A half billion, at least half imported, will (and already is) not America.
50% in 53 years? That’s a bit substantial. Gonna need a lot more governent to administer all of the social services they will demand. Nice way to keep wages down as well.
Uh, does anyone remember voting for this to happen, or voting for an elected representative who advocates that this come about? I don’t.
From what I heard an average child birth per woman in Mexico is 2 and a average child birth per woman alien in the US is 5.
The assumption I get is welfare pays enough to have more children.
***********************EXCERPTs***********************
Founded in 1985 as a think tank to support the more activist work of the anti-immigrant Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), CIS is dedicated "to expand the base of public knowledge and understanding of the need for an immigration policy that gives first concern to the broad national interest. The Center is animated by a pro-immigrant, low-immigration vision which seeks fewer immigrants but a warmer welcome for those admitted."
CIS describes itself as “independent” and “nonpartisan,” but its studies, reports, and media releases consistently support its restrictionist agenda and works closely on Capitol Hill with Republican Party immigration restrictionists. However, CIS has achieved credibility with the media and in think tank circles because of its lack of the kind of strident anti-immigrant rhetoric associated with many restrictionist groups, its willingness to invite pro-immigrant voices to its forums, and the scholarly format of its reports.
Members of its board of directors are: Patrick Burns, Thomas C.T. Brokaw, George Grayson, David Simoz (chair and president), Carol Iannone, Otis Graham (co-chair), Peter Nuñez, Frank Morris, William Chip, Jacquelye Jackson, Vernon Briggs, Scott McConnell, and Willard Fair. Steven Camarota is director of research, and Mark Kirkorian (formerly a policy expert with FAIR) is executive director. Annual revenues in 2002 were $898,810. (1)
Origins, History, and Impact
The Center for Immigration Studies was founded in 1985 as a spin-off of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). Another FAIR spin-off is the Immigration Reform Law Institute, which functions as the litigation arm of FAIR, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. (3)
CIS publishes books, reports, papers, and monthly backgrounders. Its analysis on such issues as immigrant voting and electoral redistricting, impacts on low-wage and high-skilled workers, and tax impacts are closely followed by immigration experts of all persuasions. In the mid-1990s, immigration restrictionists, boosted by findings of congressional commissions, seemed to be on the verge of passing legislation to turn the legislative tide that had favored immigration flows since the 1986 amnesty. But largely because of lobbying by a right-left, corporate-pro-immigrant coalition in which high-tech industries played a leading role, immigration restrictionist groups likes CIS and FAIR saw their restrictionist agenda die in Congress. Lately, as concerns about the plight of low-wage labor, outsourcing, and national security merge, CIS and restrictionism in general are once again gaining a new hearing in Congress.
“Let’s be clear,” wrote Frank Sharry of the National Immigration Forum, “CIS was birthed by FAIR, the militant anti-immigration group. The CIS executive director moved from FAIR to CIS to head up the organization. Although now independent, the two organizations share the same basic agenda: an American version of what in Europe is called ‘zero immigration.’” According to Sharry, CIS masquerades as an objective, “squeaky clean” think tank, but CIS is “simply churning out high-sounding, low-credibility grist for the high-pitch, low-road anti-immigration forces in the United States.” This assessment of CIS is widely shared among pro-immigrant groups, but CIS studies are not only frequently cited by the “low-road” nativist forces but also by major news media. (4)
CIS has also been critiqued as being part of a network of anti-immigrant groups that cater to a white supremacist constituency by right-wing economic libertarians who believe in the benefits of mass and unfettered immigration. A Wall Street Journal op-ed (June 15, 2004), that was widely praised and circulated by pro-immigrant groups, reported that despite the fact that CIS “may strike right-wing poses in the press,” it and other like-minded groups “support big government, mock federalism, deride free markets, and push a cultural agenda abhorrent to any self-respecting social conservative.” A follow-up article in the Wall Street Journal titled “Borderline Republicans” described the anti-immigration network this way: “CIS, FAIR, NumbersUSA, ProjectUSA—and more than a half-dozen similar groups that Republicans have become disturbingly comfortable with—were founded or funded (or both) by John Tanton. In addition to trying to stop immigration to the U.S., appropriate population control measures for Dr. Tanton and his network include promoting China’s one-child policy, sterilizing Third World women, and wider use of RU-486.” (5) Replying to this charge, Krikorian wrote in National Review Online that CIS does not take a “position on anything that does not involve U.S. immigration policy.” (6)
Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah) has come under sharp criticism by CIS and other immigration restrictionist groups for his pro-immigration positions. According to Cannon, “Tanton set up groups like CIS and FAIR to take an analytical approach to immigration from a Republican point of view so that they can give cover to Republicans who oppose immigration for other reasons.” (5)
Executive director Krikorian, who appears regularly before congressional committees discussing immigration policy, describes himself and CIS as being “conservative” but as not belonging to the “high-immigration Right” as represented by the Wall Street Journal. According to Krikorian, “The high-immigration Right works hand-in-glove with the anti-American Left.” Like many anti-immigrant groups, CIS believes that Corporate America and leftists share a common agenda of open borders, albeit for different reasons. (6)
Funding
Early funding for CIS was channeled through U.S. Inc, a nonprofit established and still directed by John Tanton, who was one of the cofounders of the Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR). (3) Among the right-wing foundations that fund CIS are Sarah Scaife Foundation, John M. Olin Foundation, Jaqueline Hume Foundation, Carthage Foundation, and Scaife Family Foundation. (2)
|
Right Web connections
|
||
|
|
||
|
I know that some may disagree but..........Considering the Electoral Vote when we elect Presidents, I was taught in school that one important reason for it is so that someone that is proven to be a major enemy of our way of life, cannot be elected President. The Electorial College can put a stop to this person getting elected. In other words, if we had a person of Hispanic decent running for President that favored supporting all Mexicans the right to enter this country, uncontrolled, the Electorial College can refuse to allow him/her to be President. Even if California had all of its Electorial votes go for the Hispanic, other states could stop it. I believe that the Electorial College is a safety valve and should be kept in place.
God help us.
The whys are fully understood -- inadequate (to say the least) border enforcement, a huge influx of legal immigration from the Third World since the passage of the Immigration Act of 1965, and anchor baby laws combined with an out-of-control welfare state that encourages new arrivals (both legal and illegal) to have large families.
The idea of over a billion Americans is considered a bad one by many here, but personally see a large American population as one of the most effective ways to keep the United States' preeminent position to the country's will (economically, culturally, and militarily) abroad as China and India rise.
It’s shocking to realize how overpopulated America already is.
Currently, only China and India have more people than America.
California can have 60 million people. Germany--roughly the same size--has about 90 million while still having plenty of rural regions.
It is not too late to return to the pre-insanity levels of 1965.
Surely the prof has come across really, really huge numbers much huger than this.
The RATs love this! More votes for more socialism. It’s nearly over, folks. Hitlery will see to it that the invasion will continue and the borders opened to any and all. The Republic will then die the death.
Beats me how people are still out there thinking there will be no such thing as a NAU style, or equivilent of it, on the horizon.
Each month things keep happening to march us in that direction.
The Pesos for pizza business is opening more around the country. I guess this is how the call for a common currency will happen.
Such a sad thing. Old Hillary will usher in the socalist government. Bushes will take off for Paraguay. Lucky them.
If we have a reproduction problem, let’s encourage citizens to have children, through tax policy, or public service announcements.
From the way it sounds, we need to cap LEGAL immigration as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7WJeqxuOfQ