Archive for the ‘immigration’ Category

The Absurdity of Fear

May 21, 2006

6,500,000,000 (rounded) World Population1,313,000,000 billion (rounded) China
1,089,000,000 billion (rounded) India
107,000,000 million (rounded) Mexico
298,000,000 million (rounded) USA
456,000,000 million (rounded) EU
3,263,000,000 billion (rounded)


The Heritage Foundation


The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA, S. 2611) would be the most dramatic change in immigration law in 80 years, allowing an estimated 103 million persons to legally immigrate to the US over the next 20 years—fully one-third of the current population of the United States.

According to The Heritage Foundation, by the end of 20 years, the senate bill, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA, S. 2611), could possibly allow an “estimated 103 million persons to immigrate over the next 20 years—fully one-third of the current US population.” In other words, on the average, averaged per year, 5 million legal immigrants would be crashing through gates, in this case, borders of America.

These numbers are astounding; even frightening; until one realizes their absurdity. The Heritage Foundation report by Robert Rector boldly titled, “Senate Immigration Bill Would Allow 100 million New Legal Immigrants over the Next Twenty Years” is nothing more than tilted political spin, filled with supposition, extending the worse case scenarios, and playing on the fears of Americans.

Are these numbers possible? Yes. Are they likely? Hmmm? No. If one is to believe these numbers, the extent that will result, the United States is not only in for a major culture change, but an economy so robust that it will support exponential arrival of guest workers.

On the other hand, this could be considered an argument for doing nothing at all, except for a few adjustments: enforcement of current law, securing the borders, building a fence, prosecution of employers for hiring illegal/undocumented workers, and biometric employment identification cards.

This is what I mean, if the US Congress and Senate fail to resolve the issue and come to compromise on the new levels of legal immigrants, then, the next best step is the curtailing and prevention of illegal workers. Yes, this will only partially stem the tide of illegal aliens, and this measure would assert a linear increase of “immigrants” into the country. Instead of an exponential increase of 103 million, another 20 million immigrants possibly, probably, but not likely, would filter unaccounted for into the country.

However, there is a problem with doing nothing; in that, this solution may be considered most risky. The public perception of ineptness my result in the voting out public officials seen as incompetent, self-serving, a willingness to compromise national security, and abetting lawlessness of illegal/undocumented immigrant workers.

Nonetheless, The Heritage Foundation spin is a disservice to the debate and plays on the public fear. For instance, upon reading the Web Memo, in the fourth paragraph:


“The figure of 103 million immigrants is a reasonable estimate of the actual immigration inflow under the new bill and not the maximum number that would be legally permitted to enter. The maximum number that could legally enter would be almost 200 million over twenty years—over 180 million more legal immigrants than current law permits” [my emphasis in the bold].

Hmmm? In that above quote, there is a lot of speculation. Let’s break it down, shall we? What is missing? What is the agenda? The answer is obvious; yes—but why the distortion of the facts? I will concede the possibility, even the probability, but the likelihood is not. This scenario assumes that everything remains static, and it also assumes the worse. It makes conclusions that play on the public’s unwillingness to investigate their case because they present it in such a reasonable fashion. It plays to the public’s desire of wanting to KISS it (keeping it simple and stupid).

In so being that, in the current atmosphere, the debate, which has been around Mexican Nationals and the Mexico border makes it easier to justify to scream at political leaders. The enemy, of course, is all the Mexican Nationals, who are subverting our culture, and our way of life; and, their refusal to learn English and adapt to American “values and belief.” Right? It is an invasion, after all, “just try to stop it!” (Peter Boyles, KHOW 630 AM Denver Colorado).

In part the validity of securing the borders rings true and is necessary. It is the how that needs to be worked out. What is missing from the statement is that there is only 107,000,000 Mexican Nationals (rounded) in the current population of Mexico. Unless “they” are Tribbles, the likelihood of Mexico’s population doubling is not probable, think about it.

The headlining figures imply that a nation-state will nearly depopulate itself, in the next 20 years, in order to have the citizenry come to the American Dream. And, who could fault “them” for that? After all, if they just do it legally then there is no problem, right? Except, if there is a law that lets “them” in anyway, right? This is what Senate bill 2611 supposedly does according to The Heritage Foundation.

image by

I am being too repetitive yet? Good! The preaching is just beginning. This particular posting is not neutral! Both the left and right extremes have contributed to the vileness I feel for them. And, those in the middle trying to bring rationality have failed miserably. The issue has been how does America adapt “to the War on Terror” and continue to be a player in the global market place into not only the 21st Century but beyond?

First step is to get our collective heads out of the sand (or other dark anatomically places), and start paying attention to the world around us.

Let’s continue the lesson of critical thinking, then. "Watch for the code," (according to Peter Boyles, the "Left" and those who support immigrants, legal or otherwise have a "code", watch for the "code" of the "Right" and the way it is used, its the same frakin one!). The Heritage Foundation (THF) would have you believe that somehow America’s population will be overran with foreigners—the “them.”

In that, on the heels of major protests and demonstrations across the country: Los Angeles 400,000; Chicago over 300,000; and, Denver 75,000 of recent weeks with Hispanics and other ethnicities (US born, legal residents, and illegal immigrants) marched in the streets. This was a daunting vision to see, and realization like that another Hallmark day once again staggered our vision and that, we are not paying attention once aain, except this time it is right under our own noses.

So, now there is an enemy within, and it is us. And, the enemy outside, the terrorist (some say Islam itself) continues to taunts our openness as a nation and our way of life. Even, our neighbors’ has shown disdain by disrespecting us, by dumping their less than desirables by not creating viable life for their citizens. Our leaders have betrayed their citizens by making “behind the closed doors” deals with that enemy.

For instance, as the new legislation defines immigration status according to THF are as follows:

Immigration Status
To understand the provisions of CIRA, largely based on a compromise by Senators Chuck Hagel (R–Nebraska) and Mel Martinez (R–Florida), it is useful to distinguish between the three legal statuses that a legal immigrant might hold:

Temporary Status: Persons in this category enter the U.S. temporarily and are required to leave after a period of time. Near-Permanent, Convertible Status: Persons in this category enter the U.S. and are given the opportunity to “adjust” or convert to legal permanent residence after a few years.

Legal Permanent Residence (LPR): Persons in this category have the right to remain in the United States for their entire lives. After five years, they have the right to naturalize and become citizens. As naturalized citizens, they have the constitutional rights to vote and to receive any government benefits given to native-born citizens.

A key feature of CIRA is that most immigrants identified as “temporary” are, in fact,
given convertible status with a virtually unrestricted opportunity to become legal permanent residents and then citizens.”

Seems straight forward—yes? Here is the problem as spelled out later in the text is the inference that seemingly “all” legal immigrants would be their entire extended family to the US. Robert Rector points out:

“…Both CIRA and existing immigration law is that immigrants in convertible or LPR status have the right to bring spouses and minor children into the country. Spouses and dependent children will be granted permanent residence along with the primary immigrant and may also become citizens. In addition, after naturalizing, an immigrant has the right to bring his parents into the U.S. as permanent residents with the opportunity for citizenship. There are no numeric limits on the number of spouses, dependent children, and parents of naturalized citizens that may be brought into the country. Additionally, the siblings and adult children (along with their families) of naturalized citizens and the adult children (and their families) of legal permanent residents are given preference in future admission but are subject to numeric caps.”

image by

Okay. So, the worker wants to be with his wife and kids. Gee, how dare they want to be with their family! Sarcasm aside, what is the issue?

It is the probability of sharing the power with legal immigrants seems disconcerting (They are "the others", after all). Rector points to the fact that the “‘temporary guest worker’ H-2C program” is nothing more than a way to become permanent citizens (by the way, once you become a citizen, you are no longer an “other”, but an US). Certainly, this is a mere shadow of the represented truth, but that assumes that everything remains static over the twenty years; and, that US Congress and Senate do not adjust the law accordingly.

Another interesting element missing from this report is that these legal residents will be paying federal, state, city and local taxes and contributing to the social security fund, and contributing to the consumer economy as well as the “melting pot” of American culture. Unless the legal immigrant is some how they are not worthy?

And, this is where the arguments of stratified classes and racism begins for the Left. Which is another long topic in itself, but let me remind the Left of this, an overplayed card becomes ineffective and trite when later a valid comes along. Admittedly, there is an element of truth to their fanaticism. But the idolization of the illegal / undocumented workers is not full faith based argument either. The flaunting of immigration laws has justifiably upset the citizen. And, with the numbers of crossing the borders, at least from a Mexican Nationals perspective, are responsible for their own demise in their nation as well. And, be that as it may, the complicity of American business, politicians, and the citizenry (for failing to pay attention) are partially responsible for our current “immigration issue.”

Nonetheless, when Rector lays out the worse case scenario (through the eight channels of legal and proposed CIRA channels) ad nauseam, he assumes that the border is not secured through implication when he states:

“All of the immigration discussed to this point would be legal immigration. If illegal immigration continued after enactment of S.2611, the inflow of immigrants would be even greater. Although illegal immigration is considered a major problem, the proposed legal immigration under CIRA would dwarf it numerically. The net inflow of illegal immigrants into the U.S. population is around 700,000 per year.[16] Legal immigration under CIRA would exceed five million per year, seven times the rate of the current illegal immigration flow. Annual legal and illegal immigration together now equals about 1.7 million; future legal immigration alone under CIRA would be three times this amount.”

In other words, failing to pass the bill would be a greater service. Read the code. The key to his alarmist critique is the CIRA bill allowance of exponentially increased guest workers. Worse case, in his view, at the end of twenty years legal guest workers needed would be approximately 12 million per year (based on initial startup of 325,000 and up to 65,000 (20%) if not enough workers were supplied, and again up to the maximum 20% per year thereafter). This is an extraordinary assumption and again leaves out the economic implication of these workers and the citizenry at hand. This means that the economy at the end of 20 years has the vitality to generate one million jobs per month.

What is more likely though this is an indication that, the 12 millions guest workers (who all will pay taxes) will be needed to make up the loss of American workers due to retirement of the Baby Boomers, and the shortfall of workers in various other industries and not just low income service end-stopper careers, and the probability, of course, all these jobs are outsourced anyway. And, we will not have to worry about the immigrants legal or otherwise.

Another possibility, the immigration comes from not only Mexico, the implication that all or most of the immigration will come from Mexico is inane, but from China and India which are the only countries capable enough to send that many workers based, comfortably, on their current population bases.

At any rate, my suggestion to you all is to read the web memo by Robert Rector closely, not just once but several times. The inferences of what could, might, ifs, up top, maximums of what “would” is self-serving for The Heritage Foundation and adds fuel to pyre of xenophobia and extremism. Vent over! After all, it is just another day in paradise….

Note—A newly added amendment by Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico modifies the number of “guest workers and family” downward; interesting. This is following attachment to THF site by Robert Rector:

“(Update: On Tuesday, May 16, the Senate passed Sen. Jeff Bingaman's (D-NM) amendment to S. 2611 that significantly reduced the number of legal immigrants who could enter under the bill's "guest worker" program. As a result of this change, our estimate of the number of legal immigrants who would enter the country or would gain legal status under S. 2611 falls from 103 million to around 66 million over the next 20 years.)”


Illegal Immigration and Your Security

December 28, 2005

Recently, a fellow online-blogger, Warner Todd Huston, wrote an article on the “rethinking” of 14th Amendment. In his article, he conveys the nonsensical, the heresy of, one of my US Representatives from Colorado, Tom Tancredo, of the 6th District, as wanting to redefine the 14th Amendment in the name of controlling illegal immigration. Yes, most of us understand the history of why the 14th Amendment was needed and added to the US Constitution. Simply, it was to correct the wrongs of servitude and slavery of black Americans.

Nevertheless, some would have one believe that the 14th Amendment is the causation of bureaucratic, debt-ridden, high security threat to the nation. In that, by tweaking the amendment that our crises to our welfare services would dissipate, shrivel, and go bye-bye. Okay…that might work. But! What about the illegal immigrants already here? Surely, we would have offer some sort of amnesty, or a grandfather act to ensure the fairness of those who already in the system? Right? Or do we do some sort of deportation (internment camp) round up and start shipping them back over the border?

Moreover, some would have one believe that illegal immigrants are “birthing” there stay in America, and thus, creating an anchor, or as the term goes an “anchor baby” so they can stay here, in case they get caught in the US illegally. That may be, but these people are not Tribbles, and for the record, they are human, and therefore entitled to not only their civil rights but their inalienable rights endowed by the universal creator known as the human community.

So, the question remains, what do we do about the illegal immigration situation? First, we must start enforcing the laws that are on the books. Second, depose any politician who supports the policy of “sanctuary”, which simply states that the police officers “disregard” obvious and suspicious identification given by “undocumented workers.” Third, prosecute and heavily fine employers that “knowingly” hire undocumented workers.

Admittedly, the third item above will be more difficult to execute, but with record verification to reveal the discrepancies should expose corporate corruption. If the social security numbers come back invalid, then have ICE, the US Immigration and Custom Enforcement agency, target those businesses and verify eligibility of the workers at the job-site. Meanwhile, border and port security should be increased by technological and personal means; if that also means building a wall, so be it. Nonetheless, what we need not do is to redefine what now affects all Americans. This is what I mean. The 14th Amendment guarantees the following,

"Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

In other words, no matter who your parents are, you are a US citizen if born within the territories of the United States of America. This means something. Illegal immigrants, for the most part, are not here to be nefarious but are to aspire to the American Dream. This does not mean, however, that we should disregard our own security with the barbarians at the gates of America. What it does mean, however, is that we are more vigilant in protecting the dream; and, preparing the nation for crisis.

Unfortunately, to date, our government has done a vastly incompetent job in preparing the nation for such crises (see the examples of Hurricane Katrina and Rita). And, for the amount of money we have spent on the War on Terror, protecting the home front has been last on the list. Oh yes, there has been domestic spying, and warrant less wire tapping, and the disregarding of the rule of law by a president when he deems it necessary. Nonetheless, the security of the nation is still at risk, with flood of illegal immigrants coming through southern, as well as the northern borders, with our shipping ports being severely insecure, it has been surprising that no other incidents have occurred. So, how will changing the 14th Amendment make us more secure when the insufficiencies of our own inequities regarding our own US borders? It does not. It will not. Nor will it ever! The time for enforcing the laws on the book is at hand; let us get these tasks done first. So say we all!

Learning To Be Free

August 18, 2005

As some of you might beware, Colorado Representative Tom Tancredo is seemingly on a crusade, if you will, against illegal immigration. In fact, one could say, that he has made it his “wedge” issue. A little more than a month ago, on a Florida talk show, as a guest, he advocated “hypothetically,” that American could or should use “the ultimate weapons” on Islamic religious sites. Essentially he was advocating the use of nuclear weapons. Let me say this, before the crazies come out of the woodwork, and remind me that he never used the words “nuclear” in his interview. This would be correct. However! Unless there is another “ultimate weapon” he was referring to, one can make the assumption he meant nuclear weapons.

At any rate, Colorado has been dealing with the rather outspoken representative for quite some time. But his contribution regarding the “illegal immigration” has spilled itself full force into Colorado politics. This is especially true since the unwarranted killing of an off duty Denver police officer — Donald Young. The assailant was an “undocumented worker” who was attending a wedding reception of a family member. He left the party and later tried to return, but was denied entry by the off duty officers hired to maintain order. According to reports by the Denver media, he then returned to his vehicle to obtain his gun, and went back to shoot the officers at the door from behind. Donald Young died. His partner was severely injured.

This lead to a national manhunt; authorities eventuated that the assassin was Raul Gomez-Garcia, a undocumented worker, who interestingly enough worked at one of the Denver Colorado mayor’s eateries as a dishwasher-busboy, but also had been stopped by Denver Police on a couple occasion for traffic violations. He was ticketed—but his status as a citizen was never questioned. Why? Denver, Colorado is a sanctuary city. Meaning, that even if the officer suspects the person as undocumented worker (illegal alien). The officers cannot inquirer, detain, or inform immigration of their suspicion. They have to accept the “identification” given, which could be a valid identification (which is often not), the workers consulate card, or some other nefarious identification. Needles to say, what often happens, however, is the undocumented worker does not show for their court date and the system is left with a “mystery.”

In any case, Raul Gomez-Garcia had been stopped on more than one occasion for traffic violations, along with failure to appear in courts. This information along with his “undocumented” status brought the public shrill for his capture to a fervor pitch. Local talk radio shows clamored for justice and set into motion an angst-ridden, embittered, and frightened public. Not because the assailant was terrorizing the public-at-large, the emotion stemmed from the perception that the police were inept due to city government policy.

This perception and the “media” savvy talk shows drove home the point the “unfairness,” and unbalanced “privilege” that “undocumented workers” were receiving. This in turn began, to what I refer to as “undocumented insurgent invasion,” the enemy near our American home. “America’s borders are leaking like a sieve,” the talking head shows exclaimed. The drum beating for Raul Garcia-Gomez’s head became a local media “wet dream.” The hunt for him led to Los Angeles, and eventually Mexico. Of course, this revelation sent the public into a feeding frenzy. He had escaped across the border and now seemingly untouchable. This later would prove untrue, but now the long tenuous negotiations with Mexico are still in the mix.
The uncertainty of his return, even though he sits in Mexico jail, has erupted an underpinning of resentment against illegal aliens, undocumented workers, or whatever politically correct term that communicates their unlawful status, has created a witch hunt environment. The latest of the emotional gymnastics with the undocumented insurgents involves the Denver Public Library.

One of the voices and churner of the public outrage is a Denver Colorado talk show host, from 630 KHOW, Peter Boyles, and his producer Greg Hollenbeck. Their attentions were brought to set of “comic books,” a term of which loosely describes the content of these books, and children ability to have access to them. They are adult-oriented material at-its-best, but that would be too kind of a description as well. Some would define them as perverted, evil, or just plain sick. These “comics” are called Policia Novella.

Peter Boyles adamantly and angrily espoused for their removal. His argument was sound and just. His outrage was righteous. But! His vitriol for the undocumented workers seemed embittered, envious, and pious. Denver Public Library was not helping with what “seemed” to be a “secretive” agenda to convert a major portion of the library system for its Latino base. The backlash of the undocumented workers controversy gave the impression that Hispanics were receiving “favorable” treatment. Nonetheless, these comics were received as being “filth,” dehumanizing towards, as well as advocating, violence against women.

Peter Boyles was incensed that such material as the Policia Novella was not only accessible to children, but the fact that it was apparently even published. His emotion was at full boil (pardon the pun). This kind of emotion can be blinding and the greater vision of community and culture can be lost. However repugnant the material may be, there is right of “free speech” for both foreign and domestic. One may not like it, but better for it to be in the open, than hidden in the dark.
Furthermore, although I find the material found on the shelves as vile that still, does not give me or anyone else the right to censor. No one is going to deny that violence, rape, and murder against women is wrong. No one! No one is going to say that such exposure should be in the hands of children. No one! However, when we restrict, censor, deny, and forbid, the only thing we accomplish is the desire to seek it out that much more.

What we should do, when this type of material is brought to our attention is to not only rail against its offensiveness, but also use it to illustrate, ridicule, and castigate the attitude, the mindset which finds such things acceptable. Such vileness should not be cloaked in the darkness of backrooms, mushrooming, subverting, rotting away the principled ideals, and values that we as Americans hold dear.

Censorship should never be advocated even when it is on the public's dole. Such things should be under the harsh light of reality and continually put on display so that we all know what is acceptable and unacceptable by the civilized citizenry of the community. Advocating of its removable is short-sighted and emotional impotency. Be offended yes! Point to its dehumanization of women; use it to foster the betterment of humanity.

But to deny its accessibility to the public, even if it’s in a public library, dooms us to repeat the failures of the past. For instance, if we restricted the access of the Holocaust pictures, where millions of our Jewish brothers were incinerated, humiliated, and violated, because someone found them overtly offensive would be tantamount to blasphemy. Why? Because, this type of inhumanity is part of our history, part of our humanity, part of us, it illustrates, the Holocaust, the worse of us. So do these books, the Novella Policia. They remind us of our darkness, but they also show us what not to be as long as we prominently remind ourselves as a people, as human beings filled with compassion, and as a nation of principles that we never accept tyranny in any form even when it is on our shelves of our library. The best defense against tyranny is to expose it to the light of justice and call it out loud and clear that never again will such terror fill our hearts and minds.