have been built. Additional fencing has been built, but it is not secure, and consists of single-layer fencing and low vehicle barriers which allow people to cross. Indeed, much of the border still consists of a few strands of barbed-wire fence, which drug runners and illegal aliens can easily circumvent.

American Border Patrol has flown and cataloged the entire border. The results of their border survey and border fence inventory fly in the face of DHS Janet Napolitano's misleading statement that "Our borders have in fact never been stronger”.

Immigration enforcement ignored at the state level

Immigration enforcement is similarly ignored at the state level. The most egregious case in point is with sanctuary cities, where police are directed to ignore immigration law. This was the case for years in the Sanctuary City of Denver, even though sanctuary cities were banned in Colorado in 2006. Sadly, in 2013 the

 


 

Additional resources

Deportation Basics - Immigration Enforcement Works (Or Doesn’t) in Real Life, by W.D. Reasoner, Center for Immigration Studies, July, 2011.

 

Drivers Licenses for Illegal Aliens

Obtaining drivers licenses for illegal aliens is one of the key objectives of the open borders lobby. 

While a drivers license is the de facto identification card in America, many states issue drivers licenses without requiring a valid Social Security numbers. A drivers license is in effect a "breeder document" that allows the bearer to open bank accounts, board planes, rent housing, and obtain credit.

Most importantly, a drivers license is a key document that allows the bearer to vote - even though that person is not a United States citizen. The Motor Voter Act of 1993 made it convenient to register to vote by requiring all states to allow all people who apply for a drivers license to also register to vote.

It should be noted that all of the 9/11 hijackers had drivers licenses or state-issued identification cards from "lenient" states.

Coloradoans are overwhelmingly against giving drivers licenses to illegals. A Rasmussen Report poll of likely voters in Colorado on December 12, 2007 found:

  • 75% oppose granting drivers' licenses to illegal aliens.
  • 71% say that when police officers pull someone over for a traffic violation, they should routinely check to see if that person is in the country legally.
  • 59% believe that if an illegal alien is discovered in this manner, they should be deported.

A few states give drivers licenses to illegal aliens.In 2003, California's Governor Davis signed into law a bill that would give illegals drivers licenses. This is likely the final act that contributed to his 2003 recall. Incoming Governor Schwarzenegger annulled the law, purportedly so that the electorate would not have a chance to vote on a referendum on the issue. 

Compelling reasons why drivers licenses should not be issued to illegal aliens

  1. A driver's license is a privilege that should be reserved for persons lawfully present in the United States, including those who are lawfully invited to immigrate here or who are lawfull guests in our country.
  2. Giving driver's licenses to illegal aliens compounds the incentives for illegal aliens to come to Colorado. This certainly is not in Colorado's best interest.
  3. Forty five states currently have chosen to have secure driver's licenses for legal residents only. Only five states have statutes or regulations that implicitly give illegal aliens access to driving privileges: Illinois, New Mexico, Utah, Washington and Maryland. Even so, Illinois and Utah both prohibit these documents from being used for identification purposes.
  4. The federal REAL ID Act does not allow states to grant ID documents to illegal aliens. The 911 Commission Report noted that a driver's license is a "breeder document" or a gateway document, and opens access to all of our institutions.
  5. Fraud is "not uncommon" in private schools, where illegal aliens can obtain drivers licences in exchange for a bribe. See the article below.
  6. It is not likely that illegal aliens would want to subject themselves to Colorado's stringent driving requirements. See the following section.
  7. Illegal aliens will gain entry to the voting booth - a boon to the Democratic Party who know that all "immigrants" vote for the party that gives them the most freebies.
  8. Federal Homeland Security and even state officials acknowledge troubling and well-documented deficiencies in Colorado's system for testing driving applicants.
  9. It has been clearly demonstrated criminals and terrorists use Drivers Licenses to blend into society to commit terrorist acts and other crimes.
  10. State Senator Evie Hudak (D-Westminster) and Representative Glenn Vaad (R-Mead) of the Senate and House transportation committees, said in 2011 there is no money in the budget for more DMV auditors.
  11. Although insurance is required to operate a motor vehicle, it can be easily cancelled. See the section below.
  12. It is likely that automobile insurance premiums could go up to cover the costs of illegal aliens who would drive with insurance - but who would not have undergone Colorado driving requirements, as noted below.
  13. A primary argument for issuing licenses to illegals is that as a result, highway safety would improve. Yet no such evidence is forthcoming from other states that issue licenses to illegal aliens, including New Mexico, Washington, and Utah. 
  14. Some illegal aliens may take advantage of a law giving them drivers licenses. However, those who fail the test will likely continue to drive without a license. Thus, we will continue to have safe drivers and unsafe drivers in the same approximate proportions as we do now.
  15. A proposal to stamp an illegal alien's driver's licenses on the back with "Non-Citizen" is a meaningless gesture. No one checks the back of a license. To be significant, a "Non-Citizen" designation must appear on the front of the license, not the back. Note that Green card holders and legal non-immigrants, guest workers and international visitors already can obtain a legal driver's license, and therefore such a requirement would not apply to them.
  16. A proposal to allow the Mexican Matricula ID Card to be used as valid identification to obtain a drivers license is unsound. No major bank in Mexico accepts the Matricula card to open an account. And the cards are recognized as IDs in only 10 of Mexico's 32 states and districts.
  17. Utah and New Mexico have experienced "driver's license tourism" - where illegal aliens entering the state and use a local address to get a Colorado drivers license. They then return to another state of residence, such as Arizona, Texas, or Kansas, where such licenses are not available. Colorado should not join this thriving industry of ID document fraud.
  18. A 2012 Colorado initiative to give illegal aliens drivers licenses failed dramatically, gathering under half of the required 86,000 signatures, even after months of trying. This reflects polling data revealing that 75 percent of Coloradoans oppose granting drivers' licenses to illegal aliens.

Experience of other states

Of the five states allowing illegal aliens to have driving privileges, Illinois and Utah both prohibit these documents from being used for identification purposes.

New Mexico began issuing driver’s licenses to non-citizens in 2003. Then-Governor Bill Richardson had argued the policy would reduce the high number of uninsured drivers in the state. A decade later, national statistics confirmed that the law failed to live up to its expectations. New Mexico continues to rank near the top of the list of states with the most uninsured drivers, consistently registering at nearly twice the national average, according to the Insurance Research Council.

An estimated 49,000 illegal aliens reside in New Mexico, and since the law went into effect some 80,000 licenses have been issued to foreign nationals. New Mexico simply has opened their border further to encourage people to come there for drivers licenses.

Tennessee stopped issuing driving certificates to illegal aliens after investigations found rampant "driver's license tourism" where illegal aliens were being shuttled in from other states, using fake residency papers and sometimes bribing state workers to get the drivers licenses. The driving certificates were stamped with "not valid for identification", and were meant to improve driving safety by attempting to ensure that non-citizens living in the state were aware of traffic laws. Federal investigations found that illegal aliens were traveling hundreds of miles to get the certificates illegally.

Issuing licenses to illegal aliens clearly acts as a magnet, drawing in more and more illegal aliens. The number of licenses issued to foreign nationals in three of the states that currently grant driver's licenses to illegal aliens - Washington, New Mexico, and Utah - has risen 60 percent.

Colorado's stringent driving requirements

Colorado has stringent requirements that must be met in order to drive in the state.

Before applying for a license, an individual must:

  • Hold an instruction permit for at least one year.
  • Log 50 hours of supervised driving time, with 10 of those hours occurring at night. During this time, you can only be accompanied by a driving instructor, a parent or legal guardian, or an adult alternate permit supervisor approved by parent or legal guardian. All supervisors must hold a Colorado driver's license.

Licensed Drivers Under 18 must adhere to the following restrictions:

  • You cannot ride with any passenger under 21 until after six months of owning your license (siblings and passengers with medical emergencies are exempt).
  • You cannot drive with more than one passenger under 21 until after holding your license for more than one year (siblings and passengers with medical emergencies are exempt).
  • You cannot drive with more than one passenger sitting up front.
  • You and your passengers must wear seat belts.
  • You cannot drive between midnight and 5 a.m. until after holding your license for more than one year. Exceptions to this rule include work and school reasons, and if you're accompanied by a parent or legal guardian.

Foreign Nationals living in Colorado who would like a driver’s license must meet the following requirements:

  • Pass the written knowledge test
  • Pass a vision screening test
  • Present identification which prove all four of Colorado’s identification requirements.
  • Present proof of current Colorado address
  • Obtain a Colorado Instruction Permit
  • Pass the road test

For more detailed information on obtaining a Colorado driver’s license, see the Department of Motor Vehicle website.

Insurance is required in order to operate a motor vehicle in Colorado. However, according to the DMV, it is astonishingly easy to obtain insurance and then cancel it, while continuing to drive.

Driving School Fraud

An April 10, 2013 Denver Post article, Aurora driving school owner accused of granting licenses for bribes stated that:

An Aurora driving school owner and clerk face federal charges for running an alleged scheme in which they would grant paperwork for driver licenses to anyone — whether [or not] they passed the tests — in exchange for a bribe.

Stuart Bryan King, 52, of Centennial, owner of Little Lake Driving Academy, and Griselda Trevino De Valenzuela, 42, of Aurora, the driving academy's clerk, were arraigned in U.S. District Court in Denver on Wednesday on charges of conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud, aggravated identity theft, Social Security fraud and Bribery, said Jeff Dorschner, spokesman for the United States Attorney's Office in Colorado.

"There have been cases like this before, this is not unheard of," Dorschner said.

The two suspects are accused of charging $130 to $420 in cash to fraudulently issue passing test grades from August 2009 through November 2012, Dorschner said.

In some instances, King would go to the DMV and would tell people about his business while they were testing, according to the court documents.

In addition, the two are accused of filling out the written tests for applicants who could not speak, read or write English, according to Dorschner...

In one instance, a bus full of people who could not speak, read or write English came to the business from Missouri to trade out their Missouri identification cards — stolen identities — for valid Colorado licenses, Dorschner said.

A July 24, 2011 Denver Post article, Colorado laws invite abuse by private driving schools stated that:

  • 2011 - State Sen. Evie Hudak, D-Westminster, and Rep. Glenn Vaad, R-Mead, of the Senate and House transportation committees, said there is no money in the budget for more DMV auditors.
  • The 2011 case exposes once again what federal Homeland Security and even state officials acknowledge are troubling and well-documented deficiencies in Colorado's system for testing driving applicants.
  • 2011 - David Marwell, special agent in charge of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Homeland Security Investigations in Denver re Drivers Licenses "It has been clearly demonstrated criminals and terrorists use these documents to blend into society to commit terrorist acts and other crimes. They are also used as breeder documents to help these criminals to obtain even more government identifications."
  • 2011 - For a decade, federal and (Colorado) state authorities have repeatedly exposed scams in which driving tests were falsified, or state workers took bribes in exchange for granting driver's licenses to ineligible applicants, typically immigrants.
  • 2007 through 2009- The Nebraska State Patrol noticed a surge of Colorado driver's licenses being surrendered from October 2007 through September 2009.
  • Fewer than 20 states allow third-party driving examinations.
  • Colorado created its system of third-party examinations before 1998 as a way to reduce wait times in the state's DMV offices.
  • There are 185 third-party driving schools providing 30 percent of the state's road tests.
  • Only four DMV auditors monitor those schools and they are responsible for mandatory annual audits of each.

Timeline of illegal aliens issued fraudulent drivers licenses in Colorado: 2001 to 2012

  • 2012 - Sikiru A. Fadeyi indicted illegal sale of CO Drivers Licenses. See Driving School Shut Down By Dept. Of Revenue, Denver Post, July 27, 2011.
  • 2012 Indictment USDOJ - A federal grand jury in Denver last week returned an indictment charging three defendants with mail fraud and bribery concerning programs receiving federal funds in connection with the illegal sale of documents that enabled the purchaser to obtain a driver license or learner’s permit, the U.S. Department of Justice and the Colorado Department of Revenue announced. The three defendants indicted are Sikiru A. Fadeyi, age 62 of Centennial, Djibrill Sana, age 34 of Aurora, and Omar Masakira, age 53 of Denver. See Commercial driving school owner/instructor and two brokers indicted for taking money in turn for giving passing grades to driver's license applicants, US Attorney's Office, District of Colorado, April 30, 2012.
  • 2011 - ICE indictment- Driving  instructor Dennis Dean Sieving indicted on federal charges that he took money to certify driving exams. Many of Sieving's customers were immigrants from Myanmar, and Fadeyi's patrons mostly came from Somalia or Ethiopia. See indictment, US District Court, Colorado.
  • 2010 - Sikiru A. Fadeyi  - Federal Bureau of Investigation said Fadeyi was falsifying driving tests for Somalis coming to him from Nebraska. See Colorado laws invite abuse by private driving schools, Denver Post, July 24, 2011.
  • 2005 - A Denver license examiner was accused of issuing 978 licenses without getting Social Security numbers from applicants. (ibid.)
  • 2003 - Sikiru A. Fadeyi was caught falsifying driving examinations to help scores of immigrants, many of them Somalis living in Minnesota, come to Colorado and illicitly get driver's licenses — a critical entry point to American society. His license was then suspended. (ibid.)
  • 2001- Glenwood Springs police completed an undercover sting operation at DMV office, when the illegal aliens went to the driver's license office to complete their paperwork, full-time employee Patricia Kay with the Department of Motor Vehicles office falsified their documents to state the persons were legally entitled to receive the license. Virginia Escalante, 44, and Fernando  Escalante were contract workers who administered driving tests. The driving tests for the illegal aliens were falsified by the Escalantes. See DMV employee last to be sentenced in driver's license scam, Glenwood Post Independent, July 7, 2001.

Traffic accidents and fatalities

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says in 2010 that the cost of medical care and productivity losses associated with motor vehicle crash injuries was over $99 billion, or nearly $500, for each licensed driver in the United States.

A 2008 report by the Automobile Association of America states that according to the Federal Highway Administration, the per-person cost of traffic fatalities in 2005 dollars is $3.2 million and $68,170 for injuries. AAA estimates the cost of traffic crashes to be $166.7 billion. Costs include medical, emergency services, police services, property damage, lost productivity, and quality of life. Read AAA executive summary.

In 2011, 32,367 people died in motor vehicle crashes, down 1.9 percent from 2010, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation. In 2011, 2,217,000 people were injured in motor vehicle crashes. In 2010, 32,999 people died in motor vehicle crashes and an additional 2,239,000 people were injured. (From Rocky Mountain Insurance Information Association.)

Subsequent complications

Pew study finds several problems in the state-based programs, Denver Post, November 26, 2015.

...About a dozen states, from Vermont to California, have run into a range of problems as they have launched state-based programs to expand driving privileges to millions of residents [illegal aliens] living in the shadows, according to a new report.

These challenges include allegations of fraud in Vermont, trouble with access in Colorado and high demand in California and Connecticut...

Since Colorado began issuing alternative licenses in August 2014, about 14,000 residents have taken advantage of the program. Although that figure is significant, it's still below the rate that Colorado expects — state officials have estimated it will issue about 78,000 licenses over three years.

Much of the trouble in Colorado has been financial. The legislature this year feuded for weeks over funding for the program, and the state was forced to cut from five to one the number of offices that issue the alternative licenses — which cost about $80 each, more than three times the cost of a regular license.

Ultimately, lawmakers agreed to spend about $513,000 on the program this year, and Colorado has since increased to three the number of offices that provide these licenses: Denver, Grand Junction and Colorado Springs.

From the report Deciding Who Drives, Pew Charitable Trusts, July 2015, updated September 3, 2015.

Overview

U.S. citizens and lawful immigrants can routinely obtain and renew driver's licenses, but some states have decided to allow unauthorized immigrants—those who do not have explicit permission from the U.S. government to reside in the country—to do so as well. As of the summer of 2015, 10 states (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Vermont, and Washington) and the District of Columbia issue driver's licenses, or similar documents referred to by different names, to this population, and nearly 37 percent of unauthorized immigrants live in a jurisdiction where they may obtain a license ...

[...] As of August 2015 ... Colorado ... issue unauthorized immigrants [illegal aliens] an existing temporary license that certain lawfully present immigrants receive ...

Deferred action and driver's licenses

Federal initiatives that allow certain unauthorized immigrants to avoid deportation have an indirect impact on state driver's license laws and highlight the relationship between federal immigration policies and state laws and policies. On Nov. 20, 2014, President Barack Obama announced an executive action that could allow up to 4 million unauthorized immigrants who came to the U.S. as children, or who have children who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents, to be eligible to avoid deportation (called "deferred action"). Under the program, they could get employment authorization documents and a Social Security number ...

Costs and revenue

...Colorado's fiscal note projected several one-time startup costs, including $390,000 to design and create new licenses with modern document security features, almost $36,000 to reprogram the driver's license technology system of the Department of Revenue, and smaller amounts for legal review and rule-making and to create and print forms to be signed by applicants ...

Colorado Alternative license

[Costs] $50.50 [Issued for] 3 years

Changes to computer systems and programming also may be needed to accommodate new documents or to reflect a new license design. Technology upgrades or new websites may be needed if a state is going to create or expand an appointment system. For example, Colorado reported that it undertook major programmatic and computer system changes to be able to accept new types of documents.The state's fiscal note estimated a onetime information technology cost of over $425,000 to reprogram its computer system ...

...The Colorado ... statutes require that unauthorized immigrant [illegal alien] applicants attest in writing that they will apply to legalize their immigration status as soon as they are eligible to do so ...

Proof of state residency

...For example, Colorado ... require unauthorized immigrants to show that they have lived in their jurisdictions for a specified period of time, ranging from six months to two years, before they can receive a license ...

Exceptions to the Rules

If applicants cannot provide required documentation, at least four states offer or intend to offer special procedures, sometimes called "exceptions processing." These procedures allow issuing agencies to consider—on a case-by-case basis—alternative documents if an individual cannot meet the specific requirements. The process for exceptions may be included in statute or in the regulatory process, or it may be an already existing procedure ...

... In Colorado ... these processes are available to applicants for all types of licenses ...

Fraud

Because they cannot obtain U.S. government-issued identity documents and Social Security numbers, some unauthorized immigrants may have previously used false identities, false addresses, or fraudulent documents to obtain driver's licenses for which they were not eligible. When those people apply for alternative licenses, the previous use of fraudulent documents often surfaces. States issuing alternative licenses should consider procedures for identifying and treating earlier fraudulent behavior while determining under what conditions a valid alternative license can be issued ...

Confidentiality

...Colorado's law does not include provisions regarding sharing information about immigration status. It does, however, specify that immigration status violations are federal offenses, and it prohibits state and local police officers from using an alternative license as a basis for arrest for immigration violations ...

Conclusion

Each of the 11 jurisdictions that have decided to issue driver's licenses to unauthorized immigrants [illegal aliens] has taken its own path from enacting law to issuing licenses. As this report shows, they make many significant decisions when designing and implementing license programs...

 

Economic costs of legal and illegal immigration

I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country... Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money-power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
Abraham Lincoln 1809 - 1865

Why borders can not be open

"Business interests however are short-term. Easy immediate access to labour will always be preferred to the costs of training and capital investment for the longer term. In the nature of economic cycles, yesterday's essential labour can often become, as the defunct factories and mills of Europe have shown, today's unemployed. Employers who demanded immigrant labour are not held to account for this or required to contribute to subsequent costs of their unemployed former workers. Few things are more permanent that temporary worker from a poor country. If business were made responsible for the lifetime costs of their migrant labour in the same way as they must now deal with the lifetime environmental costs of their products, perhaps enthusiasm for labour migration might be moderated and make way for longer-term investment in capital-intensive restructuring."7

A critique of economics

As noted in the sections below, the economic costs of illegal immigration are staggering. Yet economists - and the mainstream media - tend to downplay and often completely ignore this impact. Western economics is based upon the premise that "growth is good" and that economic stagnation and particularly negative growth are extremely undesirable. With mass immigration driving US population to double within the lifetimes of children born today, one must question whether the economic paradigm of unending physical growth is truly in the best interests of America - and of Americans, no matter what their race, creed, or color.

In the following video, Robert Johnson, Director of the Institute for New Economic Thinking, New York, explains some of the pitfalls of the art of economics:

In the video, Johnson states:

When the people become anxious they want the expert to tell them what's going to happen. And they feel good when their anxiety is relieved because they think they understand the future...

Economists are very much accused of "only seeing the economy through the eyes of the model" as opposed to seeing the economy and building a model as a map of what reality is...

"At the core economics is about politics and about power. And the question for the economists is: Whose power are you going to serve as an expert? Are you going to serve the public good of society or are you going to serve private consulting pay trends?"

Economic and social costs of illegal immigration

The economic and social consequences of illegal immigration across the 1,940 mile long America-Mexico border are staggering.

An average of 10,000 illegal aliens cross the border every day - over 3 million per year. A third will be caught and many of them immediately will try again. About half of those remaining will become permanent U.S. residents (3,500 per day).

Currently there are an estimated 9 to 11 million illegals in the U.S., double the 1994 level. A quarter-million illegal aliens from the Middle-east currently live in the U.S, and a growing number are entering by crossing the Mexican border.

FAIR research suggests that "between 40 and 50 percent of wage-loss among low-skilled Americans is due to the immigration of low-skilled workers. Some native workers lose not just wages but their jobs through immigrant competition. An estimated 1,880,000 American workers are displaced from their jobs every year by immigration; the cost for providing welfare and assistance to these Americans is over $15 billion a year." The National Research Council, part of the National Academy of Sciences, found in 1997 that the average immigrant without a high school education imposes a net fiscal burden on public coffers of $89,000 during the course of his or her lifetime. The average immigrant with only a high school education creates a lifetime fiscal burden of $31,000.8

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 118 documented incursions by the Mexican military over the last five years.

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 half-a-billion dollars per year incarcerating illegal alien criminals.

Immigration is a net drain on the economy; corporate interests reap the benefits of cheap labor, while taxpayers pay the infrastructural cost. FAIR research shows "the net annual cost of immigration has been estimated at between $67 and $87 billion a year. The National Academy of Sciences found that the net fiscal drain on American taxpayers is between $166 and $226 a year per native household. Even studies claiming some modest overall gain for the economy from immigration ($1 to $10 billion a year) have found that it is outweighed by the fiscal cost ($15 to $20 billion a year) to native taxpayers."

"In the NAFTA era, a staggering 87 percent of Mexico's imports go to the United States, while Mexicans living in the United States send home more than $8 billion annually. Fox has said he considers his constituency to include the 22 million to 24 million Mexicans and Mexican-Americans in the United States. Mexican candidates now make campaign stops in U.S. cities like Los Angeles, Phoenix and Fresno, Calif." (Mexico's muddle, Ruben Navarrette Jr., March 26, 2003)

For more information, see The Washington Times article and series Chaos along the border, October 6, 2002, the FAIR reports Immigration and the Economy, Immigration Lowers Wages for American Workers.

Remittances

$60 billion dollars are earned by illegal aliens in the U.S. each year. One of Mexico's largest revenue streams (after exports and oil sales) consists of money sent home by legal immigrants and illegal aliens working in the U.S. Economists say this will help Mexico reduce its $17.8 billion defecit and may bolster the peso. $10 billion dollars (as of 2003) are sent back to Mexico annually, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, reported in an Associated Press article, up $800 million from the previous year. ($9 billion dollars were previously sent back annually, according to a September 25, 2002 NPR report). That figure equals what Mexico earns annually from tourism. This is a massive transfer of wealth from America - essentially from America's displaced working poor - to Mexico.

A May 28, 2004 study by Bendixen & Associates6 found that legal and illegal immigrants send a total of $30 billion to their home countries on an annual basis. Mexico receives $13.3 billion a year. The largest amount in remittances ($9.6 billion) is sent from California, followed by New York ($3.6 billion), Texas ($3.2 billion) and Florida ($2.5 billion). Of those surveyed by the study, 24% were Latin American-born U.S. citizens, 39% were legal residents, and 32% were illegal aliens. Sixty-one per cent of those surveyed send remittances overseas at least once a month. A typical remittance is between $150 and $250.

(See the article by Fred Elbel: Remittances - a Massive Transfer of Wealth. Also see this state-by-state map of remittances.)

Education costs

The total K-12 school expenditure for illegal immigrants costs the states $7.4 billion annually—enough to buy a computer for every junior high student nationwide.9

For more information, see CAIR's education section.

'Anchor baby' Hospital costs

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."

It's estimated there may be over 300,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S. Thus, illegal alien mothers now add more to U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965. These babies are called anchor babies because they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency.

FAIR estimates "there are currently between 287,000 and 363,000 children born to illegal aliens each year. This figure is based on the crude birth rate of the total foreign-born population (33 births per 1000) and the size of the illegal alien population (between 8.7 and 11 million). In 1994, California paid for 74,987 deliveries to illegal alien mothers, at a total cost of $215.2 million (an average of $2,842 per delivery). Illegal alien mothers accounted for 36 percent of all Medi-Cal funded births in California that year."

FAIR research shows that "the Urban Institute estimates that the cost of educating illegal alien children in the nation's seven states with the highest concentration of illegal aliens was $3.1 billion in 1993 (which, with the growth of their population to 1.3 million, would be more like $5 billion in 2000). This estimate does not take into account the additional costs of bilingual education or other special educational needs."

In a recent year in Colorado, the state's emergency Medicaid program paid an estimated $30 million in hospital and physician delivery costs for about 6,000 illegal immigrant mothers - average of $5,000 per baby. Those 6,000 births to illegal aliens represent 40% of the births paid for by Medicaid in Colorado. Those 6,000 babies immediately became U.S. citizens and qualified for full Medicaid services, with a cost yet to be tabulated.

An illegal alien mother only has to say she is "undocumented" in order to receive immediate - and free - medical care. Denver Health is now proposing that taxpayers approve a bond issue to pay for a bigger obstetrics unit. The present unit was built for 1,600 births a year, yet last year alone it handled 3,500.

For more information, see the Fourteenth Amendment and Birthright Citizenship website. Also see the Denver Post article Track 'anchor babies', by Al Knight, September 11, 2002, the article Pretending Immigration Isn't an Issue, by Phyllis Schafly, September, 2002, and the FAIR article Anchor Babies: Is U.S. Citizenship Owed to Illegal Aliens' Children?

Medical care to illegal aliens

"Mexican ambulance drivers are driving their hospital patients who can't pay for medical care in Mexico, to facilities in the United States. They know that the federal Emergency Medical Act mandates that U.S. hospitals with emergency-room services must treat anyone who requires care, including illegal aliens.

Medical service for Americans in affected communities is being severely damaged as hospitals absorb more than $200 million in unreimbursed costs. Some emergency rooms have shut down because they cannot afford to stay open. Local tax-paying Americans are either denied medical care or have to wait in long lines for service as the illegals flood the facilities. In California, the losses are calculated to be about $79 million, with $74 million in Texas, $31 million in Arizona, and $6 million in New Mexico."1

These costs are staggering. The Cochise County, Arizona Health Department spends as much as 30 percent of its annual $9 million budget on illegal aliens.3 The Copper Queen Hospital in Bisbee, Arizona, has spent $200,000 in uncompensated services out of a net operating budget of $300,000.3 The University Medical Center in Tucson may lose as much as $10 million and the Good Samaritan Regional Medical Center, also in Tucson, has lost $1 million in the first quarter of fiscal 2002.3

As noted above, in a recent year in Colorado, the state's emergency Medicaid program paid an estimated $30 million in hospital and physician delivery costs for about 6,000 illegal immigrant mothers - average of $5,000 per baby.

The Gwinnett, Georgia, Hospital System expects has established a $34 million reserve to cover its anticipated outlay for illegal aliens in 2003. Los Angeles Times columnist Ronald Brownstein wrote in his December 30, 2003 column that the 'Health-Care Storm Brewing in California Threatens to Swamp U.S... the impending Medicaid disaster is not a problem the states can handle alone; their budget shortfalls are too big.'2

"The General Accounting Office traveled to southern Arizona to study the impact of illegal immigrants on Arizona and other border state hospitals. In 2002, three hospitals located in Cochise County funded more than $1 million in uncompensated health care costs... The Florida Hospital Association surveyed 28 hospitals and found that health care for illegal aliens totaled at least $40 million in 2002."2

Illegal aliens cost $10 billion in 2002

A Center for Immigration Studies report was released in August, 2004 that shows that illegal immigration cost $10 billion in 2002.4 Based on Census Bureau data, the study estimates that households headed by illegal aliens used $10 billion more in government services than they paid in taxes in 2002. These figures are only for the federal government; costs at the state and local level are also likely to be significant. The study also finds that if illegals were given amnesty, the fiscal deficit at the federal level would grow to nearly $29 billion. Among the findings:

* Illegal alien households are estimated to use $2,700 a year more in services than they pay in taxes, creating a total fiscal burden of nearly $10.4 billion on the federal budget in 2002.

* Among the largest federal costs: Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).

* If illegal aliens were legalized and began to pay taxes and use services like legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual fiscal deficit at the federal level would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total federal deficit of $29 billion.

* Because many of the costs are due to their U.S.-born children, who are awarded U.S. citizenship at birth, barring illegals themselves from federal programs will not significantly reduce costs.

* Although they create a net drain on the federal government, the average illegal household pays more than $4,200 a year in federal taxes, for a total of nearly $16 billion.

* However, they impose annual costs of more than $26.3 billion, or about $6,950 per illegal household.

* About 43 percent, or $7 billion, of the federal taxes illegals pay go to Social Security and Medicare.

A 1997 report by the National Research Council (NRC) on the fiscal impact of immigrants concluded that education levels and resulting income is the primary determinant of tax payments and service use, which is also a central finding of this report. The results of this study closely match the findings of a 1998 Urban Institute study. Our estimated average tax payment for illegal households in New York State are almost identical to that of the Urban Institute, when adjusted for inflation. The results of this study are also buttressed by an analysis of illegal alien tax returns done by the Inspector General’s Office of the Department of Treasury in 2004, which found that about half had no federal income tax liability, very similar to the study's findings of 45 percent.

Immigration causes average wage decline of $1,700

Two decades' growth in the supply of immigrant workers cost native-born American men an average $1,700 in annual wages by the year 2000, a top economist has concluded.5

Hispanic and black Americans were hurt most by the influx of foreign-born workers, says a report by Harvard University's George Borjas, considered a leading authority on the impact of immigration....

"What past immigration has done -- and what the temporary worker program will continue to do on a potentially larger scale -- is to depress wages and increase profits of the firms that employ the immigrants," Borjas said. "The reduction in earnings occurs regardless of whether the immigrants are legal or illegal, permanent or temporary. It is the presence of additional workers that reduces wages, not their legal status."

Notes:

1. The Mexican Fifth Column by Tom DeWeese

2. Illegal Aliens: The Health Cost Dimension by Joe Guzzardi, VDARE, January 25, 2003.

3. The Outrages of the Mexican Invasion, by Tom DeWeese, American Policy Center, February 27, 2003

4. The High Cost of Cheap Labor - Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget, By Steven A. Camarota, Center for Immigration Studies, August, 2004.

5. "Immigration found to cut American workers' pay", San Francisco Chronicle, May 4, 2004.

6. Immigrants Drain $30 Billion in Cash Annually, by Joseph A. D'Agostino, Human Events Online, May 28, 2004.

See FAIR news release $30 Billion in Remittances Sent Home by Immigrants - Only a Small Piece of the Cost of Mass Immigration, May 17, 2004: "According to a new survey by the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), Mexican and Latin American immigrants living in the U.S. send $30 billion a year in remittances back to their native countries.")

Also see Remittances from the US to Latin America, 2004, Inter-American Development Bank, Bendixen & Associates. Includes state-by-state map of remittances.

7. http://www.populationenvironmentresearch.org/papers/Colemanmigration.pdf

8. Center for Immigration Studies report Immigration From Mexico - Assessing the Impact on the United States, subsection Impact of Mexican Immigration on Public Coffers.

9. Breaking the Piggy Bank: How Illegal Immigration is Sending Schools Into the Red, Federation for American Immigration Reform.

Education degradation and school overcrowding - consequences of mass immigration

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."
- Theodore Roosevelt

The huge educational impact of mass immigration includes:

  • Without school-age immigrants and the children of immigrants, school enrollment would not have risen at all during the past decade.
  • One in every five students has an immigrant parent. One-quarter of these children were foreign-born.
  • Immigration will account for 96 percent of the future increase in the school-age population over the next 50 years.
  • School enrollment increased by 14 percent between 1990 and 2000. U.S. school enrollment is at an all-time high. At 53.1 million students, current enrollment exceeds the record set in 1970 by the baby boomers.
  • About 14 percent of schools exceed their capacity by six to 25 percent, and eight percent exceed it by more than 25 percent. To alleviate overcrowding, more than one-third of schools use portable classrooms, and one-fifth hold classes in temporary instructional space, such as cafeterias and gyms.
  • Enrollment in grades 9-12 is projected to reach an all-time high of 15.8 million in 2005. Total enrollment will reach 55 million by 2020 and 60 million by 2030, according to the U.S. Department of Education. By 2100, the nation's schools will have to find room for 94 million students - almost double the number of school-age children the nation has now.
  • The California State Department of Education estimates that 16 new classrooms will need to be built every day, seven days a week, for the next five years. That's effectively one new school per day! The number of teachers will need to be doubled within ten years, meaning that 300,000 new educators will need to be required.
  • Immigration will account for 96 percent of the increase in the school-age population over the next 50 years. If mass immigration continues, the education of all children in America will continue to be undermined. Education costs will continue to escalate and quality of education will continue to decline.
  • The total K-12 school expenditure for illegal immigrants costs the states $7.4 billion annually—enough to buy a computer for every junior high student nationwide.

For more information, see the full report, No Room To Learn - Immigration and School Overcrowding, Federation for American Immigration Reform.

Also see Breaking the Piggy Bank: How Illegal Immigration is Sending Schools Into the Red, Federation for American Immigration Reform.

The total K-12 school expenditure for illegal immigrants costs the states $7.4 billion annually—enough to buy a computer for every junior high student nationwide.

Plyler v. Doe - education to children of illegal aliens at taxpayer expense

Under the 1982 Plyler v. Doe Supreme Court ruling, illegal alien students are entitled to enroll in our public schools at taxpayer expense. This ruling was issued for two reasons. One, the ruling was issued in 1982, when the 1986 Amnesty program was already being discussed, and it was felt that these students would be amnestied anyway. Also these students were small enough in number that they posed no threat to the education of America's students and they were not a financial hardship on United States taxpayers.

However, written into the decision is the following: Congress can reverse the decision if these illegal alien students prove to be a financial hardship to taxpayers and if the students who are legally residing in the United States begin to have their own education negatively impacted by the presence of illegal alien students. Both of these conditions apply today, and it is time to reconsider this decision. Included in the decision are the following statements by the Justices:

If the Federal Government, properly chargeable with deporting illegal aliens, fails to do so, it should bear the burdens of their presence here. Surely if illegal alien children can be identified for purposes of this litigation, their parents can be identified for purposes of prompt deportation.
 
Congress, "vested by the Constitution with the responsibility of protecting our borders and legislating with respect to aliens,"... bears primary responsibility for addressing the problems occasioned by the millions of illegal aliens flooding across our southern border. Similarly, it is for Congress, and not this Court, to... assess the "social costs borne by our Nation when select groups are denied the means to absorb the values and skills upon which our social order rests."

Bilingual education

In the October 13, 2002 Denver Post article Bilingual deception, Al Knight states:

Failed educational programs, like bilingual instruction, have no right to eternal life. Coloradans have every right to dictate how taxes should be spent and can rest assured that it is entirely possible to have parental choice, local control of education and Amendment 31 all at the same time.
 
The sponsors of Amendment 31 included language that makes individual teachers and administrators financially liable if they grant, "in error," the request of parents who ask to have their children enrolled in bilingual classes. This is not, as opponents suggest, a Draconian provision. The amendment is clear. Exceptions to "English immersion" are to be rare. Only three categories of students can request a waiver. Administrators, school board members and teachers can easily avoid problems by following the law.... Importantly, without some enforcement provisions, administrators, board members and teachers would be virtually invited to undermine the intent of the amendment.
 
America took in many races, religions and nationalities and made them one nation. Let us debate the best methods of teaching English to our children but let us be careful with our metaphors. It is a significant asset for an individual to be bilingual, but a path of conflict and tension to have a bilingual nation."
"It is a Blessing for an Individual to be Bilingual; It is a Curse for a Society to be Bilingual"
- Hon. Dick Lamm

Read the complete article, It is a Blessing for an Individual to be Bilingual; It is a Curse for a Society to be Bilingual by the Hon. Dick Lamm, former Governor of Colorado.

Election news and perspective - including the 2016 election

The 2016 Presidential election represented a turning point for the United States. America under the Obama administration was moving rapidly toward open borders, corporate globalism, and European Socialism. With the election of Donald Trump, America is returning to the rule of immigration law enforcement, national sovereignty, and American workers first.

For more information, see CAIRCO's archive of news and perspective articles on the 2016 election, which focuses on immigration and national sovereignty.

Energy and the impact of immigration into the US

In December 1997, representatives from over 160 nations met in Kyoto, Japan, to negotiate binding limitations on greenhouse gas emissions. The outcome of the conference was the Kyoto Protocol, under which industrialized nations agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions an average of 5.2% below 1990 emission levels between 2008 and 2012.

According to the Census Bureau's middle-series projections, the U.S will add more people to its population in the next 50 years as currently live West of the Mississippi River.

The United States has so far refused to sign the agreement, but world political pressures appear likely to force the U.S. to undertake efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions, particularly carbon dioxide, within the next few years. Such efforts will be particularly onerous if U.S. population growth, driven by high immigration, continues on its present path.

An examination of the relationship between energy consumption, population growth, and immigration in the U.S. shows the following:

  • Increased population, not increased consumption, is almost entirely responsible for the one-third increase in U.S. energy usage since 1973.
  • In 2000 the U.S. used over 30 percent more energy than in 1973. But this is not because individuals are using more energy; it's entirely because there are more people.
  • Per capita motor gasoline consumption in the U.S. was virtually unchanged between 1974 and 2000 despite major improvements in the fuel efficiency of new vehicles. Per capita motor gasoline consumption was 471 gallons in 1974 and 463 gallons in 2000. Over this same time period the fuel efficiency of the U.S. passenger car fleet increased from 13.6 miles per gallon (mpg) to 21.4 mpg and the fuel efficiency of the light truck fleet (including vans and SUVs) increased from 11.0 to 17.1 mpg.
  • Immigration is the cause of 40 percent of U.S. population growth in the last quarter century and has been directly responsible for one-third of the increase in energy usage during that period.
  • Residential energy use has increased by 34 percent since 1973. Almost all of that entire increase was due to population growth.
  • "From 1970 to 2000, U.S. population growth was related to approximately 87% of the increase in total U.S. primary energy consumption. To date, since less than 10 percent of U.S. energy supply is derived from renewable sources, the increasing number of American energy consumers is pushing the country down an ever-more precarious, polluting path of dependency on fossil fuels. Not only will global oil and gas reserves be exhausted for all intents within this century, but their exploitation is altering the earth's atmospheric composition and probably its very climate."2
  • The U.S. won't be able to meet emission-reductions goals unless we slow down immigration-driven population growth. Assuming that U.S. immigration levels continue at their current rate, meeting the Kyoto Protocol goals will require that per capita energy consumption in the year 2012 be reduced by 28 percent from the 2000 level. This would require major lifestyle changes for Americans and cause serious economic dislocations.
  • If immigration continues at current high levels, the U.S. will not be able to achieve any meaningful reductions in carbon dioxide emissions without serious economic and social consequences for American citizens.

The situation is, unfortunately, even more serious. We have extracted approximately half of all petroleum on the planet, and global demand is increasing as a result of industrialization of third-world countries, especially China. It is likely that we will be able to sustain current populations of most countries, let alone projected population growth. Our predicament will become all too clear over the next few decades as we draw down the remaining petroleum reserves across the planet.

For more information:

1. See the full report, Running in Place - Immigration's Impact on U.S. Energy Usage, by Donald F. Anthrop; Federation for American Immigration Reform.
2. Also see the book Population Growth -- The Neglected Dimension of America's Persistent Energy/Environmental Problems by Leon Kolankiewicz.

English - Official English Language in Colorado

Tags: 

In 1988, Colorado passed an amendment to the Colorado Constitution making English the state's official language. This means that for the Colorado government to act legally and officially, it must communicate in English, and no one has the right to demand government services in any other language.

322 languages are spoken at home in the United States (2000 Census). Clearly, trying to effectively communicate official business in each of these languages would be prohibitively expensive, difficult, and would further contribute to Balkanization of the United States. 

However, "Official English" does not mean "English only". Languages other than English can be used when there is a compelling public interest in doing so, such as public safety and national defense.

An August, 2013 Gallup poll reveals that seventy-two percent of Americans say it is essential that immigrants living in the United States learn to speak English.

31 states have some form of official English legislation on the books. 

The Official English Movement

S.I. Hayakawa, a Canadian-born naturalized U.S. citizen of Japanese descent, former professor of English, and president of San Francisco State University, was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1976. Hayakawa is widely acknowledged as the initiator of the official English movement. Alarmed by the drift toward linguistic balkanization and segregation he saw taking place in California in 1981, he introduced the first official English legislation in the United States Congress as a constitutional amendment declaring English to be the official language of the United States. Unfortunately, the Senate failed to take up the legislation. 

Hayakawa retired from the Senate in 1983 and continued his effort, co-founding the first national organization dedicated to making English the official language of the United States.

Beginning in the 1980s, successive citizen petition campaigns succeeded in passing official English laws by overwhelming margins despite strong opposition. By 2009 thirty-one states, or 62 percent of all states had adopted official English laws.

 


Related material

Americans Overwhelmingly Put English First, Rasmussen, August 13, 2014.

Five states are considering legislation this year to make English their official language, Washington Post, September 11, 2014.

For more information see U.S. English and ProEnglish, and Official English Map.

Here is a map by U.S. English:

 

Issues in U.S. Language Policy

Environment and the consequences of immigration-driven population growth

Carrying capacity is number of a given species that can be sustained indefinitely in a given bioregion. Although we would like to claim immunity from the laws of nature, humanity is not immune from the laws of carrying capacity. This will become all too clear over the next few decades as we draw down the remaining petroleum reserves across the planet.

The overarching environmental equation states that environmental impact is a function of population numbers and the per-capita consumption. The United States has the world's highest per-capita consumption. Unfortunately, unlike other developed nations, our population is projected to double within the lifetimes of children born today, as a result of unsustainably high immigration numbers. If we are to adhere to principles of intergenerational justice - to provide future generations with a sustainable environment - both population numbers and consumption must be addressed. For more in-depth discussion and references, see CAIRCO's Population and immigration concerns.

Here is a formal Environmental Impact Statement on United States Immigration Policy. Because immigration has a large impact on the overall size of the U.S. population, and because population numbers can be an important factor in determining a variety of environmental impacts, federal immigration policy would seem to be a likely subject for review under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA).

For an in-depth analysis of the impact of immigration-driven population growth, see the article Immigration, Population Growth, and the Environment, by Leon Kolankiewicz, Center for Immigration Studies, April 2015.

For an excellent perspective on the population/environment issue, we highly recommend the article The Numbers Game - Confronting Growth and the Environment, by Jim Motavalli, E/The Environmental Magazine, January/February 2004. Excerpts follow:

There’s a minefield in the American environmental movement, and its name is population. Because negotiating that minefield is so dangerous, many environmental groups and leaders have stopped trying to cross it. But to ignore population as a central issue while talking freely about sprawl, air and water pollution, loss of biodiversity, agricultural land and animal habitat, global warming and many other crucial environmental issues is to deny reality.
 
Without a doubt, high consumption rates and rapid population growth work together to degrade the environment, and both need to be addressed globally. Unfortunately, however, reducing consumption is very difficult to achieve on a national basis, and international momentum is toward emulating high American levels of it, not modeling Third World frugality. ... The overall news is not good.
 
It’s unambiguously true that population growth is a global problem needing global solutions, but these are in woefully short supply. Groups such as Population Connection (formerly Zero Population Growth) speak vaguely about solving global poverty to ease emigration pressures but are short on specifics. Although we definitely do need global solutions, the late Garrett Hardin pointed out that population policy is actually set on the national level, and it is therefore at the whim of localized cultural and religious norms.
 
Americans must address the full consequences of high immigration numbers in the U.S. As Lester Brown of Earth Policy Institute has argued, high emigration may offer countries a “safety valve,” allowing them to continue with high fertility rates. This situation can reverse itself, as in Ireland, where historically high fertility and record high emigration have been replaced with below-replacement level fertility and immigration surpassing emigration.
 
It’s one of the most polarizing issues of our time, so it’s not surprising that population discussions usually end in shouting matches. But if we don’t soon get a handle on this critical issue it may be too late, for the planet and for ourselves.

Read the complete article.

Finding the Trimtab

"Finding the Trimtab" is a talk by Jonette Christian, presented at the the third annual environmental conference on Global Environmental and Social Issues in Aspen, CO, hosted by the Sopris Foundation and the Worldwatch Institute during July 12-14, 2002.

This is a wonderful and insightful talk explaining the dysfunctionality of our society that refuses to examine the multiple and significant impacts of mass immigration. It is very worthwhile reading:

Our situation is serious. Global emissions of CO2 have quadrupled since 1950 and the climate of our planet is rapidly changing in perilous ways. Although a well designed effort to educate world elites is gradually producing results this movement is much much too slow. The solution to our problem is more complex than simply educating leaders. In short, the behavior, the expectations, and the thinking patterns of 6 billion people must change, and they must change rapidly in billions of unforeseeable ways. It is commonly said that we need leadership that is capable of thinking outside the box but ideas that come from outside of the box are jarring and uncomfortable and that is why they are outside of the box - and we only consider them unless we are absolutely forced to do so.

Twenty years ago I was introduced to a metaphor from Buckminster Fuller, called the "trimtab factor". Imagine you are on the deck of an ocean liner with l000 people. Rocks are looming ahead and you must find a way to steer the boat to safety. One person stands in the bow, pointing out the rocks, and the passengers try to steer the ship with their weight, running from side to side in response to the guide's gestures. It's a clumsy method with a doubtful outcome. However, in the steering mechanism of a real ocean liner is a piece of metal 6 inches square called a trimtab. One person moving the trimtab can steer an ocean liner more effectively than even 10,000 people running back and forth on the deck. As individuals, the problems confronting us are enormous and tremendously complex. Therefore, it is vital that we look for the trimtab - that place to take action which will maximize our leverage on the course of human history.

It is vital that we look for the trimtab - that place to take action which will maximize our leverage on the course of human history.

Many changes are essential in building a sustainable future, but our job right now is to find the action that is most powerful for this particular moment. We need to find a trimtab.

Twenty years ago I believed that the trimtab for a sustainable economy lay in a global commitment to ending world hunger a commitment which might shape all of our decisions in light of this one great unifying purpose. This goal would require long term planning, it would demand a whole new relationship with the environment, to natural resources and to each other. We would be forced to think differently, to look for new solutions and most important, it would unify humanity in achieving our most important purpose to feed our children. So I joined multiple hunger organizations, taught a mini course on the problems in developing countries, recruited friends and family to become monthly contributors to hunger organizations, and wrote many letters. I believed that we needed to live this goal seven days a week. And every year on the birthday of my children I fasted and gave more money to remind myself of this commitment.

I was a little short on the details of how the plan would work, but I made up for it with passion. And in any case, shooting from my good liberal hip, I was pretty certain I had the big picture right. It is a common failing of idealists that we sometimes become infatuated with the moral beauty of our vision for the world, and the moral beauty of ourselves working for that vision. It was hard for this global idealist to humble herself - to think small and to think locally but eventually I made the transition. And I consider it no small achievement to have successfully resisted that beguiling temptation to believe that I was chosen to save the world.

Environmentalists often describe population as a "global" problem with a "global solution" meaning no one in particular is responsible for any piece of it because we're all responsible for it -- therefore no one ends up being responsible for any of it. This is dysfunction masquerading as a high moral plane.

Today I see things very differently. I am still committed to a world with a sustainable future, but I am no longer a global idealist and I no longer believe that simply calling for the end of world hunger will lead mankind in some new and glorious direction. Today, I'm an older woman and more experienced with people. Today I believe that the trimtab meaning the place to put my weight to maximize my leverage lies right here in my native land, the land I feel most closely connected to, the land where I speak the language, pay the taxes and vote. I am working to stabilize the population of the United States because continuous population growth is simply not sustainable. We need to shrink our consumption and our footprint upon the world, to reduce our growth by moderating the predominant factor driving that growth immigration - to teach our people the importance of sustainable planning for our own descendants, to become responsible stewards of the land we inherited, and to bring the attention of this nation back inward to the needs of our own people. In short, I have downsized. In the media and among academics and globalist elites, people like me are dismissed as "nativist" or "xenophobic". But among the people I work with, we see our work as community activism directed toward preserving the local economy; livable wages for local people, and the local culture.

I started Mainers for Immigration Reform while working with Maine loggers who were being replaced by Canadian and Mexican workers. The lumber companies didn't have to pay health insurance for the Canadians, and both Canadians and Mexicans were willing to work for less because their dollar denominated wages bought more when sent home. The lumber companies were happy; the international workers were happy. Too bad for Maine loggers and their communities, who for generations had earned modest but livable wages performing this dangerous work. . Nearly all Maine loggers have now migrated out of state to find jobs to support their families they were told that in the service of a global economy, they must find better jobs by learning computer skills and leave their old jobs to foreign workers willing to work for much less. This chaos is called "efficiency" in a global labor market.

I wish I could report that Mainers organized on behalf of their loggers, many of whose families have lived in our state for generations, but in fact, the only group of Maine people who got involved was the local progressive community. Applying their tired old agenda rather than analyzing the current situation, they framed the conflict as workers against bosses and tried to organize a coalition of immigrant workers and loggers. Not surprisingly, the loggers were insulted; the effort failed, and it didn't build good feelings.

What happened to Maine loggers has happened all over this country in one industry after another: poultry processing, garment making, food processing, construction and agriculture. In l979 Iowa slaughterhouse workers made solid middle class incomes, and no company had trouble remaining profitable while treating its workers well. These jobs sustained whole communities and were jealously handed down through generations. Expressed in present dollars, these workers were making $18.32 an hour. By 2000, average wages had fallen to $10.32 an hour, and entry level wages were as low as $6 an hour.

Congress rewrote our immigration laws in l965, which led to spiraling family chain migration and introduced massive refugee resettlement operations swelling the pool of low wage workers. In the early l980's the meat packing industry was completely reorganized in response to the availability of cheap foreign workers.

Newly formed nonunion companies, like IOWA Beef Processors, took advantage of abundant foreign labor by slashing pay, speeding up the processing lines, and allowing safety conditions to deteriorate to an appalling level.

The old companies that had paid good wages, like Armour, Hormel, Swift and Wilson could not compete. They slashed wages or declared bankruptcy and Iowa Beef Processors acquired one third of the national red meat slaughter market.

Americans were not accustomed to such low wages and shameful working conditions. But immigrants, legal and illegal, were willing to take these jobs. And so the story was told that we needed immigrants to do the "jobs that Americans wont do". Just as Mainers used to cut their own trees, so Americans always slaughtered their own meat and earned a living wage doing it until Congress decided to rig the system for nonunion companies by swamping the labor market with millions of new workers. Dr. George Borjas, Harvard economist and this nation's most acknowledged expert on the labor impact of immigration, estimates that native born American workers are losing $160 billion a year due to competition from immigrant labor. The savings to business from cheap labor travels upwards to the employers and stockholders, contributing to the glaring income disparities we have today.

I am certain that if we were importing a million and half lawyers every year, shrinking their hourly billing rates, Congress would be passing legislation to reduce immigration before the day was over. But the fact is, immigration predominately impacts the working poor who do not have the political clout to determine policy.

In a recent New York Times story, Allan Greenspan made the following candid remarks regarding his support for immigration: "Unless immigration is uncapped . . . wage increases must rise above even impressive gains in productivity. This would intensify inflationary pressures or squeeze profit margins." In other words, a continual supply of cheap foreign labor is necessary to keep wages low and profit margins high. This economy is not designed to meet the needs of our people. We have created a behemoth that is requiring people to service it. Our government is rapidly pursing policies to dissolve our borders, and turn all workers into migrating economic units, each searching for a job with a livable wage. There is nothing kind or compassionate or even rational about this policy it is a vicious and shameful weapon against the working poor, forcing common laborers, minorities, and recent immigrants to compete against each other in a race to the bottom and those who mistakenly believe that we are "sharing America's wealth with the poor" are not the ones who do the sharing. Post l970 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. To quote Voltaire: "The rich will always require an abundant supply of the poor".

And where will this breath taking population growth lead a nation of high consuming people and how will it impact the world? According to the Census Bureau, if we continue to grow at the current rate, we will DOUBLE our population in the lifetime of our children, and at least 70% of this growth will be due to just one government policy: our immigration policy. What legacy do we leave to the future when we have deliberately doubled the population of every American city, doubled the need for highways and petroleum, houses, shopping malls, schools, hospitals, prisons? Even if we manage to cut consumption in half we have achieved nothing if we allow this growth to happen. It is irrational to think that any consumption based plan, such as the Kyoto Treaty, could possibly succeed in the absence of a simultaneous reduction in population growth.

One of the consequences of our infatuation with global idealism is that America is no longer comfortable discussing our own welfare. We have been shamed and intimidated by past errors of Western civilization; the harm we have caused in other parts of the world; the greed of our corporations, and we feel enormous guilt for this wrong doing. And increasingly it seems that our success has become an illusion. Our children have grown obese and highly medicated for depression and hyper activity. We pay strangers to cook our meals, clean our homes, mow our lawns and perform the most intimate care of our loved ones. Our families are disconnected. We are stressed out, over worked, and lonely. We continually berate ourselves for materialism even as we slavishly enable the very policies which continue it. We teach our youth to sneer at the "dead white men" who founded their country and to idealize foreign people and foreign cultures, gushing and cooing about all kinds of diversity, and how foreign people will improve us, enrich us, and revitalize our communities- and we think nothing of how insulting and hostile that message really is.

Recently I read a story about a New York City school with many immigrant children. And the administrators reported that immigrant children were much better behaved, more respectful and hardworking. Studies are now indicating that as immigrant children assimilate they acquire the same level of teenage pregnancy, school drop out, obesity and drug addiction as their America peers. The point is, we have a problem which must be solved from within.

The guilt that we bear for America's history will not be absolved by pursuing a policy of mass immigration today. Our grandchildren do not deserve to be punished for the errors of their grandparents, and no global mission, no matter how altruistic, absolves us of responsibility to our own people

The world grew by 78 million last year, most of it coming from impoverished nations. The United States admitted about 1 million legal immigrants and 700,000 illegal immigrants. In terms of saving people from poverty, it was a trifle a little something to alleviate our western guilt which accomplished nothing for most of the world. The hubris that we are here to save the world is based on a grossly exaggerated view of ourselves, and it is a cruel hoax to promote the fantasy that we will take in the world's huddled masses, because we cant..

As a family therapist, I work with families who are trapped in dysfunctional patterns: domestic violence, alcoholism, abusive parenting, and poverty. These are not bad people. They were brought to their misery by a long series of disastrous choices with unintended consequences, and they do not see how to free themselves from the results they produce. What I bring to this conference on sustainability is my experience working with dysfunctional families which may have bearing upon the larger problem of dysfunction that concerns us today.

I will list a few basic observations which I believe are pertinent to our discussion.

First, there is a difference between saving people and building a relationship in which people see for themselves what they need to do to change. Much of our foreign policy in the third world has vacillated between using other people and generating grand plans to save them. Ultimately, neither response is helpful. They will see more clearly what they need to do, when we see what we need to do. We need to put our own house in order and build sustainability into national planning for this country.

Second, How people treat each other within a group will largely determine what result that group will produce. This is true for families, and it is true in nations. Poverty, overpopulation, authoritarian government, political corruption and high infant mortality rates are the product of cultures in which neither women nor children are truly valued or have a voice in group decisions. Having more children than you can care for is the product of a dysfunctional set of beliefs, and having many children is not the same thing as valuing children.

...this is the speech pattern of dysfunctional groups - avoiding or minimizing the "pink elephant" in the living room at all costs, and exhausting themselves in a flurry of chatter around peripheral matters. We have agitated and deluded ourselves with the illusion that we are being overwhelmed by many many problems, when in fact, we have primarily only one.

A third observation. Dysfunctional groups are dominated by what they don't talk about. Since l990 we have added 38 million people to America's population, and if we continue to grow at this rate, we will double ourselves in less than 70 years. And we are not talking about it! A recent study of media coverage of environmental problems, such as water shortages and loss of wildlife, found that fewer than l1% of these stories mentioned population growth as a cause and none of them suggested none-that stabilizing population could be part of the solution. This is lunacy. We are responding like deer with headlights in our eyes paralyzed or else indifferent and we would rather talk about almost anything else: urban sprawl, pollution, traffic, falling water tables, declining fish stocks, women's empowerment, housing shortages, economic justice anything to avoid blunt speech about population numbers and the painfully obvious connection between these numbers and nearly every problem we are trying to solve. How can we be so dense? Speaking as a therapist, this is the speech pattern of dysfunctional groups - avoiding or minimizing the "pink elephant" in the living room at all costs, and exhausting themselves in a flurry of chatter around peripheral matters. We have agitated and deluded ourselves with the illusion that we are being overwhelmed by many many problems, when in fact, we have primarily only one.

Fourth point. Dysfunctional families commonly take in outsiders in what appears to be a breathtaking gesture of generosity. A closer examination of this behavior often reveals that this generosity is not driven by kindness; it is not nice, it is not what it seems to be, it is a ploy to dominate and control other members within a family; and these relationships rarely last. America's current immigration policies have this nation engaged in a breathtaking gesture of self sacrifice and generosity to outsiders. But look carefully, this policy is destroying the living standard and the political power of working class Americans. Dysfunction commonly masquerades as something it is not, and that is why it is so difficult to see what it really is. But you will know it by the result it produces. Number five. In dysfunctional families everyone is responsible for every one else's business, and no one is responsible for any business of his own. We call it a boundary problem, and it always produces chaos and paralysis. Environmentalists often describe population as a "global" problem with a "global solution" meaning no one in particular is responsible for any piece of it because we're all responsible for it -- therefore no one ends up being responsible for any of it. This is dysfunction masquerading as a high moral plane.

Some comments about race and my sixth point. Race is the problem that never seems to go away, and it is always shaping and affecting our thoughts in subtle ways. In l970 when Earth Day gave birth to the environmental movement and America's population growth was primarily driven by the fertility rate of anglo-european Americans, we had no trouble speaking openly about the need to reduce our numbers . According to Senator Gaylord Nelson, the father of Earth Day, stabilizing the population of the United States was one of our top environmental priorities in 1970. Within a few years our fertility rates had declined, and we were on the road to stabilization. But when immigration became the primary source of population growth in this country, the environmental movement grew timid about the need to reduce our own numbers. Today, there are more than 60 environmental organizations in Washington, and almost none of them is working to stabilize the population of this country. 90% of our immigrants are coming from non-European countries. If immigration were driven by Europeans, we would be having a straight forward national debate about numbers and their impact on our society, just as we did in l970. And why cant we do that now? Stabilizing our population benefits everyone who lives here regardless of their race or national origin.

The eerie silence of the environmental movement over the past fifteen years concerning population growth has been disastrous. Just as we ask today, what did Germans know, when did they know it, and what were they talking about when that holocaust was looming on their horizon, so our descendants will ask, what did we know about population growth over the past three decades and what were we talking about. This silence has been especially cruel for the continent of Africa. Despite dumping billions of dollars of aid into Africa by Western nations over the past three decades, the population doubling rate today is about 30 years and the per capita protein consumption is less than it was in l970. The population juggernaut in Africa has been carefully documented and widely known for decades we cannot plead ignorance. We deliberately chose to minimize the subject.

If you see someone you care about barreling toward a cliff at 100 miles an hours, wouldn't you want to wave every red flag you could find, wouldn't you be jumping up and down pointing to that cliff, and would you give a damm because some people told you to mind your own business? Western people were told that the fertility rate of Africans was none of our business. And we went mute. Had we been motivated purely by compassion, we might have protested and responded with conviction: No way. Stabilizing population is about child survival, and it has nothing to do with race . People may not want to hear it. But that is no reason to stop talking about it. People don't want to talk about women's rights in Pakistan, and that is not a reason to be quiet or to minimize the subject. As long as we are intimidated by the word "racist" or "elitist" and we are still trying to prove that we aren't, we are not really free to speak the truth, or to act from pure compassion. And the accusation of racism will not go away until we face it down.

Number 7. About ending poverty. Experience has shown us that the most successful anti-poverty programs are those directed at educating women, supporting local community organization, and micro-enterprise at the grass roots level. We call it community empowerment. In other words, the dead opposite of the current bi-national plan to end poverty in Mexico which is focused on building gambling casinos, luxurious tourist resorts, maquiladoras and promoting the migration of poor people into a rich country causing unrealistic expectations, chaos and disconnection for communities in both countries. This is a plan concocted by oligarchs on both sides of the border to their mutual advantage. We need to take back our country, and they need to take back theirs.

And finally. The difference between an internationalist and a globalist boils down to this: an internationalist feels deeply connected and responsible to a particular group of people and a particular piece of land. He is respectful and generous to others; he is not an isolationist. A globalist feels no particular connection to any piece of land or any group of people, and he mistakenly believes that he has arrived at a higher moral understanding.

We will not build sustainability by turning ourselves into a multilingual regional mass. In a mass we are too numerous and too diverse to have meaningful conversation. We have tough choices before us, and these choices will not be reduced to neat little slogans for mass consumption. Sustainability will require exceptionally thoughtful discussion and most important: group cohesion. If we destroy group cohesion, we destroy our ability to act intelligently.

A few final thoughts:

This country was founded by English colonists whose feet were firmly planted in the Age of Enlightenment. They did not set out to save the world. They simply wanted to design the game plan for a nation that would be stable and wisely self governed, based on the ideal that all men are created equal before the law. These English colonists were mindful of the choices before them and how those choices would affect future generations. George Washington used the word "posterity" nine times in one of his speeches, and after signing the Declaration of Independence, John Adams wrote to his beloved wife Abigail, "I do not know what will be the outcome of this. We may pay a very high price. But it is certain that posterity will profit from our sacrifice." With our welfare in mind, these men wrote the most brilliant Constitution for self-government the world has ever known. And today, passages from this document are found in the constitutions of democratic governments all over the world. We have been the very fortunate beneficiaries of their wisdom and humility, and the world has been inspired and changed forever by their brilliance. And now the torch has passed to us. Our descendants will live with the choices we are making for them today. And without a doubt, the single most important and timely choice before us is how populous this nation will become. We must decide are we a family of people with an obligation to ourselves and our descendants to plan for the long term well being of our nation or are we simply a rapidly expanding global mass? A mass is not a family.

Sustainability will be achieved in pieces, and America is our piece. And this alone will be a breathtaking challenge. Like territorial animals in nature, order is established by marking the borders and dividing national responsibilities. We cannot handle our piece, if we have open borders, multiple agendas, and global missions. We disempower ourselves when we assume more than we can possibly handle.

Human beings will solve the problem of sustainability within groups. The solutions will vary - there will be no all-purpose Walmart solution. The history and the culture of each group, including our own, must be respected. We will not build sustainability by turning ourselves into a multilingual regional mass. In a mass we are too numerous and too diverse to have meaningful conversation. We have tough choices before us, and these choices will not be reduced to neat little slogans for mass consumption. Sustainability will require exceptionally thoughtful discussion and most important: group cohesion. If we destroy group cohesion, we destroy our ability to act intelligently.

The world will save itself, and it will happen much quicker when America is clearly focused on saving herself. We must build a sustainable future in this country, and set the example for others. Just as we gave the world the game plan for democracy by building it for ourselves, we have inspired the world with a civil rights movement, a woman's movement, an environmental movement, a human rights movement, a men's movement,- where else would you find that one? -a labor movement, and even the movement to end world hunger was created and funded by middle class people in Western countries, and not the educated elites from poor countries who currently flock to this nation for high paying jobs. Whenever Americans have changed themselves and acted on their own behalf, the world has taken note.

...running from the problems in your native land is no longer a solution, that the world, and even America, has limits. We do not have a plan for saving the world, and it is time we told people the truth. That illusion must end. The behavior, the thinking patterns, and the expectations of 6 billion people must radically change, and they must change very very soon.

Polls show that large majorities of Americans already support greatly reduced levels of immigration, and this support increases as we go down the economic ladder. Over the past five years there have been multiple bills in Congress calling for reductions in immigration we have one in Congress right now all we need to do is pass it or we can continue to move toward open borders, spiraling population growth, spiraling consumption, turning ourselves into a vast "economic region" of migrating multi-lingual economic units, as globalists are promoting, and thereby completely destroying our cohesion as a group and the capacity to determine our future.

If mankind is like the frogs in the boiling water who slowly boil to death because they don't recognize what is happening to themselves, and if nature is not going to give us a wake up call in the form of some electrifying event, then we must supply that event ourselves. A substantial reduction in immigration is the wisest decision for ourselves, and it will have an electrifying effect on the rest of the world. It won't be popular with many. But it will remind the world that we are only one country among many, that running from the problems in your native land is no longer a solution, that the world, and even America, has limits. We do not have a plan for saving the world, and it is time we told people the truth. That illusion must end. The behavior, the thinking patterns, and the expectations of 6 billion people must radically change, and they must change very very soon. The trimtab is here.

Jonette Christian is a practicing family therapist, founder of Mainers for Immigration Reform, Maine, and has been an advisor to CAIRCO.

Copyright 2002 Jonette Christian. Reprinted with permission.

Immigration, Population Growth, and the Environment

Immigration, Population Growth, and the Environment
by Leon Kolankiewicz, Center for Immigration Studies, April 2015
 
Leon Kolankiewicz is a wildlife biologist and consulting environmental planner
 
Reducing current immigration levels is a necessary part of working toward sustainability in the United States.
Population and Consumption Task Force, President's Council on Sustainable Development, 1996.

Environmentalists have long recognized the impact of human population growth on the environment. Both common sense and a large body of research make clear that the number of people living in a given land area has significant implications for the environment.

This fact does not mean that human beings are plague on the land. Nor does it mean that per capita consumption of resources does not matter.

What it does mean is that a sound approach to protecting the environment nationally or internationally must recognize the importance of population size and growth.

As this paper shows, in many cases per capita reductions in resource use or environmental impact are offset, sometimes entirely, by population increase. Choosing to ignore the implications of population for the environment in the United States will make it much more difficult to effectively protect it.

This paper also demonstrates the importance of population growth to the environment, particularly in the United States. Since the early 1970s American women have chosen to have about two children on average — roughly the number necessary to maintain the size of the U.S. population. However, federal immigration programs have added significantly to the American population by bringing in over a million legal immigrants annually and tolerating widespread illegal immigration.

Of course, immigrants and their descendants are not fundamentally different from natives in their environmental impact. But legal immigration levels are set by elected officials, as is the level of effort devoted to controlling illegal immigration. High levels of immigration have added significantly to the number of human beings living in the United States, and this has environmental consequences.

Census Bureau projections released in December 2012 confirm that despite somewhat lower levels of immigration in recent years, absent a change in immigration policy, the United States will grow by over 100 million people to a population of 420 million by 2060. Future immigration is expected to account for about three-fourths of the increase. That is, immigrants who have not yet arrived, but who will if policy is not changed, will account for the overwhelming majority of future population increase.

If American environmentalists decide to do nothing to prevent this growth from happening — either because they think it is inevitable or because they are too focused on more immediate environmental threats, or because they fear alienating their liberal political allies — they should at least acknowledge the tradeoff such a decision implies. If stabilizing the U.S. population is a lost cause, safeguarding the American environment may be as well.

Introduction, or Why Human Population Matters

At the most basic level, biologists classify all living organisms by ecological function into two groups: 1) producers, or plants, and 2) consumers, or animals. All consumers, including all humans, extract low-entropy matter and energy from environmental sources and excrete wastes into environmental "sinks". In so doing, each and every human being exerts a tangible load on his or her biophysical milieu.

Cumulatively, over the course of a typical human lifetime, the sheer quantities of resources consumed and wastes generated are staggering, especially in wealthier, developed societies like our own. For example, from birth to death, the average American uses over 1,400 tons of newly mined minerals. 1 Consuming resources and discarding the ensuing wastes entail a myriad of environmental consequences or impacts.

This then is why the number of human beings — our population size — matters. It is why population size and growth rates matter, or should matter, to ecologists — scientists who study living systems, or ecosystems — and environmentalists — citizens concerned about the environment. The "environment" includes pretty much everything under the sun, both natural and manmade. It is not only clean air and water, the climate, soils, forests, wetlands, wilderness, and wildlife; it is also croplands and rangelands, open pit mines, and the "built environment" — human settlements from historic villages to modern mega-cities, cultural monuments, and glistening or tottering infrastructure — as well as such intangibles as the "quality of life".

One striking measure of just how thoroughly our own species, Homo sapiens , has come to dominate the rest of nature is that at present, even with more than 30,000 species of land-dwelling vertebrates (mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians) living on earth, more than 90 percent of the total biomass (weight) of all these creatures combined is comprised of humans and domestic animals (dogs, cats, cattle, sheep, pigs, chickens, etc.). Ten thousand years ago this figure was a mere 0.1 percent. 2

Wherever and whenever human population growth occurs, it changes the environment or exacts a cost. One of these costs is to other species that have inhabited earth alongside us since the very dawn of time, and with which our own species competes for habitat, resources, and energy. Human overpopulation has led to dramatic declines in the populations of thousands of species and pushed hundreds to the edge of extinction. 3

Population Growth, the American Environment, and American Environmentalists

Four million Americans were counted at the time of the first Census in 1790, most of them huddled along the Eastern Seaboard. That modest number has undergone six doublings, adding about 316 million of us to those initial four million, and we are well on our way to a seventh doubling sometime between 2050 and 2100.

The stunning transformation of a continent's virgin forests, prairies, mountains and rivers into the most prosperous and powerful nation in history is a shining success story, but one that has come at an environmental cost. The impact on America's natural environment has been significant and, in some ways, permanent and irrevocable.

Much of the transformation and exploitation of the American landscape occurred simply due to the skyrocketing needs and demands of an explosive increase in the number of Americans. The U.S. population quadrupled from 1900 to 2010.

Over time, this growth has been driven at different times by high immigration rates, high birth rates, or both. It has also been driven by the long-term decline in death rates (increasing longevity) that all developed and developing countries have experienced and welcomed. At times immigration has been the dominant factor in U.S. population growth; at times high birth rates have been more important. When the U.S. population grew by 28 million in the 1950s "baby boom" era, high birth rates drove almost all of that growth. However, birth rates decreased sharply from the 1950s to the 1970s, even as immigration rates began to soar, partly as a result of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (Hart-Celler Act) of 1965.

By the 1990s and 2000s, depending on the methodology used, immigration directly and indirectly accounted for about 60 to 80 percent of American population growth. And at least numerically this growth reached levels never before seen: Between 1990 and 2000 some 32 million more Americans were added to the population — the largest increment of any decade in our history — and in the 2000-2010 period, an additional 27 million joined our ranks — the third-most of any decade. 4 Immigration will continue to exercise a dominant role for the foreseeable future.

In December 2012 the Census Bureau released population projections that reflected a downturn in immigration levels, particularly illegal immigration, that has been well documented. 5 Nevertheless, the Bureau's new projections show that the U.S. population will grow from 309.3 million in 2010 to 420.3 million in 2060 — a 111 million increase. Based on these new projections as well as prior research, an estimated 82 million (74 percent) of population growth will come from future immigration. 6 And this estimate assumes a historically low level of immigration. If immigration turns out to be higher than the Census Bureau assumes in its newest projections, then it will add more than 82 million new residents to the U.S. population.

As noted in a Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder 7 , immigration's preponderant role in driving American population growth has not been at the center of the nation's immigration debate, in spite of the fact that increasing the nation's total population is one of immigration's clearest and most direct effects on the country. Neither has it been a focus of concerted environmentalist angst or advocacy, in spite the spirited activism of a few diehard population activists, and regardless of the fact that, as noted above, population growth has important implications for environmental degradation, congestion, habitat and species loss, and resource depletion, even as it thwarts the pursuit of sustainability.

As discussed above, the Census Bureau projects that the U.S. population will grow by 111 million between 2010 and 2060 with future immigration accounting for the overwhelming majority of future population increase. If this immigration and subsequent population growth occur, the consequences for the American environment will almost certainly be starkly negative. Even if American environmentalists decide to do nothing to prevent this growth from happening — either because they think it is inevitable or because they are too focused on more immediate environmental threats, or because they fear alienating their liberal political allies — they should at least acknowledge the tradeoff such a decision implies. If stabilizing the U.S. population is a lost cause, safeguarding the American environment may be as well.

Assumptions and Predictions

"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future", baseball great and homespun sage Yogi Berra once said. And the further into the future one peers, the tougher it gets. Demographers themselves are wary of making projections much beyond 50 years because they have learned the hard way that the longer the time frame, the greater the likelihood of one or more unanticipated phenomena making hash of the careful assumptions upon which their deceptively precise projections rest.

Making predictions of future environmental trends, impacts, and conditions is even more fraught with risk because, 1) natural systems are highly complex and often behave in a counterintuitive or nonlinear manner; our understanding of nature is incomplete and constantly evolving, and 2) the human factor — both technological and social — is a continually moving target. One thing we do know about both natural and human systems is that both are capable of sudden, unexpected change, as well as gradual change, stasis, inertia, and lags.

Natural scientists use terminology such as "discontinuity", "tipping point", "state shift", and "phase shift" — some of which have entered the vernacular — to describe the precise moment when a system undergoes an abrupt change from one state to another. Sometimes these sudden shifts are reversible — as when water evaporates into a gas only to condense again into a liquid — sometime not, as with extinctions. Sometimes they produce new stable states, sometimes instability or chaos reign.

In the social sciences, scholar Nassim Nicholas Taleb has coined the expression "black swan" as a metaphor of rare, unforeseen events with outsized, disruptive effects on history, politics, finance, science, and technology. 8 The straw that broke the camel's back was a black swan.

The predictions of ecologists, other scientists, and environmentalists as to the future state of the world are like snowflakes — infinite in variety. No two are exactly alike.

In 1972, a team of young systems dynamics modelers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) under Professor Jay Forrester countered the widely accepted notion that continuing exponential population growth and economic growth would result in a world that was ever more populated, polluted, and richer ad infinitum . Instead, The Limits to Growth warned that within a century, the likeliest outcome of the world system was "overshoot and collapse", in which human population and industrial output both contracted uncontrollably instead of either growing forever (which most economists believed) or stabilizing in an orderly, planned manner (which most ecologists and environmentalists advocated). 9

In the four decades since Limits , a number of analyses and scenarios have emerged to challenge the conventional wisdom of both the mainstream environmental movement and the mainstream political/economic establishment that the future will merely be an extrapolation of the recent past. A 2008 article in New Scientist asked whether the demise of civilization was inevitable 10 due to the inherent unsustainability of ever more complex systems, a theory advanced in the 1980s by the anthropologist and historian Joseph Tainter, author of The Collapse of Complex Societies . 11

In 2012, in the prestigious British scientific journal Nature , a distinguished team of scientists from the United States, Canada, South America, and Europe warned that human population growth, extensive degradation and destruction of natural ecosystems, and climate change may be driving our biosphere toward an irreversible change, which they called "a planet-wide tipping point". 12 The Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO) warns of potentially severe economic, environmental, and social disruptions related to what they believe to be the imminent peaking of worldwide conventional petroleum production. 13 Many climate scientists and advocacy groups assert that climate change will become increasingly disruptive to weather, agriculture, ecosystems, and the economy. 14 Author Chris Clugston in his 2012 book Scarcity argues that ever-increasing global scarcity of scores of non-renewable natural resources threatens a "new normal" of geologically imposed austerity. 15 Trend forecaster and best-selling author Chris Martenson offers "insights for prospering as our world changes", 16 while the Post Carbon Institute claims that economic growth is all but over and touts itself as "leading the transition to a more resilient, equitable, and sustainable world". 17 None of these believe that "business as usual" can prevail to the year 2060.

However, the predictions of this Backgrounder , to a large extent, do assume business-as-usual trends extrapolated and projected to 2060. The reason is that any predictions at all become all but impossible if one attempts to incorporate all of the possible game changers and black swans that may well swoop out of the sky and intervene between now and 2060, casting the United States and the world in a different direction … or into an alternative dimension entirely. It is also an exercise in futility to try to guess what the odds are between the different possible fates that await us.

In attempting to quantify environmental effects, this Backgrounder does not merely assume that each and every numerical increase in population has an exact proportionally greater effect on the resource or environmental attribute in question. In recent decades, substantial strides have been made in reducing the energy, resource, and water intensity of our economy. That is, it takes less energy and less water to generate a given dollar of GDP as a result of improved energy and water efficiency. Average per capita energy and water consumption have also declined modestly over the last several decades, even as per capita income has grown, as a result of higher prices, incentives, both institutional and individual conservation efforts, and implementation of energy and water efficient technologies. Likewise, per capita land consumption has been declining in the last several years (in contrast to decades-long trends before that), as younger Americans appear to be opting for higher-density living, partly in response to economic pressures associated with higher gasoline and overall energy costs (shorter commutes and smaller, attached homes entail less energy use and expense).

The net effect of these improvements is not to eliminate entirely, but to reduce the marginal impact on the environment of each added increment of population. In some instances, this reduction is sufficient to offset, or almost offset, the added environmental load represented by a growing population. In other instances, population growth is of such a magnitude that it overwhelms the offsetting influence of conservation and efficiency measures. But whether population growth simply offsets reductions in per capita environmental impacts or adds to it, the fact remains that population increase makes the environment worse off than it otherwise would have been had it not occurred.

Traffic Congestion

The degree of traffic congestion on American streets is a function of the populations of people and vehicles in comparison to roadway capacity. In recent decades, as urban populations and vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT to transportation planners) have grown faster than roadway capacity, congestion has worsened considerably. More and more motorists sit for longer and longer hours in gridlocked traffic breathing one another's fumes.

Every year the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) issues Urban Mobility Reports that provide updated data on traffic congestion for cities and towns around the country. 18 The 2011 report concluded:

Traffic congestion levels have increased in every area since 1982. Congestion extends to more time of the day, more roads, affects more of the travel, and creates more extra travel time than in the past. And congestion levels have risen in all size categories, indicating that even the smaller areas are not able to keep pace with rising demand. 19

Not surprisingly, traffic congestion is worse in larger urban areas than in smaller ones. Figure 1 displays this relationship. It is not unreasonable then, to assert that as the populations of cities and suburban areas grow, on the average about 36 percent by 2060, traffic congestion will worsen substantially. Washington, D.C., metro area motorists, who even now waste more than 70 hours every year sitting in traffic, may likely to find themselves idling for 100 hours a year by 2060 if population grow continues, even with ongoing and foreseeable transportation improvements.

 

 

A 36 percent increase in population does not necessarily equal a 36 percent increase in VMT for a variety of reasons. For example, more people can hypothetically opt to use public transit (e.g., buses, subways, light rail), although recent experience has provided little evidence of this. And a 36 percent increase in VMT does not necessarily signify a 36 percent increase in congestion and wasted time. Roadway capacity can expand at a faster pace, provided public or private funding to construct and maintain such capacity is available, less and less a sure proposition in this day and age of fiscal constraints and limited capital. Other possible game changers are driverless car technology under development by Google, which would reduce congestion by allowing vehicles to safely travel in a more compact fashion (closer together), and increases in gasoline prices, which could reduce congestion by reducing the number of cars on the road because driving has gotten far more expensive.

On the other hand, some roads operating at capacity now may be pushed over the tipping point by further population increases and become chronically congested. The funds or space to improve such roads may be limited or not available. In these cases even a modest number of new drivers could result in significant increases in traffic congestion and wait times. Federal, state, and local governments as well as the private sector will surely respond to increased population density. In fact, they have. But these responses have not prevented traffic congestion from growing worse. It seems almost certain that adding 111 million people to the U.S. population over the next half century will worsen our already overcrowded roads and freeways.

Energy Consumption

Energy is vital because it keeps the economy running. Energy production and consumption each entail significant environmental repercussions ranging from oil spills and air pollution to nuclear power plant risks and nuclear waste disposal. Although so-called green or renewable energy sources have certain advantages, they are not environmental panaceas. Wind farms can cause bird and bat mortality, generate objectionable noise and other issues for nearby residents, interfere with radar at airports, as well as mar unspoiled mountain or coastal scenery. Centralized solar energy facilities in Southwestern deserts obliterate habitats and wildlife in those areas. Hydroelectric dams destroy runs of anadromous fish like salmon and shad.

 

 

Thus, the rate of annual energy consumption is a key index of environmental stresses even when that energy is produced by renewable sources. Americans are heavy energy users, among the highest per capita users on Earth and second only to colossal China in aggregate energy consumption. Moreover, both domestic and global energy consumption rates can be seen as unsustainable in the long run because some 85 percent of primary energy derives from non-renewable fossil fuels, which, when burned, are used up irrevocably and not replaced, leading to their inexorable depletion.

If per capita energy consumption were to remain unchanged, increasing America's population 36 percent by 2060 would increase energy consumption and its environmental impacts by roughly 36 percent as well. Fortunately, per capita energy use has decreased slightly in recent decades and is projected to continue this downward trend for the foreseeable future; by 2035, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that energy use per capita will only be 80 percent of what it was 55 years earlier in 1980, or about a 12 percent decrease from 2010. 20 Likewise, energy use per dollar of GDP will only be about a third of what it was 55 years earlier (Figure 3), a function both of energy efficiency improvements and structural changes in the U.S. economy (such as shifting energy-intensive industries overseas and moving more toward a "post-industrial" and information-based economy).

 

 

If U.S. population were to remain constant, a 12 percent decline in per capita energy use would result in a 12 percent reduction in aggregate energy use, not exactly a cause for celebration but at least a solid step in the right direction. However, because our population is projected to grow by 36 percent instead, the net result would be a 20 percent increase in the annual rate of aggregate energy use.

How will we meet this demand for energy? A nuclear "renaissance" appears increasingly uncertain after the costly 2011 nuclear disaster and partial core meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan, and there is very little scope for additional hydroelectric output from America's rivers, especially in light of the concerns about the impact dams have on the ecosystem. Capital-intensive and expensive renewable solar and wind projects are likely to expand exponentially with government support (such as feed-in tariffs and statewide renewable energy standards) — and, at the same time, face stiffer headwinds and opposition as sensitive and valued landscapes and "seascapes" like Nantucket Sound near Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts (where the battle over the Cape Wind project has been waged for a decade) are increasingly threatened with development.

In order to meet this predicted 20 percent increase in demand, it is very likely that the country will look to expand production of oil and gas on both public and private lands over the next five decades, including the use of hydrofracking, which is controversial. Increasingly, the oil and gas industry is "scraping the bottom of the barrel" to get at the fossil energy resources that remain, running faster and faster to stay in the same place, as the Red Queen explains to Alice:

Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!
— Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass , 1871.

Cumulatively, since the first commercial well was drilled at Titusville, Pa., in 1858, America has already drilled far more wells and extracted far more oil than any country on earth. Just since 1950, more than 2.6 million oil and natural gas wells have been drilled in the United States. 21 In recent years there have been more than 820,000 producing oil and gas wells in operation at any given time. 22 In 2010, over 36,000 new exploratory and development oil and gas wells were started, drilling a combined total of 239,247,000 feet (45,312 miles) in search of recoverable hydrocarbons. Figure 4 shows the jump in the number of rotary drill rigs (which bore the well holes) from 2009 to 2012 in response to higher crude oil prices up until 2008.

 

 

It requires more and more effort, energy, and money to obtain a diminishing quantity of fossil fuels, in a perfect illustration of what economists call the law of diminishing marginal returns. As energy analyst Chris Nelder emphasizes: "Over the past century, world energy production has moved progressively from high quality resources with high production rates and low costs to lower quality resources with lower production rates and higher costs, and that progression is accelerating." 23 Put simply, we have already harvested the "low-hanging fruit." In trying to obtain what remains, it seem very likely that it will cost us increasingly more both in our wallets and in terms of damage to cherished environments — fragmented wildlife habitat, threatened aquifers, loss of tranquility in the countryside for many rural residents, localized air and water pollution, blighted scenery, heavy truck traffic on erstwhile quiet country roads, and so forth.

As America's growing energy needs — driven entirely now by population growth, not rising per capita consumption — become more difficult to meet in the face of depletion and greater global competition for remaining supplies of fossil fuels from developing countries, the political pressure to open up public lands such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in northern Alaska will only grow.

Just as there is considerable pressure now to construct the Keystone XL pipeline to carrying syncrude from the Athabasca tar sands in the Canadian province of Alberta to refineries in Port Arthur, Texas, there may also be a concerted push to finally exploit in earnest the hypothetically vast quantities of oil resources in the oil shale (actually kerogen) of the Green River Formation in Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming. An estimated three trillion barrels of oil resources are found here, 24 more than the entire quantity of conventional oil left on earth. However, the operative word is "hypothetical," for while these resources have been known for well over a century, they have always been and may always be a resource of the "future". Their time may never come. Their EROEI (energy return on energy invested) appears to be very low. That is, producing a barrel of oil from kerogen may take almost an equivalent amount of energy in some form. Furthermore, processing would require large amounts of water in an arid region, and land surface reclamation would be difficult. 25 Moreover, the low EROEI and the vast quantities of oil shale in combination would pose a serious threat to the climate due to enormous carbon dioxide emissions.

These are just a few of the energy-environment issues raised by U.S. population growth, which, as we have seen, is driven by immigration policy. In sum, the environmental implications of the Census Bureau's population projections for the United States raise important concerns for the environment that cannot be ignored.

Water Resources

Water is essential to all life; both economies and ecosystems wither without it. The United States is comparatively well endowed with water resources and uses prodigious volumes of both surface water (withdrawn from reservoirs and rivers) and groundwater (pumped from subterranean aquifers) in agriculture, industry, and municipalities. In 2005, about 410,000 million gallons of water was withdrawn for use in the United States every day — over four million swimming pools' worth or about 5,000 Rose Bowls filled to the rim. About 80 percent of our water supply is from surface water and the remaining 20 percent from groundwater. 26 Water is used to irrigate our crops, to manufacture all manner of products ranging from steel to silicon chips to soft drinks, to water our lawns, fill our cooking pots, wash away our wastes, and even to cool our thermal power plants. About 80 percent of water is used in U.S. agriculture, 27 which is very water-intensive because crops (like all plants) need it for photosynthesis and transpiration. Protecting water quality by avoiding and cleaning up water pollution is as important as managing and conserving water quantity.

Both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems depend on water of adequate quantity and quality as well. It is obvious that freshwater fish, shellfish (clams, mussels, crayfish, etc.) and aquatic plants need water of sufficient depth, flow, clarity, and temperature to survive, and unpolluted, well-oxygenated water at that, but it is less obvious that adjacent riparian plant communities, wetlands, and many species of wildlife are equally dependent on the water coursing through streams and rivers.

In taking water from natural environments for human use, it is important to leave enough water behind for ecosystem services and functions. And these functions not only include supporting fisheries and wildlife, but commercial navigation, hydroelectric generation, recreation (e.g., boating, fishing, swimming), even sight-seeing and tourism (think Niagara Falls).

Water conservation and reuse strategies and technologies have advanced considerably in recent decades, and can be applied in all water use sectors. They include water metering, drip irrigation, low-flush toilets and low-flow showerheads, lawn watering restrictions, xeriscaping (using drought-tolerant plants adapted to arid environments for landscaping), use of grey water for irrigation, and a host of others. With enough engineering and expense, we can literally cleanse our water "from toilet to tap".

All of these methods and devices taken together are capable of reducing per capita water consumption to such an extent that many regions of the country could accommodate projected population growth and still have enough water both for humans and nature without major new water projects. However, in the driest and one of the most rapidly growing parts of the United States — the American Southwest – the same cannot be said. This arid region was formerly thinly populated, but it burst from just three million in 1900 to 45 million at present. 28 The Southwest could soon be facing, in the words of New Mexico native Kathleene Parker, "twice the people, half the water". 29 This region, served by two over-allocated, over-stressed rivers — the Colorado and the Rio Grande — is both extremely hot and dry, its large-scale settlement made possible only through the advent and spread of air conditioning. Witty cowboy humorist Will Rogers once quipped of the Rio Grande ("Big River" in Spanish) that it was "the only river I ever saw that needed irrigation."

One of the largest municipal water districts in Texas is implementing state-of-art conservation-efficiency-reuse measures — reducing consumptive water use per capita by 20 percent or more — but because its population is projected to more than double in the coming 50 years, it has no choice but to embark on economically and ecologically expensive new dam, reservoir, and pipeline projects.

After another disappointing 2014-2015 winter of anemic precipitation, California is now four years into the worst drought in its recorded history. Its Sierra snowpack and huge reservoirs are at unprecedented lows, and scientists are warning of the possibility of an incipient "megadrought" that could last decades. In March 2015, Governor Jerry Brown declared statewide mandatory water restrictions for the first time in California's history, ordering towns and cities to reduce their water use by 25 percent. Yet at the same time, California's governor is a gushing immigration enthusiast who eagerly welcomes any and all newcomers to his state, legal and illegal alike. Both in his earlier incarnation as "Governor Moonbeam" in the 1970s and his recent governorship, Brown enjoys prattling on about the imperative of embracing limits, except when it comes to population growth, about which he says nothing. But in the real world, the fact that California already has 39 million residents, and continues to add millions more every decade surely has some bearing on whether there is enough water to go around. For cornucopians of Brown's ilk, admitting that the problem may be more a "longage" of people than a shortage of water (in Garrett Hardin's memorable turn of phrase) is apparently beyond the pale.

In a nutshell, water resources in America are already stressed in many parts of the country, and projected population growth will stress them further, though a commitment to good planning can buy time and alleviate some of that stress. One way stress will be relieved is buying farmers' water rights, which is happening in California and elsewhere. To accommodate the water demands of a growing population, we are reducing our ability to feed that population, and overseas populations that depend on our food (especially grain) exports. It's called "robbing Peter to pay Paul" or a zero-sum game, as opposed to "win-win," which is what Americans and everyone else prefers.

Wildlife and Its Habitats

People need a place to live. Every person lives in a home — whether an apartment, condo, townhouse, or single family dwelling — that takes up space that was once natural habitat. But everyone also uses other structures, facilities, and infrastructure that displace additional habitat as well, such as roads, parking lots, office buildings, shopping centers, recreation facilities, and schools. Yet all of these facilities occupy just a small portion of the overall land area that each person co-opts. Farmland, rangeland, timberland, and mines extend across large areas and are exploited to provide food, fiber, and minerals to each consumer. Most of the energy we use comes from oil and gas wells and coal mines that disturb or eliminate wildlife habitats.

Pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers are used heavily to provide the food we eat; the former can harm wildlife because of its toxicity, while the latter two can impair water quality and aquatic life. A notorious "dead zone" up to 6,000-7,000 square miles in area now appears every summer near the mouth of the Mississippi River in the Gulf of Mexico; this zone of severe hypoxia or oxygen deprivation is caused by the runoff of fertilizers (plant nutrients, primarily nitrogen and phosphorus) from farmland in the Mississippi watershed. Animal wastes and sewage contribute nitrogen and phosphorus as well. Nutrients cause algal blooms (i.e., algal population explosions) which, when the algae die en masse, deplete dissolved oxygen, upon which almost all aquatic and marine life depends.

Increasing the U.S. population by 36 percent will severely exacerbate pressures on wildlife and wildlife habitat. Even if more people opt to reduce their per capita impact by living more compactly and recycling and eating less meat or no meat at all (which reduces the amount of land and water required to feed animals), about the best we could hope for voluntarily is to perhaps trim the increase in aggregate impacts down to 20 percent. In our most overpopulated and biologically diverse state, several years ago the California Department of Fish and Game counted more than 800 imperiled species, including half of all mammals and one-third of all birds. 30 The department identified the major stressors affecting California's wildlife and habitats. It emphasized that: "Increasing needs for housing, services, transportation, and other infrastructure place ever-greater demands on the state's land, water, and other natural resources." Of course, all of these are a direct function of population size.

Ecological Footprint

The Ecological Footprint (EF) is a measure of the load that aggregate human demands impose on the biosphere, or "ecosphere". EF compares the demands of the human economy, or subsets of it, with the earth's (or a given country's) ecological capacity for regeneration and renewal, its "biocapacity". EF represents the amount of biologically productive land and water area needed to regenerate the renewable resources a given human population consumes and to absorb and render harmless, or assimilate the corresponding waste or residuals it generates. The global EF now exceeds global biocapacity by some 50 percent, 31 which is not a sustainable situation over the long run; it means we are drawing down "natural capital" and running up an "ecological debt". 32

Mass immigration is increasing America's population size and national EF, pushing our country deeper into ecological debt. See Figure 5, in which our EF is estimated to have exceeded our biocapacity by the late 1960s. At over 320 million, U.S. population currently is well in excess of the carrying capacity of our land and resource base. If everyone in the world consumed resources like Americans, the ecological footprint would be 4.05 earths. 33 High immigration levels that will drive our numbers to a projected 420 million by 2060 will only exacerbate this situation.

 

 

Assuming the Census Bureau's official population projections for 2060 actually do happen, the U.S. population will be 36 percent larger than at present. Even if there were no further increase in the U.S. per capita EF, which is, as can be seen from the 45-year trend in Figure 5, a rather generous assumption, a 36 percent increase in the U.S. population would correspond to a further 36 percent decrease in biocapacity per capita, even without continuing land and resource degradation. The 2012 U.S. EF was 17.8 global acres (GA) per capita and the biocapacity 9.5 GA per capita for an ecological deficit of 8.3 GA per capita. By 2060, if current U.S. demographic trends and projections hold, the biocapacity per person will have been reduced to 7 GA per capita. If the per capita EF remains at the 2012 value of 17.8 GA, the ecological deficit in 2060 will widen to 10.8 GA per capita.

The Global Footprint Network conducts ongoing research on the EF and keeps track of individual country trends through its National Footprint Accounts. In a 2011 report, the network states that, "As resource pressures increase and our populations expand, countries compete with one another in an auction for Earth's limited biocapacity." 34 In allowing its population to expand by another 36 percent, the United States only aggravates the plight of the planet and its inhabitants.

Sprawl and the Loss of Rural Lands

A series of studies conducted by Kolankiewicz, Beck, and Camarota in the early 2000s, and resumed by Kolankiewicz, Beck, and Manetas in 2014, has quantified the role of population growth in driving urban sprawl, and trends in this role over time. 35 Using data and surveys compiled painstakingly over several decades by the Census Bureau and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the sprawl studies in the early 2000s — covering the last three decades of the 20th century (1970-2000) — documented that population growth accounted for about half of sprawl, with decreasing population density (or conversely, increasing per capita land consumption) accounting for the other half. The role of population growth in driving sprawl was highest in the urban and developed areas of the West, South, and Southwest, the regions of the country that are growing the fastest now and that are projected to continue growing the fastest for decades to come.

The studies in the early 2000s revealed some ominous trends. In the 15 years from 1982 to 1997, America converted approximately 25 million acres (39,000 square miles) of rural land — forests, rangeland, pastures, and cropland — to developed land, that is, to subdivisions, freeways, factories, strip malls, airports, and the like. That was an area about equal to Maine and New Hampshire combined. These losses occurred at an average rate of 1.7 million acres per year, 17 million acres per decade.

If this rate of 17 million acres per decade were to continue to 2060, which is consistent with the Census projections, the United States will have lost an additional 107 million acres of rural countryside. That's 167,000 square miles, about equal to the combined areas of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, and Virginia. Added to the loss of an area equivalent to Maine and New Hampshire from 1982-1997, that amounts to much of the Eastern Seaboard. Anyone who has ever flown at night from New York to Florida and seen the galaxies of twinkling lights below sweeping to the horizon and beyond gets a feel for how far advanced this process of mass urbanization already is. The future will see more of the same if U.S. population grows by 36 percent, barring a marked change in where and how Americans choose (or are forced, as by higher gasoline/energy prices) to live.

The 2014 national level study revealed that the role of population growth in driving urban sprawl has increased markedly over time, from about half (50 percent) in the last few decades of the 20th century (1970 to 2000), to approximately 70 percent in the first decade of the new century (2000 to 2010). (See Figure 6.)

 

 

In some of the nation's most rapidly growing states, such as California, Florida, North Carolina, Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado, population growth accounted for virtually all sprawl during the 2000-2010 decade. One of the consequences of sprawl is disappearing farmland (in particular cropland), and if current U.S. demographic trends and rates of cropland loss were to persist until the end of the century (admittedly a big "if"), there would be a shocking decline in per capita cropland availability, from 1.9 acres per person in 1982 to a mere 0.3 acre per person in 2100. (See Figure 7.)

 

 

Carbon Dioxide Emissions

Anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the most important of which is carbon dioxide (CO2), raise the concentration of these gases in the earth's atmosphere, and in the case of CO2, in the upper layers of the ocean as well. Most scientists think the increase in atmospheric concentrations is causing average global temperatures to rise. There is widespread concern that such warming may result in far-reaching, long-term impacts on the earth's climate, biosphere, agriculture, and coastal communities from sea level rise. 36 About 30 to 40 percent of anthropogenic CO2 emissions are absorbed by the world's oceans, helping scrub it from the atmosphere, but threatening the marine environment instead. In water, CO2 is converted into carbonic acid (H2CO3), gradually acidifying the ocean and impeding the process of calcification, by which creatures such as corals and shellfish form their shells. 37

In an earlier study, it was found that greenhouse gas emissions in the United States from fossil fuel combustion grew by almost 13 percent from 1990 to 2000. U.S. population grew by almost an identical amount — slightly over 13 percent in the same decade. Thus, the increase in greenhouse gas emissions closely matched the increase in population. 38 Put a different way, the growth in aggregate emissions was driven entirely by population growth, not growth in per capita emissions.

More recently, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reported that, "between 1990 and 2010, the increase in CO2 emissions corresponded with increased energy use by an expanding economy and population, although the economic downturn starting in 2008 influenced the decrease in emissions in 2009." 39 And the U.S. Department of State, in projecting future emissions, noted: "These rising absolute levels of CO2 emissions occur against a background of growing population and GDP." 40

Because CO2 emissions are a direct result of fossil fuel combustion, which represents 85 percent of our energy consumption, the predictions above for energy consumption are also germane to CO2 emissions. With projected population growth of 36 percent by 2060, and moderate economic growth, but at the same time with declining per capita energy use and declining energy intensity (energy per dollar of GDP), it is reasonable to suggest that aggregate American CO2 emissions will rise by about 20 percent (one-fifth) by 2060. Two important caveats must be made about this estimate. First, CO2 emissions from the United States are already enormous, accounting for roughly one-sixth of the world total. Second, this estimate assumes no change in the mix of our energy technologies, that is, no significant shift away from the carbon-intensive fossil fuels toward renewables and nuclear power for electricity generation and little penetration of all-electric vehicles in the market. If a serious push were made toward these alternative technologies and further improvements in energy efficiency, the predicted increase in U.S. CO2 emissions might be reduced or avoided, but this would require far greater national resolve than witnessed to date.

Nevertheless, this is in the context of a call by climate scientists and activists for reductions in the GHG emissions of industrialized nations by 70-80 percent by the middle of this century to lessen the risk of dangerous climate destabilization. 41 Merely reducing the rate of increase falls far short of the drastic reductions advocated; with a projected U.S. population increase of 36 percent by 2060, any such reductions seem unrealistic.

Other Effects of Projected Population Growth

Adding another 111 million resource consumers to America's population by 2060 will have other adverse effects on the American landscape and environment in addition to those described above. These are depicted by the schematic in Figure 8. The table of contents of a typical Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) includes topics such as soils, air quality, vegetation, noise, recreation, visual resources (aesthetics), cultural and historic resources, waste management (including hazardous and toxic wastes), and environmental justice. A substantially larger population extracting more resources from the environment and extruding more residuals into the environment will adversely impact all of these.

 

 

Conclusion – Piling On the Pressure

Four decades ago, the transmittal letter to the President and Congress of the Report of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, said:

After two years of concentrated effort, we have concluded that, in the long run, no substantial benefits will result from further growth of the nation's population, rather that the gradual stabilization of our population through voluntary means would contribute significantly to the nation's ability to solve its problems. 42

More than 20 years later, in 1996, this statement was echoed by the Population and Consumption Task Force of President Clinton's Council on Sustainable Development. The task force concluded that: "reducing current immigration levels is a necessary part of working toward sustainability in the United States." 43

In spite of their common-sense logic and the respectable political pedigree of those making these calls for a halt to U.S. population growth, they have largely been ignored, sometimes scoffed at, for more than 40 years. In these four decades, the U.S. population has grown 50 percent — by over 100 million — and pressures on the environment have increased more or less at a commensurate pace. Now over the next five decades, the Census Bureau is projecting that America's numbers will swell by yet another 36 percent and high levels of immigration are the primary driver.

In 2060, if Americans acquiesce to this fate, and barring one or more of the black swans or tipping points discussed earlier, the U.S. population will still be growing very rapidly. The Census projections show it will be increasing by two million people at the end of 2050s. An ever-larger population cannot help but move the country ever further away from the goal of environmental sustainability.

 


End Notes

1 Mineral Information Institute . 2012. Per Capita Use. Every year — 38,052 lbs. of new minerals must be provided for every person in the United States to make the things we use every day, including: 8,148 lbs. of stone; 5,775 lbs. of sand and gravel; 11 lbs. of lead; 7 lbs. of zinc; 37 lbs. of soda ash; 6 lbs. of manganese; 372 lbs. of other nonmetals, and 25 lbs. of other metals. The annual per capita energy consumption of each American is provided by 951 gallons of oil, 6,439 lbs. of coal, 80,905 cubic feet of natural gas, and 0.25 lbs. of uranium.

2 G. Vince. 2011. "An Epoch Debate". Science 334 (6052):32-37.

3 Butchart, Stuart, et al. 2010. "Global Biodiversity: Indicators of Recent Declines". Science 328 (5982): 1164– 1168.

4 U.S. Census Bureau .

5 Steven A. Camarota and Karen Zeigler. 2009. "A Shifting Tide: Recent Trends in the Illegal Immigrant Population" . Center for Immigration Studies; Steven A. Camarota and Karen Zeigler. 2008. "Homeward Bound: Recent Immigration Enforcement and the Decline in the Illegal Alien Population" . Center for Immigration Studies; Jeffrey Passel, D'Vera Cohn, and Ana Gonzalez-Barrera. 2012. "Net Migration from Mexico Falls to Zero — and Perhaps Less" . Pew Hispanic Center.

6 See Table 1 in the December 2012 Census Bureau Projection , which shows a total U.S. population of 420.3 million in 2060. In prior projections, the Center for Immigration Studies has estimated a U.S. population of 338.3 million in 2060 assuming no net immigration after 2060. Also see Table A1 in the CIS projections . Thus immigration by itself will add roughly 82 million residents to the U.S. population (420.3 minus 338.3.) While 82 million may seem like a large number, the new Census Bureau projections show net immigration (the difference between people coming and going) will total 51.1 million from 2015 to 2060 and this figure does not include the children and grandchildren these future immigrants will have once in the country.

7 Steven Camarota. 2012. "Projecting the Impact of Immigration on the Size and Age Structure of the American Population in the 21st Century" . Center for Immigration Studies.

8 Nassim Nicholas Taleb. 2007. The Black Swan , New York: Random House.

9 Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows, Jørgen Randers, and William Behrens III. 1972. The Limits to Growth . Universe Books.

10 Debora MacKenzie. 2008. "Why the demise of civilisation may be inevitable" . New Scientist .

11 Joseph Tainter. 1988. The Collapse of Complex Societies . Cambridge University Press.

12 Robert Sanders. 2012. "Scientists uncover evidence of impending tipping point for Earth" . UC Berkeley News Center. Anthony D. Barnosky, et al. 2012. "Approaching a state shift in Earth's biosphere" . Nature 486: 52-58.

13 Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas-USA . As shown by recent low prices of crude oil, gasoline, and natural gas, the advent of "tight oil" and shale gas derived from hydraulic fracturing (hydro-fracking or just "fracking") of geologic shale formations in the United States like the Haynesville, Marcellus, Eagle Ford, and Bakken, as well as from unconventional sources like the Athabasca tar sands in the Canadian province of Alberta, have delayed the global peak production of "all liquid hydrocarbons" by a matter of years or decades.

14 See 350.org , Think Progress , and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

15 Christopher O. Clugston. 2012. Scarcity: Humanity's Final Chapter? Booklocker.com, Inc. Port Charlotte, Fla. Chris Clugston. 2012. "Geo Scarcity: Geo Destinies in the Coming Age" . Presentation at the 2012 Social Contract Writers Workshop in Washington, D.C. See also, "America the Vulnerable! The impact of depleting Earth's nonrenewable natural resources (NNRs)" . The Social Contract , Vol. 25, No. 2, Winter 2015.

16 See PeakProsperity.com .

17 See the Post Carbon Institute website .

18 Texas Transportation Institute. 2011. 2011 Urban Mobility Report and Appendices .

19 Ibid.

20 U.S. DOE Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2012. Annual Energy Outlook 2012 .

21 EIA. 2012. "U.S. Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and Dry Exploratory and Developmental Wells Drilled" .

22 EIA. 2010. "United States Total 2009 Distribution of Wells by Production Rate Bracket" .

23 Chris Nelder. 2012. Abstract of paper entitled, "The Future of Fossil Fuels: A Century of Abundance or a Century of Decline?" presented to American Geophysical Union 45th Annual Fall Meeting, 6 December 2012, San Francisco, Calif..

24 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2012. "Unconventional Oil and Gas Production: Opportunities and Challenges of Oil Shale Development" . Testimony of Anu K. Mittal, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, GAO, before the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science, Space and Technology, House of Representatives. May 12.

25 Walter Youngquist. 1997. Geodestinies: The inevitable control of Earth resources over nations and individuals. Natl Book Co.

26 N.L. Barber. 2009, Summary of estimated water use in the United States in 2005: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2009–3098, p. 2.

27 David Pimentel, et al. 2004. "Water Resources, Agriculture, and the Environment" . Report 04-1, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University. July.

28 Kathleene Parker. 2012. "The Southwest: Ground-Zero for Global Warming" . NPG Forum Paper. See also, Kathleene Parker. 2010. "Population, Immigration, and the Drying of the American Southwest" . Center for Immigration Studies.

29 Ibid.

30 California Department of Fish and Game. 2007. California Wildlife Action Plan. California Wildlife: Conservation Challenges.

31 Global Footprint Network. 2011. "2011 Annual Report: What happens when an infinite-growth economy runs into a finite planet?"

32 Leon Kolankiewicz. 2010. "From Big to Bigger: How Mass Immigration and Population Growth Have Exacerbated America's Ecological Footprint" . Progressives for Immigration Reform. March.

33 Global Footprint Network. 2012. "Country Trends – United States of America" .

34 Global Footprint Network. 2011. "2011 Annual Report: What happens when an infinite-growth economy runs into a finite planet?"

35 Leon Kolankiewicz and Roy Beck. 2001. Weighing Sprawl Factors in Large U.S. Cities: A report on the nearly equal roles played by population growth and land use choices in the loss of farmland and natural habitat to urbanization . NumbersUSA. Roy Beck, Leon Kolankiewicz, Steven A. Camarota. 2003. Outsmarting Smart Growth: Population Growth, Immigration, and the Problem of Sprawl . Center for Immigration Studies. Leon Kolankiewicz and Roy Beck. 2000. "Sprawl in California" ; Leon Kolankiewicz and Roy Beck. 2000. "Overpopulation = Sprawl in Florida" . Arlington, VA: NumbersUSA; Leon Kolankiewicz and Roy Beck. 2003. "Population Growth and Sprawl in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed" ; "Leon Kolankiewicz, Roy Beck, and Anne Manetas. 2014. "Vanishing Open Spaces: Population growth and sprawl in America" ; Leon Kolankiewicz, Roy Beck, and Anne Manetas. 2015. "Vanishing Open Spaces in Florida: Population growth and sprawl in the Sunshine State" .

36 Committee on the Science of Climate Change, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences. 2001. Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions . National Academies Press: Washington, D.C.. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis — Summary for Policymakers. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; World Bank. 2012. Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4º Warmer World Must Be Avoided .

37 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory Carbon Group. No date. "Ocean Acidification: The Other Carbon Dioxide Problem" .

38 Leon Kolankiewicz. 2003. "Population Growth — The Neglected Dimension of America's Persistent Energy/Environmental Problems" .

39 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. "Greenhouse Gas Emissions" .

40 U.S. Department of State. 2007. Fourth Climate Action Report to the UN Framework on Climate Change: Projected Greenhouse Gas Emissions .

41 Union of Concerned Scientists. 2007. A Target for U.S. Emissions Reductions .

42 The Rockefeller Commission. 1972. Population and the American Future: The Report of The Commission on Population Growth and the American Future .

43 President's Council on Sustainable Development. 1996. Population and Consumption Task Force Report .

The Numbers Game - Confronting Growth and the Environment

by Jim Motavalli,
E/The Environmental Magazine,
January/February, 2004

There's a minefield in the American environmental movement, and its name is population. Because negotiating that minefield is so dangerous, many environmental groups and leaders have stopped trying to cross it. But to ignore population as a central issue while talking freely about sprawl, air and water pollution, loss of biodiversity, agricultural land and animal habitat, global warming and many other crucial environmental issues is to deny reality.

Population and - in particular - immigration are never easy topics. At least in the U.S., population growth is closely tied to immigration. If you subtracted post-1990 immigration, the U.S. would have a population around 310 million in 2050; with current immigration, the Census Bureau says it could be 438 million. The population could double by 2100, with two-thirds of that growth attributed to immigration.

Some of the consequences of our rapid growth: With U.S. population growing by three million a year, we lose two acres of farmland every minute, according to the American Farmland Trust. Traffic congestion costs drivers $78 billion a year, says the Road Information Project. A serious water shortage is developing nationwide, with aquifers once considered inexhaustible drying up. Syndicated columnist Lou Dobbs argues that immigration-fueled population growth is putting a "heavy burden" on our abundant natural resources, and that at the present rate the U.S. won't be exporting food at all by 2025.

Some of these problems feed on each other. Population growth increases U.S. greenhouse gas production, which in turn makes existing crises more acute. For instance, one study suggests that most of the entire western United States - already severely water-challenged - could experience a 40 to 76 percent drop in precipitation levels because of climate change.
The U.S. experience is reflected internationally. From 6.3 billion people on the planet today, the United Nations projects 8.9 billion in 2050. (And that's just the middle of three possibilities; on the high end, the population could grow to 10.6 billion, while 7.4 billion is on the low end.) If fertility were to remain constant - which is not likely - the UN projects that the population of the world could actually double by 2050, to 12.8 billion.

We need a new understanding of the effects of population growth, because much of what passes for accepted wisdom on the subject is either wrong or only partly right. In many cases these commonly held notions grew out of political expediency - they're what we want to believe - so it's all the more necessary to subject them to an objective review. So here's a look at some myths, half-truths and truths, with all the shading in between:

Myth:
"World population, far from being a problem, is actually shrinking because of the global ‘birth dearth.'"

There is indeed a population shortfall trend developing in Western Europe, Russia and Japan (see "The Birth Dearth," Currents, September/October 2003). In Ireland, for instance, families have an average of 1.8 children today, slightly below replacement level. Couples in Italy, Germany and Spain have just 1.2 to 1.3 children each. The average fertility rate in Europe is 1.45. Both Russia and Japan are at 1.3.

But it's simply not true, as the conservative Center for Bio-Ethical Reform writes, that "the problem today is not overpopulation; it's under-population." The reason that isolated "birth dearths" don't produce lower numbers is the very rapid population increase in the world's least-developed countries. The population of the most heavily industrialized regions of the world grows at an annual rate of just .25 percent, reports the UN, compared to a rate of 1.46 percent - six times faster - in the less-developed countries.

We are currently adding 77 million people to the globe annually, with 21 percent of that increase coming from India, 12 percent from China and five percent from Pakistan. Three countries, Bangladesh, Nigeria and - surprise! - the United States each contribute four percent of the world's annual growth. Half of the projected increase will occur in just eight countries, seven of them in Africa and Asia. Population grows rapidly in the U.S., despite a near zero-growth fertility rate of 2.05 in 2002, because of the impact of immigrants and their descendants (who tend to have large families, according to the Census Bureau). Because of this, American population is growing as fast as in some of the more populous Third World countries.

The bottom line is that population in 30 developed countries (excluding the U.S.) will likely not grow much at all through 2050, but in the U.S. and the Third World it will rise steadily, to 7.7 billion or more.

Half-Truth:
"Sprawl and the rapid decline in open space are caused by bad development policies and our love of the automobile."

Obviously, the car is a major culprit in the sprawl phenomenon. America now has more automobiles than it has drivers, and the auto industry (in close consultation with the highway lobby) has been influencing, if not controlling, development policy since the end of World War II. Cheap mortgages courtesy of the GI Bill made suburbia possible. Each new subdivision claims open space.

The rush to the suburbs was also spurred by the urban riots of the 1960s, which emptied out inner cities. But population growth, plain and simple, is the 900-pound gorilla that gets ignored when "sprawl" is discussed.

The U.S. had 150 million people in 1950, when the suburbs were new. By 2000, just 50 years later, we had 275 million. Each year, says the organization Population-Environment Balance (PEB), we convert to human use an area the size of Delaware, including 400,000 acres of arable land.

We can, and should, get serious about "smart growth," "greenbelts," "New Urbanism," redevelopment "infill" and "land-use planning." But we can't solve the sprawl problem by simply moving people to high-density cities, even smartly managed urban centers like Portland, Oregon. "Ecological footprint" studies show that cities use the resources and waste disposal capacity of an area many times their size in the surrounding countryside. That's why New York's "garbage barge" became famous.

Immigration exacerbates sprawl because it is a primary contributor to population growth: A study by Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS) concluded that immigration was responsible directly and indirectly for 98 percent of California's soaring population. The common perception is that immigration does not exacerbate sprawl, because new immigrants move to urban areas. But half the country's immigrants now live in suburbs, and only 24 percent of immigrant homebuyers settle in central cities.

Although some formerly industrial "rust belt" cities spread out even as they are losing population, the general rule is that sprawl accompanies population growth. On average, according to the Center for Immigration Studies report "Outsmarting Smart Growth," states that grew in population by more than 30 percent between 1982 and 1997 sprawled 46 percent. States that grew by 10 percent or less sprawled only 26 percent. Add 10,000 people to a state's population and you'll lose, on average, 1,600 acres of land to development.

Both True and False:
"Population isn't the problem; it's high western consumption rates and waste."

There is certainly a very solid basis for this argument. According to the TV documentary Affluenza, "Even though Americans comprise only five percent of the world's population, in 1996 we used nearly a third of its resources and produced almost half of its hazardous waste. The average North American consumes five times as much as an average Mexican, 10 times as much as an average Chinese and 30 times as much as the average person in India." It's obvious that reducing our sky-high western consumption rates would be a big help.

Without a doubt, high consumption rates and rapid population growth work together to degrade the environment, and both need to be addressed globally. Unfortunately, however, reducing consumption is very difficult to achieve on a national basis, and international momentum is toward emulating high American levels of it, not modeling Third World frugality. As William Ryerson pointed out in his "16 Myths About Population Growth," published by the Carrying Capacity Network, developing countries want cars, televisions and other signs of western prosperity. China, which is rapidly expanding its highway network and encouraging private car ownership, will likely surpass the U.S. as a global warming gas emitter by 2015.

The overall news is not good. The UN's panel on climate change projects that by 2025 developing countries could be emitting four times as much carbon dioxide (CO2) as they do today. What's true of CO2 is also true of other measures of consumption. The rapid Third World switch to a meat-based diet is one measure of the trend.

Dogma:
"Efforts to reduce fertility and population size in the Third World are anti-woman."

The most prominent spokesperson for this viewpoint is probably Betsy Hartmann, director of the Population and Development Program at Hampshire College and a co-founder of the Committee on Women, Population and the Environment (CWPE). Population stabilization (which she calls "neo-Malthusianism") "is powerful in the U.S. because it resonates so well with domestic racism and sexism," she wrote in 1999. "Images of over-breeding single women of color on welfare and bare-breasted, always pregnant Third World women are two sides of the same nasty coin. And both groups, it is believed, are excellent candidates for social engineering. Insert Norplant, tie their tubes, put them to work in fast-food chains or sweat shops, and give them a little micro-credit and education if you're feeling generous."

Hartmann says in a message to E that "it's virtually impossible to detach the immigration debate from race." Her group, CWPE, "rejects the notion that population size and growth are primarily responsible for environmental degradation. This notion is created and spread by an alliance between the mainstream media, environmental organizations and population control advocates, especially in the United States."

Asked by New Statesman how she reconciles her pro-choice, anti-population control views, Hartmann responded, "A lot of people find this hard to understand. But for me, family planning is about human rights and women's health - not population control. It is about freeing women to have the number of children they want, not blaming them for a whole host of social problems." She believes that "family planning should be detached from population control," and its primary goal should be to "meet women's needs first."

While China has a coercive policy that legally restricts births and presents human rights challenges, Hartmann goes further and concludes that even voluntary programs are oppressive to women. But there is considerable evidence that women (and their children) are primary victims of overpopulation and, when asked, seek out family planning aid. According to the National Audubon Society's Patrick Burns, "Women started the family planning movement, lead the family planning movement, and buy almost all the contraception in the entire world. Why? Women want to have control over their lives and determine the number, timing and spacing of their children." William Ryerson of the Population Media Center adds, "Women who live in societies where they have power over their own lives tend to use family planning much more frequently than in countries where they are relatively powerless."

Although Hartmann and CWPE support "women's right to safe, voluntary birth control and abortion," they strongly oppose "demographically driven population policies." In other words, they're in favor of making contraception widely available, but against tying it to any national plan to address population growth. They decry not only China's coercive program, but also, because its stated aim is reducing population size, Iran's commendable grassroots effort to make birth control widely available, which has cut the growth rate in half. (The policy encourages women to wait three to four years between pregnancies, discourages childbearing for women younger than 18 or older than 35, and encourages three-child limits, which would certainly appear to be "demographically driven.")

Hartmann has energetically attacked what she sees as a nefarious cabal promoting anti-immigrant and anti-population growth attitudes in the U.S. ("the greening of hate," she calls it), but in fact the media treats the subject gingerly, if at all. Population activist Virginia Abernethy, a PEB board member and Vanderbilt University professor, offers this rejoinder, "In an interview with New Scientist [Feb. 2003], Betsy Hartmann attacks so many eminent scientists without good reason... that perhaps we should feel honored by all the attention."

Half-Truth:
"Education will greatly contribute to the reduction of fertility rates."

Education usually does produce smaller families, but there are exceptions. Tanzania had achieved 90 percent female literacy by the early 1990s, but parents in 2002 had an average of 5.3 children, more than double the replacement rate. A study by Charles Westoff of Princeton University's Office of Population Research found a strong relationship between education and family size in some countries, and a "weak or non-existent" connection in others.

Studies done for the Demographic and Health Surveys in the 1990s indicated that half of the women identified as having an "unmet need" for contraception would not use it even if it were available. Specific education about family planning could make a difference in this number, since "lack of knowledge" was the most frequently cited reason for not using birth control in a Kenyan survey. It's interesting to note that soap operas presenting birth control in a positive light led to increased contraceptive use and changed attitudes in India, Kenya and Mexico.

Obviously, cultural beliefs are not necessarily altered by educational attainment, and they play a big part in attitudes toward birth control. Religion might also be expected to play a large part, but it's plain that family planning is firmly embraced in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and in the Catholic countries of Europe, which have some of the lowest fertility rates in the world. But no matter how their congregants actually behave, some religious denominations, including Catholicism, some Islamic orders and the Southern Baptist Convention, continue to be strident voices against family planning. "The ban on artificial birth control is total and absolute," wrote the popular magazine The Catholic Answer.

Half-Truth:
"Population growth does not lead to hunger and starvation; it's an equitable distribution problem."

While it is undeniably true that the world currently produces enough food for our burgeoning population, and that it is uneven distribution that produces hunger, the long-term production outlook is ominous. Worldwatch reports that the growth in agricultural production has slowed steadily since the 1960s as populations soar, crops approach their biological maximum yield, arable land is lost and global fisheries crash. Genetic engineering, seen by some as a panacea for increasing yields, could actually backfire and make the situation even more desperate, reports Innovest Strategic Value Advisors.

While the raw numbers on global malnutrition are declining, in countries such as Haiti rapid population growth has led to an ongoing human rights crisis. Nearly 70 percent of all Haitians depend on subsistence agriculture in one of the most devastated environments on Earth, where only 30 percent of the land is suitable for cultivation. "In Haiti (fertility rate 4.3 in 2002), a substantial share of poverty is also traceable to rapid population growth pressing upon limited endowments of soils and clean water," says an American University report entitled "Deforestation in Haiti." It adds, "Deforestation and population growth, coupled with years of repression and colonial intervention has caused the uprooting of hundreds of thousands of Haitians."

Haiti has the fourth most undernourished people on Earth, says the World Bank, and only 40 percent of its eight million people have access to fresh water. Haiti, then, has a population problem coupled with a political problem. International aid plus the dedicated work of foreign support groups such as Partners in Health are not able to compensate for a devastated environment supporting too many people.

Arguments that equitable distribution would feed the world, while possibly true, would have more weight if the world was actually moving in that direction. In fact, Tracy Kidder reports in The Nation that development aid to Haiti has actually declined by two-thirds since 1995.

Mia MacDonald of Worldwatch notes that a billion people are likely to be added to the Indian subcontinent in the next 50 years, at the same time the region faces a huge freshwater crisis. "One has to wonder whether it makes sense to spend scores of billions of dollars to revamp irrigation systems and build new dams, when so little money is invested in tackling the root of the problem - human population growth," she writes. Pakistan is likely to double its population, to 332 million, by 2050. The $11 billion it is spending on the Kalabagh Dam could double Pakistan's investment in family planning for the next 50 years.

Myth:
Contraceptive use is widely accepted, and U.S. aid is increasing availability.

As the Population Resource Center notes, "The amount of [population] growth in the developing world will depend largely on women's access to education and health care, especially family planning services." Since most population growth is in these countries, this is where the world's attention should be focused.

Family planning aid can lead to dramatic reductions in population growth, but unforeseen obstacles can also prevent that from happening. In Kenya, where the Catholic Church has led public condom burnings, there is 90 percent access to contraceptives but only a third of the population is using them, according to Kenya's own figures. A 1991 study indicated that only half the women characterized as having an "unmet need" would use condoms if they were available.

The 1994 UN conference on population and development defined access to reproductive and sexual health services as a human right. Unfortunately, that right is not being met. Although 60 percent of married women worldwide use contraception, only 10 percent of married women in sub-Saharan Africa do. The current "unmet need" for contraception averages 70 percent in Asia and Latin America. Around the world, 123 million women do not have adequate access to family planning.

The country most able to help is AWOL. The U.S. has traditionally been the largest source of family planning assistance, but under President Bush it has drastically changed course for political reasons. In the face of unprecedented demand, the Bush administration (which continues to simplistically link birth control with abortion) has cut funding dramatically for international family planning aid, and consistently attempts to eliminate all aid for the agency best able to guide global population policy, the United Nations Population Fund.

The Bush administration's policy will undoubtedly mean more abortions, not fewer. "Widespread family planning availability tends to reduce abortion rates, as has been well-documented in several recent studies," says Robert Engelman, vice president for research at Population Action International (PAI). "Family planning - and good reproductive health - can only contribute to making all pregnancies wanted pregnancies and reducing abortion rates," adds MacDonald.

According to the coalition Saving Women's Lives, the consensus reached during the 1990s at various UN conferences was that global spending for family planning should total $17 billion by 2000, and $18.5 billion by 2005. That's the goal. In reality, in 2000 donor countries actually provided only half of the $5.7 billion they pledged.

Quandary:

"Population growth can only be addressed globally. It's selfish to worry about immigration levels in the U.S."

It's unambiguously true that population growth is a global problem needing global solutions, but these are in woefully short supply. Groups such as Population Connection (formerly Zero Population Growth) speak vaguely about solving global poverty to ease emigration pressures but are short on specifics. Although we definitely do need global solutions, the late Garrett Hardin pointed out that population policy is actually set on the national level, and it is therefore at the whim of localized cultural and religious norms.

Americans must address the full consequences of high immigration numbers in the U.S. As Lester Brown of Earth Policy Institute has argued, high emigration may offer countries a "safety valve," allowing them to continue with high fertility rates. This situation can reverse itself, as in Ireland, where historically high fertility and record high emigration have been replaced with below-replacement level fertility and immigration surpassing emigration.

Another important fact is that immigrants quickly adopt the high consumption patterns of their host country, putting larger strains on natural resources. As the Journal of Housing Research notes, "The aggregate housing consumption of immigrants will rise substantially in the next 15 years as past waves of immigrants move up the housing consumption ladder." Energy use provides another dramatic example. Negative Population Growth reports that per-capita energy consumption barely rose between 1970 and 1990 because of energy-efficiency gains and conservation, but total U.S. energy use rose 36 percent - because of the larger, immigration-driven U.S. population.

False:
"Calls to reduce immigration are inherently racist."

Immigration is never an easy topic. Strictly speaking, immigration by itself may not lead to higher world population - it just moves people around. Immigrants have always been among the most scapegoated people in America. In 1855, the Chicago Tribune thundered, "Who does not know that the most depraved, debased, worthless and irredeemable drunkards and sots which curse the community are Irish Catholics?" Such sentiments were common even in the shadow of Ellis Island, as Martin Scorsese's film Gangs of New York makes clear.

The fear of alien hordes is still used to stir people up today. Alabama's Auburn Plainsman recently opined, "It is time to close the borders, because continued mass immigration will only persist to erode what is left of the West in America. If it continues, logically it follows that in a few generations Western civilization will be extirpated from America."

The key to this kind of demonizing is creating a dividing line between immigrants and "real" Americans. According to "nativist" writer Sam Francis, immigrants "just work here, or hang out, on welfare, dealing drugs, or doing whatever they do. But their real loyalties lie elsewhere, namely in the countries they came from." Americans for Immigration Control further warns, "Fewer than 15 percent of our immigrants come from Europe and share the heritage that made America strong." Groups like the American Patrol offer convenient one-click service for reporting illegal aliens.

Chris Simcox and his so-called Civil Homeland Defense Corps have actually patrolled the Mexican border looking for illegal immigrants to "humanely" repatriate. "We cannot let [the Mexicans] export their failures," Glenn Spencer of the Arizona-based American Border Patrol told the Los Angeles Times. "They are a threat to our entire culture." Commentator and former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan pronounced, "The Third Worldization of California is now far advanced."

Fear of being lumped in with groups like this has led many mainstream environmental organizations to avoid the population issue, and particularly immigration. But the fact remains that human population growth is a root cause of environmental degradation, and the U.S. population (fertility rate 2.05) would hardly be growing at all were it not for immigration. But the ethnicity and race of these immigrants doesn't matter at all - it's the numbers, plain and simple.

The loss of "immigrants of European origin" is used as a code phrase to avoid saying the obvious: that the new immigrants are primarily people of color. Writer Peter Brimelow, author of Alien Nation, says, "The U.S. population is going to be vastly larger, much more non-white and much less skilled than would otherwise be the case." It's not clear why the "non-white" part is important.

But it's absurd to postulate some kind of non-white conspiracy to take over America, as the alarmists do. It can't even be extrapolated that current black and Hispanic-American populations automatically support high immigration numbers. A commission created in 1990 by the late Congresswoman Barbara Jordan (D-TX), a celebrated civil rights activist, recommended that immigration be capped at 550,000, half its current amount. A Gallup poll in June of 2003 found that 44 percent of African-Americans think immigration should be decreased. A Wall Street Journal poll in 2000 discovered that 42 percent of Hispanics consider U.S. immigration "too open." The Hispanic USA Research Group found in 1993 that 89 percent of Hispanics strongly support an immediate moratorium on immigration.

Some of these attitudes stem from minority-based racism. Asian Week, a newsletter published by a Chinese-American organization, editorialized that even illegal Chinese immigration is good for society, while Latino immigrants are a burden even if they come here legally.

The major worry among all these respondents is job displacement. Barbara Jordan, in congressional testimony, said a major commission goal was "to reduce the magnet that jobs currently present for illegal immigration." A case in point is the hotel industry. In Los Angeles, for instance, a study shows that unionized native-born black janitors in the hotel industry have overwhelmingly been replaced by non-union laborers from Mexico and El Salvador, while pay dropped from $12 an hour to $3.35 an hour. According to the study, "Immigrants and Labor Standards: The Case of California Janitors," published in Labor Market Interdependence, most of the displaced workers failed to find new employment.

During the recent Immigrant Workers Freedom Ride, union leader John Wilhelm thundered, "No human being is 'illegal.'" But does the presence of seven million illegal immigrants in the U.S. really support the poor and minority communities that are the top priority of the progressive coalition? "Immigration hurts first and worst our own poor, many of whom are minorities and established immigrants," says Michelle A. Fehler, coordinator of Population-Environment Balance. Interestingly, some of immigration's biggest supporters are business leaders who want to keep wages low.

Immigration supporters have been very successful in closing off discussion by playing the race card. Theresa Hayter, the British author of the book Open Borders, has stated, "Immigration controls are explicable only by racism," but the reality is far more complex than that blanket assertion.

Patrick Burns, director of the population and habitat program at the National Audubon Society, points out that "a tight American labor market would probably benefit everyone all over the world," because wages would rise in the U.S. and jobs now here would be exported to countries, including India, Mexico and Vietnam, that desperately need to put people to work.

It's one of the most polarizing issues of our time, so it's not surprising that population discussions usually end in shouting matches. But if we don't soon get a handle on this critical issue it may be too late, for the planet and for ourselves.

JIM MOTAVALLI is editor of E. CHRISTINA ZARRELLA provided invaluable research assistance for this article.

Ethics, justice, population and immigration

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."
- Martin Luther King Jr.

When considering the ethics of sustainability, we are often blinded by temporal distortion, where we give much more weight to today's issues than to future problems we are causing. Although this is arguably human nature, we can not be excused from our responsibility to future generations.

Intergenerational Justice

The following excerpts are from the article "Intergenerational Justice", by Fred Elbel:

We often hear about "social justice", "environmental justice", "immigrant rights", and other variations of the concept of justice. The meanings of these terms are frequently obscured, often deliberately. Rather than expressions of rights under the rules of law, such terms are often used to mean conformity to a particular political ideology.
 
The open borders agenda results in a stream of one-sided heart-wrenching human interest stories that may generate greater reader interest, but which essentially eviscerates the law of our land and abrogates the concepts of justice, borders and nationhood. Justice under the rule of law becomes supplanted by "justice" for lawbreakers. This agenda is promoted with callous disregard for the concerns of the overwhelming majority of American citizens, as shown in poll after poll.
 
Generation after generation of Americans traditionally have endeavored to leave their country better than it was. Yet Americans today may be the first to fail this legacy by ignoring the explosive population growth that we see daily in the manifestation of exponentially-growing symptoms. We are stealing from the future for the sake of present economic gain, just as we are stealing from America's working poor today by replacing them with lower-wage immigrants.
 
We are approaching the point of no return by overpopulating our own country for the sake of corporate greed and a misguided attempt to solve other countries' overpopulation problems. Yet Americans choose not to confront this terribly important issue, and this selfish action is surely a hate crime against future generations. Future generations of Americans deserve nothing less from us than our full compassion and our every effort to ensure them a sustainable future.

Read the entire article Intergenerational Justice in The Social Contract journal. (A version of this article appeared in the Denver Post, December 22, 2002, under the title "Consider the legacy immigration leaves".)

 

Finding the Trimtab

The Sopris Foundation and the Worldwatch Institute hosted the third annual environmental conference on Global Environmental and Social Issues in Aspen, Colorado, in July of 2002. Below are excerpts from an insightful talk given at the conference.

Finding the Trimtab, by Jonette Christian. Selected quotes:

It is vital that we look for the trimtab - that place to take action which will maximize our leverage on the course of human history.
 
Environmentalists often describe population as a "global" problem with a "global solution" meaning no one in particular is responsible for any piece of it because we're all responsible for it -- therefore no one ends up being responsible for any of it. This is dysfunction masquerading as a high moral plane.
 
...this is the speech pattern of dysfunctional groups - avoiding or minimizing the "pink elephant" in the living room at all costs, and exhausting themselves in a flurry of chatter around peripheral matters. We have agitated and deluded ourselves with the illusion that we are being overwhelmed by many many problems, when in fact, we have primarily only one.
 
We will not build sustainability by turning ourselves into a multilingual regional mass. In a mass we are too numerous and too diverse to have meaningful conversation. We have tough choices before us, and these choices will not be reduced to neat little slogans for mass consumption. Sustainability will require exceptionally thoughtful discussion and most important: group cohesion. If we destroy group cohesion, we destroy our ability to act intelligently.
 
...running from the problems in your native land is no longer a solution, that the world, and even America, has limits. We do not have a plan for saving the world, and it is time we told people the truth. That illusion must end. The behavior, the thinking patterns, and the expectations of 6 billion people must radically change, and they must change very very soon.

Read the entire talk: Finding the Trimtab.

Population, immigration, and global ethics

The talk Population, immigration, and global ethics, was presented by Jonette Christian on October 9, 1999 at the Aspen Institute, Aspen Colorado, during the Myth of Sustainable Growth conference. This, too, is an insightful and moving presentation, explaining the dysfunctionality of our society that refuses to examine the multiple and significant impacts of mass immigration. Excerpts follow:

 

Congress remains indifferent...and our government continues to force us to accept millions and millions of new citizens. Our media colludes with this policy by minimizing impartial debate and withholding an enormous amount of information about what is happening to this nation due to our immigration laws.
 
Denying, obfuscating, and minimizing population growth... is a hate crime against future generations-and it must end.
 
The hubris that we are here to save the world is based on a grossly exaggerated view of ourselves, and it is a very dangerous piece of folly. Ultimately the world must save itself, and it is a cruel hoax to promote the fantasy that we will take in the world's huddled masses, because we won't and we can't.

 

Read the entire talk Population, immigration, and global ethics.

 

A Moral Code for a Finite World

"A Moral Code for a Finite World", By Herschel Elliott and Richard D. Lamm

Excerpts:

Today, our standard of living, our economic system, and the political stability of our planet all require the increasing use of energy and natural resources. In addition, much of our political, economic, and social thinking assumes a continuous expansion of economic activity, with little or no restraint on our use of resources. We all feel entitled to grow richer every year. Social justice requires an expanding pie to share with those who are less fortunate. Progress is growth; the economies of developed nations require steady increases in consumption.
 
Every environment is finite. At a certain point, the members of an increasing population become so crowded that they stop benefiting each other; by damaging the environment that supports everyone, by limiting the space available to each person, and by increasing the amount of waste and pollution, their activity begins to cause harm... And if the population continues to expand, its material demands may so severely damage the environment as to cause a tragedy of the commons -- the collapse of both environment and society.
 
Moral codes, no matter how logical and well reasoned, and human rights, no matter how compassionate, must make sense within the limitations of the ecosystem; we cannot disregard the factual consequences of our ethics. If acting morally compromises the ecosystem, then moral behavior must be rethought. Ethics cannot demand a level of resource use that the ecosystem cannot tolerate.
 
The consequences of human behavior change as the population grows. Most human activities have a point of moral reversal, before which they may cause great benefit and little harm, but after which they may cause so much harm as to overwhelm their benefits.
 
Unlike current ethics, the ethics of the commons builds on the assumption of impending scarcity... Indeed, in a finite world full of mutually dependent beings, you never can do just one thing. Conditions of crowding and scarcity can cause moral acts to change from beneficial to harmful, or even disastrous; acts that once were moral can become immoral.
 
Most important, the ethics of the commons must prevent a downward spiral to scarcity. One of its first principles is that the human population must reach and maintain a stable state -- a state in which population growth does not slowly but inexorably diminish the quality of, and even the prospect for, human life. Another principle is that human exploitation of natural resources must remain safely below the maximum levels that a healthy and resilient ecosystem can sustain.

Read the entire article A Moral Code for a Finite World.

A Moral Code for a Finite World


By Herschel Elliott and Richard D. Lamm

Originally published in the Chronicle of Higher Education, November 15, 2002.

What if global warming is a reality, and expanding human activity is causing irreparable harm to the ecosystem? What if the demands of a growing human population and an expanding global economy are causing our oceans to warm up, our ice caps to melt, our supply of edible fish to decrease, our rain forests to disappear, our coral reefs to die, our soils to be eroded, our air and water to be polluted, and our weather to include a growing number of floods and droughts? What if it is sheer hubris to believe that our species can grow without limits? What if the finite nature of the earth's resources imposes limits on what human beings can morally do? What if our present moral code is ecologically unsustainable?

A widely cited article from the journal Science gives us one answer. Garrett Hardin's "The Tragedy of the Commons" (1968) demonstrated that when natural resources are held in common -- freely available to everyone for the taking -- the incentives that normally direct human activity lead people to steadily increase their exploitation of the resources until they are inadequate to meet human needs. The exploiters generally do not intend to cause any harm; they are merely taking care of their own needs, or those of others in want. Nevertheless, the entire system moves inexorably to disaster. Everyone in the world shares in the resulting tragedy of the commons.

Today, our standard of living, our economic system, and the political stability of our planet all require the increasing use of energy and natural resources. In addition, much of our political, economic, and social thinking assumes a continuous expansion of economic activity, with little or no restraint on our use of resources. We all feel entitled to grow richer every year. Social justice requires an expanding pie to share with those who are less fortunate. Progress is growth; the economies of developed nations require steady increases in consumption.

Every environment is finite. At a certain point, the members of an increasing population become so crowded that they stop benefiting each other; by damaging the environment that supports everyone, by limiting the space available to each person, and by increasing the amount of waste and pollution, their activity begins to cause harm... And if the population continues to expand, its material demands may so severely damage the environment as to cause a tragedy of the commons -- the collapse of both environment and society.

What if such a scenario is unsustainable? What if we need an ethics for a finite world, an ethics of the commons?

It is not important that you agree with the premise. What is important is that you help debate the alternatives. An ethics of the commons would require a change in the criteria by which moral claims are justified.

You may believe that current rates of population growth and economic expansion can go on forever -- but debate with us what alternative ethical theories would arise if they cannot. Our thesis is that any ethical system is mistaken and immoral if its practice would cause an environmental collapse.

Many people assume that moral laws and principles are absolutely certain, that we can know the final moral truth. If moral knowledge is certain, then factual evidence is irrelevant, for it cannot limit or refute what is morally certain.

Our ethics and concepts of human rights have been formulated for a world of a priori reasoning and unchanging conclusions. Kant spoke for that absolutist ethical tradition when he argued that only knowledge that is absolutely certain can justify the slavish obedience that moral law demands. He thought he had found rational grounds to justify the universal and unchanging character of moral law. Moral knowledge, he concluded, is a priori and certain. It tells us, for example, that murder, lying, and stealing are wrong. The fact that those acts may sometimes seem to benefit someone cannot diminish the absolute certainty that they are wrong. Thus, for example, it is a contradiction to state that murder can sometimes be right, for, by its very nature, murder is wrong.

Many human rights are positive rights that involve the exploitation of resources. (Negative rights restrain governments and don't require resources. For example, governments shouldn't restrict our freedom of speech or tell us how to pray.) Wherever in the world a child is born, that child has all the inherent human rights -- including the right to have food, housing, and medical care, which others must provide. When positive rights are accorded equally to everyone, they first allow and then support constant growth, of both population and the exploitation of natural resources.

That leads to a pragmatic refutation of the belief that moral knowledge is certain and infallible. If a growing population faces a scarcity of resources, then an ethics of universal human rights with equality and justice for all will fail. Those who survive will inevitably live by a different ethics.

Once the resources necessary to satisfy all human needs become insufficient, our options will be bracketed by two extremes. One is to ration resources so that everyone may share the inadequate supplies equally and justly.

The other is to have people act like players in a game of musical chairs. In conditions of scarcity, there will be more people than chairs, so some people will be left standing when the music stops. Some -- the self-sacrificing altruists -- will refuse to take the food that others need, and so will perish. Others, however, will not play by the rules. Rejecting the ethics of a universal and unconditional moral law, they will fight to get the resources they and their children need to live.

Under neither extreme, nor all the options in between, does it make sense to analyze the problem through the lens of human rights. The flaw in an ethical system of universal human rights, unqualified moral obligations, and equal justice for all can be stated in its logically simplest form: If to try to live by those principles under conditions of scarcity causes it to be impossible to live at all, then the practice of that ethics will cease. Scarcity renders such formulations useless and ultimately causes such an ethics to become extinct.

We have described not a world that we want to see, but one that we fear might come to be. Humans cannot have a moral duty to deliver the impossible, or to supply something if the act of supplying it harms the ecosystem to the point where life on earth becomes unsustainable. Moral codes, no matter how logical and well reasoned, and human rights, no matter how compassionate, must make sense within the limitations of the ecosystem; we cannot disregard the factual consequences of our ethics. If acting morally compromises the ecosystem, then moral behavior must be rethought. Ethics cannot demand a level of resource use that the ecosystem cannot tolerate.

The consequences of human behavior change as the population grows. Most human activities have a point of moral reversal, before which they may cause great benefit and little harm, but after which they may cause so much harm as to overwhelm their benefits. Here are a few representative examples, the first of which is often cited when considering Garrett Hardin's writings:

  • In a nearly empty lifeboat, rescuing a drowning shipwreck victim causes benefit: It saves the life of the victim, and it adds another person to help manage the boat. But in a lifeboat loaded to the gunwales, rescuing another victim makes the boat sink and causes only harm: Everyone drowns.
  • When the number of cars on a road is small, traveling by private car is a great convenience to all. But as the cars multiply, a point of reversal occurs: The road now contains so many cars that such travel is inconvenient. The number of private cars may increase to the point where everyone comes to a halt. Thus, in some conditions, car travel benefits all. In other conditions, car travel makes it impossible for anyone to move. It can also pump so much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that it alters the world's climate.
  • Economic growth can be beneficial when land, fuel, water, and other needed resources are abundant. But it becomes harmful when those resources become scarce, or when exploitation causes ecological collapse. Every finite environment has a turning point, at which further economic growth would produce so much trash and pollution that it would change from producing benefit to causing harm. After that point is reached, additional growth only increases scarcity and decreases overall productivity. In conditions of scarcity, economic growth has a negative impact.
  • Every environment is finite. Technology can extend but not eliminate limits. An acre of land can support only a few mature sugar maples; only so many radishes can grow in a five-foot row of dirt. Similar constraints operate in human affairs. When the population in any environment is small and natural resources plentiful, every additional person increases the welfare of all. As more and more people are added, they need increasingly to exploit the finite resources of the environment. At a certain point, the members of an increasing population become so crowded that they stop benefiting each other; by damaging the environment that supports everyone, by limiting the space available to each person, and by increasing the amount of waste and pollution, their activity begins to cause harm. That is, population growth changes from good to bad. And if the population continues to expand, its material demands may so severely damage the environment as to cause a tragedy of the commons -- the collapse of both environment and society.

Those cases illustrate the fact that many activities are right -- morally justified -- when only a limited number of people do them. The same activities become wrong -- immoral -- when populations increase, and more and more resources are exploited.

Few people seem to understand the nature of steady growth. Any rate of growth has a doubling time: the period of time it takes for a given quantity to double. It is a logical inevitability -- not a matter subject to debate -- that it takes only a relatively few doublings for even a small number to equal or exceed any finite quantity, even a large one.

One way to look at the impact of growth is to think of a resource that would last 100 years if people consumed it at a constant rate. If the rate of consumption increased 5 percent each year, the resource would last only 36 years. A supply adequate for 1,000 years at a constant rate would last 79 years at a 5-percent rate of growth; a 10,000-year supply would last only 125 years at the same rate. Just as no trees grow to the sky, no growth rate is ultimately sustainable.

Because the natural resources available for human use are finite, exponential growth will use them up in a relatively small number of doublings. The only possible questions are those of timing: When will the resources be too depleted to support the population? When will human society, which is now built on perpetual growth, fail?

The mathematics makes it clear: Any human activity that uses matter or energy must reach a steady state (or a periodic cycle of boom and bust, which over the long run is the same thing). If not, it inevitably will cease to exist. The moral of the story is obvious: Any system of economics or ethics that requires or even allows steady growth in the exploitation of resources is designed to collapse. It is a recipe for disaster.

It is self-deception for anyone to believe that historical evidence contradicts mathematical necessity. The fact that the food supply since the time of Malthus has increased faster than the human population does not refute Malthus's general thesis: that an increasing population must, at some time, need more food, water, and other vital resources than the finite earth or creative technology can supply in perpetuity. In other words, the finitude of the earth makes it inevitable that any behavior causing growth in population or in the use of resources -- including human moral, political, and economic behavior -- will sooner or later be constrained by scarcity.

Unlike current ethics, the ethics of the commons builds on the assumption of impending scarcity. Scarcity requires double-entry bookkeeping: Whenever someone gains goods or services that use matter or energy, someone else must lose matter or energy. If the starving people of a distant nation get food aid from the United States, then the United States loses that amount of food; it also loses the fertility of the soil that produced the food. To a point, that arrangement is appropriate and workable. Soon, however, helping one group of starving people may well mean that we cannot help others. Everything that a government does prevents it from doing something else. When you have to balance a budget, you can say yes to some important services only by saying no to others. Similarly, the ethics of the commons must rely on trade-offs, not rights. It must specify who or what gains, and who or what loses.

Indeed, in a finite world full of mutually dependent beings, you never can do just one thing. Every human activity that uses matter or energy pulls with it a tangled skein of unexpected consequences. Conditions of crowding and scarcity can cause moral acts to change from beneficial to harmful, or even disastrous; acts that once were moral can become immoral. We must constantly assess the complex of consequences, intended or not, to see if the overall benefit of seemingly moral acts outweighs their overall harm.

As Hardin suggested, the collapse of any common resource can be avoided only by limiting its use. The ethics of the commons builds on his idea that the best and most humane way of avoiding the tragedy of the commons is mutual constraint, mutually agreed on and mutually enforced.

Most important, the ethics of the commons must prevent a downward spiral to scarcity. One of its first principles is that the human population must reach and maintain a stable state -- a state in which population growth does not slowly but inexorably diminish the quality of, and even the prospect for, human life. Another principle is that human exploitation of natural resources must remain safely below the maximum levels that a healthy and resilient ecosystem can sustain. A third is the provision of a margin of safety that prevents natural disasters like storms, floods, droughts, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions from causing unsupportable scarcity.

Not to limit human behavior in accordance with those principles would be not only myopic, but also ultimately a moral failure. To let excess human fertility or excess demand for material goods and services cause a shortage of natural resources is as immoral as theft and murder, and for the same reasons: They deprive others of their property, the fruits of their labors, their quality of life, or even their lives.

The ethics of the commons is a pragmatic ethics. It denies the illusion that human moral behavior occurs in a never-never land, where human rights and duties remain unchanging, and scarcity can never cancel moral duties. It does not allow a priori moral arguments to dictate behavior that must inevitably become extinct. It accepts the necessity of constraints on both production and reproduction. As we learn how best to protect the current and future health of the earth's ecosystems, the ethics of the commons can steadily make human life more worth living.

As populations increase and environments deteriorate, the moral laws that humans have relied on for so long can no longer solve the most pressing problems of the modern world. Human rights are an inadequate and inappropriate basis on which to distribute scarce resources, and we must propose and debate new ethical principles.

Herschel Elliott is an emeritus associate professor of philosophy at the University of Florida. Richard D. Lamm, a former governor of Colorado, is a university professor at the University of Denver and executive director of its Center for Public Policy and Contemporary Issues.

Reprinted with permission of the authors.

Population, immigration, and global ethics

Population, immigration, and global ethics

A talk by Jonette Christian

This is the text of a speech given by Jonette Christian on October 9, 1999 at the Aspen Institute, Aspen Colorado, at the Myth of Sustainable Growth conference.

There is a Chinese proverb which says: "if you continue to go in the direction you are going, then you will end up where you are headed". This is a talk about population and immigration and where we are headed as a nation.

The United States was founded by a group of English colonists who thought long and deeply about the choices before them in the l8th century and how those choices would impact the lives of their descendants. George Washington used the word "posterity" nine times in one speech. Two centuries later, we are the very fortunate beneficiaries of their exceptional wisdom. Like our forefathers, we are gathered together today for posterity. The work we do... is mostly for future generations. In the midst of our enormous wealth many of us are troubled about the future and we have doubts about whether the direction we are headed will leave a nation to our descendants as beautiful as the one which was left to us.

We are sensitive to the disparity in wealth between ourselves and others, and we are afraid that the racism which has plagued our history might be masquerading as immigration reform.

Nations are like families. We need to have conversations about our affairs which are not altogether comfortable. For a "nation of immigrants" - and everyone of us is either an immigrant or the descendant of an immigrant - immigration policy has become a very touchy subject. We want everyone in the world to have the opportunity to live as well as we do. We are sensitive to the disparity in wealth between ourselves and others, and we are afraid that the racism which has plagued our history might be masquerading as immigration reform. And for all these reasons and others we avoid this discussion.

800 million people in our world do not have enough food to eat.

800 million people in our world do not have enough food to eat. Hundreds of millions would move here if they could but we are not an open house. The vast majority who deserve a better life will never be able to come here. The immigration debate, which we are not having, is about what level of immigration best serves the long term interests of this nation and the rest of the world. But even before we commence this conversation, we must decide - are we a family of people with an obligation to ourselves and our descendants to plan for the long term well being of our nation - thereby setting an example for the rest of the world, or are we simply a rapidly expanding international mass? A mass is not a family. Where are we going? And how will the way we think about ourselves impact our descendants and the rest of the world?

Human beings have been migrating for l0,000 years and every nation in the world was formed by migrants. We are a nation of immigrants and so is everyone else.

Last year, in a speech on immigration, President Clinton stated, "No other nation in history has gone through demographic change of this magnitude over so short a time" . . . he went on to say, "Mark my words: Unless we handle this well, immigration of this sweep and scope can threaten the bonds of our union." - threaten the bonds of our union - a remarkable statement from our president, greeted by the press with virtual silence.

class="q-pullout-box-right"> Post 1970 immigrants and their descendants have added between 35 and 45 million people to America's population. This is the equivalent of absorbing all of Central America in less than 30 years.

Post l970 immigrants and their descendants have added between 35 and 45 million people to America's population. (1) This is the equivalent of absorbing all of Central America in less than 30 years. If current immigration levels are not changed, then we will double our population in less than 70 years - and 90% of this growth will be due to recent immigrants and their descendants. These are the numbers from the US Census Bureau which account for Clinton' s sobering words. Can any of us imagine living in America when every city has double its present population, and is still growing? Double the traffic, double the number of houses, schools, prisons, etc? Is this the future we want to leave to our children? The America people were never asked if we wanted to bring this enormous growth upon ourselves and our families. We were never consulted.

Immigration levels are determined solely by Congress, and Congress is free at any moment to alter the number of immigrants. For example, the current level of immigration is about four times greater than we averaged through out most of this century. Immigration laws have usually been written in response to the demands of special interests who profit in some way from this policy. Their profit is extremely expensive for the rest of us. Many immigrants and recently naturalized citizens are using: Medicaid, SSI, Social Security, subsidized housing, fuel assistance, food stamps, TANF, bilingual education, subsidized legal aid, and earned income tax credits. The disparity between what immigrants pay into these programs and what they use in services runs into billions of dollars every year.

Adjusted for inflation, real average weekly earnings of working class Americans have dropped 20% since l973, as a function of the law of supply and demand in the labor market.

As a family therapist I work with that class of Americans who clean their own houses, who mow their own lawns, and who wash their own clothes - I see an overworked, overstressed sector of our society - in which two people must work long hours in order to provide a modest living for only two children. Adjusted for inflation, real average weekly earnings of working class Americans have dropped 20% since l973, as a function of the law of supply and demand in the labor market. The enormous costs of mass immigration is falling upon their shoulders. We should not be surprised if they become irritable and unsympathetic to the cause of bringing in millions and millions of outsiders. Advocates for illegal immigrants and mass immigration often use stirring words like "social justice" and "resisting oppression" and "building community" to justify their views. But building community begins with respect for your fellow citizens. They deserve to be consulted. Enthusiasm for embracing outsiders has made advocates for immigrants oblivious to the burdens they place upon their fellow countrymen - and this is no way to build community.

Discussion about where immigration policy is leading us is often dismissed with the remark, "Oh, but we're a nation of immigrants" - Human beings have been migrating for l0,000 years and every nation in the world was formed by migrants. We are a nation of immigrants and so is everyone else. But lets take a brief look at our history of immigration and the unadorned truth about what happened during this period.

In l870 American wages were 136% the wages of Europeans, and from this position of strength labor unions began to organize. (2) In response to the labor union movement, capitalists and factory owners decided to import European workers in order to expand the labor pool and flatten American wages. They began by advertising American jobs in Europe and paying steerage for those workers to come to America. What began as a trickle rapidly became a deluge when the disparity of wages was fully appreciated in Europe.

From about l925 to l965...we averaged no more than l78,000 immigrants a year.

By the early l900's after decades of massive numbers of new workers, American wages had lost half the pay advantage relative to European wages. This period was known as The Great Wave, and many of us have ancestors who came during this period. Our cities were crowded with slum tenements; the middle class was shrinking; we had glaring disparities of poverty and wealth, and anti-Semitism and anti-immigrant sentiments were heard from many sectors of our population., including Black leadership. Blacks could see that immigration was destroying their chance at the good entry level jobs. Legislation to limit immigration was introduced yearly - and three times during this period, legislation controlling immigration was passed but vetoed by presidents whose sympathies lay with the wealthy who profited from cheap abundant labor. With the arrival of World War I, the flood was naturally stemmed and by this time the public demand to shut the door had reached such intensity that a series of laws were passed to restrict immigration. It was during this period from about l925 to l965 when we averaged no more than l78,000 immigrants a year that our newest citizens, who had arrived during the Great Wave, finally got their chance to enter the main stream. The labor shortage which resulted in higher wages for everyone, allowed unions to grow, and promoted a solid middle class. By l960 our feelings toward immigrants had completely changed - we elected the grandson of an Irish immigrant to the White House and for the first time, we began to describe ourselves as a "nation of immigrants". It was during this period of low immigration that American blacks got their first chance at middle class wages. Northern factory owners were now forced to recruit black workers from the South. In l940 22% of blacks had middle class incomes and by l970, 71% of blacks had incomes in the middle class. (3) These tremendous gains were mostly accomplished before the Civil Rights movement or affirmative action, and in the face of Jim Crow laws, and institutional racism.

Since l970 due to changes in our immigration laws we have received millions of new workers, and that number 71% has just slightly improved; 30% of Hispanics live below the poverty line, and on some Indian reservations, the unemployment rate is above 70%. These are stunning numbers when you consider the enormous wealth this country has created since l970 and the determined efforts we have made to rid ourselves of racism. Even so, nearly one third of our black population continues to struggle to get into the middle class, forced to compete with a flood of foreign workers. The unemployment rate for blacks and other minorities continues to be much higher than it is for whites today, and the absolute number of people living in poverty continues to grow.

Our current immigration policy results in a $160 billion dollar yearly transfer of wealth from unskilled workers into the hands of their employers

According to Dr. George Borjas, Cuban immigrant and Harvard economist, our nation's leading scholar on the labor impact of immigration, (one of the authors of the National Academy of Sciences study on the economic impact of immigration) our current immigration policy results in a $160 billion dollar yearly transfer of wealth from unskilled workers into the hands of their employers due to the availability of immigrant labor. (4) In other words, our current immigration policy is making it increasing difficult for our most vulnerable populations - blacks, minorities, recent immigrants, and the poor to earn a living wage. Immigration on our current scale has been hugely profitable to certain sectors of our population, but never have we seen such disparity between rich and poor as we see in America today.

Congress remains indifferent...and our government continues to force us to accept millions and millions of new citizens. Our media colludes with this policy by minimizing impartial debate and withholding an enormous amount of information about what is happening to this nation due to our immigration laws.

The benefits which massive immigration brings to immigrants and to their employers has been the exclusive focus of our media. We are presented with numerous human interest stories about the success of individual immigrant families who left dreadful circumstances, and we are often told, in glowing terms, about the booming prosperity and growth of diversity in our communities. We are told that more and more diversity is always good for us, and it has been virtually impossible to discuss any negative impacts. For instance, our media rarely mentions the enormous fiscal costs which immigration on this scale places upon receiving communities and the middle class who must fund the social services of rapidly growing immigrant colonies, predominately poor and with many children who require special education and bi lingual classes, nor the long term environmental impact of such massive population growth, nor the negative impact on jobs and wages for the working poor, nor the ethnic conflict which such rapid demographic change causes. We have characterized thoughtful discussion about the negative impacts of massive immigration as racist or xenophobic.

Many Americans feel that bringing in millions of mostly impoverished people from third world nations is a generous and ethical thing to do, a way to share the wealth. But this generosity is having unintended consequences which are very destructive to this country and to the rest of the world, and it does nothing to empower third world people to solve the problems in their native land. Saving people is not the same thing as empowering people to save themselves.

If we are motivated by true compassion for mankind, then it is time to step up to the plate - forego the empty humanitarian gesture of "saving" a handful of outsiders - and commit ourselves to a world in which all people are empowered to provide for their families. This is the future we want - so where do we begin to focus our attention?

Denying, obfuscating, and minimizing population growth... is a hate crime against future generations - and it must end.

Today there are 6 billion people on the planet and we are adding a billion more every 12 years. According to UN projections, world population will grow at least another 3 billion in the next century. We will leave to our descendants the awesome task of feeding, housing, educating, and employing at least 9 billion people and with far less farm land and less ground water than we have today. As this future descends upon our children, public silence about these numbers is deafening. We are responding like deer with headlights in our eyes-paralyzed, or else indifferent - and we would rather talk about almost anything else: urban sprawl, pollution, global warming, declining fish stocks, falling water tables, increasing energy consumption, over crowded schools, and ethnic cleansing, - anything to avoid blunt speech about population numbers. Speaking as a family therapist, this is the behavior of dysfunctional groups - they avoid conversation about the pink elephant in their living room at all costs, and they exhaust themselves in a flurry of helpful activity around peripheral matters. We have agitated, confused and deluded ourselves with the illusion that we are being overwhelmed by many, many problems - when in fact, we have primarily only one. But it is the one that terrifies us the most - and we handle that terror by chattering endlessly about everything else. Denying, obfuscating, and minimizing population growth in l999 is a hate crime against future generations - and it must end.

Polls show that Americans were better informed and more worried about population in l970 during Earth Day, than we are today. For 30 years the impact of population has been minimized and all but ignored.

Population is glibly dismissed today as a "global problem" requiring a "global solution.". It makes a good sound bite, but it is simply not true. According to the Population Institute, better than 95% of the world's growth comes from just 20 third world nations. (5) Population growth is driven by specific groups; it is not global. Regarding those mythical "global" solutions, they do not exist. Human beings live in groups. We define ourselves by our group, and we solve our problems in groups. We do not solve our problems in a mass. In a mass, we are too many and too diverse to have meaningful conversation with each other - and the problems are more complex than simply "respecting diversity" or "learning to share". Each country must put its own house in order. The kind of public debate that people need to have to stabilize their growth in a country like Pakistan will not be the same as the conversation in a country like Guatemala or the United States. But we cannot stabilize world population when cultures with astronomical growth are permitted. to send their citizens into countries with stable fertility rates.

We often hear that population is just a "symptom" and that the real problems are poverty and economic injustice. This is the reasoning that caused us to minimize the importance of population growth over the past 30 years and to focus our efforts instead on correcting the disparity between haves and have-nots. But our results are not encouraging. For example, western nations have poured massive aid into Africa over the previous 3 decades, and today the per capita protein consumption is less than it was in l970 and the population doubling rate is 28 years. By contrast, China, during the same period and with virtually no Western aid at all, dramatically ended hunger, lowered infant mortality rates, increased life expectancy and delivered basic education and health care to 1.2 billion people. China - in contrast to most third world countries - isolated herself from the West, confronted her situation, and forged solutions which were acceptable within her culture.

Western involvement in other people's problems has not been notoriously successful, even when we meant to be generous. Many experts are now conceding that we gravely misunderstood the fundamental cause of third world poverty.

Poverty, overpopulation, slavery and high infant mortality rates pervade societies in which women and children have few rights. These societies are patriarchal, rigid, organized around tribal and ethnic loyalties, and lacking democratic values. How you treat women and children is not a minor consideration - it affects every aspect of a society . According to the Christian Science Monitor, l00 million children have been sold into slavery or prostitution mostly by their own relatives and many have been maimed in order to make them more pitiful when they beg. We are often told that people have large families in order to solve the problem of poverty in their old age simply because they are poor. There is another possibility. When selling your children or maiming them is never an acceptable option to begin with, then you are forced to arrive at other solutions long before you come to the point of desperation - you must think differently and every choice that society makes all along the way for generations will be affected by this fundamental value. Not all poor people choose to solve their poverty by having many children. Overpopulation is a sorry excuse for the collective failure to plan for the well being of ones descendants - having children is not the same thing as valuing children.

In Japan we see the difference between a society which confronts poverty by seeking to improve conditions for their children, as opposed to a society that uses their children to solve their poverty. The difference is in the value placed on children - and that is the difference that makes all the difference in the world.

In l945 Japan was a basket case - a third world economy by any definition of poverty - bankrupt, humiliated, suffering a famine. Yet this tiny densely populated island, with few natural resources and no oil, stunned the world in just 25 years with an economic miracle which left us breathless and which seemed to defy reason. Today Japan is the second largest economy in the world. What many people do no realize is that this miracle began in part with a mutual decision by the Japanese people to have smaller families. In the late 40's the Japanese realized that in order to compete with the West they would need to produce a generation of Japanese with superior health and a superior education. In order to maximize their limited post war resources, they would need to have a much smaller number of children. The media openly discussed this matter and Japanese fertility rates took a dramatic decline. Today, Japanese children are the healthiest and best educated children in the world, and the Japanese population is expected to shrink dramatically in the next century, which is a great gift to the world from a nation of high consuming people.

In Japan we see the difference between a society which confronts poverty by seeking to improve conditions for their children, as opposed to a society that uses their children to solve their poverty. The difference is in the value placed on children - and that is the difference that makes all the difference in the world.

When I was growing up back in the l960's, a paper mill near our town was polluting our air. A group of concerned women in our community organized themselves and began to demand that the company put scrubbers on those smoke stacks. Some people were annoyed by these uppity women who went house to house stirring up public debate. But they kept at it, and the scrubbers were eventually installed. We know that if you let things slide, the problems just accumulate - and there's no one to save us, but ourselves. And we raise our children with this conviction. In nations with predominately western cultures this is a common story. Our country was founded by people who took action to solve their problems, who questioned the prevailing beliefs, - as we are today in this conference - activism runs in our blood and in our history, and even in our marriages, men and women are having conversations with each other which would not be tolerated in other cultures. We have endless petition drives, referendums, concerned citizen groups, talk shows, and neighborhood coalitions. We don't expect government - even when freely elected - to solve our problems without our continual involvement. And we know that all of us are responsible for the common welfare. Largely due to this work , these traditions and these attitudes which distinguish our unique cultural heritage, we have the prosperity, the social justice, and the democracy which accounts for our amazing success.

I never really appreciated this remarkable quality about us until I experienced a Latin culture. For three generations, my family have been friends with a middle class family of well educated Mexicans - and we have exchanged children over the summers. On a recent visit I noticed that the river which used to run through their city with many bridges over it had completely disappeared. No one seemed to know or to care what had happened to their river. They simply weren't interested. I was astonished. Can you imagine that any American community would allow a whole river to simply disappear - with so little interest from the people? Are we surprised that Mexicans are now sending their people to find employment throughout America? A culture which allows a river to disappear might just as easily find itself without jobs for their children. The wealthy and the educated who might have been organizing an environmental movement in Mexico , who might have been organizing a war on poverty or political corruption, or a conference like this one which challenges the prevailing doctrines on growth have instead decided to promote the migration of their many poor and uneducated citizens into American communities. And are we truly a good neighbor by collaborating with this solution? In l940 Mexico had a population of only 19 million. Today her population is l00 million, not including the millions which have already immigrated to America. The population doubling rate is just 32 years. The poverty, environmental degradation, and human suffering which this astronomical growth produces was not caused by American racism, social injustice, capitalism, or even corporate greed - but far more common human failings: procrastination, denial, and the failure of an entire culture to examine itself and make changes.

Culture is fundamental in understanding poverty and high growth. Authoritarian cultures, not surprisingly produce authoritarian governments, and these nations are especially vulnerable to economic domination from outsiders. For instance, multinational corporations can obtain unfair advantages in a country like Guatemala, which would never be tolerated in a country like Denmark. The ruling elites of Latin America have had little interest in protecting the welfare of their own people. But the problem lies within the culture. In Latin societies there is no code of conduct that calls for social responsibility or citizen activism outside of the family. Consequently, very few political leaders in Latin America leave office without amassing tremendous wealth for themselves and their relatives. Latin presidents do not turn to their people and say, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." Patriotism of this order is sadly missing. Political corruption, nepotism and petty thievery pervade these nations, and there is barely a whisper of protest from the people. The awesome price for generations and generations of citizen passivity and neglect for the common welfare is painful indeed.

It is not an accident that America has given the world the game plan for modern democracy and the example of a culture which continually works to improve itself: a labor movement, a woman's movement, a civil rights movement, an environmental movement, a war on poverty, an anti - war movement, a human rights movement, and a men's movement - where else would you find Promise Keepers and a Million Man March - even the clean clothes campaign and the movement to end world hunger did not begin with the educated elites in poor nations, who currently flock to America for high paying jobs, but with middle class western people who were moved by the plight of desperate suffering in third world nations and who funded the many organizations working on these causes. We are a culture that is continually examining ourselves and making changes, setting new standards for human rights for the whole world, and inviting everyone to participate in this work.

In my state of Maine we have teenagers who go house to house with the Maine People's Alliance, lobbying for health care, environmental protection, and campaign finance reform. My daughter worked for the Alliance when she was l8 years old, canvassing the state of Maine with a group of youth all of whom were under the age of 25. The result is that Maine has one of the best campaign finance laws in the country. She discussed these issues with the heads of the households, many of whom were men 2 and 3 times her age. Can you imagine that an 18 year old girl in El Salvador or Pakistan would be given the right to do this work? And what difference does it make to a nation when the intelligence of a young woman is treated with respect? These differences in the way we treat each other - the way we treat women and children, have enormous bearing on the outcome of a society.

From that remarkable group of English colonists who founded this nation, we inherited a tradition of citizen activism and social responsibility that has formed one of the most creative and tolerant societies in the world - and it is not surprising that we have also produced phenomenal wealth. Immigrants from many cultures have come here and been able to create wealth which they could not create in their native land. Our culture has produced one of the most successful systems in the world for generating economic and social opportunity. But our capacity to create wealth is not our most significant gift to the world, and it is not the most important statement about who we are as a people. Without discounting the greed of multinational companies and the past errors of our foreign policy, third world poverty is not caused by Western success. Rather it is culture - the way people treat each other in a group that determines stability and well being above all other factors.

The current population doubling rate in El Salvador is 30 years, the Philippines is 31 years, India is 37 years., and Pakistan is 25 years.

Despite falling birth rates, the current population doubling rate in El Salvador is 30 years, the Philippines is 31 years, India is 37 years., and Pakistan is 25 years. (6) For 4 decades America has been lecturing other countries about stabilizing their population, but we have never been willing to do so ourselves. We are long overdue. We consume more natural resources and produce more pollution on a per capita basis than any nation in the world, and the failure to stabilize our population is unethical and hugely destructive to this planet. In order to stabilize our population we must lower immigration because immigration is the predominant cause of our growth today. Talking about restricting immigration in America is about as controversial as talking about women's rights in Pakistan. But America and Pakistan need to have these uncomfortable political debates if either country is ever going to stabilize its growth.

What are the ethical implications of forcing a nation to tolerate immigration on a scale that is not wanted by the overwhelming majority?

Polls show that the overwhelming majority of Americans across all class and ethnic lines want immigration drastically reduced. 73% of blacks want it brought below 300,000 a year , according to the latest Roper Poll and according to the Hispanic USA Research Survey Group - 89% of Hispanic Americans strongly support an immediate moratorium on immigration. But Congress remains indifferent to these sentiments - and our government continues to force us to accept millions and millions of new citizens. Our media colludes with this policy by minimizing impartial debate and withholding an enormous amount of information about what is happening to this nation due to our immigration laws. Let us ask some questions about the ethics of what we do.

What are the ethical implications of forcing a nation to tolerate immigration on a scale that is not wanted by the overwhelming majority? Will this policy promote civic cohesion or tolerance for our ethnic differences? Are we confident that we can overcome negative feelings by simply introducing more programs which "teach tolerance" or more conversations about racism? And how long do we plan for this massive immigration to continue?

America exports $40 billion dollars in grain to countries who cannot feed themselves. If our growth continues at the current rate, then we will require every bit of grain produced in this country for our own people within 20 years. (7) What are the ethical implications of allowing our population to grow beyond the point that we can share food with others?

America is 4.7% of the worlds population, but we consume 23% of the natural resources and produce 23% of the pollution that is destroying the biosphere.

America is 4.7% of the worlds population, but we consume 23% of the natural resources and produce 23% of the pollution that is destroying the biosphere. (8) In l950 our entire economy might have run on domestic supplies of oil. By allowing our population to expand, we are now required to import 60% of our petroleum and we must invest billions in defense - largely to protect our access to foreign resources. As we grow more populous - we grow more aggressive and more vulnerable - and we consume a much bigger share of the world's wealth.

Even at our present population , we are using our ground water for irrigating our crop lands faster than the rate of repletion in 21 % of our aquifers. (8) What are the ethical implications of pursuing growth policies now which leave our grandchildren with insufficient ground water?

What are the implications of allowing countries with authoritarian governments, dominated by wealthy elites, like the Philippines and Mexico, to send their poor into American labor markets? Would Americans tolerate the idea of sending our welfare recipients into Canada as a way of unburdening ourselves of responsibility for our poorest citizens?

Increasing numbers of well educated immigrants are forsaking the problems in their native land in order to earn American wages. What are the ethical implications when we rob poor countries of their most talented citizens? These are the people most capable of solving the problems in their native land. Where would South Africa be if Nelson Mandela had decided to cut and run ?

For the first time in this century we are seeing increasing disparity between rich and poor, and massive immigration is largely responsible. Do we have an obligation to protect the living standard of unskilled workers in this country, or are we going to require them to compete with third world wages? And if we decide not to protect our workers, then who are we as a nation and what are the values we stand for?.

The hubris that we are here to save the world is based on a grossly exaggerated view of ourselves, and it is a very dangerous piece of folly. Ultimately the world must save itself, and it is a cruel hoax to promote the fantasy that we will take in the world's huddled masses, because we won't and we can't.

The world grew by 78 million people last year, most of it coming from impoverished and overpopulated countries. We took in l.4 million immigrants - legal and illegal. In terms of saving people, it was a trifle - a little something to alleviate our western guilt which accomplished nothing for most of the world. The hubris that we are here to save the world is based on a grossly exaggerated view of ourselves, and it is a very dangerous piece of folly. Ultimately the world must save itself, and it is a cruel hoax to promote the fantasy that we will take in the world's huddled masses, because we won't and we can't.

class="q-pullout-box-right"> Saving people is not the same thing as empowering people to save themselves. If we fail to see this distinction, then we may cause enormous chaos.

We all long for a world in which every child born has the chance to flourish. What are the choices we need to make which will move the world in that direction? We must consider those choices very carefully. Saving people is not the same thing as empowering people to save themselves. If we fail to see this distinction, then we may cause enormous chaos. There is nothing more powerful than putting our own house in order, stabilizing our population, lowering our consumption, planning for the welfare of our descendants, and setting an example of enlightened self government for the world.

References

(1) Beck, Roy; The Case Against Immigration
(2) Beck, Roy; page 44 - Hatton, Timothy Migration and the International Labor Market (3) 1850-1939.
(3) Beck, Roy; page 157.
(4) Borjas, Georg; Heaven's Door; l999.
(5) The Population Institute.
(6) "World Population Data Sheet", published by the Population Reference Bureau.
(7) Pimentel David; Cornell University, Food, Energy, and Society,
How Many Americans Can the Earth Support?,
Impact of Population Growth on Food Supplies and the Environment,
U.S. Food Production Threatened by Rapid Population Growth by David and Marcia Pimentel, 1997, Cornell University.
(8) Imperiled Waters, Impoverished Future: The Decline of Freshwater Ecosystems, Abramovitz, Janet; World Watch papers; March, l996.

Jonette Christian is a practicing family therapist, founder of Mainers for Immigration Reform, Maine, and has been an advisor to CAIRCO.

Copyright 1999 Jonette Christian. Reprinted with permission.

Growth, smart growth, and sustainability

Can you think of any problem in any area of human endeavor on any scale, from microscopic to global, whose long-term solution is in any demonstrable way aided, assisted, or advanced by further increases in population, locally, nationally, or globally?

Every increment of added population, and every added increment of affluence invariably destroys an increment of the remaining environment.

We hear a lot today about 'smart growth,' as though 'smart growth' was the magic key to the achievement of sustainability. A central ingredient in 'smart growth' is regional planning; regional planning encourages more population growth, and population growth is unsustainable. It is thus clear that 'smart growth' can't solve the problems.

'Smart growth' destroys the environment. 'Dumb growth' destroys the environment. The only difference is that 'smart growth' destroys the environment with good taste.
 
That in itself is a worthwhile goal, but one is still destroying the environment. It's like booking passage on the Titanic. If you are dumb, you go steerage. If you are 'smart' you go first class. But either way, the result is the same."
 
"Smart growth is a means of making unsustainability as pleasant as possible."
Prof. Al Bartlett
Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO

Is growth necessary?

In California, 95% of sprawl is directly correlated with population growth. The Urban Sprawl - NumbersUSA, shows the surprising relationship between population growth and sprawl.

We've heard the incessantly repeated mantras of the pro-growth community:

"We need to bring in business to bring down taxes."

"This development will give us jobs."

"Environmental protection will hurt the economy."

"Growth is good for us."

There is plenty of evidence that disproves these deeply held pro-growth beliefs. See Twelve Big Myths About Growth.

The [smart] growth management movement in America must be recognized for what it is: an institutionalized form of support for the growth imperative."
- The Growth Management Delusion, by Dr. Gabor Zovanyi, published by NPG.
In order to create a sustainable economy we must first discard the goal of macro economic growth and replace it with the goal of a no-growth, steady-state economy."
The Earth is finite. Its ability to provide for growing numbers is finite. And we are fast approaching many of the Earth's limits... Pressures resulting from unrestrained population growth put demands on the natural world that can overwhelm any efforts to achieve a sustainable future. If we are to halt the destruction of our environment, we must accept limits to that growth..."
- World Scientists' Warning to Humanity, issued by 1,700 of the world's leading scientists, including the majority of Nobel laureates in the sciences, 1992.

Mass immigration will be significantly responsible for U.S. population doubling this century - within the lifetimes of today's children. Allowing this immigration-driven doubling to occur is short-sighted and foolish. May future generations forgive us.

Eben Fodor's Twelve Big Myths About Growth

By Donella H. Meadows

"We need to bring in business to bring down taxes. This development will give us jobs. Environmental protection will hurt the economy. Growth is good for us."

If we've heard those arguments once, we've heard them a thousand times, stated with utmost certainty and without slightest evidence. That's because there is no evidence. Or rather, there is plenty of evidence, most of which disproves deeply held pro-growth beliefs.

Here is a short summary of some of the evidence. For more, see Eben Fodor's new book Better, Not Bigger which lists and debunks the following Twelve Big Myths of Growth.

Myth 1: Growth provides needed tax revenues. Check out the tax rates of cities larger than yours. There are a few exceptions but the general rule is: the larger the city, the higher the taxes. That's because development requires water, sewage treatment, road maintenance, police and fire protection, garbage pickup-a host of public services. Almost never do the new taxes cover the new costs. Fodor says: "The bottom line on urban growth is that it rarely pays its own way."

Myth 2: We have to grow to provide jobs. But there's no guarantee that new jobs will go to local folks. In fact they rarely do. If you compare the 25 fastest growing cities in the U.S. to the 25 slowest growing, you find no significant difference in unemployment rates. Says Fodor: "Creating more local jobs ends up attracting more people, who require more jobs." And services.

Myth 3: We must stimulate and subsidize business growth to have good jobs. A "good business climate" is one with little regulation, low business taxes, and various public subsidies to business. A study of areas with good and bad business climates (as ranked by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the business press) showed that states with the best business ratings actually have lower growth in per capita incomes than those with the worst. Fodor: "This surprising outcome may be due to the emphasis placed by good-business-climate states on investing resources in businesses rather than directly in people."

Myth 4: If we try to limit growth, housing prices will shoot up. Sounds logical, but it isn't so. A 1992 study of 14 California cities, half with strong growth controls, half with none, showed no difference in average housing prices. Some of the cities with strong growth controls had the most affordable housing, because they had active low-cost housing programs. Fodor says the important factor in housing affordability is not so much house cost as income level, so development that provides mainly low-paying retail jobs makes housing unaffordable.

Myth 5: Environmental protection hurts the economy. According to a Bank of America study the economies of states with high environmental standards grew consistently faster than those with weak regulations. The Institute of Southern Studies ranked all states according to 20 indicators of economic prosperity (gold) and environmental health (green) and found that they rise and fall together. Vermont ranked 3rd on the gold scale and first on the green; Louisiana ranked 50th on both.

Myth 6: Growth is inevitable. There are constitutional limits to the ability of any community to put walls around itself. But dozens of municipalities have capped their population size or rate of growth by legal regulations based on real environmental limits and the real costs of growth to the community.

Myth 7: If you don't like growth, you're a NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) or an ANTI (against everything) or a gangplank-puller (right after you get aboard). These accusations are meant more to shut people up than to examine their real motives. Says Fodor: "A NIMBY is more likely to be someone who cares enough about the future of his or her community to get out and protect it."

Myth 8: Most people don't support environmental protection. Polls and surveys have disproved this belief for decades; Fodor cites examples from Oregon, Los Angeles, Colorado, and the U.S. as a whole. The fraction of respondents who say environmental quality is more important than further economic growth almost always tops 70 percent.

Myth 9: We have to grow or die. This statement is tossed around lightly and often, but if you hold it still and look at it, you wonder what it means. Fodor points out, quoting several economic studies, that many kinds of growth cost more than the benefits they bring. So the more growth, the poorer we get. That kind of growth will kill us.

Myth 10: Vacant land is just going to waste. Studies from all over show that open land pays far more - often twice as much - in property taxes than it costs in services. Cows don't put their kids in school; trees don't put potholes in the roads. Open land absorbs floods, recharges aquifers, cleans the air, harbors wildlife, and measurably increases the value of property nearby. We should value and pay for it to be there.

Myth 11: Beauty is no basis for policy. One of the saddest things about municipal meetings is their tendency to trivialize people who complain that a proposed development will be ugly. Dollars are not necessarily more real or important than beauty. In fact beauty can translate directly into dollars. For starters, undeveloped surroundings can add $100,000 to the price of a home.

Myth 12: Environmentalists are just another special interest. A developer who will directly profit from a project is a special interest. A citizen with no financial stake is fighting for the public interest, the long term, the good of the whole community.

Maybe one reason these myths are proclaimed so often and loudly is that they are so obviously doubtful. The only reason to keep repeating something over and over is to keep others from thinking about it. You don't have to keep telling people that the sun rises in the east.

Donella H. Meadows was Director of the Sustainability Institute and Professor of Environmental Studies at Dartmouth College.

From Population Press, March/April 1999, pp. 12-13.

Economic growth is desirable, as long as it is differentiated from physical growth. Unending physical growth, including population growth, will ultimately destroy us and the sustaining biosphere upon which we depend.
- Fred Elbel, Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform

 

H-1B high-tech worker job displacement

The H-1B visa was designed to bring in temporary foreign job seekers in order to fill labor shortages in the United States. Over the years, it has become one of the most harmful visa programs, resulting in permanent displacement of American workers from the high-tech labor force. Educated and competent US STEM workers (in science, technology, engineering and mathematics) can not compete with foreign workers who are often brought in by industry to work at a fraction of the wages of American workers. 

H-1B visa background

The original cap on H-1B visas was set at 65,000 per year in 1990.  Then in October, 2000, Congress increased the cap to 195,000 per year. On October 1, 2003, the number of H-1B visas was reduced back to the original level of 65.000. Still, an additional 20,000 per year are allowed in for H-1B workers with Master's and higher degrees from US institutions. It should also be noted that non-profit employers and governmental agencies are not restricted by these caps.

The H-1B visa program allows employment for up to six years, so the number of H-1B foreign workers in the U.S. at any point is the sum of the number of foreign workers who have been admitted and remained over the last six years. In 2002, there were an estimated 710,000 H-1B foreign workers in the U.S.10 Currently, there are more than 450,000 H-1B foreign workers in the US who continue to displace American STEM workers.

Currently, more than 100,000 US programmers and tech workers are unemployed, and many more are underemployed or have been forced out of their career. The total number of displaced American workers is close to half a million.

Today, 80 percent of the top ten companies using H-1B visas are Indian outsourcing companies who maintain their H-1B workers outside of the US. Thus, H-1B job displacement is intrinsically coupled with high-tech job offshoring.

Consequences of the H-1B program on American tech workers

The US produces enough STEM graduates to meet industry demands for high-tech workers. Yet many highly qualified STEM students realize the potential for H-1B offshoring and turn away from high-tech careers.2Indeed, the Department of Labor's 2006 Strategic Plan stated that "H-1B workers may be hired even when a qualified U.S. worker wants the job, and a U.S. worker can be displaced from the job in favor of the foreign worker." 

While the H-1B program requires foreign workers to be paid prevailing wages, in practice that does not occur. The H-1B program currently functions to provide US employers with cheap foreign labor, rather than to fill temporary vacancies.3

Industry's big lie

The "big lie" is a formal debating tactic where if lie is repeated often enough, it is taken as fact. This is the case with the claims of big business that there is a shortage of high-tech workers and that foreign H-1B workers are needed in the U.S. There is essentially no data supporting such a claim.4 A RAND study concluded that 'One primary question this study sought to answer is, are there current or imminent shortages in the U.S. STEM workforce This question can be answered, "No," with a degree of confidence for workers with a graduate education.'5

Yet industry has found that blatantly repeating the big lie about high-tech worker shortages gains traction with Congress, who willingly allow them to use cheap, foreign, H-1B workers at the expense of American tech workers.

References

1. NumbersUSA background on H-1B visa job displacement.

2. Lowell, B. Lindsay, Harold Salzman, Hamutal Bernstein, and Everett Henderson. "Steady as She Goes? Three Generations of Students through the Science and Engineering Pipeline". Rutgers University, 2009. Print. Pg. 31.

3. Low Salaries for Low Skills: Wages and Skill Levels for H-1B Computer Workers, 2005, Center for Immigration Studies.

4. The Big Lie behind H-1B visas, Center for Immigration Studies, 2009.

5. Will the Scientific and Technology Workforce Meet the Requirements of the Federal Government?

6. Prof. Matloff Busts 'Best and Brightest' Ballyhoo for H-1B Workers, Center for Immigration Studies, 2011.

7. Nonimmigrant Visas: H-1B/L-1, Programmers Guild.

8. 2013 Programmers Guild Reforms: Guest Worker Visas and Green Cards, Programmers Guild fact sheet.

9. Media and Congressional Fact Sheets, Programmers Guild.

10. H-1B Visas: Harming American Workers, FAIR, 2008.

11. Facebook, H-1B and Age, by Norm Matloff, Upon Closer Inspection, September 30, 2013.

12. Blog: Upon Closer Inspection, by Norm Matloff.

13. The Worst H-1B Employers, According to the Labor Department, Center for Immigration Studies, January, 2015.

14. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services guidelines help foreigners apply for H-1B jobs displacing American workers.

15.  Primer for Reporters Looking Into the H-1B Program, by John Miano, Center for Immigration Studies, June 25, 2015.

 

Related websites

Hire Americans First

Programmers Guild

How many illegal aliens reside in the United States?

This section presents an introduction to alternative methodologies to accurately estimate the number of illegal aliens living in the United States. To read the detailed analysis, please see:

How many illegal aliens reside in the United States? A methodology using Border Patrol "got away" statistics, by Fred Elbel.

The mainstream media, whenever it actually mentions the number of illegal aliens living in the United States, categorically quotes the official government figure of 8-12 million. This number originated with the Department of Homeland Security, which in December 2003 estimated 8 million to 12 million illegal aliens resided in the United States and that 700,000 new illegals enter each year and remain in the country.1 Those stale, outdated estimates have not changed for over 13 years, even though the official annual increase alone would yield a corrected estimate of 15.7 million to 19.7 million illegal aliens today (not adjusting for Obama's unconstitutional 2014 executive amnesty). 

Even though it is quite clear that huge numbers of illegal aliens sneak into our country and avoid capture at our border, the media as well as government agencies seem quite content to under-report these numbers. The static official estimates are somewhat suspect, as they are produced by the very entity responsible for the tidal wave of illegal aliens entering our nation - the United States Government. Alternative methodologies estimate a range of numbers that is likely more realistic. 

Nancy Boulton observes that:

Estimates of the size of the illegal alien population currently living in the U.S. range from about 12 million to over 20 million. The lower number is based on Census Bureau estimates of the foreign-born population in various Census Bureau surveys. The larger number is based on methodology that is not reliant on a respondent’s candor... it is virtually impossible to get an accurate count of populations who are resistant to being identified. Given the problem of porous borders and incentives to avoid detection, the higher estimate is not unreasonable.5

Indeed, U.S. Border Patrol Local 2544 stated in July of 2005:

“There are currently 15 to 20 million illegal aliens in this country by many estimates, but the real numbers could be much higher and the numbers increase every day because our borders are not secure (no matter what the politicians tell you—don’t believe them for a second).

Alternative methodologies

Alternative methodologies conclude that between 20 million and 40 million illegal aliens have evaded apprehension and live in the United States. 

The official number was questioned by D.A. King of The Dustin Inman Society in 2004. Subsequently, an in-depth analysis was published by Fred Elbel1,7. In 2007, The Social Contract published an entire issue addressing the numbers of illegal aliens in the US2.

Nancy Boulton pointed out that two researchers at Bear Stearns Asset Management estimated that the number of illegal immigrants in 2005 could be as high as 20 million. Their figures were based on an analysis of the large discrepancy between official census estimates and growth in indicators such as remittances to the countries of origin, school enrollment and building permits.5,8

Bolton also notes that:

If even one person is successful for every apprehension, it implies over 1 million foreigners per year illegally cross our southern border. In addition, there are roughly 30 million foreign nationals admitted to the U.S. each year on temporary visas. There are no data on the percentage of these visitors who overstay their visas, but data from the Australian Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs indicate about 8 percent of those admitted to that country on temporary visas overstay their visa and about 86 percent of those overstay by a year or more. If just 1 percent of the 30 million admitted on temporary visas to the U.S. do not leave as they are required to, that adds another 300,000 foreigners illegally in the U.S. each year.

The analysis by James H. Walsh notes that estimates compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau (USCB), national surveys, governmental agencies, philanthropic organizations, religious charities, nongovernment statistics-keeping agencies, and immigrant advocates range from 7 million to 20 million illegal aliens. Walsh concludes that the number is closer to 2 times 20 million, or 40 million.4 Walsh notes that in 1992,

...an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice Inspector General found INS statistics suspect and cited deliberate deception by senior INS officials tampering with immigration statistics... U.S. Border Patrol agents confided that they were told to cap apprehensions and deportations to conform to the desires of various Administrations to create at least a public perception of border control.

Walsh also notes that:

In addition, the U.S. Census Bureau routinely undercounts and then adjusts upward total census numbers of Hispanics and other foreign nationals residing in the United States––counting only, of course, those willing to be counted. For the year 2000, the Census Bureau reported a total U.S. population count of “about 275 million” men, women, and children. When the states and local governments challenged that number as an undercount, the total was corrected upward to 281.4 million, with no clear count of illegal aliens. The Hispanic 2000 census count was 32.8 million, but on re-count the Census Bureau adjusted this number upward to 35.3 million, a 13 percent increase.

Walsh focuses on the ratio of illegal alien apprehensions to those who escaped apprehension, noting that:

The average number of recorded apprehensions of illegal aliens in the United States now hovers at 1.2 millio a year [in 2007]. A DHS report, Border Apprehensions: 2005, documented 1.3 million apprehensions in 2005. For the 10-year period (1996–2005), the highest number of apprehensions, 1.8 million, occurred in 2000, and the lowest, 1 million, in 2003. These DHS statistics contradict persistent statements by other government agencies that only 400,000 to 500,000 illegal aliens enter the country each year.
 
Journeymen Border Patrol agents (on the job five years or more) estimate that a minimum of five illegal aliens enter the United States for each apprehension, and more likely seven. That informed estimate would raise the total number of illegal aliens entering the United States in 2003 to 8 million men, women, and children.

He concludes that:

My estimate of 38 million illegal aliens residing in the United States is calculated, however, using a conservative annual rate of entry (allowing for deaths and returns to their homelands) of three illegal aliens entering the United States for each one apprehended. My estimate includes apprehensions at the Southern Border (by far, the majority), at the Northern Border, along the Pacific, Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico coasts, and at seaports and airports. Taking the DHS average of 1.2 million apprehensions per year and multiplying it by 3 comes to 3.6 million illegal entries per year; then multiplying that number by 10 for the 1996–2005 period, my calculations come to 36 million illegal entries into the United States. Add to this the approximately 2 million visa overstays during the same period, and the total is 38 million illegal aliens currently in the United States.

Elbel also focused on the ratio of border apprehensions to "get-aways". The methodology used in his analysis was as follows:7

  1. Estimate the gross number of illegals entering the U.S., as well as the number of those that evade apprehension by the Border Patrol. A “get away” ratio is applied to the numbers of illegals entering, resulting in a gross estimate of illegals entering and evading apprehension.
     
  2. Factor in repeat apprehensions of the same individuals and legalizations out of the overall estimate. Many illegal aliens who are apprehended and are returned home try to enter the U.S. again and are subsequently apprehended. Others are legalized and are allowed to stay in the U.S.
     
  3. Factor “short term stays” from the overall estimate. Some illegal aliens voluntarily return home in less than year.
     
  4. Estimate the total number of illegal aliens living in the United States, based upon the estimate of illegals entering and evading apprehension each year.

Elbel's conclusion was that it is likely that at least 20 million illegal aliens presently reside in the United States, with up to 12,000 additional illegal aliens entering every day.

In the January, 2013 article, "Over the line: Fighting corruption on our border", Arizona rancher John Ladd stated "I say about a half a million people have been caught on the ranch. And that's what's been caught - that's not what's got through." 

The promise of amnesty

One of the driving factors that results in unending illegal immigration into the United States is simply the mention of a possible amnesty. Holding out the carrot of amnesty has been sufficient to keep wave of wave of illegal aliens sneaking into the United States. The result is that corporations get thousands upon thousands of new consumers, Republicans get an unending stream of cheap foreign labor, and Democrats get wave after wave of "undocumented Democrats".

Conclusion

Using the latest conservative Census Bureau data from 2010 and 2011, the Center for Immigration Studies reports that more than 50 million immigrants (legal and illegal) live in the United States, and that "Absent a change in policy, between 12 and 15 million new immigrants (legal and illegal) will likely settle in the United States in the next decade. And perhaps 30 million new immigrants will arrive in the next 20 years."10

The magnitude of the numbers of illegal aliens in the United States represents a serious crisis and urgent need for a return to the rule of law and secured borders that the United States Constitution demands.

 



References:

1. "How many illegal aliens reside in the United States? A methodology using Border Patrol 'got away' statistics," by Fred Elbel. Also published as "Illegal immigration invasion numbers analysis", Fred Elbel, www.DesertInvasion.us, August, 2004, and in the 2007 Social Contract.7

2. “How many illegal aliens are in the U.S.?” The Social Contract (Summer 2007).  The issue includes the following articles:

3. "Introduction: How Many Foreign Nationals Actually Live in the U.S. Illegally?", Diana Hull, Ph.D., Summer 2007

4. "Illegal Aliens: Counting the Uncountable",  James H. Walsh, Summer 2007

5. "The Challenge of Accurately Estimating the Population of Illegal Immigrants", Nancy Bolton, Summer 2007

6. "Racing Backwards - The Fiscal Impact of Illegal Immigration in California, Revisited", Philip J. Romero, Summer 2007

For additional references, see citations and endnotes in the above articles.

7. "How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the U.S.? - An Alternative Methodology for Discovering the Numbers", Fred Elbel, Summer 2007

8. “The Underground Labor Force is Rising to the Surface.” Robert Justich and Betty Ng, Bear Stearns Asset Management, Inc. January 2005. Excerpts:

“Though we cannot conduct an independent census of the United States population, as investors, we need not accept the accuracy of the official census immigration statistics, which are widely recognized as incomplete. There are many ancillary sources of data that provide evidence that the rate of growth in the immigrant population is much greater than the Census Bureau statistics. School enrollments, foreign remittances, border crossings, and housing permits are some of the statistics that point to a far greater rate of change in the immigrant population than the census numbers. At the risk of appearing dogmatic or taking a leap of faith, we have applied the rate of growth from these other areas and have drawn several conclusions about the current immigration population:

1. The number of illegal immigrants in the United States may be as high as 20 million people, almost double the official estimates of 11.1 million of the March 2005 Current Population Survey and 11.5 million–12 million by the Pew Hispanic Center (Fact Sheet, April 5, 2006).

2. The total number of legalized immigrants entering The United States since 1990 has averaged 962,000 per year. Several credible studies indicate that the number of illegal entries has recently crept up to 3 million per year, triple the authorized figure.

3. Undocumented immigrants are gaining a larger share of the job market, and hold approximately 12 to 15 million jobs in the United States (8 percent of the employed)…”

9. U.S. Border Patrol Local 2544 (covering most of Arizona) stated on their website at http://www.local2544.org in July of 2005:

There are currently 15 to 20 million illegal aliens in this country by many estimates, but the real numbers could be much higher and the numbers increase every day because our borders are not secure (no matter what the politicians tell you—don’t believe them for a second).”

10."Immigrants in the United States, 2010: A Profile of America's Foreign-Born Population", Steven A. Camarota, Center for Immigration Studies, August 2012

11. Update: "Border security faults may be result of poor analysis - Homeland Security ignores data it collects on illegal crossings, critics say", AZCentral, July 20, 2013:

'Last year, for example, a panel of leading statisticians, economists and demographers at the National Academy of Sciences conducted a study on illegal immigration at the request of Homeland Security...

That study, which included data from Mexican governmental sources and previous U.S. academic studies, suggested that about three-quarters of those who decide to cross keep trying until they make it. Other outside studies have found 85 or even 90 percent make it...

“Almost everybody who really tries eventually gets in,” said Jeffrey Passel, a member of the panel and a senior demographer at the Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research organization in Washington, D.C., that studies the U.S. Hispanic population...
[in 2006-2007] CBP asked the Homeland Security Institute, a federally funded research center, to study border-crossing recidivism and the likelihood of apprehending crossers. The study found that, from 2001 to 2005, when border security and the consequences imposed on crossers were both relatively slight, the likelihood of being apprehended on any crossing attempt was about 35 percent, according to sources familiar with the study. But to this day, that study, completed in 2007, remains classified...'

12. White House lies about terrorist threat at border, Tom Tancredo, World Net Daily, September 12, 2014.

13. You Only Think You Know How Many Illegal Immigrants Live in the US, William Campenni, The Daily Signal, December 27, 2015.

...Though now dated, these numbers implied many more illegal immigrants in 2005 than were acknowledged by Pew and the Center for Immigration Studies.

Why, then, has the 11 million figure become so sacrosanct?

Well, professional and institutional reputations are invested heavily in the number, perhaps because with its longevity the public has become comfortable or apathetic. Were it 20 million or more–a larger population than New York state–Americans might be getting really angry.

Imagine the reaction if the media reported daily that this 20 million cohort, supplemented by chain migration and family reunification mandates, would swell to 40 million or 50 million in a decade...

The Heritage Foundation has suggested that if given amnesty, 11 million illegal immigrants would cost taxpayers $6 trillion or more over the immigrants’ lifetimes.

While not exactly linear, those costs would double or more should the real count be in the range of 20 million to 30 million. That money could buy a lot of high schools, highways and health care for Americans...

Let’s question that 11 million. It’s not Scripture. It’s a guess.

14. Damning report on illegal alien entries - nearly 50% sneak into America undetected, Center for Immigration Studies, December 2, 2016.

Huddled masses and deceptive clichés

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

- "The New Colossus" by Emma Lazarus, 1883

The Statue of Liberty was erected in 1886, when world population was little more than one billion and the U.S. population was 50 million. Many do not realize that the Statue of Liberty was a gift to the U.S. 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, "The 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. The plaque memorialized the sonnet in 1903 and was placed on the inner wall of the Statue's pedestal.

Roberto Suro pointed out in a Washington Post article1:

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...

Bad poetry makes for bad policy."

It should be noted that even back then, our immigration policy was selective. In the 1880's Congress drafted a flurry of legislation - laws that became benchmarks against which an immigrant was measured during the inspection progress. The first general Federal Immigration Law denied entrance to "any convict, lunatic, idiot, or any person unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge." The vast majority of immigrants were treated courteously and respectfully, and were free to begin their new lives in America after only a few short hours on Ellis Island.2

In 1891 this law was expanded to include the expulsion of paupers, prostitutes, polygamists, or "persons suffering from a loath-some or a dangerous contagious disease..." Those with incurable or disabling ailments were excluded and returned to their port of departure at the expense of the steamship line on which they arrived.2

Since 1886, U.S. population has increased by a factor of six3. The U.S. is the world's highest-consuming nation, and is no longer in need of settlement. Indeed, we have no vast open spaces left to settle. A complete reversal of immigration perspective is now required:

Our physical habitat is being threatened by an immigration flow that represents only 1 percent of Third World annual population growth... Americans must trade a national vision of beckoning Status of Liberty and a vision of wide-open spaces for a more realistic one of a world of limits and constraints."

- B. Meredith Burke, "A statue With Limitations," Newsweek, February 24, 1994.

In the book Huddled Cliches, Lawrence Auster effectively counters other mindless cliches used by the open borders lobby to further their agenda.4 He refutes the most common immigration cliche:

“We are a nation of immigrants.”

This—the veritable “king” of open-borders clichés—seems at first glance to be an indisputable statement, in the sense that all Americans, even including the American Indians, are either immigrants themselves or descendants of people who came here from other places. Given the above, it would be more accurate to say that we are “a nation of people descended from immigrants.”...

...it implies that anyone who is not an immigrant, or who does not identify with immigration as a key aspect of his own being, is not a “real” American...

In reality, we are not—even in a figurative sense—a nation of immigrants or even a nation of descendants of immigrants. As Chilton Williamson pointed out in The Immigration Mystique, the 80,000 mostly English and Scots-Irish settlers of colonial times, the ancestors of America’s historic Anglo-Saxon majority, had not transplanted themselves from one nation to another (which is what defines immigration), but from Britain and its territories to British colonies. They were not immigrants, but colonists...

...every nation could be called a nation of immigrants (or a nation of invaders) if you go back far enough...

Auster points out another self-defeating ingrained perspective:

"As descendants of immigrants, it would be selfih and immoral of us to support immigration restrictions."

For many descendants of European immigrants, particularly Jews, this is the decisive pro-immigration argument. Even when they agree (however reluctantly) that current immigration is leading to intractable problems for America, they remain emotionally incapable of supporting actual restrictions on immigration, since in their minds that would mean embracing the same prejudices that were once directed against their parents and grandparents. They have a primal and (given the philo-Semitic character of this country) irrational fear that to criticize immigration at all would be tantamount to saying that they themselves don't belong in this country. Former Commentary editor Norman Podhoretz reflcted such sentiments when he remarked once that it would be "unseemly" for him as a Jew to side with immigration restrictionists.

Yet mass immigration is driving America's population to double within the lifetime of children born today. New projections point to a Majority Minority Nation in 2044. The deleterious environmental consequences of immigration-driven population growth will be profound, and will be felt by future generations of Americans - of all races, creeds, and colors.5

It is high time we dump the trite clichés6 and refocus on the America we are bequeathing to future generations. 

 


References

1.  She Was Never About Those Huddled Masses, by Roberto Suro, The Washington Post, July, 2009.

2. Reports of the Immigration Commission: Immigration Legislation, United States Immigration Commission, 1910, archived at University of Michigan.

Ellis Island History, Ellis Island Foundation.

Ellis Island, Ostrobothnian Osysseys.

Ellis Island, Prezi, 2013.

3. Measuring America: The Decennial Censuses from 1790-2000, US Census Bureau, 2002. From Appendix A, US population in 1880 was 50,155,783. US Population in December, 2014 was 319,444,000. Thus, population grew by a factor of 6.37.

4. Huddled Cliches, by Lawrence Auster, 1997,  revised 2008, 59 pages. Read Huddled Cliches in PDF format, or read Huddled Cliches in html format.

The book contains refutation of open borders cliches by topic: The Economic Argument, False Parallels with Other Cultures - The Myth of Hispanic Family Values, The Fallacy of “Conservative” Open Borders, and The Emotional Case.

5. Population Driven to Double by Mass Immigration, CAIRCO.

New Projections Point to a Majority Minority Nation in 2044, William H. Frey, Brookings Institution, December 12, 2014.

Environment and the consequences of immigration-driven population growth, CAIRCO.

6. How to Win The Immigration Debate, by Scipio Garling, Federation for American Immigration Reform, 1997, ISBN 0-935776-24-9. An immensely valuable resource. It is factual, comprehensive, and concise - the definitive resource.

Also available as an abridged pocket version: How to Win the Immigration Debate (Pocket edition), by Scipio Garling, Federation for American Immigration Reform, 2001, ISBN 978-0971007925.

 

Illegal alien labor in the Colorado housing industry

We don't have an illegal immigration problem - we have an illegal employment problem

Article by Lon Howell

On March 19, 2016, the Colorado Legislature once again failed to address the key issue that provides the impetus for illegal immigration in the United States. By a vote of 9 to 2, the members of the State, Veterans, and Military Affairs committee in the House killed HB 16-1202, a bill that would have required all businesses in Colorado with ten or more employers to participate in the Federal E-Verify program.

E-Verify is an easy to use program which verifies the work eligibility status of newly hired employees. E-Verify is fast and free, 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. immigration 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.

But the Colorado Legislature doesn't think it's a good idea to verify the legal work status of Colorado workers, and in fact has refused to require mandatory use of E-Verify for over a decade of legislation introduced almost every year going back to the special session of 2006 called by Governor Owens to address immigration issues.

Even though polls have consistently shown a great majority of Coloradans oppose illegal employment and it's a violation of Federal law since the Immigration and Reform Control Act (IRCA) Amnesty was enacted in 1986, a coalition of special interests rule the day.

Simply put, many Democrats look the other way on illegal immigration (either beholden to business interests or looking for future votes), while Republicans representing businesses interests love the cheap, illegal labor that has contributed to the widening income inequality between those at the top, and those on the bottom of the economic ladder.

2006 was the height of the housing boom, and the boom was enabled by large numbers of illegal aliens in the production housing business who had flooded over the border because they could readily find jobs in housing construction.

In that special Legislative Session in 2006, HB 1018 was introduced that would have required Colorado employers to use E-verify. The bill had the support of the Republican caucus and Governor Bill Owens, until a couple of Sunday morning visitors met with Owens and reminded him who he really worked for.

From the Denver Post on July 11, 2006:

“I’ve (Owens) gone to the wall for it, and I think if you talk to any of the legislators, they’ll tell you that”, Owens said. “I’ve talked very specifically with every businessperson who has discussed it with me and told them I’m strongly in favor of it” (i.e. HB 1018).

But Republican Al White, the sponsor of House Bill 1018, told his Republican colleagues that Owens was supportive of the bill until business leaders told him the price of a house might go up by 5 percent because home builders could lose illegal-immigrant labor.

“That tells me that business in Colorado is really not serious about doing away with illegal immigration in this state,” White said. “And if that is the case, this whole special session is nothing but bull.”

Rep Lynn Hefley, R-Colorado Springs, said it bothered her “when business people come to talk to the Governor and tell him what needs to be done.”

She was referring to homebuilder Larry Mizel, who talked to Owens on Sunday.

“We know, and names were named here, who came and gives big bucks to the party. It’s my party too, and I came here for us to do a job, and I’m ashamed of us,” Hefley said.

So far in the 2006 election cycle, Mizel has donated $29,150 to Republican political action committees and candidates and another $25, 000 to the Republican National Committee.

Larry Mizel is the CEO of MDC Holdings, the parent company of Richmond Homes, one of the largest production home builders in Colorado with operations in other states as well. Accompanying Mr. Mizel at his Sunday morning meeting with the Governor was lawyer Norman Brownstein, chief lobbyist for the home building industry in Colorado, who Ted Kennedy once referred to as “the 101st Senator”.

Pay to play. Apparently $54,150 more than gets you a seat at the table - you get to pick the menu too. The rest of us are in the Burger King drive thru. But most significantly, that's how the ruling political class maintains the status quo.

Nationally from 2000 to 2007 when the housing boom occurred, the illegal immigration population increased from about 7.9 million to 12.2 million, according to the PEW Research Center. The housing market started to soften in 2007 and then collapsed in 2008 taking the entire economy with it. During the next 5 years until housing again picked up, the illegal immigration population actually dropped by a about a million, to about 11.2 million in 2011 which was the bottom of the housing market in the meltdown.


[CAIRCO note: recent immigration trends reported by the Census Bureau and PEW Research Center may be reasonably questioned. CAIRCO also contends that the actual numbers of illegal aliens in the United States are vastly underreported.]

While it can be said the collapse of the economy in 2008 eliminated jobs in all sectors of the economy and coincided with the decline of illegal immigration, no sector of the economy was hit harder than the housing business going from 1.8 million housing starts to under 400,000.


By 2015 with housing recovering to the point of another boom cycle, illegal Mexican immigration increased significantly by 740,000 nationally. After falling or growing little in recent years, the number of Mexican immigrants (and illegal aliens) again seems to be growing significantly.1

The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) is projecting a housing start level in 2016 of 1.26 million units nationally. Colorado and the Front Range in particular is currently rated one of the hottest housing markets in the country, with year-over-year appreciation from January 2015 to January 2016 of 10.9 percent.2

In Colorado 22 percent of the illegal workforce (or about 26,000) is in construction, more than any other single sector of the economy, according to the Census Bureau. From the foregoing statistics, it's clear that there is a direct correlation between the illegal population increase (workforce) and the labor requirements of the production housing industry.3

It also tells you why the powerful and politically connected home building industry in Colorado has been able to thwart any attempts to put the brakes on illegal employment. The industry is simply addicted to using cheap, illegal labor and has no interest in changing that, because any change in the status quo is going to adversely affect its profits.

As Representative Al White said in 2006, “business in Colorado is really not serious about doing away with illegal immigration....”, and the business most interested in exploiting cheap, illegal labor in Colorado (and thus promoting illegal immigration) is the production housing industry.

By the numbers, its clear illegal immigration is a product of illegal employment, but nobody wants to talk about it. As the Great Recession demonstrated, if there are no jobs here for illegals, then there will be no illegal immigrants coming here (and in fact they will leave, as verified by the actual drop of one million during the Great Recession). But even though it's been illegal to hire illegal aliens in the United States since 1986, the law is rarely applied, and the illegal hiring goes on with impunity. Enforcement is weak if non-existent, and the fact is the financial rewards far outweigh the risk of being busted for employing illegal aliens.

The housing industry is perfectly set up for utilizing illegal alien labor. Few may realize it, but a home building business like Shea Homes or Richmond Homes (Mizel's company) have relatively few employees consisting of management and administrative/sales personnel – the homes themselves are built by subcontractors. Many times there are subcontractors working for subcontractors working for even more subcontractors. A typical “framing contractor” contracts with the builder to frame the house supplying the materials and labor on a “turnkey basis”, then contracts out the framing labor to yet another “contractor”, who then “contracts” with individual crews who are more often than not illegal alien workers.

There is very little accountability, and lots of plausible deniability. And the dirty little secret that nobody wants to acknowledge (particularly liberals who are supposed to be in support of the working class) is that many of these illegal aliens are exploited with very low pay and no workplace safeguards such as worker's compensation.

It's now conceded by virtually all concerned with this issue that the 1986 Amnesty has been a failure. Amnesty was granted, but now we have 12 million to 30 million illegal aliens here as opposed to 3 million in 1986. Weak enforcement of the laws prohibiting the employment of illegal alien workers, along with inadequate border enforcement allow companies to hire illegals instead of American workers. Trump wants to address that with his wall – but is that closing the barn door after the horse is out? Interior enforcement and E-Verify is a necessary component of comprehensive immigration control.

But the biggest failure, according to Doris Meissner of the Migration Policy Institute, was the bill simply misjudged the high demand for immigrant labor in the United States. “Congress didn't foresee at the time that employers would want more immigrants in the years ahead.” Meissner says.

The plain and simple fact is cheap labor will always be in higher demand than more expensive labor when producing the same product, and cheap labor is what the housing industry gets in utilizing illegal aliens. Most of our consumer goods today are made in China or other countries where labor costs are low (our manufacturing jobs have been outsourced). We can't import our houses, so instead the housing business imports cheap illegal labor where a significant portion of that labor money is not spent here in the US but sent back to Mexico and other countries in the form of remittances.

The Colorado Legislature is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Instead of addressing the problem at its source, i.e. illegal employment, and passing legislation like HB 16-1202 mandating E-Verify, the Legislature (and the Governor, regardless of party) enables and continues the problem by doing the bidding of the ruling political class and its parochial economic interests.

The 1986 Immigration Amnesty was an abysmal failure for many reasons, but indisputably the biggest reason was its failure to address the demand for low wage labor (and thus enabling illegal immigration) by mandating an effective mechanism to verify legal employment status.

Regrettably, the Legislature has not learned the lessons of history, and seems bent on pursuing a failed policy enabling and perpetuating our addiction to cheap illegal labor.

 

Lon Howell has 16 years experience working in the production housing business in the Denver area for a number of companies. No longer in the business, the last major project he worked on before the housing collapse as a Project Superintendent was the 140 unit Water Tower project in Arvada developed by the Arvada Urban Renewal Authority.  By personal observation, his conservative estimate was that at least 50 percent of the construction labor force on the government sponsored project were illegal aliens. 

 


 

References

1. Current Population Survey (CPS), US Census BureauCenter for Immigration Studies.

2. Core Logic.

3. Migration Policy Institute (MPI) analysis of U.S. Census Bureau Data from the 2013 American Community Survey (ACS).

 

CAIRCO Research

Appallingly dishonest Pew study on immigration trend from Mexico - Massive spike in net migration from Mexico since 2014, Daniel Horowitz, Conservative Review / American Renaissance, November 23, 2015.

How many illegal aliens reside in the United States?

Legal resources on immigration

E-Verify program

Economic costs of legal and illegal immigration

In-state college tuition for illegal aliens

"In-state tuition" is the college tuition that a resident pays to a public college or university in their home state. This is typically much less than the tuition charged to students who come from out-of-state. Allowing an illegal alien student to pay less than an American student is wrong, yet this has been promoted in Congress under the DREAM act. It is also being promoted in a number of states across the country, including, unfortunately, Colorado.

Under U.S. law, illegal aliens may not hold a job in the United States. Thus, tax dollars expended on higher education illegal aliens to prepare them for professional careers only draws more illegal aliens to those states offering in-state tuition.

When an illegal alien is granted in-state tuition and admission to a state university, he or she is directly competing with American students for that educational slot. This competition is unfairly biased against American students in other states who must pay out-of-state tuition to attend the university, while the illegal alien student is given in-state tuition preference.

In-state tuition for illegal aliens is a violation of Federal Law. Federal Law Title 8, Chapter 14, Sec. 1623 states:

"an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State... for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit."

Important points against giving instate tuition to 'undocumented students'

  • Giving in-state tuition to illegal aliens rewards criminal behavior and entices even more illegal immigration.
     
  • It is illegal for illegal aliens to work in the United States. Even if they have a taxpayer-subsidized college degree.
     
  • As there are only a fixed number of classroom seats, giving in-state tuition to illegal aliens will displace deserving American students of their higher education.
     
  • In-state college tuition for illegal aliens gives benefits to adults or nearly-adults over the age of 18 whose parents are also illegal aliens. Recipients of the rewards are not grade-school "youngsters". Taxpayers pay the difference.
     
  • Federal law mandates that if instate rates are given to illegals, those rates must also be given to all applicants to Colorado's colleges and universities from the other 49 states (see above). Although the law is not actively enforced, giving in-state tuition to illegal aliens is a clear violation of federal law.
     
  • In-state tuition for illegals is in fact an amnesty disguised as an educational initiative.
     
  • College entrants slots are fixed and limited. In-state tuition for illegal aliens places U.S. citizens in direct competition with adult illegal aliens for limited slots and tuition benefits.
     
  • Giving in-state college tuition to adult illegal aliens would unfairly give them benefits not given to American citizens in other states ( e.g., war veterans).
     
  • Providing in-state tuition to illegal aliens tells legally applying foreign students they are suckers for not becoming illegal aliens.
     

The 2013 illegal alien tuition bill (SB13-033) was signed into law on April 29, 2013. It went overboard to provide financial aid to illegal alien students.

  • This bill makes illegal aliens eligible for College Opportunity Trust funds and full institutional financial aid.
     
  • The bill also exempts persons receiving educational services or benefits from providing any required documentation of lawful presence in the United States. This specifically overrides 2006 HB 1023 - the most important immigration sanity bill to come out of the 2006 special legislative session.
     
    HB 1023 requires each applicant who applies for public benefits to affirm that they are lawfully present in the country.

More information on instate tuition for 'immigrants'

From a January 14, 2013 Denver Post article: Colorado Democrats back in-state tuition break for illegal immigrants [aliens]

...the College Opportunity Fund scholarship, which is a subsidy given to all Colorado students who get the in-state rate. The subsidy, which is $1,116 for a student taking 18 credit hours, works as a sort of voucher, going with every student to their college of choice, and was created as a legal workaround so the state could increase funding to colleges without it counting against revenue limits under the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights.

Under current tuition rates, an in-state student in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Colorado-Boulder taking 18 credit hours pays $5,144 per semester. With the College Opportunity Fund scholarship added in, that rate falls to $4,028.

An out-of-state student, meanwhile, pays $14,976 in the same example...50% of Colorado University applicants come from out of state and from out of the country.

Tuition rates have been going up with no end in sight. Tuition rates at CU went up 15% in 2003 and there was talk of raising 2004 tuition by another 40%. (March 25, 2004 Boulder Daily Camera story, "CU pulls big from outside Colorado"). On March 4, 2013, ten years later, the Denver Post ran the story: CU, CSU wish lists include 9 percent tuition hikes for you.

Illegal aliens now pour in from all over the world at a rate of more than 80,000 a month. A 2003 Wal-Mart immigration sweep netted large numbers from Mexico, the Czech Republic, Mongolia, Brazil, Poland, Russia, Uzbekistan, Georgia, Lithuania and some from from African and Asian countries. Because of virtually no internal enforcement, illegal aliens typically bring their entire families into the U.S. There is a potential for a vast number of illegal aliens to receive in-state tuition at taxpayer expense. Thus, instate college tuition for illegals would give an adult illegal alien from Uzbekistan and all the nearly 200 countries of the world benefits that would be denied to American citizens - an absurdity.

If the claimed 1,000 illegals graduating from Colorado high schools were to enroll at CU-Boulder at in-state rates for four years, revenue losses would exceed $65 million (out-of-state citizen tuition rates = $20,346; instate rates = $4,022; loss of one four-year student = $65,296 million.)

Colorado's elected officials are now voting on issues influenced by illegal aliens and their supporters residing in the districts of the state elected officials. For example. State Senator Norma Anderson voted to give in-state tuition to illegals because "I have many Hispanics now residing in my district". Democratic representation of Colorado's citizens is being eroded by ethnic pandering that emphasizes illegal aliens.

Arguments for in-state tuition

Claim: "Yes, but children of undocumented workers should not be punished for what their parents did."

Response: So, Colorado's and America's citizen students should be punished for the illegal acts of illegal-alien parents residing in Colorado?"

  • Since when is the state government in the business of coming to the rescue of adults whose parents committed illegal or imprudent acts?
  • Those adult illegal aliens need to go back to mom and dad and hold them accountable.
  • In the case of Mexican adult illegal aliens, they can easily return to Mexico to receive a virtually free college education at the University of Mexico.

Perspective on in-state tuition for 'undocumented' students

The following Letter to the Editor was published in the Colorado Daily in 2004. It is still relevant today.

Editor:

It's curious how "objective" news stories can be written in just about any way it author preconceives things. Take, for example, Adam Ewing's story, A DREAM or a nightmare? Instead of it having been written in sob-story fashion leaning in favor of giving away the store to illegal aliens, consider this perhaps more accurate rendering:

A dream or a NIGHTMARE?

For illegal aliens, there are revered stories of breaking into the U.S. and then being rewarded with all kinds of goodies and freebies. But for Susan, who lives with her family just across the border in Nebraska, that story is a nightmare.

A bill currently working its way through Congress, the NIGHTMARE Act, would deny Susan, a veteran and Purple Heart recipient, the opportunity to go to college in Colorado at in-state rates. But it would give those rates to illegal aliens from every country in the world. Currently, federal law requires that if illegal aliens are given in-state rates, the same must be given to U.S. citizens from the other states. The proposed bill would eliminate that provision.

Hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens would be denied in-state rates while illegal aliens, such as Maria X, a Mexican illegal alien whose parents illegally sent her north to mooch a free K-12 education, would be awarded that benefit. As a Mexican citizen, Ms. X, who is eligible for a virtually free college education in Mexico, would get the chance to attend Colorado colleges at in-state rates. (X already is attending an undisclosed Colorado college, but it is undetermined at this point if she committee fraud to get in or if her two-year-old child, as is typical of illegal-alien mothers, was a Medicaid freebie.)

Such a measure would fulfill Maria's parents' dream, but it would mean a financial nightmare for Susan's parents, fourth-generation Nebraskan family farmers. "Out of common sense and fairness, our laws should allow United State citizens at least parity with illegal aliens not to mention the outrage that American citizens would not be given first priority," words Susan says she wishes but doesn't expect to hear from the Hispandering president of the United States.

The NIGHTMARE Act would allow illegal aliens, who unlawfully entered the U.S., to be eligible to receive in-state tuition rates and a six-year, temporary legal resident status, which could lead to U.S. Citizenship. The illegal-alien student could become a permanent legal resident if he or she completes two years of school toward a degree.

But until this absurdity is resolved in favor of U.S. citizens, Susan and her like are trapped in a kind of no-citizen's-need-apply, void, sandwiched between right and wrong. "I get tired of people asking if I am an illegal alien," Susan said with frustration. "I feel bad that I have to lie to be accepted, but maybe with a return to some common sense, I will be able to get at least some of the benefits handed out to illegal aliens," she added.

For Susan and others like her, that would only be fair. And while greatly disheartened and not terribly optimistic, Susan's resolve to bring some sense to the nonsensical remains steadfast. "We must wake up from this nightmare and get real," said Susan, having just returned from a long 12-hour day attending to livestock and mending fences. Removing her dusty hat and wiping the sweat from her brow, she paused and rhetorically sighed aloud, "Is this my reward for serving my country?"

 

Islam - learn more about Islamic terrorism, Islamic conquest, and ISIS

The threat of Islamic / Muslim terrorism and ISIS to America is demonstrated and real. The following articles illustrate the threat that the mainstream media has downplayed:

Demographics is destiny. There are many who contend that Islam is incompatible with Western Democracy, let alone American and European Judeo - Christian cultural heritage. Resources providing additional information are listed below.

Reference websites on islam and terrorism

Here are a number of websites that focus on the islam terrorist threat and cultural incompatibilities:

Selected websites and blogs covering islamic terrorist, cultural, and other issues

Journals

Articles

Learn more about the political system of Islam. The short book, A Self-Study Course on Political Islam Level 1, is particularly informative. Available in paperback, PDF, audio CD, and MP3. (CAIRCO.org is not affiliated or associated with this organization.)
  • What Makes Islam So Successful?, An Inquiry Into Islam, November, 2016. 28 points - well worth reading.
  • News flash: Where you live is the House of War, by Robert Curry, American Thinker, June 7, 2017.
  • The Progression of Sharia and Jihad in Non-Muslim Countries, by Dr. Peter Hammond, Geller Report, September 3, 2017.
  • Does Trump Grasp the Reality of Radical Islam?, Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review, December 31, 2016. An excellent overview of Islam and the mideast situation.
  • Combating Political Islam, by David Reaboi, Kyle Shideler, Claremont Institute, December 9, 2016. Another substantive overview of Islam and the mideast situation.
  • Who’s Up for a Crusade? ;by Joe Ragonese, U.S. Defense Watch, May 27, 2017. Good perspective.
  • Essential Islam, Dr. Brad Lyles, Canada Free Press, March 23, 2016.
  • 4 Stages of Islamic Conquest, Civilus Defendus.
  • The unchanging reality of Muslim terror—so long as Muslims remain among us, by Lawrence Auster, 2004:

    We will have terrorist attacks and threats of terrorists attacks and inconvenient and humiliating security measures and the disruption of ordinary activities FOREVER, as long as Muslims are in the West in any significant numbers. The Muslim terrorists are part and parcel of the Muslim community. According to a survey reported in the Scotsman, 24 percent of Muslims in Britain (I never describe them as “British Muslims”) believe the July 2005 London bombings were justified. Imagine that. Not only do these Muslims in Britain support terrorism against Britain, they’re not afraid to say so openly to a pollster! The unchangeable fact is that wherever there is a sizable Muslim community there will be a very large number of terror supporters and therefore—inevitably—actual terrorists as well.

    This is our future, FOREVER, unless we stop Muslim immigration and initiate a steady out-migration of Muslims from the West until their remaining numbers are a small fraction of what they are now and there are no true believers among the ones that remain. Travelers from Muslim countries must be tightly restricted as well. Muslims must be essentially locked up inside the Muslim lands, with only carefully screened individuals allowed into the non-Muslim world.

    The enemy are among us, in America, in Britain, in the West, and will remain so until we remove them from the West and indeed from the entire non-Muslim world. As extreme as this sounds, it is a no-brainer. There is no other solution. All other responses to this problem add up to meaningless hand-wringing. The hand-wringing will go on FOREVER, along with the terrorist attacks and the threat of terrorist attacks, until we take the ONLY STEPS that can actually and permanently end the threat.

  • Poland: Refusing to Import Muslims is Only Proven Counter-Terror Method, Breitbart, June 6, 2017.
  • A Real Islam Policy for a Real America, Lawrence Auster, February 8, 2009.
  • Sharia Uber Alles, American Thinker, May 4, 2013.
  • Ten Arabic Words: A challenge to national security professionals engaged in the Global War On Terror, Gates of Vienna, May 20, 2016.
  • America as the last man standing, speech by Geert Wilders, Independent Republic, December 7, 2009.
  • How Much of our Culture Are We Surrendering to Islam?, by Giulio Meotti, Gatestone Institute, June 21, 2016.
  • Islam Is Not a Civilization, by Paul Eidelberg, American Thinker, September 4, 2016:

    ... The social philosopher Lou Harris offers a broader assessment of Islam in Civilization and Its Enemies. Contemptuous of the cultural relativism propagated by American colleges and universities, Harris means by civilization a standard of behavior that can be applied across cultures and across history. He sees civilization as having four prerequisites: a stable social order, the co-operation of individuals pursuing their own interests, the ability to tolerate or socialize with one’s neighbors, and a hatred of violence...
  • Muslim migration is "the all-time biggest Trojan Horse", Ted Belman, Canada Free Press, September 22, 2016.
  • What Does ISIS Hope to Achieve With Random Violence?, November 24, 2016:

    The bigger goal, the central Islamic goal is, of course, to bring non-Muslims under the rule of Islamic law. That goal is laid out clearly and unmistakably in standard Islamic doctrine. But why does ISIS think that randomly blowing up and shooting infidels will achieve this?

    The strategy ISIS and other orthodox Muslims are now following was laid out by by the late Sheikh Abu-Bakr Naji. His big insight was this: It is impossible now to achieve Islam's prime directive the traditional way, which was to invade countries and establish Islamic law by force. This method may have worked fine when non-Muslim countries were unconcerned with things happening in other parts of the world. Back in those days, using the traditional method, Islam successfully established most of the now-existing 56 Muslim countries. But these days non-Muslim countries are too powerful militarily and would stop it.

    So in 2005, Naji proposed a new strategy: He said the way to ultimately accomplish the prime directive is to fight the entire non-Muslim world everywhere at once, and to create an increasing occurrence of ever-more-violent events so non-Muslims everywhere would feel insecure and would eventually live in constant fear of violent death. They would lose trust in their government's ability to protect them. They would become exhausted from insecurity and fear, and would then be willing to embrace Islamic rule just to make the violence stop and to be able to live in some sort of peace...

  • Why I Refuse to Lie About Islam, Bruce Bawer, PJ Media, June 5, 2017.

  • Propaganda Then and Now, Understanding the Threat, January 5, 2016.
  • How Muslims Take Control of America, by Amil Imani, American Thinker, June 11, 2017.

Books

Reports

CAIRCO Research

 

Videos

Paul Weston, CPAC Live Stream, March 3, 2016:

 

Political Islam: video exposes and research (videos also available on Youtube):

 

A Rational Study of Radical Islam, by Dr. Bill Warner.

 

Jihad vs Crusades, by Bill Warner, PhD:

 

Winning with Precise Words: A guide to understanding Islam

 

 

 

More videos

 

Islamic terminology you should know

abrogation
Older verses in the Koran that have been annulled and replaced by newer verses. Approximately 225 versus have been abrogated. Only 43 of the Koran's 114 suras (chapters) are without abrogated or abrogating verses. Most of the peaceful passages of the Koran were written earlier and were later abrogated and replaced by violent, intolerant, and hateful passages.

allahu akbar
"Allah is greatest". The phrase is referred to as Takbir, and is used in religious rituals as well as during Islamic battle of conquest. Issued by the prophet Muhammad at the Battle of Badr on March 13th, 624 A.D.

apostasy
Leaving, departing away from, or deserting one's religion. The penalty under Islam for apostasy is death.

creeping sharia
The gradual encroachment and implementation of Sharia in non-Muslim lands (Dar al-Harb or House of War). Often implemented willingly by non-Muslims (infidels) - that is: willing or voluntary dhimmi. For example: prayer rooms in workplaces; halal food in public school cafeterias.

Dar al-Harb
"House of War". Territory not in a state of submission to Allah and not ruled by Sharia law. According to adherents of Islam, the world is divided into two parts: the House of Submission (Islamic Sharia) and the House of War. All lands that have not submitted to Sharia constitute the House of War - the Dar al-Harb.

Dar al-Islam
"House of Submission". Territory ruled by Sharia law.

Dar al-Sulh
"House of Truce". Territory inhabited by Muslims but not governed by Sharia law; territory allied with Muslim states.

dhimmi
"Protected". Non-Muslim inhabitants of Islamic territories subjected to discriminatory laws, humiliation, and the exhorbitant jizya tax.

dhimmitude
The status of Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians conquered but not killed or converted by jihad.

da'wah
Deception in order to pave the way to Islamization, as opposed to Jihad, which operates to overtly terrorize and to subject. Da'wah involves achieving demographic occupation and consists of three facets: high immigration, high fertility (birth rate), as well as large-scale conversion.

duality
Islamic logic in which two contradictory things can both be true - in particular, the division of the entire world between Islam and the kafirs. Regarding the Koran: the time of Mohammed in Mecca (the early part) and Mohammed in Medina (the later part). In essence, there are two Korans, one written in Mecca and the second Koran written in Medina.

fatwa
An Islamic religious decree. This can be an interpretation of Islamic law, or in the extreme, a call for a death sentence according to Islamic law. For example, the fatwas issued against the Danish cartoonist Salman Rushdie and Pamela Geller.

halal
"Permissible" food under Islamic Sharia law. The animal's throat is slit and the animal is strung up upside down so that the animal bleeds out while it is still alive and conscious.

hijra (hijrah)
Jihad via immigration. Considered under Islam to be a meritorious act. E.g., the current Hijra into Europe.

Islam
"Submission" or "surrender". Submission is political as well as religious. Islam demands that kafirs submit in every aspect of public life. Every part of kafir culture is an offense to Allah.

Islamist
An advocate or supporter of a political movement that favors reordering government and society in accordance with Islamic Sharia law. Someone who would like to see Sharia (Islamic) law implemented as the law of the land.

Islamophobia
A fake construct invented by jihadists in order to confuse non-Muslim infidels - effective because a phobia is understood to be an unreasonable fear. Islamophobia is an imaginary mental disorder; fear of Islam is reality-based awareness. Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, a former imam, writes that “this loathsome term is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.”

jihad
Violent struggle to bring the rule of Sharia law to new lands or to restore it to lands once previously ruled by Sharia.

jihadist
An Islamic terrorist. Someone who wages jihad through violent means against unarmed kafirs in the House of War - the Dar al-Harb. (In accordance with dhimmitude and creeping Sharia, the words 'Islamist' and 'terrorist' have been banned by the Associated Press.)

kafir
Kafir is what the Koran and Islam call unbelievers. A kafir is not merely someone who does not agree with Islam, but a kafir is disgusting and evil - e.g., the lowest form of life. Kafirs can be killed, raped, tortured, cheated, and lied to.

moderate Muslim
Kafirs want to divide Muslims into "moderate" Muslims and "bad" Muslim terrorists. Yet a jihadist who is like Mohammed is by definition a moderate Muslim. Thus suicide bombers are moderate Muslims, according to Mohammed.

religion of peace
"Islam" means "submission". When everyone has submitted to Islam or is subject to Sharia rule, everyone will live in Dar al-Islam, the House of Submission. At that time the House of War, Dar al-Harb, will no longer exist, and only at that time will the world be at peace under universal Sharia rule.

Sharia
Islamic law including the codified commands and precedents from the Koran and Sunnah (the teachings, traditions, and example of Muhammad).

taqiyya
Deception practiced by Muslims to deceive non-Muslims about their intentions or capabilities. Lying; dissimulation. See Twelve Tactics of Taqiyya.

tawriya
A form of deception practiced by Muslims to deceive non-Muslims about their intentions or capabilities. This form of deception involves ambivalence and double meanings.

trilogy
The Trilogy contains three books. The Koran is what Mohammed said that the angel Gabriel said that Allah said. But the Koran alone does not contain enough guidance for one to be a Muslim. The Koran repeatedly says that all of the world should imitate Mohammed in every way. Mohammed’s words and deeds are called the Sunna, which is comprised of two complimentary texts - the Sira (Mohammed’s biography) and Hadith (the Traditions of Mohammed).

Learn more: The Essential Arabic Muslims Don't Want You To Know, Family Security Matters, November 30, 2017.

 

References:

 

Final articles

 

Learn more about Political Islam

Learn more about the political system of Islam. The short book, A Self-Study Course on Political Islam Level 1, is particularly informative, even to those who understand a bit about Islam. It is published by the Center for the Study of Political Islam, and is available as a paperback, PDF download, audio CD, and MP3 audio download. The audio version is informative and very listenable. Highly recommended. (CAIRCO.org is not affiliated with the Center for the Study of Political Islam and does not receive any remuneration from them.)

Language, bilingual education and balkanization

The following articles reflect on the ramifications of multi-lingualism in the United States.

One Reporter's Opinion – Press '1' for English, by George Putnam, Newsmax.com, July 8, 2005

It is this reporter's opinion that to be eligible for naturalization, an applicant must be required to read, write and speak basic English. This requirement has more or less fallen by the wayside, yet every poll I have seen reveals that between 80 percent and 90 percent of those polled vote for that requirement.

...S.I. Hayakawa has said, "A common language is the glue that holds a people and a nation together."

Michael Savage, when asked what keeps us united, answered, "Our common English language." And he emphasizes on every program: "Borders, Language, Culture."

Former Colorado Gov. Richard Lamm has said: "A nation is much more. It is a state of mind, a shared vision, a recognition that we are all in this together. A nation needs a common language as it needs a common currency."

The scholar Seymour Lipset has said, "The histories of bilingual and bicultural societies that do not assimilate point to histories of turmoil, tension and tragedy." As example: Canada, Belgium, Malaysia and Lebanon....

As Gov. Lamm puts it, "The invaders are attempting to turn America into a bilingual, multilingual and bicultural country. We are adding a second underclass – unassimilated, undereducated and antagonistic – to our population."

Lamm cites the ancient Greeks, who believed they belonged to the same race, possessed a common language and literature, worshipped the same gods, yet these bonds were not strong enough to overcome two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions. Greece fell because it put the emphasis on the "PLURIBUS" instead of the "UNUM."...

President Teddy Roosevelt, in 1915, said it best: "There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities."...

Read more of the article.

 

It is a Blessing for an Individual to be Bilingual; It is a Curse for a Society to be Bilingual, by Richard D. Lamm

I signed the original Bilingual Education Bill in Colorado and believed in its goal, which was to teach Spanish-speaking students English. I believe that the evidence coming out of California and Arizona deserves thoughtful consideration and debate now that Ron Unz has got the issue on the ballot. But there is one argument that I believe is not only false, but also dangerous. It is said because it is an advantage for an individual to be bilingual that it is also an asset for a society to be bilingual.

I suggest while it is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. Individuals are bilingual in a range of languages and it only enriches them and it is true that our Contential nation is linguistically illiterate. Societies, however, are generally bilingual in two competing and nation-dividing languages.

The Southwest, and to a lesser extent, the whole nation, is in danger of backing into becoming a bilingual nation without debate or forethought. This seems to me to be a grave mistake. I look around the world in vain for an example of where bilingual nations live in peace with themselves.

One scholar, Seymour Martin Lipset, put it this way:

The histories of bilingual and bicultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy. Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, Lebanon-all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with its Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans.

A nation is much more than a place on a map. It is a state of mind, a shared vision, and a recognition that we are all in this together. A nation needs a common language as it needs a common currency. You have to share something with your neighbors beside a zip code. We need many things to tie us together, but one indispensable element must be that we all speak one common language.

Just as a citizen can't pay their bills with Pesos or Euros, so also a nation needs to share its joys and discuss its issues and problems in a common language. Immanuel Kant once said, "language and religion are the dividers." It is the glory of America that religion no longer separates us, but I suggest that language is a much deeper and more intractable separating factor.

America has been successful because we have become one people. There is a "social glue" of a common language, a shared history, uniting symbols that tie us together. We live under a common flag, which we honor, and salute.

Nations need cultural ties that bind also. That culture was not fixed in cement with the arrival of the Pilgrims, but is always changing and evolving. We can remember Cinqo de Mayo as we do Saint Patrick's Day and October fest and we can buy more salsa that catsup without endangering our national soul. But we must avoid becoming a Hispanic Quebec; we must stay one people and one nation.

Current immigration patterns are different from our historical experience in three important respects. Immigration historically was a mix of many nations and languages; now it it over half from Spanish speaking countries and in many parts of the country you can live your entire life without speaking English. Second, immigrants historically came from great distances and had to throw themselves into a new nation; today people can spend every vacation in their home country and hold dual citizenship. Mexican immigrants can now vote for both George Bush and Vicente Fox. Thirdly, immigration pressures were mitigated by significant periods of little or no immigration which gave the melting pot a chance to melt. Today we take in four times the historic rate of immigrants without pause.

Some people say Switzerland is an example of a bilingual country, but that claim does not survive close scrutiny. Switzerland has divided its geography into three separate areas, each of which has a common and dominant language -- one French, one German, and one Italian.

America took in many races, religions and nationalities and made them one nation. Let us debate the best methods of teaching English to our children but let us be careful with our metaphors. It is a significant asset for an individual to be bilingual, but a path of conflict and tension to have a bilingual nation.

Richard D. Lamm is former governor of Colorado >A version of this article was published in the Rocky Mountain News under the title One nation, one tongue, August 8, 2002.

 

Bilingual Deception, by Al Knight, The Denver Post, October 13, 2002

Failed educational programs, like bilingual instruction, have no right to eternal life. Coloradans have every right to dictate how taxes should be spent and can rest assured that it is entirely possible to have parental choice, local control of education and Amendment 31 all at the same time.

"The sponsors of Amendment 31 included language that makes individual teachers and administrators financially liable if they grant, "in error," the request of parents who ask to have their children enrolled in bilingual classes. This is not, as opponents suggest, a Draconian provision. The amendment is clear. Exceptions to "English immersion" are to be rare. Only three categories of students can request a waiver. Administrators, school board members and teachers can easily avoid problems by following the law.... Importantly, without some enforcement provisions, administrators, board members and teachers would be virtually invited to undermine the intent of the amendment."

Read more of the article.

 

Teach 'em in Spanish. Why not in Chinese, or Vietnamese?, by Charles L. King, September 12, 2002.

"After three to five to seven years of so-called 'bilingual education,' far too many students --most, I dare say-- emerge after years essentially illiterate in English. A common language is the basis, the foundation, for national cultural identity, an identity essential to national unity in any country. Multi-lingual nations, such as India, or an officially bilingual nation, such as Canada and Belgium, are divided nations...

Immigrants who come here to enjoy our economic prosperity must--for their good and our good as a people with a common socio-cultural-political heritage, learn English. As Americans we, of course, respect their culture. But by the same token we have every right to expect them to respect ours. Unless immigrants learn the most intimate expression of our culture, the English language, they will always feel estranged from us...

We have no obligation whatsoever to teach immigrants or their children here the language (Spanish in almost every case, though there were speakers of 327 other languages living in the United States, according to the 1990 Census ) of the country from which they emigrated; that was the obligation of their home countries.

One Reporter's Opinion – Press '1' for English

By George Putnam, Newsmax.com, July 8, 2005

It is this reporter's opinion that to be eligible for naturalization, an applicant must be required to read, write and speak basic English. This requirement has more or less fallen by the wayside, yet every poll I have seen reveals that between 80 percent and 90 percent of those polled vote for that requirement.

And why not? When people move to America from other parts of the world, they adopt America's culture and heritage. Why not the language also? Experts on the subject agree. S.I. Hayakawa has said, "A common language is the glue that holds a people and a nation together."

Michael Savage, when asked what keeps us united, answered, "Our common English language." And he emphasizes on every program: "Borders, Language, Culture."

Former Colorado Gov. Richard Lamm has said: "A nation is much more. It is a state of mind, a shared vision, a recognition that we are all in this together. A nation needs a common language as it needs a common currency."

The scholar Seymour Lipset has said, "The histories of bilingual and bicultural societies that do not assimilate point to histories of turmoil, tension and tragedy." As example: Canada, Belgium, Malaysia and Lebanon.

And here in America, California witnesses daily the cracks breaking apart, with 33 million Mexicans imposing their culture and their need to speak Spanish.

Is it any wonder that people like Terry Graham, an American citizen brutally assaulted last year by a Mexican national at an immigration forum held in Denver, shouts, "BANISH SPANISH!" Terry, like many Americans, says she is sick and tired of being force-fed in Spanish – being 'Hispanified' and 'Latinized.' In short, she is tired of pressing '1' for English.

As Gov. Lamm puts it, "The invaders are attempting to turn America into a bilingual, multilingual and bicultural country. We are adding a second underclass – unassimilated, undereducated and antagonistic – to our population."

Lamm cites the ancient Greeks, who believed they belonged to the same race, possessed a common language and literature, worshipped the same gods, yet these bonds were not strong enough to overcome two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions. Greece fell because it put the emphasis on the "PLURIBUS" instead of the "UNUM."...

Learning the English language is, without a doubt, the first step in assimilation into our American culture. If we lose our single language, it is sure to create confusion, conflict, separation and, God forbid, violence. We must force our school system to teach English as the national language. We cannot continue to permit schools to teach bilingual courses.

President Teddy Roosevelt, in 1915, said it best: "There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities."

And again in 1918, he said: "There can be no 50-50 Americanism in this country. There is room here for only 100 percent Americanism, only for those who are Americans and nothing more." Teddy had it right.

In order to be eligible for citizenship, you've got to read, write and speak English.

Read the complete article.

Libraries and Spanish language materials at taxpayer expense

Is the Denver Public Library system converting libraries to Spanish language libraries at taxpayer expense? Quite possibly. In fact, according to sources with whom CAIRCO's director has spoken, yes indeed!

(Updated 2005)

Retiring Library director Rick Ashton is a member of Reforma - an organization with a stated goal of "promoting development of Spanish-language and Latino/Hispanic oriented library collections". The results of this policy can already be seen in a number of Denver Library branches, where Spanish-language materials have displaced English-language materials.

On August 4, 2005, DPL head Rick Ashton stated on the Peter Boyles' radio talk show that library staff traveled to a Guadalahara, Mexico book fair (presumably to buy Novelas and other Spanish-language books). Ashton stated that expenses were paid by the "Guadalahara, book fair," not the library. A KHOW radio investigation discovered that Denver Public Library spent $12,472.98 on trips to the Guadalajara Book Fair in Mexico over the just last four years.

Dozens of additional questions demand answers.

On August 8, 2005, concerned citizens held a protest at the Denver Public Library. A letter was hand-delivered to the library demanding head librarian Rick Ashton's resignation. A copy of the letter was hand-delivered to Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper's office.

Update: An October 21, 2005 article announced that head librarian Ashton would retire.

Photos of the Novelas have been archived by CAIRCO, but are not displayed on this website which is viewable by the general public, including children.

'Novelas' in Denver public libraries - Spanish language porn

"Novela" is the name sometimes given to Spanish language pornographic comic books. These novellas have been brought into Denver Public Libraries, presumably at taxpayer expense, to replace English language books. These Novellas are pornographic and reflect serious violence against women. These have been brought into at least the following libraries: Athmar, Byers, Ross-Barnum, Woodbury, and Hadley.

This material is possibly illegal under Colorado law. See questions regarding DPL policy.

Update: in an August 24, 2005 Denver Post article, it was reported that four Novelas were discontinued because of the efforts of CAIR. The remaining Spanish-language material will be kept on the shelves.

Public Outrage

On August 8, 2005, the Coalition for A Closer Look (including the Colorado Minuteman Project, Sovereignty Colorado, and Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform) held a protest at the Denver Public Library. A letter was hand-delivered to the library demanding head librarian Rick Ashton's resignation. A copy of the letter was hand-delivered to Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper's office.

Public forums

Public forums were held from July 10 through July 21 at various branches. The purpose of these forums was to "soft sell" radical and dramatic changes to the Library system to the public. There were a half-dozen displays of the different library styles, with each display containing half of its material in Spanish. Here are pictures of the displays. Click on an image to for a larger view.

Central library display Childrens library display Language and Learning library display Contemporary library display Family library display Online library display

(The Denver Public Library has recently removed from their website material about the proposed library changes, and a comment form. You can still submit your comments here.)

Clandestine changes

Sources within the Denver Public Library (DPL) system told CAIR's director that:

  • Specific Denver Public Libraries are allegedly throwing out English books and replacing them with Spanish language books. This raises the question as to where the funding comes from for the new Spanish books.
  • Some of the Spanish language "books" brought in include novellas - pornographic comic books. Photos of the Novellas have been archived by CAIRCO, but are not displayed on this website which is viewable by the general public, including children.
  • The code name for Spanish language libraries is "Language and Learning Libraries".
  • It is rumored that the Blair-Caldwell African-American research library will be converted to a Language and Learning Library, and that a new Language and Learning Library will also be built.
  • By November, 2003, library staff began hearing rumors that some branches were going to be changed to Spanish language libraries.
  • On August 24, 2004, management started having meetings with staff to discuss the changes. Management also began to referring to "English speakers" and "senior citizens" as "non-dominant customers".
  • Rick Ashton, city librarian, allegedly wants a mill levy for library funding in order to move funding for the library system from under city control. Rick Ashton is allegedly negotiating with Mayor Hickenlooper to place the mill levy on the next November ballot. Mayor Hickenlooper is allegedly proposing a $40 million funding deal, with $25 million from the general fund and $15 million to be obtained from property taxes (an increase of $30/home/year). (See questions regarding funding).
  • The DPL is trying to find a way to give illegal aliens access to the library. Employees were verbally told to accept Mexican drivers' license. DPL allegedly worked for two months to be able to accept the bogus Matricula Counselar IDs - illegal to accept in Colorado - but the Denver City Attorney finally said no way.
  • DPL allegedly received a $500,000 grant. Management allegedly discussed using these funds to send staff to Mexico to "better learn Spanish". A possible source of this grant is a Carnegie Corporation 1999 grant of $500,000 for "Special acquisitions for foreign-language collections; ... The population of Denver is changing fast. The acquisition of new bilingual materials in Spanish, Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, Russian, and English is crucial in ensuring that the library keeps pace with public demand."
  • This is all driven by federal money - according to some sources, the City allegedly falsified demographics to get LEAP money from the Department of Homeland Security.
  • Raises/promotions allegedly will not be given to anyone who does not speak Spanish.
  • A DPL employee was allegedly fired for releasing information to the media.

(The Denver Public Library has pulled material about the library changes, and the public comment form from their for these changes from their website. You can still submit your comments here.)

Articles - mismanaging the Denver Public Library

Library's Spanish outreach criticized
By Valerie Richardson, The Washington Times, August 1, 2005

A plan to redesign seven Denver Public Library branches with a Spanish-language focus has created a row over the library's role in light of the city's growing Spanish-speaking population.

At a series of public meetings last week, library officials said the "Language and Learning" branches would feature an increased Spanish-language book and periodical collection, a bilingual staff and classes for Spanish speakers on subjects such as English acquisition, high school equivalency and computers.

Head librarian Rick Ashton said the Language and Learning concept, which is being reviewed by the Library Commission and a 50-member advisory board, was required to address the needs of Denver's growing Spanish-speaking population....

...Language and Learning idea has met with resistance from those who say that the proposal is another step toward placing Spanish on an equal footing with English as the national language.

"The library is a purveyor primarily of written information, and it should be provided largely, say 95 percent, in the native language of our country, which is English," said Fred Elbel, president of Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform....

The Library Commission and advisory board are slated next month to give final comments, but critics contend that the plan is already in place.

Few Latinos attend Denver Public Library meetings
La Voz, July 27, 2005

Few monolingual Spanish-apeaking people attended the recent series of meeting organized by the Denver Public Library (DPL) to explain the new plan to expand services in Spanish. The lack of support could mean changes in the plan, and perhaps even its cancellation....

"I am truly sorry that, in sipte of our best efforts, so few Latinos came to our mettings," said Agnes Talamantez Carroll, an independent consulting helping DPL to promote the new plan...

Checked Out - Members of the Friends Foundation donated their lives to the library. Those days are over
By Stuart Steers, Westword, August 7, 2003

This article discusses mismanagement of the Denver Public Library by administrator Rick Ashton. It covers budget problems, abolishment of book sales, and throwing out of library books. This article provides an excellent background for understanding Ashton's intent to convert Denver's libraries to Spanish-language libraries.

Questions - Cooking the books?

Is the public being mislead about how funds are being used for Spanish language acquisitions? Here are questions that need to be answered.

Items of interest

  • Proposed library styles Proposed library styles - handout at public meetings during the week of July 10, 2005.
  • Proposed service plans Proposed service plans - handout at public meetings during the week of July 10, 2005
  • Denver demographics Denver demographics - handout at public meetings during the week of July 10, 2005
  • June 21, 2005 letter from Congressman Tom Tancredo to Denver Mayor Hickenlooper on the issue of Spanish language libraries at taxpayer expense.
  • June 22, 2005 response by Denver Mayor Hickenlooper to Congressman Tom Tancredo on the issue of Spanish language libraries at taxpayer expense.
  • Congressman Tom Tancredo's response to Denver Mayor Hickenlooper's June 22, 2005 letter.
  • Corona Research conducted focus groups in February and March 2005. Their findings were likely disappointing to the DPL. Current library patrons are not the intended beneficiaries of the "Language and Learning Libraries" and the findings indicate that the DPL will have to take additional steps to deal with their resistance to the proposed changes.
  • REFORMA is an organization whose mission is to promote development of Spanish-language and Latino/Hispanic oriented library collections and to support active recruitment of bilingual, bicultural library staff. Rick Ashton - Denver Public Library, is one of the dozens of metro-Denver members.

(The Denver Public Library has pulled material about the library changes, and the public comment form from their for these changes from their website. You can still submit your comments here.)

Library articles

Head librarian Ashton to resign, by Karen E. Crummy, The Denver Post, October 28, 2005
Library's Spanish outreach criticized, by Valerie Richardson, The Washington Times, August 1, 2005

A plan to redesign seven Denver Public Library branches with a Spanish-language focus has created a row over the library's role in light of the city's growing Spanish-speaking population.

At a series of public meetings last week, library officials said the "Language and Learning" branches would feature an increased Spanish-language book and periodical collection, a bilingual staff and classes for Spanish speakers on subjects such as English acquisition, high school equivalency and computers.

"The library is a purveyor primarily of written information, and it should be provided largely, say 95 percent, in the native language of our country, which is English," said Fred Elbel, president of Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform....

 

Matricula consular ID card

The Mexican matricula consular (illegal alien) ID card is now illegal in Colorado!

Mexican matricula consular ID card

When the Mexican government began issuing huge numbers of the non-secure Mexican matricula consular ID card in Colorado, the immediate reaction of the Colorado legislature was to pass HB-1224, the Colorado Secure and Verifiable Identity Document Act. You can read the entire bill on the Colorado Legislature website: Colorado Secure and Verifiable Identity Document Act (HB03-1224).

This was a notable step in the direction of immigration sanity.

 

It began in early October of 2002 when Denver Mayor Wellington Webb, without debate or public comment, ordered various City and County departments to accept the Mexican matricula consular ID card as valid identification.

U.S. Congressman Tom Tancredo, an outspoken critic of illegal immigration, said, "The only people who benefit from having such an ID are those who have come illegally and have broken our laws." In a June 12, 2003 letter to Secretary Powell, he stated, "... using their consular offices here as lobbying agents to help undermine our immigration laws is an outrage and the State Department's apparent acquiescence in this endeavor is even more incredible... If you do not take steps to halt our cooperation and support of this practice, our country will see a virtual tidal wave of such cards issued to illegal alien by their embassies and consulates in the U.S."

Colorado Representative Don Lee and Senator John Andrews subsequently introduced a bill that would make illegal the accepting of the Mexican matricula consular ID card and other "unsecured" IDs.

The bill (HB-1224, the Colorado Secure and Verifiable Identity Document Act) was amended by the Senate. CAIRCO opposed the amendment in favor of the original wording. The bill subsequently iterated back through the House and a House-Senate Conference Committee to develop final wording which was signed into law.

See CAIRCO' summary of the HB-1224 Secure and Verifiable ID legislation.

The Colorado Secure and Verifiable Identity Document Act

Colorado Governor Owens signed the bill into law on May 22, 2003

Although CAIRCO preferred the original unamended version of the bill, this is a very significant step forward in reducing the number of unsecured IDs that are issued and accepted in Colorado. Colorado is the first state making illegal the accepting of sham, unsecured ID cards.

HB-1224 seriously discourages the use of the Mexican Matricula Consular identification card, or any card issued by any other foreign government that is not "secure and verifiable" by the United States Government. This means that only identification authorized specifically by United States government agencies will be acceptable.

 

HB-1224 provisions

  • A non-secure and unverifiable identification card is not acceptable to use to receive a library card, have a city business license issued, demonstrate eligibility for state or local government services (such as a marriage license or automobile registration), or to obtain public housing or other services.
  • A non-secure and unverifiable identification card is not acceptable for the granting of public services. The only exception to this is that the children born in the United States may show a hospital identification tag, or similar hospital identification, prior to receiving their U.S. birth certificate. This is according to current interpretation of the U.S. Constitution that confers U.S. citizenship upon children born in the United States.
  • When person who presents a non-secure and unverifiable identification card to state or local law enforcement, as part of a routine traffic stop, or as part of an arrest, the arresting officer may use the information on the card as part of his or her investigation into the identity of the person. However, all information from the identification card must be recorded by the officer and retained for public inspection. If feasible, the person presenting the identification card shall also be finger printed.
  • HB-1224 changes Colorado statutes, clarifying that when a person knowingly presents fradulent documentation to a police officer (including a fradulent Matricula Consular card, fradulent Social Security Card, or fradulent Immigration card), the presenter may be prosecuted for presenting false identification to law enforcement. Previously, the law required that the person presenting the card intended to commit fraud. HB-1224 removes the fraud standard from the statute, allowing people who present false identification to be prosecuted.
  • State and local police may also rely upon information recorded on a non-secure and unverifiable identification card when it is part of the identification discovered on a dead body.
  • In essence, government employees who accept the Matricula Consular, or another from of non-secure and unverifiable identification, are risking the loss of their governmental immunity if they accept the card for any government services and will have direct liability from civil litigation. Law enforcement has been given some narrow exceptions to the governmental immunity provisions, but have been given an additional responsibility to collect information from people presenting non-secure and unverifiable ID's. The law also gives new tools to local prosecutors to bring people who present false identification to trial -- and provides new incentives for police officers to detain such individuals.

We at Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform (CAIRCO) wish to thank Colorado Representative Don Lee and Senator John Andrews for their dedicated efforts on the Colorado Secure and Verifiable Identity Document Act, HB-1224. We are deeply concerned about Colorado's and our nation's future and it is evident that they - and Governor Owens - clearly shared this concern with passage of HB-1224. We respect and appreciate their wisdom and vision in promoting this bill.
 
We understand that the machinations of politics are never simple, and we applaud their concern about this issue and their leadership in enacting legislation as embodied in HB-1224. We appreciate their efforts to make this bill as effective as possible in its final form.

Additional information on the Matricula Consular ID Card

See our extensive background information for more in-depth information, what has been done, facts and talking points on these non-secure ID cards.

 

"These are times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman."
- Thomas Paine

H.R. 502

On January 30, 2003, Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO) introduced H.R. 502 - national legislation requiring that identification used to obtain federal public benefits or services - including law enforcement services - meet requirements ensuring that it is secure and verifiable. This bill would prohibit any federal agency, commission, or other entity within any branch of the federal government from accepting, recognizing, or relying on any identification document not issued by a federal or state authority or issued without verification by a federal law enforcement, intelligence, or homeland security agency.

Video of matricula ID card debate

Michelle Malkin On January 8 & 9, 2003, CAIRCO proudly cosponsored syndicated columnist and investigative journalist, Michelle Malkin in various appearances including a public debate and discussion: The Mexican "matricula consular" ID card: Safe or Sorry?.

CAIRCO produced a video of this lively, informative and very timely debate. We distributed the video to public access television stations across Colorado. This video is also particularly suitable to show to elected officials in every state. If you would like a professional quality format of this video for broadcast, please contact us.

Matricula Consular toolkit for activists in other states

We have been extremely successful in halting the efforts of the Mexican government to influence Colorado cities and municipalities. We have put together an activist toolkit for you to use. This toolkit explains what we have done and offers tips and techniques to achieve success.

 

Background - Mexican Matricula Consular (illegal alien) ID card in Colorado

In early October of 2002, Denver Mayor Wellington Webb, without debate and public comment, ordered various City and County departments to accept the Mexican matricula consular ID card as valid identification. The Denver-based Mexican consulate had already issued 8,000 of the $29 cards between June and October, amounting to one every five minutes during normal office hours.

U.S. Congressman Tom Tancredo, an outspoken critic of illegal immigration, said, "The only people who benefit from having such an ID are those who have come illegally and have broken our laws. It is ludicrous to believe that this method is a legitimate way of proving identity. Frankly, it's a complete farce, and it's far too risky for our city government to be accepting such flimsy identification cards during a time when our nation is vulnerable to future terrorist attacks."

Mayor Webb asserted the Mexican consulate imposes a "high degree of proof of identification" to issue the card. Mayor Webb also said, "The nice thing about having the card that's given out by the Mexican consulate is you have a way to determine which ones (Mexicans) are here legally, because they're the ones who get the card, the others do not." Nothing could be more deceiving. (See the guest opinion Lo, the emperor's Mexican ID card).

CAIR's Mike McGarry remarked in a November 22, 2002 Denver Post story: "Who would have a Matricula card? By definition, they are almost all going to be illegal aliens. The mayor is asking us to give full faith and credit to an amazingly corrupt government. It's absurd that we would put our security and our document integrity in their hands. These are phony, sham cards."

Colorado activity against the Matricula Consular ID card

  1. CAIR (CAIRCO) took the following actions:
    • On October 31, 2002, CAIR hand-delivered a letter of intent to Denver Mayor Wellington Webb. For more information, see:
       
      Press release, October 31, 2002.
       
      Open records request to the City and County of Denver.
       
      CAIR Letter to U.S. Attorney.
       
      Notification of INS regarding enforcement of clear violations of U.S. immigration law in a Denver-based hiring hall.
    • An independent group of citizens in Boulder took action against that city's possible action to accept matricula consular ID cards.
       
      A letter of objection was filed with the Mayor and City Council of Boulder, Colorado at the November 19, 2002 City Council meeting, stating "Your actions may possibly put you, and elected and appointed officials, and public servants, in legal jeopardy both personally and professionally."
       
      A substantial letter of objection was filed with the Denver INS Director and Denver U.S. Attorney asking for an investigation of the City and County of Boulder's acceptance of the Mexican ID card and other activities.
       
      In addition, the letter was filed with the city's liability insurance company, since it is likely that the city's policy does not cover personal liability arising from accepting the matricula consular ID card.
       
      An open records request was filed on January 16, 2003.
  2. Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement (FILE), based in Washington, DC, wrote letters to numerous City and County and other municipalities throughout Colorado, insisting that they stop accepting the matricula consular card.
     
    Increasing use of the card amounts to a "stealth amnesty" for illegal aliens, and that local governments are essentially determining immigration policy, which is in fact under constitutional jurisdiction of the federal government.
     
    FILE was instrumental the effort to initiate Colorado HB-1224, which was signed into law in May, 2003 - see below.
     
  3. Colorado Representative Don Lee and Senator John Andrews announced their sponsorship of a bill (The Colorado Secure and Verifiable Identity Document Act) that would make illegal the accepting of the Mexican matricula consular ID card and other "unsecured" IDs. See CAIR's press release.
     
    The bill was amended by the Senate and iterated through a House-Senate Conference Committee to develop final wording. See CAIR's letter to Senator Andrews and Representative Lee, co-sponsors of the bill, regarding the amendment.
     
    This bill was signed into law on May 22, 2003. To view the history of the bill, go to the Colorado Government legislative information site and enter "1224" as the bill number. (A new browser window will open).
     
    See testimony by CAIR co-director Fred Elbel and testimony by CAIR spokesperson Marlene Guerrero. Also see former Governor Dick Lamm's letter of support for HB-1224.
  4. On January 30, 2003, Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO) introduced H.R. 502 - legislation requiring that identification used to obtain federal public benefits or services, including law enforcement services, meet restrictions ensuring that it is secure and verifiable. This bill would prohibit any federal agency, commission, or other entity within any branch of the federal government from accepting, recognizing, or relying on any identification document not issued by a federal or state authority or issued without verification by a federal law enforcement, intelligence, or homeland security agency. (See this article for more information).
  5. The General Services Administration has suspended recognition of identification cards issued by the Mexican government to its nationals in this country. (See this article for more information).

Video of matricula ID card debate

On January 8 & 9, 2003, CAIR proudly cosponsored syndicated columnist and investigative journalist, Michelle Malkin in various appearances including a public debate and discussion: The Mexican "matricula consular" ID card: Safe or Sorry?.
CAIR produced a video tape of this lively, informative and very timely debate. We encourage you to order the debate video and get it as much exposure as possible, including showing it to elected officials!

We distributed the video to public access television stations throughout Colorado. If you would like a professional quality format of this video for broadcast, please contact us.

Excerpt of testimony given by CAIR co-director Fred Elbel

Talking points from testimony given to Colorado House IT Committee on HB 1224 on February 10, 2003

  • The Mexican matricula consular ID card is a complete farce. It's issued by a corrupt government sneaking around behind closed doors to get our cities to accept the card - without citizen input.
  • It's a back door attempt at a stealth amnesty. Roberto Rodriguez Hernandez, director of the Mexican card program was quoted as saying "It's necessary to push the need for an amnesty at all levels."
  • This card is not a secure document. The Denver Mexican consulate has issued cards at the rate of one every five minutes. The documents upon which the card depends - including a Mexican birth certificate - are about as easy to forge as homework.
  • Only illegals need this card. Nearly one million cards were issued last year and more than 42,000 Mexicans in Colorado now have cards.
  • Mexican President Fox couldn't get new amnesties after September 11, so he began lobbying U.S. cities and banks to accept the cards.
  • No major bank in Mexico accepts the card to open an account. And the cards are recognized as IDs in only 10 of Mexico's 32 states and districts.
  • Now, Guatemala, Honduras, Poland, Peru and El Salvador, aware of Mexico's success, have begun or are considering issuing cards of their own.
  • Insurance companies probably won't cover liability associated with the card. So if a city accepts the card and a citizen is injured by an illegal alien, the citizen could likely sue individual city council members.
  • The author of a new Center for Immigration Studies report IDs for Illegals stated: "Mexico's marketing of its consular cards is a direct challenge to U.S. sovereignty."
  • "The matricula card is making the Mexican consular office one of the largest vendors of fraudulent document documents in the country. No politician or professional law enforcement officer faithful to his or her oath of office would promote or condone acceptance of the matricula as a form of officially sanctioned identification." - Federation for American Immigration Reform's Law Enforcement Advisory Council Jim Dorcy, a 30-year veteran of the Border Patrol, INS, Department of Justice Inspector General's Office, and expert in fraudulent documents and government ethics.
  • It's absurd that we would put our security and our document integrity in the hands of a foreign government.
  • The FBI and the Justice Department testified in the U.S. Congress that accepting the matricula card and similar IDs posed a dangerous threat because they are issued on the strength of unsecured documents and because of the absence of verifiability.
  • Jorge Castaneda, the former Foreign Minister of Mexico, testified before a Senate Committee on July 13, 2005 that Mexico cannot verify the true identities of people to whom it has issued Matricula consular ID documents.

Additional Matricular Consular ID information

See CAIRCO's catalog of articles on the matricula card - these contain useful background information.

Also see these two articles border security issues: Afghanistan Illegal Surfaces Locally and 'Arab terrorists' crossing border.

See the new Center for Immigration Studies report IDs for Illegals - Mexico's Matricula Consular Facilitates Illegal Immigration.

A December, 2002 Denver Channel 7 poll shows that out of 3271 voters, 87% think the city of Denver should not recognize Mexican ID cards for legal, and illegal, aliens as legitimate identification.

Article: Abolishing America (contd.): Mexico Ceded Right To Say Whom U.S. Can Deport, By Allan Wall, on the very informative VDARE website.

Issue brief: The Mexican Matricula Consular Should Not Be Accepted for Official Purposes, by FAIR.

Mexi-Sham ID FAQ from American Patrol website.

Good background information on Immigration and the Law.

Consular ID Cards in a Post-9/11 World - Testimony of Steve McCraw, Assistant Director of The Office of Intelligence, FBI Before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims on Consular ID Cards, June 26, 2003

 

Matricula toolkit for activists in other states

We have been quite successful in opposing the efforts of the Mexican government to influence Colorado cities and municipalities. We have put together an activist toolkit for you to use. This toolkit explains what we have done and offers tips and techniques to achieve success. More information.

Mexican matricula consular (illegal alien) ID card - frequently asked questions

CAIRCO's three main arguments against accepting the matricula consular card

  1. It is a sham card, issued on the strength of unverified, dubious documents by agents of a corrupt foreign government. The U.S. Government has done an extensive amount of research on the Mexican Matricula Consular card to assess its viability as a reliable means of identification. The ID card does not reliably identify its holder. The Mexican government makes no attempt, nor does it have the capacity, to verify the documents required to issue the card, thus rendering the card worthless. The Department of Justice and the FBI have concluded that the matricula card is not a reliable, and is therefore a dangerous, form of identification, due to the non-existence of any means of verifying the true identity of the card holder.
     
    However, that hasn't stopped Mexican officials from continuing to misrepresent the value of the card. In an Associated Press story, Mexico's Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez was reported to have said said, "The new IDs have all the safety elements of the most secure documents in the United States and Mexico," adding that Mexico conducts thorough background checks to verify that none of the migrants has a criminal record or represents a security threat.
     
    Hoping to convince California to officially adopt the matricula card, Derbez said, "I'm convinced that once we have demonstrated this (to California), the concerns will be resolved" and it could lead to legislation requiring acceptance of the IDs statewide."
  2. Handing over the integrity of our ID-issuing responsibilities to foreign countries sets a dangerous precedent, especially since the Mexican government is one of the most corrupt in Latin America. Just recently, a former Mexican consul was arrested for helping a smuggling ring move Arab illegals into the US. In Denver, INS officials arrested one man who was in possession of three matricula cards, each with a different name but with his picture on each. The same consulate issued all three. Other countries (Honduras, Peru, Poland etc.) are now demanding the same privileges for their illegals residing in the US.
  3. Polls show Americans in huge percentages and across racial, class and ethnic lines do not want accommodations, including the ID card, made to the presence of illegals; they want illegals repatriated. In addition, there is a body of legal opinion that convincingly argues that accepting the card violates several federal statutes, including those statues that define immigration-related matters as the exclusive prerogative of the federal government.

Frequently Asked Questions on the Matricula Consular

Below are CAIR'S responses to the some of the typical questions and claims made on behalf of accepting the card.

Question: Hasn't the Mexican government made the card hard to forge, using "fraud proof" holograms and other safeguards?
Answer: The card is as sham. The Mexican government issues it on the strength of unverified, dubious and fraudulent documents. Mexican government could protect the card from being tampered with by posting armed guards at every consulate issuing the card, but they would be guarding nothing but a worthless, phony card compete with holograms, whistles and bells.
 
They only way to judge the value of any ID card is to look at the integrity of the issuing agency, the documents accepted to issue the card and the verifiability of the information on the card that it purports to be true. With the matricula card, all categories fail to meet the challenge. Even a gym card with supporting ID is something the matricula card is not: verifiable by a simple telephone call.
Question: Doesn't the card makes it easier for "immigrants" to go about their daily business?
Answer: Legal immigrants have no use for the card. The Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement says that all aliens legally residing in the U.S. have U.S. government-issued documents which they are required to carry at all times. Illegal aliens are supposed to have a hard time going about their illegal business. Multiple federal civil and criminal codes make it illegal to accommodate illegal aliens.
Question: Don't many police departments already accept the card, arguing that while "the card my not be perfect," it is at least some form of ID?
Answer: Many responsible cities (e.g., New York) have rejected the card. The Colorado state legislature passed a law outlawing non-verifiable ID cards issued by foreign governments. We wonder if those police chiefs who have endorsed the card, with all its "imperfections," would accept Monopoly money issued by the Mexican to satisfy debts owed them, because the card is equivalent to Monopoly money - there is nothing to back up its supposed value!
Question: Why would Denver's Mayor Webb support a card that you say is not reliable?
Answer: The Mayor didn't know what he was talking about. He actually said - We have him on tape - "illegal aliens are not issued the card." CAIR made an Open Records Law request to mayor Webb to produce all documents that went into his decision to accept the cards. The mayor responded by saying he had no records - no notes, meeting minutes, logs, memos, emails, etc. - nothing! The Mayor, like so many others, acted out of ignorance, or worse: acted in the interests of political pandering.
Question: Locally, Wells Fargo and BankOne recognize the card. "Immigrants" need the card to open checking and saving accounts. It is estimated there is $60 Billion under the mattresses of (illegal) immigrants. Doesn't it just makes good business sense to accept the card?
Answer: Most banks in Colorado do not recognize the card because of fraud and security concerns. They know better. The federal government - that's you and me - insure bank accounts. The idea that banks are accepting the sham ID card and therefore risking citizens' money is a travesty. The U.S. government is abdicating its responsibility here. Only a verified Social Security card should be used to open accounts.
Question: Won't "Immigrants" be more inclined to report crimes if they are able to show an ID that local authorities will accept?
Answer: The ID is a fraud. It is unverifiable, not a reliable piece of identification. Local police should not, as a matter of both safety and law, accept the card. Accepting it gives the dangerous illusion its holder is the person the card says it is. Only a person in the country illegally would need the card. Most illegal aliens commit multiple misdemeanors and felonies (including felonious document fraud and felonious failure to register with the Selective Service ) to perpetuate their presence in the US. They are, by definition, some of those criminals committing crimes, and they should be deported, not given a hall pass.
Question: The ID cards do not change anyone's immigration status, correct?
Answer: Nonsense, it is yet another step toward a de facto amnesty. The card would only add to the panoply of goodies we already give to illegals, including but not limited to: Medicaid, food stamps and free K-12 education. Now some states are giving benefits such as driver's licenses and in-state college tuition to illegal aliens. This further blurs the distinction between illegal aliens and bona fide U.S. citizens, putting illegal aliens on equal standing with U.S. citizens. In addition, these free benefits (at taxpayer expense) only act to entice and encourage even more illegal migration.
Question: Won't having an accepted ID will put the many false-document mills out of business?
Answer: No. It creates a greater number of mills and fake documents. The documents used to gain the matricula (Mexican birth certificates, Mexican voter registration cards, etc) are now commonly found by authorities in fake-documents factories.

Prepared by Mike McGarry

Toolkit for activists in other states

We have been quite successful in opposing the efforts of the Mexican government to influence Colorado cities and municipalities. We have put together an activist toolkit for you to use. This toolkit explains what we have done and offers tips and techniques to achieve success. See Matricula ID activist toolkit.

Activist toolkit on the Mexican matricula consular (illegal alien) ID card

This activist toolkit is designed to help you expose and halt the Mexican government's meddling in the political affairs of U.S. cities and municipalities.

The Mexican consulate operates by quietly lobbying cities to adopt the matricula consular ID card without public discussion and citizen input.

We have had great successes in Colorado opposing the Mexican government's attempts to have the matricula counsular ID card accepted as legitimate ID. This activist toolkit is an outline of our efforts in Colorado. We encourage you to adapt our approach to your circumstances, where applicable.

Please let us know what you have found to work in your own states.

 

In a nutshell:

A. We tell our local politicians that it is illegal to accept the card.

B. We say: here is CAIRCO's website with references to federal law saying that it is illegal, and

C. Now that you know it is illegal you can lose your indemnification and be personally sued for your house, cars and life savings if you allow the card to be accepted.

Here are detailed action items:

  1. Speak to your local governmental entities
     
    Call your city and county to find out if the matricula card is a pending issue. If it is, speak to your council members, supervisors and commissioner at their regularly scheduled meetings. Council meetings typically occur every two weeks. Citizens generally are allowed three to five minutes each to speak to the council, and often the proceedings are televised. It is helpful have 2 to 4 speakers, each presenting a slightly different aspect of the topic.
     
    Respectfully demand the city or county not accept this and other non-secure ID cards. (See our talking points). Point out that there are serious legal consequences to accepting this card, including the fact that they can be individually sued for personal assets. Give them each a handout stating:

    You can also mail your city and county public officials a letter explaining possible violations of the law if they were to officially accept the ID card. Below, in the next section, is a substantial letter that explains how accepting the card has significant legal consequences.
     
    Also check surrounding cities to see if the card is pending and if so, speak to their city councils. Contact your local politicians, including the Mayor, Chief of Police, Governor, and District Attorney. Tell them about the Matricula section of the CAIRCO website and that Colorado has set a precedent making accepting the cards illegal.
     
    Most Chiefs of Police belong to a Police Association. Tell your Chief of Police about the website and what Colorado has done. That will help spread information through the association network.

  2. File legal documents
     
    "Nothing succeeds like success!" Please copy our letters, substitute the names of recipients and mail them out on your own letterhead to your own city. You can do this in 10 minutes.
     
    U.S. Code Title 8, says that it is clearly a felony and illegal in every state to hire, harbor, or transport illegal aliens.
     
  3. A substantial and very powerful letter of objection was filed with the Denver INS Director and Denver U.S. Attorney asking for an investigation of the City and County of Boulder's acceptance of the Mexican ID card and other activities.
     
    This letter documents the legal consequences of accepting non-secure ID cards for illegal aliens, including Federal statutory violation, constitutional grounds, and civil liability exposure.
     
    Copy and edit this letter and send it to your local officials who are considering accepting the bogus, non-secure matricula consular ID card.
     
    See our legal section for a full listing of letters and legal documents.
  4. File an open records request for information
     
    Many states have open records laws patterned after the federal Freedom of Information Act. (In Colorado it is known as the Open Records Act, Colorado Revised Statute 24-72-201) Generally, the law will require production of all information from a governmental entity that is not privileged information. Here is an example of one of the open records request submitted by CAIRCO, in this case to the City and County of Denver.
     
    The value of open record requests is manifold. It puts officials on notice that you know your rights and you are watching the actions of public officials. All too often they have been getting away with doing anything they please, behind closed doors and out of citizen earshot. You might find documents showing your local politicians are acting illegally or unethically. Results from our open record requests have produced embarrassing emails between public officials that make for interesting letters to the editor. You never know what you will turn up. File a request every month if necessary.
  5. Hold a press conference
     
    Let the press know what is going on and that you represent the majority opinion on the issue as shown in numerous polls. Schedule a press conference on the steps of your city hall. Send a press release to your newspapers, TV and radio stations a day before your conference and then ask if they received the release and if they will be sending someone to cover the event.
     
    Very important: give them something to "sound bite" and photograph. We got broad TV and print coverage when we held our press conference on the steps of the City and Country Building of Denver. We told the press we would be reading our letter to the Mayor of Denver citing criminal and civil violations of U.S. Code for the Mayor's action of officially ordering city departments to accept the matricula card. We also told the press that we would be handing the Mayor our letter as part of the press conference.
  6. Call in to talk radio shows
     
    Contact your local talk radio hosts. Ask them to do a segment on the matricula consular ID card. Ask if you may be an in-studio guest. When you talk, mention www.CAIRCO.org (several times) and tell people to see the "matricula toolkit" section of the website.
     
    If you can't get a dedicated time segment, organize call-ins at opportune times to raise the issue and alert listeners to what is happening in your area and state.
  7. Arrange a public debate
     
    If you are willing to put in some hard work, you can organize a public debate on the card. We were particularly successful with our debate: The Mexican "matricula consular" ID card: Safe or Sorry?. Be sure that you contact the media and issue press releases well in advance of the debate.
     
    Send the press release to all your key cities and counties, inviting their council and board members along with their police chiefs and sheriffs. Send notices to all your state representatives. (We were lucky to have had in attendance at our debate the assistant to the president of the Colorado Senate along with a Representative of the Colorado House. Those elected officials are now sponsoring a bill, HB-1224, the Secure and Verifiable Identity Document Act, in the Colorado legislature to make it illegal to accept the matricula. We are very optimistic it will become law.) Feel free to contact CAIRCO for more information on how to organize a public debate.
  8. Use our video
     
    Michelle Malkin CAIRCO edited and produced a 57 minute video of our important, timely and provocative debate on the matricula consular ID card with guest columnist Michelle Malkin. We distributed the video to public access and government access television stations across Colorado. In doing so, we gained much more exposure to the issue than the debate alone could have obtained.
     
    This video is applicable to all cities and states, not just Colorado. Show the video to others in your area, including elected officials, and to distribute it to your public access TV stations. (If you would like a professional quality format of this video for broadcast, please contact us).
  9. Take aggressive action
    • An independent group of citizens in Boulder, Colorado has taken strong action against that city's possible action to accept matricula consular ID cards.
       
    • A substantial letter of objection was filed with the Denver INS Director and Denver U.S. Attorney asking for an investigation of the City and County of Boulder's acceptance of the Mexican ID card and other activities.
       
    • A letter of objection was filed with the Mayor and City Council of Boulder, Colorado at the November 19, 2002 City Council meeting, stating "Your actions may possibly put you, and elected and appointed officials, and public servants, in legal jeopardy both personally and professionally."
       
    • A substantial letter of objection was filed with the Denver INS Director and Denver U.S. Attorney asking for an investigation of the City and County of Boulder's acceptance of the Mexican ID card and other activities.
       
    • And most interesting, a letter was filed with the city's liability insurance company, since it is likely that the city's policy does not cover liability arising from accepting the matricula consular ID card. In other words, if the city accepts the matricula consular card and a citizen is injured by an illegal alien, the citizen can sue the city and individual city council members. This is because the city's liability policy specifically excludes protection from illegal actions on the part of insured parties.
  10. Coordinate with other organizations
     
    Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) can also offer advice on how to deal with the card.
     
    NumbersUSA.com has periodic faxes that you can send to elected officials on the card and is also a resource on the issue.
  11. Work to get a state law passed

    We did it in Colorado! Colorado Representative Don Lee and Senator John Andrews sponsored a bill (the Colorado Secure and Verifiable Identity Document Act) that made illegal the accepting of the Mexican matricula consular ID card and other "unsecured" IDs.  
    Call your state senators and representatives to discuss the issue and encourage them to initiate legislation to halt acceptance of the matricula consular ID card.
     
    When the bill enters committee, appear before the committee and give public testimony.

CAIRCO letter on HB-1224 the Colorado Secure and Verifiable Identity Document Act

March 26, 2003
 
Senator John Andrews
Colorado Senate
 
Sir:
 
We at Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform (CAIR) wish to express our appreciation of your dedicated efforts on the Colorado Secure and Verifiable Identity Document Act, HB-1224. We are deeply concerned about Colorado's and our nation's future and it is evident that you clearly share this concern with your efforts to pass this bill. We respect and appreciate your wisdom and vision in promoting this bill.
 
We understand that the machinations of politics are never simple, and that it is often difficult to enact legislation that is effective while addressing the concerns of all constituents and interested parties. As such, we understand the reasons the bill was amended by the Senate.
 
Nevertheless, we respectfully disagree with the Senate version of the amendment for a number of reasons. The amendment allows police officers to accept non-secure foreign ID cards. In addition, it allows for pregnant mothers and presumably those who simply claim they are pregnant to obtain a full range of services over and above free medical services with non-secure foreign ID cards. The Senate amendment in our opinion, presents a gaping hole in the bill that virtually nullifies the original intent of the bill.
 
Because of our concern about the efficacy of the Senate amendment, several of us with CAIR have called House and Senate members to respectfully express our concern. We are also aware that news of the bill and amendment has spread across the internet. We understand that others, including individuals from outside of Colorado, have contacted members of the House and Senate, issuing out of frustration harsh diatribes against those allowing the bill to be amended. We apologize for any such calls, although we must clarify that those making such calls are not at all affiliated with CAIR.
 
The vast majority of Americans and Coloradans are very concerned about the consequences of high levels of legal and illegal immigration. (One such consequence is that U.S. population will double this century, practically within the lifetimes of children born today. Colorado will double even sooner). We at CAIR share this concern and believe our effectiveness is in educating others about the consequences of inordinately high levels of legal and illegal immigration, and in working with elected officials to enact legislation to address this pressing issue.
 
We applaud your concern about this issue and your leadership efforts to enact legislation as embodied in HB-1224. We encourage you to strive to make this bill as effective as possible in its final form. Again, we sincerely thank you for your efforts and for listening to our concerns.
 
Sincerely,
 
Fred Elbel
co-Director, CAIR - Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform
 
copy: Representative Don Lee

Legal references on use of the Matricula Consular ID Card

This letter (prepared prior to enactment of HB-1224 - the Colorado Secure and Verifiable Identity Document Act of 2003) documents the legal consequences of accepting non-secure Matricula Consular and other ID cards for illegal aliens, including Federal statutory violation, constitutional grounds, and civil liability exposure. The letter emphasises the following points and references existing case law:

 

  • Immigration and Nationality Act

    Section 274 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which provides criminal penalties for any act that "encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law."[2]

    "Encourage" and "induce" include actions that permit illegal aliens to be more confident that they could continue to reside with impunity in the United States, or actions that offer illegal aliens "a chance to stand equally with all other American citizens."[3]

    To prove that a state or local government agency "encouraged or induced" illegal Mexican aliens, all the government needs to establish is that the agency knowingly helped or advised the aliens, or emboldened them, or made them more confident in their continued illegal residence in the United States.[4]

    The courts have held that INA §274 is to be broadly construed both as to those persons subject to criminal liability under the statute,[5] and as to the types of activities covered therein. [6]

     

  • Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act

    Furthermore, Section 401 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996[7] (as amended by the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996)[8] prohibits non-qualified (illegal) aliens from receiving most "Federal public benefits." Any policy that accepts the matricula consular for the purpose of providing city and County services explicitly violates this provision of federal law insofar as the services to illegal aliens are paid for with federal and public funds.

     

  • Constitutional Grounds

    The courts have long recognized that by Article I, Sec. 8 of the U.S. Constitution (the Commerce Clause), Congress has "plenary power" over all aspects of immigration law, including "the right to provide a system of registration and identification" for aliens, because "the entire control of international relations" is invested in the national government.[9]

    Courts have repeatedly held that no governmental authority may establish any policy that relates to immigration other than Congress and authorized federal agencies, and that the "(p)ower to regulate immigration is unquestionably exclusively a federal power."[10]

    Thus, a local governmental public policy to accept an official foreign national identification document issued to aliens present in the United States in violation of Federal law improperly annexes powers to any public entity that are rightfully those of Congress and the policy is therefore unconstitutional.

    In a Supreme Court decision striking down a Pennsylvania alien registration statute, it was held that the "Federal Government...is entrusted with full and exclusive responsibility for the conduct of affairs with foreign sovereignties [, and that o]ur system of government is such that the interest of the cities, counties and states, no less than the interest of the people of the whole nation, imperatively requires that federal power in the field affecting foreign relations be left entirely free from local interference."

    The Court ruled that "where the federal government, in the exercise of its superior authority in this field, has enacted a complete scheme of regulation ... states cannot, inconsistently with the purpose of Congress, conflict or interfere with, curtail or complement, the federal law, or enforce additional or auxiliary regulations."[11]

    Therefore, no public entity, specifically a City and County, as defined above, may make any rule, regulation or policy that speaks to the presence in the community of foreign nationals, and, thus, a "matricula consular policy" is preempted on constitutional grounds.

    A "matricula consular" policy adopted by local governmental authorities has also been determined unconstitutional specifically in relation to public benefits because it violates "the exclusive federal power over the entrance and residence of aliens."[12]

     

  • Civil Liability Exposure

    Entering the United States without inspection (illegal entry) is a criminal offense under 8 U.S.C. 1325. Providing public services to such an alien in "knowing and reckless disregard" of the alien's illegal status amounts to aiding and abetting a crime, and is a criminal violation in and of itself. By the INA §274(a) aiding and abetting statute,[13] the distinction is eliminated between principles and accessories in alien smuggling crimes. And courts have held that aiding and abetting also relates to conduct while the illegal alien is in the United States.[14]

    Aiding and abetting an illegal entrant in his continued illegal residence in the United States constitutes a dangerous and unreasonable risk to the health and safety of the public, since, among other reasons, unlike legal entrants, an illegal entrant is not subject to a criminal background or health check before entering the United States.

    When such aid is administered via official acceptance by any public entity of the matricula consular, by which possession any public entity, or any person acting under the authority of any public entity, would or should have known in the exercise of reasonable care that the person holding the card is an illegal alien, the public entity, or its officers, can be said to be negligent.

    For these reasons, official acceptance of the matricula consular by any city or county, and any of its elected or appointed officials (e.g., Mayor, Police Chief, Sheriff, etc.) can be said to be dangerous and negligent, and, therefore, the public entity, and its officers or representatives, may not enjoy sovereign immunity under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act-especially since the grant of governmental immunity in Colorado is to be strictly construed and its waiver is to be liberally or deferentially construed.[15]

 

References:

[2] 8 U.S.C. §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)
[3] U.S. v. Oloyede, 982 F.2d 133 (4th Cir. 1992)
[4] U.S. v. He, No. 00-2574 (7th Cir. Apr. 2, 2001)
[5] U.S. v Zheng, No. 01-15551 (11th Cir. Sept, 2002)
[6] Patel v Ashcroft, No. 01-3365 (3rd Cir. June, 2002)
[7] Public Law 104-193
[8] Public Law 104-208
[9] Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893)
[10] De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351 (1976)
[11] Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S., at 66 -67
[12] Graham v. Department of Pub. Welfare, 403 U.S. 365 (1971) (USSC+)
[13] 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(II)
[14] U.S. v. Mussaleen, 35 F.3d 692 (Cir. 2nd (N.Y.),1994.
[15]Springer v. City and County of Denver, 990 P.2d 1092 (Colo. App. 1999), rev'd on other grounds, 13 P.3d 794 (Colo. 2000).

Rep. Tom Tancredo letter to Secretary Colin L. Powell on impending tidal wave of foreign ID cards for illegal aliens June 12, 2003

June 12, 2003

Secretary Colin L. Powell
United States Department of State
2201 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20520

Dear Secretary Powell:

The attached document indicates that our U.S. Embassy in Managua is requesting direction from you as to how they should proceed in the effort to aid the government of Nicaragua in the development of ID cards modeled on the matricula consular issued by the Mexican government. Mexican officials have publicly stated that this endeavor is part of a strategy to obtain a de facto amnesty for people living here illegally.

I realize that any foreign government has a right to issue identification cards to its citizens. That is not in dispute. However using their consular offices here as lobbying agents to help undermine our immigration laws is an outrage and the State Department's apparent acquiescence in this endeavor is even more incredible.

We anticipated and cautioned you in a letter on January 10 that unless you acted to discourage the acceptance of Mexican government's ID cards, other governments would follow suit. That is now happening. If you do not take steps to halt our cooperation and support of this practice, our country will see a virtual tidal wave of such cards issued to illegal alien by their embassies and consulates in the U.S.

There are several aspects of the matricular consular cards now issued by foreign governments that are extremely troubling. I have two questions:

1. What guidelines will you offer to our Embassy staff in other nations when those governments request our assistance in developing similar cards for their nationals living in the United States? Will our embassy staff be offering advice and assistance to the governments in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or Iran if they seek to give documents to their nationals living in this country "regardless of the individual's legal status"?

2. How can this memo from Managua (attached) be interpreted as anything but aiding and abetting attempts by foreign governments to provide their nationals living illegally in the U.S. with documentation that would ease their entrance into American society?

In my previous communication of January 10, I asked if you have approved of this activity on the part of State Department staff. If you do not, what do you intend to do to stop it?

Mr. Secretary, this is an issue of enormous significance that has massive implications for our nation. In mid-May the Department of Homeland Security sent to the White House a Draft Policy Statement on the matricula consular cards. That Draft Policy Statement, which was the product of an interagency working group that included the State Department, expressly prohibits all federal agencies from accepting the cards or cooperating in their use by foreign nationals.

There are two very good reasons for opposing the use and proliferation of these identification cards. First, our acceptance of the cards, or our cooperation in their manufacture or distribution, provides tacit approval and encouragement for increased illegal immigration into the United States. This is true because no one needs these cards except persons residing here illegally. The second reason for rejecting these documents is that the process for verification of identify of the individual obtaining the card is very questionable. The only identification document issued by a foreign government our government should accept is a valid passport.

The State Department's current policy of ambiguity on this matter is interpreted as tacit approval by foreign governments. This will very likely have disastrous consequences for our nation. If the Administration has agreed to cooperate with this activity, the American people have a right to know. If it has not, please advise us of the steps being taken to halt it.

Thank you for your timely response.

Sincerely,

Tom Tancredo

Member of Congress

CAIRCO open records request on Matricula Consular ID card

herry L. Jackson
Clerk and Recorder
Denver City and County Building
1437 Bannock Street, Room 281
Denver, CO 80202
 
November 12, 2002
 
Dear Sherry Jackson:
 
Please consider this to be a written request for records pursuant to the Colorado Open Records Act, Colorado Revised Statutes 24-72-201. I make this request on behalf of the Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform, a Colorado nonprofit corporation.
 
I am respectfully requesting records relating to:
 
1. The decision by Mayor Webb to officially accept the "matricula consular" ID card and the Mayor's order that various City departments accept the card as valid identification, and
 
2. The decision by Mayor Webb to designate $15,000 from a federal grant, as reported to us in August by Andy Hernandez, to help fund a job center, a "hiring hall", which we believe provides jobs for illegal aliens.
 
The two above enumerated actions on the part of Mayor Webb were the subject of a letter we hand delivered to the Mayor's office on October 31, 2002. An unsigned copy of that letter is herewith attached.
 
Accordingly, I ask that you produce the following documents:
 
Copies or originals of all writings made, maintained or kept by the City and County of Denver and/or the Mayor's office relating directly or indirectly to the above enumerated actions. The Colorado Open Records Act defines "writings" to include "photographs, tapes, recordings, digitally-stored data, including electronic mail and other documentary materials, in addition to books, papers and maps...." (Emphasis added)
 
Please include copies or originals of any and all writing specific to the above enumerated actions involving the Mexican government and/or that government's agents or representatives. Please include copies or originals of any and all writings involving nonprofit organizations and/or charities and their agents or representatives specific to the above enumerated actions. Please include in our requests copies or originals of any and all writings not specifically detailed herein relating to the above enumerated actions but which a reasonable person would include. Please do not include redundancies.
 
Thank you for your cooperation. We look forward to receiving the requested records within the 10-day statutory time limit.
 
Sincerely,
 
Mike McGarry
 
Spokesperson, Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform

Matricula consular card legal references

This section contains legal information pertaining to use of bogus Matricula Consular ID cards (which are now illegal in Colorado). We are not attorneys and this should not be construed as legal advice. However, it is pertinent to states that still allow the Matricula cards to be used for identification.

Immigration and Nationality Act

Section 274 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which provides criminal penalties for any act that "encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law."2

"Encourage" and "induce" include actions that permit illegal aliens to be more confident that they could continue to reside with impunity in the United States, or actions that offer illegal aliens "a chance to stand equally with all other American citizens."3

To prove that a state or local government agency "encouraged or induced" illegal Mexican aliens, all the government needs to establish is that the agency knowingly helped or advised the aliens, or emboldened them, or made them more confident in their continued illegal residence in the United States.4

The courts have held that INA §274 is to be broadly construed both as to those persons subject to criminal liability under the statute,5 and as to the types of activities covered therein.6

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act

Furthermore, Section 401 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 19967 (as amended by the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996)8 prohibits non-qualified (illegal) aliens from receiving most "Federal public benefits." Any policy that accepts the matricula consular for the purpose of providing city and County services explicitly violates this provision of federal law insofar as the services to illegal aliens are paid for with federal and public funds.

Constitutional Grounds

The courts have long recognized that by Article I, Sec. 8 of the U.S. Constitution (the Commerce Clause), Congress has "plenary power" over all aspects of immigration law, including "the right to provide a system of registration and identification" for aliens, because "the entire control of international relations" is invested in the national government.9

Courts have repeatedly held that no governmental authority may establish any policy that relates to immigration other than Congress and authorized federal agencies, and that the "(p)ower to regulate immigration is unquestionably exclusively a federal power."10

Thus, a local governmental public policy to accept an official foreign national identification document issued to aliens present in the United States in violation of Federal law improperly annexes powers to any public entity that are rightfully those of Congress and the policy is therefore unconstitutional.

In a Supreme Court decision striking down a Pennsylvania alien registration statute, it was held that the "Federal Government...is entrusted with full and exclusive responsibility for the conduct of affairs with foreign sovereignties [, and that o]ur system of government is such that the interest of the cities, counties and states, no less than the interest of the people of the whole nation, imperatively requires that federal power in the field affecting foreign relations be left entirely free from local interference."

The Court ruled that "where the federal government, in the exercise of its superior authority in this field, has enacted a complete scheme of regulation ... states cannot, inconsistently with the purpose of Congress, conflict or interfere with, curtail or complement, the federal law, or enforce additional or auxiliary regulations."11

Therefore, no public entity, specifically Boulder City and County, as defined above, may make any rule, regulation or policy that speaks to the presence in the community of foreign nationals, and, thus, a "matricula consular policy" is preempted on constitutional grounds.

A "matricula consular" policy adopted by local governmental authorities has also been determined unconstitutional specifically in relation to public benefits because it violates "the exclusive federal power over the entrance and residence of aliens."12

Civil Liability Exposure

Entering the United States without inspection (illegal entry) is a criminal offense under 8 U.S.C. 1325. Providing public services to such an alien in "knowing and reckless disregard" of the alien's illegal status amounts to aiding and abetting a crime, and is a criminal violation in and of itself. By the INA §274(a) aiding and abetting statute,13 the distinction is eliminated between principles and accessories in alien smuggling crimes. And courts have held that aiding and abetting also relates to conduct while the illegal alien is in the United States.14

Aiding and abetting an illegal entrant in his continued illegal residence in the United States constitutes a dangerous and unreasonable risk to the health and safety of the public, since, among other reasons, unlike legal entrants, an illegal entrant is not subject to a criminal background or health check before entering the United States.

When such aid is administered via official acceptance by any public entity of the matricula consular, by which possession any public entity, or any person acting under the authority of any public entity, would or should have known in the exercise of reasonable care that the person holding the card is an illegal alien, the public entity, or its officers, can be said to be negligent.

For these reasons, official acceptance of the matricula consular by any city or county, and any of its elected or appointed officials (e.g., Mayor, Police Chief, Sheriff, etc.) can be said to be dangerous and negligent, and, therefore, the public entity, and its officers or representatives, may not enjoy sovereign immunity under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act-especially since the grant of governmental immunity in Colorado is to be strictly construed and its waiver is to be liberally or deferentially construed.15

References

2. 8 U.S.C. §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)
3. U.S. v. Oloyede, 982 F.2d 133 (4th Cir. 1992)
4. U.S. v. He, No. 00-2574 (7th Cir. Apr. 2, 2001)
5. U.S. v Zheng, No. 01-15551 (11th Cir. Sept, 2002)
6. Patel v Ashcroft, No. 01-3365 (3rd Cir. June, 2002)
7. Public Law 104-193
8. Public Law 104-208
9. Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893)
10. De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351 (1976)
11. Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S., at 66 -67
12. Graham v. Department of Pub. Welfare, 403 U.S. 365 (1971) (USSC+)
13. 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(II)
14. U.S. v. Mussaleen, 35 F.3d 692 (Cir. 2nd (N.Y.),1994.
15. Springer v. City and County of Denver, 990 P.2d 1092 (Colo. App. 1999), rev'd on other grounds, 13 P.3d 794 (Colo. 2000).

Population Driven to Double by Mass Immigration

An Analysis of US Population - Immigration Projections

by Fred Elbel
Rev 1.3  April 28, 2014

US Population - Immigration Projections to 2100 This report presents an analysis of US population projections and the impact of mass immigration into the US to the year 2100. This report references the corresponding spreadsheet "US Population - Immigration Projections to 2100", prepared by the author.1 This report references data from the US Census Bureau and other sources. It should be noted that these sources do not differentiate between legal and illegal immigration. Since this analysis relies on that data, an explicit distinction between legal and illegal immigration is not made.

Summary

Native-born population (not including immigrants and their offspring) would have peaked due to population momentum in the year 2020 and then would have gradually declined. It is therefore reasonable to say that mass immigration is driving US population to double within the lifetimes of children born today.

This is not to say that mass immigration is the sole cause of US population growth. However, it is the predominant driving factor and will continue to be so.

Passage of the 2013 amnesty bill (S.744) will result in virtually unending US population growth. The amnesty will, for all practical purposes, dissolve United States borders and allow foreign job-seekers to drive up US population and commensurate environmental degradation. Population growth will subsequently decline only at the point when the US standard of living and environmental degradation are on par with conditions in population donor nations.

US Census Bureau projections

Table A of the associated spreadsheet contains US Census Bureau historical data.2 These data show US population of 205 million in the year 1970 increasing to 309 million in 2010. Population as of June 17, 2013 was 316 million according to the Census Bureau population clock.3

Table A reproduces, without alteration, US Census Bureau table NP2012-T13: "Table 13. Projections of the Population by Net International Migration Series for the United States: 2015 to 2060".4 The "middle series" (or average) projection shows US population increasing to 333 million in 2020, 380 million in 2040, 399 million in 2050, and 420 million in 2060.

Census Bureau low, constant, and high net international migration projections are included in this table. High migration projections show population to 442 million in 2060.

The Census Bureau no longer projects population past the year 2060, therefore projections to 2100 were performed by the author. While variance in long-term projections is greater than short-term projections, the long-term projections should be sufficient to compare population trends with zero, low, and high international migration.

Table B shows linear extrapolation of Table A from 2060 to 2100. While a linear regression could have been used to project population, a simple linear extrapolation extends the growth rate that the US Census Bureau projects from 2050 to 2060 to extend to the year 2100. Low and high international migration projections are included.

Table B shows US population increasing to 502 million in 2100 under the middle series scenario, while increasing to 549 million under the high migration scenario.

Social Security Administration projections

Table C shows Social Security Administration 1997 projections5, and is included for reference. These historical data vary slightly from Census Bureau historical data. Social Security population projections lag behind Census Bureau middle series and even low migration series data. For example, Social Security Administration data projects 368 million in 2060, which is 88% of the Census Bureau projection of 420 million.

United Nations Population Division population projections

Table D shows United Nations Population Division 2012 projections, which extend to the year 21006. UN historical data show 1970 US population at 155 million versus the Census Bureau's 205 million, but UN 2013 population is very close to Census Bureau population.

UN projections are lower than Census Bureau projections, with 2060 population projected to be 420 million and 332 million (middle series), respectively. UN high variant population in 2060 is 493 million, compared to Census Bureau high migration population of 442 million.

UN projections to the year 2100 are 327 million (standard projection) and 705 million high variant population7. These values compare to extrapolated Census Bureau 2100 middle series population of 502 million and 549 million with high migration (see Table B).

Thus, while UN standard projections are more conservative than extrapolations of Census Bureau projections (Table B), the 2100 UN high variant projection is significantly higher than the extrapolated Census Bureau high migration projection.

NumbersUSA population projections

NumbersUSA commissioned a demographic analysis to show the impact of mass immigration on US population numbers8. The analysis, completed by demographer Leon Bouvier, is summarized in Table E. These data and associated charts show US population growth and stabilization that would have resulted had Congress implemented net zero immigration as of 1970. 

 

US Population Growth - Washington's Blueprint

1970 serves as the baseline year for this analysis as it was during that decade (in 1972) that American women voluntarily reached replacement level fertility (2.1 children per woman). It was also near 1970 that the number of legal immigrants allowed into the country began to rise rapidly as a result of immigration law changes in 1965. Population momentum (where today's children grow up to have children of their own while their parents are still alive) would have driven native-born US population to increase for several decades, then slowly decline to a sustainable number. This is represented by the green component of both graphs.

The original data and graphs can be found on these pages by NumbersUSA: "Our Lost Future", and "Question: Where does the Census Bureau say we're heading by 2060?". This explanation describes in more detail the methodology and the importance of selecting 1970 as the baseline reference year. 8

 

US Population Size Options

 

As should be expected, NumbersUSA projections (with immigration) to 2060 in Table E track well with Census Bureau projections in Table A. The NumbersUSA 2060 projection of 459 million is slightly higher than the Census Bureau middle series value of 420 million.

NumbersUSA projections extend only to the year 2060. Therefore, extrapolations of these projections to the year 2100 was performed by the author. Table F contains a linear extrapolation of NumbersUSA data in Table E. While a linear regression could have been used to project population, a simple linear extrapolation extends the growth rate that the US Census Bureau projects from 2050 to 2060 to extend to the year 2100.

The extrapolated population growth in 2100 from Table F, including mass immigration, is 567 million, while extrapolated Census Bureau middle series population for the year 2100 is 502 million and the high migration projection is 549 million. Thus, extrapolated NumbersUSA data roughly correlates with extrapolated Census Bureau data.

Population projections and immigration impact

NumbersUSA data and charts show the detrimental impact of mass immigration on US population - that is, the demographic impact of large numbers of immigrants and their descendents - as mandated by ongoing Congressional and Administration policy.

The NumbersUSA baseline reflects a 1970 Census Bureau population of 205 million. The NumbersUSA projection (summarized in Table E) reveals US population increasing to 405 million in 2040 (2040 is the life expectancy of a person born in 1970). The population of 405 million consists of two components: native-born population (262 million), and immigration-driven population (143 million). The immigration-driven population component represents two-thirds of this population growth after the 1970 baseline.

Based on extrapolation of the NumbersUSA analysis from 2060 to 2100, the immigration-driven population component will reach 110% of zero net immigration population in the year 2070. Thus, mass immigration will be the cause of US population doubling between 1970 and 2070. By 2100, the immigration-driven population component of US population will reach 150% of 1970 population.

The life expectancy of a child born in 2013 is approximately 78.5 years9, so that individual would on average live until 2091. In 2090, mass immigration will have driven US population to increase by 137% from the 1970 baseline.

US population as of June 17, 2013 is 316 million. Factoring in mass immigration, based on extrapolation of Census Bureau high international migration projections, US population will double to 632 million between 2013 and approximately 2088. 2088 is the life expectancy of a person born in 2010; 2091 is the life expectancy of a person born in 2013.

It also should be noted that in the year 2090, the immigration component of US population growth will be slightly greater than the natural increase component. In other words, in the year 2090, the contribution of mass immigration will cause US population to increase at double the amount that would have occurred without mass immigration.

Native-born population (not including immigration) would have peaked due to population momentum in the year 2020 and then would have gradually declined. It is therefore reasonable to say that mass immigration is driving US population to double within the lifetimes of children born today.

This is not to say that mass immigration is the sole cause of US population growth. However, it is the predominant driving factor and will continue to be so.

Augmenting factors

The US Census Bureau projects population only to the year 2060. The Bureau also does not differentiate between legal and illegal immigration.10 While a fairly accurate estimate of legal immigration can be substantiated at approximately one million legal immigrants per year11, the number of illegal aliens who evade capture at our border and enter the United States is not as readily determined.

However, a number of independent studies indicate that the stale US government-provided illegal immigration numbers are markedly understated, and that mass immigration has had perhaps a double (or larger) impact than that indicated by the "official" statistics. Specifically, in contract to the stale US Government number of 11 million illegal aliens living in the United States, the number is more likely to be 20 million to 40 million.12

Therefore, given these estimates, the corresponding impact of mass immigration on US population growth would be commensurately larger.

Specifically, the immigration-driven population projections discussed above and included in the associated spreadsheet would be substantially higher. It would be much more likely that the Census Bureau high migration projection and the UN high variant projection would be the most realistic projections. In other words, mass immigration could be driving US population to more than double by the year 2100.

Catastrophic factors

As this analysis was being prepared during June, 2013, the 2013 Amnesty for Illegal Aliens bill (S.744) was being debated in the United States Senate. This amnesty bill, if passed, would have catastrophic consequences for US population numbers.

Two Congressional Budget Reports(13) reveal that the amnesty bill would increase US population by 10.4 million above current forecasts for 2023, and by 16 million in 2033.14

The increased inflow will result in up to 46 million new or legalized people in the United States in 20 years.14 Thus the bill would ensure the arrival of one new immigrant for every six Americans.

The reports predict the bill will increase the number of resident guest-workers by 1.6 million in 2023, and by 2.8 million in 2033.14

An analysis of the amnesty bill Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) shows that more than 30 million immigrants would be granted legal status within 10 years, and an additional 25 million would be granted nonimmigrant work visas. The total increase would therefore be 57 Million.15

Similarly, an analysis by NumbersUSA reveals that the amnesty bill will add 33 million people in first decade alone - the equivalent of adding the top 20 U.S. cities full of foreign workers in first decade.16

Clearly, passage of the 2013 amnesty bill (S.744) will result in virtually unending US population growth. The amnesty will, for all practical purposes, dissolve United States borders and allow foreign job-seekers to drive up US population and commensurate environmental degradation. Population growth will subsequently decline only at the point when the US standard of living and environmental degradation are on par with conditions in population donor nations.


References

US Population - Immigration Projections to 2100 1. Spreadsheet: "US Population - Immigration Projections to 2100", by Fred Elbel (June, 2013).

2. "US Census Bureau historical data Historical National Population Estimates:  July 1, 1900 to July 1, 1999", Population Estimates Program, Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau, (Revised June 28, 2000).

Additional tables: "National Intercensal Estimates (2000-2010)", Population Estimates Program, Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau.

3. US Census Bureau Population Clock.

4. US Census Bureau table NP2012-T13: "Table 13. Projections of the Population by Net International Migration Series for the United States: 2015 to 2060" (2010); see spreadsheet.

5. "Table i. -- Social Security July 1 Population and Dependency Ratios, by Broad Age Group, Calendar Years 1950-2080", Social Security Administration (1997).

6. "World Population Prospects: The 2012 Revision", United Nations, Population Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs (June, 2013). File "POP/1-1: Total population (both sexes combined) by major area, region and country, annually for 1950-2100 No change, 2010-2100".

7. "Probabilistic Population Projections: Total Population, Based on the 2010 Revision of the World Population Prospects - United States", United Nations, Population Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2010, revised 15 November 2012).

8. "Our Lost Future", NumbersUSA.

"Question: Where does the Census Bureau say we're heading by 2060?", NumbersUSA.

"Questions about these charts", NumbersUSA.

"These numbers come from the U.S. Bureau of the Census which counted the residents of the country in 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 and a revised projection done by the Census in 2002. All other years are estimated by the Census Bureau based on what was learned in the previous Census, on targeted surveys done each year and on other projection devices."

9. "Table 104. Expectation of Life at Birth, 1960 to 2008, and Projections, 2010 to 2020", US Census Bureau, see spreadsheet.

As of 1970, total life expectancy was 70.8 years.  So someone born in 1970 would live, on average, to 2040. As of 2010, total life expectancy is 78.3 years. So someone born in 2010 will live, on average, to 2088. Someone born in 2013 will live, on average, 2091.

10. Discussion between the author, Fred Elbel, and Jennifer with the Census Bureau Population Projections Department, June 17, 2013.

11. "U.S. Legal Permanent Residents: 2012", Annual Flow Report, Randall Monger and James Yankay, Department of homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics (2012).

Legal permanent resident flow, 2012:

New arrivals: 484,072
Adjustments of status: 547,559
Total: 1,031,631.

12. “How many illegal aliens are in the U.S.?”, The Social Contract, Volume 17, Number 4 (Summer 2007).

This issue includes the following articles:

"Illegal Aliens: Counting the Uncountable", by James H. Walsh.

"The Challenge of Accurately Estimating the Population of Illegal Immigrants" by Nancy Bolton.

"How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the U.S.? - An Alternative Methodology for Discovering the Numbers", by Fred Elbel.

"Racing Backwards - The Fiscal Impact of Illegal Immigration in California, Revisited", by Philip J. Romero.

 

13. "CBO The Economic Impact of S. 744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act", Congressional Budget Office (June, 2013).

"S. 744 Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act As reported by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on May 28, 2013, including the amendments made in the star print of June 6, 2013", Congressional Budget Office (June 18, 2013).

14. "Senate bill allows 46 million immigrants by 2033, says CBO", by Neil Munro,The Daily Caller (June 19, 2013)

"The CBO impact report says the bill would increase the U.S. population by 10.4 million above current forecasts for 2023, and by 16 million in 2033.

The current forecasts predict an inflow of roughly 11 million per decade, or 22 million by 2033.

The CBO report also assumes that eight million illegal immigrants of the estimated 11 million illegals will be allowed to stay, but does not include them in the population-growth forecast because they’re already living in the United States.

Together, the current 22 million inflow, plus the new 16 million and the eight million illegals, add up to 46 million new or legalized people for the nation in 20 years.

The nation’s current population is 314 million, so the bill would ensure the arrival of one new immigrant for every six Americans.

The report also predicts the bill will boost the number of resident guest-workers by 1.6 million in 2023, and by 2.8 million in 2033. Current law allows roughly 700,000 guest workers per year, including about 50,000 workers for the agriculture sector, and at least 400,000 university-trained workers. The estimated pool of guest-workers now in the country exceeds 1.5 million."

 

15. "Analysis Of Future Immigration Flow In Gang Of Eight Amnesty - Legal Status for 57 Million - More than 30 Million Immigrants Granted Legal Status In 10 Years; An Additional 25 Million Will Be Granted Nonimmigrant Work Visas, Bringing Total To 57 Million", by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) (May 3, 2013).

16. "Gang of 8 amnesty bill adds 33 million people in first decade alone - Senate amnesty bill like adding Top 20 U.S. cities full of foreign workers in first decade -- 33 million", by Roy Beck, NumbersUSA (April 29, 2013).

"33 million lifetime work permits to be given to foreign citizens in the first decade after the bill passes.33 million is the same size as top 20 U.S. cities."

See the detailed analysis: "Estimated Future Permanent Legal Immigration Under S.744 - FY2015-2024", NumbersUSA (April 22, 2013).

17."America 2050: Here's How The Country Will Look Three Decades From Now", Business Insider (October 19, 2012). This article contains 26 charts and graphs that show America's dramatic population growth as a result of unconstrained mass immigration.

18. "Pew's Population Pyramid GIF Is The Fastest Way To Understand America's Changing Demographics", Business Insider (April 14, 2014). An animated population pyramid shows population by age group from 1950 to 2060.

19. "The US Population Explosion In One Cool GIF", Business Insider (April 7, 2014). An animated map shows United States population density from 1790 to 2010.

20. How A 1992 Moratorium Could Have Helped Preserve the Historic American Majority, Edwin S. Rubenstein, VDare, July 2, 2012.

US population growth with immigration moratorium 1992-2012

21. World Fertility - The World's Most Important Graph, April 29, 2017.

Refugee resettlement racket

Refugee resettlement in the US

Refugee resettlement in the United States is intended to provide a safe haven to those fleeing oppression and war. The Refugee Act was passed in 1980 in order to systematize refugee entry into the United States and to better provide a standard array of services to refugees. More than 2 million refugees had been resettled in the United States in the first 25 years alone after the Refugee Act was passed.1

Since 1975, approximately 2.5 million people have been resettled in the United States. As of 2007, 10 countries had resettlement programs. Of these countries, the United States accepts more than twice the number of refugees accepted by all of the other countries combined.1

The Department of State's Bureau for Population, Refugees and Migration (PRM) oversees the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program. After one year, refugees are expected to apply for permanent residence (commonly referred to as a green card) and, after five years in the United States, a refugee is eligible to apply for U.S. citizenship.6

A resettlement "case" consists of the principal applicant, his or her spouse, and unmarried children under the age of 21. Additional relatives - the extended family - may be considered for resettlement on a case by case basis.7

After the Paris Islamic terrorist attacks in November 2015, President Obama expressed commitment to bring 10,000 Syrian Refugees into the United States. See substantial CAIRCO research on this issue: Syrian refugees and national security.

Refugees in Colorado

Refugee resettlement comprises 10 percent of legal immigration into the United States. However, refugees are disproportionately settled in metropolitan communities. As of May, 2012, a total of 8,144 refugees have been resettled in Colorado.5 Denver ranked 24th in the number of refugees resettled from 1983 to 2004, with 15,848 refugees living in Denver in the year 2000.1

Colorado is designated as a participant in "Wilson Fish" alternative programs. These programs are subcontracted exclusively to voluntary agencies (VOLAGs). These programs were established under the 1984 Wilson Fish amendment to the Immigration and Naturalization Act.

This federal government website describes how VOLAGs in the 12 Wilson Fish states they operate with virtually no oversight by the state governments. For more information, see What you need to know about Wilson-Fish, by Refugee Resettlement Watch.

In Colorado, the Colorado Department of Human Services operates as a VOLAG under this program.

Colorado maintains a Colorado Refugee Services Program.8 The following FAQ is provided by the State of Colorado Department of Human Services:9

Who is a refugee?
A refugee is a person who "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country." This definition comes from the Refugee Act of 1980 which takes its definition of refugee from the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 protocol.

Who is an asylee?
When people flee their own country and seek sanctuary in another country, they apply for asylum – the right to be recognized as a refugee and receive legal protection and material assistance. An asylum seeker must demonstrate that his or her fear of persecution in his or her home country is well-founded.

How many refugees are resettled in the U.S.?
In recent years the annual admissions levels for refugees has been set at 76,000 persons. Each year, after consultation with Congress, the U.S. Department of State, and refugee-related agencies, the President signs a Presidential Determination regarding the number of refugees to be resettled in the U.S. The 2012 Presidential Determination allows for up to 76,000 refugees.

How many refugees are resettled in Colorado?
Last year [2011], 1878 refugees were resettled in Colorado.  In 2012, 2000 refugees are projected to be resettled in Colorado. (Click here for additional data.)

Where are refugees resettled in Colorado?
The majority of refugees are resettled in the Denver metro area. Approximately 100 refugees are resettled in Colorado Springs each year and Larimer County is beginning to receive refugees.

Where do refugees come from?
Refugees are resettled from many different countries around the world.  Over the last few years the countries with the highest number of resettled refugees are from:  Burma; Iraq; Bhutan; and Somalia. (Click here for additional data.)

What is the Colorado Refugee Services Program (CRSP)?
CRSP is a division of the Colorado Department of Human Services and funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Refugee Resettlement, under the authority of the Refugee Act of 1980. Its goal is to ensure effective resettlement of officially designated refugees and to promote refugee self sufficiency and integration.

Where does funding come from for refugee resettlement?
Funding comes from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Refugee Resettlement.

Who provides services to refugees?


CRSP works with many community partners, but primarily with three designated refugee resettlement agencies (often referred to as VOLAGS): African Community Center, Ecumenical Refugee and Immigration Services and Lutheran Family Services Refugee and Asylee Programs.  Here is the contractor and principal partner resources map shown above. Here is the extended stakeholders and partnership list.

Updated ListDepartment of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration Office of Admissions - Refugee Processing Center Affiliate Directory

Colorado - Affiliate Directory, Page 6 - Nov. 2014

  • LIRS; CO-LIRS-02: Lutheran Family Services Of Colorado 132 E Las Animas, Colorado Springs, CO 80903 Phone: 719-314-0223
  • LIRS; CO-LIRS-04: Lutheran Family Service Of Colorado 108 E. Saint Vrain Street, Suite 21,Colorado Springs, CO 80903 Phone: 719-314-0213
  • CWS; CO-CWS-01: Ecumenical Refugee Services, Inc. 1600 Downing Street, Suite 400, Denver, CO 80218 Phone: 303-860-0128
  • DFMS; CO-DFMS-01: Ecumenical Refugee Services 1600 Downing Street, Suite 400, Denver, CO 80218 Phone: 303-860-0128
  • ECDC; CO-ECDC-01: ECDC African Community Center 5250 Leetsdale Drive, Suite 200, Denver, CO 80246 Phone: 303-399-4500
  • LIRS; CO-LIRS-01: Lutheran Family Services Of Colorado 1600 Downing Street, Ste 600, Denver, CO 80218 Phone: 303-980-5400 ext 182
  • LIRS; CO-LIRS-03: Lutheran Family Services Of Colorado 363 S. Harlan Street, Suite 105, Denver, CO 80226 Phone: 303-217-5846
  • LIRS; CO-LIRS-05: Lutheran Family Services Of Colorado 800 8th Avenue, Suite 225, Greeley, CO 80631 Phone: 970-336-2201

Related: President Obama issued an executive memorandum dated Nov. 21, 2014, to all federal agencies directing them on “Creating Welcoming Communities and Fully Integrated Immigrants and Refugees.”

What services do refugees receive?
Services include, but are not limited to: ESL classes, job training and employment placement, cash assistance, legal services, and health care.

Voluntary program

Refugee resettlement is a voluntary program. Cities can choose whether to participate in the program. As of October 1, 2011, withdrawal from the refugee program is allowed per current law:

§ 400.301 Withdrawal from the refugee program.(a) In the event that a State decides to cease participation in the refugee program, the State must provide 120 days advance notice to the Director before withdrawing from the program.4

Ten reasons for a refugee resettlement moratorium

Testimony given to the U.S. State Department by Ann Corcoran, Refugee Resettlement Watch.

A moratorium should be put in place until the program is reformed and the economy completely recovers.

1) There are no jobs. The program was never meant to be simply a way to import impoverished people to the US and place them on an already overtaxed welfare system.

2) The program has become a cash cow for various “religious” organizations and other contractors who very often appear to care more about the next group of refugees coming in (and the cash that comes with each one) than the group they resettled only a few months earlier. Stories of refugees suffering throughout the US are rampant.

3) Terrorist organizations (mostly Islamic) are using the program that still clearly has many failings in the security screening system. Indeed consideration should be given to halting the resettlement of Muslims altogether. Also, the UN should have no role in choosing refugees for the US.

4) The public is not confident that screenings for potential terrorists (#3) or the incidences of other types of fraudulent entry are being properly and thoroughly investigated and stopped. When fraud is uncovered—either fraud to enter the country or illegal activity once the refugee has been resettled—punishment should be immediate deportation.

5) The agencies, specifically the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), is in complete disarray as regards its legally mandated requirement to report to Congress every year on how refugees are doing and where the millions of tax dollars are going that run the program. The last (and most recent) annual report to be sent to Congress is the 2008 report—so they are out of compliance for fiscal years 2009, 2010 and 2011. A moratorium is necessary in order for the ORR to bring its records entirely up-to-date. Additionally, there needs to be an adequate tracking system designed to gather required data—frankly some of the numbers reported for such measures of dependence on welfare as food stamp usage, cash assistance and employment status are nothing more than guesses. (The lack of reports for recent years signals either bureaucratic incompetence and disregard for the law, or, causes one to wonder if there is something ORR is hiding.)

6) The State Department and the ORR have so far failed to adequately determine and report (and track once the refugee has been admitted) the myriad communicable and costly-to-treat diseases entering the country with the refugee population.

7) Congress needs to specifically disallow the use of the refugee program for other purposes of the US Government,especially using certain refugee populations to address unrelated foreign policy objectives—Uzbeks, Kosovars, Meshketians and Bhutanese (Nepalese) people come to mind.

8) Congress needs to investigate and specifically disallow any connection between this program and big businesseslooking for cheap and captive labor. The federal government should not be acting as head-hunter for corporations.

9) The Volag system should be completely abolished and the program should be run by state agencies with accountability to the public through their state legislatures. The system as presently constituted is surely unconstitutional. (One of many benefits of turning the program over to a state agency is to break up the government/contractor revolving door that is being demonstrated now at both the State Department and ORR.) The participating state agency’s job would be to find groups, churches, or individuals who would sponsor a refugee family completely for at least a year and monitor those sponsors. Their job would include making sure refugees are assimilating. A mechanism should be established that would allow a refugee to go home if he or she is unhappy or simply can’t make it in America. Short of a complete halt to resettlement-by-contractor, taxpayers should be protected by legally requiring financial audits of contractors and subcontractors on an annual basis.

10) As part of #9, there needs to be established a process for alerting communities to the impending arrival of refugees that includes reports from the federal government (with local input) about the social and economic impact a certain new group of refugees will have on a city or town. This report would be presented to the public through public hearings and the local government would have an opportunity to say 'no'.

Resources

Refugee Resettlement Watch is the premier information resource for resettlement of foreigners in America. Refugee Resettlement Watch monitors resettlement of foreign nationals / communities / tribes forced upon unsuspecting American communities. These resettlement programs are funded almost entirely by government grants issues to non-profits such as religious groups.

See The Social Contract Summer, 2013 issue: Resettlement Racket for many pertinent articles on refugee resettlement forced upon American communities, including:

Limits to Growth articles on refugee resettlement cover aspects of forced resettlement on American communiies that the mainstream media conveniently ignore.

Videos

Ann Corcoran from Refugee Resettlement Watch discusses third-world refugee resettlement, including the UN directed resettlement of foreign Muslims who are antagonistic to American democracy.

 

Ann Corcoran from Refugee Resettlement Watch discusses the U.S. Refugee Resettlement Program and its impact on unsuspecting local communities. These communities are often forced to accept large groups of refugees that are extremely difficult to assimilate into American culture (two parts). Presentation from the October 4, 2009 Social Contract Writers Workshop.

 

 

Investigative reporter James Simpson discusses refugee resettlement and the implicit agenda to erase America as we know it. This presentation was given at the October 2015 Social Contract Writers Workshop in Washington, DC:

 

 

Don Barnett discusses the U.S. Refugee Resettlement Program and how it draws immigrants to settle in America (two parts). Presentation from the October 4, 2009 Social Contract Writers Workshop.

 

 

The following video is the best summary video on refugee resettlement: 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.

Presented by immigration author/journalist Roy Beck.

 

References

1. "Refugee Resettlement in Metropolitan America", By Audrey Singer and Jill H. Wilson, (The Brookings Institution, March, 2007). Published online by the Migration Policy Institute.

2. Audrey Singer and Jill H. Wilson, "From 'There' to 'Here': Refugee Resettlement in Metropolitan America," (The Brookings Institution 2006).

3. Office of Refugee Resettlement. 2004. Report to the Congress, FY 2004.

4. Code of Federal Regulations:
Title 45 - Public Welfare Volume: 2
Date: 1999-10-01; Original Date: 1999-10-01
Title: Section 400.301 - Withdrawal from the refugee program.
Context: Title 45 - Public Welfare. Subtitle B - Regulations Relating to Public Welfare. CHAPTER IV - OFFICE OF REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT, ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES. PART 400 - REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT PROGRAM.

5. US Department of State Refugee Processing Center, Reports - Admissions and Arrivals.

6. US Department of State - Refugee Admissions.

7. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, I-130, Petition for Alien Relative.

8. Colorado Refugee Services Program.

9. Colorado Department of Human Services - Refugee Resettlement - FAQ.

10. "Time To Cap The Refugee Industry", by Thomas Allen, VDare, May 6, 2003
"...The refugee Iron Triangle is also aided by a lawyer lobby—and a media which is seemingly incapable of reporting truthfully on the issue. The Refugee Industry as we know it would end tomorrow if even one quarter of refugee costs were the responsibility of its champions..."

11. "Refugee Industry Snows the Media—For Now", by Thomas Allen, VDare, July 31, 2002

"...In fact, of course, the net effect of the 1980 Refugee Act has been to create a special type of expedited, subsidized immigration for politically-favored groups, regardless of any objective need. In the U.S., a veritable NGO Nation of at least 400 federal government-dependent refugee agencies and affiliates has grown up on the basis of welfare as we knew it, a gullible media, dubious accounting practices and the entry of refugees into the ranks of salaried service providers and lobbyists for future waves of refugees..."

12. About refugee health, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Interestingly, in what must be an obvious attempt at obfuscation, definitions by race/ethnicity do not include Hispanic/Latino. See: Refugee arrivals to Colorado by race/ethnicity and year

13. The Great Somali Welfare Hunt, by Roger D. McGrath, American Conservative, November 18, 2002.

14. Refugee Resettlement Fact Sheet from Refugee Resettlement Watch - the premier information resource for resettlement of foreigners in America.

15. Ten things your town needs to know when welcoming refugees for the first time, Refugee Resettlement Watch, March 11, 2015.

16. New Publication: How Immigration and Refugee Resettlement Are Used as a Weapon against America, Limits to Growth, July 24, 2015:

A five-minute video, titled the Red-Green Axis: Refugees, Immigration and the Agenda to Erase America, from the Center for Security Policy and is a preview of a 65-page monograph of the same name.

17. Refugee Resettlement: The Lucrative Business of Serving Immigrants, James Simpson, Capitol Research Center, July, 2015. (PDF version: Refugee Resettlement: The lucrative business of serving immigrants).

18. Time to bring refugee program out of the shadows, Don Barnett, Center for Immigration Studies, March, 2014.

19. Fog of ignorance and misinformation around this program is media’s fault, Don Barnett, Refugee Resettlement Watch, August 13, 2015.

20. Immigration Basics: Refugees, FAIR, November 19, 2015.

To qualify as a refugee, a person must meet the following definition from Section 101(a)(42) of the Immigration and Nationality Act:

"any person who... is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion...."

The distinction between a refugee and an asylee is that refugees apply for entry to the U.S. from abroad, and asylees are already in the U.S., legally or illegally, when the application is made...

Our refugee policies were codified 35 years ago under The Refugee Act of 1980. They were designed to address the political realities of the Cold War era, in which persecution was most often perpetrated by powerful and repressive central governments. These governments actively prevented their citizens from leaving.

Contemporary refugee situations, more often than not, are the consequence of the breakdown of government control in a growing number of countries around the world. In their place, violent militias driven by religious fanaticism, ethnic separatism, criminal enterprise, and other factors are wreaking havoc on people in a rapidly increasing number of failed states. These religious, nationalist and criminal insurgents, and the weak governments they are challenging for power, actively encourage mass outflows of migrants.

U.S. refugee laws need to be updated to allow the United States to respond to humanitarian crises, while protecting vital national interests.

ISIS and other terrorist groups have vowed to use the freedom and openness of our societies to attack us. We would be fools not to believe them... the failure to assimilate immigrants and their children into the economic and cultural mainstream can be lethal.

21. The Role of States in the Refugee Resettlement Process, FAIR, November 2015.

22. Islam and the West... Can They Co-Exist?, video of Lawrence Auster speaking on muslim immigration, assimilation, the Constitution and Islam, January 28, 2010.

23. The UN's Role in U.S. Refugee Resettlement, Center for Immigration Studies, January, 2015.

24. Evaluating Refugee Demographics Nationally and State-wide: Part 1 and Part 2, FAIR, February 19, 2016. See the complete report: Refugees in the United States: A Snapshot FY2014 Refugee Arrivals, FAIR.
Refugee admissions to Colorado during FY 2014

25. The Impact of Refugees on the Size and Security of the U.S. Population, by Edwin S. Rubenstein, NPG, June 8, 2016.

Remittances - a massive transfer of wealth out of America

Remittances are monies sent by foreign-born workers (legal immigrants and illegal aliens) back to their home country. The transfers are facilitated by sending money through banks, making investments in the home country, or by returning to the home country while retaining bank accounts and other assets in the United States.

Remittances are essentially a tax-free transfer of wealth out of the U.S. Approximately $20 billion of Mexican remittances each year disappear from the U.S. economy via the institutionalized money transfer industry, never to return. While this massive amount may be considered virtual foreign aid, it is a non-sanctioned transfer of wealth that is based on a fundamental violation of America’s immigration and employment laws.

The massize size of remittances

Projecting $26 billion sent as tax-free remittances by illegal aliens to Mexico in 2014,44 the negative impacts of this loss on the American economy would be significant. That amount would purchase 1.5 million cars or 15-million computers, and $200 billion sent back to Mexico over the past 10 years would have purchased Americans an astounding number: 15 million cars along with 150 million additional computers.45 It well could have saved countless homeowners from foreclosure. Mexico received the largest amount of remittances in 2009). Of 10 countries receiving 40 percent of total remittances and related flows from the U.S., Mexico received about 61 percent of funds. Mexico’s central bank reported remittances totaling $21.27 billion in 2010. Remittances are indeed a significant source of income to Mexico. Remittance inflows of $25.3 billion to Mexico comprised approximately 3 percent of Mexico’s 2008 GDP.

The National Population Council estimates that more than one out of 10 Mexican families in approximately 1.3 million homes depends on remittances.28 In fact, according to a poll by the Inter-American Development Bank, as many as one in five Mexican adults receives money from relatives working in the U.S.29

The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) estimated that 2009 migrants' remittances from the U.S. were approximately $48 billion, or approximately 70 percent more than total official development assistance provided by the United States. Of that amount, $38 billion consisted of personal transfers abroad. The remaining $11 billion consisted of wages paid to workers in the U.S., although some of those wages obviously were spent in the U.S.6

Remittances represent a staggering transfer of wealth worldwide. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimated total global flows of remittances — including compensation, personal transfers, and capital transfers — to be approximately $407 billion in 2008. This represented an increase of about $250 billion since 2002.5

The BEA estimated that countries in the Western Hemisphere received two-thirds of remittances in 2003, and Asia and the Pacific received one-quarter, while the remaining amount went to Europe and Africa. Unfortunately, the BEA did not report remittance data for specific countries; only "net private remittances" (outflows minus inflows) were reported. However, BEA did estimate that in 2009, approximately $20 billion in remittances was sent from the United States to Mexico. These remittances grew by 3 percent per year in inflation-adjusted 2009 dollars.5

Remittances are sensitive to economic fluctuations. From 1995 to 2003, the official count of Mexicans living in the United States increased by 56 percent and the median wage increased by 10 percent. Yet total remittances increased dramatically by 199 percent during those positive economic times.

Remittances to Mexico peaked at $26 billion in 2007, then declined during the subsequent recession. Even so, Mexican workers living in the United States did not return home in large numbers.9 One might conclude that a weakened economy in the U.S. still offered better wages than the Mexican economy.

The following chart is from a 2013 PEW research report revealing that $41 billion out of a total of $52.9 billion in remittances are sent to Latin America:46

Who makes remittances?

A 2007 survey by the Banco de Mexico found that one-fifth of migrants who sent remittances home worked in the U.S. construction sector.9 The amount of migrants’ remittances has increased by 3 percent per year since 2000 (see Table 1). The increase has been facilitated by increased ease of low-cost money transfers, coupled with a corresponding increase in the number of foreign-born workers in the U.S..

Although the Census Bureau estimated 23.9 million foreign-born workers in the U.S. in 2009, it should be noted that many believe Census Bureau numbers to be low, since for years the Bureau reported the number of illegal aliens in the United States to be an unvarying 8-12 million. The Social Contract addressed this issue in its Summer, 2007 issue, “How many illegal aliens are in the U.S.?”13 In that issue, a number of authors presented convincing evidence that the number of illegal aliens in the United States may be closer to 30-40 million. (See the CAIRCO article How many illegal aliens reside in the United States?).

How remittances are sent

U.S. remittance agents include banks, credit unions, post offices, money transfer operators, individual businesses, and chain stores (convenience stores, groceries, department stores). Home town associations, known as clubes des oriundos, facilitate collective transfers, and also maintain social ties between U.S. workers and communities in their home country.15

In 1996, approximately 14 million remittances were sent to Mexico, averaging $320 each. In 2000, approximately 17 million remittances were sent, averaging $365 each. By 2003, the number had jumped to approximately 40 million remittances at an average of $321 each. In 2010, the amount of the average remittance remained about the same at $302.16

In 2004, small money transfer operators had a 60 percent market share while Western Union had a modest 15 percent market share.17 However, at that time, the mechanism for transferring remittances from the U.S. to Mexico was undergoing a massive shift from a largely informal industry to institutional electronic transfers.18 In 1994, money orders comprised over 46 percent of the value of all reported transfers. By 2003, the share of money orders decreased to 12 percent and 86 percent of remittances were being made electronically.19 This was a tremendous opportunity for companies such as First Data/Western Union to compete for market share and profit potential.

A Colorado perspective

On July 22, 2004, Colorado-based First Data Corporation hosted a fourth national public “immigration reform” forum at North High School in a predominantly Hispanic Denver neighborhood.1 The school recently had been the focus of a national controversy as a consequence of displaying the Mexican flag in its classrooms.

In the audience, an American woman whose lineage dated back to the Pilgrims was brutally beaten by a woman who proclaimed in a Spanish accent, “You should leave! This is for us.” Mike McGarry, of Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform, was told to “Go back to Ireland.” Nevertheless, after vociferously complaining about the forum’s obvious anti-immigration enforcement bias, he was given an impromptu seat on the panel. Not that it changed First Data’s business model.

The forums were not much more than targeted marketing events to promote wire transfers to immigrants and in particular to the illegal alien community. First Data Corporation, one of the world’s largest providers of money transfer services, reported that its second-quarter 2004 profit rose 32 percent as a direct result of revenue from Western Union, its money-transfer agency.2 This profit amounted to $1.1 billion in 2004 — from money transfers alone.

In the booming funds transfer industry, the number of Western Union agents world-wide grew from 30,000 in 1995 to 219,000 in 2004.3 Such phenomenal growth was worth fighting to protect. Indeed, in a vindictive political attempt to preserve their immense revenue stream, First Data subsequently formed a political action committee to oppose immigration reform candidate Tom Tancredo, who had reasonably suggested that remittances be taxed.

The larger view

The National Population Council estimates that more than one out of 10 Mexican families in approximately 1.3 million homes depends on remittances.28 In fact, according to a poll by the Inter-American Development Bank, as many as one in five Mexican adults receives money from relatives working in the U.S.

In Mexico, out-migration has devastated many Mexican villages.32 In rural areas that have been undermined by NAFTA, small agricultural communities have been particularly hard-hit as workers abandoned the locales.38 Rural agricultural systems have been impoverished by the double-whammy of NAFTA coupled with out-migration to the United States.

Illegal immigration is now much more closely associated with organized crime, which is creeping north into the U.S. Migratory routes into the U.S. have been taken over to a large extent by Mexican cartels. It is now quite common for illegal aliens to carry heavy loads of drugs — particularly marijuana — as they sneak across the border into the U.S. In 2007, $25 billion in cash from drug sales was smuggled out of the U.S. The amount quickly grew to $30 billion in 2008.39 It might be reasonable to investigate whether any of this drug money is transferred via the remittance infrastructure.

Mexico’s 2011 population was 114 million with a 1.4 percent rate of natural increase (births minus deaths). This seemingly low rate of constant increase would lead to a doubling of Mexico’s population in 50 years (per the Rule of 7035). Population is more accurately projected by the Population Reference Bureau to grow to 131 million by 2025 and to 143 million by 2050.36 With 28 percent of Mexico’s population under the age of 15 and 65 percent between the ages of 15 and 64, Mexico is a country of youth looking at a bleak future.37

Mass migration from Mexico to the U.S. acts as a two-fold safety valve. It reduces population pressure in Mexico while allowing population to continue to grow with less adverse effects, thus discouraging implementation of viable domestic population policies. Mass migration also encourages dissatisfied young males to leave their homeland, where they might agitate and fight for societal change if they remained at home. Remittances facilitate this mass migration, and indeed, the ease of making remittances can be considered a motivating factor for workers to leave the country.

Related articles

Remittances - a Massive Transfer of Wealth, by Fred Elbel, The Social Contract, Spring, 2012.

Remittances Abet Mexican Officials Irresponsible Behavior, Center for Immigration Studies, September 26, 2013 

Remittance-Senders (Mostly Illegals) Ship $25 Billion a Year Out of the U.S., Center for Immigration Studies, October 31, 2010  

Remittances to Mexico (2009), FAIR, 2009

References

1. “First Data Immigration Reform panel in Denver,” Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform, July 22, 2004, http://www.cairco.org/events/firstdata2004jul22a.html

2. Bloomberg News, “First Data reports big profit jump,” The Denver Post, July 21, 2004.

“Greenwood Village-based First Data Corp., the world’s largest processor of credit-card payments, said today its second-quarter profit rose 32 percent, helped by an increase in revenue at Western Union, its international money-transfer agency…Net income rose to $466 million from $353.8 million a year earlier, First Data said in a statement. Sales increased 22 percent to $2.53 billion...”

3. Nicholas Johnston, “First Data and Its Congressman Clash Over U.S. Immigration,” Bloomberg, May 16, 2005, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aKmMLvHBrmJs&refe...

4. Aldo Svaldi, “Border skirmish — Rep. Tancredo’s proposals for immigrant remittances draw First Data Corp. into public policy debate,” The Denver Post, June 27, 2004.

5. “Migrants’ Remittances and Related Economic Flows,” Congressional Budget Office, (February, 2011): 2. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12053/02-24-Remittances_chartbook.pdf

6. “Migrants’ Remittances and Related Economic Flows,” Congressional Budget Office, (February, 2011): 1. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12053/02-24-Remittances_chartbook.pdf

7. “Migrants’ Remittances and Related Economic Flows,” Congressional Budget Office, (February, 2011): 5. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12053/02-24-Remittances_chartbook.pdf

8. Nancy Bolton, “The Challenge of Accurately Estimating the Population of Illegal Immigrants,” The Social Contract (Volume 17, Number 4, Summer 2007), http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc_17_4/tsc_17_4_bolto...

9. “Remittances to Mexico - Cross-Border Money Flows Slowed by U.S. Slump,” SouthWest Economy, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, First Quarter 2010, http://dallasfed.org/research/swe/2010/swe1001d.pdf

10. Ricardo Lopez, “Remittances to Mexico are rebounding,” Los Angeles Times, January 11, 2012, http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-mexico-remittances-20120112,0,6700...

11. Nacha Cattan, “Mexico Remittances Rise the Most in 5 Years on Cheaper Peso,” Bloomberg.

November 2, 2011, http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-11-02/mexico-remittances-rise-the-...

12. “Migrants’ Remittances and Related Economic Flows,” Congressional Budget Office, (February, 2011): 6. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12053/02-24-Remittances_chartbook.pdf

Census Bureau data from “Current Population Surveys, Outgoing Rotation Groups, 1995 to 1999,” U.S. Census Bureau

13. “How many illegal aliens are in the U.S.?”, The Social Contract (Volume 17, Number 4, Summer 2007) http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc_17_4/index.shtml . See CAIRCO article How many illegal aliens reside in the United States?

See specific articles: James H. Walsh , “Illegal Aliens: Counting the Uncountable", The Social Contract (Volume 17, Number 4 Summer 2007) http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc_17_4/tsc_17_4_walsh...

Nancy Bolton, “The Challenge of Accurately Estimating the Population of Illegal Immigrants,” The Social Contract (Volume 17, Number 4, Summer 2007), http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc_17_4/tsc_17_4_bolto...

Fred Elbel, “How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the U.S.? — An Alternative Methodology for Discovering the Numbers,” The Social Contract (Volume 17, Number 4, Summer 2007), http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc_17_4/tsc_17_4_elbel...

14. “Migrants’ Remittances and Related Economic Flows,” Congressional Budget Office, (February, 2011): 10. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12053/02-24-Remittances_chartbook.pdf

15. Raul Hernandez-Coss, “The U.S.-Mexico Remittance Corridor — Lessons on Shifting from Informal to Formal Transfer Systems, World Bank Working Paper No, 47,” The World Bank, Washington, DC, (2005): 30. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTAML/Resources/396511-1146581427871...

16. “Remittances to Mexico up marginally in 2010,” Fox News Latino, February 2, 2011

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/money/2011/02/02/remittances-mexico-mar...

17. Raul Hernandez-Coss, “The U.S.-Mexico Remittance Corridor — Lessons on Shifting from Informal to Formal Transfer Systems, World Bank Working Paper No, 47,” The World Bank, Washington, DC, (2005): 11.

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTAML/Resources/396511-1146581427871...

18. Raul Hernandez-Coss, “The U.S.-Mexico Remittance Corridor - Lessons on Shifting from Informal to Formal Transfer Systems, World Bank Working Paper No, 47,” The World Bank, Washington, DC, (2005): 10, 22. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTAML/Resources/396511-1146581427871...

19. Raul Hernandez-Coss, “The U.S.-Mexico Remittance Corridor — Lessons on Shifting from Informal to Formal Transfer Systems, World Bank Working Paper No, 47,” The World Bank, Washington, DC, (2005): 22. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTAML/Resources/396511-1146581427871...

20. Raul Hernandez-Coss, “The U.S.-Mexico Remittance Corridor — Lessons on Shifting from Informal to Formal Transfer Systems, World Bank Working Paper No, 47,” The World Bank, Washington, DC, (2005): 22. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTAML/Resources/396511-1146581427871...

21. “Background on the Mexican matricula consular (illegal alien) ID card in Colorado,” Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform, 2003, http://www.cairco.org/matricula/matricula_background.html

22. “Migrants’ Remittances and Related Economic Flows,” Congressional Budget Office, (February, 2011): 11. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12053/02-24-Remittances_chartbook.pdf

Data source: Congressional Budget Office based on Bureau of Economic Analysis data.

23. “Migrants’ Remittances and Related Economic Flows,” Congressional Budget Office, (February, 2011): 7. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12053/02-24-Remittances_chartbook.pdf

Data source: Congressional Budget Office based on Bureau of Economic Analysis data.

24. “Remittances to Mexico up marginally in 2010,” Fox News Latino, February 2, 2011,

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/money/2011/02/02/remittances-mexico-mar...

25. “Migrants’ Remittances and Related Economic Flows,” Congressional Budget Office, (February, 2011): 8. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12053/02-24-Remittances_chartbook.pdf

Data source: Congressional Budget Office based on Bureau of Economic Analysis data.

26. “Remittances to Mexico — Cross-Border Money Flows Slowed by U.S. Slump,” SouthWest Economy, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, First Quarter 2010, http://dallasfed.org/research/swe/2010/swe1001d.pdf

27. Paul Hernandez-Coss, “The U.S.-Mexico Remittance Corridor — Lessons on Shifting from Informal to Formal Transfer Systems, World Bank Working Paper No. 47,” The World Bank, (2005): 4. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTAML/Resources/396511-1146581427871...

28. Stevenson Jacobs, “Remittances up by 40 percent,” The News, November 2, 2001, http://www.thenewsmexico.com/noticia.asp?id=11970

(archived: http://web.archive.org web/20021114162537/http://www.thenewsmexico.com/noticia.asp?id=11970)

29. Paul Hernandez-Coss, “The U.S.-Mexico Remittance Corridor — Lessons on Shifting from Informal to Formal Transfer Systems, World Bank Working Paper No. 47,” The World Bank, (2005): 30. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTAML/Resources/396511-1146581427871...

30. “Remittances Profile: Mexico,” Migration Policy Institute, circa 2009, http://www.migrationinformation.org/datahub/remittances/Mexico.pdf

31. Frontera NorteSur, “Remittances, Mexican Migration and Emerging World Trends,” Mexidata.info

July 26, 2010, http://mexidata.info/id2748.html.

Data compiled by BBVA Bancomer.

32. Jay Root, “Migration of working-age people has devastated many Mexican villages,” Knight Ridder Newspapers , Mar 23, 2006, http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/printer_21528.shtml.

“Heavy migration has all but emptied much of the Mexican countryside.... In five states, including Zacatecas, remittances from abroad now equal 100 percent or more of the salaries generated locally. In the state of Michoacan, money sent home from the United States is 182 percent of in-state incomes…. No corner of Mexico has been left untouched by emigration. In 31 percent of Mexico’s municipalities, population is shrinking steadily because of migration to the United States, according to figures provided by Garcia Zamora.”

33. Paul Hernandez-Coss, “The U.S.-Mexico Remittance Corridor — Lessons on Shifting from Informal to Formal Transfer Systems, World Bank Working Paper No. 47,” The World Bank, (2005): 30. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTAML/Resources/396511-1146581427871...

Source: Ginger Thompson, “A Surge in Money Sent Home by Mexicans,” New York Times, October 28, 2003.

34. Paul Hernandez-Coss, “The U.S.-Mexico Remittance Corridor — Lessons on Shifting from Informal to Formal Transfer Systems, World Bank Working Paper No. 47,” The World Bank, (2005): 38. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTAML/Resources/396511-1146581427871...

35. The Rule of 70 is useful for financial as well as demographic analysis. It 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 percent annual growth rate, doubling time is 70/10 = 7 years.
http://www.ecofuture.org/pop/facts/exponential70.html

36. “2011 World Population Data Sheet,” Population Reference Bureau, 2011, http://www.prb.org/pdf11/2011population-data-sheet_eng.pdf

37. “CIA World Factbook - Mexico.” Central Intelligence Agency, February, 2012, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/mx.html

38. “NAFTA and U.S. Corn Subsidies: Explaining the Displacement of Mexico’s Corn Farmers,” Prospect Journal of International Affairs at UCSD (April, 2010), http://prospectjournal.ucsd.edu/index.php/2010/04/nafta-and-u-s-corn-sub...

39. Wilson Beck, Wakeup Call From Mexico, (MuchoPress, 2009), p. 253. Dollar estimates are from the U.S. Department of Justice.

40. White House, “Democrats Applaud Mexican President Slamming Arizona Law,” FoxNews, May 20, 2010, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/20/mexicos-calderon-takes-case-c...

41. “National Population Projections, 2008,” U.S. Census Bureau (2008),
http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/summarytables.html

42. “Question: Where does the Census Bureau say we’re heading by 2060?”, NumbersUSA
https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/about/question-where-does-censu...

43. Charles Hugh Smith, “What’s the Real Unemployment Number?”, Daily Finance, February 9, 2011

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/02/09/real-unemployment-number/

44. Wilson Beck, Wakeup Call From Mexico, (MuchoPress, 2009),
From Table 7 in this report, $19.9 billion was sent to Mexico in personal remittances in 2009 and is growing at an average of 3 percent per year. Assuming a 3 percent inflation rate, remittances reported in Table 7 would converge with Beck’s amount in 2014.

Inflation in February, 2012 was 2.93 percent: Annual Inflation, InflationData.com (February, 2012)

45. Wilson Beck, Wakeup Call From Mexico, (MuchoPress, 2009)

46. Remittances to Latin America Recover—but Not to Mexico, by D’Vera Cohn, Ana Gonzalez-Barrera and Danielle Cuddington, Pew Research Hispanic trends Project, November 15, 2013. Read the full report.

47. U.S. Govt. Banking Program Facilitates Remittances To Mexico, by Judicial Watch, Apr 7, 2016:

...a U.S. government program is largely responsible for the billions in remittances flowing south of the border from illegal [alien] immigrants.

The program is called “Directo a Mexico” (Direct to Mexico) and the Federal Reserve, the government agency that serves as the nation’s central bank, launched it nearly a decade ago. Judicial Watch investigated the outrageous taxpayer-subsidized initiative and obtained government records back in 2006. It was created by President George W. Bush following the 2001 U.S.-Mexico Partnership for Prosperity, undermines our nation’s immigration laws and is a potential national security nightmare. The goal was to provide low-cost banking services to illegal immigrants and facilitate the process for those sending money home. Remittances are transferred through the Federal Reserve’s own automated clearinghouse linked directly to Mexico’s central bank (Banco de Mexico).

At the time Federal Reserve officials acknowledged that most of the Mexicans who send money home are illegal immigrants so a Mexican-issued identification is the only requirement to use the government banking service. A colorful brochure promoting “Directo a Mexico” offered to help immigrants [illegal aliens] who don’t have bank accounts and assured the best foreign exchange rate and low transfer fees...

In short, the U.S. created this special banking system specifically for illegal aliens and tens of billions of dollars have flowed through it, according to figures obtained by JW from Banco de Mexico.

This is worth noting because news coverage of Trump’s plan to fund a wall along the Mexico-U.S. border has omitted this important information, instead focusing on the negative impact to the Mexican economy if remittances are cut...

48. International Remittances - Actions Needed to Address Unreliable Official U.S. Estimate, GAO - Government Accountability Office, February, 2016.

49. Remittances to Latin America, Caribbean Hit $68.3 Billion in 2015, Wall Street Journal, February 16, 2016.

Sanctuary Cities in America, including Denver and Aurora, Colorado

The United States has the most generous immigration policy in the world, allowing approximately one million legal immigrants into our country every year. In addition, approximately 3 million illegal aliens sneak into our country every year (Time Magazine, September 20, 2004).

Many cities have implemented sanctuary policies which call for city employees - including police officers - not to report illegal aliens to the federal authorities. Many sanctuary cities, in contrast to the wishes of most Americans, also offer public services and benefits to illegal aliens that impose great fiscal and social costs on the taxpayers.

Sanctuary cities are illegal, made so by federal legislation enacted in 1996. Recognizing the adoption of sanctuary policies as a growing impediment to combating the wave of illegal aliens residing in the country, Congress adopted measures in 1996 that barred local ordinances that prohibited employees from providing information on illegal aliens to federal officials. The law says, "Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit or in any way restrict any government entity or official from sending to or receiving ... information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual." - § 434 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), and § 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA).

According to 8 U.S. Code, Section 1373, “A state or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict ... sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.”

Until the Trump administration, the federal government had essentially abrogated its responsibility to enforce the law regarding sanctuary cities.

80 percent of American voters disapprove of localities not notifying federal immigration officials when they come in contact with an illegal alien: Poll: Americans overwhelmingly oppose sanctuary cities for illegal aliens, The Hill, February 22, 2017. A March 24, 2017 Rasmussen poll reveals that only 35% Want to Live in a Sanctuary Community.

Colorado has several de facto sanctuary cities, including Denver and Aurora, Colorado.

 


 

Resources and research

Map: Sanctuary Cities, Counties, and States, Center for Immigration Studies, March 2017:

Map of sanctuary cities

Sanctuary nation, The Social Contract journal, Spring, 2016.

Sanctuary Cities: Obstructing Immigration Enforcement, FAIR, October 2, 2015.

Sanctuary Policies Across the U.S. - A Report by FAIR's State and Local Department, FAIR, January, 2017.

NumbersUSA articles on sanctuary cities.

Center for Immigration Srudies articles on sanctuary cities.

Here is a CAIRCO compilation of articles on sanctuary cities.

Also see CAIRCO's May, 2005 Press conference and protest of Denver sanctuary policy.

Denver enacts subversive sanctuary city ordinance

Article author: 
Fred Elbel
Article publisher: 
CAIRCO.org
Article date: 
Tuesday, August 29, 2017
Medium
Article Body: 

On August 28, 2017, the city of Denver passed an ordinance codifying their sanctuary city policy. It was passed 10-0 with 3 unrecorded abstentions.

The Denver government website page contains this announcement: Denver Announces New Public Safety Enforcement Priorities Ordinance. Also see a summary of the ordinance: Denver Public Safety Enforcement Priorities Proposal Ordinance 17-0940, August 16, 2017, and the Full text of the Public Safety Enforcement Priorities Act.

The city claims that the ordinance is "consistent with applicable federal law," i.e., 8USC 1373. That, of course, remains for legal experts to ascertain.

Jeffrey Lynch, the field office director for ICE’s Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations in Denver, issued the following statement Monday night:

By passing this irresponsible ordinance, the City of Denver’s leadership has codified a dangerous policy that deliberately obstructs our country’s lawful immigration system, protects serious criminal alien offenders, and undermines public safety.

Unfortunately, with this established policy, we can expect to witness more tragedies like we saw in the recent case of Ever Valles, a known gang member and an immigration enforcement priority, who was released in December 2016 by Denver County without ICE being properly notified. He was later arrested and charged with murdering a 32-year-old man at a Denver light rail station just seven weeks after he was released from Denver County Jail.

Our goal is to build cooperative, respectful relationships with our law enforcement partners. While we will continue our efforts to work with Denver’s city government in support of public safety, it is disappointing that they have taken such an extreme step in the wrong direction.

See these related articles:

Denver City Council passes controversial immigration protection ordinance - ICE calls ordinance 'dangerous', The Denver Channel, August 28, 2017, linked from Complete Colorado.

Denver elevates immigration stance with an ordinance that advocates hail as supportive but ICE calls “dangerous”, Denver Post, August 28, 2017.

As we would expect, the Post article conflates "immigrant" with "illegal alien," stating:

In an age when the Trump administration has intensified a crackdown on illegal immigration, Denver and its city leaders should stand publicly with the immigrants who face a constant risk of deportation.

Legal immigrants, of course, are not at risk of deportation. Illegal aliens - who have evaded capture at our border - are indeed at risk of being returned to their home countries, ludicrous Denver sanctuary city policies notwithstanding.


 

CAIRCO Research

Sanctuary Cities in America, including Denver and Aurora, Colorado

Terminology history and usage: alien and illegal alien

Map: Do You Live in a Sanctuary City?

Article subtitle: 
State and local jurisdictions defy federal immigration law
Article publisher: 
Center for Immigration Studies
Article date: 
Thursday, July 9, 2015
Medium
Article Body: 

The recent death of a 32-year-old California woman by a five-times-deported illegal-alien felon has drawn attention to the impact of the Obama administration's dismantling of immigration enforcement. The Center for Immigration Studies has published a map showing the more than 200 cities, counties and states across the United States which are considered sanctuary cities. These are jurisdictions where the protection of illegal aliens, even criminal illegal aliens, from lawful deportation is placed above the safety of American citizens.

These state and local jurisdictions have policies, laws, executive orders, or regulations allowing them to avoid cooperating with federal immigration law enforcement authorities. These “cities” ignore federal law authorizing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to administratively deport illegal aliens without seeking criminal warrants or convictions from federal, state, or local courts. Although federal law requires the cooperation, the Department of Justice has never sued or taken any measure, including denying federal funds, against a jurisdiction. On the contrary, the present administration has made it difficult for the states and localities which choose to aid in enforcing immigration laws. Federal law was labeled voluntary by the administration in a November 2014 policy memorandum signed by the Homeland Security Secretary.

View the map of sanctuary cities.


CAIRCO Research

Sanctuary Cities in Colorado and the Sanctuary City of Denver

Denver is still a sanctuary city - FAQ

Even though sanctuary cities have been made illegal in Colorado, it appears that Denver is in fact still a sanctuary city.

September 13, 2010 - Senator Ted Harvey, coauthor of SB 06-090, asks: "Denver is not a sanctuary city," says a Denver Post editorial. Is that a fact or is it fiction?

Fact or Fiction? Denver has been certified by a state audit report as being in compliance with SB 06-090.

FACT: The 2009 state audit was an audit of the reporting process, not an audit of the numbers submitted by cities and counties. It did not certify Denver or any city as being in compliance. For example, in 2007, 181 Colorado cities and counties reported zero contacts with ICE, yet none were audited for compliance.

Fact or Fiction? Mayor Hickenlooper claims that Denver "made over 7,000 calls to ICE since 2006."

FACT: Denver police officers made less than 500 calls to ICE since 2006 out of over 250,000 total arrests, over 15,000 DUI arrests and over 500,000 traffic stops. Over 7,000 referrals were made to ICE by the Denver county jail for individuals already in custody. Hickenlooper consistently lumps the two numbers together - Denver police referrals and jail referrals – thereby misrepresenting the extent of Denver police contacts with ICE.

Fact or Fiction? Denver operates much the same way all other Colorado cities and counties do.

FACT: The El Paso County jail operates cooperatively with ICE through a 287g agreement, which trains and deputizes jail personnel to use the ICE database to identify illegal aliens. At least five other counties including Arapahoe and Jefferson are on the waiting list for that program, but Denver city officials have steadfastly opposed joining. As far as "street arrests" are concerned, the Denver Police Department's 105 referrals to ICE in 2009 represent 4% of the 2,720 reported to ICE by its neighbor Aurora, a city half its size with only 46% as many police officers. That's a 50-to-1 ratio per capita.

Fact or Fiction? There is no official policy in Denver that obstructs police cooperation with ICE.

FACT: There are two official Police Department documents that violate SB 06-090. Denver Police Operations Manual section 104.52 requires a police officer to get a supervisor's approval prior to calling ICE. Also, a Denver PD "Training Bulletin" distributed in September 2006 says police officers need not change their procedures because of SB 06-090. As a result, in 2009, Denver police officers made only 105 "Refer to Immigration" notes on arrest reports for 63,803 individuals arrested. That is less than .002% of arrests.

Fact or Fiction? Fact or Fiction? ICE has increased its deportations from Colorado dramatically since SB 06-090 was passed, which shows Denver and other cities are now cooperating with ICE.

FACT: Although ICE contacts have undoubtedly increased since 2006, a large percentage of the individuals deported by ICE come from its expanded efforts under the Criminal Alien Program (CAP), not from local law enforcement referrals. Four years after SB 06-090 was passed, it remains true that a majority of illegal aliens arrested by local police are NOT referred to ICE under the probable cause standard of SB 06-090, are not identified as illegal aliens, and thus, are not deported.

Fact or Fiction? Fact or Fiction? According to Mayor Hickenlooper, Denver wants to participate in ICE's "Secure Communities Program," which now awaits only Gov. Ritter's approval.

FACT: Ritter and Hickenlooper have stalled a decision on the adoption of the SCP for 18 months since discussions with ICE began in April 2009. Over that period, hundreds of criminal aliens arrested for minor crimes in Denver have been released back into the community instead of being identified by ICE and evaluated for possible deportation. If Hickenlooper had endorsed the program in 2009 and publicly supported it, it would be in place today.

Fact or Fiction? Fact or Fiction? Denver city council has adopted a requirement that companies doing business with the city must use the federal E-verify program.

FACT: The new policy comes four years after the state mandated the E-verify program for all companies doing business with state agencies, but Denver's policy applies only to construction contractors, not to scores of other employers with hundreds of employees. Thus, Denver taxpayers are still underwriting the employment of countless illegal aliens.

Sanctuary cities banned in Colorado! - SB 90 (2006)

Update: Wiens measure becomes law, bans sanctuary cities

May 2, 2006
Kelley Harp, Senate Republican Communications

DENVER - Senate Bill 90, by state Sen. Tom Wiens, R-Castle Rock, was signed into law Monday by Colorado Gov. Bill Owens. The measure prevents cities and local governments from implementing sanctuary policies allowing illegal aliens to live within their borders without any fear of punishment.

The new law accomplishes this by prohibiting the administration of grants by the Department of Local Affairs to any local government that declares itself a sanctuary city.

"Illegal immigration is clearly a major problem in this country," Wiens said. "All levels of government must work together if we want to find practical and effective solutions to this problem. This bill provides the necessary consequences currently missing in state law to punish local governments who instruct their officers to blatantly ignore federal law."

Senate Bill 90, would require all local law enforcement officers to report to federal immigration officials any person arrested in their jurisdiction who they reasonably believe to be an illegal alien. The bill would also require each city and county in Colorado to report to the General Assembly whether or not it has instructed their peace officers to cooperate with state and federal officials in the enforcement of immigration laws.

"This bill received strong bipartisan support throughout the process," Wiens said. "With this in mind, my hope is this bill will encourage important debate on the subject at the municipal and county levels as well as greater enforcement of our current immigration laws."

Senate Bill 90 became law immediately upon the governor's signature.

The key provisions of the statute are as follows:

  • Local governments cannot create a policy that bars police from cooperating with federal officials concerning the status of any person in Colorado.
  • Police must notify the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency if a person arrested for a crime is a suspected illegal immigrant.
  • The law does not apply to those arrested for minor traffic infractions or suspicion of domestic violence. However, immigration officials must be told if a person is convicted of domestic violence.
  • Cities and counties must notify local law enforcement officers in writing of their obligation to comply with the law.
  • Cities and counties must file an annual report to the state regarding how many illegal immigrants they reported to immigration officials.
  • Local governments that fail to report suspected illegal immigrants will not be eligible for state grants.

See CAIRCO's summary of SB 90.

Data in! Sanctuary cities have higher crime rates

Article subtitle: 
Actual statistics show disparities with other municipalities grow over time
Article author: 
Alicia Powe
Article publisher: 
WorldNet Daily
Article date: 
Sunday, April 9, 2017
Medium
Article Body: 

Surprise! Sanctuary cities do, indeed, experience higher crime rates than do non-sanctuary cities, an in-depth WND analysis of the most recent study of the question reveals.

An August 2016 study of the relationship between “sanctuary city” policies and crime rates shows that cities refusing to cooperate with federal immigration authorities consistently have significantly higher violent crimes rates than do non-sanctuary cities with similar populations and demographics, WND has found.

The study, published last fall by researchers from the University of California-Riverside and Highline College in Des Moines, Washington, is frequently cited by proponents of “sanctuary cities” who ignore or downplay one important detail – the actual crime statistics of the carefully selected cities chosen for the comparison model.

An analysis of the data by WND reveals that non-sanctuary cities comparable in population, size and demographics consistently – year over year – experience and report lower percentages of violent crime as well as lower percentages of property crimes...

The authors admit their assumptions going into the study were that differences in crime rates would be negligible. And their stated conclusions are that’s what was found...

However, their report buries the actual statistics. The statistics show, from 2000 through 2014, sanctuary cities have had higher crime rates than non-sanctuary cities, with the disparity growing over time...

Data gathered in the study, however, overwhelmingly contradict the conclusions of the authors.

Violent crime rates are, in fact, drastically higher in sanctuary cities than their non-sanctuary counterparts...

According to the Department of Homeland Security, from January 2014 to August 2014, more than 8,145 aliens were released from jail after arrest after their respective jurisdictions declined an immigration detainer request from Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Sixty-two percent of them had a prior criminal record, and 3,000 of them were felons. Of the 8,145 individuals released, 1,867 were subsequently re-arrested a total of 4,298 times and accumulated a staggering 7,491 charges.

The Government Accountability Office released a report on April 7, 2005, that found criminal aliens comprise about 27 percent of federal prisoners...

 


 

CAIRCO Research

Sanctuary Cities in America, including Denver and Aurora, Colorado

Crime and illegal aliens in Colorado

Crime and illegal aliens in the U.S.

 

Denver Sanctuary City Executive Order 116 announced - Mayor Webb at Rosalindas

by Bruce Finley
Denver Post
March 8, 1998

Denver Mayor Wellington Webb walked resolutely into a Mexican restaurant Saturday, questioned the humanity of federal immigration rules and ordered his own policy - estimated to cost Denver taxpayers up to $1 million a year.

And Webb says he'll urge other cities to adopt similar policies.

"I'm taking my increased stature in the U.S. Conference of Mayors and other organizations to carry this message around the country," Webb said. "We (mayors) are stronger collectively than as individuals."

Other mayors are praising immigrants publicly as immigrants become more and more prevalent in the nation's workforce....

The policy Webb announced Saturday - which spells out Denver's anti-discrimination stance toward immigrants - is meant to improve on federal policy carried out by the U.S. Justice Department's Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Though he supports laws against illegal immigration, Webb said federal policy has led to intolerable situations for immigrants in cities such as Denver. He referred to last year's case of a Guatemalan woman separated from her newborn baby to comply with a tangle of deadlines that later were changed - too late for the woman.

"I don't know what (the INS) should do," Webb said. "But I know what they shouldn't do. They shouldn't be separating a mother from a child."

Webb's Executive Order No. 116 does the following:

* Salutes and welcomes immigrants. * Asserts that federal policy "unfairly impacts many of Denver's children, senior citizens and disabled residents." * Declares Denver's strong opposition to federal distinctions between legal immigrants and commits city officials "to the delivery of services to all of its residents." * Vows that the city will back legal rights of all residents in Denver, adding that Webb will urge businesses, schools, hospitals and universities to do the same.

"The mayor feels federal welfare reform legislation unfairly targets newly arrived legal immigrants," said Shepard Nevel, Webb's director of policy.

The reforms bar legal immigrants who arrive after August 1996 from receiving federal welfare benefits.

"One of the things we're doing is providing food vouchers with state dollars to legal immigrants who are no longer eligible for food stamps," Nevel said. Denver officials also are providing job training, some medical care and housing assistance.

The cost of all this had not been determined. Kitty Pring, a senior Denver Department of Social Services official, estimated late Saturday the cost would be no more than $1 million a year, mostly out of a $550 million social services budget.

In Washington, D.C., INS officials said they had no problem with Webb's policy as long as it doesn't clash with federal law.

"It's understandable that Mayor Webb and the mayors of other large cities throughout the United States would become more active on immigration,'' INS spokesman Russ Bergeron said.

"They should. Major cities are the prime locations for settlement of both legal and illegal immigrants."

As snowflakes fell faintly across Denver, Webb made his announcement flanked by a group of immigrants from Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe and Latin America. They gathered at Rosalinda's Mexican Cafe in west Denver - a restaurant run by Mexican immigrants Rosalinda, Virgilio and Oscar Aguirre....

For Webb, the testimony reinforced his point that immigrants enrich American life.

His policy announcement comes amid intensifying debate about immigration nationwide.

Some 550,000 members of the Sierra Club - including 13,000 in Colorado - are weighing whether to advocate restrictions on immigration to reduce pressure on environmental resources.

Some economists contend immigrants - the 1990 U.S. Census counted 35,000 in Denver - hold down wages and add to social services bills. Former Colorado Gov. Dick Lamm supports a 50 percent reduction of legal immigration to help stabilize the growing U.S. population.

"The evidence is now clear that immigration hurts our own poor," Lamm wrote in a statement last week. "We shall have to make some hard decisions on immigration. How many? How chosen?"...

On Saturday, Webb acknowledged the INS efforts. "We should give the INS the same technological capability as the IRS," he suggested.

But he and his staff believe immigration overall results in a net gain to U.S. taxpayers. And beyond the bottom line, Webb said, Americans ought to do the right thing.

 

Denver Sanctuary City policy and Executive Order 116

On December 2, 2005, concerned sovereign Coloradans surprised Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper at a burrito breakfast fundraiser at El Centro - Denver's Illegal Alien Hiring Hall. Citizens questioned him on Denver's sanctuary city policy and demanded the Denver Police Manual be changed to require full cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

See pictures and video of the confrontation and of Denver's illegal alien hiring hall.

On May 8, 2005, Denver Police officer Don Young was assassinated in cold blood by an illegal alien employed at Denver Mayor Hickenlooper's restaurant. The horror is that Denver has an illegal alien sanctuary policy (Executive Order 116), implemented by former Mayor Webb in 1998, which:

  • Declares Denver's strong opposition to federal distinctions between legal immigrants and commits city officials "to the delivery of services to all of its residents."
  • Asserts that federal policy "unfairly impacts many of Denver's children, senior citizens and disabled residents."
  • Vows that the city will back legal rights of all residents in Denver, adding that Webb will urge businesses, schools, hospitals and universities to do the same.

Recently, City Attorney Finegan issued an opinion that Denver does not have a sanctuary policy and that Congressman Tancredo is wrong in saying that it does. Yet this opinion flies in the face of a 1999 City Attorney opinion on 116 that states the following:

  • Executive Order No. 116 is a limited cooperation ordinance. A limited cooperation ordinance recognizes that illegal or undocumented aliens are present in the United States in great numbers. Such limited cooperation ordinances recognize the immigration problem and offer a solution by making adjustments for the benefit of public safety.
  • Executive Order No. 116 discourages reporting of undocumented aliens who seek essential services.
  • ... illegal entry is a criminal offense which can be enforced by both state and federal officials, whereas illegal presence is a civil offense enforceable only by the INS.
  • Since the courts have strictly limited the enforcement of immigration laws by state and local law enforcement to the criminal provisions, it is clear that state and local law enforcement are under no affirmative duty to gather information on an individual's immigration status or to report a violation. Therefore, limited cooperation ordinances, like Executive Order No. 116, merely codify what the courts have already decided and that is, state and local officials have no jurisdiction to enforce civil provisions of federal immigration laws.
  • Moreover, both the present [police] departmental policy 104.5 and the interim policy, § 103.52(3) go further and restrict officers from enforcing even the criminal portions of the INA, without prior approval from a supervisor or commander.

 

Another order, Executive Order 119, authorized Denver to accept bogus Mexican Matricula Consular IDs, until prohibited by state law. Denver's police department operations manual states, "Generally, officers will not detain, arrest, or take enforcement action against a person solely because he/she is suspected of being an undocumented immigrant." It is not just Executive Orders 116 and 119, but rather these orders in conjunction with Denver's Police operations manual and city and police practices that embody Denver's sanctuary policy.

Denver's sanctuary policy is nothing more than a de facto amnesty for illegal aliens, including known felons. Denver's police officers are handcuffed by Denver's sanctuary policy. They are effectively prevented from notifying immigration authorities about the presence in Denver of illegal aliens. This virtual amnesty for foreign criminals places the safety and welfare of citizens at risk, and must stop.

See CAIRCO's May, 2005 Press conference and protest of Denver sanctuary policy.

Denver's Illegal Alien Sanctuary Policy - Denver Police Manual excerpt, 100 - 90

104.52 Arrest/Detention of Foreign Nationals

(1) Whenever any foreign national is arrested or detained, the arresting officer will determine the arrestee's country of citizenship and whether the arrestee wants his embassy to be notified.

(2) The arresting officer will then contact the Identification Section and provide that information plus the arrestee's full name and date of birth.

a. Identification Section personnel will consult the embassy notification list provided by the U.S. State Department. If the arrestee is a citizen of a country requiring mandatory notification, Identification Section personnel will make the notification.

b. If the foreign national requests the notification, it will be made.

c. If the arrestee's country of citizenship does not require mandatory notification and if the arrestee does not want notice given, no further information is necessary except that the arresting officer will note this information on the arrest documents.

d. The Identification Section will keep a record of all such foreign embassy notifications.

(3) Undocumented immigrants (includes illegal and “undocumented aliens” as referred to in the Federal Immigration and Naturalization act)

a. The responsibility for enforcement of immigration laws rests with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (I.N.S.). Denver Police officers shall not initiate police actions with the primary objective of discovering the immigration status of a person.

b. Generally, officers will not detain, arrest, or take enforcement action against a person solely because he/she is suspected of being an undocumented immigrant. If enforcement action is deemed necessary under these circumstances, the approval of an on duty supervisor or commander is required. In addition, as soon as is practical the commander of the involved officer shall be notified.

c. However, when a suspect believed to be an undocumented immigrant is arrested for other charges, a "Refer to Immigration" charge will be added to the original charges. Sheriff's Department Personnel will then notify the I.N.S. authorities according to their procedures.

d. The charge "Hold For Immigration" will be lodged against a prisoner only when a warrant has been issued by the U.S. Department of Justice, or an agency thereof, and then only when the warrant is on an immigration matter.

e. Physical evidence pertaining to immigration violations shall be placed in the Property Bureau as evidence when there is no arrest made. A letter detailing the circumstances of the recovery of the property and the property invoice number shall be sent to the commander of the Crimes Against Persons Bureau for disposition.

f. All questions pertaining to the handling of immigration related cases shall be directed to the officer’s supervisor and/or commanding officer. In addition, the commander of the Civil Liability Bureau is available for guidance regarding enforcement and non-enforcement immigration matters.

Fiscal cost of sanctuary cities

The following articles provide information on the fiscal cost of sanctuary cities:

Weekes: Taxpayers footing millions in Colorado’s criminal alien sanctuary city policies, Colorado Statesman, February 6, 2017.

Mapping $27 Billion In Federal Funding Of America's Sanctuary Cities, Adam Andrzejewski, Forbes, February 2, 2017. See excerpts on sanctuary city funding.

Report: Federal Funding of America's Sanctuary Cities, OpenTheBooks.com, February, 2017.

Interactive map: 2016 Federal Funds to Sanctuary Cities, OpenTheBooks.com, February, 2017:

 

 

Tancredo: Over 300 Sanctuary Cities Are Costing State and Local Taxpayers over $7,000,000 annually, Tom Tancredo, Breitbart, January 28, 2017.

Largest 10 Sanctuary Cities May Lose $2.27 Billion in Federal Funding, Breitbart, January 27, 2017.

Fort Collins defeated a proposed sanctuary city policy

Thanks to the efforts of concerned sovereign Coloradans, on October 4, 2005, the city of Fort Collins, Colorado, voted down a proposed ordinance that effectively would have made the city a sanctuary for illegal aliens. The resolution, two years in the making and written under the guise of protecting "immigrant rights", was in effect a sanctuary city policy.

The city of Fort Collins, Colorado, had considered an ordinance that effectively would have made the city a sanctuary city for illegal aliens. The proposed ordinance was soundly defeated at the Fort Collins City Council meeting on October 4, 2005,

The proponents of the so-called Human Rights Protection Ordinance (HRPO) have done this community a service by focusing a bright light on the issue of mass immigration in general and illegal immigration in particular. However, their proposed "solution" to the problem of illegal immigration was the exact opposite of what is needed.

The HRPO spoke to "respect the rights of, and provide equal services" to people who are here illegally - illegal aliens. It would have done so by severely limiting the ability of city employees to check the immigration status of people who are seeking city services or have been picked up for infractions such as traffic violations. It also would have required officials to recognize I.D.'s from other countries (including bogus matricula consular ID cards issued by foreign embassies) as valid identification in place of a U.S. drivers license.

Legitimatizing law breaking through the passage of the HRPO would have been bad public policy. It would have created an atmosphere of disrespect for our nations' laws and reduce the safety of Fort Collins residents by unnecessarily handcuffing law enforcement officials. The only ones who might have felt safer under the HRPO would be have been illegal aliens.

Numerous polls show that vast majorities of Americans are very concerned about illegal immigration. What Fort Collins citizens want and the nation's citizens are demanding is increased enforcement of our nation's immigration laws; not the lower levels of enforcement that sanctuary policies promote. Citizens want employers of illegal aliens punished, they are against drivers licenses for illegal aliens, they oppose sanctuary policies, are against amnesties and massive guest worker programs, and want our borders secured.

The Fort Collins City Council meeting

It was a long City Council meeting in Fort Collins, an hour and a half north of Denver. After more than an hour dealing with zoning issues, the so-called "Human Rights Ordinance" was addressed. Three advocates for the Human Rights Committee presented their case for the ordinance. Then individuals in the audience were allowed to speak. Over 50 people spoke on both sides of the issue. Many people gave rock-solid testimony why the ordinance was wrong. Testimony in favor of the ordinance relied upon emotionalism and tired platitudes, continually emphasizing that the ordinance had nothing to do with immigration.

This process took several hours. Then the Council members spoke. One particularly memorable council member comment went something like this: "I can not support deceptive legislation like the Healthy Forests or Clear Skies initiatives that are the opposite of their titles. Similarly, immigration is mentioned something like 20 times in the ordinance. This ordinance has nothing to do with human rights - it is an immigration ordinance." Another member stated approximately: "I have been dealing with this for two years, now. There are better ways to deal with suspected human rights issues other than by passing more legislation." A vote was taken and the proposed Fort Collins Sanctuary City ordinance was killed in a 5 to 2 vote!

This was the culmination of two years of effort by the Human Rights Committee and open borders proponents. CAIR only found out about the effort about three months before the deciding City Council meeting, but nevertheless rallied supporters throughout the area against the misguided ordinance. Never underestimate the power of concerned individuals. You made a difference! This defeat sends a clear message to other City Councils who may be considering similar ordinances.

Thanks to the dozens of folks who showed up to testify against the proposed ordinance. Immigration sanity would not have persevered without your presence. The sovereign people of the United States, Colorado, and Fort Collins persevered and won out against the forces of illegal invasion, neo-Marxism, and open borders!

The defeated sanctuary city ordinance

The HRPO ordinance was titled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Fort Collins, amending Chapter 13 of the City Code to add a new Article III concerning discrimination based on immigration status." Excerpts from the defeated ordinance follow, with comments:

"WHEREAS, Fort Collins is a city striving to respect the rights of, and provide equal services to, all individuals regardless of race, ethnicity, or immigration status; and"

Comments: the citizens of Fort Collins never voted on whether to strive to provide equal services regardless of illegal immigration status. Indeed, had activists not recently exposed the issue, citizens would not have heard about this ordinance at all.

"WHEREAS, Fort Collins is a city striving to promote community safety, protect witnesses and victims, prevent racial profiling and profiling based upon immigration status, prevent pretextual arrests, promote tolerance, and allow people to do their jobs; and"

Comments: the citizens of Fort Collins never voted on whether to strive to prevent profiling based on illegal immigration status, nor to tolerate illegal aliens in their city, nor to allow illegal aliens to do their jobs."

"WHEREAS, recent terrorist attacks and the resultant tightening of security may have left immigrant communities afraid to access benefits to which they are entitled, for fear of being reported to the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (formerly, INS);"...

Comments: legal immigrant communities are not afraid to access benefits to which they are entitled, as they are in no fear of being deported. Illegal aliens have no benefits to which they are entitled, and their only right under our laws is to a swift and humane deportation.

"No city employee shall inquire into the immigration status of any person."...

"No city employee shall use city resources or personnel for the purpose of detecting or apprehending persons whose only violation of law is or may be being an undocumented alien, being our of immigration status, or illegally residing in the United States."

"Where presentation of a state driver's license is customarily accepted as adequate evidence of identity, a city employee shall, to the extent permitted by state and federal law, accept identification in the form of a photo identity document issued by the person's nation of origin, such as a driver's license, passport, or matricula consular, and shall not subject the person to a higher level of scrutiny or different treatment than if the person had provided a Colorado driver's license."

"It is illegal in Colorado to accept the bogus matricula consular ID card."

Letter

The following September 15, 2005 letter to the Fort Collins Weekly, by Steven Shulman, sheds light on the defeated ordinance:

"The proponents of the "Human Rights Protection Ordinance," which would prevent the police from asking about immigration status, claim that it would encourage illegal aliens who are the victims of domestic abuse to contact the police. However, domestic abuse often goes unreported. There is little reason to think that the HRPO would make much of a difference in that regard.

The proponents of the HRPO have made no effort to document their claim. Many cities have passed laws similar to the HRPO, and the evidence that it results in more crime reporting should be easy to come by. The proponents could have interviewed the police and social service providers about their perceptions of the problem. They could have even tried to conduct a survey of local illegal aliens. Instead, the proponents expect us to take their assertions and anecdotes at face value.

It is bad in principle to ignore one crime in order to encourage the reporting of another. For example, crack addicts probably have high rates of domestic abuse, but no one suggests that we should respond by refusing to enforce drug laws. Instead, we rely upon the judgment of the police to enforce or ignore laws in light of the circumstances.

The proponents of the HRPO call it a "public safety issue" and deny that it has anything to do with immigration. This is patently absurd. The HRPO sends out a signal that Fort Collins welcomes illegal aliens. It even begins by stating that "Fort Collins is a city striving to protect the rights of, and provide equal services to, all individuals regardless of race, ethnicity, or immigration status..."

Aside from the question of why we should provide equal services to illegal aliens, particularly in the midst of a budget crisis, it is worth wondering if the HRPO really would increase public safety. Illegal aliens, like any population group, contain some fraction that commit violent crimes. The harder it is for the police to detain them, the harder it will be for the police to stop the violent criminals among them. Cities like Los Angeles that have passed sanctuary laws like the HRPO have found that it makes it more difficult for them to fight violent crime.

The HRPO adds nothing to existing laws against ethnic profiling and discrimination. All it does is turn Fort Collins into a sanctuary city for illegal aliens. I find it hard to believe that City Council will agree that its mission includes mandates against law enforcement."

Related articles

City rejects immigration measure - Proposal aimed to bar city employees from questioning status
By Matthew Benson, The Coloradoan, October 5, 2005

The city of Fort Collins won't set limits on when its employees or police can ask residents whether they're in the country legally.

City Council rejected a measure Tuesday that would have barred city employees from asking individuals' immigration status except in specified cases. The so-called Human Rights Protection Ordinance failed on a 5-2 vote, with councilmen David Roy and Ben Manvel as the sole support...

The proposed ordinance would have placed strict limits on when and how residents [illegal aliens] could be asked their immigration status.

Exemptions would have been offered in a handful of cases such as determining eligibility for government programs. Police could have asked about immigration status when it was essential to an investigation or prosecution of a crime, but not in cases of petty offenses or traffic infractions.

Critics said the measure would have tied the hands of law enforcement, and Chief Dennis Harrison has warned it could have made his officers unwitting criminals while doing their jobs....

Enforcing our Immigration Laws
by Glen Colton, The Coloradoan, to be published September 30, 2005

The proponents of the so-called Human Rights Protection Ordinance (HRPO) have done this community a service by focusing a bright light on the issue of mass immigration in general and illegal immigration in particular. However, their "solution" to the problem of illegal immigration is the exact opposite of what is needed.

...The HRPO, if passed, would effectively make Fort Collins a "sanctuary city" for illegal aliens.

Legitimatizing law breaking through the passage of the HRPO is bad public policy.... Numerous polls show that vast majorities of Americans are very concerned about illegal immigration. What Fort Collins citizens want and the nation's citizens are demanding is increased enforcement of our nation's immigration laws; not the lower levels of enforcement that sanctuary policies promote. Citizens want employers of illegal aliens punished, they are against drivers licenses for illegal aliens, they oppose sanctuary policies, are against amnesties and massive guest worker programs, and want our borders secured...

[The] City of Fort Collins [should] Reject the HRPO and continue to allow law enforcement officials to use their discretion in asking for immigration status. Do not accept matricula cards as valid I.D - this is illegal in Colorado; Ensure that all employees of the City and its sub-contractors are U.S. citizens or legal immigrants....

Rights ordinance loses oomph - Impression of sanctuary may doom protection plan
By Matthew Benson, Fort Collins Coloradoan, August 28, 2005

After nearly two years of study and the formation of a special task force, a proposed Fort Collins ordinance that bars discrimination based on immigration status still faces an uphill battle....

Councilman Kurt Kastein balked at the ordinance's first clause, a provision stating that the city strives to provide equal services "to all individuals, regardless of race, ethnicity or immigration status."

"We are not striving to provide equal services to all people in our city if you include folks who are here illegally," he said.

Mayor Doug Hutchinson said public interest in the measure has been high - and overwhelmingly negative....

On the border - FORT COLLINS - The kid gloves stayed on Monday night in Harmony Library’s Community Room
By Kate Forgach, Fort Collins Rocky Mountain Bullhorn, August 25, 2005

...The hot topic was illegal immigration—particularly across the Mexican-American border—and eight protestors holding signs outside the library signaled potential controversy ahead....

Fort Collins resident Glen Colton moderated the evening’s event, which was organized by himself, five other local activists and the Lakewood-based Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform (CAIR). CAIR Director Fred Elbel also spoke at the August 22 meeting....

CAIR members organized the meeting, “because it’s time to start talking about immigration, as a community and as a nation. The purpose of the meeting was to get people out, educate them and let them hear this side of the argument. We don’t believe that our side of the argument has been heard,” Colton says, adding that a primary goal is to see immigration slowed to about 200,000 entries per year. Current estimates put the number of Mexican immigrants into the United States at about 800,000 to 1 million each year....

Closer to home, the Human Rights Protection Ordinance came under fire at the meeting. Scheduled for presentation to city council on September 6, the ordinance would prevent city employees and police from asking an individual’s immigration status under most circumstances....

Immigration and the Alien Gang Epidemic: Problems and Solutions
Testimony of Heather Mac Donald, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims, April 13, 2005

...Sanctuary laws are a serious impediment to stemming gang violence and other crime. Moreover, they are a perfect symbol of this country’s topsy-turvy stance towards illegal immigration.

Sanctuary laws, present in such cities as Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Austin, Houston, and San Francisco, generally forbid local police officers from inquiring into a suspect’s immigration status or reporting it to federal authorities. Such laws place a higher priority on protecting illegal aliens from deportation than on protecting legal immigrants and citizens from assault, rape, arson, and other crimes....

Sanctuary laws violate everything we have learned about policing in the 1990s. Police departments across the country discovered that utilizing every law enforcement tool in their tool chest against criminals yielded enormous gains....

Ignoring Detainers, Endangering Communities: State/local agencies release criminals rather than obey law

Article author: 
Jessica Vaughan
Article publisher: 
Center for Immigration Studies
Article date: 
Monday, July 13, 2015
Medium
Article Body: 

State and local sanctuary policies caused the release of more than 8,000 criminal alien offenders sought by ICE for deportation in 276 jurisdictions1 around the country over an eight-month period, according to ICE records obtained by the Center for Immigration Studies in a FOIA request.2 Sixty-three percent of the individuals freed by local authorities had prior criminal histories or were labeled a public safety concern at the time of their release. Nearly 1,900 of the released offenders subsequently were arrested for another crime within that eight-month period. ICE arrested approximately 750 of the recidivists, but just over 1,000 (60 percent) remained at large.

276 Jurisdictions Had Sanctuary Policies. According to the report, as of last year, there were 276 state and local jurisdictions that had adopted policies of non-compliance with ICE detainers. These policies took the form of policies, laws, executive orders, or regulations. These jurisdictions were located in 43 states and the District of Columbia. (See map here.)

What Is a Detainer? A detainer is the primary tool used by ICE to take custody of criminal aliens for deportation. It is a notice to another law enforcement agency that ICE intends to assume custody of an alien, and it includes information on the alien's previous criminal history, immigration violations, and potential risk to public safety or security.3

Number of Detainers Refused. From January 1, 2014, to August 31, 2014, local law enforcement agencies refused to comply with a total of 8,811 detainers, resulting in aliens being released from custody. These detainers were associated with 8,145 individuals, of whom:

  • 7,600 had one declined detainer;
     
  • 464 had two declined detainers; and
     
  • 81 had three or more declined detainers.

According to information obtained from government sources, as of June 2015 more than 17,000 detainers had been refused by local sanctuary jurisdictions.

Most Offenders Released Had Priors; One-Fourth Were Already Felons. The majority (63 percent) of the individuals freed by local agencies had serious prior criminal records.

  • 5,132 were previously convicted or charged with a crime or were labeled a public safety concern. Of these,
     
  • 2,984 had a prior felony conviction or charge;
     
  • 1,909 had a prior misdemeanor conviction or charge related to violence, assault, sexual abuse, DUI, weapons, or drug distribution or trafficking; and
     
  • 239 had three or more other misdemeanor convictions.

The report does not state how many of the released offenders had prior single misdemeanors or other types of violations not directly associated with violence, assault, or drugs.

1,900 Released Offenders Were Later Arrested 4,300 Times; Most Are Apparently Still at Large, even after Re-Offending. Of the 8,145 individual aliens freed by local agencies, there were 1,867 (23 percent) who were subsequently arrested again for a criminal offense.

  • ICE took action (arrest or removal) against 40 percent (751) of the 1,867 who re-offended.
     
  • 1,116 (60 percent) of the re-offenders were considered at large at the time of the study.

Crimes Committed after Release by Sanctuaries. The 1,867 offenders who were released and subsequently re-offended were arrested 4,298 times during the eight-month period covered by the study. They accumulated 7,491 new charges in total, after their release. Ten percent of the new charges involved dangerous drugs and seven percent were for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI).

The report describes six instances of very serious crimes committed by criminal alien felons who were sought by ICE with a detainer, but nevertheless released by a local law enforcement agency with sanctuary policies:

  • Santa Clara County, Calif.: On April 14, 2014, an individual with nine previous convictions (including seven felonies) and a prior removal was arrested for "first degree burglary" and "felony resisting an officer causing death or significant bodily injury". Following release, the individual was arrested for a controlled substance crime.
     
  • Los Angeles, Calif.: On April 6, 2014, an alien was arrested for "felony continuous sexual abuse of a child". After release, the alien was arrested for "felony sodomy of a victim under 10 years old".
     
  • San Francisco, Calif.: On March 19, 2014, an illegal alien with two prior deportations was arrested for "felony second degree robbery, felony conspiracy to commit a crime, and felony possession of a narcotic controlled substance", After release, the alien was again arrested for "felony rape with force or fear", "felony sexual penetration with force", "felony false imprisonment", witness intimidation, and other charges.
     
  • San Mateo County, Calif.: On February 16, 2014, an individual was arrested for "felony lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14". In addition, the alien had a prior DUI conviction. Following release by the local agency, the individual was arrested for three counts of "felony oral copulation with a victim under 10" and two counts of "felony lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14".
     
  • Miami Beach, Fla.: On December 19, 2013, the police department arrested an alien for felony grand theft. This alien had been ordered removed (and presumably absconded) in 2009. The alien also had prior convictions for strong-arm robbery, cocaine possession, larceny, trespassing, theft, marijuana possession, and resisting an officer. After release by the local agency, the alien was arrested on two separate occasions; once for "aggravated assault with a weapon and larceny" and once for "under the influence of a controlled substance".
     
  • Santa Clara County, Calif.: On November 7, 2013, an alien was arrested (and later convicted) for "felony grand theft and felony dealing with stolen property". This alien had been ordered removed in 2010 (again, a likely absconder). The alien also had prior felony and misdemeanor convictions for narcotic possession, theft, receiving stolen property, illegal entry, and other crimes. After release by local authorities, the alien was arrested for "felony resisting an officer causing death or severe bodily injury" and "felony first degree burglary".

Which Jurisdictions Are Sanctuaries? As of the date of the report, 276 counties in 43 states had refused to comply with an ICE detainer. The largest number of detainers were refused in the following jurisdictions:

  • Santa Clara County, Calif.
     
  • Los Angeles County, Calif.
     
  • Alameda County, Calif.
     
  • San Diego County, Calif.
     
  • Miami-Dade County, Fla.

The ICE report included a list of the 20 detention facilities that had housed the inmates that were freed, but it was redacted from the document. The report states that the following jails were among the top 20:

  • Santa Clara County Jail in San Jose, Calif.
     
  • Santa Rita Jail in Dublin, Calif.
     
  • Twin Towers Correctional Facility in Los Angeles, Calif.
     
  • Dade Correctional Institution in Miami, Fla.
     
  • Vista Detention Facility in San Diego, Calif.

Conclusion. Local refusal to comply with ICE detainers has become a public safety problem in many communities, and a mission crisis for ICE that demands immediate attention.

The decision to release a criminal offender that ICE is seeking to deport is the responsibility of the local law enforcement agency. Even if the agency believes that it faces legal liability if it complies with a detainer, or if local or state laws forbid compliance, the agency still can communicate with ICE by phone, email, or other means to coordinate a custody transfer that does not require a detainer to be executed. So no sheriff or police department is "forced" to release criminal aliens who would otherwise be taken by ICE.

One way to address this problem is for state governments to pass legislation or issue legal opinions clarifying that law enforcement agencies are authorized and expected to comply with ICE detainers or make other arrangements with ICE for the transfer of inmates on the path to deportation.

Many believe that the federal government has grounds to sue San Francisco in federal court for obstructing its work. That's a good idea in theory, but the Obama administration has made it clear that it will assert federal supremacy in immigration matters only when the states like Arizona are trying to help enforce the laws, not when states like California try to block enforcement.

Moreover, the Obama administration has given sanctuaries free rein to ignore detainers by ending the successful Secure Communities program and replacing it with the Priority Enforcement Program.4 This new program explicitly allows local agencies to disregard ICE notifications of deportable aliens in their custody by replacing detainers with "requests for notification".

The only truly effective and lasting solution is for Congress to spell out in federal law that local law enforcement agencies must cooperate with ICE by complying with all detainers or face sanctions in the form of disqualification from certain kinds of federal funding. Such a provision has been included in the Davis-Oliver Act, introduced by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), and named in honor of two deputies who were killed last year by a previously deported illegal alien cartel operative in California.5

The Davis-Oliver Act has earned the endorsement of the National Sheriffs' Association as well as many individual sheriffs and police chiefs, indicating that Sheriff Mirkarimi's sanctuary policies are well out of the mainstream of law-enforcement practice in America. Congress — and the presidential candidates — should join the sheriffs' association in working for a new approach that will keep the list of victims from growing.


End Notes

1 See Bryan Griffith and Marguerite Telford, "Map of Sanctuary Cities, Counties and States", Center for Immigration Studies, July 2015.

2 "Declined Detainer Outcome Report", ICE Law Enforcement Systems & Analysis Unit, October 4, 2014.

3 For a discussion of recent developments surrounding ICE use of detainers, see Dan Cadman and Mark Metcalf, "Disabling Detainers", Center for Immigration Studies, January 2015. A copy of the ICE detainer form can be found here.

4 See memo from DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson entitled "Secure Communities", one of the executive actions taken on November 20, 2014.

5 See Dan Cadman, "Analysis of the Davis-Oliver Act", Center for Immigration Studies, July 2015.

 

After the Steinle Murder, the Recklessness of Sanctuary Cities Becomes Painfully Glaring

Article author: 
Ian Smith
Article publisher: 
National Review
Article date: 
Thursday, July 9, 2015
Medium
Article Body: 

...With major media now finally reporting on killings committed by illegal aliens, the pressure may be mounting on enablers like San Francisco mayor Edwin Lee to put an end to the immigration anarchy in their cities.

 

How Sanctuary Policies Have Directly Led to Thousands of Crimes Against Americans

Article author: 
Hans von Spakovsky
Article publisher: 
The Daily Signal
Article date: 
Sunday, July 12, 2015
Medium
Article Body: 

...As Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Study outlines, Department of Homeland Security records show that in just one eight-month period in 2014, more than 8,100 deportable aliens were released by sanctuary jurisdictions. Three thousand of them were felons and 62 percent had a prior criminal record. Nineteen hundred were later rearrested a total of 4,300 times on 7,500 different offenses.

Thus, these sanctuary policies directly victimized thousands of the residents of these sanctuary cities who were subjected to assaults, burglaries, sexual assaults, thefts and even murders that would not have occurred except for these sanctuary policies. 

But there is more. In 2005, at the request of several members of Congress, the Government Accountability Office prepared two reports on criminal aliens—legal and illegal—in prison for committing crimes in the United States. Those reports are very revealing. For example, the first report (GAO-05-337R) released on April 7, 2005, found that:

  • The percentage of federal prisoners who are criminal aliens is about 27 percent;
  • In 2004, there were 49,000 such prisoners in federal jails;
  • In 2002, the federal government gave reimbursements to the 50 states under the “State Criminal Alien Assistance Program” (SCAAP) for incarcerating another 77,000 illegal aliens in state prisons; and
  • At the local level in 2002, the federal government reimbursed 750 local governments under SCAAP for incarcerating an additional 138,000 criminal illegal aliens, which jumped to 147,000 prisoners in 2003.

It is important to note that these reported numbers “represent only a portion of the total population of criminal aliens who may be incarcerated at the local level,” since the federal government does “not reimburse localities for all criminal aliens” and some states don’t submit requests for reimbursement. So where were all of these criminal aliens from? According to the GAO report, the breakdown was as follows:

Federal prisons:  Mexico (63 percent); Colombia (7 percent); the Dominican Republic (7 percent); Jamaica (4 percent); Cuba (3 percent); El Salvador (2 percent); Honduras, Haiti and Guatemala (each 1 percent), and the remaining 11 percent from 164 other countries.

State prisons: In the five states (Arizona, California, Florida, New York and Texas) incarcerating about 80 percent of SCAAP criminal aliens, the prisoners were from Mexico (58 percent); Cuba (5 percent); Dominican Republic (5 percent); El Salvador (4 percent); Jamaica (3 percent); Vietnam (2 percent); and the remaining 22 percent from 148 other countries.

Local jails: In the five local jails with the largest criminal illegal alien populations, the prisoners were from Mexico (65 percent); El Salvador (6 percent); Guatemala (3 percent); Honduras (2 percent); South Korea, Vietnam, the Dominican Republic and the Philippines (each 1 percent); and the remaining 20 percent from 193 other countries.

Thus, it is clear that criminal aliens already represent more than a quarter of all of the prisoners in federal prisons and are present in large numbers in state and local jails.

The second GAO report (GAO-05-646R), released on May 9, 2005, looked at the crimes committed by 55,322 aliens who “had entered the country illegally and were still illegally in the country at the time of their incarceration in federal or state prison or local jail during fiscal year 2003.”

The path of destruction weaved by these 55,322 illegal aliens was truly shocking. According to GAO, these criminal aliens:

  • Were arrested a total of 459,614 times, averaging about eight arrests per illegal alien;
  • 97 percent had more than one arrest, while 26 percent had over 11 arrests;
  • Committed almost 700,000 criminal offenses, averaging 13 offenses per illegal alien;
  • 10 percent of these illegal aliens were arrested for committing 26 or more offenses;
  • Out of all of the arrests, 12 percent were for violent crimes such as murder, robbery, assault and sex-related crimes; 15 percent were for burglary, larceny, theft and property damage; 24 percent were for drug offenses; and the remaining offenses were for DUI, fraud, forgery, counterfeiting, weapons, immigration and obstruction of justice; and
  • 80 percent of the arrests occurred in just three states: California, Texas, and Arizona..

Articles on Colorado Sanctuary Cities

Weekes: Taxpayers footing millions in Colorado’s criminal alien sanctuary city policies
By Stan Weekes, Colorado Statesman, February 6, 2017

... The larger the criminal alien population protected in a sanctuary city, the larger will be the burden placed on the community as those criminal aliens cycle in and out of the courts and jails instead of being turned over to federal authorities as stipulated in federal law. When Denver, Boulder, Pueblo or any county jail releases a criminal alien into the community instead of honoring a detainer request from ICE, politicians are placing political correctness and political alliances ahead of public safety. They are also contributing to the taxpayer burden of unreimbursed incarceration costs — a total of over $100 million annually in combined state and local jail costs...

Colorado’s Illegal Alien Crime Wave
By Fred Elbel, The Social Contract, Summer, 2011

In the early morning hours of Mother’s Day 2005, Denver Police Detective Donny Young was assassinated in cold blood by an illegal alien. Young was working off duty in uniform with Detective John Bishop at the Solano Ocampo Hall to earn extra income to support his wife and two young daughters. Illegal alien Raul Gomez-Garcia approached and shot both officers in the back. Detective Young was critically wounded, while Bishop was saved by his bulletproof vest.

Detective Young had received the Medal of Honor Award, 10 official commendations, the Distinguished Service Cross Award, and two letters of commendation.

Killer Gomez-Garcia (aka Garcia-Gomez) fled to Mexico after the murder, where he was arrested and returned to Denver. But the extradition was predicated on an agreement between the Denver District Attorney and Mexico that he would not file charges carrying a life sentence or the death penalty - apparently Mexico is very sensitive to the needs of their criminal class. Gomez-Garcia, with the number “13” etched into the back of his head, was sentenced to 80 years. (“M” is the 13th letter of the alphabet and often represents the Surenos gang and typically designates “Murder” or “Mexican”.)

Sadly, the story gets even more convoluted.

Just hours after the heinous assassination, illegal alien Gomez-Garcia reported for a full shift at the Cherry Cricket restaurant where he worked. In order to get the job, he had provided a fraudulent Social Security card which had been used in three states by three other illegals.

The restaurant where Gomez-Garcia worked was owned by none other than Denver’s Mayor John Hickenlooper. Ironically, in December of 2005 Hickenlooper was the keynote speaker at a fundraiser burrito breakfast for El Centro Humanitario para los Trabajadores - Denver’s illegal alien hiring hall.

It was later revealed that Gomez-Garcia had been stopped for traffic violations three times. When asked why Gomez-Garcia had not been turned over to ICE, Hickenlooper replied “these are complicated issues.”

“Complicated,” indeed....

Read the complete article

City rejects immigration measure - Proposal aimed to bar city employees from questioning status
By Matthew Benson, The Coloradoan, October 5, 2005

The city of Fort Collins won't set limits on when its employees or police can ask residents whether they're in the country legally.

City Council rejected a measure Tuesday that would have barred city employees from asking individuals' immigration status except in specified cases. The so-called Human Rights Protection Ordinance failed on a 5-2 vote, with councilmen David Roy and Ben Manvel as the sole support....

The proposed ordinance would have placed strict limits on when and how residents [illegal aliens] could be asked their immigration status.

Exemptions would have been offered in a handful of cases such as determining eligibility for government programs. Police could have asked about immigration status when it was essential to an investigation or prosecution of a crime, but not in cases of petty offenses or traffic infractions.

Critics said the measure would have tied the hands of law enforcement, and Chief Dennis Harrison has warned it could have made his officers unwitting criminals while doing their jobs....

Enforcing our Immigration Laws
by Glen Colton, The Coloradoan, to be published September 30, 2005

The proponents of the so-called Human Rights Protection Ordinance (HRPO) have done this community a service by focusing a bright light on the issue of mass immigration in general and illegal immigration in particular. However, their "solution" to the problem of illegal immigration is the exact opposite of what is needed.

...The HRPO, if passed, would effectively make Fort Collins a "sanctuary city" for illegal aliens.

Legitimatizing law breaking through the passage of the HRPO is bad public policy.... Numerous polls show that vast majorities of Americans are very concerned about illegal immigration. What Fort Collins citizens want and the nation's citizens are demanding is increased enforcement of our nation's immigration laws; not the lower levels of enforcement that sanctuary policies promote. Citizens want employers of illegal aliens punished, they are against drivers licenses for illegal aliens, they oppose sanctuary policies, are against amnesties and massive guest worker programs, and want our borders secured...

[The] City of Fort Collins [should] Reject the HRPO and continue to allow law enforcement officials to use their discretion in asking for immigration status. Do not accept matricula cards as valid I.D - this is illegal in Colorado; Ensure that all employees of the City and its sub-contractors are U.S. citizens or legal immigrants....

Immigration and the Alien Gang Epidemic: Problems and Solutions
Testimony of Heather Mac Donald, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims, April 13, 2005

...Sanctuary laws, present in such cities as Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Austin, Houston, and San Francisco, generally forbid local police officers from inquiring into a suspect’s immigration status or reporting it to federal authorities. Such laws place a higher priority on protecting illegal aliens from deportation than on protecting legal immigrants and citizens from assault, rape, arson, and other crimes.

Let’s say a Los Angeles police officer sees a member of Mara Salvatrucha hanging out at Hollywood and Vine. The gang member has previously been deported for aggravated assault; his mere presence back in the country following deportation is a federal felony. Under the prevailing understanding of Los Angeles’s sanctuary law (special order 40), if that officer merely inquires into the gangbanger’s immigration status, the officer will face departmental punishment.

To get the felon off the street, the cop has to wait until he has probable cause to arrest the gangbanger for a non-immigration crime, such as murder or robbery. It is by no means certain that that officer will successfully build a non-immigrant case against the gangster, however, since witnesses to gang crime often fear deadly retaliation if they cooperate with the police. Meanwhile, the gangbanger is free to prey on law-abiding members of his community, many of them immigrants themselves.

This is an extraordinarily inefficient way to reduce crime. If an officer has grounds for arresting a criminal now, it is perverse to ask him to wait until some later date when maybe, if he is lucky, he will have an additional ground for arrest....

The standard argument for sanctuary laws is that they encourage illegal aliens to work with the police or seek government services. This argument is based on myth, not evidence. No illegal alien advocate has ever provided a shred of evidence that sanctuary laws actually accomplish their alleged ends. Nor has anyone shown that illegal aliens are even aware of sanctuary laws. The evidence for the destructive effects of sanctuary laws is clear, however.

The idea that sanctuary laws are “pro-immigrant” is perhaps the greatest myth of all. Keeping illegal criminals in the community subjects all immigrants [as well as illegal aliens] to the thrall of crime and impedes economic growth in immigrant communities.

Obviously, the final prerequisite for ridding immigrant communities of illegal thugs is enough ICE detention space and deportation resources. But providing police officers with every lawful tool to fight crime is a crucial first step to protecting immigrant lives and should be the unanimous recommendation of the Subcommittee.

Articles on Fort Collins' proposed sanctuary policy for illegal aliens

Fort Collins, Colorado, was considering implementing a sanctuary policy for illegal aliens. Below are selected articles:

When Does 'Safety' Become 'Sanctuary'? - City Council prepares, at last, to hear the proposed Human Rights Protection Ordinance
By Jamie Way, Fort Collins Weekly, September 14, 2005

For most people in Fort Collins, calling the police in the wake of a crime is a logical response to being victimized....

But not for everyone....

Utilizing services like the police that legal citizens take for granted could lead to [illegal aliens] "getting into trouble...

Fred Elbel is the director of the Denver-based Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform, an organization that opposes measures like the Human Rights Protection Ordinance. He claims that the ordinance would merely "hamstring city employees and law enforcement officers" while protecting illegal aliens. Elbel says that crime victims can already report crimes under the current system—although he acknowledges that they may risk deportation if it's discovered that they're in the country illegally.

"Those illegal aliens can come forward at any time if they fear for their safety. They will almost certainly be given whatever protection the law affords," Ebel says in an email interview. "Just as a house burglar may be arrested if she reports an abusive partner in crime, illegal aliens who come forth also stand to be deported according to our immigration laws for the crimes they have committed by entering our country illegally."

If adopted, the ordinance would offset the effects of the federal Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal Act proposed by Rep. Charlie Norwood of Georgia in July 2003. The measure, known as the CLEAR Act, was reintroduced on June 30. If adopted into law, CLEAR would provide financial assistance to states that would enforce immigration laws "in the course of carrying out such agency's law enforcement duties."....

Glen Colton, a Fort Collins resident and member of the Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform, does not believe that the Human Rights Protection Ordinance proposes any new policy on racial profiling.

"Calling it the 'HRPO' is a misnomer," Colton said in an email interview. "In reality, it provides sanctuary to illegal aliens and is unnecessary because there are already strong laws against profiling. It will result in Fort Collins becoming a safe haven to those who have broken immigration laws."

According to Mayor Doug Hutchinson, in large part the ordinance is repetitive and merely reiterates existing laws. Historically, it has not been the policy of the Fort Collins police to inquire about immigration status and racial profiling is already illegal.

"The ordinance isn't going to change any city policies. It's unnecessary," Hutchinson says. "I can't speak for this council, but I don't think there's a lot of support for this ordinance as it's written."

Rights ordinance loses oomph - Impression of sanctuary may doom protection plan
By Matthew Benson, Fort Collins Coloradoan, August 28, 2005

After nearly two years of study and the formation of a special task force, a proposed Fort Collins ordinance that bars discrimination based on immigration status still faces an uphill battle....

Councilman Kurt Kastein balked at the ordinance's first clause, a provision stating that the city strives to provide equal services "to all individuals, regardless of race, ethnicity or immigration status."

"We are not striving to provide equal services to all people in our city if you include folks who are here illegally," he said.

Mayor Doug Hutchinson said public interest in the measure has been high - and overwhelmingly negative....

On the border - FORT COLLINS - The kid gloves stayed on Monday night in Harmony Library's Community Room
By Kate Forgach, Fort Collins Rocky Mountain Bullhorn, August 25, 2005

...The hot topic was illegal immigration—particularly across the Mexican-American border—and eight protestors holding signs outside the library signaled potential controversy ahead...

Fort Collins resident Glen Colton moderated the evening's event, which was organized by himself, five other local activists and the Lakewood-based Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform (CAIR). CAIR Director Fred Elbel also spoke at the August 22 meeting...

CAIR members organized the meeting, "because it's time to start talking about immigration, as a community and as a nation. The purpose of the meeting was to get people out, educate them and let them hear this side of the argument. We don't believe that our side of the argument has been heard," Colton says, adding that a primary goal is to see immigration slowed to about 200,000 entries per year. Current estimates put the number of Mexican immigrants into the United States at about 800,000 to 1 million each year....

Closer to home, the Human Rights Protection Ordinance came under fire at the meeting. Scheduled for presentation to city council on September 6, the ordinance would prevent city employees and police from asking an individual's immigration status under most circumstances....

Read more about the Fort Collins proposed sanctuary policy for illegal aliens.

Articles on Denver's sanctuary policy for illegal aliens

Mayor's company faces conundrum in hiring workers (Denver)
Casper Star Tribune, July 18, 2005

DENVER (AP) - Dozens of workers whose names don't match their Social Security numbers have been allowed to work at a restaurant company owned partly by Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, according to The Denver Post.

An undocumented worker [illegal alien] who was a dishwasher at a Wynkoop Holdings Inc. restaurant, allegedly shot two off-duty officers in May, killing one, prompting the company to change its policy to one where names are double-checked.

Dozens of employees have been allowed to work, despite discrepancies, according to Mark Eddy, a Wynkoop spokesman....

Extradition stirs up controversy (Denver)
By By Lisa Friedman, Washington Bureau, Los Angeles Daily News.com, June 12, 2005

The family of slain Los Angeles sheriff's Deputy David March finds both solace and sadness in the arrest in Mexico of a man suspected of killing a Denver police officer.

But the decision of the Denver district attorney to not seek the death penalty or life imprisonment in exchange for getting the suspected killer back to the U.S. also has exacerbated rifts within the March family and added to recriminations about the case.

In Washington, both the Los Angeles and Denver cases are serving as a call to arms among members of Congress bent on pressuring the administration to renegotiate its extradition treaty with Mexico.

Under that pact, the Mexican government refuses to extradite criminal suspects who may face the death penalty or life in prison, both of which the Mexican Supreme Court has ruled to be cruel and unusual punishment....

Littwin: Firing illegal immigrants no joyful task (Denver)
By Mike Littwin, Rocky Mountain News, May 24, 2005

Lee Driscoll is cracking down on illegal immigrants in his restaurants....

And it's tearing him up inside.

He's going to fire as many as 51 of his employees - for crimes that include trying to make a living for their families....

"I think it will make me very emotional," he is saying on the day the story breaks. "I think it will make me cry."

Lee Driscoll is CEO of Wynkoop Holdings Inc., which runs the restaurants partly owned by John Hickenlooper....

But the restaurants, it turns out, have everything to do with Hickenlooper....

Raul Garcia-Gomez was a dishwasher at the Cherry Cricket - one of Hickenlooper's restaurants - when he allegedly killed Detective Donnie Young....

And so this won't come up again, Wynkoop will now use the new software to screen Social Security numbers at the time of hire. No match means no job. There's no law forcing Wynkoop to do any of this. There's a political reality that begins and ends with restaurants owned by mayors.

But what is clearly true is that Denver is not a sanctuary city - not if that means it's somehow different from other cities. If you listen to talk radio, or Tom Tancredo, you'd think Denver was the Big Rock Candy Mountain for illegal immigrants, who race here for all the goodies city officials are handing out. But the only service I can see that isn't federally mandated is that, as in most cities, cops don't turn you over to immigration if you have an accent and you run a stop sign....

Immigration excuses need some work (Denver)
David Harsanyi, The Denver Post, May 23, 2005

 

Did you know some consider it racist to oppose illegal immigration but perfectly reasonable to support a system that casts illegal Mexican immigrants in the most menial and undesirable jobs?

The enlightened, it would seem, need someone to wash the dishes when they are done with their seared ahi and pinot noir in the finest Cherry Creek bistros.

Makes you wonder, though: Who are the bigots here?

Speaking of bigots, Mexican President Vicente Fox says these illegals do jobs "that not even blacks want to do." Odious on its face, it gives you a taste of what El Presidente thinks of his northern citizenry - despite the tens of billions they send home each year.

Here in our homeland, we're told that illegal immigrants aren't driving down wages, they're simply taking jobs Coloradans wouldn't dream of doing.

In other words: We like slave labor....

Colorado provides illegal immigrants free use of hospitals and city homeless shelters, while they make up around 20 percent of the Colorado jail population. And the state affords tens of thousands of immigrant children free schooling.

Is it racist to point out these facts? Or do open-border advocates cleverly equate rational immigration control with irrational bigotry?

If you want open borders and have no use for American sovereignty, just say so....

Hickenlooper can influence policy beyond his charge. And there are two things he could do tomorrow.

The first step should be an insistence that Denver police change their booking policy to include "illegal" as a designation (whether Mexican, Russian, Chinese, Canadian - especially Canadian - illegals) to start building a quantitative data bank of repeat offenders.

Second, the mayor could check out the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which says that state and local governments may designate local officers to "perform a function of a federal immigration officer in relation to the investigation, apprehension or detention of aliens in the United States."

To achieve this, Hickenlooper would need to enlist the aid of Gov. Bill Owens and Colorado Attorney General John Suthers to petition the U.S. attorney general for such status (only two states have so far) and help make Denver less of a sanctuary for illegal immigrants.

New ID scrutiny - Mayor's eateries will require better proof in wake of slaying (Denver)
By April M. Washington, Rocky Mountain News, May 24, 2005

The manager of Mayor John Hickenlooper's restaurants is tightening the company's hiring policies regarding the employment of illegal immigrants.

Applicants won't get a job if they can't produce a valid Social Security number.

Few, if any, restaurants in the area have such a strict regulation....

From the Jawbone of Another Ass (Denver)
By Jan Herron, Magic City Morning Star, May 22, 2005

Straight from the jawbone of another ass comes betrayal by an elected official of his Oath of Office and the people he swore to protect.

The specific ass in question is Mayor John "please come to Denver, illegal aliens" Hickenlooper, whose Denver Police Department follows the "hands off" policy to illegal aliens outlined in his predecessor's Executive Order 116.

After the recent ambush by a Mexican illegal alien of two Denver PD officers, followed by the death of Officer Donald Young, His Honor was criticized for continuing Denver's "sanctuary" policy that enabled accused murderer Raul Garcia-Gomez to weather three separate police encounters with no notification to federal immigration authorities apprehension.

... City Attorney Cole Finegan shared with the News a 1999 legal opinion that Denver cops have no obligation to report to federal authorities that a person they have contacted is an illegal immigrant. In trying to "have it both ways," that same opinion claims nothing in Executive Order No. 116 prevents an officer from enforcing criminal sections of immigration law.

Hickenlooper joined the official flip-flop on May 19: "Local government's role is not to arrest, combine or expel those without valid visas," he said in an interview, "Our policy is to follow the interpretation of the federal law." Does that mean His Honor copies President George Bush with his refusal to enforce federal laws?

Coloradans can thank Congressman Tom Tancredo for disclosing to the public what Hickenlooper wanted to keep under wraps: how Hickenlooper's administration continued the "sanctuary" policy that turns a blind eye to civil and criminal violations by illegal aliens rather than to send them to ICE for deportation. The congressman provided all the details of Raul Garcia-Gomez' three routine encounters with the Denver PD. Despite three successive times of presenting a Mexican drivers' license, his presence in the country was never questioned or investigated.

And where did llegal alien murderer Raul Garcia-Gomez gain employment but at Denver's Cherry Cricket, where his uncle managed the kitchen for owner Mayor John Hickenlooper? (We now know the restaurant by the new name in honor of his illegal alien staff - Cherry Cockroach.) Was Mayor Hickenlooper daunted to learn that his trustful business partner, Lee Driscoll, hires illegal aliens whose documents are so clearly phony that even the police commented on their "probable fraudulence?" Not at all.

Did Hickenlooper feel it incumbent to rescind Denver's "sanctuary" policy that led to the murder of Officer Donald Young and other Coloradans? Not at all. His Honor stated publicly on two separate Denver radio shows that forwarding to ICE the names of suspected illegal aliens encountered during traffic stops would not be practical. In other words, back to business as usual.

Hickenlooper further "passed the buck" by explaining that Congress has to work the issues of enforcing immigration laws. His Honor has in his own backyard Congressman Tom Tancredo to "work the immigration issue," yet the Mayor and his staff rarely miss an opportunity to castigate the congressman's efforts. If the Mayor wants so deeply for the "federal government to work the immigration issue," when will he begin publicly supporting Tom Tancredo's efforts in Washington?

The agenda of Mayor Hickenlooper is crystal-clear: he, his staff, his fellow restauranteurs and big business cronies are propaganda mills for illegal immigration. Might supporting federal immigration law enforcement hinder the operation of Hickenlooper's business dependence on hiring illegal aliens?...

This Mayor has violated his oath of office by placing his personal interests before the citizens he swore to protect. Clearly, his business interests, those of his cronies and the illegal aliens providing their "cheap labor" drive his agenda during his mayoral tenure....

Blake: GOP thinks it finally sees Hickenlooper's feet of clay (Denver)
Peter Blake, Rocky Mountain News, May 21, 2005

...The fatal shooting of Detective Donald Young and wounding of Detective Jack Bishop, allegedly by a Mexican citizen who worked in one of Hickenlooper's restaurants, has focused attention on the city's willingness to tolerate, if not encourage, illegals.

The so-called "sanctuary" policy was initiated by former Mayor Wellington Webb, but Hickenlooper has done nothing to change it.

"Illegal immigration is the silent issue that resonates with a majority of Republicans and Democrats," said Senate Minority Leader Mark Hillman, R-Burlington. "It's almost politically incorrect to talk about it but I am constantly amazed by the number of blue-collar Democrats who seem to be just as outspoken about this as conservative Republicans" - at least when they think no reporters are near.

Hickenlooper has enjoyed bipartisan popularity because "he doesn't violate obvious liberal orthodoxies" while being "sensible on business issues," said Hillman, who clearly enjoyed "listening to him squirm" on Mike Rosen's show Thursday....

Despite the denials, Hickenlooper's Denver is in fact a "sanctuary" city, insisted House Minority Leader Joe Stengel, R-Littleton. Police don't often check backgrounds of people they stop and when they do turn out to be illegals, "they just turn them loose."

Nor can Hickenlooper claim he has no control over the "blind trust" that he has put his restaurants in, said Stengel. "As the beneficiary of the trust he can force the trustee to do what is proper . . . He has more control than he would lead the public to believe."

What's more, the trustee has a fiduciary duty to protect the assets of the trust and by hiring illegals he has put them in jeopardy.

Stengel said he would introduce legislation next session that would punish employers who don't take action against illegal employees once they've been told by the federal government their documents are fraudulent....

Rosen: Closing the sanctuary (Denver)
By Mike Rosen, the Rocky Mountain News, May 20, 3005

Raul Garcia-Gomez might do for the cause of immigration reform what Ward Churchill has done for reform of leftist domination in academia. The alleged cop killer - Garcia-Gomez that is, not Churchill - has focused the spotlight on governmental and business laxity and duplicity in regard to immigration policy and enforcement....

Denver cops are understandably grieving, angry and frustrated right now. I join them in mourning the loss of Detective Donald Young. The police are not to blame for crimes committed by illegal immigrants in our city. That's a political failure shared by federal and local governments....

The practical definition of a sanctuary city is one that accommodates illegal immigrants, making it easier for them to move freely in the community, conduct commerce, and exploit government services while discouraging the police from proactively identifying them and informing federal authorities so that they may be prosecuted and deported. In that regard, Denver is no doubt perceived in the illegal alien community as a friendly venue....

It's now Mayor Hick's watch. Denver can be less friendly and accommodating to illegal aliens. He can change city policy to instruct the police department to actively cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. For that to be effective, the federal government must get serious about enforcing our immigration laws.

Feds to check city jail list - Immigration agency will look for illegals arrested in Denver (Denver)
By Lou Kilzer, Rocky Mountain News, May 20, 2005

Federal agents will start routinely asking the Denver Sheriff Department for a list of foreign nationals in city jails, the local head of the federal immigration agency said Thursday.

The move was sparked by a Rocky Mountain News report that fewer than 40 of some 270-plus foreign nationals recently in Denver jails have federal immigrations holds, said Jeff Copp, agent in charge of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in Denver.

It is unknown how many of those foreign nationals might be in the country illegally.

Denver Safety Manager Al LaCabe said the move represents no change in city policy, which states that Denver will not proactively research the immigration status of inmates. The city will instead depend on federal agents to do so.

The city's list of jailed foreign nationals would have been available to federal agents in the past if they had asked for it, LaCabe said.

"They just have not done it for a while," he said....

Denver police procedure says that if a suspect is arrested and is "believed to be an undocumented immigrant" the Sheriff Department will "notify the INS authorities according to their procedures."

LaCabe said Thursday that the word "their" refers to the Sheriff Department and not the INS. He said the sheriff procedure has been not to notify ICE.

A separate sheriff department policy states that a "hold of immigration" tag will be placed on an inmate computer log "only when the United States Department of Justice Immigration and Naturalization Service has issued a detainer or warrant on an immigration matter." ...

Mayor John Hickenlooper said in a radio interview on KOA-AM (850) he was "embarrassed" by a News story that jail administrators do not routinely notify federal officials when illegal immigrants are in custody - in apparent conflict with city policy....

This is the policy used by the Denver Sheriff Department for "immigration prisoners." (Rev. Feb. 24, 1995)

* The charge "Hold for Immigration" will be lodged against a prisoner only when the United States Department of Justice Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) has issued a detainer or warrant on an immigration matter. A TTY or the detainer should accompany the arrest slip.

* When a person is arrested on a felony investigation charge, and the person may be an illegal immigrant, the INS may issue a detainer marked "VALID ONLY UPON CONVICTION" of the felony charge for which the prisoner is being held. This charge will be added to the prisoner's arrest record with the notation "VALID ONLY UPON CONVICTION" entered in the STATUS COMMENT field during the complete booking. If a prisoner is eligible for release, the INS hold will be dropped, and the prisoner will be released.

(Rev. Aug. 22, 2002)

* When a prisoner with an immigration hold has had all remaining charges satisfied, leaving only the immigration hold, the INS Department will be notified immediately by teletype or by fax. All correspondence must clearly indicate that the prisoner is held at the Pre-Arraignment Detention Facility in Denver on their hold only. We shall request acknowledgment of the teletype or fax, including the INS officer's name and approximate pickup time. If the INS will require more than 48 hours for pickup, we will ask that they send a second detainer requesting us to continue holding the prisoner and accept billing for the housing effective the date of the second detainer. If a scheduled pickup does not occur within the 48 hours, a supervisor shall be notified. The supervisor shall see that a second teletype or fax is sent to request a new detainer, and inform them that we will begin billing their agency for the detainment of the prisoner. If an INS prisoner is to be held for a long period of time, and we have the second detainer, the prisoner will be transferred to the Denver County Jail to await pickup. The 2 Control Center Officer will notify the INS of the transfer.

Jailer pokes hole in city's claim - Accounts differ on whether immigrants are reported to feds (Denver)
By Lou Kilzer, Rocky Mountain News, May 19, 2005

The head of Denver jails says his department does not routinely tell federal immigration authorities which of its inmates are immigrants.

Director of Corrections Fred Oliva said that of the 270-plus Mexican nationals who were in custody Monday, fewer than 40 were flagged for immigration holds - and then only because they were already in a federal computer. The list does not include incarcerated immigrants from other nations.

Prisoners who self-report they were born in other countries are not asked if they are in the United States illegally, he said.

The procedure seems to be at odds with written Denver policy, which says that when a person is arrested and is "believed to be an undocumented immigrant . . . sheriff's department personnel will then notify the INS authorities according to their procedures."

It could also be at odds with what the sheriff's department said this week...

The issue of reporting criminal violators to immigration officials was raised last week by U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., who complained that the suspect in the slaying of a Denver police officer had a history of local traffic citations.

Tancredo maintained that the citations should have tipped off authorities that the suspect, Raul Garcia-Gomez, was an illegal immigrant.

Force Mexico to extradite (Denver)
By Bob Baker, The Denver Post, May 18, 2005

There is a country to the south of the United States that has become a fugitive paradise, willingly harboring and giving sanctuary to hundreds of murderers who have fled the United States after their crimes. In the past decade, any killers who make it across the border to Mexico are assured of not facing the criminal justice system in the United States.

If Raul Garcia-Gomez, who is suspected in the shooting death of Denver police Detective Donnie Young and the wounding of Detective Jack Bishop, has made his way to Mexico, he is "home free."

Having decided that no murderer should ever have to spend their life in prison, Mexico arrogantly refuses to return fugitive killers to the United States. It has consistently refused to extradite murderers if they faced the death penalty. A 2001 Mexican Supreme Court decision in essence halted all extraditions of Mexican citizens, or Americans of Mexican descent...

In short, the thoroughly corrupt Mexican judicial system has decided the U.S. cannot prosecute even U.S. citizens if they make it to Mexico...

Tancredo: High noon for Denver sanctuary policy (Denver)
By Tom Tancredo, Rocky Mountain News, May 17, 2005

...Denver is unquestionably a "sanctuary city." Denver has an official policy in the Police Operations Manual that constricts police communication and inquiries about the immigration status of people encountered in the course of routine police work.

When a city stops calling the immigration enforcement agency to pick up illegal aliens, that agency stops staffing to handle those calls...

Illegal aliens can have numerous run-ins with the local police for minor crimes and not worry about ICE being called to look them over. With few exceptions, ICE is only called when a major crime is committed and a criminal investigation is already under way....

This policy is clearly contrary to federal law: 8 United States Code 1373, enacted in 1996, says that local governments may not "prohibit, or in any way restrict" information sharing between local cops and immigration officers. When will Denver come into compliance?

Mayor John Hickenlooper can lead a movement to rescind Executive Orders 116 and 119 and rewrite the Police Department's operations manual, or he can pass the buck

Denver Sanctuary Policy Protects Illegal Cop-Killer - Who Also (Get This!) Worked For Mayor (Denver)
By Terry Graham, published on VDARE.com, May 16, 2005

At 1 a.m. on May 8, Mother's Day, Denver Police Detective Donald Young was assassinated with a point blank shot to the back of his head. A bullet proof vest saved the life of his partner, who was shot in the back.

Raul Garcia-Gomez, the suspect, a 19-year old illegal alien from Mexico, then went home to his three-week-old anchor baby and reportedly confessed his crime to his girlfriend. Next day, his girlfriend told the Rocky Mountain News, he rose early, packed his things, and went to his job as a dishwasher for a restaurant owned by - Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper. Then he fled....

Colorado law requires new residents to secure Colorado Driver's Licenses within 90 days of arriving, or upon getting a job - whichever happens first. But seven months of repeated police encounters didn't result in the DPD or the courts contacting ICE about Garcia-Gomez.

How could this be? Denver is stunned.

Except for me - and the readers of VDARE.COM. My VDARE.COM column Victimizing Peter to Pay (For) Paco: The SCAAP Scam had already cited and linked to Denver Police Department's written policy of de facto sanctuary for illegal aliens. It maintains that immigration is a federal matter, and that

"Generally, officers will not detain, arrest, or take enforcement action against a person solely because he/she is suspected of being an undocumented immigrant. If enforcement action is deemed necessary under these circumstances, the approval of an on duty supervisor or commander is required..." ( DENVER (Colorado) POLICE DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS MANUAL, 100 - 90).

This "don't ask, don't tell" policy, as some police officers call it, has created a two-tiered legal system, with lower standards for illegal aliens like Gomez. Americans driving without a license get arrested, illegals go free.... Just one week earlier, Hick's radio spots thanking Denver's Latino "gente" for their many contributions and promoting Cinco de Mayo as a new American holiday ran on many radio stations....

Our impotent, fearful, no-can-do, but still-feeding-at-the-public-trough public servants have effectively capitulated to a foreign power, breaching their oaths of office, and turning our justice system over to the Republic of Mexico, and other Third World powers.

Some dare call it "treason."

This American believes highly trained American Special Forces should head for Mexico to locate and return scores of Mexican murderers who should face American-style justice on American soil, where they committed their heinous crimes.

I cannot help but think the time has come for a straight-thinking Mayor or Governor to establish a zero-tolerance Sanctuary City or State for Americans.

SANCTUARY FOR AMERICANS IN AMERICA....what a concept!

Read the complete article.

Immigration and the Alien Gang Epidemic: Problems and Solutions
Testimony of Heather Mac Donald, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims, April 13, 2005

...Sanctuary laws are a serious impediment to stemming gang violence and other crime. Moreover, they are a perfect symbol of this country's topsy-turvy stance towards illegal immigration.

Sanctuary laws, present in such cities as Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Austin, Houston, and San Francisco, generally forbid local police officers from inquiring into a suspect's immigration status or reporting it to federal authorities. Such laws place a higher priority on protecting illegal aliens from deportation than on protecting legal immigrants and citizens from assault, rape, arson, and other crimes....

Sanctuary laws violate everything we have learned about policing in the 1990s. Police departments across the country discovered that utilizing every law enforcement tool in their tool chest against criminals yielded enormous gains....

U.S. Sanctuary Laws Under Attack (Denver)
By Marcelo Ballve, Pacific News Service, September 10, 2003

Groups pushing to curb immigration have mounted a highly organized national campaign against local "sanctuary" laws that typically direct police officers to refrain from checking on subjects' immigration status.

Aside from a flurry of letter writing campaigns, immigration watchdog groups are also helping take sanctuary cities to court. They argue that the sanctuary laws encourage illegal immigration, undermine the rule of law and allow undocumented immigrants to commit crimes again and again.

In May, the groups helped end the sanctuary policy in New York City, the nation's traditional gateway for immigrants....

"Any nation has to have a single immigration policy," says Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.). "You simply cannot have cities and counties and police departments running their own." Tancredo failed in July in an attempt to cut off Justice Department funding for sanctuary cities.

Mayor Webb at Rosalindas [Announcing Executive Order 116 - Denver's Sanctuary Policy] (Denver)
By Bruce Finley, Denver Post, March 8, 1998

Denver Mayor Wellington Webb walked resolutely into a Mexican restaurant Saturday, questioned the humanity of federal immigration rules and ordered his own policy - estimated to cost Denver taxpayers up to $1 million a year.

Webb's Executive Order No. 116 does the following...

* Declares Denver's strong opposition to federal distinctions between legal immigrants and commits city officials "to the delivery of services to all of its residents." * Vows that the city will back legal rights of all residents in Denver, adding that Webb will urge businesses, schools, hospitals and universities to do the same.

"The mayor feels federal welfare reform legislation unfairly targets newly arrived legal immigrants," said Shepard Nevel, Webb's director of policy....

Sanctuary Cities references and research

Here are some references articles on Sanctuary Cities:

 

Articles:

Sanctuary Cities and States -- Undermining the American Republic, by James Walsh, The Social Contract, Spring 2005.

The Consequences of Sanctuary Policies and What You Can Do about It, by Dave Gibson, Winter 2013.

Sanctuary Cities Endanger - National Security and Public Safety, by Michael W. Cutler, Senior Special Agent, INS (Ret.), The Social Contract, Winter 2016.

America's 'Sanctuary Cities' and Their Tragic Consequences, by Davd Gibson, The Social Contract, Spring 2016.

The Social Contract Journal, Spring 2016, “Sanctuary nation”.

Sanctuary Cities Vs. National Security and Public Safety - Why sanctuary citys mayors should be given an MVP Award by ISIS and drug cartels, by Michael W. Cutler, Senior Special Agent, INS (Ret.), Frontpagemag, November 22, 2016

School classrooms with Mexican flags

The race-based "diversity mongers" continue to try to chip away at America, demanding an ever-larger piece of the entitlement pie while denigrating all aspects of American culture and heritage. The latest episode occurred during the week of August 17, 2004 at Denver's North High School. The Rocky Mountain News published an "in the gringos faces" article "North High's future starts with trust", by Tina Greigo. In the article was a color photograph of a Mexican flag displayed next to a United States flag (hung incorrectly) in a North High classroom.

Denver North High School The picture generated numerous calls and letters to the Rocky Mountain News and Denver North High School. The issue gained national interest and was covered twice that week on CNN's Lou Dobbs news program. Mike Rosen KOA-AM radio talk show host, took on the issue, saying that it was "inappropriate" to display a foreign flag alongside a United States flag in a public, taxpayer-funded building. "The major issue is that in an American public school, no other country should have its flag displayed with equal prominence with the American flag," Mr. Rosen said. "This is not a Mexican-American school. This is not a colony of Mexico — it's part of Colorado, which is part of the United States."

It appears by their articles, editorials and failure to print balanced letters to the editor that the Rocky Mountain News and the Denver Post are more interested in acting as apologists for race-based "diversity", multiculturalism and disuniting of America, than in honest coverage of the concerns of the vast majority of Americans. Greigo wrote a follow-up story slamming Americans who objected to a foreign flag in a United States classroom. John Temple, Editor of the Rocky Mountain News chimed in with an "ugly America" piece. Then Cindy Rodriguez of The Denver Post threw out an article chastising intolerant and "insecure Americans".

Their trial balloon blew up in the diversity mongers' faces. Americans are sick and tired of being forced to participate in the dismantling of their society for fear of being called racist - by race-based interests. And this time, Americans expressed their opinions in no uncertain terms.

"...And that's your real beef, Cindy. That the gringos' complaints about the insulting behavior to OUR flag weren't ignored. And that the laws were enforced and that Mexicans were required to obey them. That you didn't get off with the customary blubbering about 'our culture.'"

 

"There can be no fifty-fifty Americanism in this country. There is room here for only 100 percent Americanism, only for those who are Americans and nothing else."
- Theodore Roosevelt

Denver Public Schools Superintendent Jerry Wartgow issued the following guidelines to principals and assistant principals:

Displays of the United States flag are governed by federal law. While covering the opening of the school year earlier this week, a local newspaper photograph showed an inadvertent violation of this law in one classroom. The violation was corrected immediately.
 
"Schools also must comply with federal and state laws that specifically describe and, in some cases, limit the display of foreign flags.
 
"Only the United States or Colorado flags (or the flags of state subsidiaries) may be displayed permanently in schools. Temporary flag displays that are instructional or historic in nature or student work products used as part of a lesson are permitted.

Indeed, North High's foreign flag display violated Colorado flag display law - and temporary displays of foreign flags still do.

Syrian refugees and national security

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."

After the Paris Islamic terrorist attacks in November, 2015, President Obama Recommits to Bring Syrian Refugees into U.S. So does the leading Democratic political candidate: Hillary Still Wants to Bring in 65,000 Syrian Refugees. This raises the following points:

  1. Most of the Syrian "refugees" invading Europe are young men of military age.
  2. Many of the Syrian "refugees" are from countries other than Syria.
  3. It is not possible to adequately vet those coming from Syria.
  4. Bringing in terrorists and supporters of terrorism compromises national security.
  5. For the cost of bringing one Syrian refugee halfway around the world, we could help 12 in their home region.
  6. 98 percent of the Syrian refugees so far have been Muslims, not Christians persecuted by Muslims.
  7. Refugees will be selected by the United Nations, not by the United States government.
  8. Refugees will be secretly settled in American cities without public input and knowledge.
  9. Refugees will receive full welfare and subsidized housing and will receive citizenship within 5 years.
  10. The majority of Americans and Coloradans do not want to bring in Syrian refugees.

See additional CAIRCO research and videos on the refugee resettlement racket.

Who are these so-called refugees?

From the November 23, 2015 National Review article, Who the ‘Syrian Refugees’ Are — Not All of Them Are Syrian:

1. Many aren't from Syria

Europe, which is dealing with the brunt of the Syrian-refugee crisis, is contending with massive amounts of fraud committed by its refugee population. Many aren't even "refugees." Rather, they are "migrants" as defined by international law. A recent United Nations report indicates that only about half of the people entering Europe in this flood are from Syria. Europeans officials have raised concerns that about one-third of these self-identified refugees are lying about being Syrian in order to win residency.

2. Most are not widowed women and orphaned children

President Obama has sharply criticized resettlement opponents, saying they were "scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America." Military-age males were the "forefront of the human torrent flowing into Europe from Syria," however, according to Time magazine. In to a Pew Research Center review of Eurostat data, 72 percent of asylum applicants are male, and over half are men under the age of 40.

Syrian passports are highly sought after by people hoping to enter Europe. For as little as $250 and a few days of waiting, you can buy a fake Syrian passport. Syrian passports are effectively worthless as identification, because of the thriving black market and a lack of records from the Syrian government.

3. Those in charge of ensuring our security don't think that the refugees can be properly vetted

To substantiate their argument that bad people aren't coming into the country, refugee proponents often highlight the screenings, interviews, and length of time that the vetting process takes. Security screening involves our government's checking documents, provided by the applicants, against the records of foreign government. But this has led many to ask, "How do you screen people from a war-torn country that has few criminal and terrorist databases to check?"

Senior officials from the FBI, the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have echoed this concern regarding checks, indicating that we have very little data and lack the intelligence necessary to properly vet Syrian refugees. How good can this vetting process be if, according to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service, more than 90 percent of Syrians applying for refugee status are approved despite the lack of reliable data to verify their identity?

4. Most are not from the minority groups ISIS targets for persecution

America evaluates refugees using a tiered system with three levels of priority. First priority is granted to those who have suffered compelling persecution. As Andrew McCarthy points out, under federal law we are "expressly required to take religion into account in determining who is granted asylum."

It is estimated that 16 to 23 percent of the estimated 3 million Syrian refugees who have fled the country are Christians. Even though ISIS has specifically targeted religious minorities (notably Christians and Yazidis) for persecution, less than 3 percent of the Syrian refugees admitted to the United States so far are Christian, and 96 percent are Muslim.

5. Some have ISIS sympathies

In a recent poll conducted by the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies, respondents were asked, "Do you have a positive or negative view of ISIL?" Of those who were Syrian refugees registered, 13 percent answered "positive" or "positive to some extent."

From the article Confirmed: ISIS targeting U.S. refugee program, World Net Daily, December 8, 2015:

The bombshell was dropped by the head of the House Homeland Security Committee Monday during a speech at the National Defense University.

U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, declined to go into detail about the disclosure, the Hill reported.

But the revelation will add ammunition to critics of the White House's refugee plans who have warned that the program is vulnerable to infiltration by adherents of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS.

"ISIS members in Syria have attempted to exploit it to get into the United States," McCaul said during the speech...

McCaul has been warning since January that he believed the refugee program, which has been sending 60,000 to 150,000 or more foreign refugees to American cities per year over the past 35 years, could be exploited as a "back door for jihadists" into the U.S...

From the article Syrians are a Terror Threat, Here are the Numbers, by Daniel Greenfield, DC Clothesline, December 5, 2015:

...ISIS took over parts of Syria because its government willingly allied with it to help its terrorists kill Americans in Iraq. That support for Al Qaeda helped lead to the civil war tearing the country apart.

The Syrians were not helpless, apathetic pawns in this fight. They supported Islamic terrorism.

A 2007 poll showed that 77% of Syrians supported financing Islamic terrorists including Hamas and the Iraqi fighters who evolved into ISIS. Less than 10% of Syrians opposed their terrorism.

Why did Syrians support Islamic terrorism? Because they hated America.

Sixty-three percent wanted to refuse medical and humanitarian assistance from the United States. An equal number didn't want any American help caring for Iraqi refugees in Syria...

A poll this summer found that 1 in 5 Syrians supports ISIS. A third of Syrians support the Al Nusra Front, which is affiliated with Al Qaeda. Since Sunnis are 3/4rs of the population and Shiites and Christians aren't likely to support either group, this really means that Sunni Muslim support for both terror groups is even higher than these numbers make it seem...

In the places where the Syrian refugees come from, support for Al Qaeda groups climbs as high as 70% in Idlib, 66% in Quneitra, 66% in Raqqa, 47% in Derzor, 47% in Hasakeh, 41% in Daraa and 41% in Aleppo...

Interestingly, Department of Homeland Security data reveal that President Obama has already issued 680,000 green cards to immigrants from Muslim nations over the past five years. That number will be repeated overS the next five years, unless Congress takes action. In fact, 1.6 Million immigrants have entered the United States since 9/11 (from 2001-2013) and have been issued green cards.

This article presents a good overview of the situation: Obama launches PR campaign to change America's idea of refugees, World Net Daily, November 28, 2015.

First of all, the U.S. does not even choose its own refugees. That is done by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

And the private contractors who resettle the refuges in more than 180 American cities and towns do not ask the cities and towns if they will accept them. The refugees are brought there secretly without so much as a single public hearing or even an ad in the local newspaper. As soon as they arrive, they are signed up for food stamps, Medicaid and temporary cash assistance, as the families are placed in subsidized housing and their children educated for free in public schools. The refugees are placed on a fast track to full citizenship, including voting rights, within five years...

It is also worth noting that Saudi Arabia Refuses To Take Even A Single Syrian Refugee (DC Clothesline, November 30, 2015):

While the United States and Europe argue over how many Syrian refugees to allow in, the richest Persian Gulf states have accepted exactly zero.

The Muslim countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council that include Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and United Arab Emirates steadfastly refuse to accept any Syrian refugees. Amnesty International, USA (AIUSA) tells The Daily Caller News Foundation they have not accepted a single refugee since the armed Syrian conflict erupted years ago.

How does this relate to Sharia?

The Controversy over Syrian Refugees Misses the Question We Should Be Asking, Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review, November 28, 2015.

If there is a refugee "crisis," it most certainly is no fault of ours: For example, the U.S. took in two-thirds of the world's refugees resettled in 2014, with Canada a distant second, admitting about 10 percent... Tens of thousands of what are called "refugees" have come to our shores from Muslim-majority countries. From Iraq alone, the number is 120,000 since 2007, notwithstanding the thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of American taxpayer dollars sacrificed to make Iraq livable....

Recep Tayyip Erdogan proclaimed that pressuring Muslims to assimilate in their new Western countries is "a crime against humanity."...

Responsibility for vetting the immigrants rests with the Department of Homeland Security. As the ongoing controversy has illustrated, however, a background check is only as good as the available information about a person's background. In refugee pipelines like Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Sudan, such information is virtually nonexistent...

For nearly a quarter-century, our bipartisan governing class has labored mightily to suppress public discussion of the undeniable nexus between Islamic doctrine and terrorism...

Yes, I can already hear the slander: "You are betraying our commitment to religious liberty." Please. Even if there were anything colorable to this claim, we are talking about inquiring into the beliefs of aliens who want to enter our country, not citizens entitled to constitutional protections...

Unlike the Judeo-Christian principles that informed America's founding, classical sharia does not abide a separation of spiritual from civic and political life. Therefore, to rationalize on religious-liberty grounds our conscious avoidance of Islamist ideology is to miss its thoroughgoing anti-constitutionalism...

Sharia rejects the touchstone of American democracy: the belief that the people have a right to govern themselves and chart their own destiny. In sharia governance, the people are subjects not citizens, and they are powerless to question, much less to change, Allah's law. Sharia systematically discriminates against women and non-Muslims...

Thus, since we are vetting for terrorism rather than sharia-adherence, and since we know a significant number of Muslims are sharia-adherent, we are missing the certainty that we are importing an ever-larger population hostile to our society and our Constitution - a population that has been encouraged by influential Islamist scholars and leaders to form Muslim enclaves throughout the West...

The question is not whether we are admitting Muslims who currently have ties to terrorist organizations; it is whether we are admitting Muslims who are apt to become violent jihadists after they settle here...

Syrian refugees and national security

We can not adequately vet those coming from Syria. It simply is not possible. Requisite security information simply does not exist in the originating country. While State Department and USCIS officials claim to be highly effective in questioning refugees, it has been pointed out that their track record is abysmal - five million visa overstayers have duped these government agencies info believing their prevarications during the vetting process.

Assuming the refugee vetting process will be 99% accurate, as claimed by the president, then 1% of those 10,000 refugees, or 100, will slip through the vetting net. Of course, the vetting process will be fatally flawed and can not screen anywhere close to 99%; the background data simply do not exist. Keep in mind that only eight to twenty Islamic terrorists executed the Paris attacks.

Thus, we should exclude these so-called refugees in the interest of national security. Our safety and wellbeing are of paramount concern when considering admission of those from other countries. Title 8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens lists the grounds for excluding aliens from the United States, including aliens infected with dangerous communicable diseases, suffer from extreme mental illness and are prone to violence, aliens who are criminals, human rights violators, war criminals, spies or terrorists. The list also includes aliens who would likely become public charges or displace American workers.

Below are key points on refugees and national security from selected articles.

Refugee Crimes Demonstrate the Security Risks of Migration, Breitbart, November 17, 2015:

There will be no meaningful vetting of the Syrian migratory tide, as our own Homeland Security apparatus has admitted to Congress. In fact, we'll be lucky if the majority of them are Syrians. False claims of Syrian origin are the hottest ticket in Europe right now, backed up by a thriving black market in forged and stolen identity papers...

Even if we can at least limit ourselves to refugees who are of guaranteed Syrian origin, the notion of conducting elaborate background checks on them is absurd on its face. They come from a nation in the grip of a savage civil war that has been raging for years...

US Officials Admit Concern Over Syrian Refugee Effort, ABC News, November 16, 2015.

"It's clearly a population of concern,” the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Nicholas Rasmussen, told the House Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday.

Committee Chairman Mike McCaul, R-Texas, went further, saying it would be a “huge mistake” to bring refugees from the conflict to the U.S. – even as an estimated 4 million children, women and men have been forced to flee Syria and another 7 million have been displaced from their homes there, unable to leave...

McCaul and other leading Republicans, who recently penned a letter to National Security Advisor Susan Rice cautioning that the U.S. government's ability to screen refugees from Syria might not be sufficient.

“The continued civil war and destabilization in Syria undeniably make it more difficult to acquire the information needed to conduct reliable threat assessments on specific refugees,” they wrote in the letter two weeks ago.

With tens of thousands of Syrians joining groups in the region like the Islamic State, the U.S. government “cannot allow the refugee process to become a backdoor for jihadists,” they added...

Officials at the State Department were quick to report that overall the U.S. accepts more refugees than the rest of the world combined. Bartlett and others also say they expect the U.S. to steadily increase the number of Syrians it accepts as applications at the United Nations continue to pile up...

Homeland Security Hearing Reveals Why Accepting Syrian Refugees Risks American Lives, Breitbart, November 17, 2015 (includes video):

...DHS Secretary Johnson answered the vetting question by saying that every alleged refugee is interviewed, and that they complete an application. Smith responded saying that you are then essentially relying upon the refugee who is filling out the application, and “you can't go beyond that, so you are sorta having to take their word for it.”

During the hearing, Rep. Smith said another “red flag” was that the profile of these Syrian refugees does not meet the profile of the typical refugee family. He said these Syrian refugees are “young, single, males, as opposed to family members.”...

Smith added that both FBI Director Comey and Homeland Security Secretary Johnson admitted they do not currently have the ability to properly screen and conduct sufficient background checks on these refugees.

Homeland Security limited in ability to detect asylum fraud, watchdog finds, Washington Times, December 3, 2015.

The GAO said U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Executive Office of Immigration Review don't even have a sense for how big the risks of fraud are in the asylum programs they oversee, and officers are often forced to make decisions on whether to admit someone based purely on their own testimony...

Uncle Sam's screening of Syria refugees is a pathetic joke, Betsy McCaughey, Ph.D., New York Post, November 18, 2015.

... on Monday, President Obama dismissed the danger, doubling down on his plans to settle at least 10,000 Syrian refugees here. The White House insists Syrian refugees go through "extensive screening." That's a deadly lie.

Obama's own intelligence experts admit screening Syrian refugees is impossible, because the FBI and Homeland Security Department have no data on Syrians — no fingerprints, arrest records, travel data — to indicate what these people did in Syria, or even whether they are who they claim to be. “There won't be anything in our database,” FBI head James Comey cautioned Congress last month. “So I can't sit here and offer anybody an absolute assurance that — there's no risk associated with this.”

Worse, the interviewers — from the US Citizenship and Immigration Services — were ordered last May to relax standards. It's now OK if your spouse was part of a terrorist organization, provided you can convince the screener you didn't know you were sleeping with a terrorist. It's also OK to have a history of supporting a terrorist group yourself — as long as you felt slightly pressured (not even under “duress”) to do it..

What's missing here? How about local law enforcement, which is kept in the dark, along with mayors, schools boards and governors, about where these refugees are being placed.

Syrian Refugees Cannot Be Vetted: However, Neither Can Aliens Who Cross Our Borders, Michael Cutler, Former INS Special Agent, the Daily Caller, November, 23, 2015

It is entirely understandable that there is great consternation about the obvious national security issues created by admitting aliens who claim to be refugees from Syria into the United States. The vetting process of such aliens is fatally flawed because our officials do not have access to databases or other sources of reliable information to ascertain the true identities and backgrounds of these foreign nationals...

Title 8 U.S. Code § 1182 – Inadmissible aliens enumerates the grounds for excluding aliens from the United States and includes aliens infected with dangerous communicable diseases, suffer from extreme mental illness and are prone to violence, aliens who are criminals, human rights violators, war criminals, spies or terrorists. Finally that list also includes aliens who would likely become public charges or displace American workers. There is nothing in that list that relates to the race, religion or ethnicity of these aliens only our safety and wellbeing.

Many aliens who have entered the United States without inspections are citizens of countries from around the world including Syria and other countries associated with terrorism. These aliens often make their way to Mexico seeking to enter the United States without being vetted...

Goodlatte: If DHS Is So Good At “Vetting” Immigrants, Why Are There FIVE MILLION Visa Overstayers?, VDare, November 22, 2015.

...after the State Department and USCIS officials said how effective their interviews of refugees were in exposing liars, Goodlatte asked that, if that were so, how come there are five million illegal aliens who were interviewed before they got their visas? They'd all promised to return home when their authorized time here expired, and obviously their lies were not exposed during their visa interviews. He didn't get a real answer.

An Economist's View of the Syrian Refugees, Weekly Standard article, November 21, 2015:

If the vetting process is as robust as we are led to believe by the president, ignoring the contrary view of its likely effectiveness by the head of the FBI, we can concede that it will be, say 99% effective. Not bad for government work. That means that only 1% of the 10,000 entrants, or 100 applicants, will have slipped through the vetting net. It is estimated that the units that attacked France consisted of somewhere between eight and twenty Islamic terrorists. So even with a robust, almost-but-not-quite fool-proof vetting procedure, we will have admitted between five and eight terrorist units capable of doing to one of our cities what they have done to Paris. And of course the vetting procedure is unlikely to come close to 99% perfection.

Homeland Security Hearing Reveals Why Accepting Syrian Refugees Risks American Lives, Breitbart, November 18, 2015.

Uncle Sam's screening of Syria refugees is a pathetic joke, Betsy McCaughey, Ph.D., New York Post, November 18, 2015.

... on Monday, President Obama dismissed the danger, doubling down on his plans to settle at least 10,000 Syrian refugees here. The White House insists Syrian refugees go through “extensive screening.” That's a deadly lie.

Obama's own intelligence experts admit screening Syrian refugees is impossible, because the FBI and Homeland Security Department have no data on Syrians — no fingerprints, arrest records, travel data — to indicate what these people did in Syria, or even whether they are who they claim to be. “There won't be anything in our database,” FBI head James Comey cautioned Congress last month. “So I can't sit here and offer anybody an absolute assurance that — there's no risk associated with this.”

Worse, the interviewers — from the US Citizenship and Immigration Services — were ordered last May to relax standards. It's now OK if your spouse was part of a terrorist organization, provided you can convince the screener you didn't know you were sleeping with a terrorist. It's also OK to have a history of supporting a terrorist group yourself — as long as you felt slightly pressured (not even under “duress”) to do it.

What's missing here? How about local law enforcement, which is kept in the dark, along with mayors, schools boards and governors, about where these refugees are being placed.

Syrian refugees in Colorado

Governor Hickenlooper - welcome to Islamic Colorado

As many as 10,000 Syrian refugees could be coming to American soil, including here to Colorado.

Colorado won't block Syrian refugees - Hickenlooper naively supports Obama's security-threatening immigration agenda.

Denver Post poll as of 8 AM November 17, 2015: respondents overwhelmingly oppose Hickenloopers naive action:

Do you agree with several U.S. governors who are seeking to bar Syrian refugees from resettling in their states in the wake of the terrorist attacks in Paris?

Total Votes = 2897.  Yes: 1752 Votes, or 60.47%.  No: 1145 Votes, or 39.52%.

In November 18, 2015, the Colorado General Assembly sent a letter to Governor Hickenlooper demanding that he suspend Syrian refugee resettlement. Even the Colorado Attorney General has expressed concern. As reported by The Denver Post, November 23, 2015, AG Cynthia Coffman joins chorus of concern on Syrian refugees.

Colorado is designated as a participant in "Wilson Fish" alternative programs. These programs are subcontracted exclusively to voluntary agencies (VOLAGs). These programs were established under the 1984 Wilson Fish amendment to the Immigration and Naturalization Act.

This federal government website describes how VOLAGs in the 12 Wilson Fish states they operate with virtually no oversight by the state governments. For more information, see What you need to know about Wilson-Fish, by Refugee Resettlement Watch. Also see Why 12 States Hold Key to Constitutional Challenge to Refugee Resettlement Program, Breitbart, December 8, 2015.

In Colorado, the Colorado Department of Human Services operates as a VOLAG under this program.

Americans want more security

In poll after poll, Americans demonstrate the common sense that our administration lacks:

Poll: Strong Majority - Including 63% of Hispanics - Believe U.S. Should Not Accept Muslim Refugees, Breitbart, December 2, 2015.

FAIR reported that according to a Nov. 20, 2015 Washington Post/ABC News Poll, 52% are not confident the U.S. can "identify and keep out possible terrorists who may be among these refugees."

A Nov. 18, 2015 Bloomberg Politics Poll, revealed that 53% of Americans said the best approach to the conflict in Syria is to "not accept any Syrian refugees into the U.S."

A Nov. 18, 2015 NBC News/SurveyMonkey Poll revealed that 56% of Americans disapprove of the President's plan to increase the number of Syrian refugees admitted to the country while only 41% approve of the plan. Eighty-one percent of Republicans disapprove of the President's plan compared to only 17% who support it while 59% of independents oppose compared to 40% who approve.

And as noted above, in a November 17, 2015 Denver Post poll, 60% of respondents agree with U.S. governors seeking to bar Syrian refugees.

Cost of resettlement

As described in the CAIRCO section Refugee Resettlement, voluntary refugee resettlement agencies (typically referred to as VOLAGs) received hugh taxpayer subsidies to resettle refugees. An entire industry has built up around this effort. (See the article Unholy Alliance: Christian Charities Profit from $1 Billion Fed Program to Resettle Refugees, 40 Percent Muslim.)

Yet importing refugees from halfway around the world will not leverage precious tax dollars. The November 22, 2015, Center for Immigration Studies report, The High Cost of Resettling Middle Eastern Refugees, reveals that:

Given limited funds, relocation to the U.S. may not be the most effective way to help.

Although we do not consider all costs, our best estimate is that in their first five years in the United States each refugee from the Middle East costs taxpayers $64,370 — 12 times what the UN estimates it costs to care for one refugee in neighboring Middle Eastern countries.

The societal impact of resettling tens of thousands of so-called refugees will also be significant. Many Muslim immigrants have not assimilated into Western culture, nor do they want to. This was substantiated by Pamela Geller in the October 17, 2015 article, 51% of America's Muslims Want Sharia Law: An Islamic Fifth Column Builds Inside USA.

It has been noted that the process of bringing in uncountable refugees and immigrants, both legal and illegsl, who are dependent on our generous welfare state is quite consistent with the Cloward-Piven strategy to fundamentally transform America.

Actions

While the president and some Democratic political candidates tell it's safe to bring in more Syrian refugees, the states clearly have authority to reject federally-mandated resettlement. Governors can order their state agencies not to lift a finger nor spend one dollar to facilitate the resettlement process.

FAIR elucidated in the November, 2016 article The Role of States in the Refugee Resettlement Process,

While only the federal government may decide who can enter the United States as a refugee, generally, federal law requires cooperation between federal, state, and local governments when it comes to the resettlement of refugees admitted to the United States. Federal law states that the Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (which falls under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services "shall consult" with state and local governments and voluntary non-profit agencies -concerning the sponsorship process and the intended distribution of refugees among the states and localities BEFORE their placement... (See 8 U.S.C. § 1522(a)(2)(A))

Moreover, the Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement must develop and implement, again, in consultation with state and local governments and voluntary non-profit agencies, "policies and strategies for the placement and resettlement of refugees..." Id. § 1522(a)(2)(B)

Consistent with these policies and strategies, the federal government shall take into account the recommendations of the state to the maximum extent possible. Id. § 1522(a)(2)(D)

The November 21, 2015, Canada Free Press article States can guard against Fed-sponsored refugees, clarifies the rights of the States in the issue of refugee resettlement:

Amendment 10 of the Constitution guarantees "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."... In respect to this umbrella of protection of the rights of the Individual States, the administration cannot coerce any of one of them to accept their administrative rulings, in this case regarding the forced placement of refugees that could be harboring enemies among their numbers.

In a situation such as this, federal jurisdiction ends at the bounds of any federally controlled property. The administration, that governs the military and immigration agents, cannot compel the states to allow free passage, let alone settlement, of individuals beyond the federal port of entry. A quiet challenge could ensue between state and county law enforcement (sheriffs) and federal agents, but the federal agents would recognize the limits of their jurisdiction and end up dealing with either having to house refugees at their point of entry or return them to their place of origin.

31 states have protested bringing Syrian refugees into their state. More than half the nation's governors say Syrian refugees not welcome, CNN, November 19, 2015. Find out what state Governors are saying about Syrian refugees.

Revolt: 22 Sitting GOP Governors Rebel Against President Obama Over Syrian Refugees, Breitbart, November 16, 2015.

House Just Stuck It To Obama With Hugely Defiant Vote – 47 Dems Joined In, Western Journalism, November 19, 2015.

House Passes Bill that Fails to Address Obama's Refugee Resettlement Program, FAIR, November 24, 2015.

Rep. Brian Babin: Push the Pause Button on Refugee Resettlement, Breitbart, November 16, 2015.

I recently introduced H.R. 3314, the Resettlement Accountability National Security Act, which would press the pause button on a program that grants permanent legal residency to nearly 70,000 new immigrants a year under a program coordinated through the United Nations (U.N.), known as the Refugee Resettlement Program.

H.R. 3314 temporarily suspends the program until the Government Accountability Office (GAO) completes a thorough examination of its costs on local governments, states and American taxpayers.

The Refugee Resettlement Program has been running on autopilot for far too long with little regard to economic, social and national security implications.

Governors Can't Stop Obama on Refugees, but Congress Can, Breitbart, November 15, 2015.

...Federal law, found at 8 U.S.C. § 1157(a)(1), authorizes any president to admit whatever number of refugees he believes “is justified by humanitarian concerns or is otherwise in the national interest.” The sections and subsection of the United States Code following that provision continue to lay out broad presidential powers, granting him all the authority he needs to bring in Syrian refugees.

But governors command state offices that are an integral part of this refugee-resettlement process. Governors can order their state personnel not to lift a finger to help the Obama administration, or to spend a single dollar of state money on the project. Obama would have to assign federal agents to bring these refugees to America, fly them to their new state, drive them to their new house (which the federal government would have to obtain for them), and take care of the all the logistical and physical needs that normally state and local staffs would handle or assist....

Obama can't make the governors cooperate. In the 1997 case United States v. Printz, the Supreme Court declared that the Tenth Amendment's limits on federal power include that no branch of the federal government—Congress, the Supreme Court, or the president—can require state or local officers to implement or assist any federal law or program. This anti-commandeering principle is a cornerstone of the constitutional system...

But Congress can stop Obama. Congress has plenary power over immigration, including admitting refugees. Congress can change federal law at any time. Congress can also refuse to renew funding for Obama to resettle refugees and insert explicit language into annual appropriations laws forbidding the various agencies of the federal government from spending a single dollar of federal money or assigning a single federal agent to carry out Obama's resettlement efforts...

Additional resources and information on Syrian refugees

The best video on immigration/refugees you'll ever see.

Refugee Resettlement - extensive CAIRCO research.

Refugee Resettlement Watch - daily updates on the refugee resettlement racket.

Islamic terrorism and ISIS - CAIRCO research.

The Big Lies: a religion of peace and right wing Nazis, Fred Elbel, CAIRCO, November 18, 2015.

... here are two book reviews: Counter the Creeping Islamization of America and Gestating Jihad in America, both published in The Social Contract. Also see the Social Contract issue: "The menace of Islam" for some pertinent information.

Perhaps the most succinct summary of the Islamic existential threat is presented in the article The Religion of Peace: Another Big Lie, by Jim ONeill, Canada Free Press, November 16, 2015...

Cloward–Piven strategy - fundamentally transforming America, CAIRCO, November, 2015.

Additional articles

US Officials Admit Concern Over Syrian Refugee Effort, ABC News, November 16, 2015.

Refugee Crimes Demonstrate the Security Risks of Migration, Breitbart, November 17, 2015

The High Cost of Resettling Middle Eastern Refugees, Center for Immigration Studies, November 22, 2015:

Given limited funds, relocation to the U.S. may not be the most effective way to help

Although we do not consider all costs, our best estimate is that in their first five years in the United States each refugee from the Middle East costs taxpayers $64,370 — 12 times what the UN estimates it costs to care for one refugee in neighboring Middle Eastern countries.

On average, each Middle Eastern refugee resettled in the United States costs an estimated $64,370 in the first five years, or $257,481 per household...

We Absolutely Need a Religious Test for Refugees, Joel R. Pollak, Breitbart, November 22, 2015.

...there are very good reasons to apply a religious test to Syrian refugees. The first is that some religious groups–Yazidis and Christian Arabs in particular–have been singled out for slaughter, slavery, and expulsion. Unlike Sunni and Shia Muslims, who theoretically have support from neighboring states, the Yazidis and Christians have no one to save them and nowhere to go.

As others have pointed out, U.S. law already asks applicants to prove they are victims of religious persecution. The appropriate solution for other people fleeing war-torn countries is to provide temporary shelter and humanitarian relief until the war is over.

But the Constitution does not prohibit a religious test for refugees–and, indeed, without it our policy would be less compassionate...

A religious test for refugees is not bigotry–and saying so merely poisons public debate, as President Obama, sadly, does so often.

Obama launches PR campaign to change America's idea of refugees, World Net Daily, November 28, 2015.

Bloomberg Poll: Most Americans Oppose Syrian Refugee Resettlement, American Renaissance, November 20, 2015.

8 Syrians Caught at Texas Border in Laredo, Breitbart, November 19, 2015.

America's 'enemies within': How nearly SEVENTY have been arrested in America over ISIS plots in last 18 months - including refugees who had been given safe haven but 'turned to terror', The Daily Mail, November 18, 2015. Analysis shows that they include refugees who entered the United States as refugees.

BIG LIST: All these terror attacks in U.S. covered up by feds - Dozens committed by Muslim immigrants in last 2 years, World Net Daily, November 17, 2015.

FBI Has Nearly 1,000 Active ISIS Probes Inside U.S.

Why Did the Terrorist Cross the Border?, Michael Cutler, FrontPage Magazine, November 30, 2015.

Mideast Immigrants to US Pose Huge Security Threat, NewsMax, January 8, 2015.

The Troubling Math of Muslim Migration, National Review Online, January 14, 2015

1.6 Million Immigrants from Predominantly Muslim Countries Since 9/11, Conservative Review, May 12, 2015.

More immigrants from Muslim nations than population of D.C. - 680,000, Washington Examiner, November 26, 2015.

Islamic State: The Threat to the United States, Breitbart, November 23, 2015:

A Mclean, Virginia-based defense think-tank has published a prescient white-paper on the Islamic State terror group...

The Threat Knowledge Group (TKG), headed by Katherine C. Gorka, its President, and Dr. Sebastian Gorka, the Chair of Military Theory at Marine Corps University and a Breitbart Contributor, released a comprehensive study Monday titled “ISIS: The Threat to the United States.”

TKG warns that the United States must steel itself for the “difficult times ahead” and be ready to counter the threats posed by ISIS inside of the United States. They recommend that U.S. officials follow five steps in countering the current threat environment.

1. “Stop downplaying the seriousness of the threat.”
2. “Recognize that ISIS is targeting youth, and do more to protect youth from radicalization.”
3. “Target the ideologues.”
4. “Better utilize open-source intelligence.”
5. “Screen refugees.”

Read the TKG Report: The ISIS Threat.

Refugees? What about the 'Palestinians'?, World Net Daily, November 28, 2015.

Video: Islam and the West... Can They Co-Exist?, video of Lawrence Auster speaking on muslim immigration, assimilation, the Constitution and Islam, January 28, 2010.

Why 12 States Hold Key to Constitutional Challenge to Refugee Resettlement Program, Breitbart, December 8, 2015.

Why the U.S. should not take in Muslim immigrants, by Nonie Darwish, Pamela Geller - Atlas Shrugs, December 14, 2015.

Anyone Using The Phrase ‘Islam Is A Religion Of Peace’ Needs To Read This, Mark Durie, Theologian (Australia), Independent Journal Review, December, 2015.

...While there is a link in Arabic between salam, a word often translated ‘peace’, and Islam, the real connection is found in the idea of safety.

The word Islam is based upon a military metaphor. Derived from aslama ‘surrender’ its primary meaning is to make oneself safe (salama) through surrender. In its original meaning, a muslim was someone who surrendered in warfare.

Thus Islam did not stand for the absence of war, but for one of its intended outcomes: surrender leading to the ‘safety’ of captivity...

Is Islam Reformable?, Amil Imani, American Thinker, December 17, 2015.

...The idea of reforming Islam is not entirely new.  But Islam cannot be reformed the way Christianity was... In the mind of millions of Muslims, Islam is carved in granite, just the way it is. No change. Allah's book is sealed...

Islam is not reformable for the following primary reasons:

* At the heart of the problem is the Qur'an, Islam's sacred book, considered as literally perfect and the immutable words of Allah...
* Islam is a perfect religion...
* Violence is part and parcel of Islam...
* Islam is a super-religion...

Geller: Jihad in America 2015: The Danger to the Homeland Has Never Been Greater, Pamela Geller, Breitbart, December 29, 2015.

The UN's Role in U.S. Refugee Resettlement, Center for Immigration Studies, January, 2015.

Muslim Master Forger of Fake Passports for Jihad Migrants to Europe Arrested in Thailand, Pamela Geller, February 10, 2016.

Evaluating Refugee Demographics Nationally and State-wide: Part 1 and Part 2, FAIR, February 19, 2016. See the complete report: Refugees in the United States: A Snapshot FY2014 Refugee Arrivals, FAIR.

Temporary Protected Status (TPS)

Temporary Protected Status (TPS) was implemented in 1990 to cover aliens who were in the United States when a temporary period of civil strife or natural disaster arose in their home country. TPS was intended to allow these aliens to stay in the U.S. and then return to their home country when their TPS permission expired. Once TPS status expires, beneficiaries who do not return home become illegal alien residents.

Unfortunately, those illegally in the U.S. are also able to take advantage of Temporary Protected Status even though they have absolutely no intention of returning to their home country. The TPS program has also failed because of the pattern of unjustified extensions to TPS status.

From the FAIR article on Temporary Protected Status:

...Clearly the test of whether the TPS program would work as intended, i.e., a temporary respite for persons who fear returning home because of temporary adverse conditions, is whether TPS status has been allowed to lapse when homeland conditions have stabilized and whether the protected populations have then left the United States to return home. By this standard, TPS has been an absolute failure. Practice has shown a pattern of unjustified extensions of TPS designations and demands for amnesty by the protected aliens so that they could stay permanently in the United States...

The interrelationship between the TPS status and amnesty for aliens residing illegally in the United States is clear. That link was established in the debate surrounding treatment of natives of El Salvador who were specifically designated for TPS status in the 1990 Immigration Act. These aliens, who for the most part entered the country illegally in the 1980s, and were granted temporary protection and work permits as a result of the TPS designation, never went home after political stability was reestablished in their homeland...

It should be apparent from the disparity between the intent of our policies and the practical effects, that this gap is undermining our immigration laws...

To end this cycle:

  • Congress needs to speak with one voice on the importance of ending mass illegal immigration, and of the importance of equipping the immigration authorities (under professional, committed leadership) to handle the large-scale apprehension and deportations required to restore integrity to the rule of law.
  • TPS is unnecessary and should be abolished. The law permits the Executive Branch the power to temporarily suspend deportation in emergency situations. That is all that is necessary to cope with foreign humanitarian crises.
  • Until TPS is removed, it should be limited only to foreigners who are in the U.S. legally; it should be a program available only to those who are here in the normal course of affairs and may be expected to return to their homeland at the earliest opportunity. That is not the case with illegal aliens, and they should be excluded.
  • If granted, TPS must not be a stepping stone to permanent residence through amnesty provisions. Those who receive TPS should not be given any further opportunity to file claims for relief later under any other provision of U.S. law, other than as a result of a marriage to a U.S. Citizen.

 

References

Temporary Protected Status, FAIR, 2015.

Temporary Protected Status – A Rolling Amnesty, by Jack Martin, FAIR, January 27, 2016.
 
There's Nothing as Permanent as a Temporary Refugee, by Mark Krikorian, Center for Immigration Studies, July 13, 2010. 
 

 

Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) - Illegal alien kiddie colonists invited by Obama administration

Thursday, August 21, 2014
By Fred Elbel, Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform

Would you send your ten year old child to travel unaccompanied 1,800 miles from Guatemala to the United States - riding on top of gang-infested trains? The mainstream media and federal government would have you believe that it's quite commonplace south of the border. So much for "immigrant family values".

However, investigative reporting has indicated that while these children may leave Guatemala, very few of them make it all the way through Mexico on the top of trains.48 Which prompts the unanswered question: where are they going and how do mass numbers of unaccompanied alien children (UAC) sneak into the United States?

It's anticipated that 60,000 children will be sent up - or sent for - to sneak into the United States in 2014, and the number is expected to more than double to 130,000 in 2015. That's a quarter of a million of unattended minor illegal aliens in that two-year period alone.2

We, the taxpayers, are paying to house, care for, and transport these illegal aliens to parents and relatives in the United States. The White House has projected a staggering cost of $2.28 billion to care for and resettle child migrants from Central America, and they are asking for another $1.4 billion to keep the kids here.3 On top of that, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. announced that the Obama administration would pay for 100 lawyers to help these underage illegal aliens remain in the United States.9

Who are these Unaccompanied Alien Children and where are they from?

Unaccompanied Alien Children age and gender distributionUnaccompanied alien children are children under 18 who have lawful immigration status in the United States - that is, they are illegal aliens who are children. In 2013, only 24 percent were under 14 years old, and 73 percent were male.24 (In June, 2014, ICE caved in to political correctness by dropping the word "alien" from the term "unaccompanied alien child".)26 The following chart shows official unaccompanied alien child referrals through the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR):

The following chart from the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) shows where these alien children are sent from:24

Central America

Why are they sneaking into the US, anyway?

In 2010, the DREAM Act (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors) failed to pass the House. It specified a six-year path for illegal alien "children" between the ages of 12 and 35 to eventually become US citizens. Nevertheless, in 2012, President Obama unilaterally implemented a new program called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).

Now, Obama is renewing this two-year amnesty for a half-million illegal aliens.14

The message is clear to those who listen. Everyone knows that Obama isn't enforcing immigration laws. In particular, foreigners in South American countries are quite attuned to which way the immigration wind blows. They know that the US isn't deporting illegal alien children, so their rational response is to send even more. Central American newspapers are reporting that kids sent to America will be fed and cared for and will get to play Pong-pong and Foosball.19 The Center for Immigration Studies summarized interviews with 230 of these migrants, who stated that they came here to "to take advantage of the 'new' U.S. law that grants a free pass or permit."6

In the following video interview, documentary filmmaker Dennis Michael Lynch warns that the invasion is only beginning:

David Michael Lynch video on 2014 Unaccompanied Alien Children

"It's about to get worse. . . Entire villages are emptying out and coming from Central America through Mexico to the United States. They'll be hitting in the next couple weeks. What you are seeing right now is the tip of the iceberg."

Where are they being relocated?

This interactive map by NumbersUSA shows where the Unaccompanied Alien Children are being relocated. For a larger version of this map click here. You can see a full list of all the communities in the left column.

Where are Unaccompanied Alien Children being relocated?

Also see a similar interactive map by FAIR.

Follow the money

Remittances are monies sent by foreign-born workers (legal immigrants and illegal aliens) back to their home countries. Remittances are essentially a tax-free transfer of wealth out of the U.S. Approximately $20 billion of Mexican remittances each year disappear from the U.S. economy via the institutionalized money transfer industry, never to return.32

Central American countries obtain a significant portion of their GDP from remittances sent from the United States. Remittances to El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras comprise at least 10% of each country's GDP.31,33 Thus, there is no real incentive for Central American countries to curtail the outflow of their excess population to the United States. Indeed, it results in a guaranteed revenue stream.

Cartels have cashed in on the Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) kiddie trade, charging a family up to $12,000 to deliver a child to the U.S. border.34

What is to be done?

Some say that it our responsibility to house, feed, clothe, and care for these kiddies while finding homes for them in the United States. Certainly, we should not let them starve. The common-sense, humanitarian, and legal thing to do would be to send them back home - along with their illegal alien parents and relatives living in the United States.

In order to shut off the flow, an effective action would be to send the National Guard to secure America's southern border. Obama established precedent when he deployed 1,200 National Guard troops in 2010. While they essentially held desk jobs, this time around they could actually spend time helping our understaffed, underpaid, and highly dedicated Border Patrol agents.

For the cost of taking care of these kids, we could secure our border. As John Derbyshire points out4, if you divide $2.28 billion by two thousand miles of border, you get a little over a million dollars per mile. Every year. The Israelis spend less than that to safely secure their own border. For that amount, we could permanently staff border patrol posts every ten miles, and have rapid response teams and drone surveillance to boot.

Naturally, President Obama isn't lifting a finger - nor his infamous executive pen - to secure our border. Not wanting to miss a grand - and grandstanding - opportunity to cater to Undocumented Democrats, the White House is framing the onrush of kiddies as a "humanitarian crisis". Senator Jeff Sessions noted that "Obama has nobody to blame but himself," although perhaps missing the point that Obama is achieving precisely the results he is looking for.

A manufactured crisis - Cloward Piven strategy

In the 1960's, Marxists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven developed a hard-hitting strategy (the Cloward Piven strategy) to overload and collapse democratic welfare states. The idea was to inundate the system with demands which could not be morally refused. The fiscal cost of these demands would ultimately break the state, paving the way for socialism.10

Barak Obama' immigration actions (or lack thereof) seem to be an efficacious implementation of this strategy.29,30 He invited these minors into the US. He has virtually gutted America's immigration enforcement system, and is talking of even more executive actions. Of course, both political parties are culpable, as there is an active bipartisan amnesty exponent in Congress.

This is a manufactured crisis of the first order - and it has backfired. Virginia voters just 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.22

One thing is clear: a nation without a border is not a nation. Perhaps this is how Obama intends to implement his "fundamental transformation of America".

The Beast - train north to America

Article by Fred Elbel

 


References

1. Obama's amnesty for 200,000 kids sneaking across our porous border, Fred Elbel, CAIRCO, June 5, 2014.

The common-sense, humanitarian, and legal thing to do would be to send them back home - along with their illegal alien parents living in the United States. Naturally, President Obama isn't doing that. Not wanting to miss a grand - and grandstanding - opportunity to cater to Undocumented Democrats, the White House is framing the onrush of kiddies as a humanitarian crisis. Senator Jeff Sessions noted that "Obama has nobody to blame but himself," although perhaps missing the point that Obama is achieving precisely the results he is looking for...

It's expected that 60,000 kids will sneak into the United States this year, and possibly 130,000 in 2015. That's more than 20 times the 2011 influx of 6,000. It's a compounding problem - with over twice as many each year. (Here's a great explanation of exponential growth and doubling time)...

2. Obama Offers Mini-Amnesty To 200,000 Kids By 2016, Daily Caller, June 2, 2014.

White House officials said Monday that they are treating a wave of youthful illegal immigrants as a “humanitarian situation” that requires billions of dollars in aid for shelter, nutrition, health care and education.

Officials are not treating the expected influx of 60,000 youths this year — and perhaps 130,000 in 2015 — as a wave of illegal immigrants that should be returned home.

Instead, officials are spending taxpayer funds, and converting parts of at least two military facilities, to cater to the illegals and to transport them to their illegal-immigrant parents elsewhere in the United States...

Officials expect the inflow to reach 130,000 in 2015, up more than 20-fold from the 2011 influx of 6,000 youths...

3. OMB: Child migrants to cost U.S. $2.3 billion, Politico, May 31, 2014.

New White House estimates show that the projected costs of caring for and resettling child migrants from Central America could reach $2.28 billion next year — well over double what the administration asked for in its 2015 budget just months ago...

The $2.28 billion number compares with the $868 million requested by the administration in its budget submitted in March. That translates to a $1.4 billion, or 163 percent, increase, the scale of which confirms — even exceeds — internal estimates reported last week by POLITICO...

Moreover, OMB adds a warning in its letter that U.S. border and immigration agencies — which first interact with the child migrants — will also need an additional $166 million to cover their costs...

All younger than 18, these are Unaccompanied Alien Children — UACs in Washington’s legal shorthand. Their numbers could approach 66,000 this year — more than four times the level just two years ago...

4. Is A Secure Border Too Much To Ask?, John Derbyshire, Vdare, June 4, 2013.

Our southern border is roughly two thousand miles long. Divide $2.28 billion by two thousand, you get a million dollars and change per mile. This is for one year, remember.

Could we not fully secure the southern border and keep it secure for a million dollars a mile per year? Of course we could. The Israelis secure their border for far less than that, including their border across the Negev desert, which is at least as inhospitable as our Southwest.

Suppose for example we had permanently-manned border posts every ten miles along the entire length: five-man occupancy, rotating on six-hour shifts. That’s two hundred posts, twenty border patrolmen each post, total four thousand guys. Figure current cost per patrolman of $150,000 per annum with benefits, training, and so on, you’re talking annual cost 600 million dollars—what in Congressional budget negotiations is known as “dinner and a movie.” You could throw in fulltime drone surveillance and rapid-response teams for attempted crossings, and still have a lot of change from $2.28 billion.

5. White House seeks extra $1.4B to address surge in children crossing southern border, Fox News, June 3, 2014.

6. Influx of minors across Texas border driven by belief that they will be allowed to stay in U.S., David Nakamura, Washington Post, June 13, 2014.

...Most of the children are crossing over the Rio Grande Valley into Texas, often under the guidance of human-smuggling cartels, and many are seeking to reunite with parents already in the United States...

An internal memo from the U.S. Border Patrol last month estimated that, all told, 90,000 minors would be apprehended this year and 142,000 next year...

A leaked internal memo written by Border Patrol agents in the Rio Grande Valley offers additional evidence of such perceptions. The document was distributed to reporters and congressional offices this week by the conservative Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for limited immigration. It is a summary of interviews on May 28 with 230 youths and women from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador who were apprehended trying to enter the United States.

The main reason the migrants had crossed into the United States was “to take advantage of the ‘new’ U.S. law that grants a free pass or permit” from the government, referred to in their home countries as “permisos,” the memo stated...

7. Teenage Latin Border Horde, Ryan Lovelace, National Review, June 13, 2014 .

Border Patrol officials struggling to keep up with the increasing number of minors illegally crossing the Mexican border are not turning away persons with known gang affiliations. Chris Cabrera, vice president of the National Border Patrol Council Local 3307 in the Rio Grande Valley, explained that a Border Patrol agent he represents helped reunite a teenage gang member with his family in the United States. Cabrera notes the young member of Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13), a transnational criminal gang, had no criminal record in the U.S., but asks, “If he’s a confirmed gang member in his own country, why are we letting him in here?”

...Cabrera says this [Nagales] station is seeing between 700 and 1,500 people daily...

8. Video: Camp of the Saints on the Rio Grande, by Brenda Walker, Limits to Growth, June 11, 2014.

...In the video clip below, documentary filmmaker Dennis Michael Lynch warns that the invasion is only beginning:

It’s about to get worse. . . "Entire villages are emptying out and coming from Central America through Mexico to the United States. They’ll be hitting in the next couple weeks. What you are seeing right now is the tip of the iceberg.”...

The Daily Caller reports, “a leaked estimate by a top official in the Department of Homeland Security says the 12-month inflow will reach 90,000 by October, and then grow by another 142,000 in the next 12 months before October 2015.” That’s over 230,000, nearly a quarter million that the Democrats hope to dump on US taxpayers...

9. Children’s surge of illegal aliens is overwhelming the southwest border, Washington Times, June 9, 2014.

Obama’s dreamy promise lures thousands to the border... Children are walking hundreds of miles across a hostile environment with little more than the clothes on their backs, accompanied by neither a parent nor other responsible adult. The numbers of these children making the treacherous journey are much higher than the Obama administration has acknowledged, according to reporting by our Stephen Dinan...

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte pinned the blame squarely on Mr. Obama’s broken border policies. “Word has gotten out around the world about President Obama’s lax immigration-enforcement policies and it has encouraged more people to come to the United States illegally, many of whom are children from Central America.”...

On Friday, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. announced the administration would pay for 100 lawyers to help young illegals remain in the United States...

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

Back in the Sixties, Marxists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven came up with a great strategy for overloading and collapsing democratic welfare states, paving the way for socialist tyranny. Basically, the idea was to hit the system with a tidal wave of demands it couldn’t refuse, and couldn’t possibly fulfill. The Left would then insist that the moral argument for the system remained intact, so the only way to meet those impossible demands was to scrap every vestige of Constitutional restraint and republican self-government...

There’s nothing complicated about what is happening here. Barack Obama invited these people to send their children to the United States as refugees. He’s already made illegal use of executive orders to gut the immigration system; he’s talking about doing it again, and the people of South and Central America can hear him just fine. There have been anecdotal reports of a message being spread throughout Central American countries, by everything from word-of-mouth gossip to news media: “Go to America with your child, you won’t be turned away.”...

And it’s not just the President sending those signals, since there’s a vibrant bipartisan amnesty chorus in Congress...

11. Central America Newspapers Tout Open US Door for Illegal Minors, NewsMax, June 11, 2014.

Newspapers in El Salvador and Honduras are promoting policies by the Obama administration that defer deportation to minors brought to the United States as children by their parents — known as "Dreamers" — and those that are housing illegal children at military bases in the South and West...

12. Central American Newspapers Encouraging Minors to Enter US Illegally, Breitbart, June 12, 2014.

13. Wave of Minors on Their Own Rush to Cross Southwest Border, The New York Times, June 4, 2014.

14. Obama Renews Work Permits For 520,000 Illegals, Neil Munro, Daily Caller, June 7, 2014

President Barack Obama is renewing his two-year amnesty for at least 550,000 younger illegal immigrants, and is rolling back education requirements and anti-fraud measures.

“Obama’s extension of his unilaterally-created immigration program not only violates his constitutional duty to enforce the law, but the changes he made to it proactively invite fraud and abuse,” said a June 5 statement by Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the chairman of the House judiciary committee...

Obama announced his amnesty program in June 2012, shortly before the 2012 election. Under the “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals,” Obama directed officials to stop applying immigration law against younger illegals who don’t commit major crimes, and to award work permits to those illegals...

15. Hundreds more youth surge across border, overwhelming U.S. officials, Los Angeles Times, June 8, 2014.

At least 1,000 unaccompanied children who crossed illegally into the United States through Texas are being taken to a makeshift emergency shelter in Arizona...

16. Pew Graph Measures Illegal Kiddie Colonists from Central America, Brenda Walker, Limits To Growth, June 12, 2014.

17. Photos of Border Crisis Show How U.S. Border Patrol is Overwhelmed, Immigration Reform, June 10, 2014.

18. Port Hueneme [CA] to house hundreds of [illegal alien] minors who have crossed border, Los Angeles Times, June 13, 2014.

...Meals are held outside three times a day in large white tents, officials said, with children allowed to have seconds if they want. Thursday's dinner was expected to be vegetable lasagna with meatballs, sautéed zucchini and parsley bread, according to a menu ...

Inside, the building was brightly lit with blue-painted cement floors, two Ping-pong tables, a Foosball table and several couches...

19. Jan Brewer: MS-13 Gang Members Could Be Crossing Border with Children, Tony Lee, Breitbart, June 13, 2014.

...In a letter to House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) on Thursday that asked them to end this "intentional" and "unconscionable" crisis at the border, Brewer noted that by the "Obama administration's own estimation, 230,000 unaccompanied alien minors are expected to cross through the Rio Grande Sector by the end of next year."...

Brewer condemned the Obama administration in a letter last week for not informing Arizona officials before dumping illegal immigrants in the state and asked the Obama administration to end the "dangerous" policy...

20. AZ Gov. Jan Brewer to Congress: End 'Unconscionable' and 'Manufactured' Border Crisis, Breitbart, June 13, 2014.

...Our country is in the midst of a crisis manufactured by President Obama and his administration's refusal to enforce our nation's immigration laws," she wrote. "It has become clear that the administration has encouraged this massive influx and intends to continue ignoring the states' calls to end this policy."...

21. Sarah Palin: Obama Exploiting Illegal Immigrant Kids for Political Agenda, Tony Lee, Breitbart, June 13, 2014.

...former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin blasted President Barack Obama and legislators in D.C.'s permanent political class for exploiting illegal immigrant children to advance their amnesty agenda.

Palin said Obama, in particular, "has orchestrated this newest 'crisis' in order to overload the system with the intention of 'fixing' the problems his own policies create – by fiat, and that infamous phone and pen; screw the rule of law."...

"Obama surely knows a nation is not a nation without borders, while we must surely know this is the 'fundamental transformation of America' that he promised and some of us warned about."...

...the GOP's willingness to go along with Obama on the amnesty issue is compelling her to renounce her ties to the GOP.

22. Eric Cantor on Border Crisis: Let's Work with Obama to Give 'Kids' Amnesty, Breitbart, June 7, 2014.

"But I have told the President there are some things that we can work on together," Cantor said. "We can work on the border security bill together. We can work on things like the Kids."

Cantor was referring to what has commonly been referred to as his "Kids Act," which, as Breitbart News reported, would grant amnesty to illegal immigrants who were brought to America through "no fault of their own"--like many of the illegal immigrant children who have been pouring into the country in recent weeks.

23. ‘They Keep Coming’: The ‘Rehearsed’ Answers Illegal Immigrants Are Using at the Border to Gain Entry Into the U.S., The Blaze, June 17, 2014.

...Border Patrol agents along the southwest border have been directed not to speak with journalists after the public became aware that more than 47,000 undocumented [illegal alien] children have illegally entered into the country over the past eight months...

In fact, the children and adults respond with very deliberate and rehearsed answers when questioned by Border Patrol.

They immediately claim credible fear from gang violence or say, “I was scared I would be killed,” one of the Border Patrol agents working along the border told TheBlaze...

24. About Unaccompanied Alien Children's Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement - with charts, 2001-2014.

On March 1, 2003, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Section 462, transferred responsibilities for the care and placement of unaccompanied alien children (UAC) from the Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to the Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR).
 
An unaccompanied alien child is a child who has no lawful immigration status in the United States; has not attained 18 years of age; and, with respect to whom, there is no parent or legal guardian in the United States, or no parent or legal guardian in the United States available to provide care and physical custody.
See 6 U.S.C. § 279(g)(2)

25. MAP: Where feds are trying to relocate illegal border surgers, NumbersUSA.

26. ICE ends use of 'alien' in references to child illegal aliens, Fox News, June 4, 2014.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement will no longer use the word “alien” in its references to illegal immigrant minors who have been apprehended without their parents at the U.S. border, according to an internal agency email.

The children have commonly been referred to as “unaccompanied alien children,” or “UACs.” With the new directive, laid out in a June 4 email, both terms will be dropped and replaced with “unaccompanied children.”

27. Border Meltdown: Obama Delivering 290,000 Illegals To U.S. Homes, Daily Caller, July 6, 2014.

A second New York Times article report revealed that officials have caught an additional 240,000 Central American migrants since April, and are transporting many of them to their destinations throughout the United States...

The Central American parents of the 50,000 youths and children are using a 2008 law to ensure their children are transported to them for free by a relay of border patrol and Department of Health and Human Services officials. The youths are delivered to the border patrol by smugglers, dubbed coyotes, in exchange for several thousand dollars.

Half of the 50,000 Central American youths were delivered by taxpayer-funded employees directly to their parents now living in the United States, and another third were delivered to people who said they were close relatives, said the July 3 article...

28. List of Colorado Refugee Services Program Extended Stakeholder Partnerships by Colorado Department of Human Services - Refugee Services.

29. Timeline: How The Obama Administration Bypassed Congress To Dismantle Immigration Enforcement, Rep. Jeff Sessions (R-AL).

30. A Timeline of the Obama Administration’s Four Year-Long Conspiracy to Grant Amnesty to Illegal Aliens by Dismantling Enforcement of Our Laws Against Illegal Immigration, Judicial Watch.

31. Central America Border Rush Fueled By Remittances, Investors Business Daily, June 29, 2014.

32. Remittances - a massive transfer of wealth out of America, CAIRCO.

33. Illegal Aliens Sending Billions Back to Home Countries, Breitbart, July 8, 2014

34. Deportation data won't dispel rumors drawing migrant minors to U.S., Breitbart, July 6, 2014

...according to David Leopold, an immigration attorney in Cleveland... smugglers, who may charge a family up to $12,000 to deliver a child to the border, often tell them exactly what to say to American officials.

"The cartels have figured out where the hole is," he said...

35. Mexico & Guatemala Announce Agreement To Make Illegal Passage To U.S. Easier, NumbersUSA, July 10, 2014.

36. Map: Is the Border Crisis Coming to a Town Near You?, FAIR.

37. Central Americans Continue To Invade - Because Our Rulers (Including Congressional GOP) Let Them, Alan Wall, VDare, July 16, 2014.

38. 2008 Trafficking Law Largely Inapplicable to Current Border Crisis, Center for Immigration Studies, July 16, 2014.

It appears that a significant majority of children coming across are not "unaccompanied alien children" according to the definition found in federal law...

Even where the 2008 trafficking act is applicable, provisions within the law allow its application to be limited in "exceptional circumstances", which — as one prominent Democratic senator recently suggested — might include the current border crisis.

39. Budget Raises Questions on Admin's Foreknowledge of Border Crisis, Breitbart, July 18, 2014.

"So up to 18 months before the FY 2013 budget was enacted, someone in the ORR office said, 'It looks like we're seeing an uptick in children coming from Central America, so we need more funding,'" Kais said. "In the summer of 2011--or earlier--somebody knew about [the border crisis]."

40. CBO: Only $25 million of Obama's requested $3.7 billion would be spent in FY2014, NumbersUSA, July 22, 2014.

41. Pew Research Report: Nearly 90% of Illegal Immigrant 'Children' Are Teenagers, Breitbart, July 22, 2014.

42. Unaccompanied Alien Children: A Processing Flow Chart, Lisa Seghetti, Section Research Manager, Congressional Research Service, July 16, 2014.

Unaccompanied Illegal Alien Children processing flowchart

43. Unaccompanied Alien Children: An Overview, Congressional Research Service, June 23, 2014.

44. The Timeline Of The “Border Crisis” – An Intentionally Manufactured Crisis Created To Advance Comprehensive Immigration Reform?, Conservative Treehouse, July 12, 2014.

45. Timeline: Border Surge Began a Few Months After Obama's First Executive Action on Immigration, John Sexton, Breitbart, August 6, 2014.

46. Asylum Policies for Unaccompanied Children Compared with Expedited Removal Policies for Unauthorized Adults: In Brief, Congressional Research Service, July 30, 2014.

47. Making Americans Sick to Achieve a Political Majority, by James Simpson, Accuracy in Media, August 13, 2014.

This an excellent, well-researched article describing the Unaccompanied Alien Children problem in depth. It focuses on the consequences of Obama's executive DACA amnesty, which include bringing infectious diseases into America via the unimpeded flow of uninspected illegal aliens across our border.

48. Most Central American Juvenile Immigrants Are Being Abducted and Trafficked On Their Way to the U.S., Dave Hodges, DC Clothesline, August 20, 2014.

This twenty minute video by Jim Stone was filmed in Mexico, and concludes that very few children are riding trains north of Guadalajara, Mexico. (Embedding of this video is censored by Youtube.)

"Therefore, one must conclude that these children are being taken off the train and are being used in another criminal enterprise... the United States government has set up an elaborate and multi-layered process to respond to this threat as under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (PDF) (TVPRA) some children have been rescued, under threat of being sex trafficked... In other words, the federal government is spending a large sum of American tax money to shield Central American from the clutches of child sex traffickers. The mere existence and stated purposes of these various federal organizations legitimizes the fact that Central American children are being sex-trafficked on their way to the United States. Amazingly, this information comes from The Brookings Institute[49] which is a prominent globalist think-tank and mouthpiece organization."

49. The Surge in Unaccompanied Children from Central America: A Humanitarian Crisis at Our Border, Diana Villiers Negroponte, Brookings Institution, July 2, 2014.

It is estimated that 2.5 million Central Americans live in the United States, 60 percent of which are either undocumented or live with Temporary Protective Status (TPS) which denies them the right to petition for family reunification. Hope for reunification with children and better living standards enable family members in the United States to pay the $6-7,000 to traffickers who bring the child from his home in Central America to the U.S. side of the border. When Congress created TPS in 1990 and extended it to 220,000 Salvadorans in 2001, we failed to anticipate that they would seek to unite with their children.

Criminal social networks, operating throughout the Americas have created human trafficking rings that offer door to door service. The Mexican government’s combat against these criminal organizations has pushed them into alternative profitable ventures, including the smuggling of Central American children. We should expect that as U.S. policy changes so too will the behavior of these organizations. They will react smartly to evolving U.S. policies.

50. El Norte or Bust!: How Migration Fever and Microcredit Produced a Financial Crash in a Latin American Town, by David Stoll, 2012. Book review summarizes the pressures driving mass emigration: Behind the Surge from Guatemala, Thomas Jackson, August 29, 2014.

51. Cost of Migrant Children In Public Schools Could Top $761 Million, Breitbart, September 2, 2014. See original analysis: Estimated Cost of K-12 Public Education for Unaccompanied Alien Children, FAIR. Cost to Colorado taxpayers will be $40 million for 263 Unaccompanied Alien Children.

Map: cost of K-12 public education for unaccompanied alien children

 

52. HHS Spent More Than $182 Million for 'Basic Shelter Care' of 2,400 Illegal Immigrant Minors, Breitbart, December 3, 2014.

53. The border invasion continues as more illegal alien “children” and mothers arrive in Texas, Refugee Resettlement Watch, December 26, 2014.

54. Majority of Summer Surge Illegals Don’t Show Up in Court, Limits To Growth, December 31, 2014.

55. DHS Launches Family Reunification Refugee Program for Central Americans, Judicial Watch, April 1, 2015.

56. Obama Administration Cobbles Together Plan as UACs Continue Surging Across the Border, FAIR, December 15, 2015.

Unaccompanied alien minors (UACs) and family units continue to surge across the border illegally at rates similar to summer 2014 record levels. In October — which marked the beginning of the new fiscal year for the government — the Border Patrol apprehended 5,000 UACs (double the number from October 2014) and 6,000 family units (triple the number from October 2014). (See FAIR Legislative Update, Dec. 1, 2015) The situation was even worse last month, with 10,588 UACs apprehended through November 2015 (more than double from this point last year) and 12,505 family units apprehended (a 173 percent increase compared to last year). (CBP.gov) The flow is almost exclusively from Central America as only 1,965 UACs and 538 family units apprehended this fiscal year are from Mexico. (Id.)

Evidence continues to mount that the Central American UACs and family units are surging across the border at record numbers because they know they will get to stay in the U.S. once they get here. Because of a loophole in the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) of 2008, UACs from Central America cannot be promptly returned to their home countries. (P. Law 110-457) Instead, they receive a "notice to appear" which sets a court date in the future before an immigration judge but illegal aliens refer to these official documents as "permisos" or free passes.

57. DHS deports just 6% of illegal children, seen as green light for immigrants, Washington Examiner, December 16, 2015.

Visa Diversity Lottery giveaway

Until 1965, our immigration system quite sensibly promoted immigration according to the historical ethnic composition of our nation. As an offshoot of civil rights concerns, the traditional immigration system was scrapped. Part of the restructuring of our immigration system involved creating the Diversity Visa Lottery.

The Diversity Visa Lottery gives away 55,000 visas each year by lottery. It is intended to benefit nationals of countries considered underrepresented in the immigrant flow into the United States. It is in reality a throwback to a race-conscious admission system.

The first visa lottery was adopted in 1986, with a quota of 10,000 visas for immigrants from countries "adversely affected" by Sen. Ted Kennedy's 1965 Immigration Act. Interestingly, over three-fifths of those visas were issued to immigrants from Ireland, Canada and the United Kingdom - countries that had not previously been subject to immigration limitations.

The Diversity Visa Lottery was permanently entrenched in 1995. While the intent of the lottery was to discriminate against countries such as Mexico and the Philippines with high levels of immigration, the lottery was cleverly worded so as to cater to Irish immigrants.

The lottery bypasses standard normal visa criteria. Applicants are not required to have a sponsoring family member or employer. In fact, they can already be in the United States as temporary legal visitors or as illegal aliens.

The lottery does not bring in those with useful skills or experience. The Center for Immigration Studies points out that:

According to DHS statistics, few of the lottery immigrants bring useful skills or experience. More than 40 percent list their occupation as "No occupation/not working outside home". Only 23 percent claim to be in a management or professional occupation; the rest say they work at low-skill jobs.

The visa lottery is susceptible to rampant fraud, and is in fact biased toward bringing in immigrants from countries that are of special concern in the war against Islamic terrorism.

In a nation of over 322 million Americans (including a huge number of illegal aliens), do we really need a lottery to randomly bring in more people? There is no good reason to keep the Diversity Visa Lottery.

References

A brief history of US immigration policy and laws, CAIRCO research.

Ted Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act: The War On America Turns 50, Ann Coulter, VDare, September 30, 2015.

Ted Kennedy is not responsible for the Immigration Act of 1965, The Occidental Observer, May 29, 2013.

...The 1965 law was the culmination of a 40-year effort by the Jewish community to overturn the 1924 law...

Lottery Visas - What is the Visa Lottery?, FAIR, 2002.

Taking Chances: The Folly of the Visa Lottery, by Mark Krikorian, Center for Immigration Studies, July 2004.

...In 1986, Congress used this lack of immigrant diversity as a pretext for instituting an affirmative action program for white immigrants, in the form of a "diversity lottery." Devised by its sponsors (Irish-American members of Congress) as a subterfuge to amnesty Irish illegal aliens, the program continues even in the absence of any more Irish illegals — Ireland is now a country of immigration for the first time in centuries.

Nonetheless, the lottery — like many other federal programs — has taken on a life of its own. It has evolved over the years, and now offers a maximum of 50,000 visas per year to people from "underrepresented" countries, i.e., all the nations of the world other than the top dozen or so sources of immigration. In practice, this means that most visa lottery winners come from the Islamic world and sub-Saharan Africa...

Of course, fraud is bad enough when people lie about their education or work experience. But after 9/11, immigration fraud of any kind poses a dire security threat. First of all, weeding out fraudulent lottery applications, and even processing legitimate ones, is a diversion for an agency that’s supposed to be identifying terrorists among the millions seeking to come to America. An internal audit conducted by the State Department in the 1990s characterized the visa lottery as a costly unfunded mandate that saps personnel resources.

Nor does the lottery draw people randomly from around the globe whose backgrounds then need to be examined. Winners come disproportionately from the Islamic world, with about one-third coming from Muslim-majority countries. What’s more, the lottery is a disproportionately important means of immigration for people from those countries; while only about 10 percent of all people who got green cards last year from countries eligible for the lottery were beneficiaries of the lottery (the rest came under other immigration categories), the proportion for many Muslim countries was much higher. It’s bad enough that around 10 percent of immigrants from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Yemen used the lottery, but some 20-25 percent of immigrants from Egypt, Bangladesh, and Sudan came that way, as did nearly half of Moroccan and Algerian immigrants.

A survey of the religious preferences of immigrants confirms this. Although the sample size was small, it found that 18.6 percent of Muslim immigrants who received green cards in 1996 entered under the visa lottery, the second-largest immigration avenue for Muslim immigrants after marriage to a U.S. citizen. What’s more, about one-fourth of all immigrants using the visa lottery identified themselves as Muslims, while only 8 percent of the total number of immigrants in the survey did so....

Congressional Testimony: What's Wrong With the Visa Lottery?, by Steven A. Camarota, April 2004.

One of the things that makes the lottery so difficult to administer is that corruption and fraud are so widespread in the countries that send in the most applications for the lottery. The two most corrupt nations in the world, according to Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index 2003, Bangladesh and Nigeria, are also perennially among the top-10 lottery winners...

We must remember that the lottery does not draw people randomly from around the globe. Winners come disproportionately from countries that were part of the special registration system for temporary visitors set up by DHS after 9/11. All observers agree that these countries are of special concern in the war against Islamic extremism. And about a third of winners come from those countries...

Visa Lottery Prone To Social Security Fraud, NumbersUSA, December 3, 2015.

Who Wins the Visa Lottery? by Jessica Vaughan, Center for Immigration Studies, December 4, 2012.

Three Decades of Mass Immigration: The Legacy of the 1965 Immigration Act, Center for Immigration Studies, September 1995.

Will the West Wake Up?, Patrick J. Buchanan, May 24, 2013.

...It was in 1965, halcyon hour of the Great Society, that Ted Kennedy led Congress into abolishing a policy that had restricted immigration for 40 years, while we absorbed and Americanized the millions who had come over between 1890 and 1920.

The "national origins" feature of that 1924 law mandated that ships arriving at U.S. ports carry immigrants from countries that had provided our immigrants in the past. We liked who we were.

Immigration policy was written to reinforce the Western orientation and roots of America, 90 percent of whose population could by 1960 trace its ancestry to the Old Continent.

But since 1965, immigration policy has been run by people who detest that America and wanted a new nation that looked less like Europe and more like a continental replica of the U.N. General Assembly...

Visa Waiver Program - CAIRCO research.

Visa overstays - CAIRCO research.

Visa alphabet soup - an unmanageable mix - CAIRCO research.

Visa Waiver Program - an unguarded door

The Visa Waiver Program (VWP) allows visitors from 38 countries with low rates of visa refusals to be admitted to the United States without applying for a U.S. visa. The program was adopted as a pilot project at the bidding of the tourist industry in 1986. It became operational in 1988. The program was extended and then made permanent in 2000, even though security concerns were expressed by FBI Director Louis Freeh, Justice Department's Inspector General, and other experts.

There are approximately 20 million admissions to the U.S. by travelers without visas. Visa Waiver Program travelers may enter the U.S. if they:

  • Present a digitized passport issued from a VWP country at the U.S. port of entry.
  • Claim to be visiting for 90 days or less.
  • Obtain an authorization through the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) - an automated system that determines the eligibility of visitors to travel to the United States under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP).

It should be noted that ESTA authorization is not required for VWP passport holders who enter by land; it is is only required for visitors arriving in the United States by air or by sea.

According to DHS, 99 percent of all ESTA applications are approved within five seconds. Many travelers avoid Customs and Border Patrol (CPB) officials by using Automated Passport Control (APC) kiosks that are available at 37 airports, including the Abu Dhabi International Airport.

Since the VWP traveler bypasses normal human-based consular screening, the program therefore does not effectively screen travelers as to whether they are a threat for security, terrorist, criminal, or health reasons. It also does not effectively screen travelers who have no intention of returning to their country. Thus, the burden of screening is essentially transferred to airlines and immigration inspectors who are able to conduct only the most cursory examinations.

Visa Waiver Program denies effective security screening

In the article Crime and Immigration, Michael W. Cutler, Senior Special Agent, INS (ret.), points out six benefits that the visa requirement provides to national security but which the Visa Waiver Program denies our nation:

1. By requiring visas of aliens who seek to enter the United States, this process helps to screen potential passengers on airliners that are destined for the United States. Richard Reid, the so-called "Shoe Bomber," was able to board an airliner to come to the United