Archive for the “Population Growth” Category

Star Telegram

Washington, DC — Half of the nearly 3.5 million immigrants living in Texas are in the country illegally, according to a report scheduled for release today by the Center for Immigration Studies.

Using the latest Census Bureau data, the center found that Texas has one of the fastest-growing immigrant populations of any state and that 50 percent of the state’s foreign-born population — slightly more than 1.7 million people — are illegal immigrants.

Only Arizona at 65 percent, North Carolina at 58 percent and Georgia at 53 percent had a higher proportion of illegal immigrants in their immigrant populations.

Historians call it the Golden Age of Immigration: the early 1900s, when thousands arrived each day at Ellis Island, pushing New Jersey’s foreign-born population to more than one-fourth of all residents.

But a massive new wave of immigrants that began in the 1980s, already far larger in sheer numbers than the heyday of Ellis Island, may soon eclipse that percentage, according to a report released today.

New Jersey’s foreign-born population is 21.6 percent, according to the study by the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington think tank that lobbies for lower immigration levels. And as growing numbers of U.S.-born New Jerseyans move away, the share of immigrants in the state is rapidly approaching the all-time high of 26 percent, reached in 1910.

In New Jersey and nationwide, the report found, the past seven years have been the historic pinnacle of immigration, with 1.5 million people arriving in the United States legally or illegally each year. New Jersey’s foreign-born population now stands at 1.87 million.

‘Some people argue there’s been a crackdown on illegal immigration and legal immigration is harder,’ said Steve Camarota, the center’s research director and author of the study. ‘The anecdotes may be true on their own, but they belie what we’ve seen in the data.’

USA Today

The study, an analysis of 2007 Census data, concludes that there are 37.9 million foreign-born residents in the USA. It estimates that at least 11.3 million of those immigrants are in the country illegally.

One of the key findings is that 31% of immigrant adults don’t have a high school diploma, compared with 8% of U.S.-born residents.

That is important, Camarota says, because it correlates with high rates of welfare and poverty: 33% of households headed by immigrants use at least one major welfare program such as the Women, Infants and Children nutrition program, compared with 19% of U.S.-born households. “It costs a lot of money,” he says. “Does it make sense to bring in lots of people who don’t have lots of education?”

WASHINGTON (November 29, 2007) ? A new report by the Center for Immigration Studies examines the size, growth, and characteristics of the nation?s immigrant, or foreign-born, population as of March 2007. The reported provides a detailed picture of overall immigrant population, and of the illegal immigrant population specifically.

The report, ?Immigrants in the United States, 2007: A Profile of America?s Foreign-Born Population,? is online at CIS.

Among the report?s findings:

# The immigrant population (legal and illegal) reached a record of 37.9 million in 2007.

# Immigrants account for one in eight U.S. residents, the highest level in 80 years.

# Overall, nearly one in three immigrants is an illegal alien. Half of Mexican and Central American immigrants and one-third of South American immigrants are illegal.

# Since 2000, 10.3 million immigrants have arrived ? the highest seven-year period of immigration in U.S. history. More than half of post-2000 arrivals (5.6 million) are estimated to be illegal aliens.

# Of adult immigrants, 31 percent have not completed high school, compared to 8 percent of natives. The share of immigrants and natives with a college degree is about the same.

# 33 percent of immigrant-headed households use at least one welfare program, compared to 19 percent for native households. Among households headed by immigrants from Mexico, the largest single group, 51 percent use at least one welfare program.

# The poverty rate for immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18) is 17 percent, nearly 50 percent higher than the rate for natives and their children.

# 34 percent of immigrants lack health insurance, compared to 13 percent of natives. Immigrants and their U.S.-born children account for 71 percent of the increase in the uninsured since 1989.

# The primary reason for the high rates of immigrant poverty, lack of health insurance, and welfare use is their low education levels, not their legal status or an unwillingness to work.

# Of immigrant households, 82 percent have at least one worker, compared to 73 percent of native households.

# Immigrants make significant progress over time. But even those who have been here for 20 years are more likely to be in poverty, lack insurance, or use welfare than are natives.

# There is a worker present in 78 percent of immigrant households using at least one welfare program.

# Immigration accounts for virtually all of the national increase in public school enrollment over the last two decades. In 2007, there were 10.8 million school-age children from immigrant families in the United States.

# Immigrants and natives have similar rates of entrepreneurship ? 13 percent of natives and 11 percent of immigrants are self-employed.

# Recent immigration has had no significant impact on the nation?s age structure. Without the 10.3 million post-2000 immigrants, the average age in America would be virtually unchanged at 36.5 years.

# Detailed information is provided for Texas, California, Arizona, Massachusetts, Colorado, Georgia, North Carolina, Washington, Florida, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Virginia, and Maryland.

Data Source: The Current Population Survey provides the data for the study. It was collected by the Census Bureau in March 2007 and has not been fully analyzed until now. There is agreement among policy experts, including the Department of Homeland Security, that roughly 90 percent of illegal immigrants respond to Census Bureau surveys of this kind. This allows for separate estimates of the size and characteristics of the illegal immigrant population.

Comments 3 Comments »

?I have an uncle who has like five kids with different girls,? she said. ?So it doesn?t surprise me at all.? No marriage doesn?t mean no care, said Nancy Rodriguez, 17, a senior at Crossroads Alternative School.

?Us, as Mexicans, we take the responsibility of having the child even if we don?t have the partner,? she said.

NWA News

ROGERS ? Nearly half of the babies delivered by Hispanic mothers in Benton County last year were born out of wedlock.

That was double the rate for white, non-Hispanic mothers in the county.

The statistics mirror national trends that have the attention of advocates of all persuasions.

Immigration critics warn of looming consequences, from persistent poverty to welfare dependency.

Of the 845 babies delivered by Hispanic mothers in Benton County last year, 412 ? 49 percent ? were born to unwed mothers, according to the Arkansas Department of Health. The percentage mirrors the U. S. rate of 48 percent for Hispanics.

Amid such a broad-based shift, and an emotionally charged debate over immigration, some religious and community leaders were reluctant to discuss out-of-wedlock His- panic births in Benton County, where an estimated 27, 000 Hispanics make up 13 percent of the population. For instance, a spokesman for St. Raphael Catholic Church, home to one of Northwest Arkansas? largest Hispanic congregations, said the Springdale church ministers to people regardless of marital status and had nothing to say about births outside of marriage.

SUPPORTIVE PARENTS ?I kind of wanted a baby,? said Jennifer Bonilla, 16, a student at the Rogers School District?s Crossroads Alternative School.

?I was like, I?m too young. But it happened. I was happy when I found out,? she said.

Bonilla is one of three mothers among the school?s 60 students. All three are Hispanic.

As with the others, Bonilla lives with her parents. The father of her baby is a construction worker, she said, and helps with money and chores such as taking the year-old baby, Juan Carlos, to a neighbor for babysitting during the day. Bonilla said she and the father plan to marry once she graduates from high school.
Was she surprised that nearly half of Hispanic babies in America are born outside of marriage?

?I have an uncle who has like five kids with different girls,? she said. ?So it doesn?t surprise me at all.? No marriage doesn?t mean no care, said Nancy Rodriguez, 17, a senior at Crossroads Alternative School.

?Us, as Mexicans, we take the responsibility of having the child even if we don?t have the partner,? she said.

Rodriguez, the mother of an 18-month-old daughter, said the father of her baby has returned to Mexico, and they have no plans to marry. But her family fills the gap.

Comments 8 Comments »

Francisco Luquin, originally from Mexico, raises his right hand during the USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services) citizenship ceremony at the Heritage Theatre in Campbell, Calif. on Wednesday, October 24, 2007. New census numbers show that 70 percent of California’s Mexicans are U.S. citizens, either native born or naturalized.

The immigration debate: 70 percent of Mexicans in California are U.S. citizens
San Jose Mercury News
November 5, 2007

For the first time in the most current wave of immigration, U.S. Census Bureau figures show that 70 percent of California’s Mexican population are U.S. citizens, blunting widespread belief the state is overrun by illegal immigrants.

The findings are part of new data that casts a spotlight on a steady demographic transition between 2000 and 2006, with the state leading the nation in the number of Mexican immigrants gaining citizenship.

California’s Mexican population, boosted by a boom in births, is moving steadily into citizenship, with Mexican-Americans comprising about 7.6 million of the state’s 36 million residents in 2006.

“California has reached a steady state with regard to immigration,” said Dowell Myers, a demographer at the University of Southern California. “The number of new foreign-born arrivals is being offset by the number of babies who are being born here and the number of parents who are naturalizing.”

Nationally, the U.S. Office of Immigration Statistics estimates about 11.6 million illegal immigrants in the country as of January 2006, with about 6.6 million of that total being from Mexico. The Census Bureau says there are 11.5 million Mexican immigrants in the United States.

The 2006 census data, released several weeks ago, is based on a statistical sample and therefore contains some statistical error.

The census estimates, however, align closely with U.S. Department of Homeland Security naturalization records and with state public health records on births to Latino mothers.

California does not break down birth records by Latino subgroups, but Mexicans are by far the largest group in the state according to census data.

The figures show Mexican-American citizenship in California increased by 3 percentage points from 67 percent in 2000 to 70 percent at the end of 2006.

They also show that roughly half of the 460,766 Mexican immigrants who became naturalized citizens nationwide between 2000 and 2006 were in California.

Births to people of Mexican ancestry are the biggest factor driving the citizenship spurt, with state public health records and census data showing there have been about 1.5 million children born to parents of Mexican ancestry since 2000, but it’s unknown how many of those are children of illegal immigrants.

In Santa Clara County, the increase in citizens of Mexican ancestry due to birth and naturalization exceeds the growth in non-citizen immigrants by a 3-1 ratio this decade, census data shows.

Juan Loerca is a prime example. He came to Santa Clara County three years ago from the Mexican province of Sinaloa. He was married at the time, but he and his young bride didn’t have any children.

Just five months ago, he and his wife, Lucilla, had their first son in this country.

“He’s American,” the 28-year-old said, smiling as he called his son’s birth in the country his first “gift” to him.

Loerca and his wife, who would someday like to become naturalized citizens, could be forced to leave through deportation if their illegal status draws government attention.

But he noted that his son would still be able to come back to this country one day because he’s a citizen.

“I want to have kids here, to give them opportunity,” he said. “To be a citizen is to have opportunity.”

He and his wife would like to have three more children, and he’s hoping to have them within the next few years……

To read entire article click here.

Comments 21 Comments »

A pro-illegal alien bias
Washington Times Commentary
November 6, 2007

The Democratic Party supports discrimination by condoning illegal migration and amnesty for illegal aliens.

These policies discriminate based on origin because 80 percent of illegal aliens are from Latin America, yet Latin Americans represent only 8 percent of the world”s population. This means Latin Americans benefit from illegal migration and amnesty for illegal aliens at a rate 30 times greater than non-Latin Americans.

Amazingly, this is the same party that in 1965 changed U.S. immigration law to “end immigration discrimination.” In 1963, President Kennedy submitted legislation that would become the 1965 Immigration Reform Act, explaining it was for:

The “Elimination of Discrimination Based on National Origins

… The use of a national origins system is without basis in either logic or reason. … such a system is an anachronism, for it discriminates among applicants for admission into the United States on the basis of accident of birth.”

President Kennedy also said:

Natives of no one country should receive over 10 percent of the total quota Numbers authorized in any one year. This will insure that the pattern of immigration is not distorted by excessive demand from any one country.

Unfortunately although President Kennedy’s legislation was enacted into law, immigration discrimination has not ended, only the countries involved have changed. Mexicans account for about 32 percent of recent U.S. legal immigrants and legalized illegal aliens and 80 percent of illegal aliens. Other Latin American countries also have high percentages compared to their world population percentage. These percentages are so high because of past illegal alien amnesties and continued allowance of illegal migration. If another illegal alien amnesty was passed, these percentages for Mexico and other Latin American countries would further increase.

The Heritage Foundation has estimated that if the current 30 million (number from research by Bear and Stearns, the Heritage Foundation and the California for Immigration Stabilization) illegal aliens in the country now are given amnesty, that number, with family unification, would grow to 100 million in the coming decades.

While Democrats claim their amnesty schemes send illegal aliens to the back of the immigration line, nothing could be further from the truth. You see, illegal aliens are already at the front of the line.

Compared to legal immigrants waiting for a visa overseas, most illegal aliens have a U.S.-based paying job, access to U.S. health care and education, plus their babies born here are granted automatic U.S. Citizenship and all its benefits. The only way for illegal aliens to be at the back of the immigrant visa line is for them to return to their country of origin and apply at the U.S. Embassy there like everyone else in the world does, including law-abiding citizens of their own countries……

To read entire article click here.

Comments No Comments »

LA Times publishes a series of articles on Americans choosing to live the good life in Mexico and Latin America. GuardDog

“Rising human traffic across the U.S.â??Mexico border is changing the culture, the environment, the very way of life. But itâ??s not what you think.”

Taking Baja South
LA Times
October 14, 2007

They arrive by land, air and sea, with visions of the good life dancing in their heads. At first, their numbers are so small as to be barely noticeable. But within a few years they may end up taking over your street, your colonia, practically your entire town. They bring their curious native customs with themâ??skinny Frappuccinos, “personal watercraft,” wireless Internet accessâ??and replant them in foreign soil. Relentlessly, they remake the landscape in their own image, transforming derelict colonial-era manses into stunning million-dollar homes, and majestic swaths of lonely seaside acreage into $300-per-round golf courses. And though many of them make a diligent effort to learn the local tongue, befriend the natives and blend into their adopted country, others stubbornly resist assimilation: hanging out in their gated compounds with other English-speaking exiles, eschewing the local coffee shops and taco shacks in favor of Starbucks and Burger King, plowing their SUVs like woozy battleships through the narrow streets of picturesque 17th century towns.

Even before last year’s massive demonstrations in downtown L.A., in which hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets to protest what they regard as draconian immigration policies, U.S. politicians, the media and the public have fixated on the flow of human traffic across the border. But far less attention has been paid to a parallel phenomenon with equally profound implications: the growing hordes of U.S. residents who are roosting throughout Mexico and, to a lesser degree, Central and South America.

Today, an estimated 500,000 to 1 million Americansâ??or, as Mexicans refer to them, norteamericanosâ??along with roughly half that many Canadians make their homes in Mexico, either as permanent residents or part-timers. Though many of the newcomers are semi- or fully retired, others hold FM2 and FM3 visas that permit them to work in their new country. And though the Mexican Constitution places certain restrictions on them, such as prohibiting involvement in Mexican politics, norteamericanos generally enjoy open, privileged lives compared with the millions of Mexican illegals skulking in the shadows of the underground U.S. economy.

In coming decades, these middle-class transplants and rat-race dropouts are expected to surge to perhaps 10 times their current number, as home equity-rich baby boomers from places such as San Diego and Tucson go searching for second (or third) homes in the expatriate hot spots of Ensenada-Playas de Rosarito, San Miguel de Allende, Puerto Vallarta, Merida, Mazatlán, Oaxaca, the Lake Chapala region outside Guadalajara and at the southern end of Baja California Sur.

If the northern Baja corridor of Tijuana-Ensenada-Playas de Rosarito was the Normandy beachhead of the U.S. invasion, then Baja California Sur is the real estate equivalent of the Battle of the Bulge. It’s ground zero of a symbolic showdown pitting advocates of culturally and ecologically sensitive, sustainable growth against U.S. transplants and aggressive developers who are bent on the Florida-zation of one of the planet’s truly remarkable corners. Americans who want coastal Mexico to become a Southern California satellite, packed with strip-mall mini-marts, glib housing projects and yacht-crammed marinas, are facing off with Americans who understand thatâ??despite their wealth and the advantages that come with holding a U.S. passportâ??they still are guests of another country with its own rich culture, where few qualities are more highly prized than good manners and humility……

To read entire article click here.

More articles from the LA Times

FOR SALE: Oceanfront condos with drop-dead views. Three bedrooms. Terrace. Professional kitchen. Pools and tennis courts.* PRICE: $350,000 and up. LOCATION: *not Malibu.

Paradise for home remodelers

Gringos on the lakeshore

A harbor for expatriates

A city of ox carts and Office Depot

A friendly town among the hills

Comments 6 Comments »

This is a total MSM lefty piece of work. Just thought I would let you know a head of time. How much of this do you believe? GuardDog

Falling Mexican fertility rate may cut immigration
San Diego Union Tribune
October 7, 2007

SAN DIEGO â?? The United States is going to need an infusion of immigrants in the coming decades to keep its economy humming and Mexico will probably be providing fewer of those workers because of its falling fertility rate, a demographer told UCSD’s Center for Comparative Immigration Studies last week.

In 1970, Mexican mothers had an average of 6.8 children. Today, the fertility rate has fallen to 2.4, said Dowell Myers, professor of urban planning and demography at the University of Southern California.

â??What’s that mean for future migration? Is Mexico going to share so many of its workers with us?â? Myers asked.

He told scholars at the University of California San Diego that Mexico was likely to retain a great percentage of its workers for its own economy.

Myers said that could put the United States in competition with other nations in need of immigrant workers.

A fertility rate of 2.0 keeps a population at a more or less constant level.

Myers said countries that are not producing enough babies to support their older residents in the long term include Japan, with a fertility rate of 1.2; Korea, 1.2; Italy, 1.3; and Germany, 1.3.

The United States’ fertility rate is around 2.0, but Myers said the United States is going to be hit by a retirement crisis because of the aging baby boom generation.

Myers’ recent book, â??Immigrants and Boomers: Forging a New Social Contract for the Future of America,â? says baby boomers are going to need immigrants in order to pay the tax revenues for government entitlements. He said boomers will even need immigrants to buy boomers’ homes when they retire and move.

In California, a large percentage of homebuyers are Latino. â??Who is going to buy your house? How are they going to afford it?â? he asked.

He said one of the best investments baby boomers could make is in young people’s educations.

Myers said that after Latino immigrants have lived in California 20 years, their home ownership average is 51 percent, while the state average is 58 percent.

Latino immigrants who have lived in the state 30 years have a home ownership average of 60 percent, â??breaking the state average,â? he added.

California, long seen as a promised land for immigrants, has lost some of its luster, Myers said. While California attracted 37.6 percent of U.S. immigrant newcomers around 1990, that number fell to 20.9 percent around 2005.

Myers said that after California’s recession in the 1990s, immigrants discovered North Carolina, Georgia, Arkansas and other states not nearly as expensive as California. â??Now they know there are jobs and cheap housingâ? across America, Myers said.

Comments 22 Comments »

California group estimates illegal population up to 38 million
The Business Journal of Phoenix
October 8, 2007

A California anti-immigration lobbying group estimates there are 20 to 38 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S., far more than federal government agencies report.

Representatives from the Santa Barbara-based Californians for Population Stabilization last week told listeners at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., that illegal immigrants shun census counts, fearing reprisal.

In a Sept. 27 press conference at the Phoenix headquarters of the Maricopa Association of Governments, U.S. Census Bureau Deputy Director Preston Jay Waite said the agency had an agreement with Immigration and Customs Enforcement during the 2000 census to back off arrests of illegal immigrants during the count.

He was in town to unveil new census numbers for Maricopa County.

Waite, however, said the Census Bureau has not asked Immigration and Customs Enforcement to suspend its aggressive efforts to arrest illegal immigrants during the 2010 count.

Immigration counts differ greatly from federal reporting agencies and policy groups. Bear Stearns’ research indicates that the illegal immigrant population is underreported by the U.S. Census by as much as a one-half. The Census Bureau estimates 8.7 million illegals; the Urban Institute, 9.3 million; and a Center for Immigration Studies report suggests an illegal population of 10 million. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates 12 million undocumented immigrants live in the U.S.

U.S. Census counts have major funding implications for states because, in some cases, funds are based on population figures of all people living in their area, regardless of citizenship status.

On Jan. 1, Arizona will enact what is widely believed to be the nation’s strictest immigration law. Known as the Legal Arizona Workers Act, employers will be required to verify employment eligibility through a federal database. Those who knowingly hire unauthorized aliens will face criminal penalties up to and including suspension or termination of a company’s business license if found guilty.

According to an opinion poll by WestGroup Research, three out of four respondents (77 percent) think Arizona’s new employee sanctions law will reduce illegal immigration by 50 percent or less.

Skepticism is based on the belief that people will find a way to get around the law (35 percent) and that the law will not be enforced (16 percent).

About half of Arizona residents surveyed (52 percent) had heard of the new law, with high-income respondents ($75,000 or more a year) being most likely to be aware of the law (69 percent).

Business groups and civil rights advocates, including Chicanos Por La Causa and Somos America, filed a lawsuit in federal court against the state of Arizona claiming the law is unconstitutional and could lead to discrimination against minorities.

The lawsuit alleges that the measure violates both the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of due process and federal immigration law that makes use of the database voluntary.

The September WestGroup study was conducted with a random sample of 406 adults in the Phoenix metropolitan area and contains a 5 percent margin for error.

Comments 12 Comments »

Born in the U.S.A.: Does that guarantee citizenship?
DesMoines Register
September 16, 2007

There’s actually no mandate

When immigration activist and sanctuary beneficiary Elvira Arellano was arrested in Los Angeles and deported back to Mexico last month, claims of unfairness were leveled because she was being separated from her son, a U.S. “citizen.” Similarly, Yaser Esam Hamdi, captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan and held in Guantanamo Bay, was transferred to Norfolk, Va., and treated as a citizen after it was discovered that he had been born in Baton Rouge, La., some 20 years earlier.

Most people in the country today take for granted the claims that Arellano’s son and Yaser Hamdi are citizens. Mere birth on U.S. soil, no matter the parental status, is alone sufficient, according to the received understanding of the Constitution. This is true, they believe, despite the fact that Arellano’s son was born while his mother was in this country illegally, and Hamdi was born while his parents were residing in the United States on a short-term work visa.

The Constitution does not actually mandate such a result.

To be sure, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone “born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” but for those who drafted and ratified the clause, “subject to the jurisdiction” meant much more than mere territorial jurisdiction. Being born in the United States while subject to the political jurisdiction - the “I-pledge-allegiance-and-can-be-prosecuted-for-treason” type of jurisdiction - was required. As Senator Reverdy Johnson of Maryland noted during floor debate at the time the clause was proposed, the citizenship clause simply provides “that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign power . . . shall be considered as citizens of the United States.” The author of the provision, Senator Jacob Howard, maintained that the clause “will not, of course, include foreigners.”

Thirty years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, the Supreme Court expanded the constitutional mandate slightly, holding that the children of legal, permanent residents were automatically citizens, but the court has never held that the clause also confers automatic citizenship on the children of temporary visitors, much less on the children born to those who are in this country illegally. We have simply backed into that understanding, without consideration of the actual meaning of the citizenship clause or concern about the consequences to other constitutional text and principles.

One such principle is the idea of government by consent. Birthright citizenship permits some to demand citizenship unilaterally, without the consent of the political community in which membership is claimed. It is therefore incompatible with a system of government based upon consent of the governed and, when utilized by those who enter this country illegally, the rule of law as well.

The lessons learned by the “unilateral citizen” children of illegal immigrants are, unfortunately, not the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, but rather those of a culturally separate underclass whose illegal residence among us all but assures a deep suspicion, rather than embrace, of our governing institutions and principles.

And the lessons learned by others - legal immigrants who patiently wait for their turn at a new life in America, for example- is a lack of respect for the rule of law that will ultimately threaten our entire system unless we get serious about removing the inducements to illegal immigration, including birthright citizenship.

JOHN C. EASTMAN is dean and Donald P. Kennedy Chair in Law at Chapman University School of Law in Orange, Calif.


Preserve right of citizenship at birth
Fix failed immigration system. Don’t abandon American values.
DesMoines Register
September 16, 2007

What if the United States stopped automatically granting citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants?

A 14-year-old Des Moines girl, the only member of her family who is a U.S. citizen, finds it hard to imagine what her life would be like if her mother had not walked across the Mexican border several years before she was born. She does, however, see what her undocumented older brothers and cousins face: They cannot get a driver’s license, qualify for federal financial aid for college or pursue a career. They could be deported at any time.

She calls the idea of withholding citizenship from anyone born in the United States “absurd.”

Yet such proposals are out there.

In April, Republican U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal of Georgia introduced H.R. 1940, the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007, which would limit who becomes an American at birth. Children would qualify only if they had a parent who is a U.S. citizen, a lawful permanent resident or an illegal immigrant who is actively serving in the military. Ninety members have signed on as co-sponsors, including Rep. Steve King of Iowa.

Or go to Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul’s Web site. Under issues, the Texas congressman says: “End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, their incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.”

A prize for pregnant moms?

Critics of birthright citizenship believe it’s a magnet. Mothers sneak into this country to deliver U.S. citizens. The “anchor babies” qualify for benefits, such as government health insurance. When the babies become adults, they could legally bring close relatives to live here. The critics hold up ending birthright citizenship as the solution to the nation’s illegal immigration crisis.

It is not the answer, not as a practical measure and not as a measure of the nation’s character.

If birthright citizenship ended tomorrow, desperately poor people from Latin America and elsewhere still would slip into the United States for jobs. They still would have children. Because the children would not be U.S. citizens, a permanent underclass would grow, with no allegiance to the United States. The children would have no hope of becoming well-educated contributors to the U.S. economy, which needs ambitious young workers to be globally competitive and to support Social Security for older Americans.

Doing away with birthright citizenship would compound the failures of the U.S. immigration system, which have resulted in an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants living here. They are vulnerable to abuse by employers and crime in their neighborhoods. They are afraid to fully participate in the life of their communities.

A better approach to reform

The answer to the nation’s immigration crisis is enforcing strong border security while raising U.S. immigration quotas to reasonable levels and creating a broad guest-worker program with safeguards against exploitation. Reform must include amnesty for current illegal immigrants and a path to citizenship, if they have a good record otherwise and pay fines.

The Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington think tank that describes itself as “pro-immigrant, low immigration,” estimates illegal-immigrant mothers have 400,000 babies a year in the United States, about 10 percent of all births. In Iowa, more than 3 percent of births are to illegal immigrant mothers, said Steve Camarota, the center’s research director.

The state and nation cannot afford to write them off.

Principle embedded in past

Birthright citizenship is enshrined in the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, Section I, ratified in 1868: “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.”

The amendment originally was adopted to assure African-Americans citizenship in the aftermath of the Civil War.

Today, it stands for the nation’s commitment to treating everyone born on U.S. soil as equal, a defining principle of American democracy.

Legal scholars can debate the intent of the framers of the citizenship clause, but revoking birthright citizenship in the 21st century would come dangerously close to enslaving children born to illegal immigrants. It would be a betrayal of bedrock American values.

Such proposals are truly absurd.

Comments 8 Comments »

“Goyanes says about half the customers at his auto-repair business, Car Clinic, speak no English.

“Hispanic immigrants traditionally like to deal with people in their own language, but my clients have no choice,” Goyanes said.”

The PC journalist who wrote this article called this drastic language transformation, “linguistic diversity”. What would you call the gradual decline in use of our common language? I call it a slow and painful cultural death! Why is this a good thing? GuardDog

More South Floridians speak languages other than English
English gives way to other tongues
Fort Lauderdale Sun Sentinel
September 12, 2007

English-only speakers may feel their numbers shrinking in South Florida, according to new Census figures showing the area’s growing linguistic diversity.

Census data showing annual changes in key social, economic and housing characteristics indicate a sharp increase in the number of people who speak a language other than English.

Among Broward County’s roughly 1.7 million residents, 35 percent over age 5 speak a language other than English, compared to 26 percent statewide, according to Census data released today. Of those, just 21 percent said they spoke English very well. In 2000, 29 percent of county residents over age 5 spoke a language other than English at home, compared with 23 percent statewide.

The increase follows a national surge in the country’s linguistic diversity. About 8 million more people spoke a foreign language at home in 2006 than they did in 2000 â?? or roughly 20 percent of the nation in 2006 and 18 percent in 2000.

The rise in foreign-language speakers has compelled more people to pick up another language, according to Edith Oliva, 50, a translator who teaches Spanish to business owners, executives and other professionals.

“Economically, it’s absolutely vital. More and more adult students are coming to me because they need Spanish for their work,” said Oliva, who moved to Florida from her native Argentina in 1992. “I also tell immigrants I work with that they have to get out of their communities and learn English and the ways of the United States,” she said.

Though Spanish is the most prevalent foreign language in Broward County, the area also includes a rich cross-section of Haitian Creole and Brazilian Portuguese-speakers.

Roger E. Savain, a Haitian-born freelance translator and interpreter who lives in Plantation, says Creole was barely heard here when he moved to Florida 19 years ago.

“There was a stigma attached to it among Haitians,” Savain said. “If you didn’t speak French [the language of the upper class in Haiti], you were stupid. You were nobody.”

In the past few years, he has seen a flowering of Creole in South Florida just as Creole is being embraced in literary and academic circles in Haiti.

Savain said local cities have been slow to tap into the contributions of South Florida’s multiple languages and cultures, citing the difficulty some Caribbean festivals have had finding a venue.

“In cities like New York, foreign languages are vital. We need to recognize that everyone who comes here from another country brings something, whether it’s food, music or language, that adds to our humanity,” he said……

As the number of foreign-language speakers grows, some criticize government efforts to translate services.

“I have a problem when I go get my driver’s license and you have multiple languages to choose from,” said Angela Jackson, 58, of Hollywood and an opponent of legalization for undocumented immigrants. “We have people driving on our streets not knowing English and voting in foreign languages. I wouldn’t dream of going to Mexico and demanding that everyone speak English.”

To read entire article click here.

Comments 7 Comments »

White people are referred to as ‘non-Hispanic white’ all throughout this article in the Washington Post.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen this ethnic terminology used before. I imagine it will become more common as Hispanics become the majority in more areas of the country.

Washington Post

The Washington region’s stature as the “egghead capital,” as one expert put it, has boosted the median income of all ethnic groups to among the highest in the nation.

Census figures released last week show that, when compared with other affluent major metropolitan areas, Washington ranks first in median income among blacks and non-Hispanic whites, and the region’s Hispanics and Asians rank second.

Comments 15 Comments »

Wattenberg Wipes Floor With Krikorianâ??Fallaciously
August 30, 2007

Sophistry thy name is Wattenberg. Ben, that is. A long time senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), which gains its succor from corporate and conservative donors, Wattenberg specializes in using anecdotal “evidence” to subvert arguments backed with credible data.

Ben Wattenberg

I say this based on his performance at the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) press briefing on the release of its latest Backgrounder study, “100 Million More: Projecting the Impact of Immigration On the US Population, 2007 to 2060″, today, August 30, at the National Press Club here in DC.

Wattenberg [send him mail] was a member of the panel discussion which included Mark Krikorian, CIS Executive Director, Steve Camarota, CIS Director of Research, and Roy Beck, Executive Director of NumbersUSA. Wattenberg slyly diverted the focus of the meeting with his often-absurd anecdotes and comparisons, which undoubtedly was his objective.

Steven Camarota

In introducing the panel, Krikorian noted that, while the US government had no stated official population policy, its actions in permitting a massive number of immigrants, both legal and illegal to enter the country since 1965, constituted an implicit population policy. As Backgrounder author Steve Camarota explained, using updated US Census Bureau projections, this will likely add 100 million more people by 2060. Significantly, that number assumes more legal alien arrivals than illegalâ??a fact which is currently being overlooked by far too many of our government officials, who have gotten the message only about illegals.

Roy Beck then questioned strongly whether adding that number of people would improve the quality of American life. Beck noted that polls taken over decades constantly showed that most Americans wanted immigration reduced.

Enter master sophist Wattenberg, whose most recent book is Fewer: How the New Demography of Depopulation Will Shape Our Future.

In a low-voiced, avuncular manner, Wattenberg started with an anecdote, saying “Plural anecdotes are data.” This should have brought hoots of derision from his press corps audience. But it didnâ??t. Then, he introduced his housekeeper, Iris, who sat directly behind me in the audience. She, Wattenberg reported, had come to America illegally years before. Her present status was unexplained. But then no one asked.

Iris is the mother of three children, presumably born here, making them American citizens (some of us think of them as “Anchor Babies” because they can bring in alien relatives). Iris’ husband has left her and she is coping as a single mother. One child, a fifteen year old boy, is now a sophomore in high school and a linebacker on the football team. He is patriotic and will be well educated and will make a great contribution to Americaâ??according to his mother’s employer, that is.

Give me a break, Mr. W. How about those illegal aliens who killed those young American college students in Newark?

Heartstring-pulling remains the default-mode gambit of the open border advocates. But, doubtless, Iris’ story will make AEI’s contributors beam with delight.

Next, Wattenberg noted that in 1790 the US population was 4 million and now is over 300 million, a “75 times growth”, and we became the greatest country in the history of the world, he said. So why should we worry if the increase from now to 2060 of only 56%?

“What’s the problem”, he went on to opine, since we have so much open space and too many of us live on the two coasts. Plenty of open spaces, he chanted.

Would he solve things by putting more people in South Dakota? Apparently. You can go there, Mr. W. Their winters are smashing! The little matter of arable land and water resources was not noted.

Then of course he played the race card, saying that every wave brought groans from nativists, about the new comers. Jews, Italians, etc. were all hated initially but made huge contributions. He added that the “Hate Du Jour” is now Mexicans, who in their service in the US military have garnered more Medals of Honor (did he mean in the current Iraq War?) than any other ethnic group. [VDARE.COM NOTE: This is a myth.]

Anytime one of the other panelists offered comments after their opening statements, Wattenberg constantly popped in with “Let me say….” For example, at one point, contesting this de facto government policy of massive immigration and non enforcement of immigration law, Wattenberg cleverly managed to position CIS’s Krikorian as being against Social Security, which could fail in the next generation, even though Camarota’s study clearly demonstrates that importing this unneeded next 100 million will very minimally add to the number in the US work force. This opening gave Wattenberg license to go on about how popular Social Security was with everyone, etc., implying that it was somehow related to the topic under discussion and that Krikorian was somehow on the lunatic fringe.

Jousting with a sophist can be very trickyâ??particularly if the facts push the sophist into a corner. N’est pas?

Wattenberg’s hobby horse issue, addressed in his book, Fewer, is fertility rates, which have declined in many countriesâ??not just in rich, western countries, but also in some poor, less-developed countries. That the planet currently adds over 70 million a year in net new persons, over 95% of them in â??developing nationsâ?, and that total world population will certainly reach 9 billion by 2100 apparently fazes him not a whit. Global warming and the other problems must not be on his radar scope. He just wants more people. Above all, he considers more immigration into the US an unmitigated joy.

Wattenberg attacked Pat Buchanan’s argument that the US is being overrun by aliens with another anecdoteâ??his form of data-gatheringâ??by citing a couple at a Waldorf Astoria cocktail party of “hundreds of people” in the hotel ballroom who, upon seeing an “immigrant couple from Mexico” enter, say, “See, we’re being swamped.” Again, the racist cardâ??and a determination, which must please his corporate donors, to ignore not only the illegal alien invasion, but also the larger threat of present levels of legal immigration.

Camarota pointed out that an intruding couple at a cocktail party hardly described the repeated arrival of millions of aliens both legally and illegally. But Wattenberg’s barrage of irrelevant comparisons continued throughout the session.

This CIS report asks Americans to weigh in on this question: Do we want an additional 100 million people here in the next 50 years?

Are they needed and who benefits from their arrival are not questions the report answers. Clearly, Wattenberg’s alliesâ??the US Chamber of Commerce, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and the various ethnic lobbiesâ??have agendas: cheaper labor and more members for their groups. Most American citizens can plainly see with their own eyes the effect of growth since WW II. It doubled our population size to 306 million and could raise it to 1 billion by 2100. Crowding is bad enough. But we ignore the vital topics of cultural and political assimilation at our peril.

Of course, neither Wattenberg nor I will be around to see that 2060 date. But I close with my own anecdote. At 77, I remain fully employed and I notice that many of my age group are similarly occupied. I have many friends doing useful work well into their 90s. (For that matter, Wattenberg is 74.)

Backgrounder author Camarota’s study assumes a labor force of ages between 15 and 64. He points out that one way to fix Social Security would be to raise the retirement age. I suspect that as automation progresses even further, old folks like me will be even more capable of doing work that companies will want to pay for. To add cheap, young, uneducated workers to our work force at poverty level wages, as Wattenberg wants, claiming that â??they do work Americans won’tâ?, simply is not smart.

Further, if pay is adequate, young Americans will be available. And those early entry-level jobs make a huge impression on their values and life outlookâ??if my case (another anecdote!) is any measure.

David Francis noted in his May 21, 2007 Christian Science Monitor article, Fuse on the ‘population bomb’ has been relit:

“Two years ago, the United Nations projected that the number of people on this planet would reach 8.9 billion by 2050. In March, the UN Population Division revised that projection to 9.2 billion. If UN demographers are right, in 43 years the world’s population will increase by 2.5 billion, up from 6.7 billion today. That growth is equivalent to how many people lived on Earth in 1950. The difference in the two UN projections, separated by only two years, is equal to today’s population of the United States”.

Hardly a “birth dearth, “Mr. Wattenberg.

Related IWD post: Immigration to Add 105 Million to U.S. Population by 2060

Comments 8 Comments »

The “Chocolate” City Is Becoming The Latin City

Comments 5 Comments »

100 Million More
Projecting the Impact of Immigration
On the U.S. Population, 2007 to 2060
Center For Immigration Studies
August 2007

New Report Takes Detailed Look at Different Levels of Admissions

WASHINGTON, Aug. 30 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — A new report from the Center for Immigration Studies projects how different levels of immigration would impact the future size of America’s population. The findings, carefully modeled on earlier projections by the Census Bureau, show that the current level of immigration will add 105 million to the population by 2060, while having a small effect on the aging of society.

Among the findings:

* Currently, 1.6 million legal and illegal immigrants settle in the country each year; 350,000 immigrants leave each year, resulting in net immigration of 1.25 million.

* If immigration continues at current levels, the nationâ??s population will increase from 301 million today to 468 million in 2060 â?? a 167 million (56 percent) increase. Immigrants plus their descendents will account for 105 million (63 percent) of the increase.

* The total projected growth of 167 million is equal to the combined populations of Great Britain, France, and Spain. The 105 million from immigration by itself is equal to 13 additional New York Cities.

* If the annual level of net immigration was reduced to 300,000, future immigration would add 25 million people to the population by 2060, 80 million fewer than the current level of immigration would add.

* The above projection follows exactly the Census Bureauâ??s assumptions about future birth and death rates, including a decline in the birth rate for Hispanics, who comprise the largest share of immigrants.

* Net immigration has been increasing for five decades; if immigration continues to increase, it will add more than the projected 105 million by 2060 that will be added if immigration levels stay the same.

* While immigration has a very large impact on the size of the nationâ??s population, it has only a small effect on slowing the aging of American society.

* At the current level of net immigration (1.25 million a year), 61 percent of the nationâ??s population will be of working age (15-66) in 2060, compared to 60 percent if net immigration were reduced to 300,000 a year.

* If net immigration was doubled to 2.5 million a year it would raise the working-age share of the population by one additional percentage point, to 62 percent, by 2060. But at that level of immigration, the U.S. population would reach 573 million, double its size in the 2000 Census.

The nationâ??s ongoing debate over immigration generally has not focused on the effect it has on U.S. population size. Yet, increasing the nationâ??s total population is one of immigrationâ??s clearest and most direct effects. Supporters of low immigration point to the congestion, sprawl, traffic, pollution, loss of open spaces, and greenhouse gas emissions that could be impacted by population growth. Supporters of high immigration argue that population growth may create more opportunities for businesses, workers, and consumers. Whatever one thinks of population growth, the projected 167 million growth in the nationâ??s population in the next 53 years is very large. It is larger than the entire U.S. population in 1950, and it is more than the combined total populations of California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, and New Jersey. Even the impact of immigration by itself is enormous. The 105 million immigration will add to the population by 2060 is more than all of the population growth that occurred in United States in the first 130 years of the nationâ??s history after independence. Our findings are consistent with projections done by the U.S. Census Bureau and others. Since we have used Bureau projections of death and birth rates by race and simply varied the immigration component, this is to be expected. The Methodology Appendix at the end of the report explains in detail how the projections were created. We provide many alternative levels of immigration, leaving the reader free to judge how different immigration levels impact population size and the age structure. This report makes clear that immigration has a very large impact on the nationâ??s population. The question is not whether immigration levels are a key determinant of population increase â?? they are. The question is what costs and benefits will the increase bring. How we answer these questions will to a significant extent determine which immigration policy we pursue.

To read entire report click here.

Comments 16 Comments »

I have just launched a new website called which seeks to clarify the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. The goal is to end birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens.

, so please forward the link to the petition to everyone you know. The petition is in support of H.R. 1940, a bill introduced in the house by Congressman Nathan Deal of Georgia.

It’s going to take a lot more than just signing to achieve this goal. After signing the petition, I want you to look up your Representative’s contact information and give them a call. This will only take a few minutes.

Speak briefly and to the point to the person answering the phone. Ask them to have the Representative co-sponsor the bill H.R.1940 ‘The Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007.’ Right now there are only 79 co-sponsors. We need all 202 Republican members of Congress to co-sponsor this bill and as many Democrats as possible.

There are just three things that I am asking of you.

1.) .

2.) Call your Representative and ask them to co-sponsor H.R.1940 ‘The Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007′ if they are not already a co-sponsor.

3.) Email this link for the petion to everyone you know.

Please use your current email address when signing the petition. I will be contacting you in the future with more action alerts similar to this one. You can opt out of these email alerts at any time by clicking on an unsubscribe link in the email. Your email address will never be given out to anyone.

This website has more information on the 14th Amendment and its misinterpretation.

Comments 43 Comments »

Clock is Ticking on Las Vegas’ Water Supply

The news coming from the Southern Nevada Water Authority Thursday about the valley’s future water supply is worrisome. Unless we act quickly, there will be no water for hundreds of thousands of Las Vegas Valley residents in just three years.

Startling Water Predictions For Las Vegas

Startling new predictions about running out of water in Southern Nevada has sparked a flood of feedback from across the nation. There has been an overwhelming response from people living here as well as watching online.

It’s disturbing to see the Water Authority’s data, which shows a significant water shortage of drinking water from the Colorado River, even if all of the construction projects are completed on schedule.

Plans to pipe in groundwater from the Spring Valley are moving forward. But once operational in 2012, the pipeline will still not cover the water deficit. Las Vegas comes up short starting in 2010.

Comments 11 Comments »

E-mail It