Your Ad Here
2010 December 18 Saturday
Dominican Republic Revokes Birthright Citizenship

The Dominican Republic has revised its constitution in a way that the US needs to do: children born to illegal aliens are no longer entitled to Dominican citizenship.

The constitutional change came two weeks after the earthquake in Haiti, which makes up the western portion of the island of Hispaniola. The Dominican Republic is on the eastern portion. The change denies citizenship to children born to undocumented residents.

Haiti is certainly a tragic mess. But it would be better to improve conditions in Haiti than move its citizens elsewhere. What Haiti needs is foreign rule. The political class is hopelessly corrupt and inept. Effectively it needs to be put into a form of receivership. It won't become a great success story. But it can be made quite a bit less bad.

By Randall Parker    2010 December 18 06:49 PM Entry Permalink | Comments (2)
Dominican Republic Revokes Birthright Citizenship

The Dominican Republic has revised its constitution in a way that the US needs to do: children born to illegal aliens are no longer entitled to Dominican citizenship.

The constitutional change came two weeks after the earthquake in Haiti, which makes up the western portion of the island of Hispaniola. The Dominican Republic is on the eastern portion. The change denies citizenship to children born to undocumented residents.

Haiti is certainly a tragic mess. But it would be better to improve conditions in Haiti than move its citizens elsewhere. What Haiti needs is foreign rule. The political class is hopelessly corrupt and inept. Effectively it needs to be put into a form of receivership. It won't become a great success story. But it can be made quite a bit less bad.

By Randall Parker    2010 December 18 06:49 PM Entry Permalink | Comments (9)
2008 June 25 Wednesday
Immigration Supporter Chris Cannon Loses Primary

Good riddance. Good decision by Utah voters.

Pro-amnesty crusader Chris Cannon, Republican congressman from Utah (motto: "We love immigrants in Utah. And we don't make the distinction very often between legal and illegal."), finally got his comeuppance Tuesday by losing a primary to Jason Chaffetz, who ran on, among other things, a hawkish immigration platform. This comes after two primary close calls against other challengers in 2004 and 2006. In this race, Cannon lost despite outraising Chaffetz nearly 7 to 1 and garnering the endorsement of President Bush. (On second thought, maybe that endorsement was part of the problem.)

When a challenger can win while getting outspent nearly 7 to 1 something has changed.

The weakening economy is going to increase the pressure to cut down on immigration, legal and illegal.

By Randall Parker    2008 June 25 07:23 PM Entry Permalink | Comments (1)
2008 June 17 Tuesday
Bush Administration To Let In Bulgarians Without Visas

Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies has a blog on immigration news. It has good stuff. He reports on a dumb Bush Administration policy change to allow poor Bulgarians to vist the US without a visa.

DHS announced today that the process leading to visa-free access to the United States has been started for, I kid you not, Bulgaria. Michael Chertoff said "I look forward to the day when we greet the first visa-free travelers from Bulgaria on our soil."

I don't. First of all, we still don't have a fully implemented entry-exit system, so we don't know whether a visitor actually left when he was supposed to — which means we don't know how many visa overstayers there are. A fully functioning exit-tracking system should be a prerequisite to a visa-waiver program, so that you can remove from the program any country whose people aren't leaving on time. And believe me, Bulgarians wouldn't leave; the country has a lower per capita income than Mexico or Turkey.

Mexico has a much lower per capita income than the United States and we know millions of Mexicans flood into the US illegally. Bulgarians will do the same. We have enough people already. Poor immigrants will make most of us poorer, not richer and not safer. This is a dumb policy.

Another post of his cites an example of how automation can reduce the need for low skilled and low paid workers in the restaurant industry.

Who says we need mass immigration because there's no way to automate the service sector? CNN has a piece on a restaurant in Germany where you order and pay at tabletop touch-screens and the food is delivered down spiral rails from the kitchen above. (The BBC's story is here, and the restaurant's home page is here.)

More automation will come to all industries and lift our living standards. The rate of automation will be faster if we stop letting in low skilled workers because reducing the supply of low skilled workers will drive up their wages and therefore increase the incentives for automation. Therefore our living standards will rise faster if we stop letting in 8th grade drop-outs.

By Randall Parker    2008 June 17 10:24 PM Entry Permalink | Comments (5)
2007 May 30 Wednesday
US Immigration Fees Going Up

A step in the right direction.

US Citizenship and Immigration Services announced its long-awaited, and much-dreaded, schedule of fee increases yesterday.

As of July 30, when the fee hikes go into effect, it will cost an individual $675 to file a citizenship application. The current fee is $400.

The increases are expected to raise an extra $1 billion for the Citizenship and Immigration Services Department, which processes 6 million to 8 million applications each year, including those from immigrants seeking citizenship, legal permanent residency, or green cards; work authorizations; asylum petitions; and US citizen petitions to bring fiancées or adopted children into the country.

The extra money will be used to cover existing costs, which outstrip revenues at the fee-based agency, and to improve services, spokesman Shawn Saucier said.

The US CIS should raise its fees higher still. The citizenship fee should rise the most so that the agency gets enough money to conduct a very thorough background check on each citizenship applicant.

The citizenship fee is lower than the green card fee.

Under the increases, which cover almost all immigration benefits, the cost of bringing a foreign fiance or fiancee will jump from $170 to $455. The price tag for a "green card," or a legal permanent resident visa, will rise from $325 to $930, and the cost of citizenship papers will increase from $330 to $595.

This seems backward to me. Citizenship is a much bigger benefit to gain. Plus, it is a greater risk and cost for the rest of us. Therefore the agency should charge more for citizenship applications and use the money to conduct extensive background checks. Those background checks should include checks into welfare programs. Did the applicant use government-funded medical care?

Higher fees could also get used to do DNA tests and checks against DNA samples from crime scenes.

Modest proposal: For all citizenship applications the public should be allowed to submit evidence that could show that an applicant is not worthy of citizenship. Any citizen who submits evidence that leads to a denial of citizenship would get a large reward for saving us from getting saddled with a bad future citizen.

By Randall Parker    2007 May 30 10:40 PM Entry Permalink | Comments (1)
2006 October 29 Sunday
Immigrant Advocacy Groups Oppose Citizenship Fee Hike

Some groups which want more fellow members of their ethnicities to become US citizens oppose a fee hike for processing citizenship applications.

Immigrant advocacy groups are decrying an array of proposed federal measures, including application fee increases and online filing requirements, that they fear will sharply reduce the ability of some legal immigrants to become U.S. citizens.

As President Bush signed a controversial bill last week authorizing 700 miles of new fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border, immigrant rights groups charge that the U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services is erecting a virtual "second wall" that would disproportionately hurt Mexican immigrants, who tend to be less educated and earn lower incomes than others.

We should want to let in people who are less educated, who earn less, produce less, pay less in taxes, and use more taxpayer-funded services such as medical treatments? I don't think so.

The demand for easy entrance and easy path to citizenship is an entitlements mentality. They think they are entitled at our expense. Wrong.

Another way of thinking about this is that these people do not think US citizenship is worth $800.

Last week, a coalition of more than 230 religious, labor and immigrant rights groups delivered a letter to citizenship bureau Director Emilio Gonzalez, expressing strong concern about application fee increases that could double to $800, a "digital barrier" of a mandatory online filing system, extensive new paperwork and a revised history and civics test they fear could be more difficult.

"Together they appear to us a clear strategy pursued through administrative fiat to make the dream of American citizenship unattainable for many lower-income, less-educated immigrants," said the letter, which was initiated by the Chicago-based Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights.

I want nothing better than to make citizenship unattainable for lower-income, less-educated immigrants. Great idea. How about raising the cost of citizenship to, say, $25,000? Too low? How high would you suggest?

While I'm at it: Even residency permits should cost much more. Anyone who can't afford to pay, say, $10,000 a year to live here as a non-citizen isn't doing something important enough to be here.

Another approach: Sell at auction a relatively small (say 100,000) fixed number of citizenship slots per year. DItto for technical worker permits.

I can see one exception: Academic researchers make big contributions which the market does not do a good job of pricing. Market failure effectively prevents the vast bulk of research results from being sellable. So we could grant an exemption to worker permit fees for academic resarchers.

I'd also like the citizenship bureau to be required to do a search on each citizenship applicant to identify all uses of government-funded medical services by the applicant and the applicants dependents. In order to gain citizenship a person should be requiired to pay back all taxpayer-funded medical treatments and also to pay into an account to buy medical insurance for the applicant's family for, say, 10 years.

By Randall Parker    2006 October 29 02:57 PM Entry Permalink | Comments (16)
2006 August 24 Thursday
Israel To Crack Down On Illegal Immigrants

Aimed at preventing West Bank Palestinians from marrying Arab Israelis and getting residency in Israel a new law will make illegals leave Israel for at least a year before applying for residency.

Meanwhile another law has been taking shape in the Knesset, which is an undeclared revolution in Israel's immigration policy. The concern is that the bill (Amendment 19 of the Entry to Israel Law, known in the vernacular as the shabakhim, or illegal aliens law) will turn into Israel's de facto policy on who gets in and who does not.

The law determines that an illegal alien will be able to receive legal standing in Israel only after he or she leaves the country for a cooling-off period of one to five years. The law passed its first reading on the first day of the Knesset's summer session. It enjoyed wide support, and it is hard to imagine what will prevent its passing in the winter session.

The main reason for the bill's support is the rationale that hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens living in Israel should not be given a prize. However, it cannot be ignored that the law is directed only against non-Jews. Jews cannot become illegal aliens in Israel.

I want a barrier on the US border with Mexico that is as formidable as the barrier Israel built on its border with the West Bank. I also want a law at least as tough as the one discussed above which will require illegals to leave the United States.

By Randall Parker    2006 August 24 11:38 PM Entry Permalink | Comments (3)
2006 May 22 Monday
Senate Immigration Act Would Create Labor Bureaucracy

Tim Kane, Ph.D., Director of the Center for International Trade and Economics at The Heritage Foundation, says the US Senate immigration bill would create a big labor market regulation bureaucracy.

The klieg lights of the media often turn thoughtful policy discussions into cartoonish debates, and this habit is distorting the Senate’s consideration of immigration reform. Libertarians and pro-business conservatives who favor immigration and open borders are supposedly squaring off against conservatives who favor law, order, and national security. But the strongest libertarian advocates of free markets might want to take a closer look at the details of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA, S. 2611). The 600-page bill is stuffed with provisions that are difficult to decipher, some good, no doubt, and some that are alarming. Alarms bells should be ringing at the idea of creating a new bureaucracy within the Department of Labor tasked with centrally planning labor markets for untold numbers of guest workers. This would be a mistake.

If the goal of immigration reform is to enhance the liberty and prosperity of the U.S. and its citizens, then a robust flow of immigrants is desirable.[1] But that logic hinges on two assumptions: that immigrants are coming to America for work, not welfare, and that reform will improve, not hinder, the labor market.

Here are the problems Kane sees with the Senate CIRA legislation:

  • Ripe for Political Manipulation. The legislation envisions a “Temporary Worker Task Force” with ten members (all political appointees from the federal government, none from states). More explicitly, the Secretary of Labor would determine which occupational categories in the U.S. have unmet demands for labor. This structure is ripe for political pressure. Would industry lobbyists not get a friendly ear when they pressed allied legislators and appointees for increased quotas in their sector? Or what if a labor union demanded fewer immigrants in its sector? Markets, not bureaucrats and certainly not politicians, should determine the equilibrium for wages and where labor is employed.
  • Dramatically Expands Prevailing Wage Rules. Centrally controlling wages for every possible occupation is a breathtakingly ambitious project but would be mandatory for guest workers under the S. 2611. [2] Such micromanagement of the prices of heterogonous labor is hopeless because supply and demand for various skills are constantly evolving in unpredictable ways. On Friday, the Senate adopted by voice vote an amendment from Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) to make the Senate plan’s prevailing wage provisions even stronger. In his words, “This amendment would establish a true prevailing wage for all occupations.” If the Senate passed a law outlawing supply and demand, it would hardly be more amazing. Senator Obama summarized, apparently with no protest from other Senators, that the goal of his amendment is to ensure prevailing wages “apply to all workers and not just some workers.” That is a chilling thought.
  • Bogs Down the Labor Market. A dynamic economy requires its labor market to adjust constantly to different types of work (e.g., the burgeoning demand for software programmers, physical therapists, and nurses). A static, centrally-planned system assumes change must be justified and will slow economic growth.
  • Inefficient Paperwork Favors Big Firms. The law would require potential employers to submit paperwork making ten different certifications, including that any migrant worker won’t impact wages in the specific occupation they are entering. Employers also have to go through a Kabuki dance of certifying that no native worker could be found to do the work. Do Ohio companies have to do this when employing people from Michigan or Indiana? Expecting companies to resolve issues that remain unresolved by the sharpest academics in the world is folly. Such paperwork is ridiculous, inefficient, and especially prohibitive to small employers.
  • A Dangerous Precedent for Labor Market Intrusion. If the guest workforce reaches 7 million, then central planners will control 5 percent of the labor market. Once the pattern is established, what is to stop the new bureaucracy from “fixing” the labor market for all low-skilled workers, and then for all young workers, and then for all workers? Extending prevailing wage rules to the private sector creates a slippery slope.
  • Inefficient Centrally-Planned Markets. This kind of program is based on the fallacy that governments can centrally measure and plan the quantities and prices of labor and goods better than markets can. The history of failed socialist economies in Eastern Europe should not be so easy to neglect.

Big businesses will see some of these items as reasons to support this legislation. They can hire sharp labor lawyers and game the system quite successfully. They will pay less for labor, even adjusted for regulatory costs. Granted, the market will be less efficient and newer and smaller firms will face competitive disadvantages. But that's not a problem for big established corporations that higher expensive Washington lobbyists and make big campaign contributions.

America's elite is corrupt and its elected officials are not too bright. As Steve Sailer and Lawrence Auster have noted, Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska), co-sponsor of CIRA, doesn't look too bright (see picture at either link). These fools are easy marks for sharp big business lobbyists.

Now is the time to act and make your voice heard. Contact your US Senators to express your displeasure at their plan to deluge the United States with tens of millions of immigrants in the next 20 years then you can find the web sites of each US Senator in this list. Similarly, contact your Representative and tell him or her the House should not negotiate with the Senate over their bill. You can find contact information for your US House Representative here. You can also tell El Presidente Jorge W. Bush that you oppose his planned replacement of the United States of America with the United States of Latin America. When you email or fax or snail mail to Jorge Bush be sure to tell him you know how he's lying on immigration.

By Randall Parker    2006 May 22 04:40 PM Entry Permalink | Comments (4)
2005 December 31 Saturday
Denmark Cuts Back On Immigration

Some European countries are ahead of the United States in making substantial moves to cut immigration. Hjörtur Gudmundsson, writing from Reykjavik Iceland for Brussels Journal (check it out if you've never been there before), reports that Denmark is cutting back on immigration because too many immigrants are on welfare.

The Danish government intends to significantly curb the flow of immigrants from third-world countries next year. The reason for this decision is a new official report on the Danish welfare system which was made public today (December 7). According to Claus Hjort Frederiksen, the Minister for Employment, immigrants from countries such as Somalia, Iran, Iraq and Lebanon are a huge burden on Danish welfare (a similar study was produced in Norway last September). Frederiksen said that immigrants allowed into the country had to have a job waiting for them.

They should go further and just stop the influx altogether.

The Danes have already cut back on immigration.

Since the Liberal-Conservative government of Anders Fogh Rasmussen gained power in 2001 Denmark has not been receiving as many refugees and immigrants as before. Since then the number of annual residence permits granted to asylum seekers each year has dropped from 5,156 in 2000 to 2,447 in 2003. Residence permits for family reunification have dropped from 10,021 in 2000 to 4,791 in 2003, according to the Danish national statistics office.

If anyone has sources for immigration trends in other European countries please post them in the comments. I suspect that Muslim immigration into Europe might be on the decrease due to a fairly quiet tightening of immigration policies aimed at asylum seekers and Muslims. But that's just a guess.

Danish Minister of Refugee, Immigration, and Integration Affairs Rikke Hvilshøj sees the high unemployment rates and low educational attainment of immigrants as big problems.

Hvilshøj also said that high unemployment rates and low education levels remained the biggest problem facing immigrants in Denmark. Only 46% of immigrants from third-world countries were employed, compared to 73% of Danes, and 60% of young immigrants dropped out of high school. Hvilshøj said that Denmark's current economic boom and low unemployment was the time for immigrants to seize the labour market.

The West should keep out the dummies and the Muslims. Western countries ought to institute IQ testing for prospective immigrants. The bar should be set pretty high. Even an IQ of 100 does not allow a person to do all that much. I think 120 IQ ought to be a minimum and would favor an even higher minimum threshold.

A few months back Filip van Laenen also reported on the Brussels Journal web site that immigrants in Norway on welfare are less likely to leave the country than immigrants who were not on welfare.

Interestingly, the welfare dependency ratio grows the longer the immigrants are living in Norway. Ekhaugen analysed the annual situation from 1992 to 2000 of three types of adult immigrants - refugees and asylum seekers; non-western, non-refugee immigrants; and western (OECD) immigrants - arriving in the country between 1956 and 1996 (the author of this article arrived in 1997). She also looked into re-emigration patterns, concluding that “the probability of re-migration correlates negatively with the probability of receiving welfare.” She writes:

“The risk of attracting immigrants whose prime motivation for migrating is receiving rather than contributing is an oft-repeated concern. But at least as important as who comes, is who stays. Decisions of re-emigration may be positively correlated with the immigrant’s self-supporting ability, implying that the host country ends up hosting an increasing number of welfare recipients. Egalitarian welfare states could thus find themselves losing out to other, less egalitarian countries in the competition for labor supplying immigrants.”

Ekhaugen researched the amount of welfare payments received: i.e. social assistance, unemployment benefits, disability pension, sickness benefits and rehabilitation benefits. The payments had to be received during at least one month per year, with the exception of sickness benefits, which were not counted for periods of less than three months to avoid defining too large a group as welfare participants.

The idea that immigrants will solve Europe's demographic problem due to aging populations is naive. Immigrants will make the welfare state burden bigger, not smaller.

Think about that result in the context of Steve Sailer's proposal for Europe to pay Muslims to leave (more here). Obviously immigrants respond to economic incentives. If they were told they could no longer get government-supplied welfare benefits in Europe but could get money if they left then many more would leave.

Update: The refugee influx is dropping in Scandinavia as a whole.

According to a report compiled by the Danish Immigration Service, in all 23,595 refugees had as of the end of October applied for asylum in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden, equalling 2,360 individuals a month.

For the whole of 2004, the monthly average was 3,183 refugees a month so the projections for 2005 suggested a 26% drop.

Update II: A Swedish Board of Migration office has been discovered to celebrate deportations with parties.

Civil servants at the Board of Migration in Solna, in Stockholm, celebrated the successful expulsion of an asylum-seeking family in November last year by gathering in the office during working hours and sharing a bottle of champagne.

The gathering became public after an email which was sent to the staff was acquired by newspaper Dagens Nyheter:

"On Friday we'll celebrate along with AM2 at 15.00 in their kitchen. I hope that you can all set aside a quarter of an hour before that in our kitchen when we will make good on [migration officer]'s promise of champagne after a certain family left Sweden."

They were criticised by the usual fools for celebrating deportations.

By Randall Parker    2005 December 31 04:36 PM Entry Permalink | Comments (11)
2005 January 06 Thursday
Principles For Debating Immigration Policy

Tom Krannawitter has a Claremont Institute review of Otis L. Graham Jr's Unguarded Gates: A History of America's Immigration Crisis. In the review Krannawitter argues that Graham fails to lay down some basic principles about immigration that are needed for analyzing any arguments on the subject. Krannawitter offers a list of principles that serve as a necessary starting point in any debate on immigration.

  • First, the United States is a sovereign nation. American sovereignty derives from the social compact—the voluntary consent of the men and women who live under its laws, the only legitimate source of sovereignty. Our government rests on our social compact, and its only purpose is to protect the rights of those who have given their consent to the compact. As our Declaration of Independence states, "that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
  • Second, intrinsic to the idea of sovereignty is the distinction between those who are and those who are not part of the social compact. We may invite others from around the world to join our compact, and in fact America has a long and noble tradition of welcoming millions from around the globe who have come in search of civil and religious liberty and economic prosperity. But whether we admit one person or one million persons is a question to be answered entirely at our discretion. We certainly wish the best for the people of the world—and we have left for them the premier example of what free government looks like, and the sacrifices required to found and sustain free government. As our Declaration says, any people finding themselves under tyrannical government possess the natural right "to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." But Americans are under no obligation to offer asylum or refuge to anyone from anywhere outside the United States, just as no nation had a responsibility to house oppressed Americans in 1776.
  • Third, the distinction between those we welcome and those we want to keep out—say, terrorists whose purpose is to kill Americans—requires first and foremost that the American government secure our borders. The border must be real, and it must be able to protect American citizens from immigrants who enter our country illegally, a growing number of whom come armed and with criminal records (in some cases violent crimes committed here in the U.S.). Without secured borders, the American people cannot decide who will partake in the social compact they formed among themselves for their mutual protection.

Obviously some people will reject these principles. But then some people reject national sovereignty. The virtue of listing these principles is that they provide a list of basics to debate before moving on to debates about particular proposed immigration policy changes.

Debates over American immigration will not be serious until these principles are understood and accepted by the American people and the policymakers they elect to office. When Restrictionists such as Graham cite the economic costs, cultural costs, and environmental costs of immigration, these may all be true—but they are not principles. They are only practical considerations Americans should take into account when formulating policy. Sound policy cannot be reached without starting from right principles.

I'm a nationalist. I favor national sovereignty and a well defined and protected group that possesses citizenship. So Krannawitter's list appeals to me. How about you? Do you want defended borders, a distinction between citizens and non-citizens, and limits and restrictions on who can come here and gain citizenship?

My guess is that the debate about national sovereignty and immigration is eventually going to be decided in favor of having well-controlled borders and stricter criteria for who is eligible for citizenship.

By Randall Parker    2005 January 06 03:55 AM Entry Permalink | Comments (29)
2004 December 14 Tuesday
Officer Denied British Citizenship Because Army Service Took Him Abroad

Patriotism counts for so little these days.

Captain Warwick Strong, 29, whose father and grandfather were both colonels in the Army and held British citizenship, served with the Royal Artillery for four years. He was born in Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe, where his parents were living at the time, and came to Britain on an ancestral visa, which has been renewed until October 2006.

But despite being praised for his military record, he has been told by the Home Office that he does not qualify for citizenship partly because of his absence from the country as a result of being posted abroad.

Qualification for a passport demands that the applicant must not be out of the country for more than 90 days the year before applying.

Am I wrong to think that the British government of, say, 50 years ago never would have made such a pathetic decision? That the willingness to dedicate oneself to military service in the British Army was held in such high esteem that a 3rd (or greater?) generation British officer would never be treated in such a fashion?

Strong's grandfather was in the British Army for 32 years. His father and mother are British citizens. This guy obviously can't go back to his birthplace Zimbabwe now since whites are basically not welcome there as citizens any longer. He was in Germany, Kosovo, and Iraq in the British Army and hence failed the residency requirement. So if he had just stayed in Britain and not served in the British Army he'd probably qualify for citizenship. That's messed up. That is seriously messed up. The British government ought to be ashamed of itself.

Welfare state governments effectively want to own their citizens. But the incentives and disincentives they place before their citizens and prospective citizens make it clear that those governments do not want national loyalty from their citizens. They want their charges to be dependent and feel dependent and not to feel and act responsibly (else, why systematically reward irresponsibility?). How else to explain something like the story above and the behavior of welfare states in general?

By Randall Parker    2004 December 14 02:49 AM Entry Permalink | Comments (14)
2004 June 15 Tuesday
Christian Science Monitor Opposes Immigrant Stealth Amnesty

The Christian Science Monitor has editorially come out in opposition to Bush's and the Democratic Party's proposals for stealth amnesties that are mislabelled in order to avoid voter opposition.

Democrats last month proposed something shy of full amnesty for the estimated 8 million to 10 million illegal aliens in the US. They call it "earned legalization." Migrants who can prove they've lived in the country for five years and have paid taxes for two years would win a green card, or permanent legal status.

...

Immigration is certainly a worthy issue for campaign debate. But proposals that are simply a backdoor approach to amnesty and designed mainly to woo a small percentage of votes are a stealthy way to a bad solution for a serious problem.

The elite-populace gap on immigration continues to widen. There are now 62 US Senators sponsoring the AgJobs amnesty bill while a majority public continues to support a reduction in immigration and is unhappy with illegal immigration.

The United States needs a third party analogous to the UK Independence Party that will take a strong position in favor of nationalism, border control, and opposition to large scale immigration.

What should be the animating philosophy of a new political party? Steve Sailer's "citizenist" approach to public policy is the answer to the question of what America needs in a new political party.

Personally, I am a citizenist. That is not a word you see often (here are all twelve uses of the word known to Google) which is not surprising because few pundits seem to think like this.

My starting point in analyzing policies is: "What is in the best overall interests of the current citizens of the United States?"

In contrast, so many others think in terms of: "What is in the best interest of my: identity group / race / ethnicity / religion / bank account / class / ideology / clique / gender / sexual orientation / party / and/or personal feelings of moral superiority?"

Precisely because basing loyalties upon a legal category defined by our elected representatives is so unnatural, it's the least destructive and most uplifting form of allegiance humanly possible on an effective scale.

Sign me up for the Citizenist Party.

By Randall Parker    2004 June 15 04:39 PM Entry Permalink | Comments (2)
2004 June 03 Thursday
The Netherlands Adopting Tough Immigration Policies

Winds of change are blowing through Holland. The tolerant Dutch are implementing some of the toughest policies in Europe toward illegal immigrants.

Worried about a loss of national identity, alienated by Islamic extremism, and frustrated by a sense that the newcomers are taking advantage of Holland's cradle-to-grave social-welfare system, the Dutch are enacting some of the toughest immigration restrictions in Europe.

The new barriers include a rule that prospective residents pass a Dutch language and culture test in their native countries as a condition for admission, the European Union's first such requirement for residency, as opposed to citizenship. The government also has cracked down on illegal-alien employment and increased residency-permit fees by as much as 600 percent.

In addition, the center-right government is moving forward with a plan to expel about 26,000 people who had been allowed to stay for years after their asylum applications were rejected. The plan could include placing people in detention centers; some of those marked for expulsion have been living here as long as five years.

To put the size of that deportation in perspective the United States of America has a population of 290,342,554 (July 2003 est.) as compared to the Netherlands with 16,150,511 (July 2003 est.) which works out to a ratio of 18 to 1. For the US to deport a proportional number of people we would have to round up about 468,000. Given that the lower end estimate for illegal immigrants in the United States is 8 million that would only start to address the problem. However, it could be done. Immigration law could be enforced if the American people became mad enough for their anger to override the power of various special interests who make sure policy makers sabotage immigration law enforcement.

By Randall Parker    2004 June 03 10:25 AM Entry Permalink | Comments (20)
2004 May 21 Friday
AgJobs Immigration Amnesty Threat Grows

Criticism of the AgJobs immigration amnesty legislation is coming from what is (at least to me) an unexpected quarter. The distinctly neoconservative Center For Security Policy whose President is Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., has a very criticial piece up on their site in strong opposition to the Agricultural Job, Opportunity, Benefits and Security Act (AgJOBS) immigration amnesty bill.

Unfortunately for Mr. Bush, one of his most loyal friends in the U.S. Senate, GOP conservative Larry Craig of Idaho, is poised to saddle the President’s reelection bid with just such a divisive initiative: S.1645, the Agricultural Job Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act of 2003 (better known as the AgJobs bill).

AgJobs is, in some ways, even worse than the President’s plan for temporary workers. While most experts disagree, at least Mr. Bush insists that his initiative will not amount to amnesty for illegal aliens.

No such demurral is possible about S.1645. By the legislation’s own terms, an illegal alien will be turned into "an alien lawfully admitted for temporary residence," provided they had managed to work unlawfully in an agricultural job in the United States for a minimum of 100 hours - in other words, for just two-and-a-half work weeks - during the 18 months prior to August 31, 2003.

Once so transformed, they can stay in the U.S. indefinitely while applying for permanent resident status. From there, it is a matter of time before they can become citizens, so long as they work in the agricultural sector for 675 hours over the next six years.

While the article above is unsigned a very similar article by Gaffney followed in the Washington Times. It is unusual to see a major neoconservative figure taking a position against immigration amnesty. When Bush announced his own immigration amnesty plan one could see the split running through the Republican Party where most neoconservatives defended it while at the same time most conventional conservatives attacked it.

While Gaffney is obviously (and rightly) concerned that support for AgJobs coming from Republican Senators could alienate the Republican voters from the whole Republican ticket (and why shouldn't the traitors to America's best interest all lose as a necessary punishment for these idiots?) he also even thinks that Bush's own proposal is a bad idea. So is Gaffney really against a loose immigration policy? Or is he just concerned tha the Republican Party is going to split on this issue? Has anyone come across any previous writings by Gaffney that suggest this is the case?

Almost half the Republicans in the US Senate are public supporters of AgJobs.

Backers of the bill believe that they may soon gain more co-sponsors to join the 35 Democratic and 25 Republican backers.

“There are a lot of people who have told us, ‘I’m not a co-sponsor, but you do have my vote,’” said Craig Regelbrugge, co-chairman of the Agriculture Coalition on Immigration Reform, a group of trade associations representing farmers and other agriculture employers. Agriculture employers are stepping up their efforts with senators from the Midwest, said a Senate aide.

Craig and Kennedy are eager to move the bill and have held discussions with Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) about how best to proceed. Hatch is a co-sponsor of the bill.

The mind boggles. The Republicans in the US Senate are obviously oblivious to the desires of the majority of the American public on immigration. Even after the hostile reception for Bush's unpopular idiotic amnesty (really, my rhetoric is not excessive when Bush' proposal is analyzed rationally) the Senators are doing what they can to defy the wishes of the public.

The AgJobs requirements for amnesty are incredibly low.

The AgJOBS bill they push would create a two-step amnesty for some 1.7 million illegal immigrants who do farm work part-year, their spouses and children. Aliens would do as little as 75 days a year of farm work, as little as one hour per day, on a temporary visa good for up to six years.

Formerly illegal aliens and family members would then receive a green card and then possibly citizenship. You can bet legalized aliens will leave farms as soon as possible. That guarantees a continuing flow of illegal aliens to depress agricultural wages.

From ProjectUSA's list of points about AgJobs:

Administrative responsibilities for "establishing" work history given to transnational racial-identity origanizations and those who profit from the system

Restrictions on economic migration waived.

Impact on American wages no ground for removing aliens

The bill would prohibit the prosecution of illegal aliens committing Social Security fraud

There is a ray of hope about AgJobs and it is coming from Utah. One of the sponsors for the House version of AgJobs is Republican Congressman Chris Cannon of Utah. ProjectUSA paid $2000 for billboard ads in Idaho stating Congressman Chris Cannon wants amnesty for illegal aliens which so helped challenger Matt Throckmorton that Cannon now has to face Throckmorton in a primary run-off.

On Saturday, May 8, at the Utah Republican Party convention, Matt Throckmorton forced a primary run-off against four-term incumbent U.S. Congressman Chris Cannon.

The June 22 showdown may mark the end for Cannon—one of the most notorious open borders advocates in post-1965 American immigration politics.

Cannon, needing 60% of the delegates for automatic re-nomination, was stopped cold by an aggressive Throckmorton, who forced immigration into the forefront. And no matter how he tried, Cannon could not dodge the issue.

Craig Nelsen of ProjectUSA says the Throckmorton primary challenge with immigration as a key issue has already been heard in Washington DC as he discovered when talking to a Hill staffer.

While discussing the obstacles on Capitol Hill facing good legislation, the staffer said that many members of Congress feel the political downside they face for supporting bad legislation isn't severe enough yet to counter the influence of the special interest lobbyists.

Then she added, to my surprise, "Except for that whole thing with Cannon out in Utah. (I should point out that this staffer was unaware of the connection between me, ProjectUSA, and our work in Utah).

At face value, her comment means that the severe setback that hopeless underdog Matt Throckmorton handed invulnerable incumbent Chris Cannon by forcing him into a primary on $11,000 has been noticed where it counts. And noticed, too, is the fact that Cannon's awful immigration voting record was the cause of his embarrassing failure.

If Throckmorton defeats Cannon in a primary challenge then Congress Critters will begin to worry more about what their own constituents think about immigration. Nothing less than a rising anger on the part of the American public will shift positions of politicians on immigration.

By Randall Parker    2004 May 21 05:32 PM Entry Permalink | Comments (0)
2004 April 06 Tuesday
Bush Angers Republican Donors On Immigration

Phil Kent, executive director of the American Immigration Control Foundation (AIC Foundation), found that after Bush proposed his immigration amnesty/work program fund-raising for the Bush reelection campaign suddenly became much harder.

The telephone rang and an old wealthy conservative friend answered. After the usual pleasantries, I told him I was a co-host for the upcoming Jan. 15 Bush-Cheney event at Atlanta’s World Congress Center and pitched him for $2,000 to attend and see the president on a rope-line. For $20,000, I explained, he could have a personal audience and photograph with the commander-in-chief. Before I could even finish my last sentence, though, I was cut off. “You should know I wouldn’t be writing a check after his crazy amnesty proposal.”

I was not surprised, replied that I was as disgusted as he was, and pressed on with my next call. Same response—but angrier. “Why are you even helping Bush?” was the question from the third conservative donor on my list. The fourth rejection was emphatic—“I’m not giving him a dime because of that immigration announcement.” The fifth person got right to the point: the president “is pandering to the open borders crowd.” No check. My sixth target, who said he was “maxed out” to the campaign, was the only one to “support” the president: “Bush has given up on immigration, but I’m not concerned. Let’s deal with the Democrats on other issues.”

Bush's immigration amnesty and work program has sparked a rush for the border. If passed it will accelerate the growth of a permanent underclass and will generate many other kinds of costs aside from welfare costs.

My guess is that the negative reaction of so many big Republican Party donors is not enough to dissuade Bush from trying to pursue this incredible folly. Bush has made up his mind and lacks sufficient curiosity to try to understand why so many people oppose it. If you want to read a single post on why I think Bush's proposal is incredibly stupid read my economic analysis: Thinking About Bush's Less Than Half-Baked Worker Permit Proposal

By Randall Parker    2004 April 06 03:50 PM Entry Permalink | Comments (0)
2004 March 19 Friday
John Kerry Favors Illegal Alien Amnesty

But since most voters are opposed to amnesty for illegals Kerrys says he is for "earned legalization".

Despite amnesty's nettlesome connotation as being synonymous with "rewarding persons who have engaged in illegal activity," Kerry told the world at the Albuquerque, N.M., Democratic Primary debate:

"I supported and was prepared to vote for amnesty from 1986. And it is essential to have immigration reform. Anyone who has been in this country for five or six years, who's paid their taxes, who has stayed out of trouble, ought to be able to translate into an American citizenship immediately, not waiting."

After a period of time, however, the dreaded "amnesty" word worked its way out of the Kerry lexicon on the subject. In its place: the more refined and neater "earned legalization":

There is no good Presidential choice for those who think current US immigration policy is a disaster. George W. Bush of course favors amnesty while calling it something else as well. Bush's half-baked foreign worker permit program will most likely increase the influx of illegal aliens rather than decrease it. The elite-populace gap on immigration issues is huge. With so many elected officials taking oppositions that oppose the popular will on immigration it is time to take the immigration battle to the state-level ballot initiatives in those states which support state-level initiatives.

By Randall Parker    2004 March 19 12:14 AM Entry Permalink | Comments (37)
Advertise here. Contact randall dot parker at ymail dot com
 
Web parapundit.com
Site Traffic Info