Minnesotans For Sustainability©

 

Sustainable:  A society that balances the environment, other life forms, and human interactions over an indefinite time period.

 

 

 

Undocumented Workers

Not Needed in Minnesota

 

A Reply to the Humphrey Institute's HACER Study Promoting Illegal Immigration In Minnesota

With Policy Recommendations*

Dell Erickson©
November 30, 2000

 

Table of Contents

Background
Part I:  Population: Growth & Change
   
Population Projections
            Figure 1: Census 2000 Population Projections
       
Immigration & Population Growth
       
Population & Basic Resource Considerations
       
Population Growth & Water
       
Population Growth & Oil
            Figure 2: U.S. Oil
            Figure 3: World Oil
       
Population Growth & Natural Gas
   
The Environmentalist Response: Smart Growth
   
Population Summary
   
Demography Is Destiny
       
Reconquista!

Part II:  The CURA/HACER Plan, Calls for Amnesty & the H-1B Program
   
Amnesty
   
H-1B Program

Part III:  The CURA/HACER Study & Economics
   
General Comments
   
The Lacking Economics of CURA/HACER
   
Immigration, Economics & the American Disadvantaged
   
HACER's Literature Review, the Economics of Immigration & the Poor American
Mass Immigration & its Effects on Black Americans: Importing Racism
   
Final Comments on Immigration, Economics and Poverty
   
Affiliations: The Genesis of the Study

Part IV:  Other Problems of Large Scale Immigration
   
Social Security & Immigration
   
Immigration Threatening the U.S. Systems of Health Care & Insurance
   
Immigration Threatening the Democratic Voting Process
   
Additional Problems of Large-Scale Immigration
Concluding Comments
What must be done?

 

Background

On September 7, 2000 the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute's Center for Urban and Regional Affairs Office (CURA) released the Hispanic Advocacy and Community Empowerment through Research (HACER) report titled, "Undocumented Workers Critical to Sustain Minnesota's Economic Growth", written by James J. Kielkopf. (Hereinafter, this report will be referred to as the CURA/HACER study or plan.)

The position of the report, and as stated in a Minneapolis Star Tribune article on September 12, 2000, was that Minnesota's economy "has become dependent" on illegal immigration, that "40 percent of Minnesota's economic growth" is due to illegal workers, and that for every illegal worker deported a "job held by a Minnesotan would be lost".

With such a series of adventurous assertions, even an uninformed individual may question the study. The conclusions of the study make one wonder how our state and nation could have possibly been so successful over so many generations under traditional immigration policies.

This review finds that the study understates the impact of illegal immigration by misrepresenting a number of items and by sharply limiting its focus serves to avoid numerous negative consequences. Indeed, the negatives are sufficiently compelling to urge a reconsideration of current immigration policies: stopping illegal and legal immigration and removing illegal immigrants from the state (and nation).

The review is composed of three parts. Part I discusses the overarching issue the study overlooked, population growth and its relationships to the state and nation's future well being, and uses water, oil, and natural gas as examples of population related critical resource items. The demographic changes and the fact that the study may be a tactic in a comprehensive strategy, are briefly discussed. Because the ideas in the CURA/HACER study mirror current amnesty and H-1B legislation, Part II discusses the consequences and problems associated with those programs. Part III examines the unconvincing economics of the study and its relationship to other parties. The economic and social cost are substantial, yet were not presented in the study. Special concern is given to legal and illegal immigration's awesome effects on disadvantaged Americans, including racism toward Black Americans. Part III concludes with a discussion of the affiliations and forces behind the study. Finally, Part IV examines several additional items and their relationships to large scale immigration: the funding of Social Security, increasing threats to the nation's health care and insurance industry, and finally the democratic process itself.

Current State of Minnesota and INS policies will also be incorporated in the discussion where appropriate. In general, both the State of Minnesota and the INS have policies and practices which exacerbate the negatives discussed in this review. Indeed, their policies create some of the problems.

Before going further, it should be kept in mind that the subjects of the CURA/HACER study are uninvited in our midst. Their actions demonstrate their disdain for American laws, customs, values, and even other lawful immigrants. They are the worst type of migrant. Because they are illegally in this nation, employers who would hire illegal aliens also demonstrate little regard for law or Americans.

In order to demonstrate the study's lack of well-grounded support, this review begins by briefly presenting four of its deficiencies.

First, is the obvious one that the study is primarily based on hearsay. Because concerned individuals and policymakers will fully realize the possible extent of biased discovery and reporting from using hearsay information, this matter will not be further discussed.

Second, it finds that $311 million of the $1.02 billion of Minnesota tax revenue is for Social Security. In other words, about one-third of the assumed tax revenues don't go into the Minnesota coffers, but to the federal government (more on Social Security in Part IV).

Third, it uses an average of sales as the output value factor. With wonderful candor, the study states that the use of an average is unrealistic because it values the lowest wage individual on par with the highest company officers. The author writes that this is acceptable because "workers can not be replaced at present" yet admits there is little, if any, statistical connection between dollars of sales, low vs. high wages and employment in the affected industries. In other words, the output values and claimed benefits of illegal immigration are acceptably overstated.

Fourth, because it claims that illegal workers benefit the state between $1.56 and $3.8 billion annually, those numbers should be compared with other reputable research findings. The study provided no corroborating data. However, without citing a source, it stated that post 1980 research found that immigration's impact was either neutral or a $10 billion benefit. The statement is correct -coming from a 1997 National Academy of Sciences study (NRC release -more later). If one were to believe the study results, then either the other forty-nine states have a $3.8 billion negative immigration impact, if neutral, or undocumented workers in Minnesota can claim thirty-eight percent of the total national benefit due to both legal and illegal immigration!

The (NAS) NRC report clearly documents that immigration, legal and illegal, can be eliminated without harm to the U.S. economy.

If the reader wanted to stop at this point, it would be understandable -the CURA/HACER study is substantially lacking in academic rigor.

On the other hand, that is not the purpose of the work.

According to the sponsor, the study's function is to "effect critical institutional decision-making and planning" for the Hispanic community.  In other words, suggesting the possible extent of bias, the study clearly states that its basic purpose is to influence state legislation and other immigration related policies favorable to illegal aliens.  Less directly, in the opinion of this reviewer, its purpose is to defend the AFL-CIO and DFL party collaborators who have taken the official position of encouraging mass immigration, promoting illegal immigration, and the H-1B and amnesty agenda now underway in Congress.

In addition, this economic study of undocumented workers is the initial installment of a CURA/HACER series promoting mass legal and illegal immigration in Minnesota (and presumably the nation).

Initially, to promote its agenda HACER performed what is called "press-release journalism".  The purpose of the September 7th press release was to energize the media by providing a few salutary statements and pieces of information with the intention of generating a large number of media reports.   In this manner, it is hoped that the announcement will help convince both policymakers and the general public of the claimed benefits of large-scale illegal immigration.

The sponsors are confident that journalists will not read the study or seek critical reviews from an unbiased source and will base their reporting solely on the press release.  However, in press-release journalism statements can be deliberately biased or misrepresented, limited in scope, and not supported, or weakly supported by the substance of the study or by critical review.  Thus, it becomes the responsibility of subsequent examinations to correct any misunderstandings.  Unfortunately, follow-up reviews frequently lack media coverage.

Although apparently not directly involved, the study was accomplished under the auspices of the University of Minnesota Humphrey Institute.  This is unfortunate but not surprising.  It appears to be representative of the University's and State of Minnesota's approach toward immigration, even illegal immigration.  Minnesota's inattentive policies promote unwise and illegal immigration.  It explains, for example, why since 1996 (in only four years) Minnesota's illegal alien population has almost doubled.  The ease which an illegal alien in Minnesota can obtain fraudulent documents and the fact that there is virtually no state enforcement or prosecution of illegals creates an open door policy and situation that encourages illegal entry.  In addition, various state departments and agencies do not permit employees to report illegals.  On the contrary, an employee who reports an illegal is subject to termination. (See, Testimony of Dell Erickson Before the State of Minnesota House Committee on Civil Law Regarding Illegal Aliens in Minnesota, September 24, 1999, and the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Sept. 25, 1999.)

Similarly, the district INS is not concerned with discovering and deporting illegal aliens.  Unknown to the general public who still believe otherwise the INS has, due to political pressures, metamorphosed from an agency enforcing U.S. borders or employment related immigration laws into an immigrant service agency.  This was clearly stated in a conference held last summer by invitation only (only those involved in promoting immigration and dealing with immigrants, including illegal, were invited) and closed to the public.  It was stated that ninety percent of their activities will involve service and only ten percent enforcement.  As stated by local INS officers, the goal of the INS is to be the initial contact and favored source of providing benefits to both legal and illegal immigrants.

The local INS now acts as a police agent, however only becoming involved if the illegal alien commits a serious crime.  On the other hand, discovery is very unlikely because Minnesota State or local police forces do not ask a lawbreaker or suspect if the individual is lawfully in this country.  In addition, the INS is not dealing with illegal immigration in Minnesota in other than a handful of the most egregious cases rape and murder.  For example, even the large numbers of illegal immigrants recently seen in Cossetta's Restaurant in St. Paul (literally a conduit, 500 over several years) or the Mall of America in south Minneapolis (1200 per INS audit), demonstrate the local INS is deeply involved in wide scale harboring of illegal aliens.  It is difficult for citizens to comprehend such lackadaisical law enforcement none of these known illegals have been deported nor the restaurant or Mall fined.  Furthermore, the Governor's Office has been quiet and the Minnesota Attorney General's office has not only remained silent on the matter, it doesn't have staff assigned to pursue illegal immigration or related activities.
 

Part I:  Population: Growth & Change

The CURA/HACER study ignored the most fundamental of considerations, the burgeoning U.S. population.  Our very existence depends on a sustainable ecological balance between the natural and human impacted environments, yet, continuing population growth jeopardizes that balance.  Clearly, many people understand that population growth in Minnesota and the nation propels staggering social, environmental, and economic changes.

This part begins by presenting the national and Minnesota population numbers and explains that population growth is due to massive legal and illegal immigration.  Because there is compelling scientific and economic doubt that even the existing population level is sustainable, population associations with the critical resources of water, oil, and natural gas are highlighted.  Although severe, the environmental consequences are only very briefly mentioned.  It is reasonable to think that environmental organizations would be in the forefront of the population movement, however, their response to U.S. population growth has either been muffled or to promote population growth, only that it be "smart".  This section concludes with a very brief discussion of the immigration induced demographic and cultural changes ending with an outline of a plan called, "Reconquista", a take over of the U.S.

The geopolitics of energy and its inexorable link with the burgeoning U.S. population is an enlightening method to introduce the topic of U.S. population and looming resource shortages.  The following three news reports illustrate the veneer concealing our population and energy dilemmas.

The first item, regarding Mexican oil imports, appears to be in response to statements made by President Clinton and Vice President Gore regarding illegal and legal Mexican immigration.  Note that Mexico's oil production cannot make a meaningful contribution to the worsening U.S. oil shortfall.  However, Mexico today is, temporarily, the single largest supplier of oil to the U.S.  The second item links an arms deal to appeals for increased oil production and the third connects debt forgiveness and global warming to U.S. natural gas needs.  It should be noted that debt forgiveness is a surreptitious backdoor tax increase.  Because both the DFL and GOP parties have made no mention of this arrangement, it is symptomatic of the serious geopolitical ramifications involved, but which the public may not readily accept.  Apparently, it is also relinquishes an environmental commitment by the current Administration.

•  "[Mexico's] government appears to be concerned that oil prices have climbed too high, threatening Mexico's commercial and political interests in the United States. With the U.S. elections only two months away, Mexico may increase its oil exports as much as possible in order to score political points with Democrats and Republicans in Washington, D.C. ("Mexico to Abandon OPEC Deal?" Stratfor.com Global Intelligence Update, Sept. 12, 2000)

•  "Saudi Arabia suggests it may increase its oil production beyond the recent agreement of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Riyadh has also submitted a request to the United States for a major arms purchase. Evidence suggests Riyadh may be linking its arms request to its willingness to boost oil production." (Stratfor.com Global Intelligence Update, Sept. 12, 2000)

•  "The U.S. Treasury Department announced Sept. 12 an agreement to cancel a portion of Bangladesh's debt. Officially, this is the first use of a U.S. debt-for-nature program, signed into law in 1998, that cuts part of the debt and shifts interest payments for the remainder into a fund for conservation of tropical rainforests. Beyond supporting Bangladesh's rainforests, however, the forgiveness of debt serves a larger U.S. goal ­ convincing Bangladesh to open its natural-gas resources for export." ("Washington Eyes Bangladesh Gas Reserves" Stratfor.com Global Intelligence Update, Sept. 14, 2000.)
 

Population Projections

The issue is overpopulation.  Just how many U.S. and Minnesota inhabitants is a suitable and sustainable number?

Because U.S. population growth could, according to the UN, account for ninety-five percent of all population growth in the developed nations in the next twenty five years, it would seem a problem the State of Minnesota and the nation would directly confront.  In Minnesota we're heading pell-mell toward a population of maybe fifteen million.

To summarize, in contrast to the rapid and unending population growth position of the CURA/HACER plan, this review finds that the current population is unsustainable and that the demographic changes now underway will terminate in a nation unrecognizable by today's U.S. citizens.

In 1972, the ground breaking "Rockefeller Commission Report" found there was no benefit from increasing the U.S. population and called for stopping U.S. population growth.  It was soon overshadowed by the most important population study ever undertaken in the U.S., the President Nixon sponsored "National Security Study Memorandum 200" (1974).  The purpose of NSSM 200 was to evaluate if population growth, U.S. and world, posed a threat to the U.S.  Not surprisingly, the report found that population growth certainly was a threat.  Two of its recommendations were that the U.S. provide world population leadership and that the U.S. achieve a stationary population by the year 2000.  On the international scene, its comprehensive recommendations actually formed the basis of the recommendations proposed by all subsequent UN sponsored conferences. (See, "Population and the American Future", Commission on Population Growth and the American Future. 1972. Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office. And, "The Life and Death of NSSM 200: How the Destruction of Political Will Doomed a U.S. Population Policy", Stephen D. Mumford. Center for Research on Population and Security, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 1996).

Evidently the vision for the U.S. of the CURA/HACER organization, the Star Tribune, and some economists appears to be a crowded one with far fewer choices and freedoms.  As recently as 1970, the U.S. population was nearly seventy five million smaller than today's 277 million with over forty million of that increase due to immigration.  The population of the U.S. is now increasing by almost 250,000 every month.  Minnesota's population is increasing at the rate of about 5,000 every month, or about a city the size of Minneapolis every five years.  Under current growth assumptions the Census Bureau projects that by the year 2050 the U.S. population will more than double, increasing another 280 million inhabitants, before reaching over a billion in only fifty more years.  The tremendous increase has not and will not be due to native born fertility.  On the contrary, the preponderance of those additional inhabitants will be due to immigration derived from the 1965 immigration laws, that is, post-1970 immigrants and their descendants.

On the other hand, had the pre-1965 INS laws continued -and no "amnesties"- the U.S. population would be more than forty million smaller than today and well on the path to achieving an ecologically sustainable and economically viable population level and cohesive society.  The state of Minnesota is following the national pattern.

In the following three Census Bureau population projections and associated graph, bear in mind that demographers estimate the time required to stop our population growth as more than fifty years and likely ten to twenty years longer, after a policy is implemented to stop U.S. population growth.  This demographic fact is called population momentum, and is illustrated by the number three projection below where it is assumed the changes have already taken place, yet population continues growing for fifty more years before beginning a very slow decline.

1.)  The current rate of U.S. immigration and fertility is generally consistent with the highest projection.  This projects another doubling in only fifty years, 553 million in 2050 and 1.2 billion in 2100. (See Census Release NP-T1, Jan. 13, 2000.)

2.)  Under the mid-level assumptions of similar fertility as today and one-fourth to one-third lower immigration, the Census projects the nation's population to reach at least 300 million by 2011, 404 million in only fifty years and 571 million in 2100.

3.)  On the other hand a more pleasant (less adverse!) scenario is depicted with the lowest population growth projection assuming slightly reduced fertility and little immigration.  It shows a more comfortable 314 million in 2050 and 283 million in the year 2100.

According to all polls, this last projection is the U.S. Americans overwhelmingly support.

Figure 1: Census 2000 Population Projections


Chart courtesy of Midwest Coalition to Reform Immigration < http://www.immigrationreform.org/ >.
 

It needs to be understood that the current Census uses the same assumptions regarding illegal immigration as in the previous Census, 450,000 each year.  However, Newsweek reported in a 1999 article regarding the smuggling of illegal aliens that the number is probably twice and possibly three times larger.  Therefore, any of the projections are likely very understated and could help explain the motivation behind the CURA/HACER program.

If we quadrupled the current population of 277 million in this century, the U.S. would have a population larger than today's India.  That phenomenal demographic transformation will exacerbate virtually every environmental dilemma indeed, making some environmental dilemmas irreversible and others irreparable, and will challenge virtually every aspect of American life.  Minnesota's eco-systems, biodiversity, losses of natural areas, the destruction of valuable farmland, increasing pollution and traffic gridlock, school overcrowding and construction needs, increasing taxes, and spreading cities have already reached serious dimensions because of our growing population.  Moreover, many knowledgeable authorities argue that environmental, economic and social disintegration could be the unavoidable repercussions unless an appropriate population policy is implemented soon.

This has been an incredible surge, considering that since 1972 Americans have had below replacement-level fertility.  The National Institute of Health reports, for example, that the average fertility of native-born Americans has been below replacement level, around 1.8, since the early 1970's.  On the other hand, other than Asian and Indian, many recent immigrants, asylees, and refugees are averaging double that fertility.

Developments now well underway in California should serve to illustrate how Minnesota's natural, social, and economic environments suffer from an increasing population.  The economic, social, and natural infrastructure must be built to support every additional individual from whatever source.  Whether it's schools, medical facilities, or power generation or transportation, recreation, or government services, the land requirements and construction cost will be enormous.

The present cost of caring for immigrants is at least $88 billion per year, far more than taxes paid by immigrants.  The current taxpayer paid subsidies requires capitalizing infrastructure building exceeding that of the post war-baby boom.  With diminishing resources, the payment for these staggering infrastructure cost by our children and their children will become increasingly difficult.  In addition, many costs -such as second-rate schools and quality of graduates, are not directly addressed by the pricing system.

For over a generation, American parents have accepted a future with fewer Americans believing this to be in their children's and nation's best interest.  Unfortunately, neither the CURA/HACER plan nor recent immigrants share this important value; indeed they prey on that environmental and economic clear-sighted good sense.

It is Minnesota and federal government population policy that has created this unimpeded growth; however, it is not destiny, this population craziness does not have to be and it can be quickly dealt with by changing government policy.  Policymakers, maybe it's time to ask Minnesotans to participate in a population growth referendum!
 

Immigration & Population Growth

According to Census Bureau data, not only is immigration responsible for much of the population change so evident today, it is clearly the dominate factor in all the population projections.  For example, post-1970 immigrants and their descendants will account for an astonishing ninety percent of all population growth between now and 2050.  Today, the figure is over seventy percent.  Reflecting massive immigration, excluding illegals, today we have about twenty-eight million recent immigrants, who represent about ten percent of the total population. That's more than twice the percentage since only 1970.

Over the last thirty years, mass legal and illegal immigration has accounted for more than forty million additional residents.  Discounting illegal immigration, this is approximately four times the historical average.

Located at the Northern edge of the nation's heartland, the effects of large scale national immigration on Minnesota is reflected in lower relative percentages and only beginning to be conspicuous to the public.  Nevertheless, the foreign born in Minnesota grew 207 percent between 1990 and 1997, a rate of more than twenty-five percent per year.  In Minnesota, annual legal immigration today counts for slightly over twenty percent of direct population growth and their offspring, on the order of another ten percent.  The percentages are rapidly growing and they do not include the rapidly increasing number of illegal aliens.

Symptomatic of Minnesota's promotion of legal and illegal immigration were the state demographer's statements downplaying its extent in the release for the October, 1999 state population data.  The timing of the release could have been an attempt to downplay the coming Census projections to be released two months hence.  (Legislators reading this paper will want to review my Oct. 23, 1999 E-mail, with the subject heading of "New report on MN population").

One might speculate that the timing and the disingenuous language used by the State and Star Tribune to describe the population report was related to the ongoing (month long) Minneapolis Foundation and Star Tribune's enormous pro mass immigration "Minnesota Nice" campaign highly depreciating of Minnesota citizens!

In order to publicly downplay the awesome effects the State's study, the language of the release was very cleverly crafted.  For example, it described the growth rate saying it "slowed in the last century".

In saying "slowed in the last century," they are comparing the massive immigration in the late 1900's with the situation over the hundred year time period.  It is strange they would go back that far, four or five generations.  It is odd they neglected to mention that, unlike today, between one-third and one-half of these turn-of-the-century migrants were very temporary workers, choosing to return home within one, two, maybe three years.  Unlike the swelling number of illegals today, in yesteryear there was virtually no illegal immigration.  It is strange the state did not contrast the numbers in the two periods.  In addition, unlike the earlier period, today neither Minnesota nor the U.S. has resource surpluses: in fact our overriding concerns now deal with how to cope with population induced social, economic, and environmental dilemmas.

Contrary to the state's public descriptions, Minnesota's rate of population increase has actually been increasing since 1970:

1998:   4,780,000,  9.2% increase
1990:   4,375,099,  7.3% increase
1980:   4,075,970,  7.1% increase

The increasing rate of population growth in Minnesota since 1970 mirrors the immigration developments at the national level over the same period.  Some of that increase is from native-born Americans and some is by citizens coming from other states some are Whites and Blacks fleeing high immigration impacted areas.

The growing Balkanization and social disharmony of Minnesota (and the nation) would seem an important consideration of the demographer's office and state population policies.  At the turn of the century, half the Minnesota population, the release noted, was foreign born Swedes, Norwegians, and German and the total population over ninety-nine percent White.  Unwilling to note the social cohesiveness of that homogeneity, the demographer's study dwelled favorably on the growing differences preferring the term "diversity" to discuss race and culture.  That homogeneous Minnesota society built the extraordinary Minnesota of today and to describe that wonderful development as if it were undesirable is wrong.  Certainly, it is worthy of reasoned discussion by the state demographer's office.

Clearly, the state demographer's report was politically rather than scientifically inspired.  The portrayal of something it's not was more than inappropriate.  Similar to the CURA/HACER study, an agenda beyond the presentation of state demographic data appears to be at work in Minnesota state government.

To understand the population implications of the CURA/HACER position, let's combine the population data and the arithmetic; let's look at the numbers.  If the 50,000 number of illegal immigrants from the study is used and compared to the Census estimates of 10,000 illegals around 1991 - 1995 (no exact data is available) one can see that the growth of illegal immigrants is substantial, at fifteen to twenty-five percent or more per year, and increasing at a rate greatly exceeding the national figures.

Using a very conservative growth rate of fifteen percent for illegal workers indicates a doubling time of less than five years (4.8 years).  For an illustration of the arithmetic, let's assume an illegal population of 100,000 today.  Therefore, in five years there will be over 200,000, in ten years, over 400,000, by 2020, over 1.6 million, 2025, 3.2 million, 2030, 6.6 million, and to show how ludicrous the CURA/HACER program, in less than forty years, twenty-six million illegal workers in Minnesota.

To use 100,000 as a beginning figure may seem inappropriate given that 50,000 is used in the study.  However, our purpose is to examine the probabilities under the CURA/HACER unlimited position.  It is certain that given that open borders, i.e., no borders, implies without limit, that these numbers are understated.  Perhaps the reader also noticed that these calculations assumed no population growth from Minnesotans.  The math demonstrates that in the brief span of less than thirty years there will be more illegal aliens in Minnesota than Minnesotans today!

For a preview of the future United States, visit Puerto Rico or Mexico City today and for a preview of the future Minnesota, visit Los Angeles now.  Implementing any of the CURA/HACER program would produce the revolutionary changes.

If one were to ask Minnesotans today if they would prefer living with the population of the 1900 - 1930 period or today or that projected, the answer would clearly demonstrate their concern with the present and impending situation.  To assume that our environments are as forgiving as they were a hundred or two hundred years ago is more than naοve, it is irresponsible.  To suggest that immigration should occur today because it occurred in an earlier period is fallacious reasoning.

It is useful to keep in mind that population has momentum, once begun, stopping that juggernaut requires time, a long time.  This is the reason that population policies must be considered more carefully than any other single undertaking, always erring on the side of less growth.  Even with existing levels, left alone, increases in illegal immigration will have enormous implications for Minnesota's future.
 

Population & Basic Resource Considerations

In addition to population, the CURA/HACER study ignored another fundamental consideration, resources.  With keen perception, Dr. Walter Youngquist in his excellent book, "GeoDestinies" states that, "in the longer term it is likely the last battle will be fought over water".  Thus, because it underlies all else, the review now turns to a brief discussion of land use and food supplies, and three prominent resource constraints water, oil and natural gas. (See, "GeoDestinies: The inevitable control of Earth resources over nations and individuals", Walter Youngquist. National Book Company, Portland, OR. 1997.)

Even before the public-awakening 1960's, environmentalists and population researchers found that the U.S. population was harming our local, national, and international environments.  Take land for example, every additional person entering the U.S. uses between three and nine acres of land, frequently natural areas or land used for farming.  In other words, we are losing over three million acres of farmland and natural areas per year primarily because of immigration.

In the near future, U.S. food production will be a profound concern because each additional resident uses increasingly limited petroleum, decreasing land and other resources.  For example, to annually feed each American requires the equivalent of four hundred gallons of oil (more on oil to follow).  Water, in addition to oil, will also become a limiting factor.  Researchers have concluded that because of our population growth, within twenty-five years, the U.S. will no longer be the food exporter to the world's hungry and within two decades the nation's ability to even feed its own people may be in jeopardy. (See, "U.S. Food Production Threatened By Rapid Population Growth," David Pimentel, Carrying Capacity Network, 2000 P Street, NW; Suite 240, Washington, D.C. 20036. October 30, 1997. Also see, "Food Security Deteriorating in the Nineties: Grain Prices More Volatile", Lester R. Brown, Worldwatch Institute, March 6, 1997. And , "Who Will Feed China: Wake-up call for a small planet", Lester R. Brown. The Worldwatch Environmental Alert Series. W.W. Norton & Company, New York. 1995)
 

Population Growth & Water

Many areas in the U.S. today have diminishing water reserves which cannot be replaced for generations. The use of fossil water from wells (and oil) is the taking of intergenerational resources for present use; it is virtually the theft of resources from our children and their children's future.

The typical American uses about 1750 gallons of water every day, generally in the form of manufactured goods and farm products.  However, in less than fifty years, the available water will decline by sixty percent to only 700 gallons per person.  The great Ogallala aquifer underlies the breadbasket of America, its northern arm reaching into Minnesota.  These mid-west and west aquifers are being drawn down at a rate of four to six feet per year in excess of their recharge.  Because the average replenishment rate is about one-half inch per year, it could require hundreds or thousands of years to replenish.  The great food producer for the nation, the Central Valley of California, is also experiencing a similar water situation.

Delinking population from its consequences appears to be an established government policy.  In the Minneapolis region, for example, nearly all surrounding communities have established permanent water restrictions to protect the limited well capacities of the community.  Any increase in Minnesota population will worsen the situation until water restrictions become comprehensive and wide spread.  However, few of the residents understand the population reason behind the water restrictions.  In addition are water wars between the states and communities due to growing population demands on the Colorado and Columbia rivers in the West, and on many local rivers in the Southeast.  Global warming is becoming a serious discussion item, yet the government fails to connect our burgeoning population with increasing emissions nor with pollution or sustaining biodiversity (other life).
 

Population Growth & Oil

The story of natural resource extraction follows a pattern.  First a use is discovered, sometimes by accident (it burns!), and then consumption and production grow hand in hand.  In the early periods the easily available and inexpensive resources are extracted which encourages further consumption.  Frequently, additional uses of the resource are found and its use rapidly grows, becoming economically institutionalized, in the example of oil the energy basis of Western society.

As demand builds the easily extracted reserves are depleted and more costly reserves are brought into production.  Because consumer demand is now institutionalized (with expectations based on former cheap earlier periods), consumption rises faster than the resource base, the stage being set for disappointing supply availability.  In the final stage, although still available, the energy cost of extracting the resource is greater than the energy potential extracted.  In this later period, prices will accelerate until, to use an economist's term, the price clears the market; that is, until rising prices balance demand and available inventory.  Note that there is nothing intrinsic in using the "market" to balance supply and demand which will prevent the exhaustion of the resource, only that it becomes much more expensive.

Unless substitutes are readily available, rising prices implies a corresponding decline in standard of living -substitutes are not readily available.

Industry representatives and their allies say there isn't a looming petroleum shortage and that present reserves are more than adequate for the foreseeable future.  For example, in an article in the September 2000 issue of "Scientific American" magazine, the U.S. Geological Survey raised its previous estimate of the world's crude oil reserves by twenty percent, to a total of 649 billion barrels.  Although it was an attempt to downplay the arrival of the non-oil era, the USGS data confirms that even under their rosy assumptions, there remains less than thirty more years to the petroleum era.  Although the intention was to suggest there is ample time for the transition, the report also stated that in less than fifteen years, by year 2015, all U.S. oil will be imported.

Interestingly, the article included a quote from Dr. Colin J. Campbell, a preeminent private oil industry analyst, who said that the USGS estimates were overly optimistic, "it's only the low end of this scale that has any practical meaning; the other end of the scale is a very bad estimate." ("Awash in Oil: There's plenty of cheap oil, says the U.S. Geological Survey." Eric Niiler, Scientific American. September, 2000. Also see "The End of Cheap Oil," Colin J. Campbell, Scientific American. March, 1998.)

Consistent with the government's view is the view promoted by the industry flag bearer, the American Petroleum Institute,

•  ".... it's unlikely that our demand will ever exceed or use up our supply. As supplies grow scarce, oil prices will begin to rise, and people will turn to a more abundant, less expensive alternative. In the near term, with oil products both economical and practical, alternatives will find it hard to compete."

•  "The shift, when it comes, won't happen overnight, because oil supplies both conventional and unconventional are substantial. Moreover, the change is likely to be as painless a transition as when people switched from wood to coal to heat their homes or substituted computers for typewriters to prepare letters and documents."

•  "World reserves are greater now than ever before. Even if we never discover another drop of oil, current reserves will be able to sustain the current rate of consumption for another half-century."

•  "Taking into account probable future oil discoveries ... this amount of oil would sustain the current rate of consumption between 63 to 95 years."

This review will respond by mentioning two quick points before addressing the substance and evident inconsistencies of the API position.  First, there can be no doubt the "probable future discoveries" are generous to a fault and, as will be seen, the facts, including the USGS survey, confirm the opposing viewpoint.  Second, the fact that the API suggests that oil consumption is static, "at current levels", incredulously overlooks the fact that oil consumption is increasing and rapidly increasing in some nations, exceeding seven percent in Asia.

Evidently big oil and automobile companies understand the closing situation, yet vary their statements with the audience actively searching for alternatives.  They realize the post-petroleum period is rapidly approaching and are taking steps to be players in the new era.  Yet, there is no resource or technology on the horizon that could substitute oil.

Hydrogen is being considered as a substitute in automotive use.  The chief selling point is that there is literally an inexhaustible supply, virtually the idea of a perpetual motion machine.  Shell, for example, has told the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries that by 2020 "gas and renewables could meet almost fifty percent of the fuel requirements for power generation."  Shell has already formed a hydrogen fuel cell subsidiary and is, like many other energy companies, spending billions of dollars on research and development of solar, wind and biomass alternative energies.  In the U.S., all three auto companies hope to replace the current engines with mass produced hydrogen fueled cars by 2004. (See, "Global Manipulators Move Beyond Petroleum", Susan Bryce. In "New Dawn Magazine", No. 63, November - December 2000. Available at < http://newdawnmagazine.com/Articles/Beyond_Petroleum.html >.

In addition, BMW has been working for some time on hydrogen as a motor fuel.  However, it's improbable that its time will come because of its insurmountable difficulties: it requires minus 2500 storage, an absolute guarantee the liquid hydrogen tank won't explode, ten miles per gallon mileage requires nearly forty gallon tanks, and hydrogen is an energy sink costing much more to reach the car's tank than the energy consumed as a fuel; it's expensive.

Matt Simmons, president of the prestigious Houston based energy consulting firm Simmons & Company International, addressing this issue states that the shortages are almost simultaneously arriving in oil and natural gas (and electricity), that Europe will suffer and that North America will arrive earlier and worse. (See, "Energy crisis threatens a winter of discontent", Jeremy Cresswell. The Scotsman: Scotland's National Newspaper. November 21, 2000. See at < http://www.business.scotsman.com/cfm/home/headlines_specific.cfm?headlineid=4901&subset=archive >).

Another, more urgent avenue of describing looming energy dilemmas was poignantly stated by Dr. Richard Duncan at a recent Geological Society of America conference in discussing the "Olduvai theory".  The theory measures the relationship between energy and population.  Dr. Duncan summarizes the gravity of the energy situation as follows: "the life expectancy of Industrial Civilization is less than or equal to 100 years: 1930-2030 and that energy production per capita will fall to its 1930 value by 2030, thus giving Industrial Civilization a lifetime of less than or equal to 100 years. (See, "The Peak of World Production and the Road to the Olduvai Gorge", Richard C. Duncan. Pardee Keynote Symposia, Geological Society of America, Summit 2000, Reno, Nevada. November 13, 2000. See < http://www.hubbertpeak.com/duncan/olduvai2000.htm >).

Great car, the 1956 Chevy!  Yet, in 1956 something ominous occurred -drilling for petroleum resources in the U.S. reached its peak and subsequently has fallen steadily.  With nearly 400,000 bore holes, the U.S. has few reserves remaining to discover.  A few years later, in 1970 not only was important environmental legislation such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Endangered Species Act passed, and the first "Earth Day" with its emphasis on stopping population growth celebrated, but it was also the termination of a hundred year period of stable to slightly declining oil prices (in 1999 US$) and the last year the U.S. was self-sufficient in oil.  In every succeeding year, U.S. oil imports have increased.  Currently about sixty-five percent of U.S. oil requirements (and increasing at about 1 1/2 percent per year) are from foreign sources, often politically unstable and unfriendly. (See. "An Analysis of U.S. and World Oil Production Patterns Using Hubbert-Style Curves", Albert Bartlett. In "Mathematical Geology", Vol. 32, Number 1, January 2000. Note figure 3, U.S., and Figure #5, World. And, "BP Amoco Statistical Review of World Energy 2000". Available at < http://www.bp.com/worldenergy/primary/index.htm > Note chart "Crude oil prices since 1861".)

The following graph depicts the U.S. oil situation.

Figure 2: U.S. Oil

Chart courtesy of Dr. Albert Bartlett. Dots are actual production, lines are estimated reserves.


Obviously, the
U.S. is vulnerable to substantial price increases and supply dislocations.  Minnesota is exceedingly vulnerable, lying at the end of most natural gas pipelines and far from petroleum fields.  In Minnesota, population growth from any source is a serious energy matter that the CURA/HACER study was obligated to discuss.

The publics and governments response to higher recent prices notably in the U.S., England, Germany, and France does not bode well for the looming shortages.  These responses seemed surprising and out of place.  Tapping the U.S. strategic reserves or blockading streets is a political and an emotional response to a chronically deteriorating dilemma requiring constructive population and energy policies.  Underscoring the psychological response is the fact that until recently, oil was cheaper than any time after the oil crunch in the early 1970's.  Even with today's price of approximately $36 a barrel and gasoline at most stations about $1.50 per gallon this is about half the inflation adjusted price twenty years ago.  Driving an automobile remains a bargain!  Thus, the out-of-proportion responses seen today may suggest the beginning of escalating reaction protests to further diminishing inventories.

From an economic perspective, paying for our Brobdingnagian oil consumption is the major reason for our serious balance of payments deficit and a potentially devastating decline in the value of the U.S. dollar in world currency markets.  Because oil is priced in US$ in world markets the value of the US$ is critical to the U.S. economy.  The more oil imported, the more US$ sloshing around world currency markets.  In addition, because U.S. food commodities are often used to pay for our oil imports, there is a circular effect to oil and food production.  Exacerbating the developing situation are the growing populations in food short regions they are breeding poverty and the inability to purchase foodstocks from the U.S.  With rising oil prices creating higher input prices, food production may decline and with higher farmer expenses and increasing poverty overseas, the ability to fund oil imports will be diminished.  The irony of the situation is that commodity food prices may also decline.  In any US$ currency crisis, as exemplified by the "Asian Meltdown" a short while ago, the ripple effects on our financial institutions will be rapid and could be serious.

The future is drawing near; a number of states, California in particular, are already chronically short of electricity, managing energy usage by rolling brownouts (blackouts) during periods of high use.  Selective energy interruptions is a spreading management technique that will become commonplace in a few years.

The international reserve situation is similar.  According to petroleum industry and other independent oil specialist, the world's petroleum reserves even assuming finding considerably more reserves will peak sometime between 2007 and 2010. (See: Colin Campbell, Jean Laherrere, Brian Fleay, Roger Blanchard, Richard Duncan, Walter Youngquist, and Albert Bartlett.)  Many experts and oil conglomerates such as Agip (large Italian oil company) and Atlantic Richfield (Arco) take a less optimistic view, expect a peaking around the year 2005.  Indonesia is past its peak; the great fields of Norway, Venezuela, and Mexico will probably peak this year and then enter long-term declines.  Colombia and Venezuela are apparently past their peaks and now in long-term decline as well.  The latest (as of April, 2000) estimates by country can be found at < http://dieoff.com/campbell.htm >.

The International Energy Agency also confirms a different, more limiting, scenario, forecasting oil production peaks in the year 2000 for the world excluding the OPEC Middle East, 2015 for OPEC Middle East, and 2012 for world oil supply, and a peak in conventional oil for 2012 at 78.9 Mb/d and then, beginning a steep decline, a decrease by 2020 to 72.2 Mb/d. (See the IEA Website at < http://www.iea.org/g8/world/oilsup.htm >. Note Figure #9.)

The world's oil reserves are graphically depicted in the following chart. 

Figure 3: World Oil

Chart courtesy of Dr. Albert Bartlett. Dots are actual production. Line is estimated reserves.


"OPEC has a spare capacity of 3 million barrels a day" which is only about 2.5% of today's world consumption
(UPI News article, London, Sept. 9, 2000).  For Cornucopians continuing to be locked in self-deception that the world's petroleum reserves are inexhaustible, not much comfort can be taken from the data that the major petroleum exporting nations have reserve production capacity equal to at most three years of additional growth.  Despite desperate searching, no new super giant field has been discovered since the 1970's.  The consequence of the rapidly approaching capacity constraint is that there are insufficient resources to match the expanding requirements of neither the world's swelling populations nor the hoped-for increases in living standards.  This is especially disturbing in the high oil usage developed nations, such as the U.S. (and Canada and Australia) with its burgeoning immigration-driven populations.

Moreover, consumption in the developing world has now reached forty percent of the world's total consumption.  As they continue to move up the consumption ladder from third world to first world consumption levels under Western style development practices, their oil use will rise in sync with development.  With the Western nations in denial, how the developing nations react, first to genuine world resource limits and soon after, to actually diminishing reserves is a question not being sufficiently addressed today.

Peaking, it should be noted, does not mean imminent shortages, only that the worldview of continually diminishing reserves will replace the long held economic notion of ample, if not inexhaustible, reserves.

Inadequate discoverable reserves in the U.S. and OPEC nations also explains why no new multimillion dollar oil production facilities are being developed.  It is a dubious financial proposition to construct a large electric generating facility using oil when its useful life is very likely less than the firing resource.  Except under unusual circumstances, there is no prudent reason to construct production facilities of any sort on a soon to begin diminishing resource.  Although government and industry energy planners do not publicly admit the finite future for petroleum, the transition has already begun with many oil fired electric generating plants being retrofitted to use natural gas and new generating facilities now often designed to use it as well.  Also note the vigorous efforts to have oil equivalent efficient gas or electric powered vehicles.

How is all this related to the economics of legal and illegal U.S. immigration?  It's not immigration per se, its population growth in the face of diminishing resources.  The U.S. and our industrialized Western civilization is based on cheap and ample petroleum.  On average, every additional person in the U.S. will use about 1,800 barrels of oil in his lifetime (some say 3,000).  Thus, every illegal or legal immigrant brings us that much close to a harsh reality while significantly reducing our ability to cope with the inevitable social and economic changes to adjust to that reality.

The change from a petroleum based society will not come smoothly.  The U.S. has long passed the population level where the changes can be accomplished without demonstrably changing living standards and at some population level meeting that awesome challenge may only be possible with limited success.  Because of our immigration driven population, it may already be difficult to overcome the momentum heading toward the harsh reality.

Sadly, the environmentally sensitive areas now thought to be protected, the Gulf, Alaska, northern Canada, and even the resource rich Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in northern Minnesota are in reality, merely unused inventory that will be used, or abused, as the situation becomes more urgent.

The oil rich Muslim and OPEC nations are not known to respect Western nations, their cultures, or religions, and have a history of doing what they perceive to be in their best economic and political interests, not the West's.  Punctuating the condition, the Muslim nations' oil production "is forecast to exceed the non-Muslim nations' oil production in 2001, and by 2040 these Muslim nations will produce 73.0% of the World's oil. The likelihood of a "World Petroleum War" ("Jihad") appears to be growing", states Dr. Duncan. (See, "Heuristic Oil Forecasting Method, Forecast #4 World Oil Forecasting Program", Richard Duncan. Institute on Energy and Man. 5307 Ravenna Place NE, #1, Seattle, WA 98105. See at < http://www.halcyon.com/duncanrc/index.html >.)

The West's options in dealing with these nations are limited.  Further, there are few internal options that the West can economically do in the required time horizon, any changes will be difficult to implement, and come at great political costs.  In the meanwhile, the West can continue to blame OPEC and demonize some oil producers all in a planned effort to shift responsibility -from taking the required domestic actions.

The upshot of this is that prices will be predicated on geopolitical considerations and those considerations will often take precedence over domestic matters; a serious geopolitical conundrum could be developing.  How difficult the U.S. energy transition is an energy policy decision predicated on U.S. immigration policy.  Clearly, the CURA/HACER program hinders those efforts.
 

Population Growth & Natural Gas

Adding complexity to the oil energy situation, scientists report that U.S. natural gas availability is scheduled to peak about twenty years after oil, about 2030.

Remember the media hype in the 1970's and 80's over the apparently inexhaustible supply of natural gas 500 to 700 years at current rates was frequently heard one would think it could hardly be a pressing issue today.  Because of somewhat decreasing natural gas availability, combined with increases in industrial usage, electric generation, population growth, and reductions in oil reserves, natural gas use has remarkably increased.  The net is a forecasted thirty-seven percent increase in natural gas use in less than ten years, by 2010.  The 500 hundred year supply claim is no longer heard!

Although the reason is often stated as environmental "nearly pollution free", the primary driver is supply.  Because natural gas is environmentally cleaner than other energy sources, it may also be a means to circumvent pollution regulations by alternate energies.  There are two natural gas issues the near term production squeeze and the substantial long term increases from the demands of population growth.  U.S. natural gas production peaked in the 1970s with substantial and continuous declines; remaining supply, optimistically will last ten to twenty years.

Unfortunately, the typical economic signals from changes in long term supply of natural gas are fewer and more sudden than for oil.  Obtaining oil is analogous to getting water from a sponge whereas natural gas is more like a small hole in a balloon.  Because the costs are predominately fixed and change less frequently (construction of new pipelines), there is not a substantial price difference between the cost of the first and last ccf. of natural gas, thus the market price is less influenced by near term demand and supply (it is influenced by energy demands as a substitute, however).

The consequence of this is that the diminishing availability of natural gas will continue unabated until it, as is so wonderfully described, goes "over the cliff", until shortages are clearly evident.  Thus, adapting to the change is a political decision which will be economically and politically difficult.  From a policy viewpoint, it means that future uses and availability of natural gas must be very carefully planned rather than left to the vagaries of short term market forces. (See, Reuters, "U.S. natgas suppliers seen facing tough challenge"; Andrew Kelly, April 25, 2000. Also the U.S. Energy Information Administration and the National Petroleum Council.)
 

The Environmentalist Response: Smart Growth

In prior decades, many individuals and organizations engaged in environmental protection and preservation of biodiversity were in the vanguard of efforts to stabilize the U.S. population and to achieve a sustainable population and society.  The fact that little is heard from these organizations today explains why some find it difficult to integrate U.S. environmental and other concerns with U.S. population growth.

Compounding the current situation, the CURA/HACER plan is diametrically opposed to the concept of U.S. sustainability.

Print, radio, and TV media journalists, moreover, do not appear to be helpful.  Although research and informed essays are reported, they receive little media coverage and when articles are published, the reporting is often overly subjective in nature (more later).  The lack of publicity indicates that public and government policymakers receive little, if any, population information and therefore base decisions on a limited and often incorrect perspective.  Yes, according to researchers, a portion of the silence is conspiratorial in nature, yet, much of the reason is that environmental organizations made sudden policy reversals leaving journalists without support or information sources.  Their policy reversals are evident in the lack of comments describing the environmental consequences of the CURA/HACER study. (See, "How and Why Journalist Avoid the Population-Environment Connection", T. Michael Maher. 1997. In, "Population and Environment", Vol. 18, No. 4.)

The policy about-face does not appear to be environmentally based.

Environmental organizations beginning in the early 1990's unexpectedly began to avoid discussion of U.S. population growth.  The well known population organization ZPG, "Zero Population Growth", was the first environmental organization to transition its U.S. objectives; not living up to its name, it soon began to promote U.S. population growth.  Likewise for the Sierra Club, Audubon and the National Wildlife Federation which almost simultaneously turned their backs on stopping U.S. population growth. (See "The Environmental Movement's Retreat from Advocating U.S. Population Stabilization (1970-1998): A First Draft of History." Roy Beck and Leon Kolankiewicz, The Journal of Policy History, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2000, Pennsylvania State University Press. It is part of a special Journal issue dedicated to Environmental Politics and Policy. The entire issue is must reading. This chapter is available online in two versions: Longer -highly recommended-: < http://www.numbersusa.com/RetreatfromStabilization.pdf >, and Shorter -published in the Journal-: < http://www.numbersusa.com/Retreat2.pdf >. See also < http://numbersusa.com/cgi/text.cgi?Enviro >)

The Sierra Club best represents the essence of this change.  For many years the ecologically based Sierra Club was alarmed with the implications of U.S. population growth.  The Sierra Club's population policy in 1969 stated, "the Sierra Club urges the people of the United States to abandon population growth ... and to achieve a stable population no later than the year 1990."  Although the U.S. stance was still meaningful in 1995 it was weakened and the policy broadened to include a specific statement about the world, "we must find, encourage, and implement at the earliest possible time the necessary policies ... that will... bring about the stabilization of the population first of the United States and then of the world."  Less than a year after the 1995 policy change, the Sierra Club begin to eliminate any mention of the U.S. population from all operations and programs.

To solidify the Administration's position throughout the Club, the management of the Sierra Club in 1996 passed a "gag order" prohibiting members from offering an immigration viewpoint.  As a policy and practice, U.S. population growth was removed from all Sierra Club media publications, meetings, and actions, including its population committees and legal advocacy departments. (For further information see, Sierrans for U.S. Population Stabilization, < http://www.susps.org/ > and a Sierra Club Parody Site, < http://www.sierraclubbed.com >.)

The Sierra Club's extraordinary new position is that America's environmental predicaments and immigration driven population growth can be remedied by first fixing the "roots" of the world's problems, then the problems related to U.S. population growth will solve themselves.  Equalizing the living standards of the U.S. with the world, they now declare, will eliminate the economic "roots" driving them to move.  No mention is made why they should move to the U.S.  No concern with the other developed countries is evident.

The novel response to U.S. population growth was threefold,

1.)  to attack its symptoms, notably the distribution of that growth rather than its numbers;
2.)  its effects on consumption (reduce the U.S. standard of living); and
3.) 
U.S. caused global pollution. 

In a nutshell, the plan is to increase U.S. population density without limit.  The mechanism used by these organizations is to affiliate with civic, government, and industry development organizations involved in city planning.  The Sierra Club, for example is now working in unison with its formerly bitter enemies, the National Association of Home Builders, Bank of America, and the Chamber of Commerce.

The catchy name for continuing population growth and advancing development has now taken the appellation, "smart growth" or sprawl control.  In this regard, the Sierra Club recently released its third sprawl report, "Sprawl Costs Us All" (Sierra Club, Sept. 2000).  In keeping with its non-U.S. population policy, the report again neglected the major component of sprawl -population growth.  The Sierra Club and its smart growth network has chosen to take the non-environmental approach, puzzling environmentalists and the nation.

The irony of the Sierra Club's sprawl position is that the Club's headquarters is in California and that the findings of a California sprawl research report was released just prior to the release of their sprawl report.  The research study found that ninety-five percent of California's sprawl is attributed to population growth. (See "Sprawl in California -A report on quantifying the role of the state's population boom." By Leon Kolankiewicz and Roy Beck, August 13, 2000. Available online at < http://www.NumbersUSA.com/cgi/text.cgi?Sprawlcali >).

A similar report to be released this Fall will document that between fifty and sixty percent of Twin Cities sprawl and up to one-hundred percent of smaller Minnesota cities' sprawl is due to population growth.  In addition, a study which examined the net costs (benefits less costs) in Minnesota found that on average each increment of Minnesota population cost approximately $16,100.  The costs in several specific cities were found to be $15,700 for Duluth, $16,100 for Rochester, and for Minneapolis/St. Paul, $16,600. (See, "Beyond Sprawl: The cost of population growth to local communities", Carrying Capacity Network. 1998.)

Common sense argues that this policy is temporary at best.  Worse, it misses the overriding issues the former environmentalists and the Sierra Club understood and championed, that of achieving a U.S. population level in balance with the ability of resources to sustain it given acceptable pollution levels while maximizing biodiversity (other life forms).

Regarding the position of major environmental organizations and government planners toward regional planning, Dr. Albert Bartlett clarifies the quintessential elements of their thinking in stating,

Smart growth destroys the environment.

Dumb growth destroys the environment.

The only difference is that 'smart growth'

Destroys the environment with good taste.

"It's like booking passage on the Titanic. If you are 'dumb', you go steerage. If you are 'smart' you go first class. But either way, the result is the same."  Dr. Bartlett concludes with great insight and humor saying that, "Smart growth is a means of making unsustainability as pleasant as possible." (Regionwide Planning Will Make the Problems Worse", Dr. Albert A. Bartlett. Nov. 27, 1998. See at < http://lahr.org/john-jan/growth/bartlett.html >).

The state of Minnesota's own Minnesota Sustainable Communities Network (MnSCN) sponsored by the Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance takes the same indefensible unsustainable approach.  In its 28-page "2000 Digest of Resources for Building Sustainable Communities", not a single mention is made regarding the expanding Minnesota or U.S. population nor any connection with communities and population growth.  Oddly, it contains a few items that are related to foreign population matters!

Minnesota writer Lawrence Winans said, "as you sit in your next traffic jam, waiting for access to the highway, or in attempting to make it across town for that very important meeting, just think: Did anyone ever ask you if you wanted to share your community with another 500,000 people [in 20 years]?  More cars, more homes, more pollution, more strip malls, more traffic jams, more of just about everything.  Smartest growth for burgeoning Twin Cities would be no growth at all.  With less oil, we will be able to support a much lower population than we are currently capable of doing." ("Smartest growth for burgeoning Twin Cities would be no growth at all"; Lawrence A. Winans, The (St. Paul) Pioneer Press, May 29, 2000).

It is paradoxical that population growth forced economic development is largely responsible for the negative factors they claim as positive attributes of that population growth.

Of course there is a better response to population growth.

Since the problem is one of too many people, the solution does not lie in compelling folks to live where and how the government chooses New York's Manhattan Island apparently is their standard!  If this is the only solution offered by environmental and industry development groups and various levels of government, then it is logical to ask what is the quality of life they have in mind?  When living standards are sufficiently lowered will government policies change or will the declining living standard spiral be maintained?  Policymakers, in answering this question, please recall that population growth has tremendous momentum, requiring over fifty years to reach a stable level after implementing a policy to stop growth.

At the local level there is an important legislative remedy.  In Colorado there is Amendment 24, the "Growth Amendment."  It simply says that it "would require cities and counties with populations over 10,000 to develop growth plans that would have to be approved by local voters.  Population growth could occur only in areas that received voter approval."  The areas being voted on must be small enough so those involved, the local voters would be directly impacted.  It's pure democracy in action!

On the Minnesota state level it would begin immediately by discouraging immigration and take the form of a sustainability study, giving policy makers and the public, demographic, ecological, and economic data which would be used to vote on policies consistent with Minnesotans' vision for their future.  With an approximate expenditure of $20,000, cost is not a factor.  Other states and cities have already conducted this important study.  In the meanwhile, MnSCN may have some good ideas regarding individual city planning but fails miserably in considering the overarching nature of state sustainability.

Because of its foreign perspective, the CURA/HACER group and supporters may sharply disagree with this proposal.  It is imperative, however, a State of Minnesota sustainability study be accomplished soon.

(A research paper has been recently completed that deals with the sustainability of Japan, with its lack of domestic resources and the coming resource shortages and its ability to feed its people, "Food and Energy in Japan: How Will Japan Feed Itself in the 21st Century? Antony F.F. Boys. Ibaraki Christian Junior College, Ibaraki Ken, JAPAN 319-1295. See at < http://www.net-ibaraki.ne.jp/aboys/pfe/21feintro.htm >. Although there are differences, there are also important parallels to the U.S. and Minnesota situation. Of vital note are the benefits of a slowly decreasing population.)
 

Population Summary

Stabilizing and eventually reducing the population of the U.S. (and the world) is ecologically and economically necessary and eminently possible using fair and humane policies.  Without eventual population reduction and wise consumption, Minnesota and the U.S. will eliminate various economic pathways, continue to reduce biodiversity and environmental quality, and increase cost of remediation, if possible at all.

The CURA/HACER plan would draft into law many existing de-facto state programs and make room for further substantial population increases.  The reason for this is that several existing Ventura Administration illegal alien policies, and as advanced by the DFL, "hands off, safe harbor" are consistent with the CURA/HACER plan.  Fortunately, there may be winds of change the INS "SAVE" program to verify legality, at least a variation, was passed in the last legislative session.  Unfortunately, no legislative mention was made to energetically seek out and take action against criminal aliens currently in the state.  The public expects otherwise.

Is today's Southern California the vision Minnesota legislators promise tomorrow's Minnesota citizens, today's children?  There can be no doubt that the Southern California of today is the illustration of the future Minnesota unless state population and immigration policies are not quickly changed.
 

Demography Is Destiny

Because of a recent court interpretation of an old law (meant for other purposes) that says any baby born in this country is an instant citizen, there is literally no limit as to the number of illegals crossing our border, bearing an instant citizen, and being cared for by the nation's welfare systems.  The illegal alien mother is assigned the primary care giver, deportation is not considered, and, because of the perversity of post 1965 immigration laws, the entire extended family in the foreign land can be placed in the immigration queue.  The welfare systems, it is important to note, were intended to assist disadvantaged Americans, especially Blacks (more on this later). (See, "Losing Control of America's Future -The Census, Birthright Citizenship, and Illegal Aliens"; Charles Wood, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 22, Number 2, Spring 1999. Also see, "Anchor Babies: The citizen-child loophole", Wayne Lutton, In "The Social Contract", Vol. VII, No 1, Fall 1996. ISSN 1055-145X).

Obviously, this is a prescription for the complete replacement of an existing population by illegal and legal immigration.  It is almost unimaginable that it is being funded by the same citizens being replaced!

The significance of this is that it's not Minnesota legislators nor citizens, but illegal and other immigrants in great measure, that determine American immigration policy.  State policies encourage this practice.  It is worth restating, under this bizarre procedure not found in other nationsthe American citizen has no say in a fundamental policy directly and profoundly affecting them immigration population policy.  By removing inhibitions and incorporating them into statute, the CURA/HACER plan would exacerbate this incredible practice.

This alien baby citizen process is already of crisis proportions.  For example, eighty percent of the babies born in the Los Angeles county hospital are born to illegal aliens and one-quarter to one-third of all students in Los Angeles County schools are from illegal parents.  Hospital reports document that between 200,000 and 400,000 babies, with the numbers increasing, are born every year to illegal aliens.  On average, up to about seven additional extended family members for each baby will now enter the immigration process.  If the CURA/HACER program, the Star Tribune, and their supporters prevail, they will encourage this process; and unless the practice is altered, there can be no limit to the process.

 On the visible horizon, the Minnesota and America we know and love will cease to exist.

Population growth in California is a transparent illustration of the foregoing.  The population of California is now just over thirty million but heading pell-mell toward over fifty million in a brief twenty-five years.  Since 1990, more than three-fourths of California's population increase has been immigration driven.  Immigration, almost all from Mexico, and much of it illegal, is the only source of future population growth in California.  Many people remember the wonderfully beautiful California of the 1920's, 30's, 40's, 50's, and 60's and compare it to its current situation, are deeply troubled and saddened.

This explains why there are repeated rumors of movements to separate California into two states.  The idea is to preserve what remains of the formerly wonderful State in Northern California and jettison the southern portion.  Because the changes are driven by government policy, a separation into two states wouldn't help and may make the situation worse.  The separation would, similar to the CURA/HACER plan, leave an entire state in these United States literally a State of Mexico, using American law and benefits to promote the advance of a foreign state.

Certainly, in purely economic terms, and as the CURA/HACER study would say, there is little question economic activity has been stimulated, California's GDP increasing.  But over immigration also stresses schools, housing markets, transportation systems, other infrastructure, social cohesion, and demands on the environment.  The net, notably on a per capita basis, has been a progressive deterioration in the quality of life for most Californians (more later).  Many, the more mobile, have moved out of California to other states, including to Minnesota.

The U.S. has done quite nicely with its own culture -as has England, the primary antecedent culture.  The sociology of unrestricted immigration, that of "multiculturalism" or its variant, "diversity," is supported by mass immigration advocates.  Because it presumes that a hodgepodge of cultures is superior to any sovereign nation or individual's culture and history, the "culture" of mass immigration denigrates people from every walk of life, everywhere.  This position is weaker still when it is forced by the government, as in the United States, Canada, and Australia.

The resistance to immigration is with good reason.  Because parents are choosing an economically and environmentally friendly family size, many Europeans (and Americans) find it highly disturbing that the UN's Joseph Chamie would deny them their carefully considered decisions and at the same time promote the replacement of Europeans (and Americans) with inhabitants from other countries and cultures.  Immigration riots in many countries, Sweden, Norway, Germany, France, Slovenia, the U.S., and elsewhere -suggest that the continuing forced transition to pluralistic societies for misguided economic reasons or in the name of multi-culturealism (actually mono-culturealism) will carry a high price.

If one makes an inappropriately subjective evaluation of the motivations of mass immigration enthusiasts, including the Humphrey Institute's CURA and the HACER group, and the Star Tribune newspaper, one might conclude they are promoting the suicide of a nation as we know it and the genocide of the White race.

That is an almost inconceivable statement!  However, consider that this nation was founded by Whites and remained essentially White until the 1965 immigration law revisions.  Because of those revisions and increased illegal immigration, by 1997, Whites had declined to seventy-eight percent and sometime in the year 2000, only seventy-three percent of the population nationally, and are already minorities in several states.

Under current immigration policies, according to the recent Census population projections, Whites will be approximately ten percent of the population before the year 2100.  The data is clear about this.  As stated earlier, Americans have not been replacing themselves, for sound environmental and economic reasons, for nearly three decades.  It is important that this continue.  This means that if the 1970 population stock had continued, without a change in immigration policies, the U.S. population would have achieved a stable and generally White population level of around 235 million. (Note that American Blacks are culturally equal to American Whites.)  Under current polices, the Census projects a population of 1.2 billion, and almost all of that nearly nine-hundred million increase in population will be non-White and due to immigration.  Immigration, it should be stated again, replaces the existing population.

This unparalleled demographic transition is not merely an academic exercise or hypothetical possibility; as indicated above, and discussed less directly in other areas of this review, it is absolutely unavoidable under current immigration policies.  Indeed, the CURA/HACER plan, if implemented, will radically facilitate the demographic transition already underway.

In other words, within one-fourth the time it took to achieve the country Americans created, the nation founded by Whites will primarily be a Hispanic land.  Its culture will evolve from a West European to a Southern Hemisphere, fundamentally Mexican, culture.  Briefly stated, the change is from an Anglo-Protestant to a Ibero-Catholic society; or from England and Stockholm to Haiti and Mexico City.

Because of recent large-scale immigration, cultural effects are already beginning to be felt.  For example, the fundamental U.S. value of individualism and self-determination is being replaced by themes of victimization and blame and from a focus on building a nation and community to the narrow view of one's own family.  The change in government policy is from one less intrusive in a variety of areas notably personal conduct and scope of government, to one where government increasingly plays a significant role, notably those assuming self discipline and personal responsibility for one's actions. (See, "The Pan American Dream: Do Latin America's Cultural Values Discourage True Partnership with the United States and Canada", Lawrence E. Harrison. Basic Books, a division of Harper Collins Publishers. 1997. Also see, "Americans No More: The Death of Citizenship", Georgie Ann Geyer. The Atlantic Monthly Press, New York. 1996.)
 

Reconquista!

"Each one of us will pay on demand his part of sacrifice...know that all together we are getting ever closer to the new (people), whose figure is beginning to appear." Che Guevara. (Website of "Aztlan Warriors.")

"Reconquista" is the name given to the Aztlan Plan, the retaking of the seven Southwestern states (Oregon to Texas), the "Aztlan Territory", ceded to and purchased by the U.S. from Mexico in 1848.  The process was begun in the 1960's (at about the same time the immigration laws were revised) by Rudolfo Gonzales.  La Raza (The Race) is the lead organization in the MEChA (often student) movement (Movemiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan) to retake this U.S. territory. The name is sometimes referred to as MEXA, with the word "Chicano" replaced by "Xicano".  It is clear that not only are these racist and supremacist groups which, if primarily White, would suffer an entirely different government and school response, but they're also traitors actively involved in overthrowing the United States.

To better understand what is happening and how it relates to the CURA/HACER plan several statements with documentation follow.

•  'Republica del Norte' , ...a sovereign Hispanic nation straddling the current border between the U.S. and Mexico is an inevitability, ... [it] will be accomplished by political process, by the electoral pressure of the future Hispanic majority ... and its capital will probably be Los Angeles." ("Southwest's secession from U.S. an 'inevitability', professor says"; Rocky Mtn. News, Feb. 6, 2000.)

•  "It all started out as a fight for the land. They took away Texas, and began to expand. Still punk rednecks say: remember the Alamo. They don't want to know who I am, but let them know I'm the M.E.X.I.C.A.N. So hit the ground and prepare for sprayin"(bullets).

"Take what I got, I'm gonna take it right back."

"They are immigrants. You are not immigrants. None of us are immigrants. The only immigrants is Atlantic Ocean wetbacks. Step back. We say in Aztlan, there are no fronteros, no borders. . ."

". . . getting hyped for the rumble, we just keep hitting 'till the border crumbles."

"By the year 2000, Jack, we're gonna see who is the real wetback."

"In two-triple-O, we take it back."

"Brewed in Aztlan by home-boys who know how to make a dead gringo."

"So get blasted like a Smith & Wesson. Learn a lesson."

". . . I wanna take a nine (9 mm pistol) and make their brains hang out."

". . . it's time. I'm gonna get the big payback."
(Excerpts from the CD "Beaner Go Home" by the musical group, Aztlan Nation.)


•  "Latinos are now realizing that the power to control Aztlan may once again be in their hands."
(From the California textbook, The Mexican American Heritage, p107; used as the textbook in high school "Chicano studies" in Santa Barbara County, California, calling for the Hispanic "liberation of Aztlan".)

•  "Mexico is promoting dual nationality for American children of Mexican ancestry, and in many schools in the Southwest, American students of Latino descent are taught by Mexicans and Mexican-trained teachers and use Mexican textbooks ... some classrooms even fly the Mexican, instead of American flags." ("Does America have an assimilation problem?", John Fonte. "The American Enterprise", December 2000, Vol. 11, No. 8. p15.)

•  "MEChA calls for the liberation of Aztlan! Aztlan is the "A" in MEChA - Movemiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan." (MEChA website.)  It is the student movement increasingly found on many college and high school campuses including the University of Minnesota. Also see "La Raza" -at the University of Minnesota.

Several statements, as printed in official MEChA and La Raza documents, follow:

From: "El Plan de Aztlan: El Plan Espiritual de Aztlan":

•  a new people that is conscious not only of its proud historical heritage but also of the brutal "gringo" invasion of our territories;

•  reclaiming the land of their birth ...declare that the call of our blood is our power, our responsibility, and our inevitable destiny;

•  we are free and sovereign to determine those tasks which are justly called for by our house;

•  Aztlan belongs to those who plant the seeds ... not to the foreign Europeans;

•  we do not recognize capricious frontiers on the bronze continent;

•  Brotherhood unites us ... struggles against the foreigner "gabacho" who exploits our riches and destroys our culture;

•   we declare the independence of our mestizo nation. We are a bronze people with a bronze culture;

•  Before the world, we are a nation, we are Aztlan.

From: "El Plan de Aztlan: Aztlan Party Preamble":

•  we see that the history of La Raza is to be found therein, and that from the beginning, the United States used the labor to amass fortunes for the Anglo exploiters of our people;

•  we see that our lands were stolen from us;

•  we consider it not only our right but our obligation to struggle for our full and complete liberation by any means necessary;

•  take it upon ourselves to form La Raza Unida Party that forms the basis of Raza Nationalism;

•  by "La Raza" we mean those people who are descendants of or come from Mexico, Central America, South America, and the Antilles.

 

From: "El Plan de Aztlan: Political Platform -Domestic Policy":

•  end the draft and exempt all Raza youth from military service;

•  full equality of the Spanish language: This includes all federal, state, municipal, and private agencies which must provide and carry out all functions within our community in English and Spanish;

•  La Raza Unida Party feels it is of the utmost importance to struggle for the concept of Community Control. By this we mean Community Control over all institutions of the community-schools, hospitals, libraries, welfare agencies, police, etc., that affect La Raza.

If the goals of this movement are as it appears to be -the take-over of the U.S., then the CURA/HACER program would be an important tactic in that effort.  Rather than a "take-over", the proponents often consider the U.S. as a colony of the emigrant nation.  It should also be evident to policymakers that policymaking regarding a great deal of legislation, i.e., "Community Control", e.g., schools, ESL, easing of voting regulations (mail-in ballot, "motor voter"), has been following, unknown to many legislators, a predetermined agenda. (See, "A colony of the world: the U.S. today", Eugene McCarthy. Hippocrene Books, Inc., 1992. Note, former Senator McCarthy was a primary sponsor of the original 1965 immigration legislation. This book describes the law's effects and his regrets at passing the legislation.)
 

Part II:  The CURA/HACER Plan, Calls for Amnesty
&
the H-1B Program

The CURA/HACER program should be thought of as an alternate form of amnesty for breaking U.S. law.  In several respects it also duplicates the H-1B program, however for the poor and unskilled illegal worker.  The difference is that the CURA/HACER study is the first attempt to rationalize illegal conduct in Minnesota and to mandate that the state provide all services designed for citizens to illegal aliens.
 

Amnesty

An amnesty, it has been said, is like "pardoning everyone in federal prisons, releasing them into society, and then claiming there is no crime problem because the prisons are empty."  In this instance, an "amnesty" for criminal action is proposed because of alleged economic benefit.

The CURA/HACER proposal would do for illegal immigrants in Minnesota much of what the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) did at the national level in 1986.

In 1986, Congress passed IRCA promising concerned Americans that it would be the first and final amnesty for crossing the U.S. borders and evading deportation.  Because of current immigration policies these illegals have also brought in an additional 142,000 dependents (with more coming).  Because of its increasing and unlimited nature, in Minnesota over time the consequences of implementing the CURA/HACER proposals will be significantly more disturbing.

The current legislation, Rep. John Conyer's Amnesty Act, HR-4966, would greatly exceed in size the earlier amnesty.  The House Immigration Subcommittee estimates 3.4 million aliens will be included (that's not all of the six million now illegally in this country), nor does that number include the large number of trailing relatives.

The arguments opposing an amnesty are nearly identical to those found in discussing the CURA/HACER proposal.

•  It makes a mockery of the greatest honor the U.S. people can bestow on a foreign person: American citizenship.

•  It is unfair and harmful to U.S. citizens.

•  These are law breakers and should be accorded treatment consistent with their behavior.

•  If asked, politicians claim to be against illegal immigration, but pass legislation encouraging illegal immigration and turn their back on enforcing immigration laws.

•  Amnesty encourages lawbreakers, lawlessness, and further weakens any remaining deterrent effect of our immigration laws.  It sends the clear message that illegal immigration will be forgiven, an individual even rewarded for breaking U.S. laws.  Indeed, amnesties send the message that Minnesota and U.S. immigration laws are not to be taken seriously and that the entire process is a gimmick used to deceive the American pubic.

•  Originally, many of these "immigrants" came to escape temporary civil unrest in their homelands.  The U.S. told them (and the those seeking temporary safety agreed) to return to their homelands when the conflicts ceased.  Yet, they have now been illegally in this country for a number of years, the situation in their homelands has long since stabilized and former threats are now nonexistent.  Now they break U.S. laws, frequently falsify their standing, abuse our generosity and rather than returning home, call for an amnesty.

•  Amnesties promote increasing poverty because of inadequate skills and education of the amnestees and their relatives.  The means of providing the financial and other assistance to these relatives falls principally to the pocketbooks of U.S. citizens.

•  Amnesties are a huge financial burden to Americans.  "The total net cost of the (1986) amnesty (the direct and indirect costs of services and benefits, minus their tax contributions) after ten years comes to over $78 billion." (See, "Measuring the Fallout: The Cost of the IRCA Amnesty After 10 Years", Center for Immigration Studies, May 1997.)

•  At the present time the Census estimates there are yet another six million illegal aliens in the U.S.  As evident in the CURA/HACER proposal regarding the amnesty issue, there is no mention of how or when it should be stopped.

•  Amnesty conceals the actual extent of illegal immigration.  An amnesty will remove current illegals from the list of illegals and like the prison metaphor, ergo, there is no problem with illegal immigration.  If tallied correctly, it would show that the numbers are rapidly growing and in all likelihood suggest that the U.S. is being invaded.  When claims are heard that illegals number about the same as a decade ago, they are trying to deceive the public that the numbers are not a concern.  They may attempt to say the same verse in the near future about the six million now illegally in this country and the additional one million or more every subsequent year.

•  To those waiting in the immigration queue in their own country it sends the message that it is easier and quicker to become a U.S. citizen by breaking U.S. immigration laws.  According to La Raza, that was the aftermath of the 1986 amnesty.  They reported that between 1980 and 1990, the number of illegals grew by over sixty percent.  Because of IRCA, the dependents of lawful migrants are placed further down the immigration queue (and is the reason the INS is attacked for having such a large backlog).

The law is that to be eligible for U.S. naturalization, an immigrant must be at least eighteen years old, be a legal permanent resident (hold a green card), have resided in the United States for five years, demonstrate English skills and knowledge of U.S. history and civics, and be of good moral character.

•  Amnesties invite fraud. Because it is extremely easy and cheap for illegal aliens to purchase the appropriate documents demonstrating they meet the time (or even nationality) requirements, there is little to prevent or discourage any number of illegals from being amnestied.  For example, in the recent INS "Operation Desert Deception", nearly one-half of amnesty applications were determined or thought to be fraudulent.

•  To determine employment fraud in meat packing plants in the Midwest, INS "Operation Vanguard" was conducted during the period of May 3 to June 3, 1999, chiefly in Nebraska.  It found that sixty percent of large meatpacking firms employed illegal aliens and that about one in every five workers were illegal.  Rather than continue the program, Operation Vanguard was placed on "hold" perhaps from political pressures or perhaps believing another amnesty was forthcoming?

•  The same businesses that profit from cheap foreign labor and ethnic and religious allies promoting mass immigration and the H-1B increases, are those pressing for another amnesty.

•  Amnesties invite political shenanigans.  According to the Center for Responsible Politics, in excess of $22 million has been paid to the current Democratic and Republican campaigns by Hi-Tech firms promoting H-1B visa increases.  The timing of the H-1B and the amnesty legislation is to intimidate political candidates with the growing Hispanic vote.  Rather than debate in public the merits of an amnesty (or H-1B) the sponsors have taken the backdoor approach and buried the proposed legislation in the appropriations bills of unrelated departments.  Not only is the legislation hidden, but because President Clinton holds the power of appointment, the committees will approve it.  Candidate Al Gore supports this effort and Candidate George W. Bush is also wooing the Hispanic vote. (See, "Demos back political refugee plan: Latin Americans, Haitians could seek residency." Bruce Albert, The Times-Picayune. September 29, 2000.)

•  Hispanic coalitions are organized and increasingly powerful.  For example, the National Coalition for Dignity and Amnesty, which is comprised of hundreds of Hispanic organizations from 22 states and the District of Columbia, conducted a march Oct. 16, 2000.  Many of the marchers were likely former and currently illegal aliens.  In a circular manner, amnesties increase political power of amnestied groups thus encouraging future legislation favorable to these special interest groups.  Somalis (Muslims) in Minnesota are a case in point.

•  Amnesties encourage illegal aliens' home governments to press the U.S. government for additional amnesties.  In addition, the political clout of "forgiveness" is quite possibly accomplished with a political quid pro quo.

•  Illegal aliens who evade being detected become part of the above and underground economies and remit so much money to relatives and friends that a dependency cycle is perpetuated, the relatives and entire nations growing dependent on these remittances.  Literally, it is a U.S. government sponsored form of welfare. ("Clinton Bars Amnesty for Latin Immigrants," Washington Post. May 9, 1997.)
 

H-1B Program

Has the U.S. and Minnesota become the world's welfare state and the INS the world's employment agency?  If the U.S. and Minnesota governments and unions do not demonstrate concern for U.S. workers, their families, and disadvantaged as they do those in other lands, who will?

The CURA/HACER study and Star Tribune article ignore that the U.S. is a nation, a group of like minded individuals, rather than a corporation answerable to another constituency.  The study, and by omission the Star Tribune, also makes the insulting and incorrect assumption that American workers, colleges, and corporations lack the talent and skills necessary to produce the workers to sustain this country.  As American history affirms, this is a reckless and unsupported position.  Obviously, the U.S. did quite nicely throughout its history with traditional immigration policies and without illegal immigration!

The CURA/HACER plan is an amnesty for illegals already in Minnesota and in application, an unlimited H-1B for those yet to arrive.  Perhaps the best way to visualize the CURA/HACER program is as an unlimited "H-1B" plan for the less literate and unskilled foreign worker and their extended families.  In practice, the CURA/HACER plan would eliminate any need for a federal H-1B program.

One could also think that the Minnesota CURA/HACER program is a test case for a similarly constructed national undertaking.

Furthermore, the entire program change would be accomplished with the elimination of the American citizen from the process.  A Minnesota employer would only need to advertise a position in a foreign area and select a worker.  And of course, there would be no annoying government involvement in the process nor questions asked.  It would leave the conduct of nearly all immigration policies, legal and illegal, the sole prerogative of corporations, special interest groups and involved foundations, answerable to no nation or government body.  An example is seen today in the handling of alleged "refugees" by Catholic Relief and Lutheran Social Services.  Lutheran Social Services spent $1.5 million last year promoting refugees and last month (illegally?) brought in fourteen Somalia HIV positive "refugees" and 114 of their relatives.  The citizens of Minnesota were outraged!

Indeed, the H-1B program is an example of the power of special interests to influence Congress rather than the economics of immigration.  There is a more ominous side in the collective actions of economist and corporations calling for H-1B increases.  A convincing argument could be made that they are attempting to play the dominant role in setting national and international immigration policies.  Quite literally, they are taking advantage of the increasing misery due to overpopulation.

Very similar to the substance of the CURA/HACER plan, the H-1B program appears to propose what would be a worldwide corporate dominate-labor relationship.  The H-1B and CURA/HACER program presumes that the world's labor force is the U.S. corporate labor force and therefore, serves as a massive direct labor subsidy to various corporations.  Historically, the U.S. provided economic aid packages to assist foreigners.  Today, arguments are made against aid programs, yet, the CURA/HACER plan takes it to an entirely higher level, providing "foreign aid" and corporate welfare by shipping foreign labor and disadvantaged to the U.S., en mass.

Note that only the federal government can provide an amnesty or H-1B visa.  Thus, the function of the CURA/HACER plan is to establish road blocks to discovery while providing illegal immigrants all state provided services.  At its core, the Humphrey Institute's CURA/HACER plan has anarchy and the corruption and renunciation of American law.

On October 5, 2000 Congress passed a new H-1B law increasing the number of H-1B visas from 115,000 to 195,000 per year for the next three years with the option of extending it three additional years.  Needed?  The dot.com's have been laying off employees at an increasing rate for six months, last month over 8,500!   Because of the labyrinth of our immigration laws, another five to seven relatives may follow for each approved H-1B (or J-1B) worker.  This means that the effect of this legislation is a population increase of the magnitude of approximately three or four million over a period of years and that most of these immigrants will be uneducated and unskilled.

As noted previously, under the bizarre nature of U.S. immigration law, when an H-1B has a child the H-1B worker is then assigned guardianship of the new citizen baby, and the H-1B's entire family under "reunification" can soon begin.  Generally, these less employable (seldom acknowledged by politicians) relatives lack the requisite skills to seamlessly meld into American society and they often find their way onto government assistance programs.

Let's briefly examine some of the economic problems of the CURA/HACER plan as reflected in the H-1B visa program.

•  In many instances, it serves to encourage the often entrenched and politically powerful but less efficient and economically problematic companies to continue operating.  Subsidizing specific industries and firms, it misallocates economic resources to companies in industries the general economy finds less useful nor economically desirable.  Do we really need another 10,000 fast food franchises?  Contrary to the theme of the CURA/HACER study and the Star Tribune article, the net effect can be reduced employment, economic inefficiency, and less economic growth.

•  It shifts normal employment risks and numerous direct and indirect expenses from the firm to the public sector.

•  Sidestepping U.S. labor and discrimination laws, virtually all of the arriving H-1B's are male.

•  It is sometimes said that the entrepreneurial spirit at the highest levels, they are the foreign nation's best and brightest is more evident in immigrants than native born Americans.  Dr. Stuart Anderson in the Economist (February 11, 2000) admitted that even the foreign "best and brightest" are no more than approximately equal to the native born in entrepreneurial ability; indeed, he said research shows the native born have the edge.

•  Are these foreign workers truly necessary?  Other than craftily prepared industry "studies", there is no credible evidence of need.  Indeed, few of the alleged positions are advertised in newspapers or trade journals.

•  There are large numbers of qualified applicants for the available positions.  Cisco hires only five percent of its applicants, Inktomi, one percent, Microsoft, two percent, and Red Hat, one percent.  (See, "Not a drop to drink", Norman Matloff. In "On my mind", Edited by Tim Ferguson, Forbes, October 16, 2000, p36.)

•  Although the average time required to fill a high tech position is 3.7 months, employers generally hire outside the company rather than train internally or encourage workers to attend college for the specific application language sought.  (See, "Not a drop to drink" cited above.)

•  Today there are forty percent fewer graduates in computer science and one-third fewer electrical engineers than a decade ago because of the self serving nature of the H-1B program.  This massive foreign worker increase lowers wages for American workers while diminishing job opportunities for American students entering the H-1B job related market.  Why should Americans' kids go to college when they are forced to compete with foreigners who will work under any circumstances?  How can there possibly be such institutional college and academic silence when the needs are claimed to be so great?  Why the silence from the State and University of Minnesota?

•  In September 2000, the California Senate passed a law (AB-1197) which allows illegal aliens to pay the same tuition as citizens and legal residents of California to attend California colleges.  Meanwhile, citizens and legal residents from other states are forced to pay out-of-state tuition.  Rather than supporting American college kids, this legislation would discriminate against Americans and those who obey our laws while transferring public funds to illegal aliens.

Policymakers, it is reasonable that American students would have first priority in attending American colleges.  It is also reasonable to ask that grants and scholarships first go to American students and only when these students are enrolled are foreign students allowed.  This is not the practice of our colleges.  Grants and subsidies are frequently offered foreign students despite American students applying.  These are subsidies meant for American children. (See, "High-Tech Trojan Horse: H-1B Visas and the Computer Industry"; Norman Matloff. Center for Immigration Studies. Immigration Backgrounder. September 1999. See at <  http://www.cis.org/articles/1999/Backgrounder999/back999.html > Dr. Norman Matloff is a professor at the University of California, Davis. His excellent and detailed analysis of these issues and the H-1B program is available at < http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/itaa.html >.)

•  To keep track of H-1B violators, the INS is completing a $43 million computer system, the Coordinated Interagency Partnership Regulating International Students (CIPRIS), to track the approximately 500,000 foreign students in the US.  The system was tested in twenty-two southeastern colleges and although successful, expansion of the program was postponed.  Because the program was made optional for colleges, it may prevent the U.S. from keeping track of "students" in this country.  It would seem that colleges soliciting foreign students using the INS to approve them, should be required to continue to document their student status.

•  In the Summer of 2000, the AFL-CIO leadership made the revolutionary change from supporting American workers by restricting immigration to encouraging mass immigration, the flooding of union job markets, and promoting an increase in the numbers of illegal aliens.  The CURA/HACER plan appears to echo the AFL-CIO policy.  Many Minnesota DFL'ers are now endorsed and assisted by this new DFL organization and remain silent on these significant immigration issues.  In better union days and with steadfast loyalty to American workers, a truly great union leader, Caesar Chavez, in the 1970's said immigration was the worst that could happen to American workers and the union movement.  Indeed, to the INS he volunteered labor to patrol the borders to prevent illegal crossings!

•  The H-1B visa field has taken another slippery path to bring the unskilled and uneducated to U.S. shores.  It's called the J-1B visa program.  Originally, it was used to bring a handful of gifted artists and school children to the U.S., and further brief cultural exchanges with other nations.  Today, the J-1B program is being used to staff such cultural and artistic endeavors as 7-Eleven convenience stores, resorts, vacation hot spots, and amusement parks.  In Minnesota, the CURA/HACER program would replace the J-1B visa.  The J-1B was never meant for this purpose and the fact that it is being extensively used in this manner is an indictment of the current INS and dormant government enforcement policies.  In approving these uses of the J-1B visa, the U.S. government is flagrantly abusing U.S. laws. (See, "How Do You Say 'Labor Shortage?", Carol Vinzant. Fortune, September 18, 2000.)

•  Fraud is rampant.  Forty-eight percent of H-1B workers from May 1998 to July 1999 came from India and of these, forty percent come through a single Indian run H-1B employment shop "Tata" (known as a "body shop"), located in California.  According to a State Department study of this firm, twenty-one percent of Indian applications were found to be fraudulent and forty-five percent of job offers by US employers could not be verified.

•  One reason that helps explain why nearly half of H-1B's are from India is their dowry system of marriage.  Even at wages relatively low for an American in the same position, will produce a very large bridal gift for an East Indian man considering marriage.

•  Temporary help agencies are now conduits employing millions of illegal immigrants offering minimum-wage jobs in factories and warehouses.  In Chicago, for example, the number of these agencies has nearly doubled since 1985 to more than 200.  Very likely with a wink-and-a-nod, the agencies ask for Social Security and immigration cards as identification, but no further investigation is made.  Thus, for a $50 investment in a package of fraudulent documents an illegal alien can obtain tremendous returns.  The costs of employment, however, such as health insurance, is the responsibility of the worker -in other words, becoming the responsibility of the state and its citizens.  The CURA/HACER program would aggravate this development.

It would be appropriate state policy to require temporary agencies to fund all benefits and requirements equal to the hiring firm but associated with temporary agency employment.

•  Investigating alien employment fraud, the GAO has found that neither the INS or labor department is protecting American workers:

1.) Fraudulent documents are inexpensive and widespread making verification difficult under present verification practices.

2.) The INS has attempted to refine the acceptable documents but to no avail.

3.)  Since 1994, the INS has used only about two percent of its enforcement effort to monitoring employer verification of employees.

4.)  The Department of Labor has not provided assistance in identifying employers suspected of hiring unauthorized workers.

5.)  Under a new agreement the Department of Labor's involvement will be even further limited. (See, "Illegal Aliens: Significant Obstacles to Reducing Unauthorized Alien Employment Exist", Letter Report, April 2, 1999. GAO/GGD-99-33.)

The GAO recently released another excellent study of the government's current H-1B program.  Censure of the INS and, and by extension, State of Minnesota practices are interwoven through these findings.  The CURA/HACER program would, on the one hand, free by statute many of the illegal actions now evident while increasing the potential for abuse on the other. (See, GAO report, "H-1B Foreign Workers: Better Controls Needed to Help Employers and Protect Workers", Highlights. GAO/HEHS-00-157, September, 2000.)

The findings of this GAO report are summarized as follows:

A.  No proof of worker shortage:

GAO page 9: "These debates have led to numerous studies, but definitional and methodological problems in these studies do not permit a conclusion as to the extent of any IT skill shortage."

"Studies have estimated IT vacancies in the US from 190,000 to 700,000, but some studies define IT workers very broadly whereas others focus on specific IT occupational clusters. Moreover, the studies provide little information about these vacancies, such as how long positions were vacant, whether sufficient wages to attract workers were offered, or whether companies considered jobs filled by contractors as vacancies."

B.  The current program is filled with abuse:

GAO page 18: "...there are increasing instances of abuse in which workers are brought into the United States to work, but are not employed and receive no pay until jobs are available."

GAO page 28: "However, as the program [H-1B] currently operates, the goals of preventing abuse of the program and providing efficient services to employers and workers are not being achieved."

Although its [the Department of Labor] authority to investigate is limited, there is evidence to believe that program noncompliance under the H-1B program exists.  Eighty-three percent of investigations found violations (compared to forty to sixty percent under other laws) and the amount of back wages owed to H-1B workers has been substantial.  Other violations have included employers withholding wages from employees who have voluntarily left for employment elsewhere.

The H-1B program is vulnerable to program noncompliance and abuse by potentially allowing H-1B petitions that do not meet requirements to be approved.  For example bringing ineligible workers and employers who create phony corporations or create fraudulent documents for ineligible aliens.

C.  Present law does not protect U.S. workers:

GAO page 15: "The program is vulnerable to abuse - both by employers who do not have bona fide jobs to fill or do not meet required labor conditions, and by potential workers who present false credentials."

GAO page 16: "According to ETA (Employment and Training Administration) officials, even if they know a prevailing wage [on an application] is incorrect, they must approve the LCA (Labor Certification Application)."

GAO page 17: An H-1B-related investigation can only take place in response to a complaint from a person or organization or by the INS, an employer's "willful" failure to meet a condition.  Since the worker is tied to the company that sponsored him it is unlikely a complaint would be filled and only a single firm has been found in the last five years.  Only 135 complaints were received from 137,000 approvals.

GAO conclusions:

GAO page 3: "Despite the H-1B program's success at helping employers bring in highly skilled foreign workers:" *The Department of Labor "is limited to ensure that the employer's application form has no obvious errors or omissions." *The Department of Labor "does not have the authority to verify if the information supplied by employers... is correct."

GAO page 4: The Department of Labor has "limited authority to ensure employers are actually complying with the law's requirements after H-1B workers are employed in the United States." The Department of Labor "cannot initiate enforcement actions...even if it believes employers are violating the law."

GAO page 4: "The INS has no national systematic approach for adjudicators to follow to ensure the consistent review of employer petitions. There is not sufficient assurance that the INS reviews are adequate for detecting program noncompliance or abuse."

•  Finally, because of lax enforcement, there are numerous yet growing, numbers of horror stories.  For example, news reports recently said that an "employer" was accused of importing underage Indian girls to serve as sex slaves using fake H-1B visas.
 

Part III:  The CURA/HACER Study & Economics

Part I discussed the population related matters of growth, profound demographic change, the environment and cautioned that the resources to support the population are in question.  Part II discussed the CURA/HACER plan in terms of congressional level attempts at amnesty and H-1B programs.  In Part III, the review addresses a number of the economic issues used to support the study and several important issues it failed to consider.  Because the study neglected to discuss the economic harm (and several related effects) of immigration on the American disadvantaged, especially on Black Americans, this important matter is clarified.  This part closes with a discussion of the genesis of the study.

The conclusion is that the CURA/HACER illegal immigration study is not credible, its economic conclusions defective, and, as demonstrated previously, promotes a program harmful to Americans and their country, while being promoted by a mosaic of entities, often with a foreign perspective.
 

General Comments

Previously, immigration was simply assumed to be an economic plus. (Note that making different assumptions, almost all other nations have borders closed to outsiders.)  As documented throughout this review, in the last several decades numerous researchers have revisited the issue and repeatedly chronicled either indecisive or compelling negative economic results.  The CURA/HACER study might have earned credibility were a discussion of these critical issues incorporated.  However, to have explored those issues would have raised public awareness and resulted in different conclusions and, hence, the "study" not published.

Notwithstanding any other consideration, in today's more informed age one would think that a clear and convincing economic case must be made before permitting any immigration.  This was not the case in the University of Minnesota's CURA/HACER study.  Building on those noted in Parts I & II, many additional economic negatives are described in this part.

It is important to understand that the study acknowledged the economically ambiguous position of immigration stating that it depresses American workers' wages, the removal of illegal workers could increase wages (and therefore, the U.S. standard of living), and that the associated industries require labor (and other) subsidizes to succeed. (CURA/HACER study p6.)

Immigration is not a requirement for economic growth nor a satisfactory remedy for alleged economic dilemmas.  Demands for increasing immigration must be considered a testimonial to outmoded government policies, foreign perspectives, company mismanagement, or ill-designed policies based on unlimited population growth.  If lack of population growth is the underlying assumption, it implies that under the CURA/HACER proposal (and current large-scale immigration policies), the U.S. (and Canada and Australia) is condemned to unrelenting massive population growth.  Given present immigration policies, this rapid population growth will not cease until either the economic chaos in the U.S. equals that of emigrating countries or environmental or social crises begins to dominate the society and discourages or prevents entry.

As discussed in Part I, at some point stopping population growth ceases to become an option.  The folly of the unlimited population-economic philosophy is that it assumes economic growth requires ever increasing numbers of people and that there can never be enough people.  Even the most strident Cornucopian or flat-earth society adherent realizes that at some point, a limit will be reached where some factor will limit a growing population and beyond which the negatives assert themselves.  Since Cornucopians won't acknowledge that point, it implies understanding the serious consequences of the situation only after going beyond it.
 

The Lacking Economics of CURA/HACER

If one wants to influence public policy, it is likely one will use statistical techniques which reflect most favorably on the agenda.  The study begins on its first page by mischaracterizing the FED's responsibilities stating that the FED's charge is to "maximize employment and economic growth."  In fact, the FED is not charged to maximize anything and an informed reader knowing that the FED's fundamental responsibility is to promote a sustainable non-inflationary economy would have been surprised to read the study's curious definition.

Surprisingly, the study also begins by paraphrasing a statement attributed to FED Chairman, Alan Greenspan.  The exhortative claim was made that "prosperity is in jeopardy" unless our current already massive immigration, particularly illegal, is not increased.  Surprisingly, because the FED Chairman does not demonstrate an objective awareness of the issue and did not have the benefit of a FED study to support his remarks.  The use of Mr. Greenspan's statement appears to be an attempt to persuade the reader that Mr. Greenspan is an authority having full knowledge of the immigration issue.  On the contrary, his statements merely reflect his lay opinion, an uninformed opinion.

Absent are a critical reviews of methodology used.  The author of the CURA/HACER study said that this study was the first to use the technique of input-output analysis in the study of illegal immigration.  Probably with good reason!  There is no doubt that researchers in prior studies have considered the use of input-output analysis, IMPLAN, and rejected its use.  Although University of Minnesota economic professors and students use IMPLAN and are fully aware of its shortcomings, the study failed to include even a synopsis of the error potential from using this technique.  If the necessary adjustments to the IMPLAN model to reflect reality are not completed, it can be the use of an hollow black-box technique.  In this regard, Dr. Rolnick, in a telephone conversation with the reviewer, said the uncritical use of this technique likely overstated the favorable results by three to four times.  This degree of overstatement was also acknowledged in a conversation with a second University of Minnesota agricultural economist.

Dr. Rolnick's observation is also evident in the opening page of this review where mention was made that the CURA/HACER study claimed an exceedingly disproportionate amount, thirty-eight percent, of the total benefits found in reputable national studies (38% of $10 billion).  The NAS-NRC study reported that immigrant workers contributed at most only about $10 billion to the national economy a negligible amount, less than one-tenth of one percent of the national GDP, in an economy approaching the $10 trillion mark.  This is an example of economic arithmetic, simply increasing workers (and consumers) arithmetically will increase gross output as measured by GDP.  The data would, however, have more relevance if per capita changes were the statistical variable.  However, reducing the claimed benefit to a per capita basis would yield a nearly meaningless number.  Therefore, because the most likely case was found to be either a "neutral" or no benefit, even given the most favorable of assumptions, the NAS research documents the inadvisability of legal and illegal immigration.

The study (and Star Tribune story) failed to discuss the role productivity plays in the economy.  In fact it willy-nilly dispatched the entire notion of productivity by saying it didn't apply in this case (page 6).  However, a more inclusive analysis would find that the key to economic improvements is higher productivity, not large-scale immigration.

Overall economic growth, GDP, will increase by either increasing the factors of production, i.e., workers, or by improving the output of them, that is, by increasing productivity.  Productivity is the only method a society can improve its standard of living; the only way the disadvantaged can get on the ladder of success.  By merely adding another worker to the economy, even an illegal worker, the economy will grow by virtue of the arithmetic of economics even if the additional worker is at the lowest end of the wage scale.  However, the criteria for measuring the benefit of an additional worker is not merely to accomplish some task and arithmetically add to GDP, but that the worker increases productivity in the economy.  By increasing productivity the need for additional labor, even cheap illegal workers, is diminished or completely eliminated.

The CURA/HACER study confirmed other studies finding that the addition of another low skilled low wage immigrant worker is merely an effort to subsidize an employer in a stagnant or declining industry.  As discussed in this review under "H-1B", the CURA/HACER proposal presumes that the world's low-cost labor force is the domestic U.S. labor force.  Indeed, it presumes that the one billion inhabitants living in abject poverty or the three billion living at the near poverty level of the average Mexican are the labor force of U.S. corporations.  Obviously, no firm in a developed nation can compete on a cost of labor basis.

In a purely patronage fashion, the promotion of cheap foreign illegal labor encourages mismanagement by discouraging management from making sound business decisions such as increasing efficiencies, funding capital improvements, restructuring, and, yes, making the decision to go out of business.  In this circular and self serving pattern, mismanagement leads to additional demands for labor subsidies.  Be it lettuce pickers, meat packers, hotel workers, or hamburger fryers, large scale immigration, including of illegal workers, serves as a massive direct labor subsidy for certain domestic industries and specific corporations.  Subsidies suggest, however, that economic resources (i.e., money) is not being directed into the higher growth areas of the economy.  Yet, it is the higher growth areas of the economy that are responsible for increasing the number of jobs.  Therefore, the overall Minnesota (and national) economy would be more productive, and create more jobs and economic success if resources were allowed by government policy to be freely allocated to other industries.

If the study had included a discussion of productivity which stated that increases in productivity are a substitute for additional labor, it might have increased its credibility.  However, to have so casually dispatched an economic concept of such overriding importance as productivity in an item represented as an important Minnesota economic study has to have been a deliberate attempt to protect a narrow preconception rather than offer a scholarly work.  Shame on the University of Minnesota, its Center for Urban and Regional Affairs, and the Hispanic Advocacy and Community Empowerment through Research organization!

The CURA/HACER study also overlooked the role of savings in the economy.  The marginal wage rates of illegal workers suggest the extent of savings negligible.  Savings are economically critical because, in the vernacular of an economist, savings equals investment.  Because illegal workers save very little, they are unable to help provide the financial wherewithal to fund capital investments in the economy, economic growth, and increases in productivity.  Moreover, in a circular fashion, the lack of savings stimulates the need for additional low cost labor.

Similar to the CURA/HACER position, Mexico's President-Elect Vicente Fox believes he has a role in making domestic U.S. economic and social policy.  Echoing the position of the CURA/HACER plan he made the remarkable statement that "the United States economy cannot grow at rates of 5 percent or more if you do not have Mexican people there."  Maybe Mr. Fox should have researched the issues prior to making comments or policy!

He appears to be confusing economics of a developing nation such as Mexico with a very developed nation.  The U.S. simply can not grow at five percent but for very short time periods without severe domestic economic crises developing and straining international economies as well.  Mexico, on the other hand, simply to accommodate its two percent rate of population growth with half of its citizens under the age of twenty, requires a seven percent rate of economic growth.  Given that single statistic, a prudent course would be for Mr. Fox to implement, at the most expeditious possible rate, internal programs designed to stop Mexico's population growth.  Perhaps his remark was also an admission that Mexico has serious unanswered domestic economic problems and is attempting to coerce the U.S. into resolving them?

Sounding much like the language of the CURA/HACER study, Mr. Fox is unable to concede the impacts of government policies and population growth in his own country nor does he seem capable of recognizing that Mexico is responsible for its predicaments and their solution.  It is the responsibility of the Mexican government to build a nation in which their citizens would want to live rather than living under questionable policies and a succession of governments encouraging them to leave and expecting that other nations accept them.

Please recall the opening page under Part I regarding the three introductory examples presented.  Amazingly, he is unable to mention Mexico's overpopulation, and, echoing the CURA/HACER proposal, wants its ever growing surplus population to move to the U.S., the "northern territory" or "united North America", to use his words.  It appears that Mr. Fox and the CURA/HACER plan recommends virtually taking over the U.S., having the U.S. people pay for it and, linking oil, describes massive illegal immigration in terms more akin to blackmail. (See, "Visas for Mexican Workers", New York Times, Editorial. August 22, 2000.  Many other articles and interviews at this time.)

If there is an unintended benefit of examining Mexico's population dilemmas, it is that the population consequences of the CURA/HACER plan for Minnesota and the U.S. are already in evidence in Mexico.  Not only does population growth generate a plethora of problems, it illustrates the fiction that population growth improves or is even necessary for an economy.

Mr. Fox nor the CURA/HACER study have performed the arithmetic involved in fashioning their position.  Let's use the total U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to demonstrate.  The current nearly $10 trillion U.S. economy if it grew at five percent (CURA/HACER: Minnesota, six percent) would be more than a $26 trillion economy in only twenty years,  $115 trillion in fifty years, and $1.31501212E8 in one-hundred years (sorry for the scientific notation, the number is too large).  The per capita GDP contribution change would increase over eighty fold from roughly $32,700 today to $2,653,000 in one hundred years (using the January, 2000 Census middle population projection), and assuming the current U.S. population growth rate, of one billion, an over forty fold increase, $1,315,000.

Although President Fox and the CURA/HACER study would like the public and government officials to believe otherwise, this reviewer is confident that not many Americans even economists!, believe an 8,000 percent increase in per capita contribution to the U.S. economy will take place within the next ninety-nine years because of large scale illegal (and legal) immigration.

Referring to the statements made by Mr. Fox, noted Mexican scholar, George W. Grayson, points out the alarming population aspects of this peculiar position.  He says that ”if we start making the border more porous, you will have one-quarter of Mexico's population in the U.S. Sun Belt within a couple months."  And it should be added, having lots of babies who are instant U.S. citizens, seeking welfare assistance, and now able to have their extended families join the over-immigration parade! (See "Mexican Presidents Touts Open Borders", Mary Jordan, The Washington Post. August 25, 2000.)

The CURA/HACER study and Star Tribune article declared that the six percent growth rate of Minnesota economy would suffer a two percentage point reduction (to four percent) if all illegal workers would all be deported in one year.  This appears to be one more example of the misuse of statistics to justify their large scale illegal immigration position.  This "finding" merely arithmetically follows from the fundamental input-output data and is subject to its errors.  Even assuming it is accurate, foregoing a two percentage points of economic growth, most Minnesotans would agree is a very acceptable trade off!

The study stated that each working illegal alien created a job for a Minnesotan.  It said that without the 50,000 illegals now in the state, 50,000 Minnesotans would lose jobs and, conversely, for every additional illegal worker, a job for a Minnesotan is created.  Evidently, those 50,000 Minnesotans were not employed prior to the arrival of the 50,000 illegal workers!

Indeed, those 50,000 workers very likely were unemployed and from Mexico arriving as illegal aliens.  The closed nature of their communities, low wages, and the weak multiplier effect all indicate that the arrival of illegal aliens is self-serving and a negative impact on Minnesotans.

The reader may note the circular nature of the CURA/HACER job creation position.  Although the study claims a one to one job trade-off (multiplier of one), the ripple effects are less than suggested because the economic activity due these illegal (and some legal) immigrants is nearly a closed-loop system characterized by ethnic networking.  Therefore, there are few broadening effects and the additional illegal worker does not significantly benefit the Minnesota outside the closed community loop.  The fact is that even if the illegal immigrants were (alleged) to cost two percent of Minnesota's growth in the year of deportation, the amount would be substantially overstated because they frequently live in closed groups.  It is primarily the amount the illegal workers generate themselves, essentially for themselves in their closed communities. Therefore, if illegal workers were deported, the closed loop would implode with only minor effects in the larger Minnesota economy.

The principal losers would be real estate firms, financial institutions and banks that make loans or issue stock (based on faith rather than prudent financial practices) and the directly associated immigrant service firms and organizations.  On the positive side of the ledger, it is also likely that a number of the Minnesotans the study claims would lose jobs would be attracted to the economically stable positions opened by deportation.  Thus, the study confirms that the removal of all illegals and sharply restricting further entry could be accomplished at small and temporary overall cost to Minnesota's rate of economic growth.

In economic parlance, this is the multiplier concept.  As is evident elsewhere in the CURA/HACER study, a sound economic concept is misapplied.  If the economy had a great deal of slack, unemployment, stimulating the economy in any manner the FED does it with monetary policy such as the sudden infusion of workers, in theory will produce an economic rippling effect spreading out to the general economy increasing overall economic activity and employment.  Although the notion has good economic intentions, it may not be effective.  Economists call it "pushing on a string".  Hopefully, it works, stimulating demand and domestic workers becoming re-employed.

However, in a full employment economy like that experienced in Minnesota today -and for a number of years- there is little or no multiplier effect.  The reason is clear: all those employable are already productively employed.  Indeed, in an economy where human and other resources are fully utilized, the consequence of further stimulation produces higher interest rates and inflation.  Whatever the intended results, the situation is made worse by the growth of illegals entering Minnesota in a fully employed economy.  The only purpose of the CURA/HACER jobs plan is to prevent the re-allocation of economic resources to economically robust areas.

Contrarily, it almost goes without saying that illegal immigrants are more than unneeded in a recessionary economy with readily available American workers.

The study assumed that the state median average income, $29,000, was the actual illegal worker income used in calculating benefits. This is a surprising and implausible position.  The larger number helps generate a $3.8 billion benefit and increased multiplier effect assumed in the study (50,000 illegals = 50,000 new Minnesota jobs).  Clearly, the larger the income number used the greater the calculated economic effects.  When considering the appropriateness of the multiplier used, the positions held, housing, and life styles of illegal immigrants must be considered and compared to the average Minnesota resident.  Obviously, they live on the economic and social fringe and thus bear little resemblance to the average Minnesotan.  As a group they don't buy houses (as discussed earlier, often living in closed communities in shared groups it's not new, remember "Swedes Hollow" in St. Paul), buy new cars, health or automobile insurance, nor pay near the average property, sales, or excise taxes.  Therefore, assuming income equal to an average Minnesotan or paying similar taxes is highly unrealistic.

With lower incomes, even the lower study figure, $1.6 billion, is questionable.  Moreover, because their consumption is also less, it follows that any rippling effects on job creation must also be at least proportionally reduced.  The improper use of the larger number was one reason why Dr. Art Rolnick, Research Director of the Minneapolis Federal Reserve, and Dr. Tom Stinson, state economist and professor at the University of Minnesota, who, according to the Star Tribune article, reviewed the study, agreed the study was overstated. (Note: apparently Stinson has not reviewed the study but was given a number from the study, and expressed his opinion that it was overstated based on relevant Minnesota tax studies.)

Moreover, the positions held and other research indicates that the average income could be on the order of half the state median average.  However, if a reasonable income number had been used, the outcome of the study would have reduced support for its agenda.

Two other points should illustrate the deficiencies of, and literally close the door on the income subject.  First, if the average wage were truly $29,000, state citizens with lower wages would eagerly seek out those positions, and second, due to job migration, wage inflation in other job fields would have been rapidly escalating for several years.  Neither is the case.

There is more to it money is going home.  It has been documented that Mexicans in this country every year send $10 - $15 billion to relatives and friends in Mexico.  In sending money home they are removing that amount of money from the U.S. economy and, therefore, all of the associated economic benefits from the domestic economy.  An analogy would be that it's similar to a government tax for funding welfare without U.S. families benefiting!  If the dollars remained locally, many of the dollars otherwise sent to Mexico would be spent in the state and local rather than foreign community.

One study indicated that up to sixty percent of a worker's wages were remitted to their homeland.  This high percentage could be possible if the immigrant workers lived in groups which is generally the case.  Because of the amount of wages (not taxes) involved, it is very likely that had this been considered, the alleged benefits found in the study would have been driven as far negative as now claimed positive.

The multiplier effect operates in reverse as well.  Because of the dollar multiplier or spreading economic effect, the annual removal of $10 - $15 billion annually from the national economy suggest that a large number of jobs are lost to Americans.  One would think that in Minnesota, an amount of wages proportional to the national percentage would also be sent out of Minnesota, thus directly and substantially reducing any alleged Minnesota benefit.  Therefore, if one assumes a conservative multiplier of one, that $12.5 billion are sent, and each American contributes $50,000 to GDP, then a conservative opportunity cost to Americans is 250,000 lost jobs ($10 billion/$50,000).  Moreover, the U.S. national multiplier is likely greater than for illegal aliens and their hotel, bar, restaurant, lettuce picking, and meat packing jobs.  Thus, using a more realistic national multiplier of four indicates that potentially one million Americans lose jobs from legal and illegal immigrants sending money out of the country.

If, as the study suggests, thirty-eight percent of any national benefit applies to Minnesota, it would imply a conservative potential employment loss of approximately 95,000 (38% X 250,000).

There is a circular aspect as well.  That $10 - $15 billion remitted to the homeland is also partially used to fund travel of additional illegal aliens back to the U.S.  Legal and other illegal immigrants will then act as a safe harbor protecting illegals they have assisted in coming to Minnesota and other regions in the nation.  The cycle is then repeated.  This is virtually a perpetual motion machine for raising foreign employment and reducing domestic employment by way of illegal immigration.  The CURA/HACER group probably understood this but chose as one of its objectives the removal of the illegal aspects of this development.

Finally, the ill-conceived political response to large scale immigration (and the CURA/HACER plan) has a disheartening downside hidden in the business cycle.  The U.S. is nearing the termination of a long boom period and as much as everyone would like, the economic cycle has not been repealed.  More likely sooner than later, the economy will slide into recession and with it increasing unemployment.

The CURA/HACER plan would provide a freeway for continuing large scale illegal (and legal) immigration into Minnesota during an economic slow down or recession and severely exacerbate Minnesota's rising unemployment.  In addition, nationwide, hundreds of thousands of fresh immigrants would also continue to arrive competing for declining number of available jobs.  If the recession spread (or began) to Mexico, the numbers could reach frightening levels under the CURA/HACER plan.  Because of the widespread ramifications of this regretful development, economists will not wish to admit to problems created by immigration.

Harming the unfortunate most, almost simultaneously with the 1965 immigration law revisions, the threshold rate for unemployment was raised two to three percentage points or from the three to the five or six percent level.  Whatever one asserts the other possible reasons (the Boomers or women employment, for example), there can be no doubt that one of the greatest tragedies of large scale immigration was that millions of mostly disadvantaged, frequently Black Americans were doomed to suffer a large social and economic burden for an ill-conceived immigration policy.  Punctuating the startling change in social/economic policies, government and industry representatives appear to become concerned at this time only if unemployment falls below the new, higher, standards.  In prior years, lower unemployment was considered the objective, something exciting, and policymakers became concerned only when unemployment rose above the three percent threshold.  The consequence of that two percent point increase was that many, mostly disadvantaged Americans began directly paying a stiff price for large scale immigration.  The CURA/HACER plan will ensure intense job competition and rising unemployment for Americans.

The CURA/HACER study says the "bar is quite high" for those expressing a different opinion (p15).  On the contrary, as clearly illustrated, the bar seems to lie at quite a low level!  The grand scheme of Minnesota being illegal worker dependent is way off the mark.  Considering all the factors discussed clearly demonstrates that illegal (and legal) immigration is not in the best interest of Minnesota.  On the contrary, the effects are altogether negative.

In summary, under the most generous of assumptions the economic impact of illegal (and legal) immigration is of some, albeit, insignificant benefit.  Using the more probable assumptions, the net effect on the Minnesota economy remains inconsequential, failing to hit the economic radar screen.  If the study included a rigorous proven methodology and performed a scientifically based sampling rather than collecting hearsay figures and extrapolated the findings to the entire class of illegal aliens, the study might be considered partially valid.  Because no rigorous real-world effort was made the study can not be considered valid.  Finally, because of the CURA/HACER proposed change in immigration policy, the American citizen would have no influence over immigration matters.

Even when other opposing factors are excluded, because there is inconsequential benefit to the Minnesota economy or employment, stopping all incoming illegals and the immediate removal of current illegal workers will have little impact on the overall economy.  Indeed, the evidence, acknowledged by the study, supports greater economic benefits to Minnesotans by restricting illegal entry and removing those now in Minnesota.

Policymakers, one should add that throughout the history of Minnesota and nation, illegal immigration has never been considered an economic paradigm.
 

Immigration, Economics & the American Disadvantaged

This review will now address the consequences of immigration on disadvantaged Americans, an item overlooked by the CURA/HACER study.  Based on substantial body of research, one cannot avoid the fact that any presumed benefits of current immigration policies are dwarfed by the negative social/economic consequences, including the disastrous effects on the disadvantaged American, particularly Native and Black Americans.

The weight of the evidence is that the U.S. is importing poverty and racism while harming disadvantaged Americans.  In general, recent immigrants, legal and illegal, lack the requisite skills to seamlessly meld into American society and therefore, directly compete with disadvantaged Americans, often Blacks, and other immigrants.

For example, as early as 1951, a study documented immigration's part in maintaining or increasing poverty.  Subsequently there has been a large number of excellent studies all demonstrating similar objections to our current mass immigration policies.  Interestingly, they all call for significant immigration reductions and different selection procedures: Rockefeller Commission, two RAND studies, National Academy of Sciences, Clinton's 1995 Commission on Immigration Reform (Jordan Commission), congressional CBO and GAO studies, last fall's study by the Center for Immigration Studies, a recently released study by the Community Service Society (New York), and a GAO report and a FED study released only last month.  As Huxley said so poignantly, "just because you choose to ignore them, doesn't mean facts don't exist."

Because the CURA/HACER study raised the issue of the 1997 National Academy of Sciences (NAS-RNC) study, let's look at a number of items the CURA/HACER illegal immigration study did not discuss.  These include the substantial economic and social cost income reductions widening income gaps, and harm to the American disadvantaged, specifically, Blacks.

Low wages caused by mass immigration drive the economic benefit to employers.  The low wage levels are due to the fact that illegal aliens, for the most part, are significantly less skilled and educated than Americans.  The negative economic consequences arise because they consequently have low income levels, pay far less taxes, and generally have large families and therefore high education burdens, and receive government benefits.  Depending on the school system and state, at between $5,000 and $10,000 per student per year the cost of educating large number of immigrants, including illegals is staggering.  Large scale immigration is also the primary reason for the crisis in affordable housing.

Dr. George Borjas, perhaps the preeminent immigration economist in the country, was also a member of the NAS-RNC study.  He was disturbed by the lack of candor in the NAS-RNC report.  He stated that when both cash and noncash benefits are included, immigrants use government services nearly fifty percent more frequently and receive government assistance over much longer periods of time than Americans.  His research also found that immigration lowered American wages by as much as $133 billion annually.  Please notice that the $10 billion of calculated benefit mentioned previously did not include this negative offset. (More on Dr. Borjas's research near the end of this section.) (See, "The New Americans: Economic Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration", National Academy of Science -RNC, 1997.)
 

In addition, the NAS-RNC study also found that:

•  The net cost (benefits less costs) of immigration in 1996 totaled $65.01 billion;

•  Legal immigrants arriving since January 1, 1970, including refugees, asylees and legalized (amnestied) immigrants, and 6.0 million illegal immigrants cost $49.76 billion more than taxes they paid in 1996;

•  $15.24 billion was the cost of the unemployed, involuntary part-time and discouraged workers;

•  Current immigration policies require substantial subsidies: e.g., annually on a per immigrant basis, New Jersey, $1,484; California, $3,463;

•  The added tax burden imposed on the each household in New Jersey was $232; in California, $1,178;

•  The net costs to government, tax revenue minus expenditures, exceeded the claimed benefits at every level, by immigrant households, estimated between $11 billion and $20 billion yearly;

•  Immigration was responsible for forty-four percent of the decline in wages of high school dropouts; and

•  Forty percent of recent immigrants lack a high school education.

Research from the Center for Immigration Studies also addresses the inappropriateness of the CURA/HACER proposals.  Their research concludes that,

•  "With the exception of employment-based immigrants, who are allowed entrance because they are thought to have needed talents or skills, over 85 percent of legal immigrants are granted admission without regard to their likely economic or fiscal impact";

 •  Illegal immigrants are "the lowest-skilled flow of immigrants, with at least 75 percent lacking a high school degree"; and

•  Perhaps "one-third of the immigrant high school dropouts holding jobs in the United States are illegal aliens". ("Does Immigration Harm the Poor?", Steven A. Camarota, Center for Immigration Studies, In "The Public Interest", Fall 1998, issue no. 133.)

Furthermore, in a 1997 study, Dr. Camarota further documents the work of Dr. Borjas, finding that there is "strong and convincing evidence that households headed by low-skilled immigrants constitute a significant drain on the system from the moment they arrive.  No matter how long they remain in the country, they continue to drain public coffers." (See, "Public Services Used and Taxes Paid by Immigrants in The United States: An Update of the Julian Simon Model", Center for Immigration Studies, August 1997.)

Rice University economist Donald Huddle, reinforces the foregoing in his 1996 study (and revisions).  Dr. Huddle found that the net costs (after deducting taxes immigrants paid) of immigration were $65 billion annually and that Americans lost 2.3 million jobs because of immigration.  Dr. Huddle also found that if immigration law and enforcement policy did not change, the net cost for the decade 1997 to 2006 for all post-1969 immigrants would reach $866 billion, or an average of almost $87 billion per year. ("The Net Costs of Immigration: The Facts, the Trends, and the Critics," Donald Huddle, Carrying Capacity Network, 1996. See 1997, 1998, & 1999 revisions showing increasing costs.)

Because of the power of special interests, changing immigration related regulations can be a politically daunting task.  When Congress proposed changes in the "Food Stamp Program: Noncitizen Eligibility, and Certification Provisions", this year, the weight of the Catholic Church was brought to bear to try to prevent changes inconsistent with their agenda.  Regarding identification, they lobbied that "any document or collateral contact that reasonably establishes identity and residency" be used rather than specific well known identification items.  In addition, when cash food assistance ends or is reviewed, the Catholic Church lobbied that food stamps continue despite inability to determine eligibility.  It appears that in both instances they were supporting illegal aliens. (See, Letter dated April 25, 2000 to Mr. Patrick Waldron, USDA Food and Nutrition Service, from Fred Kammer, SJ. Catholic Charities USA . Available at < http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/Programs/Advocacy/letters/Letters2000/hunger2.html >.)

If the study were more academically inclined, it would have left out Greenspan's lay remarks and included the findings of a FED study released two weeks earlier.  On August 23, 2000 the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (FRBSF) released its study "Cyclical and Demographic Influences of the Distribution of Income in California."  This thoroughly researched and documented study not only confirmed the findings of numerous other studies, it is a scathing indictment of the CURA/HACER study and of current U.S. immigration policies. (See: "Cyclical and Demographic Influences on the Distribution of Income in California," Mary C. Daly and Heather N. Royer. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. 2000 Economic Review, pp. 1-13. Available at < www.sf.frb.org/econrsrch/econrev/2000/article1.pdf > Also see, "Falling Behind: California Workers and the New Economy," California Budget Project. Duplicating the FRBSF research, the California Budget Project found that poverty increased between 1989 and 1999, and that average income fell below the national average.)

The FRBSF study should put to rest any notion policymakers or immigration supporters may harbor concerning the alleged positive economic effects of current large-scale immigration policies.  In brief, this study found that mass immigration has led to a widening gap between the affluent and the poor, sharply rising poverty, and average state income that has fallen significantly below the national average.
 

Several findings of this important FRBSF study follow:

•  Up to one-half the disparity between California and the rest of the nation is attributable to the state's rapidly changing demographic structure caused by mass immigration;

•  A larger number of Californians are living in poverty, a smaller number are in the middle class, and a majority of families in California have less income than comparable families living elsewhere in the U.S.;

•  Those at the bottom ten percent of income had further declines of almost twenty percent whereas the rest of the nation saw an 8.7 percent income increase;

•  Almost four of ten income groups saw income declines;

•  Only those at the top of the income distribution experienced real income growth; however, even these high income earners failed substantially to match the national average;

•  Income inequality in California increased relatively rapidly in every decade from 1969. [beginning of large scale legal and illegal immigration];

•  The difference in income disparities "accelerated during the 1990's";

•  Median income grew prior to 1989, subsequently, median family income has steadily fallen with income declines resulting from "declines at the bottom than gains at the top";

•  Nationally, family income gains occurred in every period studied, 1969 - 1998, and at a faster rate than in California;

•  By 1998, nearly seven of ten income groups in California had lower adjusted incomes than their counterparts nationally;

•  In the 1990's not only was the rate of decline increasing, but the decline was from the middle income groups to the lower income groups;

•  Prior to 1970 and 1989 the state's demographics helped to explain the state's above national average income growth;

•  After 1989 income declines were due to demographic changes (large scale legal and illegal immigration) and "had the largest impact on the bottom half" income groups;

• Poverty increased by twenty-five percent, over four times the national average; and

•  Much of the decline was found to be due to the large number of immigrants and their low skill levels.

The conclusion of the FRBSF study applied to Minnesota is that if Minnesota wants to increase the number of its poor while at the same time significantly diminishing the middle class, and reducing the upper income group as well, then continue the present mass immigration practices; if it wants to hasten the process, implement the massive illegal immigration proposals of the CURA/HACER study.  If uplifting the poor citizen and increasing the middle class in Minnesota is the vision, then sharply reducing all forms of immigration, including refugee and asylees, should be the policy goal.
 

HACER'S Literature Review, the Economics of Immigration & the Poor American

Included in the CURA/HACER study was a review of selected literature.  However, opposing studies were ignored and the two works offered were outdated and downplayed.  Moreover, the review used these two known experts in a curious fashion, mistakenly implying that their work complimented the CURA/HACER study.  For example, George Borjas's 1994 study is cited and summarized by saying post 1980 studies produced neutral or positive findings.  Dr. Borjas would be amazed his other works appear to be misrepresented.  Vernon Briggs's 1976 work is used to describe the difficulties of studying illegals.  Dr. Briggs would also be astonished that his subsequent immigration studies and their characteristics were neglected.

Why the study chose Dr. Borjas, Harvard University, JFK School of Government, as implied support for its position is understandable given his stature, yet assumes few would know of his immigration work -which strongly supports the contrary position.

In a Wall Street Journal article Dr. Borjas stated that recent immigrants are less skilled and a drain on the national economy.  "He would sharply curtail immigration" states the article.  The article continues, "more than any other scholar, Mr. Borjas has undermined the view the U.S. draws great strength from open immigration.  His studies of decades of census data show that recent waves of immigrants have fewer skills than natives and less education and are more likely than natives to go on welfare and stay there.  The political implications are obvious, he says: Reduce immigration by the 'huddled masses' in favor of entry by the more skilled." (See, the Wall Street Journal, April 26, 1996.)

In addition, as mentioned before, in the 1997 NAS-NRC study, as one of its authors, Dr. Borjas estimated that immigration depresses the wages of American workers by as much as $133 billion annually.

The identical lesson is offered by Vernon M. Briggs, Jr. , Cornell University.  Sounding much like he read the CURA/HACER study, in Congressional Testimony he says that, "Immigration policy has been captured by special interests who peddle the notion that immigration is an unmitigated benefit to the nation and that it is costless.  Only with respect to the formulation of immigration policy is such nonsense tolerated as conventional wisdom."

When referring to the same NRC study as Borjas, he stated that the "net fiscal costs of public services to immigrants (e.g., those associated with increased education, medical, welfare, incarceration, and public housing) beyond what they pay in taxes, ranged from $14.8 to $20.2 billion a year" and that "these fiscal costs are disproportionately distributed among the communities and states depending on the size of the foreign-born population in their respective jurisdictions."

Dr. Briggs says that the central immigration matter is "what are the labor market consequences of what immigration policy produces or tolerates?  For it must always be remembered that immigration is entirely a discretionary act.  The mass immigration that the United States is currently experiencing is entirely a policy-driven phenomenon.  No one has a right to immigrate or to seek refuge in the United States legally or illegally."

Regarding growing income inequality, he cites the 1994 President's Council of Economic Advisers report which said that "immigration has increased the relative supply of less-educated labor and appears to have contributed to the increasing inequality of income in the nation."  He also reported a 1995 Bureau of Labor Statistics study that "immigration accounted for approximately twenty to twenty-five percent of the increase in the wage gap between low and high-skilled workers during the 1980s in the fifty largest metropolitan areas of the United States."  That would likely include the Twin Cities.

Dr. Brigg's immigration policy change recommendations builds on the recommendations from President Clinton's recent U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform (Barbara Jordan Commission).  The Commission stated, in part, that enforcement at job sites and labor standards, fines on employers who are found to have violated the employer sanctions provisions of the law, and the creation of a reliable and verifiable identification system be promptly implemented.

Evidently with great prescience he recommends that "change in all components" of the nation's immigration policy is required.  "It is not simply an issue of the adverse effects of continuing illegal immigration and the need to combat the ongoing hemorrhage of the nation's borders," he says. (Original emphasis.

He concludes by saying that "the critical issue is how much do we care about the wellbeing of immigrants compared with the Americans who win and the Americans who lose?  And that "the myth that immigration has only benefits is perpetuated by special interest groups who have no concern for the national interest."
(See "Immigration Policy and the Plight of Unskilled Workers", Vernon M. Briggs, Jr., Testimony before the Subcommittee on Immigration U.S. House Committee of the Judiciary, March 11, 1999.)
 

Mass Immigration & its Effects on Black Americans: Importing Racism

The effects of mass immigration on American Blacks was not mentioned in the CURA/HACER study.  Although the preceding commentary relating to disadvantaged Americans holds Black Americans at its center, it was not sufficiently clear regarding immigration and American Blacks.  Because of its tragic nature, let's further discuss this important issue.

With the most gratifying sustained economic period in history, one would have expected the American disadvantaged, especially Blacks and other recent immigrants, to have made economic and social gains greater than registered by the overall economy.  Yet Black rates of unemployment have until very recently, maintained a rate twice that of the national average and other measurements of progress have either worsened or remained mired in the old trends.

The answer to this very lamentable development is that our current immigration policies have impacted the least advantaged Americans most of all.

The respected Washington based think tank, Center for Immigration Studies in a study released last fall affirming the previous studies while enlarging their scope, found that immigration was the leading reason for continuing "growth in poverty", especially of Blacks, and that "many Americans have not made economic progress for over two decades."  In other words, for over two decades our mass immigration policies have prevented American Blacks from achieving success.  The study concluded that the "growth in immigrant-related poverty accounted for 75 percent of the total increase in the size of the poor population; that this increase more than offsets the 2.7 million reduction in the size of the poor population that results from the $64 billion spent annually on means-tested cash assistance programs"; that "there can be no doubt that ongoing immigration is diverting scarce public and private resources that are needed to help the poor already here, native-born and immigrant, improve their circumstances"; and that "the poverty rate for persons living in immigrant households grew dramatically from 15.5 percent in 1979, to 18.8 percent in 1989, to 21.8 percent in 1997.  As a result, the gap between immigrant and native poverty has almost tripled in 20 years." (See, "Importing Poverty: Immigration's Impact on the Size and Growth of the Poor Population in the United States", Center for Immigration Studies, September 2, 1999.)

The history of this terrible process is documented in Roy Beck's superbly written book, "The Case Against Immigration", where two long chapters are devoted to the subject.  He states that slaves who had gained their freedom "suffered constant setbacks as immigrants pushed them aside" and then as they began to recover from that onslaught another "Great Wave drove them backward" and since 1970 Blacks have seen "their situation deteriorate" because of large scale immigration.  Perhaps no other single statistic illustrates the benefit to Blacks and other disadvantaged Americans of traditional U.S. immigration policies than the fact that during the modest immigration period of 1940 to 1970, according to Mr. Beck, middle class Blacks "grew from 22 percent to 71 percent!"  Had traditional immigration policies continued, Blacks today would have nearly achieved economic parity and made great strides toward social parity as well.

Now compounding the insults, U.S. labor laws and affirmative action programs designed to assist Blacks are "now being used by employers to avoid hiring Blacks."  This has left American Blacks increasingly frustrated and disadvantaged. (See, "The Case Against Immigration: The moral, economic, social, and environmental reasons for reducing U.S. immigration back to traditional levels", Roy Beck. W.W. Norton & Company, New York. 1996. Policymakers note, this is required reading. The text discusses the very industries used in the CURA/HACER study with insights and a sensitivity not found in the study.)

Because of the sometimes capricious nature of anti-discrimination laws, they originally almost exclusively discriminated against White males, while any other race and ethnic group remained a protected class.  Today that core theme is essentially unchanged but with one major exception: Americans in general are frequently given less protection than non-citizens, legal and illegal immigrants.  Indeed, resources, affirmative action and civil rights programs designed to boot-strap the American disadvantaged, notably Blacks, into the mainstream are increasingly diverted to legal and illegal immigrants.  It needs to be understood that the ladder of upward mobility for Blacks and other disadvantaged Americans was yanked away by government immigration policy at approximately the same time Congress passed the Great Society programs and anti-discrimination measures intended to assist them.

According to Yeh Ling-Ling, Executive Director of the Diversity Alliance for a Sustainable America located in California, mass immigration has also exacerbated America's race relations.  Racial and ethnic tensions, she says, are "rising in many communities throughout the U.S."  For example, Mario Obledo, co-founder of MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense Fund), said in 1998, "Eventually, we are going to take over all political institutions of California."  She notes that Mr. Obledo is also a "former California Secretary of Health and Welfare." (See, "Unlimited Immigration Portends Increasing Instability", Yeh Ling-Ling, St. Paul Pioneer Press, April 11, 2000. Diversity Alliance for a Sustainable America, 1904 Franklin Street, Suite 517, Oakland, CA 94612.)

"Most East Asian immigrants have racist attitudes toward African-Americans and Latinos" states Dr. Norman Matloff in his Congressional Testimony.  He also says that "Latinos definitely have this problem too."  Evidence of racism was clear in the 1990's Los Angeles riots.  Whites were not involved.  On the contrary, the rioters were Asians and Hispanic immigrants with American Blacks caught up in the disorder.  As experienced elsewhere, there is little rapport between the groups. (See, "The Adverse Impacts of Immigration on Minorities", Testimony to House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration, April 5, 1995, updated March, 1999. Norman Matloff, University of California at Davis.)

In attempting to support their study, the CURA/HACER study claimed that Americans were lazy, irresponsible, and lacking in intelligence.  In their own words the study says that Americans are "not as good, reliable, or teachable" as illegal aliens (p5).  That's an in credible statement for a study hankering to be the basis of government policy-making in Minnesota!  Indeed, Minnesota is a state well known for its high average level of education and its industrious workforce.  To assert otherwise is wrong and insulting.

However, there is a much more sinister implication of their position, blatant racism.  Because it is the disadvantaged, frequently Native and Black Americans in Minnesota that would be the available workers they are describing, the study is clearly attributing those characteristics to those groups in Minnesota (and probably the nation).  It is also consistent with the research made by others regarding racism of Hispanics or Asians.  This racist position is not only outrageous and shameful but says far more about the character of CURA/HACER and its supporters than could any academic review of their "study".  The University of Minnesota and the Hubert Humphrey Institute needs to raise its standards to the deeply caring level of the Institute's namesake.

Finally, Blacks are as immigration lawyer policy, disenfranchised from the American system of jurisprudence regarding legal matters concerning their well-being.  This policy and practice was stated at last fall's American Immigration Lawyers Association Annual Conference where attendees were instructed to exclude Blacks from jury trials if immigration is a factor.  This brazenly racist, anti-Black and anti-American position was clearly stated, "... race and ethnicity must be recognized as a factor when selecting a jury. Tensions between African Americans, Hispanic and Asian immigrants are severe. A Roper Poll showed that non-Hispanic African Americans favored deep cuts in immigration by an 11 to 1 margin. Jury selection needs to take account of this social reality."  (Rex Wingerter, instructor, American Immigration Lawyers Association continuing-legal-education conference, Washington, D.C. Nov. 12, 1999.)

The CURA/HACER program and large scale illegal and legal immigration will continue the process begin in 1965 of cleaving Native, Black, and other disadvantaged Americans from the American social and economic mainstream.
 

Final Comments on Immigration, Economics and Poverty

When the INS began to limit the number of large illegal immigration searches and investigations of related employer misconduct, it helped seal the economic and social destiny of the one group affected most by illegal immigration, the American disadvantaged, many of whom are Blacks.  Minnesota is equally culpable by providing a safe harbor for this and many other related illegal immigration practices.

The research conducted over many years documents the fallacies of our current immigration policies.  For example, Dr. Steven A. Camarota concludes that, "The findings of the (NAS) NRC study basically tell us this: We can now say with some confidence that immigration is not the benefit to the economy that it was once thought to be.  While the overall economic impact of immigration is modest, the effect on the unskilled and on taxpayers in high-immigrant states is substantial."  (See, "Does Immigration Harm the Poor?", Steven A. Camarota, cited previously.)

In the most powerful of visual terms, a graph in a recent Forbes business magazine summarizes the distressing effects mass immigration has had on the American disadvantaged.  The graphical representation clearly illustrates that the improvement in the decline in U.S. poverty ceased when the 1965 immigration law revisions were made.  Also, as indicated earlier, despite the greatest economic expansion of all time, the poverty rate has edged up over the same period.  Perhaps, the reviewer is unduly optimistic, but it certainly appears, incorporating the analysis in the article and Roy Beck's documentation, that had the U.S. not changed immigration laws in 1965 and subsequent years, the U.S. could have nearly eliminated poverty and its corollary, discrimination and racism.  Minnesota and national policymakers would do well to keep this in mind. (See, "Poverty's Roots", Peter Brimelow; Forbes, August 21, 2000, p104 and Roy Beck's "The Case Against Immigration" cited previously.)

The facts are that income and income equality and the economy always performed better under lower than higher immigration.  As the current increases document, productivity increases when labor is relatively scarce and productivity is the key to increasing real per capita living standards.  The reason is, as is well known, when labor is at a premium corporate America invests in capital and human skills rather than merely simply increasing numbers, and by increasing productivity increases standards of living.

One should add that all important environmental legislation had their genesis under similar circumstances.  Sound environmental legislation is now threatened or in reverse, fundamentally due to changing social and economic demands; in an environmentally menacing and economic circular spiral, priorities change as standards of living are challenged.

The CURA/HACER study is at odds with all these remarkable studies.  The reason for the divide is that this study was prepared by an Hispanic rights organization interested in promoting its agenda rather than science.  In the CURA/HACER study we see a special interest that not only doesn't have an unambiguous foreign prejudice, but is willing to make policy recommendations which are harmful to American workers and the nation in order to satisfy their narrow agenda.  The same holds true for any number of organizations and government departments connected to mass immigration and which benefit from it.

To publicly acknowledge the awesome documented negative consequences would threaten not only the funding of certain programs, but in many instances, the very existence of the organization or government department.  It would signify substantial funding cuts to these organizations and agencies and jeopardize their agenda.

The presumed benefits of immigration accrue only if the numbers are reduced to traditional levels and each immigrant is about age twenty five, well educated, not married, childfree, and all relatives remain back in the homeland.
 

Affiliations: The Genesis of the Study

This segment shows that the study originated with affiliated organizations rather than directly with the CURA/HACER group and describes the nearly unfathomable connections with other entities.

That the CURA/HACER study was released without the benefit of background information becomes evident when one looks into the study's background.  The study did not directly originate with CURA nor HACER.  On the contrary, the study is a result of a complex of interlocking associations, primarily Hispanic and religious, and possibly with the national American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) at its core.  In this regard CURA and HACER appear to be in the forefront of organizations actively involved with or possibly under the charge of affiliated special interests groups.  Could this be the stereotype for organizations operating within the umbrella of the University of Minnesota's Humphrey Institute or CURA?

I am not implying lawbreaking is involved with the study it is not my interest.  Nor am I implying that the quality of the study be a criteria used to determine the status of the Humphrey Institute, CURA or of HACER, only that the objective of the work and of the methods of these organizations are to advocate a political viewpoint.  It does suggest, however, two important developments.  First, unknown to most policymakers and the public, public funds, directly and indirectly, are being used to promote non-public political agendas.  Second, there is a large number of tax exempt organizations deeply involved in promoting political activities regarding immigration in possible violation of IRS and Minnesota Department of Revenue regulations, including the status of HACER.

Both the study and HACER admit this to be the case.  In my opinion, this is in violation of tax and State of Minnesota regulations, and clearly contrary to the role of the Humphrey Institute in a dialogue with Minnesota.

The catalyst behind the CURA/HACER study of illegal immigrant workers is both an aggregation of three religious organizations (with many Catholic associations) called "Isaiah", Interfaith Action, St. Paul Ecumenical Action Council (SPEAC), and the Great River Interfaith Partnership (GRIP), and a direct alliance with the Gamaliel Foundation.  Interfaith Action is similar to a much larger organization and Isaiah is a duplicate of an organization in Indiana and has extensive links elsewhere.  SPEAC has an active immigration task force.  Although the expressed purpose of Isaiah is to "bring about justice in Minnesota", its intentions are to influence if not control the physical, social, and cultural development of the entire Minnesota "growth corridor" stretching from St. Cloud through the Twin Cities to Rochester.  Because of this, it is active in the "smart growth" movement.  Under current immigration and population growth policies this region will include approximately seventy-five percent of all Minnesota households.

In other words, cloaking their motives and objectives in the language of religion, CURA/HACER & Affiliates seek to control Minnesota politics and legislation.

The study involves selected individuals supported by very big organizations and unfathomable connections.  Even at the local level, interesting associations and conflicts of interest abound.  Jim Kielkopf, the author of the study, is a member of an affiliated church; Fred Smith, CURA's Coordinator of Community Development Programs, is also a member of an affiliated church, member of HACER Board of Directors, and his wife formerly the director of research for SPEAC; Paul Carrizales, Executive Director of HACER, Board Member, a member of Isaiah's Community Council of Latino Organizations; HACER originally was a component of SPEAC under the Chicago-Lake Chicano's United in Service ("CLUES") organization with Paul Carrizales.  The committee involved in the study were the above persons plus Greg Namacher, Isaiah Organizer, and George Morse, state economist, University of Minnesota professor of Kielkopf, and provided the model program.

Working through Isaiah, the study was chosen by the affiliated churches as one of their three priorities: immigration, gun violence (i.e., trigger locks), and affordable housing (high rise and public subsidies).  Their activities in this endeavor involve such disparate actions as sprawl, labor relations, housing including setting up a housing company attacking INS policies, tax sharing, education, transportation, promotion of immigration -notably illegal (the HACER study), amnesties, drivers licenses for illegal aliens, networking and training "visitors", activists who will encourage Isaiah programs in each affiliate church.

The National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (NNIRR) and over seventy affiliated groups are campaigning to demand an end to INS employer raids among other priorities. (See, < http://www.nnirr.org/current_campains.html >.)

The public may not be aware but Ted Mondale, Governor Jesse Ventura's leader on sprawl and the Chairman of the Metropolitan Council, along with Senator Paul Wellstone, and state Representative Jim Seifert are committed to parts of the Isaiah program.  Evidently they haven't studied the issues raised in this review.

The "gun violence" appears to be a red-herring, this priority very likely has another agenda.  Although they always use children as a backdrop, very few die from accidents only four children died from a gun accident in 1997.  Apparently the legislature understands this issue and also responds to information from the constituency protecting gun ownership.

As noted earlier, the "affordable housing" issue has relatively little to do with poor Americans and much to do with massive immigration under the "smart growth" banner.  Isaiah developments explains how American disadvantaged have been given secondary consideration and provides an explanation for the deteriorating circumstances for Black Americans.  Usurping the language of civil rights applied to American Blacks, "people of color", they now giving new meaning in its use, primarily meaning Hispanics.  Sadly, even when they say they are promoting anti discrimination or housing or job measures, in practice it is applied to immigrants; Black immigrants and refugees can be used as tools to advance a larger immigration agenda.  An example of this is found in a apartment complex not far from Lake Street in south Minneapolis.  At one time, not so long ago, its residents were generally retires of moderate to low income, a few more White than Black.  Today its residents are almost exclusively Blacks, but from Somalia coming as immigrants and refugees with rents (and more) paid by public monies.  The previous tenants were all notified to move on short order, literally evicted to make room for them.  Fred Smith it should be said, is the contact person for the Affordable Housing Caucus.

How successful they have been in promoting their agenda is evident by the press given these issues.  Although the various organizations' media have been involved, except for sprawl, legislation has been slower to develop.  Perhaps, policymakers have some understanding of the nuances (and hidden control aspects) of these matters.

The associations go far beyond Isaiah.  There are large foundations funding immigrant causes and mass immigration.  The Bush Foundation, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, Ford Foundation, PEW, New World Foundation, Tides Foundation, W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Heartland Foundation, Kettering Foundation, Otto Bremer Foundation, Star Tribune Foundation, Minneapolis Foundation, St. Paul Foundation, and the General Mills Foundation are major sources of funds.  Note that foundation funding is in addition to funding by common charities such as the United Way or corporations such as Honeywell, Firstar Bank, and Pillsbury.  Also note that the State of Minnesota is directly involved with its Chicano Latino Affairs Council (CLAC) and its Institute of Public Health.  These organizations do not provide funding to immigration reform groups.

Each of these foundations support one or more of these organizations, the National Council of La Raza (the "race"), the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), National Immigration Forum (NIF), and the National Network for Immigration Rights and Reform (NNIRR).  Local funding for La Raza comes from the Star Tribune Foundation, Minneapolis Foundation, St. Paul Foundation, and the General Mills Foundation and others.

Are they interconnected and is there a connection to CURA/HACER?  It is not the goal of this review to list the maze of connections, however common sense suggest that an undertaking the magnitude of the CURA/HACER program with its extensive network of Isaiah affiliations could also be a component of a much more intricate plan.  A few examples here should suffice: a quote from Jim Kielkopf from the Star Tribune's article is at the NNIRR website; the Greenspan quotes are at several areas; a number of the organizations contain the same themes as found in Isaiah -indeed, some use identical language; a reading of the AILA priority program is like reading the CURA/HACER study and Isaiah materials.

A startling example is from the League of Women Voters (LWV) "Changing Faces Changing Communities" program promoting immigration last Spring.  The sole purpose of the LWV program was consistent with the practices of Isaiah, that of affirming a pre-ordained conclusion and taking those findings to the legislature for policymaking purposes.  In the LWV program it was accomplished by carefully selecting attendees (deliberately excluded average Minnesotans) and by following a well crafted script leading to a single conclusion.  Many State and local government departments were supporters and were represented.  Many of the supporters of Isaiah and the CURA/HACER study also supported the LWV program: Star Tribune, Minneapolis Foundation, United Way, and others.  There is a two-way connection to the Humphrey Institute (and Star Tribune) through the Institute's Center for Democracy and Citizenship, which is also connected to the Public Broadcasting System, the Kettering Foundation and the Study Circles Resource Center.  The Topsfield Foundation funds the Study Circles program.

The LWV wrap-up "Action Forum" conference held on April 29th, included a session conducted by AILA attorneys describing methods to infiltrate and network with other organizations, government departments, and influential people.  It should remind the reader of the Isaiah "visitor" program at affiliated and prospective churches.

There appears to be sequential mass immigration campaign.  About the same time, the Star Tribune conducted its "Changing Faces" series with chief Editor Tom McGuire the contact person.  Following that series was an immigration conference at Carlton College where all but one participant promoted mass legal and illegal immigration including the NNIRR, the Midwest Director of the AILA, and the local "human rights" government department.

Bringing this full circle back to the Humphrey Institute and the CURA/HACER study the Institute held an immigration conference at the University of Minnesota on October 26, 2000 called, "Moving Minnesota: Workforce Challenges in the New Economy ­ Aging Baby Boomers and New Immigrants."   The CURA/HACER study was central to this conference.  Note, in addition to CURA/HACER, the Star Tribune and the AFL-CIO played key roles, among others previously mentioned.

However, rather than a academically inspired pedagogical event, this conference was a one-sided lovefest for massive legal and illegal immigration.  At this conference there was not a single participant that questioned the study, data submitted (such as it was, limited), nor general themes of the conference.  How could, for example, a demographer make a presentation of innumerable data yet neglect the most overriding of all, population growth?  Objectivity became apparent only when a member of the audience questioned the participants.  The themes evident in Isaiah were central to the conference; indeed the two representatives from AILA chided anyone in the audience who dared offer a different point of view.

The public and our legislature will be surprised that former Congressmen and co-directors of CURA, Tim Penny and Vin Weber, would promote a conference that gives every appearance of violating the Institute's twin fundamental policies: "The Humphrey Institute is hospitable to a diversity of opinions and aspirations. The Institute itself does not take positions on issues of public policy."  It is evident that the University of Minnesota's Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs and its CURA, HACER & affiliations have violated academic and moral doctrines of learning, deliberately restricted the focus of the conference, and in doing so, very much expressed an opinion and taken a position.  Unfortunately, this conference followed a similarly scripted conference held four years earlier -and as now, during an election period.  The first conference had little objectivity; the second more narrowed, made no pretense of its strategy and desired outcomes. (See < http://www.hhh.umn.edu/centers/policy-forum/workconf.htm >.)

Even the Twin Cities major community newspaper chain, SunPost Newspapers, followed the same pattern.  Last Spring the SunPost begin its huge "The Minnesota Global Village" pro-mass immigration series with numerous subsequent articles and editorials echoing the identical themes seen previously.  Seen again is the Study Circles group, Minneapolis Foundation, et. al.  Interestingly, in the preceding month, the SunPost Newspapers ran a more than half-page article on Isaiah.

One must wonder why is Minnesota receiving this much attention?  Is it that Minnesota would make an excellent posterboy for mass immigration?  Governor Ventura appears to be acquiescing in this matter.

In addition to the other foundations, corporations and charities, billionaire George Soros a few years ago gave $50 million to promote mass immigration in the U.S. (and $200 - $300 million for the same reason in Europe).  Obviously, this kind of money buys a great deal of influence!  How does this connect to CURA/HACER?  Soros funded the Emma Lazarus Foundation (ELF), the ELF provided funding to the Headwaters fund, the Kettering Foundation, Bush Foundation, and the U.S. Catholic Council (to Catholic Charities along with the Gamaliel Foundation mentioned earlier) which helped fund Isaiah & HACER, among others.  ELF is the major contributor to La Raza, in a single year, 1998, it contributed between $4 and $5 million to La Raza and last year gave $25,000 directly to SPEAC.

Democracy in Minnesota (and the nation) requires citizens who are well informed, accept responsibility, and make wise decisions about matters that affect them.  It also means that government and private institutions live those standards and encourage those same objectives.  It is clear that the State of Minnesota, Humphrey Institute, CURA, HACER, and large numbers of their affiliations and media are working in unison to circumvent the will of the people.
 

Part IV: Other Problems of Large Scale Immigration

Because some argue that large scale immigration is a remedy for Social Security's funding problems, this review comments on that claim.  The conclusion is that it is counter productive and a dangerous proposed remedy.  Current immigration policies are creating a serious and worsening situation with the nation's health care and insurance systems.  Although not specifically addressed, the same situation applies to affordable housing.  The review then discusses the declining democratic process and concludes with several important but less known problems.
 

Social Security & Immigration

Regarding the Social Security system and immigration, two subjects require mentioning -fraud and program security, and the mistaken notion that immigration will solve the program's failed design.

By accepting remittances from employers, it appears that the Social Security Administration is committing fraud.  It may be that the IRS and Minnesota Dept. of Revenue are also engaged in questionable legal practices.  In addition, it is equally evident that the IRS, State Auditors, and CPA firms are deliberately overlooking certain audit procedures that verify data and documents.  The CURA/HACER plan would eliminate many of the legal questions involved in this practice.

For example, after receiving FICA remittances which are found to be assigned to a non-existent or invalid individual, the Social Security Administration and state of Minnesota fails to act.  Thus, Social Security's unresponsive attitude toward employment security invites fraud and illegal immigration.  The Social Security Administration should be obligated to contact employers when FICA (Social Security) receipts from an employer do not match a number in the system.  They choose not to.  When considering hiring a new employee, a simple phone call, fax, or E-mail to the Social Security Administration to verify a number would quickly discontinue employment of illegal aliens.  The ease of obtaining fraudulent documents is made painless by their perplexing conduct.  Unfortunately, the State of Minnesota engages in similar practices in a number of departments Health, various licenses, Revenue (especially in audits), and in the Attorney General's Office.

Claims to remedy specific economic dilemmas using mass immigration, such as Social Security, are more of a testimonial to structural deficiencies in economic design than the alleged need.  The Social Security retirement system, like many in the European tradition, is a pyramid scheme characterized by constantly requiring large numbers of new entrants, i.e., population increases, at the bottom of the pyramid.  This implies that unless the program is soon changed, in order to maintain the "correct" population pyramid, U.S. population growth must exceed the already rapid population increases evident today.  Regarding immigration, in order to maintain the "correct pyramid" in coming years will require a three fold increase from the already unprecedented rate, or between three and four million fresh immigrants every year to provide for those now and soon to be in system.  Who will fund their retirement?

However, any increase in the numbers of people in the system, by immigration or otherwise, only exacerbates the pyramid dependent nature of the funding system.  The profound design flaws are made worse by internally compounding interest payments (in the form of compounding tax increases), the income redistribution aspects, and the promotion of intergenerational conflicts.  The system will collapse; immigration only intensifies an already intolerable situation and merely postpones and aggravates the inevitable collapse.

One wonders how these immigrants and their descendants will react when the system they were earlier utilized as instruments to save, now crashes upon them, in great measure because of them?  To help illustrate the consequences of this action, picture your children in this probable and rapidly approaching future scenario: they are reasonably well-off, declining in numbers, and a growing majority of much less well-off immigrants now envious of them, perhaps disliking them, and understanding a Social Security (and political) system that seduced and betrayed them.

Finally, it must be clearly stated, that if Social Security and Medicare were funded systems (like a private ROTH IRA) as required of all other retirement plans, demographics would not be a consideration and the frightening immigration issues would not exist. (See, "Social Security: The American Tragedy", Dell Erickson, January 1995. Also see, "Testimony of Dell H. Erickson Before The House Committee On Ways And Means Concerning Proposals Guaranteed To Save Social Security", Delivered At Washington, D.C., June 10, 1999; Finally, see, "Social Security: The Ponzi Path To Dystopia", David Simcox; NPG Forum Series. October 1998. See at< http://www.npg.org/projects/socialsecurity/socialsec_index.htm >.)
 

Immigration Threatening the U.S. Systems of Health Care & Insurance

A landmark study released July 18, 2000, documented that the problems associated with the lack of health insurance coverage had large-scale legal and illegal immigration as one fundamental cause. (See, "Without Coverage: Immigration's Impact of the Size and Growth of the Population Lacking Health Insurance," Steven A. Camarota and James R. Edwards Jr.; Center for Immigration Studies. July 18, 2000. Available online at: < http://www.cis.org/articles/2000/coverage/ >.)
 

Sample Findings:

* "Immigrants who arrived between 1994 and 1998 and their children accounted for 59 percent (2.7 million people) of the growth in the size of the uninsured population since 1993."

* There are 11.6 million persons living in immigrant households without insurance.

* "In 1998, 37 percent of immigrants who entered in the 1980s still had not acquired health insurance, and 27.2 percent of immigrants who entered in the 1970s remained uninsured."

* "Almost half (46.2 percent) of persons in immigrant households either have no insurance or have it provided to them at taxpayer expense."

* "Health insurance coverage varies significantly by country. Households headed by immigrants from Mexico, Central and South America, and Korea are the least likely to have health insurance".

* Illegal aliens comprise 26.8 percent of the uninsured living in immigrant households. Approximately two-thirds of Illegal aliens have no health insurance.

* The lack of insurance coverage is primarily due to their much lower levels of education and holding lower level jobs with few benefits.

* The 1996 welfare reform legislation is "not the reason so many persons in immigrants households do not have health insurance. Before welfare reform was enacted, nearly 31 percent of persons in immigrant households lacked health insurance, very similar to the current rate. Moreover, immigrant households continue to use Medicaid at higher rates than native households."

* "If current trends continue, immigration may add an additional three to four million people to the ranks of the uninsured over just the next 10 years ... if the same selection criteria for admission continue to be used."

* Spreading communicable diseases is serious growing problem and "is likely to be of particular concern among immigrants because most come from developing countries where communicable diseases are more common. For example, tuberculosis in the United States is disproportionately concentrated in the immigrant population. In 1998, about 42 percent of the 18,361 known cases in the United States were among immigrants."

* These costs will make employers increasingly "reluctant to offer it or to require employees to pay an ever larger share of the premiums, offer smaller wage increases or curtail other fringe benefits." Those paying their own insurance premiums will be forced to bear the costs of higher premiums directly.

* The public cost of providing care to the uninsured is likely "between $15 and $30 billion per year" not including more than $150 billion spent annually to provide Medicaid coverage. These costs will increase with immigration.

* Organizations (e.g., CURA/HACER) and government departments advocating increasing illegal and legal immigration claiming immigration, even illegal, is a benefit, are caught in a trap they cannot discuss the fact that immigration is the leading cause of the dilemmas in health care without jeopardizing an agenda claiming benefits.

In conclusion, Dr. Camarota states that the "implications of this situation ... is such that we simply must confront this problem head on." (Emphasis added.)  Without the required changes, the insurance and health care systems will continue to deteriorate until an unmanageable crisis possibly develops.  Obviously, the CURA/HACER program entails changes in the provision of government health insurance in great measure targeting legal and illegal immigration rather than Americans.  The CURA/HACER study is merely another attempt to support this change.  Once the public becomes aware of the detrimental health care system consequences personally effecting them, the needed changes in immigration policy will gain momentum.
 

Immigration Threatening the Democratic Voting Process

In a self-serving political cycle, massive immigration is now determining the outcomes of national and local elections and paralyzing the democratic process.

•  One of the greatest fraudulent actions was conducted by the INS and the Clinton Administration with its 1996 get-out-the-vote "Citizenship USA" program registering over one million new immigrant voters without fingerprinting twenty percent of them and over 80,000 found to have criminal records.  The INS under pressure from the Administration "and in particular the Vice President's Office" disregarded many of the requirements of the naturalization process.  According to the report by the former Chief Counsel for the House Judiciary Committee, David Schippers, perhaps as many as thirty percent of applicants were not qualified, often because of serious criminal offenses. (See, "Injustice for All: An Excerpt from Sellout: The Inside Story of Presidents Clinton's Impeachment",. (Immigration Backgrounder, Center for Immigration Studies. October 2000. Also see, "Will Noncitizens Decide the Election?: Undermining the democratic process." Jim Boulet Jr., National Review. 11/10/00 See at: < http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment111000d.shtml >.) [MFS note: for a more recent study see "Remaking the Political Landscape: The Impact of Illegal and Legal Immigration on Congressional Apportionment".]

•  "With a push from the Immigration and Naturalization Service", states an article in the Boston Globe, "more than 1.7 million resident aliens have become US citizens in the past two years." The article continues, saying that "since 1994, with Democrats controlling the White House, California has welcomed 1.6 million new citizens. But the phenomenal increase in naturalized citizens 5.6 million nationally from 1991 to 2000 is also occurring in large numbers in other battleground states, including Washington, Illinois, Michigan, and Florida. As the deadline for voter registration neared in Chicago earlier this month, the Chicago INS office was holding two swearing-in ceremonies a day to accommodate the crush of newly minted citizens. In Illinois, an estimated 85,000 new citizens have taken the oath in the last two years, most of them in heavily Democratic Chicago. But California, has been politically transformed by the new wave of citizens ... providing Gore with much, and perhaps all, of the cushion he now holds over Bush in California. Latinos once chose Democratic registration by a 3-2 ratio, it is now 70-30 overall.  But among first-time Latino voters, Clinton's margin was 91 to 6 percent, according to exit polling data. In the last 10 years, 1 million new Latino voters have registered. In the same period, Field found, White non-Latino registration declined by 100,000." (See, "Immigrant voter surge seen aiding Gore: Record number enrolled after backlog", Walter V. Robinson. The Boston Globe, 11/4/2000. pA01. See at < http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/309/nation/Immigrant_voter_surge_seen_aiding_Gore+.shtml >.)

The sad fact is that in the recent election, Democrats and the Minnesota DFL party played the divisive politics of ethnicity as a key voting strategy rather than focusing on a cohesive American nation.

It should be clear that massive legal and illegal immigration is now determining the outcomes of national and local elections.  The point is that the destiny of this nation is out of the control of its citizens; indeed, it is being determined in some measure by non-citizens, a large proportion of which are illegal.  Non-citizens or "instant citizens" are now able to vote for continued massive population growth of their own race and ethnicity and against the needs of this country and wishes of its own citizens.

This is acceptable only to those who don't believe in nationhood.  It also absolves the various foreign governments and their citizens from assuming responsibility for their own counter productive policies and behavior.  This is a prescription for total disaster.  It also means, as mentioned earlier, that U.S. population growth will not be constrained until the U.S. we know no longer exists and chaos in the U.S. equals that of the world.
 

Additional Problems of Large-Scale Immigration

•  Crime increases due to immigration.

-  The National Center for Policy Analysis notes that in 1980, fewer than 9,000 criminal aliens were prisoners in state and federal penitentiaries.  However, because of mass immigration, by 1994 more than 450,000 criminal aliens were imprisoned.  In a circular development, illegal aliens committing crimes have increased in percentage and absolute terms.  Recently, for example, eighty percent of illegal aliens apprehended in Minnesota by the INS were engaged in criminal acts (in addition to being a criminal immigrant).

•  Increasing terrorism.

-  Terrorists acts have become a raising concern -note the bombing of the World Trade Center.  Careless immigration policies have contributed to this alarming trend.  The response of the government has not been to change immigration policies but to monitor individual activities, infiltrate private organizations, and intercept free communications of private citizens.  In other words, the government rather than prudently examining immigration related terrorism, restricts the freedoms of its citizens.

•  Racial "profiling" betrayed.

      -  Immigration supporters, primarily the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) has used the tactic of attacking "racial profiling" (ethnic profiling) of suspects by taking legal action against the INS and police who stop what is clearly an illegal alien.  Because most illegal aliens do not act, dress, appear, or use American English like native born Americans, they are likely candidates for investigation.  However, for that very reason, it has become increasingly difficult for the INS or police to stop anyone for fear of being sued.  Because each of the hundreds of thousands of illegals can be represented by an immigration attorney, the court system can be brought to a halt and literally bankrupted.  With extreme irony, the AILA, and other lawyers, are also frequently paid from taxpayer sources, even as they defend non-American interests.

•  Drivers license.

-  Because of the ease of obtaining counterfeit documents (including a Social Security card) an illegal alien is able to obtain a drivers license and do what any citizen can do.  The increase in uninsured vehicles is in no small measure is due to immigration.  Those involved in an accident with an uninsured can pay a high price.  It is one reason for uninsured insurance coverage and another hidden subsidy for immigration unknowingly paid by Minnesotans.

•  Voting fraud.

      -  Voting is the hallmark of American citizenship.  However, the ease an unqualified individual or even illegal immigrant can be registered encourages fraud.  Today, for example, a non-English speaking friend can verify a friend's "qualifications"; even a utility bill is sufficient "evidence" of citizenship; other programs inviting fraud are ”instant registration", mail ballots, and "motor voter" programs.

•  Deterioration of U.S. schools.

-  Much of the decline in school test scores, the "dumbing-down" of the curricula, and numerous other school problems is solely attributable to the large number of children from legal and illegal immigrants.

The Rand report "Immigration in a Changing Economy" (1997) notes that half of all students enrolled in elementary school in California are children of immigrants.  The influx is so staggering that California must build the equivalent of a school a day, in perpetuity, to keep up with this increasing enrollment.  In Minnesota, over immigration including illegal immigration is the fundamental cause of lack of school space and numerous other school problems.  The genuine dysfunction and declining school situation is not due to school overcrowding, including that in Minnesota, or inadequate teachers or teaching methods, it's the unwillingness of the State of Minnesota and Congress to properly address the immigration issue.

•  Threats to the use of our American English language.

- American English is the embodiment of American culture.  Because of massive legal and illegal immigration, and recent immigrants insistence to speak their native language, English as our common language is rapidly disappearing.  As language goes, so goes the American culture embodied in the Constitution and society as we and our forefathers have known (as indicated earlier, this may well an objective of the plan).  Schools throughout the nation, including Minnesota, are saturated with students speaking little or no English.  Too frequently, the response has been to provide schools where American English is not the language of learning.  Indeed, despite compelling research recommending against the practice, the past Minnesota legislative session incredulously provided additional schools where "Spanish Immersion" is the language structure.  The costs of this program are borne by unsuspecting Minnesota parents who have no say in the matter and the immigrants themselves, who remain on the social and economic periphery because they lack the necessary language and other skills to be successful.

In addition, the Minnesota Legal Assistance office is suing to have welfare applications printed in other languages; the INS has held services in Coliseums to accommodate the hundred even thousands at a time and the services are performed in languages other than American English; and the recent Census sent out its forms in eight different languages.

•  This month President Clinton signed into law S2812 allowing the U.S. attorney general to make exceptions to the requirement that foreigners seeking to become naturalized citizens make a meaningful oath of allegiance to the US.

•   A minimum wage for illegal workers?

-  Economists take a dim view of minimum wage legislation for good reason.  If legislation is passed during periods of excess labor, any increase in labor costs will result in increasing layoffs; if in a tight labor market, the increased labor cost may be maintained if demand is sufficient.  However, if the consumer rejects the higher price or substitutes another item, to keep the higher wage level and employment level will require further government subsidies.  Regarding immigration, it is radically inconsistent economic and employment policy to advocate raising the minimum wage when the fundamental reason for the existing immigration policy is to depress wages.  If the pre 1965 immigration laws were in effect today, the situation would not exist and American workers, including recent immigrants, would significantly benefit.  Because many of the proponents of minimum wage legislation, often DFL, also support mass immigration, it appears to be a subtle effort to subsidize illegal (and legal) immigrants.

All of the above will be made worse by the CURA/HACER program.
 

Concluding Comments

Do not all nations control and limit immigration?  Absolutely!, and these nations prohibit illegal immigration and vigorously defend their borders.  The reasons are clear there are tremendous negative impacts on culture, society, economy, and the environment.

In its single function advocacy role, the CURA/HACER study has neglected to discuss the awesome consequences of U.S. population growth, now solely driven by immigration, currently on a trend to double within fifty years and to quadruple in this century and with it, profound environmental, economic, demographic and cultural changes.  Science (and common sense) says that without stopping population growth in Minnesota and in the U.S., our problems will soon began to mirror those commonly associated with less developed nations.  The social and political ramifications of this change will invite political instability.

The sole purpose of the CURA/HACER study is an attempt to influence government policy toward Hispanics.  Its program is designed to rapidly increase the number of Hispanics, specifically illegal aliens in Minnesota, to remove all impediments to restricting their illegal entry, and ensure access to the full compliment of institutions and programs meant for Minnesota citizens.

The CURA/HACER program is by any other name, promoting anarchy, lawless confusion, and the dissolution of the nation and of the State of Minnesota.

Does Minnesota and the nation really want to be another Southern California, Puerto Rico, Haiti or Mexico City?  Most Americans would prefer England, Australia or Stockholm.

The question policymakers must answer is, "do you care?"  If the answer is "yes", then disregard the CURA/HACER program and implement the recommendations of experts in the field and the wishes of the American people.

Americans have already answered the question.  In the recent election, as a good illustration, Michigan's Senator Abraham, Chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, and a vigorous mass immigration proponent, was defeated after immigration reform groups informed the public of his mass immigration positions and of their consequences.  That Americans have a sweeping understanding of the situation is mirrored in repeated polls demonstrating that the overwhelming majority want immigration substantially reduced.  Indeed, a fourth want a smaller U.S. population!  For example, in an October 1999 Pew Research Center poll, seventy-two percent mostly or completely agreed with the statement, "We need more restrictions and controls on immigration."
 

What must be done?

1.)  Substantially reduce all forms of immigration including refugees and asylees; seriously consider a ten year immigration moratorium with a maximum of 100,000 total annual immigration; deport all now illegally in the country and prevent entry;

2.)  Enforce sponsorship regulations;

3.)  Revise immigration policy to the former skills based policy;

4.)  Change "citizen by birth" such that only citizens can have citizens by birth;

5.)  Remove and prevent illegal aliens from receiving all public services;

6.)  Prohibit amnesties; and

7.)  Assist recent lawful immigrant citizens in obtaining health coverage, education, and job training.

Contrary to the CURA/HACER notions, the overwhelming evidence of immigration studies and wishes of Americans clearly state that Minnesota and the U.S. should seriously consider passing an immigration moratorium for a period of ten years.  An immigration moratorium would greatly facilitate remedying our rapidly worsening predicaments in education, sprawl, crowding and traffic gridlock, pollution, the continuing destruction of wetlands and forests, and looming water and energy shortages.

Reducing immigration to a sustainable level, stopping illegal entry, and removing illegals currently in the state would also substantially remove threats to state and privately sponsored welfare and insurance systems.  Finally, because current immigration policies and the CURA/HACER proposals serve to import poverty, social divisions, and racism, appropriate immigration levels would return social programs to their intended purposes assisting the American disadvantaged, especially Native Americans and Blacks.

Removing structural inefficiencies in some niches of the economy, providing increased job training and educational opportunities as government and college policy, and increasingly using the vast resource of elderly workers would provide far more benefit to Americans and their economy than an ill-conceived immigration policy.

What about the University of Minnesota, the Humphrey Institute and CURA?  There is an academic malignancy consuming the integrity of the University that may require management re-direction.  Some may argue that the removal of CURA is in order.  Certainly any organization with a foreign, if not anti-American perspective operating under the University's umbrella, such as HACER should be freed to conduct their activities independent of the University.

The fact that state and federal governments frequently act against the wishes (and best interests) of the citizens they represent is a testimonial to the power of special interests and the potential for future political and social instability.  The INS needs to vigorously enforce its laws.

It appears that some American legislators and government workers reflect a foreign perspective, such as Mexico's President-Elect Fox.  The U.S. Attorney General, for one illustration, rather than enforcing U.S. laws appears to use the office to promote a foreign perspective.  This was recently driven home when U.S. residents living along the Arizona - Mexico border attempted to stem the flow of 70,000 illegals pouring across the border trespassing their property every month.  Rather than protect U.S. citizens, Attorney General Reno sought to prevent U.S. citizens from interfering with the incursions.

In response to Attorney Reno, distinguished columnist Charley Reese wrote, "it's probably time we realized that whatever self-government we have left in this country is with our local and state governments. The national government seems to have cut us out of the loop."  Specifically addressing the Arizona matter, he wrote, "It [U.S. government] even shows signs of hostility to us. Government's entire sympathy seems to be with the Mexican illegals. It shows hostility to Americans who are, after all, doing what the U.S. government is supposed to do." (See, "What's up with a government that sides with Mexican illegals?" Charley Reese, The Orlando Sentinel. May 25, 2000. See at < http://orlandosentinel.com/automagic/columnists/2000-05-25/OPEDreese25052500.html >.)

Although, with greater subtlety, the State of Minnesota and University of Minnesota are engaged in similar actions.

Yeh Ling-Ling, Executive Director, Diversity Alliance for a Sustainable America, succinctly summarizes the entire issue in saying,

Sustainable immigration is good for America, but mass immigration hurts us all.
(See < http://www.diversityalliance.org/ >.)

______
* Courtesy of Dell Erickson.

 

Please send mail to webmaster@mnforsustain.org with questions or comments about this web site. Minnesotans For Sustainability (MFS) is not affiliated with any government body, private, or corporate entity. Copyright © 2002 Minnesotans For Sustainability