Ughh, more “homework” everyone 🙂 Just kidding. This is a very interesting comprehensive study done in California regarding immigration and the fluidity of illegal vs legal status as one component of the research. It is a LONG report, so I included, what I thought, was pretty a well rounded summary. I plan on reading the report in full tonight and sharing my thoughts afterwards.
Study: Most legal immigrants were ‘Illegal’ at one time
by: DreamActivist
Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 05:03:55 AM EDTIt appears that most things don’t happen in a STRAIGHT line (neither do brain waves and heart beats FYI).
After my constant repetition of “undocumented or illegal is not a permanent immutable characteristic” this past week, the Public Policy Institute of California has just confirmed the accuracy of the statement.
In a new study based on a survery of 8000 people, the PPIC http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=768 found that 52% of Californians had past experience of living in the country illegally at one time or another. It absolutely smashes the ill-promoted dichotomy of legal/illegal, proving that binary modes of thinking about immigration policy are superficial, baseless and untrue.
“It highlights how overly simplified our understanding of immigrants and immigration can be,” said Hill, who said a stark distinction between “illegal” and “legal” immigrants does not acknowledge the frequent correlation between both categories. “We need to be a little more cognizant of the variety and breadth of experience.”
The ALIPACers are seething. They cannot believe that the lines between legal and illegal can be blurred. After all, we are talking about black and white, engraved-in-stone distinctions, right? You can see the obvious physical, emotional, spritual, intellectual and personality differences between a legal and illegal migrant, right? Some have even gone as far as to say that “if they are going to break simple immigration laws, they will break other laws.” Yes, because if you run a traffic light or drive above the speed limit, it immediately makes you more likely to commit felonies, right? Believe it or not, there is such a thing as “ex-illegals.”
DreamActivist :: Study: Most legal immigrants were ‘Illegal’ at one time
Re-read Plyler v. Doe – The Supreme Court had it right in 1982: The “illegals” of today can become the legal residents of tomorrow. If 26 year old legal opinion can get it right, why can’t the fear-mongering, immigrant-loathing bashers? And based on this study as empirical evidence, immigrant-loathing is an accurate assessment of ALIPAC since it does demonstrate that undocumented migrants work to become legal residents and citizens. Still, the “blood is boiling” over at ALIPAC.No human being can be Illegal. It is not a noun, not a permanent category or classification that reflects the true character of a migrant body. Fluid and subject to change, unauthorized stay can translate into authorized permanent stay in the form of citizenship.
Interesting semantics-in most European languages, you cannot be “illegal” any more than you can be “cold,” “hot,” “old” or “young.” You can only “have” these conditions or “be in the state of” those conditions. English is unique in that you “are” these adjectives. Just an interesting tidbit from a former linguistics minor.
Maybe it because so many currently “legal” residents have at one time been “illegal” is why so many people now refuse to allow any more “amnesty” to be passed into law, and to refuse to allow or invite so many new people to be “illegal” so they can eventually become “legal”. This is why we have un-controlled immigration growth, where the law means nothing.
Since people cannot “rescind” past illegal behavior, once it is determined as being “legal”, all that you can fight is the “illegal” aspect of un-controlled immigration.
Maybe someday we can pass a law that identifies those who were once “illegal”, and deny them citizenship based on their previous false pretenses and unlawful ethics, but I doubt it. Statute of limitation problem here and difficulty proving “illegality” prior to “legal status attainment”, regardless of method.
The issue is, are we going to enforce the “law” to control immigration growth legally or ignore the law and continue to grow exponentially along a path the nation cannot absorb without political and economic ruin by diverse ethnic groups. These “illegal groups and Individuals continue to demand to remain separate and apart from the nation as a group, ignore common law and send signals they are un-intertested in a common national identity. When that happens, new borders are drawn and a conflict or war typically breaks out, if you look at the other nations of the world who have drawn ethnic, religious, and racial cultural and social political boundaries creating conflict and wars over borders and boundaries between “diverse” self-segregated groups with divided national loyalties and militant ethnic group based politics.
Thanks for posting Admin. I can’t keep track of the number of times I have pointed out on this blog that most legal residents have at one time been illegal in response to all the people who say “they don’t have a problem with LEGAL immigrants”.
And Michael, you have exposed yourself as intolerant ignoramus with this statement:
Michael’s statement: The issue is, are we going to enforce the “law” to control immigration growth legally or ignore the law and continue to grow exponentially along a path the nation cannot absorb without political and economic ruin by diverse ethnic groups. These “illegal groups and Individuals continue to demand to remain separate and apart from the nation as a group, ignore common law and send signals they are un-intertested in a common national identity.
What kind of crock of crap is that?! Our nation can’t survive and is headed towards economic ruin “by diverse ethnic groups”? What a load. And they “demand to remain separate and apart?” If that is so, then why would my Hispanic husband marry a white chick and have a mixed kid? Or Admin’s husband or the hundreds of thousands of people who marry outside of their race? It’s attitudes like that against other cultures that is ruining America’s reputation in the world. Wish I had more time to rail, but my son needs me and he is more important than addressing that kind of nonsense.
Perhaps some hispanics don’t assimilate as fast because they feel hostility? I would probably stay with people who spoke my language also. It is the human condition, I believe, to seek a comfort level. Just a former psych major kicking in.
As for the term illegal– It is an adjective. It describes status. Technically, a person cannot be an ‘illegal.’ That usuage is not standard English.
Twinad, you are an English major, aren’t you? Do I have that right?
Emma, 9. June 2008, 17:02
Interesting semantics-in most European languages, you cannot be “illegal” any more than you can be “cold,” “hot,” “old” or “young.” You can only “have” these conditions or “be in the state of” those conditions. English is unique in that you “are” these adjectives. Just an interesting tidbit from a former linguistics minor.
English isn’t unique (If I say “I’m blue” when I’m feeling down, I don’t mean I woke up this morning and I’m the color blue!). The use of the term “illegal” is a propaganda technique.
A classic example of this technique, is renaming estate tax; the death tax, or third trimester abortion; partial birth abortion. The point is to illicit an automatic negative reaction in the audience.
Michael wrote:
“The issue is, are we going to enforce the “law” to control immigration growth legally or ignore the law and continue to grow exponentially along a path the nation cannot absorb without political and economic ruin by diverse ethnic groups. These “illegal groups and Individuals continue to demand to remain separate and apart from the nation as a group, ignore common law and send signals they are un-intertested in a common national identity. When that happens, new borders are drawn and a conflict or war typically breaks out, if you look at the other nations of the world who have drawn ethnic, religious, and racial cultural and social political boundaries creating conflict and wars over borders and boundaries between “diverse” self-segregated groups with divided national loyalties and militant ethnic group based politics.”
Interesting view point. But I’d be curious as to who you expect to pay your social security and medicare in your old age. Our country has a hugh obligation to the baby boomers retiring at ever greater numbers. Unfortunately, social security and medicare are funded by today’s (and future) workers. Because of this our country is going to depend on having enough workers to pay those promised benefits. Put bluntly, american citizens aren’t having enough sex and babies to support our obligations to the baby-boomers and any generation after that. As a consequence, out of economic necessity the United States is going to depend on immigration for a long time to come. The alternative will be an economic disaster of “biblical” proportion.
whoa, frazil. I was just pointing out interesting semantics. Calling someone an “illegal immigrant” is not propaganda. It is simply how our language describes someone who has not entered this country through legal pathways. That is not propaganda, that is truth. The fact that it also has taken on meaning to describe other illegal behaviors that are sometimes engaged in by illegal immigrants–using false documentation, for example–stems from people’s very real–or perceived–experiences. That is how language evolves, like it or not.
“i’m blue” is an idiomatic expression that has nothing to do with the point I was making. And you are comparing apples and oranges when you also throw in “death tax” and “partial-birth abortion.” I’m not sure what else you would like to call someone who has already broken laws by cutting the line in the first place. Most of us can’t just pick and choose the laws we prefer to abide by. When we flaunt laws, that behavior is then described as “illegal.” If you don’t like “illegal immigrant,” then maybe you would prefer the term “criminal,” and leave out the “immigrant” part. Isn’t that what people are called when they break laws?
Twinad and Frazil:
My point is that when you look at the historical and current world condition, diverse ethnic, religious and racial groups align along these political boundaries, advocate for power based on numerical and political advocacy and in the cases of the nation’s fighting wars and conflicts between racial, religious and ethnic groups, they are doing so by political force in numbers that refuse to identify and accept the national identity of those they oppose. This is not the same as “integration” which I advocate for. Integration includes controlled and reasonable immigration growth, international and interracial marriages (I have an inter-racial marriage too), and laws applied equally to everyone. If you do not have this context in mind, you will not understand why I advocate that un-controlled “illegal” immigration, an ethnic group that advocates for “diversity”, difference and legally “diverse laws rather than common laws, has historically put a nation into conflict and war. Evidence of this is in the rest of the worlds racial, ethnic anf religious wars, something you have not had to fight here because the “diverse” political groups aligned along gender, racial, religious, and ethnic hate groups has not reached numerically sufficient numbers to start conflict as they have in the rest of the worlds border “wars”, ethnic and religious wars. That is not a “crock” that is a “reality” for other nations than ours. It will not take much more “diversity” and political differences for us to reach the rest of the worlds conflict levels, and many of those same nations want to do those battles “here” now instead of overseas.
Militant seperatism and demanding ethnic separation and separate laws is not what I advocate for. I advocate for “integration” and that is a different national stability concept based on the history of other nations of the world, including “ours” which in the recent past promotes integration over “dis-integration” into separate conflicting racially, ethnically, religiously aligned political groups. We have remained peaceful because of this, but we are losing this social concept quickly.
Having enough workers is fine, I just don’t advocate they be “illegal”. The US has to be smarter with fewer, rather than poorer with more low skilled workers. That is the problem with “illegal” immigration, it is not based on ability, IQ, performance, aptitude, etc, it is based only on “law-breaking”. Some would argue that does not give us very competitive workers to take on the rest of the world and pay our “social security” with only low wage earners determined only by “illegal” behavior.
When in Rome, do as the Romans do…………….. or pay the consequences! They’re now paying the consequences. Too bad. I’m tired of this whole debate. It’s never ending, and just goes round in circles. It boils down to two schools of thought. One says people are human and therefor should be allowed to go and do as they please, the other says we have laws and standards of conduct that all humans should adhere to no matter where they come from. I’m for adhering to the laws and standards I was raised by as an American, and could care less about being expected to make all others of the world feel at home in my own country at my expense of time and effort. It’s an honor to live in this country, and if they have to jump through a few hoops to be allowed that privilege then so be it! Learn our language and post your signs in same. In short, try to be an American in America. What is so wrong with that? Not much to ask I say.
But SA,
As long as there have been humans, connected by some “tribal” form, there have been laws. And many of those laws have been unjust. Could it be that we are experiencing one of those times today, that our immigration laws are unjust?
I have to agree with SecondAlamo,
“I’m tired of this whole debate. It’s never ending, and just goes round in circles. It boils down to two schools of thought.”
I will add that the people in between will alway be caught up in trying to be open minded when agreeing with a little bit of this or a little or that, AGAIN NEVER ending.
I am more worried about the economy instead of the difference between tomato/tomato.
Elena, how much slack would you be willing to give someone who, God forbid, broke into your home? Would it depend on their personal circumstances?
Emma,
Breaking into my home is NOT the same as being in the country without documenation. There are clearly levels of illegality. How do you feel about mothers and fathers, risking everything, to put food on the table for their children, by working their fingers to the bone in this country? What would you be willing to do to give your children a better life?
Elena,
With all do RESPECT
“here have been laws. And many of those laws have been unjust. Could it be that we are experiencing one of those times today, that our immigration laws are unjust?”
“Breaking into my home is NOT the same as being in the country without documenation. There are clearly levels of illegality. How do you feel about mothers and fathers, risking everything, to put food on the table for their children, by working their fingers to the bone in this country? What would you be willing to do to give your children a better life?”
WHAT about the PEOPLE who DO follow the law as unjust and changing as it maybe?
This is the CORE of the wound.
Would it be alright if I decided to get a case of the F’it’s and act out what I think is unfair?
You know I respect you 🙂 but seriously, when and where is it okay to feel justified to be defiant and at what LEVEL?
Did you see the WJLA special last night? A lot of those “illegal” immigrants were not here to put food on the table. They were here to rake in the dough to go back home and live like millionares.
This is a fairly ******* thread here. It means something?
Does anyone remember the movie ” Falling Down with Michael Douglas? 🙂
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdyBOmER0gA
posted by Red Dawn
disclaimer, no I am not going to go off an a rampage
Here is an example Red Dawn,
It was illegal to drink from a “white” only water fountain, or sit at a “white” only counter. It was “illegal” not to give up your seat in a bus if a white person had to stand. Rosa Parks went to jail for refusing to give up her seat. I always ask myself, what would I have done, if that had been me. Living in a time of moral unrest, we don’t have the luxury of hindsight, we must act as we believe our moral code requires us to behave. I believe, very firmly, this is one of those times. There are so many broken components of our immigration system. Do I believe that all people who are here without proper documentation deserve to be here, well or course not. But I believe that the majority of people here are hardworking. I know several people who were once “illegal” and now are incredible assests to this society. I am not blind to the problems that exist, but ” illegal is illegal” is not a credible response to this human issue.
Elena,
Okay, and I get that TOTALLY but I could argue that LIFE is to short and why struggle?
As smart ass as that may sound but the TRUTH is that many are working their fingers to the bone and trying to make a better life NOT only for our kids but ourselves and trying to help out those in need.
This is where something has to give. Does it come down to everyones PERSONAL situation?
I know that I could not go and talk to anyone that would HELP me, they would understand MY situation. I know That I could HELP someone else but I cannot HELP their situation.
( as an example)
P.S. BELIEVE ME, I GET MORE SATISFACTION TRYING TO HELP SOMEONE
YOO HOO, 9. June 2008, 23:06
Great movie!! I think we’ve all one of those days, and haven’t acted on it.
You know Red Dawn,
I don’t have the answer to your question, but I can only tell you how I feel. I feel compelled to put myself in other people’s situations. I feel for Anon/LPOW as much as I feel for the illegal aliens who are truly struggling and working hard to find a better life. “There but for the grace of G-d go I”
Elena,
I can’t argue with that as it comes down to morals. People KNOW what is RIGHT and WRONG down deep. I do and will not give up who I am for the sake of and I know that the greatest SATISFACTION is following my heart.
I just need a time out of this debate as I do see that it is a sit and spin situation and I really don’t think any of us are going to be able to do anything about it.
Money talks and there are allot of whispers behind closed doors.
Elena, 9. June 2008, 23:13
Poor example. You cannot compare slaves to the invaders of today. It just won’t fly, no matter how you try to spin it.
corr: “You should not compare that “era” to the invaders of today….”
Time for bed – obviously.
Rosa Parks was not a slave stw.
But why stw, is one era of moral struggle so different from any other? How do you know that THIS is not one of those times?
Elena,
Because Black people weren’t in this country illegally! You just can’t get that through your head can you.
SA,
What you can’t understand is that during the civil rights era, there were plenty of people who still resisted their full membership into society based on fear and ignorance. We are all faced with moral dilemas, this is no different.
Elena, also with respect (thank you Redawn), just because you feel our immigration laws are “unjust” doesn’t mean that absolutely everyone here feels the same. While I think our immigration laws are outmoded, I don’t think they are unjust. Those laws have been reviewed and ruled upon by every level of our court system up to the Supreme Court, so what makes then “unjust” in a legal sense? If you are objecting in a moral sense, then that is your opinon but our interpretation of morality may not match – and neither one of us has the right to put our morals on the other, hence the importance of the legal rulings from our courts. But in both our opinions, the laws need to be reformed. BUT, that does not give 12 million people the right to come here and stay. If I found Canada’s immigration policies to be unjust, would I have the right to move into Canada and just stay??
I empathize with immigrants, not being far removed from one myself and I too, would come here illegally to better my life, but all of those factors do not make it right, there are consequences for illegal behavior. I know it will take compromise to end this stalemate, but welcoming everyone who wants to come here illegally is not compromise, its chaos.
But that resistance back then was still WRONG because it involved trying to exclude people who were originally brought here against their will and enslaved. You CANNOT compare that to illegal immigrants, who come here mainly for the golden goose egg, and who are not forced over the border. This is VERY different, and I would imagine many African-Americans would find this comparison quite offensive.
There was a compromise, it was called the Kennedy/McCain immigration legislation. It failed.
But Emma,
Back then people thought they had the law on their side. People DIED figting for what you believe was a no brainer. It was a tumultuous time, when national guardsmen were needed to protect black students as they went to an all white University. Do you think that people then didn’t make their legal arguments?
Lucky Duck,
I am not suggesting we let the world in, but how is this immigration migration different from the millions that came here during the great potato famine in Ireland? Latin American countries are suffering, and NAFTA certainly has not helped. Doesn’t anyone want to know why the immigration numbers have been increasing? Don’t you we want to know if we can help build up these countries so that people will not have to risk their lives to come here?!
It’s not the same. Their ancestors were brought here in chains, and those who struggled in the 50’s and 60’s were as American as I am. They deserved the same rights as everyone else. I did not say that the people making the legal arguments were right. You are talkng about apples and oranges.
Elana,
I know you mean well, but think about this for once from the perspective of someone other than the “illegal” immigrant.
To illustrate let’s go back to “tribal days”. If your tribe staked out a hunting area that was rich in game and it’s richness was only enough to support your tribe at a sustainment level, you as a young “brave” or member of the tribe would protect it from loss and dilution of “richness” or your other fellow tribal members would suffer and have to deal with less than peaceful prosperity.
Now lets say a neighboring tribe, one who is not friendly, not welcome, and wants only to take your limited resources for themselves, comes onto this hunting ground and “takes” what they want when you are not looking or have not given permission to take or to join the tribe. Whould you not as a tribal member fight that person in order to preserve your own welfare and the welfare of your family and tribe, instead of allow this welfare to be taken from you without permission and transferred to others?
In a basic human nature sense is that immoral? Is it immoral for the “invading tribe” to steal your resources without asking?
I offer you that this very basic human nature is why all tribes and “nations” create borders. They do so to protect the general welfare, from all enemies foreign and domestic. This is also the very basic human emotion why people fight wars over these resources and draw boundaries between those “tribes” that are unwelcome and un-invited and who refuse to become a contributing member of your tribe, follow your customs, spreak your language and hold your value and belief systems in high esteem. All tribes who do not do this will require a border or property boundary to prevent “theft” of your claimed and personal resources that support your general welfare.
Would you be member of the tribe that would say, let the foreign tribes take our resources, they need it more than we do. I will feed my children less and have a lower quality of living so I can ensure everyone from all other tribes in the world has the same level of wealth. This is the ultimate in tribal socialism, as has existed no-where in the world, no-where in history and no-where without conflict and war eventually breaking out between the tribes that “take” and the tribes that are taken from.
Now apply that same concept to modern “morality”, understand why all nations and the US has a border, and why the US has a quota on Immigration that CANNOT be exceeded without harming the general welfare and current residents that own this land.
Our immigration law allows for immigration, and because of this it is just and moral. It does not allow for “uncontrolled” and un-authorized immigration, that is not just, and not moral when you include what it takes away from all those citizens and legal residents the immigration law was written to protect. If you ignore this law, any thief will come in the night, the numbers will grow exponentially and without remorse, until the impact is felt in local poverty, loss of wealth, loss or resources and loss of the general welfare.
You can only sympathize with those raiding “tribes” when your are either a member of those tribes and/or do not care about the level of poverty and loss of welfare for the rest of the 360 million people in this nation.
“illegal” immigration willnever be a solution to world peace, it will only lead to conflict and war. Just look at every other nation in this world that is fighting religious, cultural, ethnic group wars and you will understand it is over “resources” and “border security” to maintain a boundary between those that get along peacefully and legally, and those that do not get along peacefully and maintain disdain for the nation’s or “tribes” law.
I am at a loss for how you social engineering advocates have ever found evidence in the world or in history that this mis-guided sympathy for “illegal” behavior and for “illegal migration” creates peace and prosperity. I have seen it create only disharmony, dis-integration, anger with un-equitable laws, anger with people who take things that are not theirs and anger at those who would seek to undermine everyone else’s welfare just so they can “get ahead” just for themselves.
You logic of “morality” escapes me. It is only one-sided. Moral is following the common law that protects everyone equally. This is why the law allows for legal immigration but prevents “illegal” immigration, to protect everyone the same from outright theft.
Then I have to ask the inevitable question…one none of you ever seem to have a reasonable answer for.
What would happen to the world if every country immediately removed its borders and just let people migrate wherever they want to go?
I can tell you the answer, based on historical evidence, even if you refuse to believe it.
There would be immedate slums, famine, tent cities, lost jobs, no jobs, ethnic turmoil, religious conflict, property theft, murder for limited resources, a huge underground black market, criminal crime rings, loss of property to “squatters”, immediate civil unrest, immediate ethnic and religious group conflict and warfare, the emergence of warlords, the loss of natiional cohesion, legal framework, justice, police corruption, killing of judges, killing of goverment leaders, coups and political groups that become militant and struggle for power and wealth using a “crime ring” mentality.
Some of this already happens with “illegal” immigrants because they are not legal and absorbed at a rate the nation can sustain. These are symptoms of out of control migration.
How do I know this? It has happened every time in history an “exodus” has occurred from one nation of lower poverty into another of greater wealth. The only way these nations can absorb and survive intact without warfare and conflict, these mass “illegal” migration “diasporas” is they are smaller by a great factor than the original population and severely limited to very isolated locations by a nation’s army forcing them to remain in a small contained area until “jobs”, crops and other resources can absorb the huge shock to the nation’s welfare.
Is this really what you social enginers want? No border and un-controlled growth. If you do I wish all of you the misery of such a condition and situation to teach you all to be much wiser and learn the lessons of history and human nature the hard way.
The easy way to learn is to listen to people who understand the world situation better and human nature better and learn from them not to slit your own throats out of ignorance of the human behavior of the world.
emma wrote:
“whoa, frazil. I was just pointing out interesting semantics. Calling someone an “illegal immigrant” is not propaganda. It is simply how our language describes someone who has not entered this country through legal pathways. That is not propaganda, that is truth.”
As you point out in a your previous post: ” Interesting semantics-in most European languages, you cannot be “illegal” any more than you can be “cold,” “hot,” “old” or “young.” You can only “have” these conditions or “be in the state of” those conditions.”
English is no different as it is an Indo-European, West Germanic language originating in England.
The propaganda technique employed is called labeling, which is defined as arousing prejudices in an audience by labeling the object of the propaganda campaign as something the target audience fears, hates, loathes, or finds undesirable.
It is the same technique used when labeling the estate tax – death tax.
To avoid propaganda they should be called “undocumented” not illegal. A person can not be illegal. Their actions might be illegal, but they themselves are not. As you pointed out previously. But of course that would not have the same emotional effect.
Got it the first time, frazil. I get it. You missed my point entirely.
Yup, guess I missed it. I thought your point was that English is difference from other European languages. It isn’t. Then I thought your next point was that use of the term “illegal” immigrant wasn’t a form of propaganda. It is.
What point were you trying to make?
Elena, the world was a different place a century and a half ago, laws were different and those people who did arrive came through ports with and were documented here. They didn’t come across some land border and slip into American society.
I don’t think it is incumbent upon American society to build up South and Central American nations. I think we give enough aid to them and the rest of the world. Funny how they rail against American imperialism yet take all of our aid throughout the world. We should find out why the numbers of illegals are increasing and if we are doing something to abet that, then we can adjust our policies as necessary. But if El Salvador or Mexico or Honduras are doing something to push its citizens out, do we have to pay for the fix? I’d rather spend the money securing the border to limit access.
And Michael, do you feel you are that wise sage that we should be listening to about how the world works? Just curious.
I didn’t know that “illegal immigrant” was a form of propaganda. Is it? What do you call someone in this country illegally?
how far back do you all wish to take this “illegal isnt illegal” argument, back to the times of jesus? illegal is determined by statutes and common law. if they are illegal in the eyes of the law (state or federal) then they are illegal. so “illegal is illegal”
Lucky Duck,
How exactly was the world a different place in relation to immigration one hundred years ago? I have said this, only somewhat in””tongue and cheeck” to SA, the only difference was that Ellis Island was surrounded by water and our southern border is sand. So set up locations where you can document people and you have “ellis island”. I am not necessarily advocating that, but I am suggesting that it is only a matter of geography.
Elena, the difference was that 100 years ago the population was about 80,000,000. Today it’s well over 300,000,000 and we are getting around 500,000 illegal immigrants every year. In 1980 the population was about 230,000,000 which is 70,000,000 less than today. So in the last 28 years our population growth alone was almost the entire population of the US 100 years ago. How many can we really take in? There must be a limit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_Population_Graph_-_1790_to_2000.svg
… sorry, forgot to mention that the 500,000 illegal immigrants each year are both people illegally entering the country and expired visas and such.
No junkyard, the wise sages are the people who wrote the law for “illegal” immigration. The best and brightest in our nation supposedly advising Presidents and Senators and Congressman on the best interests of the nation, why we have a border, why we fight a Terrorist War, why we fight “Communisim and socialism” and why we implement market economy, why we have a Constitution and how we should interpret it from a legal standpoint, Why we fight muslim terrorists in Afganistan, Iraq, Why we are very concern about Venezuela, Iran and N Korea, Somalia, Chad, Bosnia, Niger, Malaysia, Myanmar, Packistan, India, all the nations on the Third Tier Intelligence list of nations to be concerned about, why the world and world’s leaders behave the way they do and why we have to protect ourselves from other nations and the individuals of those nation’s aggression, and why we even need a PATRIOT act. None of this information or wisdom filters into the decision of social engineers to “open the border” and think that all gender, racial, religous and ethnic groups can get along fine by applying different laws to them (ignore the immigration law and other laws) and feel no conflict could possibly erupt in the US from un-equal application of the existing law or if the population of these aggressive nation’s militant “people” reach significant numbers here in the US.
I only re-iterate to this group what I read from other sources and hear from other people I know a lot smarter than I am.
Now if you are asking me if I am smarter than “SOME” of the people on this blog? Yes. I have a military career and education in the world that can provide evidence of that experience and wisdom that I am also drawing from. I have a personal interest to help our nation survive these global impact issues and in the interest of preserving it from potential political and financial self-destruction from grass roots ignorance.
hello, very good point. A very ominous series of related and un-related studies and interviews with leading world economists and “think tanks” was done to attempt to determine the number of people our “economy” could sustain and the world’s resources could sustain if everyone in the world (6 Billion people) lived the lifestyle and spent the resources that only the 360 million people in the US do. Do you know what the sustainment number (without a decline in current poverty) was at our standard of living? 800 million, just 800 million!
What were the recommendations of the studies and interviewers? The world MUST reduce its birth rate to reduce 6 billion people to a sustained WORLD population of only 800 Million if we are all going to live with the lifestyle we have now. If we ALL get the socialist lifestyle that the social engineers want us to all EQUALLY have (ethnic, gender, religious and racial numbers balancing again). This the the social enginers dream for world peace and ultimate socialism. Of couse withoutn a market economy creating rish and poor peole that growth will not happen and we will all since even lower into poverty. IF we do not stop having babies at the current rate the religions of the world encpourage us to, we will eventually have ALL nations of the world (even the best and brightest) have only enough resources to have all of us live at roughly a standard of living of $10,000 US dollars per year, way below the current poverty level. Now that means the rest of the world will ALSO make an equivalent wealth of 10,000 US dollars as the wages equalize globally in a global trade and resource usage economy. (much wealtier than they are now). If we reach 50 billion (in 50 years) we will all starve and the human race will likely die. The only way for any nation to avoid this outcome is to have a border, dominate the acess to resources and protect its resources (oil and consumables) and to protect behind a border only its own 800 million people from the rest of the 6 billion to 50 billion that will emerge if the rate of birth (and death) does not change. When people realize this, most of the world will likely go to war to be the nation that has the 800 million people that live at our current standard of living. The most likely nation’s that will be able to do this are the Soviet Union, China, India (because of its cheap but highly intelligent labor), and possibly Saudia Arabia (in a muslim union of nations). The US because it has no cheap labor relative to the rest of the world (it can’t if we want to maintain our current standard of living) will sink to an average income of current povery level wages. This is especially what will happen if we “open” our borders and accelerate this ultimate outcome as the world’s wage scales go global, and trade goes global. Only the international banks and private equity investors will have the richest owners and global companies positioned to use the cheapest labor in the world (in those above nations) will become the richest from technical innovation brough to their country by investment in cheap intellectual labor. Interesting statement by a CEO of one of these mega-companies. “the ideal factory would be a “barge” we move to the next developing nation’s offshore port.”
If you want to understand what is going to happen follow with extreme caution what private equity investment companies like “The Carlyle Group” are doing behind closed doors, and what prominant current “politicians” have either been or will soon be on their “Board of Directors”. There is no way to stop this, and “illegal” immigration is only going to make it worse, because it does not infuse “cheap” intellectual labor into the US. It only infuses “people willing to break the law” into the nation because they are desperate for a job.
So, now we are getting to a whole other topic? Population control is at the crux of this issue? I am intrigued by this melding of immigration and population control and want to do some research before I comment. We all know that the baby boomer generation will be retiring or “moving on” to the next cycle of life in the next decade. What does this mean to our population, our ability to care for the elderly, our need to replace their labor market contributions?
An interesting sideline prediction that is my opinion only (no source for this): The first nation with cheap highly intellectual labor (or even ours with expensive intellectual labor) to get off of oil and get rid of the speculation in pricing of the oil futures market that has noting to do with the cost of getting crude out of the ground will become the richest. That also means drilling the alaska oil will not save us in the next 20-30 years it will take to get it to market and develop the technology to do it, because the futures brokers will artificialy manipulate the market to keep in high no matter what it cost to get it out of the ground as global demand for it increases and continues to artificially inflate a “future” price based on speculation and gambling) The nation that first sheds consumable “un-sustainable” or renewable, re-cycled energy dependancy, and onto solar or other re-newable energy, AND continues to invest aggressively in its OWN intellectual capital, not foreign intellectual capital, will be the richest and most peaceful nation in the world IF it maintains racial, gender, religious and ethnic group political stability, maintains a market economy and does not adopt a socialist economy. The rest of the world will have huge population die-offs as we approach 50 billion people from lack of resources to sustain 50 billion people, and these nations will not survive unless they reduce significantly the number of people per acre that can only live at a poverty level off the available fertile farmland. The nation’s that will likely have the highest poverty levels and smallest fertile land masses (like Chad, Niger, Iceland, Somolia, Malaysia, Indonesia, Chile, Senegal, Taiwan, Korea and Japan, etc) will deplete the oceans and rivers of food within 50 years in desperation for food and will not be able to buy it at the high prices it will be traded between rich and wealthy nations..Red Lobster restuarants will quickly dis-appear unless they can some-how convert to expensive sustainable seafood farming and prevent “toxins” from developing nations destroying the food source. China’s seafood is now banned just for this reason. All US rivers are currently too toxic for fish consumption of more than 8 oz. per month. Most rivers in the rest of the world’s developing nations and the Mediterranean Sea are more toxic than US rivers and yet we get these foods now from Malaysia, Thailand, Chile, Argentina and Alaska. This will add to the scarcity and higher prices of internationally traded food traded to the highest bidder. If the US economy declines significantly relative to the emerging wealthy nations, with larger populations of highly intellectual populations, the US will not be one of those bidders who can afford the price of food or sustain a population that cannot live off the available farmland acreage. It is highly unlikely technology will save us as we will run out of resources before we run out of smart people who live in those nations where investors are pumping intellectual capital and innovation into their economies, and not ours. Microsoft alone put $5Billion dollars into India’s intellectual capital. That knowledge is no longer in the heads of US engineers.
It simply means Elena we have to reduce our ratio or population of “unskilled” labor to “skilled intellectual labor” ratio, and retain or promote “intellectual capital” into the smartest people we can get into this country by investing in them instead of foreign labor, and instead of allowing “illegal” immigration (population determined by people who break the law) to increase our population significantly, without increasing our intellectual capital signicantly by investing in internal innovative technological education (not social education). This has nothing to do with gender, race, religion, or ethnic group infusion or “illegal” immigrant infusion, but infusion of only the people who demonstrate the highest aptitude, skill, innovation and ability, while we reduce and keep the population smaller and smaller, paying wages higher and higher for the average employee. The problem is “illegal” immigration is making this ratio slide the other way in the US with no intellectual capital investment like that happening in India, China, Russia, Korea, Venezuela and Japan where they are attempting (especially China aqnd Japan) to reduce their populations. They understand, we do not.
The rest of the world does not have a baby boom problem that coincides with ours. Our baby boomers are going to have to “work until they die” or not survive the wage decline that will come with a huge surge of “unskilled” illegal alien workers that determine our population by law breaking, our intellectual capital potential, and social security wage amounts by people who “break the law”, and earn “less” rather than “more” income from which social security wages are drawn from. We will slit our own throats with social engeering sympathy for “illegals”, and not instead wisely using selective and “controlled” “legal” immigration of the best and brightest of the world, and especially providing incentives for our own best and brightest to do “more with less” technical innovation investment. WE will lose wages relative to the rest of the world’s gains if we do not significantly reduce population and significantly increase our “highly intellectual innovative worker” to “low skilled labor ratio.