Archive for June, 2007

Population Genetics Island Model One Way Migration

June 30, 2007

One way immigration causes the complete genetic extinction of the target population. This is a theorem already established in population genetics. It can be traced back to a 1931 paper by S. Wright.

EVOLUTION IN MENDELIAN POPULATIONS
SEWALL WRIGHT
University of Chicago. Chicago. Illinois
Received January 20. 1930

More on this paper below.  But first let’s review the actual decline in fertility since 1800 during immigration periods, but the rise in fertility during immigration restriction from 1940 to 1957.

The graph of declining fertility in the US from 1800 to 1990 is”

http://www.elderweb.com/home/node/2919

Fertility falls except during immigration restriction. This is a combined economics population genetics interaction. Wages are part of this economics genetics combined situation. However, wages in an economic model have counterparts in seemingly non-economic ecologies.  In a pure animal or plant population other variables play the same role of an indicator of survival that wages do in a modern human economy.  So there is a wages dimension even in the wild. Food is the wage for work in the wild. Or survival from a fight or from the natural elements.

Men’s median wages are flat since 1973 in the US.  This is a marker that men can’t provide as well in the human ecology. The result is lower fertility since women can’t find a substitute for men.

In population genetics, the case of one way migration is often treated in what is called the “Island Model”.

Genetics. 1979 January; 91(1): 163–176.

The Island Model with Stochastic Migration

Thomas Nagylaki

Department of Biophysics and Theoretical Biology, The University of Chicago, 920 East 58th Street, Chicago, Illinois 60637

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1213928

The island model with stochastically variable migration rate and immigrant gene frequency is investigated. It is supposed that the migration rate and the immigrant gene frequency are independent of each other in each generation, and each of them is independently and identically distributed in every generation. The treatment is confined to a single diallelic locus without mutation. If the diploid population is infinite, selection is absent and the immigrant gene frequency is fixed, then the gene frequency on the island converges to the immigrant frequency, and the logarithm of the absolute value of its deviation from it is asymptotically normally distributed.

The above implies that if you have two genes in some frequency in the immigrant population, that under one way migration that frequency becomes the frequency on the island.

From PDF, conclusion:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1213928&blobtype=pdf

We investigated various cases of the island model with stochastic migration. If the population is infinite, the immigrants have a fixed gene frequency and the alleles are neutral, the gene frequency on the island converges to that of the immigrants.

What this means is that the genes initially on the island, in effect, disappear. But the West is the Island, and we don’t survive in this model. We are being voted off the island by the genes of the immigrants. This never stops. Every cohort of immigrants is voted off the island in genetic terms by the following cohorts.

WRIGHT S,. , 1931 Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics 16: 97-159. -, 1948 On
the roles of directed and random changes in gene frequency in the genetics of populations.
Evolution 2 : 279-294.

References with links from above paper were posted by NIH. Some are below. To see the original article on-line in this case does NOT require a subscription. Go to the link and in the middle of the page is Full Text Genetics Free. Click on that. This will open another page, and in a few seconds that page will itself open a pdf. If that doesn’t happen try clicking.

You don’t need to understand the math or the biology terms to get something out of the articles. Read the abstract, the introduction, the conclusion and look at figures and tables and their captions. There may be conclusions or explanations between equations or technical discussion that gives the conclusions.

Don’t let yourself get stuck on not understanding a word. Just skip around or pretend the word isn’t in the sentence and give it the meaning it needs. You can look up technical words in Wikipedia or with Google. Wikipedia is very good in math and science. Textbooks often have more errors or misinformation on the history of their subject and who discovered what than is found in Wikipedia science and math articles.

“This list contains those references that cite another article in PMC or have a citation in PubMed. It may not include all the original references for this article.”

 

  • Hartl, Daniel L. Mutation-Selection Balance with Stochastic Selection. Genetics. 1977 Jul;86(3):687–696. [PubMed]
  • Jensen L. Random selective advantages of genes and their probabilities of fixation. Genet Res. 1973 Jun;21(3):215–219. [PubMed]
  • Karlin S, Lieberman U. Random temporal variation in selection intensities: case of large population size. Theor Popul Biol. 1974 Dec;6(3):355–382. [PubMed]
  • Kimura, Motoo. Process Leading to Quasi-Fixation of Genes in Natural Populations Due to Random Fluctuation of Selection Intensities. Genetics. 1954 May;39(3):280–295. [PubMed]
  • Latter BDH. The Island Model of Population Differentiation: A General Solution. Genetics. 1973 Jan;73(1):147–157. [PubMed]
  • Levikson B, Karlin S. Random temporal variation in selection intensities acting on infinite diploid populations: diffusion method analysis. Theor Popul Biol. 1975 Dec;8(3):292–300. [PubMed]
  • Maruyama T. Effective number of alleles in a subdivided population. Theor Popul Biol. 1970 Nov;1(3):273–306. [PubMed]
  • Wright, Sewall. Evolution in Mendelian Populations. Genetics. 1931 Mar;16(2):97–159. [PubMed]

http://www.sinauer.com/detail.php?id=3082

“island model” population genetics

“island model” migration

“theoretical biology”

Wright’s first paper is available online

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=17246615

1: Genetics. 1931 Mar;16(2):97-159.
Evolution in Mendelian Populations.

Wright S.

University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.

PMID: 17246615 [PubMed]

http://www.genetics.org/cgi/reprint/16/2/97

Page 128 “Irreversible recurrent mutation ”

—Previous Post:

Immigration Vanishing Survival Theorem

June 4th, 2007 Assume that

  1. Population is bounded from above
  2. The flow of immigrants is unbounded from above
  3. The survival probabilities of the genes of each immigrant are equal.

Then

For any given cohort of immigrants at time t, the survival probability of their genes at T > t, p(t,T) must go to zero as T goes to infinity.

==
Mathematical Population Genetics
By W. J. (Warren John) Ewens

http://books.google.com/books?id=twXIyXyod2MC&pg=PA279&lpg=PA279&dq=%22island+model%22+population+genetics&source=web&ots=DKOTb367VO&sig=he6GEQDiOzlD20h-asiwmRR8Kh4#PPR11,M1

==

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2007/06/01/1965-immigration-act-causes-u-inverted-u-in-income-inequality-and-fertility/
1965 Immigration Act Causes U inverted U in Income Inequality and Fertility
==Omnia Cleansing Immigration Substitution Effect

Mathematically, immigration causes omnia cleansing. To review the math:

Suppose US population is stable at 300 million. If people live 75 years, 4 million die per year. If 2 million enter, and pop is stable, then there are 2 million births. 2 million births over 4 million deaths is a genetic survival ratio of 1/2. 25 years birth to parent, so in 75 years, 3 cycles leaves 1/8 genes. Even if pop goes to 450mm and 1 million enter, we get a fraction of 5/6 per cycle, which results in genetic extinction.

This happens by lowering wages and is happening already. There is a substitution effect from births to immigrants.

quote

“Numbers Drop for the Married With Children
Institution Becoming The Choice of the Educated, Affluent

By Blaine Harden
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 4, 2007; Page A03

PORTLAND, Ore. — Punctuating a fundamental change in American family life, married couples with children now occupy fewer than one in every four households — a share that has been slashed in half since 1960 and is the lowest ever recorded by the census.

As marriage with children becomes an exception rather than the norm, social scientists say it is also becoming the self-selected province of the college-educated and the affluent.

end quote

== Some historical analysis is here:
Search Catholics Immigration Intense Feelings
=Key words

Unpleasant Immigration Arithmetic, Omnia Cleansing.

==

Samuel Karlin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sewall_Wright

Sewall Green Wright ForMemRS (December 21, 1889March 3, 1988) was an American geneticist known for his influential work on evolutionary theory. Along with R. A. Fisher and J.B.S. Haldane, he was a founder of theoretical population genetics. Evolutionary biologists argue as to whether Fisher or Wright made the greater contribution. He is the discoverer of the inbreeding coefficient and of methods of computing it in pedigrees. He extended this work to populations, computing the amount of inbreeding of members of populations as a result of random genetic drift, and he and Fisher pioneered methods for computing the distribution of gene frequencies among populations as a result of the interaction of natural selection, mutation, migration and genetic drift. The work of Fisher, Wright, and Haldane on theoretical population genetics was a major step in the development of the modern evolutionary synthesis of genetics with evolution. Wright also made major contributions to mammalian genetics and biochemical genetics.

==gap decay math

The gap between the current value and a target value decays in these models. The gap this period is a fraction less than one of its value last period. Suppose the fraction is one-half. Then after 2 periods the gap is 1/4 its size, and in 3 periods it is one-eighth.

The decay of a set of atoms or molecules follows the same math. This type of arithmetic is common.

==Life becomes hard and then our genes die

These theorems don’t happen by themselves. They have mechanisms. For humans, wages fall and they lose job security so that they pay more for security things like prestige education. As this goes on, they lose their chances to have kids when they are young.

== Young adults lose feeling of security

Young adults lose the feeling of security. Its the confidence of young adulthood that lets young adults get married, have kids, stay married and have more kids. When that confidence goes, they pull back at the time their biology says to have kids. So they don’t. The result is below replacement fertility.

There are estimates that up to 1/3 of the women who go to college will never have children. Ths is job insecurity at the time biology tells them to have children. By the time they feel secure, its too late. The same is happening to men.

==London Telegraph Women losing feeling of security

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/22/ncareer22.xmlo
Third of graduate women will be childless

By Ben Leapman, Home Affairs Correspondent, Sunday Telegraph

Last Updated: 6:46am BST 24/04/2007

A third of women graduates will never have children, research has concluded.

The number of highly educated women who are starting families has plummeted in the past decade, according to findings that provide the most detailed insight yet into education and fertility.

While some women are making a conscious decision not to have children, others are simply leaving it too late after taking years to build their careers, buy a home and find the right partner.

..

Overall population decline is only being prevented by immigration and a higher birth rate among non-graduate women.

Actually wrong. Its immigration that creates the economic insecurity. Economic insecurity doesn’t grow spontaneously from nowhere.

The findings come from a ground-breaking study into more than 5,000 women born in 1970 and tracked throughout their lives by researchers at the Centre for Longitudinal Studies, based at the Institute of Education in London.

Of a panel of older graduate women born in 1958, only 32.7 per cent were childless at 35.

The 1958 group were less impacted by immigration and diversity. Diversity sends the message of insecurity and that stops reproductivity. Colleges also tend to be more diverse themselves, thus sending that wrong message at the wrong time.

== Immigration level is at extinction level in US.

Legal immigration itself is as high as between 3 to 4 million per year in the US according to Senator Sessions if one counts every form of guest worker, temporary arrival, etc. Immigration is displacing replacement fertility.

At 300 million for US population, with a life of 75 years, 4 million die per year. Thus with zero immigration and zero population growth, replacement fertility is 4 million births. But immigration is almost at that level. Thus immigration is at the full immediate extinction level.

This is why women are not having children. This is why men are not either. Legal immigration is a democaust, a demographic holocaust. This is omnia cleansing. Every gene that comes here goes through this as well. So every gene that comes here goes extinct, and every gene here at a point in time goes extinct.

We have to set legal immigration to zero. We have to eliminate all guest worker, asylum, refugee, family reunification, student visa, H-1B, and tourism or business travel from any country whose visitors overstay visas. Until visa overstay is reduced to zero, all visas must be canceled.

Government Immigration Cost Top Down 3/4 Trillion per year?

June 27, 2007

The cost of immigration is calculated from the top down by taking the cost of all government, estimated at 4.6 trillion, and the percentage of immigrants, estimated as 13.7 percent, applying a ratio of 1.5 for immigrants to receive government benefits to get a total of approximately 950 billion dollars per year. A large percentage of the population pays no taxes, so that the deduction from this for taxes paid by the foreign born may be low. Allowing this to be 200 billion, we get 750 billion net as the burden on government. This is 18,292 dollars per immigrant. The gross cost before the tax payment is 23,117.5 dollars per immigrant.

Because children born in the US are not counted as foreign born, the above under-estimates the real cost of immigration. We could easily double the above figure if we include this cost. That gets us to 1.5 trillion per year as the annual cost from immigration since the Kennedy 1965 Immigration Act. As the size of the population increases from more immigration and births of this group, this cost goes up and will become an ever larger percentage of the spending of government.

The use of land, water, and the displacement of natives are not included in this cost.

The top down approach is one that allows anyone to modify the assumptions themselves. The top down approach is not some “study” that you can’t understand where the numbers come from. The top down approach avoids the my study v. your study type argument. If one plays with the parameters, one gets costs of roughly the same type of magnitude. The studies tend to come up with much lower numbers. They have to find every dollar spent, and that is almost impossible. So bottom up approaches are going to miss most of the cost.

The top down approach shows why every level of government is finding that immigration is a crisis, it is. It also explains why the public is calling in at ratios of 20 to 1 or higher against amnesty and against guest worker. Guest worker is really guest welfare.

==Cost of immigration results in fewer native births

This also shows why natives birth rates are below replacement. They have to pay this huge cost of legal and illegal immigrants. They can’t have their own kids, because the foreign born are using up government services and the native born can’t get married and stay married and have kids because the economic seed corn that should go to them is taken by the foreign born.

–Fertility has fallen since 1800 except during immigration restriction. This shows burden of immigrants on natives reduces native birth rate.

Fertility graph from 1800 to 1990. Fertility went down except during immigration restriction, when it went up from 1940 to 1957. By then, immigration had already resurged even in advance of the 1965 Immigration Act.

http://www.elderweb.com/home/node/2919

Immigration numbers:

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/cohn.immigration.us

This fall in fertility is in line with the Immigration Vanishing Survival Theorem which states that immigration causes the genetic survival ratios of all the genes that come here, the flow, and all the genes here at any point in time, the stock, to asymptote to zero.

== Percent Foreign Born used was 13.7 percent

The foreign born was reported as 12 percent as of 2002 with a count of 33 million. If we add 2 million per year, then in 2007 we have 41 million. A total population of 300 million was used as a numerator. This gives a share of 13.67 percent for the foreign born.

Does the 33 million include illegals? If illegals are 20 million, it probably doesn’t include many.

http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2004&m=August&x=20040809150255cmretrop0.7581903

http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/censusstatistic/a/foreignborn.htm

percentage foreign born US

== US GDP 13.21 trillion in 2006

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States

government gdp

==Government share GDP estimated at 35 percent

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=3521&type=0

search: government share gdp

http://www.cbpp.org/1-15-04bud.htm

from Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

http://www.unpan.org/statistical_database-publicsector.asp

Government spending is projected to rise sharply:

http://ccantoni.blogspot.com/2007/03/government-spends-4-of-gdp-in-legoland.html

==1.5 Multiplier for Foreign Born use of services

It is assumed the foreign born consume services at a higher rate than the native born. This reflects poverty, higher birth rates, higher prison rates, and networks and an intention to use all they can out of America.

== Tax burden carried by wealthy

http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/taBx.htm

Taxpayers in the bottom half paid only 4 percent of income taxes in 1999, according to the IRS. These 63 million taxpayers earned, on average, less than $26,415 a year.

http://www.bizjournals.com/albuquerque/stories/2005/08/15/story3.html

One-third of filers, representing 42.5 million of the 131 million federal tax returns filed in 2004, paid no federal income taxes,

In New Mexico, one-third of the nearly 900,000 tax filers in 2003 paid no state income taxes, state tax records show.

The foreign born are more likely to pay no or little taxes because of illegals and because they earn less.

==Reason wealthy pay tax burden is they keep wages down

by immigration. Its the wealthy who brought the foreign born here to be their servants and to displace us from good jobs and the job security that lets us talk back and bargain. The wealthy have tried to prevent us having a fair labor market and to deny us the right to bargain.

They have usurped the right of contract from us. Contracts are one-sided and unfair. By taking away our bargaining power, they took away our right to contract. The right to contract is meaningless without bargaining power. They took that from us.

==Calculation

GDP 13.21 trillion

Population 300 million

Foreign Born 41 million

Percentage 13.67 percent

Government Percentage GDP 35 percent

Government Absolute Cost 4.6235 trillion

Immigrant Multiplier to Use services 1.5

Adjusted Immigrant Ratio 13.67 % * 1.5 = 20.5 %

Immigrant Share Government .947818 Trillion or 947.818 billion

Gross cost per immigrant 23,117.5

Deduction of tax contribution of 200 billion

Net Burden 750 billion per year

Net Burden per immigrant: 18,292

Gross cost of government for any person 15,411.67

multiplying this by 1.5 gives the 23,117.5 cost of an immigrant. Immigrants receive a higher cost projection because of a projection of higher use of services and their imposing additional costs on the government, including incurring a foreign debt to buy the goods and services needed by the foreign born not made here, the transfer of defense and high tech know how, the greater national debt that has to be held because of them, and that much of that is not recycled here but becomes external, etc. See below for a discussion of this higher projection of cost per or due to each immigrant.

Gross cost of foreign born w/o the 1.5 multiplier 631.878 billion.

Net cost of foreign born w/o the 1.5, 431.878 billion.

=Illegals at 20 million Cost .46235 Trillion.

Using same math but deducting no taxes paid, we get 462 billion dollars per year as the cost of 20 million illegals. That is each year and includes no cost on individuals from use of land, water, etc.

w/o the 1.5 multiplier, we get 308.233 billion.

This has no subtraction for payments in by these illegals, because the bottom tends not to pay much federal or state taxes.

=

The cost of Senate amnesty or comprehensive immigration reform is being heavily underestimated. This is part of a pattern of such statements by Senator Ted Kennedy, Senator John McCain, President George W. Bush and others.

==From Numbers USA

(June 25) A roll call vote on whether to bring S. 1639, the “corrected and updated” version of S. 1348, to the floor is scheduled for tomorrow (Tuesday, June 26). On this matter, a senator’s “YES” vote on cloture is equivalent to a vote for amnesty.

CLICK HERE to visit the Senate Vote Day Action Center for more information on the “compromise” bill, S. 1639 (formerly S. 1348).

Polls consistently show Americans oppose Senate bill.

http://www.numbersusa.com/index

===Why apply the 1.5 factor to defense costs?

What about defense costs? We have used a multiplier of 1.5 for those too. Does that make sense? Yes. Because immigrants have transferred defense and technology know-how to Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Iran, etc.

The American atomic energy know-how was transferred to these countries by immigrants. Stealth technology was transferred. Missile and laser technology were transferred by immigrants. Night vision was transferred. Search Chinese night vision.

Our defense costs go up because immigrants transfer our know-how. The universities deny places in Ph.D. programs to Americans. That transfers our know-how out of the US. That imposes defense costs, in dollars and in lives.

In the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, it was atom bombs made from stolen technology that were being put in Cuba. The entire cost of that crisis has to be allocated to immigrants because of that theft of technology. Without that theft, Russia would not have been as far advanced as they were in 1962 and there would have been no Cuban missile crisis. We now know that almost resulted in a nuclear exchange, one that would have imposed devastating cost.

==Why apply the 1.5 factor to interest rate costs?

What about interest cost? If we had had no immigration since 1965, we would have no debt today. Immigrants have consumed government services and imposed a huge debt burden. This grows with compound interest.

–Immigrants cause over 20 percent of debt, so they are the cause of 20 percent of interest rate cost the approximate percentage we use.

In fact, immigrants may cause 100 percent of government debt as we discuss below. Their costs are what push government into debt at local, state and national levels. So the entire cost of debt and much of retirement programs and medical and welfare programs should be applied to them. They also displace many of those on welfare or assistance from jobs. Black male labor force participation rates were 80 percent in 1965, the same as whites but are 66 percent today, and whites are down to 74 percent as well. This alone is a cause of government debt at all levels.

Labor force participation rates for men, women, blacks, whites, Hispanics and Asians from 1965:

www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/2006/B40.xls

— Knowledge transfer, foreign trade deficit and national debt

Without knowledge transfer by immigrants, we would still have our industrial base. We would not have a foreign trade deficit, but a surplus. The foreign trade deficit started with a lag from immigration picking up in the 1950’s.

— immigration costs exceed the trade deficit and thus cause foreign debt

The gross cost of immigration above of 950 billion is over 7 percent of GDP. That is higher than the trade deficit. Without the need to purchase these extra goods for these extra people, who are supported by tax dollars, we would have no trade deficit and no foreign debt. Others now own us because of this debt. The 950 billion is only government cost for the foreign born, not private goods. Our trade deficit corresponds to the period of immigration revival.

We have had to buy foreign goods for the foreign born who imposed an additional burden on us. Without the foreign born, we produced enough for ourselves and for export. With the foreign born as a burden, we no longer produce enough for ourselves. That has created the trade deficit when before we always had enough for ourselves and to sell.

–Trade deficit started in mid 1970’s after immigration costs built up

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/images2/trade_deficit_6003.gif

Trade deficit kicked in in 1970’s 20 years after immigration build up from 1950’s onward:

http://www.elderweb.com/home/node/2919

After 20 years of immigration, costs for immigrants meant we didn’t make enough for ourselves and the immigrants, we had to borrow to feed and clothe the immigrants and raise their standard of living to ours. Just as we can’t support the 3rd world, we are not able to raise up immigrants to our standards without buying goods from abroad.

Search US foreign trade deficit

The trade deficit has been negative since the mid 1970’s. Without any foreign immigration, including student immigration, we would have our know-how advantage. China tried to keep the secret of silk in China. We have given all our secrets to China and paid their students to come here and get them.

–Cost of denying education in math and science to Americans

We can’t even begin to count the cost of denying education to Americans in science and math. This then results in poor education of teachers in college and then pupils in K-12. One reason we are failing 50 percent of blacks and Hispanics in high school is that teachers are not taught properly in college. That happens because TA’s from China can’t teach Americans math in college. That has huge consequences on America. If Americans as a group had better math skills, our economy would be much farther ahead.

–American Exclusion Act in math and science Ph.D. programs

That comes from the American Exclusion Act at Berkeley, Harvard, MIT, etc. in Ph.D. programs in math and science.

–This exclusion is world wide.

This has damaged our communities as this knowledge doesn’t diffuse out to the communities that support these institutions and built them. This is another way they don’t give back to America. These types of acts end up costing far more than all the costs that do show up for immigration.

–Immigrants use water, land and air. They have expanded urban and suburban zones to almost eliminate the rural America we knew growing up.

Immigrants also use water, land, and air. This includes the destruction of pristine environments. This cost is not counted anywhere. The crowding on roads, commute times going up, etc. This cost is not counted anywhere. The rise in commute times is primarily from immigration. That is never counted.

— Huck Finn childhoods are gone in America. They are replaced by zero tolerance childhoods. This cost is not measured in any statistic. But many would put it at well over 1 trillion dollars a year in cost. Young people today can’t even imagine that Huck Finn childhoods were once the norm in most of America. That was America.

==

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/06/27/MNGL7QM87O1.DTL

“Boxer’s vote switch helps revive immigration bill
But as compromises on legislation pile up, odd alliance of backers starts to fall apart”

Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Feinstein, who helped negotiate the legislation and remains an ardent supporter, said she has received over 100,000 calls and letters on the issue.

“Have we gotten a lot of heat? Yes,” Feinstein said. But she said it is hard to tell in a state as large as California whether that sample of mostly hostile opinion reflects a majority.

That is a sample that is consistently against amnesty and guest worker in every state. When one gets that sort of sample in 50 states, it means it is public opinion. The public is feeling the huge costs estimated above, not some tiny figure that comes out of a bottom up “study” that doesn’t count most of the costs that the foreign born require and then ignore that most of the foreign born are not wealthy, and pay very little in taxes. Most of the foreign born are in the groups above who pay no taxes at the federal or state level. That just leaves payroll taxes. But many of the foreign born are illegal and pay very little in payroll taxes, but take from the public sector, and the private (e.g. ER’s).

Silicon Valley technology companies were fighting their own battles behind the scenes, spurning White House entreaties to help push the larger bill until they are assured passage of an amendment by Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., to increase H-1B visas and allow employers to continue to sponsor some permanent migrants for five years.

The industry was horrified when the bill emerged from closed-door talks not only without the big increase in H-1B temporary visas for skilled workers they have sought for three years, but also eliminating employer-sponsored green cards for permanent residence with a merit-based point system.

H-1B leads to our know-how transfer to China, India, Pakistan, Iran, Russia, etc. which fuels our defense costs.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/tables.html
The US defense budget was 419 billion for 2006 requested. We are counting 20 percent of that for the foreign born, i.e. about 80 billion. However, it may be that about 200 billion should be counted for foreign born when we include the cost of know-how transfer by the foreign born, or the first or second generation born here.

==Critique of bottom up numbers

Hiding the Cost of Amnesty

By Robert Rector
Heritage Foundation | June 27, 2007

http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=28928

Heritage research has shown that low skill immigrants (those without a high school degree) receive, on average, three dollars in government benefits and services for each dollar of taxes they pay. This imbalance imposes a net cost of $89 billion per year on U.S. taxpayers. Over a lifetime, the typical low skill immigrant household will cost taxpayers $1.2 million.[4]

This cost estimate takes all the taxes these workers pay and counts against them a subset of government costs, the ones the “study” finds that go to them specifically. Who pays for the national defense? Who pays for the roads? Who pays the interest on the national debt? Who pays to upkeep the environment? What about the air they breathe and water they drink? Doesn’t someone have to pay for this?

Who pays to guard the border? Who pays for DHS? The problem with narrow bottom up accounting is that most agencies of the government are ignored. Who pays for those agencies? National defense doesn’t grow on trees. Nor does interest get paid from heaven.

The bottom up approaches ignore almost all costs of government and only look at what is given directly to the recipients in a check with their name on it as if that was the only cost of government that they benefited from.

Against these direct checks, the study counts every dollar the person pays the government in whatever form. At most it should allocate the percentage of government corresponding to the programs that pay to the person. However, the person really enjoys all the other government programs at full cost, not just the cost the person contributes. So the Heritage Study is really looking at a subset of the deficit of these people, and is under counting that sub deficit by allocating all the payments the person makes to government to that sub-deficit calculation.

What about the rest of us? If we applied this accounting method to everyone, we would find that a lot of the cost of government was not allocated to anyone. Who gets the benefit of this other cost? God? Who pays for it?

For the low skilled, we have 2 deficits. One done by Heritage, but allocating all their payments to government, and another not done by Heritage for all the costs of the rest of government, which those who are low skilled enjoy as much as anyone else. So on these benefits, if we follow up Heritage, we find that the low skilled pay zero, since Heritage took all they pay already, and the low skilled enjoy all the benefits. This includes national defense, roads, interest on the debt, DHS, etc.

On the portion, Heritage looks at, the low skilled enjoy a payback of 3 to 1 on all the payments they pay to government. On the rest, they enjoy a payback of infinity, because they pay zero, Heritage took all they pay to government to put in the denominator of the portion of government costs in the form of checks to the recipient with the reicipient’s name on it.

We used a factor of 1.5 on the 13.67 percent for the foreign born to get the 20.5 percent of government the foreign born enjoy. As we see, Heritage has a ratio of 3 not just 1.5 on the portion of government costs it looked at, and using that accounting the ratio is infinity on the rest, because the low skilled pay zero on the rest in the Heritage setup that takes all the pay for the portion of government costs paid to the low skilled in the form of checks with the recipient’s name on it.

What about the high skilled foreign born? They have given our atomic, missile, laser, computer, software, etc. know how to Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Iran, etc. Out of the 400 billion defense budget, we can allocate at least 200 billion for this knowledge transfer.

For each soldier killed by night vision from China in enemy hands what is the price? This is ignored in the Heritage numbers. Foreign born high skilled have killed Americans by giving our night vision to China which supplies it to insurgents to use against American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq.

If the Cuban missile crisis had ended up in American cities being nuked, what would be the cost of that? The expected loss from atomic weapons is not charged anywhere. That charge likely far exceeds the defense budget. All of that has to be allocated to foreign born high skilled immigrants.

==

Senators are saying they won’t listen to their constituents phone calls until they are voted out of office. Lindsey Graham has said it almost that bluntly as has Mitch McConnell and the California Senators.

We have to be willing to vote out Senators of “our” party. The fault was not in our stars but in ourselves that we voted Bush a second term and these senators, second, third, fourth, etc. terms. That is why they ignore us.

Until immigration is zero, vote them out. A good rule in politics is to vote against an incumbent unless they are voting to sharply limit immigration.

Senator Byron Dorgan said on Lou Dobbs that total immigration in 2005 was 3.8 million. This included all legal categories. That likely includes asylum and student visas, two categories often missed. Students often work for their home governments to get technical know how or even kompromat on professors, employers, or other students who are children of judges, prosecutors, etc.

==Per Immigrant Cost Comparison

Top Down Approach

Gross cost per immigrant 23,117.5

Net Burden per immigrant: 18,292

Gross cost of government for any person 15,411.67

The multiple of 1.5 takes this to 23,117.5. This is what increases the cost of a foreign born person to this level, the factor of 1.5. This allocates all the additional use of government costs by this group.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/wm1490.cfm

On average, each elderly low-skill immigrant imposes a net cost (benefits minus taxes) on the taxpayers of about $17,000 per year. The major elements of this cost are Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits. (The figure includes federal state and local government costs.) If the government gave amnesty to 10 million adult illegal immigrants, most of them would eventually become eligible for Social Security and Medicare benefits or Supplemental Security Income and Medicaid benefits.

Heritage comes up with 17,000 per year for low wage elderly illegals given amnesty. This only considers the costs of checks with the names of the recipients on them. Even admin cost of the same programs is not considered?

The top down approach has allocated their share of all government costs to all foreign born. The Heritage figure doesn’t allocate must government costs at all to those receiving amnesty. This is a major reason it comes up with a lower figure.

== Projecting Costs of more foreign born or their progeny

The natives are 300 – 41 = 259 million. We have a ratio of

41/259 = .158301 for the cost share for each foreign born to each native. For a gross cost of 23,111.57 per foreign born, we get a cost for each native of 3,659.53 dollars.

If we increase the foreign born by 40 million, or they have that many children, we double the burden per native to 7,319.05 per native. This is a gross cost allocation without a subtraction for the tax contribution of the foreign born or their child born in the U.S.

Note, if we assume that there are 41 million additional already from children of the foreign born since the 1950’s surge in immigration started, we get the 7,319.05 figure as already applying to natives if we ignore the change in the ratio.

If we assume there are 82 million foreign born and their descendants from the post 1965 immigration, we get 218 million natives supporting them. We then have a ratio of 82/218 or .376147. Multiplying this by the gross cost of 23,117.5 we get a cost of 8,695.57 per native already to support each foreign born or post 1965 foreign born descendant.

This does not allow for a contribution and applies the 1.5 factor.

We had allowed 200 billion for the 41 million as a tax payment. That comes to 4,878.05 dollars. Lets say its 5,000 per year. That includes elderly and children and those in prison.

For 41 million foreign born, we get a payment of 41 million times 5,000 or 205 billion. That goes to 259 million people. So it comes to 791.06 dollars to each native. Subtracting that from the gross cost of 3,659.53 per native we get 2,868.02.

For the case of 82 million foreign born and descendants, we get 410 billion paid to 218 million natives, which comes to 1,880.73. This means a net cost of 6,814.84. That is what the native born less the post 1965 descendants (probably a smaller class) are paying to support post 1965 immigration.

So each pre recent immigration native born is paying 6,814.84 for post 1965 immigration.

If we double this figure, we get 13,629.68. This is the cost of increasing the post 1965 Immigration Act population. One estimate of US per capita income is 37,800 for 2003. Subtracting 13,600 from that we get 24,200. That is the reduction from both the continued build up of descendants from post 1965 immigration and new immigration. Much of that will occur even if immigration is set to zero, including no asylum, no students, no illegals, no guest workers, no family reunification, etc.

This is why US fertility for the pre 1965 based descendants has dropped since 1957. They are being crushed already and they foresee it getting worse without end.

Fertility has fallen except during immigration restriction from the 1920’s to 1950’s. And then it took 20 years to show up and it was choked off by the immigration numbers of the 1950’s. Note that it was not the pill. The peak was in 1957, the pill was released in 1960. Moreover, the drop in fertility from 1800 of 7 per women to 3 around 1920 was not due to the pill being introduced in 1960 or abortion in the 1970’s. It was the mill not the pill that reduced fertility. The mill meaning the Lowell Mill and its like, which reduced Lowell Mill Girls and other women’s fertility in the 19th century.

http://www.elderweb.com/home/node/2919

Immigration numbers:

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/cohn.immigration.us

Immigration is a substitution effect from children of the native born or older cohorts to immigrants and their children. The Immigration Vanishing Survival Theorem states that this causes genetic extinction of all genes here at any point in time. It also says all genes that come here go extinct. This is now happening to the post 1800 genes as well as those here in 1800.

The fertility graph applies to all the pre 1965 based descendants.

http://www.elderweb.com/home/node/2919

==Other estimates of per capita US income
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

Per capita money income, 1999 $21,587

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104547.html

2005 34,586

==Effect of Amnesty on Immigration

The above shows that people will come here until stopped physically or by employer sanctions or some combination. That must include ending all legal forms of immigration whatsoever, including amnesties, student visas, family reunification, asylum, refugee, guest worker, H-1B, lottery, etc. People will come until pre 1965 descendants have disappeared under this burden.

In fact, all genes go extinct according to the Immigration Vanishing Survival Theorem which states that immigration causes the genetic survival ratios of all the genes that come here, the flow, and all the genes here at any point in time, the stock, to asymptote to zero.

At that point, America will be homogeneous with the 3rd world.

==India

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_India

However, India’s huge population results in a per capita income of $3700 at PPP and $820 at nominal.[3]

The highly skilled from India are trying to get away from the averaging effects of its huge population and high costs.

==Mexico

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Mexico
GDP per capita 10,600 USD (2006) (based on PPP)

GNI per capita 7,310 USD (2005) (based on nominal)

Note this is high for the 3rd world.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf

Men’s median wages in the US are flat since 1973 at 41,386 dollars in 2005 US dollars.

Thus the US is converging towards Mexico because the US is standing still. So the good news is the US is converging to Mexico instead of India.

Of course, Mexico may be above India because its next to the US. So we may be converging to India or to Central America which is lower than Mexico. Mexico surged ahead of Central America. This may be just exploiting the US better.

http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-countries-by-gdp-nominal-per-capita

El Salvador 2,468

–Latin America

http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/013892.html

Latin America (Snapshot of Region)

• Population: 549 million
• Trade Balance 2006
— US$ 514 billion exports
— US$ 432 billion imports
— US$ 82 billion balance (superavit)
• GDP: US$ 2.6 trillion (2006)
• Per capita income: US$ 9,238
• 11 million registered corporations

Note the Per Capita is likely PPP, since 500 million people into 2.5 trillion dollars is 5,000 per year.  So that is presumably nominal per capita and the 2.6 trillion is nominal, i.e. in dollars at current exchange rates?

==

Of course, US descendants of those here before 1965 or even 1970 are likely not to exist at the point that convergence is reached. In fact, as mentioned, all genes go extinct according to the Immigration Vanishing Survival Theorem which states that immigration causes the genetic survival ratios of all the genes that come here, the flow, and all the genes here at any point in time, the stock, to asymptote to zero.

The US is engaging in a policy exercise to demonstrate the Immigration Vanishing Survival Theorem for those like Lindsey Graham and Barbara Boxer who think that math that Senators don’t take the time to hold hearings on doesn’t affect the Senators. What the Senate doesn’t know, can’t happen is what they believe.

http://www.elderweb.com/home/node/2919

Fertility Map Europe:

http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/Basic_Information/total_fertility_rate/maps/europe.html

Average number of babies born to women during child bearing years

1.10 to 1.69 for Europe.

This is the future of European Americans under current trends. It will actually take effort to change this. That means things like voting against any incumbent Senator who votes yes on cloture. That means ones who say they are against illegal but for legal, have to be voted out starting with the ones who voted yes on cloture and the rest told why.

We have to change minds quickly. This means learning the numbers and data sources and passing them on. To really care means to learn the numbers and the data sources and to cut and paste these links everywhere. These data sources have to be printed out and faxed and mailed or emailed to Senators, Congress people and state legislatures. This page and ones like it have to become sources of endless cutting and pasting until the MSM can’t pretend they don’t know the numbers and the data sources, and the same applies to Lindsey Graham. When Graham says that only bigots know the data sources on .gov then even he will realize he is a fool. Kennedy won’t, but Graham will.

We need that to happen before Mexico’s per capita GDP reaches that of El Salvador. Because that will happen when ours is close to the level of El Salvador’s as well. Kennedy wants that to happen. Bush Jr. wants that to happen to us because we didn’t vote for Bush Sr. in 1992.

Bush wants this to be the standard blog entry:

http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=11ec7380b4bfca933ea2d0bb7684b083&from=rss

==US Post 1965 Population

http://www.elderweb.com/home/node/2919

US fertility falls below replacement around 1975:

http://data.princeton.edu/eco572/heuser.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_Population_Graph_-_1790_to_Present.svg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States

1950 151,325,798

1960 179,323,175

1970 203,211,926

1980 226,545,805

1990 248,709,873

2000 281,421,906

2007 302,203,351 (June 28, 2007)

http://www.census.gov/ 302,203,351

Total fertility rate: 2.09 children born/woman (2007 est.)

2.01 children born/women (2000)

1.90 children born/women (1990)

1.81 children born/women (1980)

2.48 children born/women (1970)

3.76 children born/women (1960)

3.69 children born/women (1950)

US Population numbers from Wiki:

World Population by Decade:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762181.html

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/immigration/l/bl_immigration_decade.htm

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/immigration/l/bl_immigration_population.htm

http://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/hiscendata.html

http://www.census.gov/main/www/access.html

http://www.thinkequity.com/mt-archive/2006/06/el_tri_and_me_1.html

The 1975 population was approximate 215 million in the US. The 2007 population is 302 million, so a growth of 87 million. Since fertility has been below replacement since 1975, the 87 million since 1975 are all foreign born or descendants of those who came since 1975.

==Previous 82 million for those post 1965 is undercount

The projection of 82 million from post 1965 immigration is an undercount.

Based on the 82 million we came to the following:

The gross cost of immigration post 1965 may be 8,695.57 per year per native.

Allowing for tax payments by immigrants, the figure may be that each native pays 6,814.84 per year for post 1965 immigration.

This included the factor of 1.5 for the cost of the post 1965 immigrants. If the actual number is 121 million, then we would could drop out the 1.5 multiplier and have the same numbers.

The 1965 population was about 180 million. The increase since then is 122 million. However, part of that was from the above replacement fertility of the pre-1965 group.

== Why are the calls to the Senate so against legalization?

If 82 to 110 million are post 1965 immigration arrivals, then why are the calls to the Senate 20 to 1 against legalization?

Because the post 1965 arrivals realize the above math. They want to be supported by the pre 1965 group, they don’t want everyone from the 3rd world to come and end the party. So they let the pre 1965 group call in to stop legalization and in fact to stop immigration.

Only the self appointed ethnic group “leaders” want more immigration. But their supposed supporters don’t. They are sitting on their hands letting the pre 1965 group call in to stop legalization. Some are even calling in themselves. They realize the party is about to be over.

The above math also shows why the emphasis is on illegal immigration, because its easier for the 100 million or so post 1965 immigrants or their descendants to identify with opposing that.

==Lawrence Auster Quoting George Washington

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/008157.html

As George Washington said, in a democratical republic, the people must feel, before they will see, hence this form of government is so slow.

==Quote from Vanishing American

More ‘lighthouses in a foggy world’

Lighthouses, John! Lighthouses in a foggy world! You know what I mean?”

Senator Jim Webb John Warner vote no cloture

June 25, 2007

Virginia is against the Bush Graham Kennedy Kyl McCain Senate amnesty and guest worker. Next year’s senate contest will turn on amnesty aka comprehensive immigration reform. The Senator who votes no on cloture will have the most influence on the voters in the 2008 Virginia Senate primaries and general election.

==From Numbers USA

(June 25) A roll call vote on whether to bring S. 1639, the “corrected and updated” version of S. 1348, to the floor is scheduled for tomorrow (Tuesday, June 26). On this matter, a senator’s “YES” vote on cloture is equivalent to a vote for amnesty.

CLICK HERE to visit the Senate Vote Day Action Center for more information on the “compromise” bill, S. 1639 (formerly S. 1348).

Polls consistently show Americans oppose Senate bill.

http://www.numbersusa.com/index

===

Senators who vote yes on cloture will undermine their credibility. They will have little influence on their party’s primary or the general election.

Senator Jim Webb’s ability to influence the 2008 Democratic Senate primary nominee depends on his voting no on cloture.

Senator John Warner’s ability to pick Tom Davis as his successor depends on his voting no on cloture.

2008 is the Senate primary and election on amnesty and legal immigration. This is the first election after the deaths of Alison Kunhardt Tessa Tranchant. This election is as much about their deaths as elections after 9-11 were about the deaths of those who died in 9-11.

In case Virginia’s senators have forgotten, part of 9-11 happened on Virginia soil. In case Virginia’ senators have forgotten, on 9-11 foreign enemies in this country spilled Virginia blood on Virginia soil. Virginians have not forgotten that day or how it showed us truths we did not know or did not want to know.

This was the first war on Virginia soil since the Civil War. Virginians do not forget who they are or where they come from. Neither should Senator Jim Webb or Senator John Warner.

==Thomas Davis Career C, Recent C+ voting record immigration

http://grades.betterimmigration.com/testgrades.php3?District=VA&VIPID=926

==Senator John Warner Career C-, Recent C- voting record immigration

http://grades.betterimmigration.com/testgrades.php3?District=VA&VIPID=820
==Senator Jim Webb Recent C voting record immigration

http://grades.betterimmigration.com/testgrades.php3?District=VA&VIPID=1211
==

Tom Davis with Senator Warner’s backing is a losing duo as the dynamic duo of amnesty. Will George W. Bush campaign with them for Tom Davis in the Virginia Senate Republican primary? Will Tom Davis campaign with the Kiss of Kennedy? The same kiss that sent Mary Jo Kopechne to her death at Chappaquiddick?

Kennedy will leave Davis in the same air pocket as he left Mary Jo Kopechne in.

http://www.ytedk.com/

==

Search Senator Warner Virgil Goode Muslim Immigration

Virginia’s senior senator, Republican John Warner, said in a statement Thursday that he respects the right of congressional members to freely “exercise the religion of their choice, including those of the Islamic faith utilizing the Quran.”

Ellison: Lawmaker has ‘a lot to learn about Islam’
POSTED: 9:30 p.m. EST, December 21, 2006

Senators who think the deaths of Allison Kunhardt or Tessa Tranchant will be forgotten by Virginians or the deaths on 9-11 will be forgotten have forgotten the Virginia they come from.
===”Warnered Out”

Can a conservative replace Virginia’s senior senator?

By Michael O’BrienJohn Ullyot, a spokesman for Warner, tells National Review Online that the senator has indicated that he would like to run again.

Kate Obenshain Griffin, the former chairwoman of the Virginia Republican party, paints a picture of uncertainty.

“I personally discussed it with him in private at length, and I don’t know what he’s going to do,” says Larry Sabato, the director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. “I think he’s going back and forth on the matter.”

Immigration bill’s backers predict Senate victory By Stephen Dinan Washington Times June 25, 2007

==

Below is a thread at Free Republic

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1836423/posts

“Parents of crash victims attend event targeting illegal immigration
The Virginian-Pilot ^ | May 19, 2007 | GILLIAN GAYNAIR”

“Call Webb, Warner and Drake, and tell them in a nice way that their jobs depend on their vote on immigration,” said Bill Buchanan of the American Council for Immigration Reform in Arlington. “Do nothing, and things will get worse. You must direct your efforts to make this state less attractive to immigrants.”

About 50 people attended the event – all of whom had to show identification to enter – which was designed to encourage people to join Help Save Virginia. The group grew from Help Save Herndon, a group that came together over concerns about day laborers in their town.

The meeting was sponsored by the Virginia chapter of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps.

“The event was scheduled before the March 30 car crash that killed Virginia Beach teenagers Allison Kunhardt (also spelled Alison Kunhardt in some webpages) and Tessa Tranchant. Alfredo Ramos, an illegal immigrant, has been charged with aggravated involuntary manslaughter.

Alison’s father, David Kunhardt, and Tessa’s mother, Colette Tranchant, attended Friday’s gathering.”

search:

teens Brenda Walker site:Vdare.com

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1836423/posts

Keywords:

Pat Buchanan. H. Ross Perot. Ralph Nader. Reform Party. George H. W. Bush. George W. Bush. John McCain. Teddy Kennedy, Edward M. Kennedy. Shamnesty. McAmnesty. McKennedy. Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act 2007. Bush Senate Amnesty.

==

Search:

9-11 families Senator John Warner

9-11 families Senator John Warner amnesty

==If you put your cursor on the victim’s name with the mouse you can see their photo on some systems.

Search 9-11 victims

http://www.september11victims.com/september11victims/victims_list.htm

AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHT 77,

from Washington to Los Angeles, crashed into the Pentagon with 64 people aboard.

CREW

Charles Burlingame, 51, Herndon, Va.*
David M. Charlebois, 39, Washington, D.C*
Michele Heidenberger, 57, Chevy Chase, Md.*
Jennifer Lewis, 38, Culpeper, Virginia*
Kenneth Lewis, 49, Culpeper, Virginia*
Renee A. May, 39, Baltimore, Md
*

PASSENGERS

Paul Ambrose, 32, Washington, D.C.*
Yeneneh Betru, 35, Burbank, Calif*
Mary Jane (MJ) Booth, 64, Falls Church, Va.*
Bernard Curtis Brown, 11, Washington, D.C.*
Suzanne Calley, 42, San Martin, Calif.*
William Caswell, 54, Silver Spring, Md.*
Sarah Clark, 65, Columbia, Md.*
Zandra Cooper, Annandale, Va.*
Asia Cottom, 11, Washington, D.C.*
James Debeuneure, 58, Upper Marlboro, Md.*
Rodney Dickens, 11, Washington, D.C.*
Eddie Dillard, Alexandria, Va.*
Charles Droz, 52, Springfield, Va.*
Barbara G. Edwards, 58, Las Vegas, Nev.*
Charles S. Falkenberg, 45, University Park, Md.*
Zoe Falkenberg, 8, University Park, Md.*
Dana Falkenberg, 3, of University Park, Md.*
James Joe Ferguson, 39, Washington, D.C.*
Wilson “Bud” Flagg, 63, Millwood, Va.*
Darlene Flagg, 63, Millwood, Va.*
Richard Gabriel, 54, Great Falls, Va.*
Ian J. Gray, 55, Columbia, Md.*
Stanley Hall, 68, Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif.*
Bryan Jack, 48, Alexandria, Va.*
Steven D. Jacoby, 43, Alexandria, Va.*
Ann Judge, 49, Great Falls, Va.*
Chandler Keller, 29, El Segundo, Calif.*
Yvonne Kennedy, 62, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia*
Norma Khan, 45, Reston, Va.*
Karen A. Kincaid, 40, Washington, D.C.*
Dong Lee, 48, Leesburg, Va.*
Dora Menchaca, 45, of Santa Monica, Calif.*
Christopher Newton, 38, Anaheim, Calif.*
Barbara Olson, 45, Great Falls, Va*
Ruben Ornedo, 39, Los Angeles, Calif.*
Robert Penniger, 63, of Poway, Calif.*
Robert R. Ploger, 59, Annandale, Va.*
Lisa J. Raines, 42, Great Falls, Va.*
Todd Reuben, 40, Potomac, Maryland*
John Sammartino, 37, Annandale, Va.*
Diane Simmons, Great Falls, Va.*
George Simmons, Great Falls, Va.*
Mari-Rae Sopper, 35, Santa Barbara, Calif.*
Robert Speisman, 47, Irvington, N.Y*
Norma Lang Steuerle, 54, Alexandria, Va.*
Hilda E. Taylor, 62, Forestville, Md*
Leonard Taylor, 44, Reston, Va.*
Sandra Teague, 31, Fairfax, Va.*
Leslie A. Whittington, 45, University Park, Maryland.*
John D. Yamnicky, 71, Waldorf, Md.*
Vicki Yancey, 43, Springfield, Va.*
Shuyin Yang, 61, Beijing, China*
Yuguag Zheng, 65, Beijing, China
*

Click on links to see their bio and sometimes photo.

==Pentagon

Spc. Craig Amundson, 28, Fort Belvoir, Va.*
Melissa Rose Barnes, 27, Redlands, Calif.*
(Retired) Master Sgt. Max Beilke, 69, Laurel, Md.*
Kris Romeo Bishundat, 23, Waldorf, Md.*
Carrie Blagburn, 48, Temple Hills, Md.*
Lt. Col. Canfield D. Boone, 54, Clifton, Va.*
Donna Bowen, 42, Waldorf, Md.*
Allen Boyle, 30, Fredericksburg, Va.*
Christopher Lee Burford, 23, Hubert, N.C.*
Daniel Martin Caballero, 21, Houston, Texas*
Sgt. 1st Class Jose Orlando Calderon-Olmedo, 44, Annandale, Va.*
Angelene C. Carter, 51, Forrestville, Md.*
Sharon Carver, 38, Waldorf, Md.*
John J. Chada, 55, Manassas, Va.*
Rosa Maria (Rosemary) Chapa, 64, Springfield, Va.*
Julian Cooper, 39, Springdale, Md.*
Lt. Cmdr. Eric Allen Cranford, 32, Drexel, N.C.
Ada M. Davis, 57, Camp Springs, Md.*
Capt. Gerald Francis Deconto, 44, Sandwich, Mass.*
Lt. Col. Jerry Don Dickerson, 41, Durant, Miss.*
Johnnie Doctor, 32, Jacksonville, Fla.*
Capt. Robert Edward Dolan, 43, Alexandria, Va.*
Cmdr. William Howard Donovan, 37, Nunda, N.Y.*
Cmdr. Patrick S. Dunn, 39, Springfield, Va.*
Edward Thomas Earhart, 26, Salt Lick, Ky.*
Lt. Cmdr. Robert Randolph Elseth, 37, Vestal, N.Y.*
Jamie Lynn Fallon, 23, Woodbridge, Va.*
Amelia V. Fields, 36, Dumfries, Va.*
Gerald P. Fisher, 57, Potomac, Md.*
Matthew Michael Flocco, 21, Newark, Del.*
Sandra N. Foster, 41, Clinton, Md.*
Capt. Lawrence Daniel Getzfred, 57, Elgin, Neb.*
Cortz Ghee, 54, Reisterstown, Md.*
Brenda C. Gibson, 59, Falls Church, Va.*
Ron Golinski, 60, Columbia, Md.*
Diane M. Hale-McKinzy, 38, Alexandria, Va.*
Carolyn B. Halmon, 49, Washington, D.C.*
Sheila Hein, 51, University Park, Md.*
Ronald John Hemenway, 37, Shawnee, Kan.*
Maj. Wallace Cole Hogan, 40, Fla.*
Jimmie Ira Holley, 54, Lanham, Md.*
Angela Houtz, 27, La Plata, Md.*
Brady K. Howell, 26, Arlington, Va.*
Peggie Hurt, 36, Crewe, Va.*
Lt. Col. Stephen Neil Hyland, 45, Burke, Va.*
Robert J. Hymel, 55, Woodbridge, Va.*
Sgt. Maj. Lacey B. Ivory, 43, Woodbridge, Va.*
Lt. Col. Dennis M. Johnson, 48, Port Edwards, Wis.*
Judith Jones, 53, Woodbridge, Va.*
Brenda Kegler, 49, Washington, D.C.*
Lt. Michael Scott Lamana, 31, Baton Rouge, La.*
David W. Laychak, 40, Manassas, Va.*
Samantha Lightbourn-Allen, 36, Hillside, Md.*
Maj. Steve Long, 39, Ga.*
James Lynch, 55, Manassas, Va.*
Terence M. Lynch, 49, Alexandria, Va.*
Nehamon Lyons, 30, Mobile, Ala.*
Shelley A. Marshall, 37, Marbury, Md.*
Teresa Martin, 45, Stafford, Va.*
Ada L. Mason, 50, Springfield, Va.*
Lt. Col. Dean E. Mattson, 57, Calif.*
Lt. Gen. Timothy J. Maude, 53, Fort Myer, Va.*
Robert J. Maxwell, 53, Manassas, Va.*
Molly McKenzie, 38, Dale City, Va.*
Patricia E. (Patti) Mickley, 41, Springfield, Va.*
Maj. Ronald D. Milam, 33, Washington, D.C.*
Gerard (Jerry) P. Moran, 39, Upper Marlboro, Md.*
Odessa V. Morris, 54, Upper Marlboro, Md.*
Brian Anthony Moss, 34, Sperry, Okla.*
Ted Moy, 48, Silver Spring, Md.*
Lt. Cmdr. Patrick Jude Murphy, 38, Flossmoor, Ill.
Khang Nguyen, 41, Fairfax, Va.*
Michael Allen Noeth, 30, New York, N.Y.*
Diana Borrero de Padro, 55, Woodbridge, Va.*
Spc. Chin Sun Pak, 25, Lawton, Okla.*
Lt. Jonas Martin Panik, 26, Mingoville, Pa.*
Maj. Clifford L. Patterson, 33, Alexandria, Va.*
Lt. J.G. Darin Howard Pontell, 26, Columbia, Md.*
Scott Powell, 35, Silver Spring, Md.*
(Retired) Capt. Jack Punches, 51, Clifton, Va.*
Joseph John Pycior, 39, Carlstadt, N.J.*
Deborah Ramsaur, 45, Annandale, Va.*
Rhonda Rasmussen, 44, Woodbridge, Va.*
Marsha Dianah Ratchford, 34, Prichard, Ala.*
Martha Reszke, 36, Stafford, Va.*
Cecelia E. Richard, 41, Fort Washington, Md.*
Edward V. Rowenhorst, 32, Lake Ridge, Va.*
Judy Rowlett, 44, Woodbridge, Va.*
Robert E. Russell, 52, Oxon Hill, Md.*
William R. Ruth, 57, Mount Airy, Md.*
Charles E. Sabin, 54, Burke, Va.*
Marjorie C. Salamone, 53, Springfield, Va.*
Lt. Col. David M. Scales, 44, Cleveland, Ohio*
Cmdr. Robert Allan Schlegel, 38, Alexandria, Va.*
Janice Scott, 46, Springfield, Va.*
Michael L. Selves, 53, Fairfax, Va.*
Marian Serva, 47, Stafford, Va.*
Cmdr. Dan Frederic Shanower, 40, Naperville, Ill.*
Antoinette Sherman, 35, Forest Heights, Md.*
Don Simmons, 58, Dumfries, Va.*
Cheryle D. Sincock, 53, Dale City, Va.*
Gregg Harold Smallwood, 44, Overland Park, Kan.*
(Retired) Lt. Col. Gary F. Smith, 55, Alexandria, Va.*
Patricia J. Statz, 41, Takoma Park, Md.*
Edna L. Stephens, 53, Washington, D.C.*
Sgt. Maj. Larry Strickland, 52, Woodbridge, Va.*
Maj. Kip P. Taylor, 38, McLean, Va.*
Sandra C. Taylor, 50, Alexandria, Va.*
Karl W. Teepe, 57, Centreville, Va.*
Sgt. Tamara Thurman, 25, Brewton, Ala.*
Lt. Cmdr. Otis Vincent Tolbert, 38, Lemoore, Calif.*
Willie Q. Troy, 51, Aberdeen, Md.*
Lt. Cmdr. Ronald James Vauk, 37, Nampa, Idaho*
Lt. Col. Karen Wagner, 40, Houston, Texas*
Meta L. Waller, 60, Alexandria, Va.*
Staff Sgt. Maudlyn A. White, 38, St. Croix, Virgin Islands*
Sandra L. White, 44, Dumfries, Va.*
Ernest M. Willcher, 62, North Potomac, Md.*
Lt. Cmdr. David Lucian Williams, 32, Newport, Ore.*
Maj. Dwayne Williams, 40, Jacksonville, Ala.*
Marvin R. Woods, 57, Great Mills, Md.*
Kevin Wayne Yokum, 27, Lake Charles, La.*
Donald McArthur Young, 41, Roanoke, Va.*
Lisa L. Young, 36, Germantown, Md.*
Edmond Young, 22, Owings, Md.*

Every life mattered on 9-11. Every one who died on 9-11 at the Pentagon was a Virginian in spirit. Everyone who died on 9-11 was a Virginian that day. Senator Jim Webb and Senator John Warner need to remember where they came from. Vote no on cloture.

==

Hotair Ad for Senator Lindsey Graham for supporting amnesty:

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/06/25/when-hot-air-attacks-muchas-gracias-senor-graham/

==

http://www.911fsa.org/

http://www.911fsa.org/newsletters/6.8.07Newsletter.pdf

The families and victims of the September 11, 2001
terror attacks and other violent crimes committed by illegal aliens
http://www.911fsa.org
9/11 FSA NEWSLETTER JUNE 8, 2007
BUSH-KENNEDY-KYL AMNESTY TEMPORARILY DEFEATED
PLEASE CONTINUE CALLING YOUR SENATORS AND DEMAND THEY OPPOSE S.1348, THE BUSHKENNEDY-
KYL AMNESTY BILL
THANKS TO THE RULES OF THE SENATE, SIXTY VOTES WERE NEEDED IN ORDER TO CUT OFF
DEBATE (CLOTURE0 ON THE AMNESTY BILL. IFTHE CLOTURE MOTION HAD PASSED A SIMPLE
MAJORITY VOTE WOULD HAVE BEEN NEEDED TO PASS THE BILL AND CONTINUE THE UNITED
STATES ON THE PATH OF OPEN BORDERS, MORE TERRORISM AND MORE ILLEGAL ALIEN
CRIME.
THE OPEN BORDERS LOBBY WAS ONLY ABLE TO OBTAIN FORTY-FIVE VOTES TO SHUT OFF
DEBATE.
THESE 45 UNITED STATES SENATORS ARE WILLING TO SACRIFICE THE SECURITY OF OUR
COUNTRY IN ORDER TO GET THE FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF THE OPEN BORDERS PROFITEERS.
THESE ARE THE SENATORS WHO VOTED TO SHUT OFF DEBATE, THE SENATORS MOST
COMMITTED TO WEAKENING AMERICAN SECURITY:
Akaka (D-HI), Bayh (D-IN), Biden (D-DE), Brown (D-OH), Cantwell (D-WA),
Cardin (D-MD), Carper (D-DE), Casey (D-PA), Clinton (D-NY), Conrad (D-ND),
Dodd (D-CT), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Feinstein (D-CA), Graham (R-SC),
Hagel (R-NE), Harkin (D-IA), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Kerry (D-MA),
Klobuchar (D-MN), Kohl (D-WI), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI),
Lieberman (ID-CT), Lincoln (D-AR), Lugar (R-IN), Martinez (R-FL), McCain (R-AZ),
Menendez (D-NJ), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Nelson (D-FL), Nelson (D-NE),
Obama (D-IL), Reed (D-RI), Reid (D-NV), Salazar (D-CO), Schumer (D-NY),
Specter (R-PA), Stabenow (D-MI), Voinovich (R-OH), Whitehouse (D-RI),
Wyden (D-OR)
SHOWING HIS CONTINUING CONTEMPT FOR THE WELFARE AND WISHES OF
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, GEORGE BUSH HAS SAID HE WILL ATTEMPT TO
REVIVE THE BILL NEXT WEEK IN ARM TWISTING MEETINGS WITH REPUBLICAN
SENATORS.
WE CANNOT BE CONFIDENT OF FINAL VICTORY OVER SENATE DEMOCRATS,
PRESIDENT BUSH, AND THE MINORITY OF SENATE REPUBLICANS WHO ARE
JOINING THEM IN ATTEMPTING TO GRANT CITIZENSHIP TO THE VIOLENT
FELONS AND TERRORISTS AMONG THE LAWBREAKING ILLEGALS.
THESE ARE THE FIFTY SENATORS WHO VOTED NOT CLOSE THE DEBATE, IN ESSENCE CASTING
A VOTE TO KILL THE BUSH-KENNEDY AMNESTY BILL:
Alexander (R-TN), Allard (R-CO), Baucus (D-MT), Bennett (R-UT), Bingaman (D-NM),
Bond (R-MO), Boxer (D-CA), Bunning (R-KY), Burr (R-NC), Byrd (D-WV),
Chambliss (R-GA), Cochran (R-MS), Coleman (R-MN), Collins (R-ME), Corker (R-TN),
Cornyn (R-TX), Craig (R-ID), Crapo (R-ID), DeMint (R-SC.) Dole (R-NC), Domenici (R-NM),
Dorgan (D-ND), Ensign (R-NV), Grassley (R-IA), Gregg (R-NH), Hatch (R-UT),
Hutchison (R-TX), Inhofe (R-OK), Isakson (R-GA), Kyl (R-AZ), Landrieu (D-LA),
Lott (R-MS), McCaskill (D-MO), McConnell (R-KY), Murkowski (R-AK), Pryor (D-AR),
Roberts (R-KS), Rockefeller (D-WV), Sanders (I-VT), Sessions (R-AL), Shelby (R-AL),
Smith (R-OR), Snowe (R-ME), Stevens (R-AK), Sununu (R-NH), Tester (D-MT),
Thune (R-SD), Vitter (R-LA), Warner (R-VA), Webb (D-VA)
HOWEVER, AMONG THE FIFTY DOING THE RIGHT THING FOR AMERICAN SECURITY WERE EIGHT
WHO HAD PREVIOUSLY GONE ON RECORD SUPPORTING AMNESTY. THESE SENATORS
SUDDENTLY DECIDED TO HELP KILL THE BILL EITHER BECAUSE THEY APPARENTLY GOT THE
MESSAGE THAT THEIR VOTERS WERE OVERWHELMINGLY OPPOSED TO AMNESTY AND BOWED
TO THE EXPRESSED WILL OF THE PEOPLE, OR BECAUSE THEY FELT THE BILL DID NOT GIVE
AMNESTY TO ENOUGH ILLEGALS.
THESE SENATORS, THOUGH THEY VOTED, IN THIS CASE, AGAINST AMNESTY, REMAIN
COMMITTED TO OPEN BORDERS. THEY ARE:
BINGAMAN (D-NM) BOXER (D-CA) CHAMBLISS (R-GA) COLLINS (R-ME) ISAKSON (R-GA)
SANDERS (I-VT) SNOWE, (R-ME) SUNUNU (R-NH) PRYOR (D-AR)

===

http://www.911familiesforamerica.org/

Posts on amnesty:

http://www.911familiesforamerica.org/?cat=28

http://www.childrenofseptember11.org/

http://www.familiesofseptember11.org/

==Blogs on Virginia Senators asking no on cloture.

http://www.novatownhall.com/blog/

http://noamaskew.blogspot.com/2007/06/will-webb-stay-against-cloture-via.html

Will Webb stay against cloture? Via Krikorian:

http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=70540

Contact info for Senators and White House, etc:

http://www.americandaughter.com/index.html?http://frontpage.americandaughter.com/?p=1304

==

Warner had a D until recently from Americans for Better Immigration.

The calls, faxes, emails, visits, letters, and other actions of Virginians is what got Warner to vote his way from D to C in the last month or so. Keep up the good work. We may get him all the way to B or even an A- to retire on.

Warner voted for amnesty last year S. 2611:

http://www.senate.gov/~warner/pressoffice/statements/20060525.htm

Warner’s current statement on comprehensive immigration:

http://www.senate.gov/~warner/legislation/antiterrorism/ci.htm

John Warner is the 21st wealthiest Senator.

Net Worth: From $4,858,197 to $7,186,148 Ranks 21st among all members of the Senate”

http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/CIDsummary.asp?CID=N00002061&year=2005

List of All Senators wealth

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN02611:

Vote for final passage on S. 2611, Amnesty i.e. Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

http://www.numbersusa.com/index

http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=homepage

A Nation of Lou Dobbs Democrats

==

“NEW DATA SHOW EXTRAORDINARY JUMP IN INCOME CONCENTRATION IN 2004″ By Aviva Aron-Dine and Isaac Shapiro for a graph of income share of top 1 percent from 1913 to 2004.


Income Inequality U Shape Timeline

7 of the top 8 wealthiest Senators voted for S. 2611, amnesty, affirmative action, non-deportable crime, and a pathway for the top 1 percent of households to continue to enjoy 20 percent of each year’s income, compared to 10 percent before Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act. The only 1 of the top 8 who didn’t vote for S. 2611 didn’t vote, Jay Rockefeller. McCain is 7th and Kennedy 8th in wealth.


Open Secrets

Rank Name Minimum Net Worth Maximum Net Worth

1 Herb Kohl (D-Wis) $219,098,029 to $234,549,004 Voted Yes S. 2611

2 John Kerry (D-Mass) $165,741,511 to $235,262,100 Voted Yes S. 2611

3 Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa) $78,150,023 to $101,579,003 Not Voting S. 2611

4 Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) $43,343,464 to $98,660,021 Voted Yes S. 2611

5 Lincoln D. Chafee (R-RI) $41,153,105 to $64,096,019 Voted Yes S. 2611

6 Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) $38,198,170 to $90,733,019 Voted Yes S. 2611

7 John McCain (R-Ariz) $25,071,142 to $38,043,014 Voted Yes S. 2611

8 Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass) $19,189,049 to $93,043,004 Voted Yes S. 2611

More data here

Free fax to Congress on hot immigration bills: http://www.numbersusa.com/actionbuffet

==

Men’s median wages in the US are flat since 1973. See graph page 18 at census:

Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in
the United States: 2005

Worker Productivity Graph and info

Productivity never stopped growing, except possibly during some recessions or odd years from 1947 to present.

1947 to 1973 worker productivity up 2.7 percent per year.

1973 to early 1990’s 1.4 percent per year

1995 to 2004 2.9 percent per year increase in worker productivity.

Yet men’s median wages are lower than in 1973, and the other groups, women, blacks, etc. are lower than all men in 1973.

The workers became more productive, but wages stayed at or below the level of men in 1973.

What changed is that the top 1 percent get 20 percent of every 100 dollars we make now but only got 10 dollars per every 100 before the 1965 Immigration Act.

Scroll down (in link below) for graph:

U Shaped Income Inequality Timeline

The U shaped timeline on the graph shows that the top 1 percent got 20 percent of each 100 dollars created by Americans before immigration restriction in the 1920’s, got 10 dollars during restriction from the 1920’s to 1960’s, and now are back up to 20 percent with immigration.

Note that in the 1960’s it was still headed slightly lower at the time of the 1965 Immigration Act. Congress and the wealthy were in a panic. If it went to 1 percent that would mean perfect income equality. It got as low as 9 percent before turning back up. Immigration change is what explains the 2 turning points in the U shaped pattern. No other fact can explain both turning points.

For a more detailed discussion of this see

National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein
It’s Official: Immigration Causing Income Inequality

Northwestern University economists Ian Dew-Becker and Robert J. Gordon pointed out this U shaped pattern and that it can only be explained by immigration. Rubenstein discusses this in his article linked to above.

==

Labor force participation rates of men (especially black men) have fallen since 1984:

http://www.bls.gov/emp/emplab05.htm

and even from 1965 (requires excel, but you can get a viewer for free)

www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/2006/B40.xls

Black men have fallen from about 80 percent in 1965 to 66 percent in 2005, and are projected to fall further by 2014 because of continued legal immigration and illegal immigration and amnesty. Black and white men both had labor force participation rates of 80 percent in 1965. Whites are down to 74 percent.

The labor force participation rates of black, Hispanic, Asian and white men are all projected by the government to fall from 2004 to 2014 even without this bill.

http://www.bls.gov/emp/emplab05.htm

====If you put your cursor on the link below with the mouse you can see their photo on some systems.

Virginia Beach Teens Killed at Intersection

[Brenda Walker] @ 3:59 pm [Email author] [Email This Article] [Print This Article]

Below, Tessa Tranchant, 16, left, and Allison Kunhardt, 17, were killed late Friday.

Their lives and those who died in 9-11 shall not be forgotten in 2008. Nor shall it be forgotten who voted no on cloture. Virginia Senators who don’t vote no on cloture on Senate S. 1639 comprehensive immigration reform, aka amnesty, will have little influence in the 2008 Virginia Senate primaries or 2008 Virginia Senate election.

Pat Buchanan KO’s Luis Gutierrez Meet the Press Immigration Debate

June 24, 2007

Pat Buchanan demolished Luis Gutierrez in an immigration debate on Meet the Press:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3898804/

Transcript:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19354560/

After that, the usual suspects gather round to ask for corporate speaking fees by defending immigration.

Tim Russert

Host of Meet the Corporate Spokespeople

DAVID BRODER
Columnist, Washington Post, speaking fee info here.

JOHN HARWOOD
Wall Street Journal
Chief Washington Correspondent, CNBC

GWEN IFILL
Moderator, PBS’s “Washington Week”

ROGER SIMON
Syndicated Columnist

Tim Russert Speaking fee from Arianna Huffington at Huffington Post:

But, according to the Washington Speakers Bureau, which exclusively handles Russert’s speaking engagements, his standard speaking fee is $60,000 plus first class travel for two for west coast appearances, and $50,000 and first class travel for two for east coast locales — although, they say, private planes are strongly preferred.

Please, please, is there not a corporation to fly them out on the corporate jet this week for a 50,000 luncheon talk for one hour and then fly them back, after they do shopping. They earned it today. Fly their family members out with them. Better yet, fly them out, give the talk and have them fly back and do another talk on the way back. They really earned it this Sunday on Meet the Corporate Speaking Fees.

Journalist speaking fees here.

Buchanan had the facts on what immigration is doing to Americans. Gutierrez made it clear, it was intentional.

Immigration has killed wage progress.

Men’s median wages are flat since 1973, despite productivity rising. Buchanan himself combined these together in the debate pointing out that wages are flat and productivity is going up. That was a key point to get spoken on TV. This is one of the first times it has been said.

Men’s median wages in the US are flat since 1973. See graph page 18 at census:

Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in
the United States: 2005

Worker Productivity Graph and info

Productivity never stopped growing, except possibly during some recessions or odd years from 1947 to present.

1947 to 1973 worker productivity up 2.7 percent per year.

1973 to early 1990’s 1.4 percent per year

1995 to 2004 2.9 percent per year increase in worker productivity.

Yet men’s median wages are lower than in 1973, and the other groups, women, blacks, etc. are lower than all men in 1973.

The workers became more productive, but wages stayed at or below the level of men in 1973.

What changed is that the top 1 percent get 20 percent of every 100 dollars we make now but only got 10 dollars per every 100 before the 1965 Immigration Act.

Scroll down (in link below) for graph:

U Shaped Income Inequality Timeline

The U shaped timeline on the graph shows that the top 1 percent got 20 percent of each 100 dollars created by Americans before immigration restriction in the 1920’s, got 10 dollars during restriction from the 1920’s to 1960’s, and now are back up to 20 percent with immigration.

Note that in the 1960’s it was still headed slightly lower at the time of the 1965 Immigration Act. Congress and the wealthy were in a panic. If it went to 1 percent that would mean perfect income equality. It got as low as 9 percent before turning back up. Immigration change is what explains the 2 turning points in the U shaped pattern. No other fact can explain both turning points.

For a more detailed discussion of this see

National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein
It’s Official: Immigration Causing Income Inequality

Northwestern University economists Ian Dew-Becker and Robert J. Gordon pointed out this U shaped pattern and that it can only be explained by immigration. Rubenstein discusses this in his article linked to above.


The authors of the graph state:

“NEW DATA SHOW EXTRAORDINARY JUMP IN INCOME CONCENTRATION IN 2004″ By Aviva Aron-Dine and Isaac Shapiro for a graph of income share of top 1 percent from 1913 to 2004.

U Shaped Income Inequality Timeline

—-Senators Vote their Stock Portfolios

7 of the top 8 wealthiest Senators voted for S. 2611, amnesty, affirmative action, non-deportable crime, and a pathway for the top 1 percent of households to continue to enjoy 20 percent of each year’s income, compared to 10 percent before Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act. The only 1 of the top 8 who didn’t vote for S. 2611 didn’t vote, Jay Rockefeller. McCain is 7th and Kennedy 8th in wealth.


Open Secrets

Rank Name Minimum Net Worth Maximum Net Worth

1 Herb Kohl (D-Wis) $219,098,029 to $234,549,004 Voted Yes S. 2611

2 John Kerry (D-Mass) $165,741,511 to $235,262,100 Voted Yes S. 2611

3 Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa) $78,150,023 to $101,579,003 Not Voting S. 2611

4 Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) $43,343,464 to $98,660,021 Voted Yes S. 2611

5 Lincoln D. Chafee (R-RI) $41,153,105 to $64,096,019 Voted Yes S. 2611

6 Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) $38,198,170 to $90,733,019 Voted Yes S. 2611

7 John McCain (R-Ariz) $25,071,142 to $38,043,014 Voted Yes S. 2611

8 Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass) $19,189,049 to $93,043,004 Voted Yes S. 2611

More data here

Free fax to Congress on hot immigration bills: http://www.numbersusa.com/actionbuffet

==

Labor Day is almost upon us, and like some of my fellow graybeards, I can, if I concentrate, actually remember what it was that this holiday once celebrated. Something about America being the land of broadly shared prosperity. Something about America being the first nation in human history that had a middle-class majority, where parents had every reason to think their children would fare even better than they had.
The young may be understandably incredulous, but the Great Compression, as economists call it, was the single most important social fact in our country in the decades after World War II. From 1947 through 1973, American productivity rose by a whopping 104 percent, and median family income rose by the very same 104 percent. More Americans bought homes and new cars and sent their kids to college than ever before. In ways more difficult to quantify, the mass prosperity fostered a generosity of spirit: The civil rights revolution and the Marshall Plan both emanated from an America in which most people were imbued with a sense of economic security.

That America is as dead as the dodo. Ours is the age of the Great Upward Redistribution.

Since 1973 productivity gains have outpaced median family income by 3 to 1.

from Devaluing Labor By Harold Meyerson
Wednesday, August 30, 2006; Page A19
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08

Even WaPo knows its true.

==

Labor force participation rates of men (especially black men) have fallen since 1984:

http://www.bls.gov/emp/emplab05.htm

and even from 1965 (requires excel, but you can get a viewer for free)

www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/2006/B40.xls

Black men have fallen from about 80 percent in 1965 to 66 percent in 2005, and are projected to fall further by 2014 because of continued legal immigration and illegal immigration and amnesty. Black and white men both had labor force participation rates of 80 percent in 1965. Whites are down to 74 percent.

BLS projects that Hispanic, black, white and Asian men will see their labor force participation rates fall from 2004 to 2014.

http://www.bls.gov/emp/emplab05.htm

==Buchanan’s comment on wages and productivity

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19354560/page/3/

MR. BUCHANAN: OK, that means 86 percent of construction workers are American citizens or people here legally whom the illegal aliens are competing with, and they say the Americans won’t do their jobs. That’s nonsense.

Secondly, the congressman talks about working folks. In the nonmanagerial, 80 percent of American workers, or something like 93 million, their wages and the Bush boom, so-called, have been arrested. They are not going up. Productivity goes up, but wages aren’t going up.

It defies common sense to say you can bring in 36 to 40 million legal immigrants and 12 to 20 million illegal and not have those huge number of uneducated, unschooled folks, who many of whom don’t speak the language not drive down the wages of working Americans. That is prosperous. The Wall Street Journal—I don’t know what the editorial is—but The Wall Street Journal has been an open borders, pro-NAFTA, transnational newspaper for a long, long time.

REP. GUTIERREZ: The fact is that they do jobs. Every time you go to the grocery store and you get grapes, any agricultural…

The response of Gutierrez doesn’t address the point that productivity has gone up and median wages have stayed flat since 1973.

Gutierrez goes on to say:

REP. GUTIERREZ: …This population will need to be replaced.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19354560/page/3/

This replacement is accomplished by taking jobs for lower wages. This is replacement economics.

Patrick Cleburne sums this exchange up nicely at Vdare: “Hispanic Congressman boasts: Illegals undercut American wages.”

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2007/06/25/2887/

Big Immigration, Low Employment
By Steven Camarota
The Center for Immigration Studies | June 25, 2007

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=28893

Camarota documents that native unemployment or dropping out of the labor force in Georgia has matched immigration since 2000. He has a set of bullet points and a table at the end that document this in detail. This is direct substitution at lower wages and lower working conditions. This is exactly what Gutierrez is selling, as Patrick Cleburne points out. This is exactly what the US Senate is buying.

Free fax to Congress on hot immigration bills: http://www.numbersusa.com/actionbuffet

Also David Broder’s speaking fee is only 10 to 20,000 dollars.  David Broder has a folksy grandfather charm, sort of like Lee Hamilton.  This makes him trusted by ordinary folks who think he looks out for them.

David Broder has been a loyal voice for corporate immigration interests.  If you believe his speaking fee needs to go up to reflect that you can register at Washington Post and comment on how he needs to be rewarded.

David Broder homepage at WaPo 

Reminder:

DAVID BRODER
Columnist, Washington Post, speaking fee info here.

Search Catholics Immigration Intense Feelings

June 24, 2007

If one does the search Catholics immigration one gets many hits showing a lot of intense feeling on the subject of immigration.

Google news: Catholics immigration.

America’s Fear of Outsiders
Thursday, May. 31, 2007 By RICHARD BROOKHISER

The bigotry of immigration opponents is a familiar shadow in our civic myth, like the devils and tempters in a medieval morality play.

Richard Brookhiser is familiar to those who watched Firing Line or have read National Review.

http://www.americandaily.com/article/19139

Ann Don’t Know Nothing
By Steve Kellmeyer (06/08/07)

For years now, I have argued that the animus against Hispanic immigrants who cross the border without first asking permission from the Border Patrol was driven more by anti-Catholicism than it was by a concern about the lack of papers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-immigration

http://hnn.us/articles/25105.html
Strangers in the Land: An Old Theme Replayed

By Dino E. Buenviaje

Dino E. Buenviaje writes for the History News Service and is a graduate student at the University of California, Riverside.

http://www.maconareaonline.com/news.asp?id=17501

Ellis Island’s past returns in immigration row
By: Daniel Trotta
 
Thu Jun 14, 2007 11:59 AM EDT(Pic)- Windows boarded up at the hospital buildings on Ellis Island, June 12, 2007 (View Slideshow). REUTERS/Chip East

==Response to bigotry charge

Now that we have heard the usual cries of bigotry by those who have the best intentions for us, lets see what the numbers and a theorem on immigration have to tell us about immigration.

First some numbers, in a graph:

http://www.elderweb.com/home/node/2919

Graph of black and white fertility from 1800 to 1990. The only period when black or white fertility went up was during immigration restriction from around 1940 to 1957, at the peak. At all other times, fertility fell.

Now the theorem:

This is in line with the Immigration Vanishing Survival Theorem which states that immigration causes the genetic survival ratios of all the genes that come here, the flow, and all the genes here at any point in time, the stock, to asymptote to zero.

Men’s median wages in the US are flat since 1973. See graph page 18 at census:

Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in
the United States: 2005

http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Data_on_Median_Wage_by_President

Median Wage Increase in constant dollars.Last three decades. Sorted Best-to-Worst.D:Clinton	 565

D:Carter	-108

R:Reagan	-228

R:Bush II	-588

R:Bush I 	-825
R:Ford		-894

Except for Clinton, the median wage has gone down under every President since Ford took office in August 1974.

http://www.watergate.info/nixon/resignation-speech.shtml

More data links on wages

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/a-nation-of-lou-dobbs-democrats/

More on fertility and wages:

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2007/06/01/1965-immigration-act-causes-u-inverted-u-in-income-inequality-and-fertility/

==In 1700’s America was one of the best places to live

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=668

By the beginning of the eighteenth century, the population in Britain’s North American colonies was growing at an unprecedented rate. At a time when Europe’s population was increasing just 1 percent a year, New England’s growth rate was 2.6 or 2.7 percent annually. By the early eighteenth century, the population was also growing extremely rapidly in the middle Atlantic and southern colonies, largely as a result of a low death rate and a sex ratio that was more balanced than in Europe itself.

==

http://www.uncanny.net/~wsa/iraq2.html

America tended to have higher wage levels than Europe even prior to the massive industrialization of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The ready availability of free land in North American prior to the 20th century, and the widespread knowledge of farming skills among immigrants, meant that it was hard to get people to work for wages; they often preferred to work their own farm rather than be under the thumb of a boss. Indeed, this was the reason for the introduction of slave-labor (initially using both white and black slaves) for large-scale plantation farming in Virginia in the 17th century: it was the only way to get the necessary labor force.

==

However as the Elderweb graph of both black and white fertility shows, this Eden of the 18th century was facing a rude awakening in the 19th century.

http://www.elderweb.com/home/node/2919

As of 1800, the country was doing well to let women have 8 children per woman, although some died in childbirth to be sure.

The constant drop in both black and white fertility in the entire 19th century shows that there was some extreme stress placed on the human population, both black and white. Some form of competition resulted in both blacks and whites having to have fewer children and instead put that energy into working longer hours.

==

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/us26.cfm

Wages were 22 cents an hour in 1890, after they rose after the US Civil War.

==

http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1990/5/90.05.07.x.html

Many tenements did not have indoor plumbing or running water. Sewage collected in outhouses and rats were prevalent, carrying and spreading disease, often to children. In 1857, 2/3 of New York City�s deaths were children under age 5, mostly Irish. (W., p. 67) There were also epidemics of typhoid, cholera, tuberculosis and pneumonia throughout East Coast cities.

Seems like the bigots had the names: typhoid, cholera and tuberculosis.

Men were hired for low-paying, physically demanding and dangerous work. Wages for unskilled jobs during the 1840s were under 75 cents a day for 10-12 hours of work. (W., p. 43)

Women who worked in factories found the work to be dirty, low-paying and dangerous. In Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Baltimore in 1833, Irish women who worked making cotton shirts were on a piecework system. They were paid between 6-10 cents a shirt and worked about 13-14 hours a day. Since they could only make nine shirts a week, the maximum pay was about 90 cents a week.5

Wages on Erie Canal:

http://facweb.furman.edu/~benson/docs/wage4570.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesapeake_and_Delaware_Canal

Canal construction resumed in April 1824, and in several years some 2,600 men were digging and hauling dirt from the ditch. Laborers toiled with pick and shovel at the immense construction task, working for an average daily wage of 75 cents.

wages Irish immigration cents

==

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,979732,00.html

Francis Cabot Lowell built the country’s first water-powered cotton mill on farmland near Pawtucket Falls in northeastern Massachusetts in 1814. Within two decades the area had become one of the foremost industrial centers in America. As more mills were built, their owners recruited young, single New England farm girls as laborers. When the “mill girls,” as they were called, rebelled against the long hours and low wages, they were replaced by Irishmen fleeing the potato famine of the 1840s. … On wages of 75 cents a day, the early laborers crowded into a shantytown of mud huts and shacks.

==Lowell girls

search Lowell girls

Lowell Girl Picture Gallery:

http://www.library.csi.cuny.edu/dept/americanstudies/lavender/lowegall.html

Lives of Lowell Mill Girls

http://www.library.csi.cuny.edu/dept/americanstudies/lavender/lowell.html

=PBS takes Lowell’s side:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/theymadeamerica/whomade/lowell_hi.html

Mill Girls
Another of Lowell’s innovations was in hiring young farm girls to work in the mill. He paid them lower wages than men, but offered benefits that many girls, some as young as 15, were eager to earn. Mill girls lived in clean company boardinghouses with chaperones, were paid cash, and benefitted from religious and educational activities. Waltham boomed as workers flocked to Lowell’s novel enterprise.

Search: Lowell girls 1836 strike

Despite the opportunity to experience city life away from home and earn money, the working and living conditions were often unfair. The boarding houses charged rent and provided a single meal of bread and gravy after a full day’s work. When the rent charged for staying at the boardinghouses increased in 1836, Lowell’s Factory Girls’ Association went on strike. This strike went on for an entire month but their unsympathetic employers had them evicted from their boardinghouses when the strikers’ money had run out (cited from Howard Zinn’s, A People’s History of the United States: Volume I). A series of strikes on the part of Lowell workers helped to reduce the length of their work day. In 1835, workers from 20 different mills all went on strike to reduce their working day from 13.5 hours to eleven, then on December of 1844, when five women, including Sarah Bagley, met to fight for a ten hour work day, the Lowell Female Labor Reform Association was born. The union grew in three months to 600 members in the Lowell community. Petition after petition went out to the community and other mills; the Ten Hours Movement was into full effect. In 1852 the first state law limiting women’s working day to ten hours passed in Ohio. This lead to many more movements including support for women’s suffrage, equal pay for women, and strikes. The Lowell mill girls helped bring about a movement which brought about labor laws that still affect us today [2].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowell_girls

http://www.ahsp.cuny.edu/video/robinson.html

Harriet Hanson Robinson began work in Lowell at the age of ten, later becoming an author and advocate of women’s suffrage.

Cutting down the wages was not their only grievance, nor the only cause of this strike. Hitherto the corporations had paid twenty-five cents a week towards the board of each operative, and now it was their purpose to have the girls pay the sum; and this, in addition to the cut in the wages, would make a difference of at least one dollar a week. It was estimated that as many as twelve or fifteen hundred girls turned out, and walked in procession through the streets. They had neither flags nor music, but sang songs, a favorite (but rather inappropriate) one being a parody on “I won’t be a nun. ”
“Oh! isn’t it a pity, such a pretty girl as I-
Should be sent to the factory to pine away and die?
Oh ! I cannot be a slave,
I will not be a slave,
For I’m so fond of liberty
That I cannot be a slave.”

PBS takes Lowell’s side, not the Lowell Mill Girls’ side. PBS wants corporate speaking fees.

==The Mill not the Pill KO’d fertility in America

Fertility in 1800 was 7 for white women:

http://www.elderweb.com/home/node/2919

By 1850 it was down to 5.5. The Pill was released in 1960. So it was not the pill, but the Mill that brought the girls’ fertility down. Lowell Jr. wanted to take away their 25 cents board and make them pay it and cut their wages 75 cents a week when they made 75 cents a day.

By 1920, fertility was down to about 3 for white women. So it fell from 7 to 3 in about 120 years. Those were the years of immigration. It was the mill at 75 cent cents a day that brought fertility down, not the pill.

The pill was introduced in 1960, when fertility was about 3.5 already a little down from its peak in 1957 of about 3.75. Fertility fell to a low below 2 and then came back up a little.

So the fall from 7 to 2 for white women from 1800 to 1990 can be decomposed into a fall of 4 from 1800 to 1920 and then a further fall of 1 from 3 in 1920 to 2 today. Of that fall in 1, the pill can only be at most one.

Since fertility rose to 3.75 in 1957 before the pill, this shows that ending immigration from the 1920’s to the early 1940’s and its slow buildup afterwards is what rebuilt the fertility crushed by Lowell Jr’s Mill Plan.

==
Who is Francis Cabot Lowell today?

Teddy Kennedy, George Bush, John McCain, Bill Gates, Michael Bloomberg, and so on.

Francis Cabot Lowell:

Although he died early at age 42, only 3 years after building his first mill, Lowell left his Boston Manufacturing Company in superb financial health. In 1821, dividends were paid out at an astounding 27.5% to shareholders. In 1822, Lowell’s partners named their new mill town on the Merrimack River “Lowell,” after their visionary leader. One of his sons, Francis Cabot Lowell Jr., continued to work in his father’s footsteps.

As do George Bush, Teddy Kennedy and John McCain. Each of them is the son of a successful father, and they each try to surpass their father. Francis Cabot Lowell Jr. wanted to surpass his father, so he cut the pay of the Lowell Mill Girls in 1836 and said they had to pay the 25 cents a week for board the company had given them. He was trying to surpass his father’s dividend record.

Bush Jr. may be punishing Buchanan Perot voters by immigration. This may be revenge for their humiliating his father by voting for Perot in 1992, causing Bush Sr. not to be re-elected. Bush Jr. may have had two main ideas in mind, get Saddam for trying to kill his father, and get the Buchanan Perot voters by immigration for humiliating his father in 1992.

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2007/05/17/bush-senate-amnesty-vendetta-on-buchanan-perot-voters-for-92-00-betrayals/

Just like Lowell father and son, Bush, Kennedy and McCain are trying to push up corporate dividends by pushing down wages, using immigration as a tool. Lowell Jr. brought in Irish immigrants in the 1840’s to replace the girls who “betrayed” Lowell Jr and Daddy’s company by striking in 1836 against a cut in pay and paying the 25 cents a week board. They were just like Buchanan Perot voters who did a voters’ strike in 1992 against Daddy for their wages being low and their having unemployment, just 6 years after the Reagan Bush 1986 Amnesty.

Teddy Kennedy is bringing in stock returns for Kennedy trust fund stock portfolios. John McCain for his wife’s business and stock portfolio. Just like Lowell Jr. they are proving they are bread winners for their families who have invested their hopes for retirement security in them. They need that immigration to keep down wages to provide for their retirement.

Bush Jr. is guaranteeing corporate speaking fees for himself to support the Bush daughters and Bush clan. Clinton made 10 million a year in speaking fees. Bush is 2 years from speaking fees.

“NEW DATA SHOW EXTRAORDINARY JUMP IN INCOME CONCENTRATION IN 2004″ By Aviva Aron-Dine and Isaac Shapiro for a graph of income share of top 1 percent from 1913 to 2004.


Income Inequality U Shape Timeline

7 of the top 8 wealthiest Senators voted for S. 2611, amnesty, affirmative action, non-deportable crime, and a pathway for the top 1 percent of households to continue to enjoy 20 percent of each year’s income, compared to 10 percent before Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act. The only 1 of the top 8 who didn’t vote for S. 2611 didn’t vote, Jay Rockefeller. McCain is 7th and Kennedy 8th in wealth.


Open Secrets

Rank Name Minimum Net Worth Maximum Net Worth

1 Herb Kohl (D-Wis) $219,098,029 to $234,549,004 Voted Yes S. 2611

2 John Kerry (D-Mass) $165,741,511 to $235,262,100 Voted Yes S. 2611

3 Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa) $78,150,023 to $101,579,003 Not Voting S. 2611

4 Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) $43,343,464 to $98,660,021 Voted Yes S. 2611

5 Lincoln D. Chafee (R-RI) $41,153,105 to $64,096,019 Voted Yes S. 2611

6 Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) $38,198,170 to $90,733,019 Voted Yes S. 2611

7 John McCain (R-Ariz) $25,071,142 to $38,043,014 Voted Yes S. 2611

8 Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass) $19,189,049 to $93,043,004 Voted Yes S. 2611

==

Ted Kennedy is no friend to women. He treated Mary Jo Kopechne like a Lowell Mill Girl in 1969 when he left her to die in an air bubble at Chappaquiddick.

http://www.ytedk.com/

Ted couldn’t wait. He couldn’t wait that night. He couldn’t wait for his 1965 Immigration Act to cut Mary Jo Kopechne’s fertility by the immigration substitution effect, that substitutes immigrants for births, but did it himself. That was his method of birth control that night.
V2: Ted the magic driver with a plan called amnesty

Ted was thinking of running for president and couldn’t risk calling the police diver to get the girl in the air pocket because it might harm his presidential campaign. So he went back to his hotel and called his advisers on how to handle the damage. This was shown by telephone records disclosed by the New York Times after the 1980 election. Ted had to live up to his powerful father now that three of his elder brothers were dead.

Kennedy Jr., Bush Jr., McCain Jr., and Lowell Jr. were all trying to prove themselves to powerful fathers, in some cases, ones already dead. They wanted to do it by reducing us to Lowell Mill Girls and Boiler Room Girls as they called Mary Jo Kopechne. The Senate Amnesty Bill is the Lowell Mill Girls, Boiler Room Girls Bill. It puts us in an air pocket and slowly squeezes the air.

That is what the Immigration Vanishing Survival Theorem tells us with math. Immigration causes every gene that comes here, the flow, and every gene that is here, the stock, to go extinct over time.

http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/BrowneEconomicsImmigration.pdf

Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the US Federal Reserve, gave testimony to the U.S. Senate last year:
“Although discovery of new technologies is to some degree a matter of luck, we know that human activities do respond to economic incentives. A relative shortage of workers should increase the incentives for developing labor-saving technologies and
7
may actually spur technological development. Economic historians have argued that one reason that the United States surpassed Great Britain in the early nineteenth century as the leader in technological innovation was the relative scarcity of labor in the United States. Patent records of this period show that innovation did respond to economic incentives and that the scarcity of labor clearly provided incentives to develop new methods of production.”

labor saving site:Vdare.com

Greenspan and Vdare are telling us there is a substitution effect between immigration and technology. There is a see-saw. When immigration goes down, technology goes up. Wages are what connect the two arms of the see-saw.

Its the rise of wages when immigration is low that sends the message to business to spend on technology. This then increases the productivity of labor. That in turn fuels higher rises in wages. That is what happened during immigration restriction.

==

Labor Day is almost upon us, and like some of my fellow graybeards, I can, if I concentrate, actually remember what it was that this holiday once celebrated. Something about America being the land of broadly shared prosperity. Something about America being the first nation in human history that had a middle-class majority, where parents had every reason to think their children would fare even better than they had.
The young may be understandably incredulous, but the Great Compression, as economists call it, was the single most important social fact in our country in the decades after World War II. From 1947 through 1973, American productivity rose by a whopping 104 percent, and median family income rose by the very same 104 percent. More Americans bought homes and new cars and sent their kids to college than ever before. In ways more difficult to quantify, the mass prosperity fostered a generosity of spirit: The civil rights revolution and the Marshall Plan both emanated from an America in which most people were imbued with a sense of economic security.

That America is as dead as the dodo. Ours is the age of the Great Upward Redistribution.

Since 1973 productivity gains have outpaced median family income by 3 to 1.

from Devaluing Labor By Harold Meyerson
Wednesday, August 30, 2006; Page A19
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08

==Appendix Data Sources

http://eh.net/Clio/Conferences/ASSA/Jan_96/rosenbloom.shtml

http://eh.net/databases/

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/us26.cfm

Immigration by decade and country of origin:

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/cohn.immigration.us

http://eh.net/databases/unskilledwage/wage%20index.txt

(above not adjusted for inflation?)

http://eh.net/databases/unskilledwage/

http://eh.net/databases/labor/

http://history.oldcolo.com/history/genhist/governmt/Census.html

https://www.youth2work.gov/esa/aboutesa/history/whd/whdhist.htm

==Appendix

Rudi Giuliani’s comments about Know Nothings inspired Vanishing American to comment on this theme in some insightful essays. In recent days, I have read the following essays by Vanishing American which influenced me to write this essay.

http://vanishingamerican.blogspot.com/search/label/Know-Nothings

http://vanishingamerican.blogspot.com/2007/06/knowing-about-know-nothings.html

Low Population is why US avoids internal wars?

June 17, 2007

Fareed Zakaria is a big booster of legal immigration. Yet his show is usually about how bad other countries are to live in. This includes their constant killing of each other. After showing us the killing in a country, in effect he says, let’s have immigration of these people here. Won’t they just kill us here? Isn’t that what happened on 9-11?

Is low population one of the reasons the US is not like Iraq or Afghanistan or Sudan or Somalia or Nagorno-Karabakh. Today on Foreign Exchange, Fareed Zakaria showed us a film on the war in Nagorno-Karabakh that has been ongoing since 1988 at some level, although there was a “peace” in 1994.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagorno-Karabakh

http://www.fareedzakaria.com/

http://www.foreignexchange.tv/

Lawrence Auster on Zakaria

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/003710.html

Fareed Zakaria, appeaser and Muslim apologist “

Search

Fareed Zakaria Muslim

In the Nagorno-Karabakh war, Zakaria is on the side of the Muslims? The Armenians are Christian and Zakaria is against their side?

“As many as one thousand Afghan mojahedeens participated in the fighting.[28] Also there were fighters from Chechnya fighting on the side of Azerbaijan.[29][30]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagorno-Karabakh

Zakaria showed an agit-prop film made by the Muslim fighters against the Christian Armenians? He didn’t mention that though. The same people Zakaria is for now are the Afghan fighters who attacked us on 9-11?

http://www.warandpeacefilm.com/

Zakaria showing this film is boosting the same people who attacked us on 9-11? Is Zakaria advocating policies whose effect has already been to import war into the US? Is Zakaria advocating bringing in the same war into the US that was brought in before the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993? We are now over 14 years at least of importing war?

Zakaria says our problem in this war is that we don’t know who are enemy is. Zakaria says the way you win war is divide your enemies.

In the Balkans we fought the Christian Serbs and bombed the Christians in Sarajevo.   Bush and Condoleeza Rice are for the Muslims in Albania and Kosovo.  They are also for the Muslims in Turkey and have never spoken up for Christians there or even secular Muslims.  Now Zakaria wants to repeat the Balkans formula in Nagorno-Karabakh?  He is putting on the film of the Mujahideen?

Zakaria is teaching us to fight the Christians in the Middle East and Balkans?  From Serbia to Iraq we are supposed to either fight the Christians or at least not feel solidarity with them?  This is a lesson in divide your enemies from the master?

Perpetual Comprehensive Amnesty v. Comprehensive Enforcement

June 13, 2007

Enforcing immigration law is a state of mind. To keep people out, society has to have a mentality to do so. That only happens when there are no amnesties and legal immigration is close to zero. When there are amnesties and high legal immigration, then judges, juries, and police feel that enforcing the law in individual cases is personal individual cruelty, not upholding a societal policy. Perpetual Comprehensive Amnesty, PCA, means always giving amnesty, which means no enforcement.

Agents, courts, juries, employers, etc. won’t go through the motions of enforcing the laws when there are perpetual recurring amnesties. Because then its just cruelty. A jury or a judge or policeman enforces the law as part of a system of a civil society, not to harm the particular person in their power. But when that crime is being amnestied on a regular basis, then individual acts of enforcement are just cruelty.

A jury will go along with imposing a penalty on someone, or a judge or policeman, because they are upholding the law. If its just to hurt that person for fun, they won’t go along with it, unless its murder or something big.

Administrative law, like citizenship and residence won’t be enforced in individual cases if its an act of
random cruelty. The law will be enforced only if each
jury, judge, policeman, etc. feels they are part of
a group effort to apply a law for the benefit of society.

This is why there is no enforcement today. The amnesties, lack of enforcement, the sanctuary city resolutions, etc. send the message this law is not being enforced by society. Thus each individual act of enforcement is presented as an act of personal cruelty.

In Operation Wetback in the 1950’s, the society and the
government had a concept of deportation as a society wide effort. That worked. It worked because individual acts of enforcement were not individual acts of cruelty. Instead, they were part of a sustained society effort. Everyone was part of enforcing that law and it was enforced. The result was a rapid deportation.

Its a matter of social cohesion. If society’s policy
is amnesty on a rolling basis, then individual case
enforcement is just personal cruelty by the judge,
jury, police officer engaged in that individual act.
That’s not something they want to do. So it doesn’t
happen.

If society’s policy is deportation, then each individual act is in support of the team. Not acting is betrayal. That is why Operation Wetback succeeded.

The 1986 Amnesty was a betrayal of the system of law.
It stopped the enforcement of the law, it didn’t
sustain it. The law has not been enforced since 1986.
What the 1986 Amnesty did was say that enforcing
the law in individual cases by a judge was that judge’s
personal cruelty, not the backing of society. So
judges, prosecutors, police, etc. stopped enforcing
laws where it was just their personal individual
act of cruelty, and not part of a society mission.

People won’t enforce a law after mass amnesty. Mass
amnesty says its not a crime, and deporting seems
a heavy burden to the person deported. They can’t live
with us, which is a big penalty for us to impose on
someone. Amnesty destroys the basis of enforcement.
That is what happened in 1986.

Legal immigration also undermines enforcement of the law. When there is heavy legal immigration, it seems arbitrary who gets in and who doesn’t. So again, illegal immigration is tolerated. Society isn’t able to say no when its saying yes at the same time. To end illegal immigration, we must end legal immigration.

The 1930’s were a time when illegal immigration was low. It was also a time of low legal immigration, about
50,000 per year. The only way to end illegal immigration is to make legal immigration under 50,000 per year. Society can only understand no or yes. If we want to say no, we have to make legal immigration zero. When legal immigration is zero, then society sends the message that its unfair for anyone to get away with illegal immigration.

We have to fight the impact of the rolling amnesties that have applied since 1986. The way to do that is to end legal immigration, not just increase enforcement. Even in a pause, a halt to legal immigration sends a message to the illegals to go home. It sends a message to judges and juries and police that they are enforcing society’s will in each individual case, not engaging in personal cruelty, racism or bigotry.

The open borders crowd know that amnesty and legal immigration combined imply no enforcement on illegal immigration ever. They know this amnesty means open borders. They know they got that in 1986. That is why the immigration in the 1990’s was so huge, both in legal and illegal terms. Society had adopted open borders. The result was to put a tidal current against
young people and older people that they can’t fight in many cases.

The figures on median wages and fertility both show that immigration creates a tide that pulls people under. The force of immigration is too strong for individuals. That is why business is for it. The country of the middle that America had in the 1950’s has been replaced by a country of the elites. That is why the government can openly break many laws, not just those on immigration. We have a government for the elites not the people.

==References Washington Times

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20070612-085200-4196r.htm

Also, aliens who fail to register as sex offenders, aliens convicted of domestic violence, stalking or crimes against children and aliens convicted of at least three DUIs would be given a stay-out-of-jail free card. And this is only a partial listing of what is wrong with the bill.

This is part of ending the rule of law.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070613-120635-9285r.htm

President Bush visited with Senate Republicans behind closed doors yesterday, promising that he will follow through on border security, pleading with them to give his immigration plans a second look and trying to overcome hard feelings that arose from his recent charge that opponents are guilty of trying to “frighten people.”

The reason Bush behaves this way is because he is pushing open borders and perpetual amnesty. That the date for getting amnesty is the start of 2007 and not 2001 as in the 2006 Senate Bill, S. 2611, shows that it is about perpetual amnesty. This is just another amnesty in a series of amnesties.

The reason this amnesty is comprehensive is that it does more than other amnesties have.

=Vdare
Central Americans Already Have Their Amnesty

[Allan Wall] @ 6:44 am [Email author] [Email This Article] [Print This Article]

A UPI article
reports a Washington Post article in reporting that

“the Bush administration is granting temporary protection for 312,000 Central Americans. “

It’s actually an extension to a previous amnesty, as the UPI points out:

” Temporary amnesty has been granted for the last decade to illegal immigrants from Honduras, Nicaragua and El Salvador because of devastating earthquakes and hurricane there…”

Kennedy has always been part of amnesties and larger legal immigration.  For Ted Kennedy, legal immigration greater than zero and amnesty go together.  To Ted Kennedy, there is no reason to have enforcement if you have any legal immigration.  TK can’t get that you should enforce the limits on legal immigration, if you have legal immigration in the first place.  If TK can’t get it, then society can’t.  Its either zero legal immigration and no amnesty or open borders.

US 1957 Peak Fertility turning point resurgent immigration

June 12, 2007

Immigration resurged in the US in the 1950’s. Two events combined to cause the peak in fertility in the US in 1957. One was that those aged 17 to 27 had been born in the 1930’s when immigration was the lowest in any decade. Immigration had already returned by the 1950’s. See the bar chart below of immigration by decade:

http://www.willisms.com/archives/immigrationtousa.gif

Fertility peaked in 1957:

http://data.princeton.edu/eco572/heuser.html

But it also peaks for women about age 25, although this varies by birth cohort. The Heuser graphs show that in 1957, women aged 17 to 30 accounted for a large part of those having children. These women were born when immigration was extremely low in fact, not just in law, from the late 1920’s to 1940.

Immigration by decade picked up more from the 1940’s to the 1950’s than from the 1950’s to the 1960’s. The rate of immigration was accelerating before the 1965 Immigration Act. This immigration caused the rise in fertility to stop.

The rise in fertility starting in 1940 was by young adults who had lived in a land without immigration. Those born in 1920 have little memory before even 1930. Their memories are of a land without any immigration. The 1930’s were a decade of 500,000 immigrants v. 4 million in the 1920’s, 1 million in the 1940’s, 2.5 million in the 1950’s and 3.2 million in the 1960’s.

Young people who grew up in the 1930’s and 1940’s formed expectations of economic and other security based on very low immigration. They expected job security for themselves and their kids without any limit. They had no forward expectation of any force capable of stopping their prosperity.

However, by 1957, re-surging immigration changed those expectations. That is what cut off the peak in fertility. Already, the actual immigrants on the ground in the 1950’s were enough to take away jobs and more importantly job security from young adults. Young adults need a 25 year window of job security to have a family. That was being taken away by the late 1950’s by actual numbers of immigrants in the 1950’s. Thus fertility peaked as the young people who remembered no immigration when growing up in the 1930’s were being replaced by those who were experiencing already 1950’s immigration that was taking away their job security.

Kennedy and John McCain were born in the 1930’s and were part of the tail end of the generation that didn’t know immigration and had security. Kennedy further took that away from the young people in the 1960’s. By the end of the 1970’s, fertility had crashed to 1.48 by one graph:

http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/tropical/lecture_14/fig_04.html

Immigration in the 1970’s was 4.49 million. In 1979, a young person aged 25 had been born in 1954, and had only known a period of rising immigration. Their expectations and experiences in the job market were of a constant tide against them of immigrants competing for and taking away summers jobs, education opportunities, and starter jobs.

They were finding it harder to finance education from summer jobs, and were experiencing that without college they didn’t get good jobs out of school with job security. Everything had changed. They were facing life swimming up stream, from trying to get starter jobs in high school onwards.

Median wages went flat in 1973 for men and the progress in wages of women towards men, or blacks towards whites stopped. Every group experienced this headwind against them in life and responded with the great job in fertility from 3.77 in 1957 to 1.48 in 1979. That drop, the greatest in US history in so short a time, reflected worse conditions and worse future prospects for young people than the Great Depression had.

Fertility in 1979 was lower than in the Great Depression. Bottom fertility in the Great Depression was 2.19 in 1936. Fertility was supported in the Great Depression by the only 500,000 immigrants in the 1930’s.

What caused the low in 1979? Immigration resurgent since the 1950’s. The young people of 1957 knew mostly no immigration but enough to stop the rise. The young people of 1979 knew only heavy immigration and they were suffering from it.

Fertility dropped below 2.05, below the the Great Depression minimum in 1972. At that point, the resurgence in immigration had been going on for over 15 years. So people aged 25 had known rising immigration through the 1960’s and into the 1970’s.

In 1979, those aged 20 to 30 had known only rising immigration. Their expectations and their experience was of a terrible headwind. They also had experienced the end of loyalty by the elites and institutions of society to Median America. By1979, men’s median wages had been flat 6 years since 1973.

The turning points of fertility all match up to immigration history. Fertility turned up in 1936 and thus established the bottom as young people were experiencing the economy with 50,000 immigrants per year in the 1930’s. Thus 50,000 immigrants per year in 1936, as in every year of the 1930’s was better for young people than the 1970’s with over 400,000 immigrants per year.

Immigration peaked in 1957 as immigration resurged and was already 250,000 per year or so. That level was enough to stop the peak in fertility. As immigration increased, fertility in the 1970’s was below every year in the Great Depression. After 1972, every year in the 1970’s had lower fertility than every year in the Great Depression. This was the impact of immigration.

Search: 1965 immigration act fertility

http://www.vdare.com/pb/anation_review_09.htm

The two graphs on immigration and fertility answer the question how many immigrants per year. The answer is 50,000 or less. That is the number in the 1930’s. The reasons are

  1. Even in the Great Depression 50,000 per year was low enough that fertility was above 2.19 per year and thus above replacement.
  2. The young people with no memory of immigration were the young people who had confidence in the 1940’s and 1950’s during the baby boom. These were the years of unlimited opportunity for young people. The culture reflected that. Boredom was the greatest threat to the young, not a life long struggle for subsistence against immigration and discrimination. Instead, discrimination was ending in the 1940’s and 1950’s because of the same feeling of confidence that led to the baby boom, confidence in the present and future for 25 years by the young.
  3. The peak in 1957 was stopped by 250,000 per year immigration even to young people who had known the 50,000 per year in the 1930’s.

The 50,000 per year of the 1950’s led to above replacement fertility despite the Great Depression. The 250,000 per year of the 1950’s was enough to stop the rise in fertility and end the baby boom. Thus that much is too high. Since the 50,000 per year in the 1930’s only had slightly above replacement fertility, we should aim at 50,000 per year as an upper bound. Fertility then was higher than now. So we should return to the 1930’s level of immigration or lower, that means under 50,000 per year.

Future generations, with another 4 to 5 generations, a full life span, so 80 to 100 years can then see what the effects are. They can only be good. They can make the decision if 50,000 is too low. If fertility prosperity has returned by then, its unlikely they will choose to end it by Kennedy style immigration.

==Why 1960 Pill Doesn’t Explain Fertility Drop.

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/CONSUMER/CON00027.html 

The Pill: 30 Years of Safety Concerns
by Sharon Snider

When the birth control pill was introduced in 1960, it was a major medical achievement that rewrote the future of women and family life. For the first  time in history, it became possible for a woman to safely and effectively control childbearing by taking a pill.

This year “the pill,” as it is commonly referred to, is celebrating its 30th anniversary. Since its introduction, it has been used by more than 60
million women worldwide. It has proved to be, in the opinion of many, the  most socially significant medical advance of the century.

American women were quick to accept the pill. Within two years,  approximately 1.2 million women were using it, within five years, 5 million,
and by 1973, about 10 million. In the early ’80s, following reports of possible harmful side effects, use of the pill dropped to 8.4 million. Today, however, with safer, low-dose versions on the market, use is back up. Approximately 10.7 million American women now use the pill. It is the most

Fertility fell from 3.77 in 1957 to about 1.5 in 1979.  This was the pill?  Problem is that fertility had a local minimum of a little over 2 in the 1930’s.   So women controlled their fertility in the 1930’s without the pill.  See graph fertility:

http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/tropical/lecture_14/fig_04.html 

The low fertility in the 1930’s can’t be explained by the pill being invented in 1960.  The rise in fertility from the 1930’s to 1957 can’t be explained by the pill in 1960.  WWII doesn’t explain fertility rising from 1945 to 1957.  It could explain a bump for a couple years after 1945, but not a peak 12 years later.

When we look at all the turning points of fertility, and its fall since 1820, its immigration that is the answer.

George Bush Watch Stolen in Overpopulated Albania

June 12, 2007

Albanians steal George Bush’s watch in a crowd. See photo sequence:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/016871.php

Even the London Times reports on it. (See 3 photo sequence below:)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1921296.ece

But perhaps the leader of the Western world should have exercised a little more caution and followed the standard advice to travellers in the Balkans to keep an eye on their belongings.

How can the London Time print such bigotry? Its so painful to read that in the London Times. Taking precautions because of the ethnicity or religion of people you travel to must be as bigoted as not allowing them to come to live in your own country? Saying they steal from you there must be the same bigotry as to say the steal by asylum welfare, ER occupation, affirmative action, school destruction, and similar scams and heists here?

Search

BNP Nick Griffin Mark Collett prosecuted

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6137722.stm

Ministers are considering whether race hate laws should be revised after BNP leader Nick Griffin was cleared of charges relating to speeches he made.

A jury decided speeches by Mr Griffin and party activist Mark Collett in 2004 had not incited racial hatred.

Home Secretary John Reid said he would consult ministers after Gordon Brown said current laws may need reviewing.

Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer said Muslims were offended and must be sure that the law would protect them.

The Leeds Crown Court jury heard extracts from a speech Mr Griffin made in the Reservoir Tavern in Keighley, West Yorkshire, on 19 January 2004, in which he described Islam as a “wicked, vicious faith” and said Muslims were turning Britain into a “multi-racial hell hole”.

Mr Collett addressed the audience by saying: “Let’s show these ethnics the door in 2004.”

Apparently, Mr. Collett should have said, take your watch off before you go into crowds of these ethnics.

In the wake of the BNP pair’s acquittals, Chancellor Mr Brown said: “Any preaching of religious or racial hatred will offend mainstream opinion in this country.

“We have got to do whatever we can to root it out from whatever quarter it comes.

“And if that means we have got to look at the laws again, we will have to do so.”

England’s next Prime Minister is Mr. Brown. If he takes his watch off before going into a crowd in Albania, will he be prosecuted?

The next step to saying people behave differently is to say they are different. This leads to the non sequitur that different behavior comes from differences. Different behavior comes from people being the same but being in different circumstances.

That is why people in the same circumstances act differently. No matter how they may seem to be the same circumstances, the circumstances were different to produce the different outcome, because the people are the same. If necessary, to explain different behavior we can infer that the people brought different circumstances with them. This is called auto-causation of differential circumstances. People who behave differently in what appear to be the same circumstances have in reality auto-caused a difference in circumstances that explains the difference in behavior, and preserves that everyone is the same and everyone acts the same.

The circumstances that lead to auto-causation of differential circumstances that lead to what a culture considers negative behavior always can be traced to the self-proclaimed dominant culture on the planet, which creates the circumstances of auto-causation in cultures it tries to dominate and denigrate. These cultures are then subject to the circumstances that generate auto-causation which results in activity labeled negatively by the culture that proclaims itself dominant.

http://countrystudies.us/albania/47.htm

http://countrystudies.us/

The average annual growth rate of the Albanian population for the period 1960-90 was 2.4 percent, or approximately three to four times higher than that of other European countries. Population growth was actively encouraged by the government, which deemed it “essential for the further strengthening and prosperity of socialist society.” Albania had a population of 3,335,000 in July 1991, compared with 2,761,000 in mid-1981 and 1,626,000 in 1960. The most sparsely populated Balkan country until 1965, Albania attained a population density of 111 inhabitants per square kilometer in 1989–the highest in the Balkans. The 1991 growth rate was 1.8 percent.

In 1991 Albania had a birth rate of 24 per 1,000, and its death rate had declined from 14 per 1,000 in 1950 to 5 per 1,000. A concomitant of the reduced death rate was an increase in life expectancy. Official Albanian sources indicated that average life expectancy at birth increased from fifty-three years in 1950 to seventy-two years for males and seventy-nine years for females in 1991. The population was among the most youthful in Europe, with an average age of twenty-seven years, and the fertility rate–2.9 children born per woman–was one of Europe’s highest.

Albania was the only country in Europe with more males than females. The disparity in the male-to-female ratio, which was 1,055:1,000 in 1970, had increased to the point where males accounted for 51.5 percent of the population in 1990, This discrepancy was attributed in part to a higher mortality rate among female infants, caused by neglect and the traditional deference accorded male progeny. Losses in World War II, estimated by the United Nations at 30,000 persons, or 2.5 percent of the population, apparently had little influence on the ratio of males to females.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Albania

Statistics as of 1930 estimated that 65 to 70 percent of Albanians were of Muslim affiliation (Sunni and Bektashi).

Sarajevo Archduke Franz Ferdinand

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWassassination.htm

http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20070611-085930-4469r.htm

Talk about the irony of ironies, on his European tour U.S. President George W. Bush was met with protests in Christian countries and greeted as a liberator in Europe’s largest Muslim nation.

Would that be watch liberation?

President Bush got off lightly compared to royal Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand. The assassination of Ferdinand at Sarajevo in Serbia started WWI. Will there be a War of Bush’s Watch like the War of Jenkins Ear?

We’ve already taken the Muslim side in Albania and Kosovo against the Christian Serbs. NATO bombed Sarajevo just like Austria attacked it in WWI. Then the Serbs were prosecuted for war crimes. Before that Serbs were occupied by the Ottoman Empire who conquered them from the West.

Christians were discriminated against under the Ottomans, especially in the 19th century and this ended up in genocide against Christians by the Ottomans. This was done in the name of Islam starting in the 1890’s and continued by the Young Turks who took power before WWI and did it in the name of Turk Nationalism.

Rice, Bush and Blair want to admit the Turks into the EU in the name of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism must mean the Turks can pick whether they do ethnic cleansing or religious cleansing. Sounds like the Turks got to multi-culti activity against Christians on their own.

So the difference between WWI and now, is that in WWI the Austrian Archduke was attacked and Austria fought back. Now we are attacked and we welcome the immigration of people from the lands that attacked us and call people who speak up against it, bigots.

Those who don’t study history are doomed to repeat it, unless they elect George Bush who can figure out even worse ways of suicide for American than Archdukes could for Austria.

It would have been as bigoted for George Bush to have taken his watch off there as for Virgil Goode to say stop Muslim immigration here.

Bush knew that he had to wear his watch to show his staff and others that Muslims in Albania behave the same as Muslims in America. In his heart when he went into the crowd, he believed they would act identically to Muslims here.

Bush is taking the loss of his watch out on us. When he got back to America, Bush didn’t ask for his watch back, he asked for amnesty back. He is taking the energy from his anger against those who stole his watch to fuel his call for amnesty. The antidote to that is to call your Senators and tell them read our lips, no new amnesty. Go to Numbers USA and send a free fax. Or go to Fairus.

http://www.numbersusa.com/actionbuffet Roy Beck:

To slow this down, please phone Republican Senators on the list below THIS MINUTE.

202-224-3121

REPUBLICANS MOST LIKELY TO SWITCH TO AMNESTY TODAY
(* Senators up for re-election in 2008)

* Alexander (R-TN)
Bennett (R-UT)
* Cochran (R-MS)
* Coleman (R-MN)
* Collins (R-ME)
* Cornyn (R-TX)
* Craig (R-ID)
* Domenici (R-NM)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
* McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
* Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stevens (R-AK)
* Warner (R-VA)
 

http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer

Go to Senate.gov to find their numbers:

http://www.senate.gov/

Tom Tancredo: The Pause in Immigration that Assimilates us

June 5, 2007

In contrast to Senate Amnesty and Guest Worker and continued legal immigration, Tom Tancredo proposed a pause in legal immigration in the Republican presidential debate.
Against a pause:

Huckabee against pause.

Rudi Giuliani against pause. Compared Tom Tancredo to Know Nothing party. Backward looking logic. Giuliani advocated perpetual immigration. (This was proven mathematically to cause genetic extinction of those who come here and those who are here at any point in time. See Immigration Vanishing Survival Theorem
)

McCain No barriers and fences.

==

Repost in part on Unpleasant Immigration Arithmetic:

Assume US population at 300 million was the maximum. If people live 75 years, then 4 million die per year. If 2 million enter then births = 4million deaths – 2 million entrants = 2 million.

The ratio of births to deaths is 2/4 or 1/2. The time from birth to parent is roughly 25 years. So in 50 years, one has 1/4, and in 75 years 1/8 of the starting genes.

Even if population went to 450 million, deaths per year are 6 million. With even one million entrants that gives a survival ratio of 5/6. So the number left after 25*n years is (5/6)^n which goes to zero as n goes to infinity.

It goes to zero rapidly in fact.

The above implies that any law with immigration above zero on a sustained basis is unconstitutional and a crime against humanity. Causing the extinction of a group is a violation of treaties the US has passed.

The current US law is thus void. So is the proposed law.

The drop in fertility from 1800 to 1990 in one graph shows this substitution effect pressure from immigration.

Look at the graph of fertility from 1800 to 1990 below:

http://www.elderweb.com/home/node/2919

Fertility falls except during the period of immigration restriction from the 1920’s to 1965. During part of that period fertility rose, which is called the baby boom. This was a departure from the uniform fall in fertility.

Fertility is now below replacement for many groups in accordance with the theorem. Sustained immigration is omnia cleansing.

The same applies in Europe where fertility is below replacement.

We must stop immigration, we must stop legal immigration and we must stop illegal immigration.  We can not have any amnesty or legalization.  We have to get the rate of illegal immigration to zero, not just slow it down.  We must get the rate of legal immigration to zero.  The theorem requires this until the world changes so much that two way equal migration is viable.  But that won’t be viable for centuries.

See also
1965 Immigration Act Causes U inverted U in Income Inequality and Fertility

%d bloggers like this: