Money quote(s):
"What is the biggest driver of this rapid change in the makeup of the U.S. citizenry? Listen to the rage, and you'd think that it was an invasion, a veritable tsunami of wetback illegals. But facts speak otherwise. The driver of demographic change in America, over the last generation or so, has been legal immigration.
When ethnic quotas on immigration were removed in 1965, the number of first- generation immigrants living in the United States quadrupled, rising from 9.6 million in 1970 to nearly 38 million in 2007. In 1990, George H.W. Bush signed the Immigration Act of 1990, which resulted in an increase in legal immigration to the United States by 40%.
The United States admitted more legal immigrants in the most recent decade -- ten million legal immigrants settled in the U.S. Still, this represents an annual increase of only about 0.3% as the U.S. population grew from 249 million to 281 million. A lot of people. But remember this isn't new. By comparison, the highest previous decade was the 1900s, when 8.8 million people arrived, increasing the total U.S. population by one percent every year. Specifically, "nearly 15% of Americans were foreign-born in 1910, while in 1999, only about 10% were foreign-born." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)
By itself, legal immigration by those reuniting with family members already (legally) in the U.S., even with so-called "chain immigration," wouldn't have resulted in the sweeping demographic changes the U.S. is experiencing, at least not this quickly.
But factor in the effects of the diversity visa lottery, the scheme where we deliberately recruit immigrants from countries who aren't as heavily represented in the flow of legal immigrants; well, that's what get us where we are now.
"(S)ince 1986, Congress has passed seven amnesties for illegal immigrants, converting one kind of immigrant into the other."
This is why no one believes claims that just-one-more amnesty (by whatever name) would be the last one. Because it's been proven a lie six times already.
"(T)here are issues that run beneath issues here, and they merit your consideration. Take the criteria that the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the State Department have been required to follow, when doling out legal immigrant visas.
For decades, the top consideration went to re-uniting family members. And at first sight, that does seem a compassionate and just basis to allow people into the country, instead of keeping folks separated from those they love.
Except... isn't that just rewarding the lucky with more luck? And when you admit a legal immigrant's brother, then does the brother's son come along? Of course the son's mother (his wife) is next. And then... her brother too? And that brother's kid and wife... and so on... Isn't it clear that there is no place to clearly draw a line?"
Actually, Congress has drawn several lines in this regard, numerically limiting the annual immigration numbers of more distant (and more adult) family members of legal residents and citizens.
Another factor is time. Those just arriving have to actually immigrate before they can file petitions for their non-immediate relatives (i.e., beyond the spouse and minor children who presumably came at the same time), they have to meet certain financial sponsorship criteria, and the whole process takes months to years before additional legal "chain" immigrants start arriving.
"If we're limited in the number of people we can absorb per year, and can only take a small fraction of those who are both deserving an eager, then why not have a fair number of those slots go to those whose arrival will benefit us all, in clearcut and immediate ways? Are they any less deserving, just because they happen to be instantly useful?
Canada and Australia and the U.S. all issue a certain number of Employment-Based visas. And a strong case can be made for increasing this number, along with slots for inventors and company builders and major investors. It has even been proposed to solve our current housing crash by giving a green card to anyone who immediately buys a home with $500,000 or more in cash."
&
"It should be blatantly obvious to anyone with a mix of compassion and practicality that immigrant kids need health care and education... and we need them to be both healthy and educated."
Un-vaccinated children represent a public health vulnerability in that they constitute a potential reservoir for contagious disease. This is not news. Nor is the prospect of creating a self-perpetuating uneducated underclass much more palatable.
10/24
