Census Sensibility

How many illegal immigrants are in the United States?

I am not sure anyone really knows.

It seems that for years and years I keep hearing the same number...11 million.

I checked to see what I could find in the way of official estimates.

Here is what the U.S. Census Bureau says about it on their website.

Do the data on the foreign born collected by the Census Bureau include unauthorized immigrants?

Yes. The U.S. Census Bureau collects data from all foreign born who participate in its censuses and surveys, regardless of legal status. Thus, unauthorized migrants are implicitly included in Census Bureau estimates of the total foreign-born population, although it is not possible to tabulate separate estimates of unauthorized migrants.

In other words, our federal government has no idea of how many illegal immigrants are in the country.

Where does the 11 million number come from?

I found this report from USA Today from last year that cites data from the Pew Research Center that the population of illegal immigrants in the United States has been steady for the last eight years---at 11 million.

These numbers suggest that the number of illegal immigrants today in the United States is lower than it was in 2008 before Barack Obama became President.

Does anyone believe those numbers are correct?

It seems like I am not the only one that is a little skeptical.

This CNN poll from 2015 asked voters whether they thought illegal immigration to the United States had increased or decreased in the last few years. By a 69%-25% margin the respondents believed it had increased. By the way, 61% of Democrats believed that as well.

This Mother Jones article that cites this poll tries to make the case that this is a perfect example of how woefully misinformed the voters (particularly Republicans) are about the issue of illegal immigration.

That article went on to suggest that immigration would not be a big issue in the 2016 primaries or the general election.

I guess that just shows what Mother Jones knows. Does anyone think that Donald Trump would have been elected President but for his position on illegal immigration?

Could it be that the American people have a better understanding about the numbers of illegal immigrants in the country from their everyday experiences at the grocery store, at the mall, at the their children's school and at work than the Pew Research Center or anyone else does?

As I stated above, I don't believe that anyone has a good estimate on the number of illegal immigrants in the United States.

For example, the Migration Institute estimates that there are 3.6 million illegal immigrants alone that came into the United States before their 18th birthday. Compare that to the 800,000 illegals who were granted protection from deportation by President Obama via an executive order through the DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals ) program in 2012 and which President Trump has offered to expand to twice that number in a legislative fix.

Doesn't common sense suggest that if you have nearly 4 million illegals alone who came before their 18th birthday the total number of illegal immigrants must be larger than 11 million?

Considering all of the estimates and uncertainty it seems that we need a number we can trust on the numbers of illegal immigrants who are in the country. How can we establish policy and seek a solution to the immigration issue until we have numbers we can rely one?

That is why I was pleased to see that the Commerce Department announced this week that it will reinstate a question about immigration status to the next census. That question was last a part of the census in 1950 and is still asked as part of the annual Census Bureau's American Community Survey.

Predictably, California has already sued the federal government stating that the question is illegal.

Why was it not illegal in 1950 and before and why is it being used on the American Community Survey without being illegal?

California is clearly concerned that asking such this question might cause some illegal immigrants to not respond to the census. As a result, California's population might be understated thereby reducing its representation in Congress and the federal money coming to the state that is allocated based on population.

I understand the concern of California but how else is it proposed that we get the best possible information on the numbers in question? California and all other states have a right to see that every resident is counted in the census. However, the United States of America also has a right to know how many people are within its borders as citizens, legal residents or illegal immigrants. That is especially true at a time when the question of immigration in all its forms is being so hotly debated.

In addition, every illegal immigrant who should not be here and is counted in the census effectively dilutes the power of those who are lawful citizens in other states and congressional districts.

I have no doubt that California will find some left-wing judges to somehow find that a citizenship question on the census form is infringing on someone's rights. However, I cannot see the Trump administration not fighting the issue in the courts. We can expect to see this issue eventually move up through the court system.

We can only hope that the Supreme Court will ultimately conclude that it is reasonable to have the census tell us how many citizens and non-citizens (legal and illegal) make up our population.

It seems sensible that the Census is the right vehicle to do this. Is there a better way I am not aware of? Or are we to keep relying on estimates of the Pew Research Center or the Migration Institute for the next ten years?

The Compounding Effects of Illegal Immigration

The immigration laws were established to provide order for our society. The laws were considered necessary to provide for the entrance of an established number of immigrants annually that could be assimilated without disrupting and degrading the experience of U.S. citizens and others who are rightfully here.

The compounding effects of uncontrolled immigration is the reason that the immigration laws were put on the books in the first place.

When the law is ignored or not enforced, chaos is sure to follow due to the compounding effects of large numbers of people the society is not prepared for.

Adding too many immigrants, too quickly,  puts added pressure on the social order if those immigrant numbers outpace the ability to integrate and assimilate them into the general population.

Too many immigrants puts too much strain on our resources. It puts unnecessary strain on everything in our society---our water, our sewer systems, our roads, the electric grid, our infrastructure and our environment. It contributes to congestion and urban sprawl.

Add to this what it does to increase the financial strain on our schools and our health system and cost pressure on rents and housing costs, not to mention our law enforcement and justice system.

What happens when AI and technology displaces many of the jobs that low-skilled immigrants are likely to hold? Are we importing a gigantic permanent underclass that will have to be supported by welfare and tax dollars for years and years to come?

Is this the underlying reason that Democrats have embraced open borders? Importing large number of people who will be dependent on the government for support provides future votes to support the Democrat party agenda.

Of course, we are seeing massive sums of tax dollars being used right now at the federal, state and local levels to house, feed and care for the masses of illegal immigrants who the Biden administration has allowed to cross the border.

A recent study estimated the federal and state costs for the transportation and care of illegal immigrants to be over $151 billion this year.

At the border, services provided to illegals include food, clothing, transport to airports or bus stations, medical care, legal aid, translation assistance and assistance with booking travel.

Although illegals are generally not eligible for welfare benefits, they can access emergency medical treatment under Medicaid and are eligible for various emergency food programs once they are in the country.

Of course, every dollar spent on these illegals is a dollar less that can be spent on U.S. citizens.

$151 billion is a lot of money.

For context, that is more money than was spent in 2023 on Social Security disability payments ($150 billion), veteran's programs ($148 billion) or the entire food stamp program ($135 billion). 

It is more money than is expected to be spent on all new highway and street construction in the United States this year ($132 billion) from all government sources.

The amount spent on illegals this year is more than the total amount that will be  spent on Pell Grants to assist lower and middle income students to attend college ($25 billion) AND all new student loans provided  in 2023 ($114 billion).

It is incredible what the United States could do with $!51+ billion if it was not spending it on illegal immigrants.

None of the above takes account of the enormous costs being borne by sanctuary cities and others localities for illegal immigrants.

In New York City alone, the city projects it will spend $12 billion between 2022 and 2025 to provide shelter, food and service to illegal immigrants.

A substantial portion of this sum is being spent to house illegals in hotels in New York City.

A recent article in the Federalist reported that 20% of all hotel rooms in New York City are currently being used to house illegal immigrants,

That is about 16,000 hotel rooms.

121 hotels in the city are being used exclusively to house illegals.

If you take 20% of hotel capacity off line in a city it will undoubtedly have an effect on prices as supply and demand is altered.

New York City has always been an expensive city in which to find lodging.

I used to travel to the Big Apple a great deal on business and know that first hand.

Although most of the migrants are being housed in economy or mid-tier hotels, when those options are taken off the market business travelers and tourists are forced to pay more. They either have to pay more at what were once "affordable" hotels or are forced to move up to more expensive options.

To give you an idea of what current prices are in New York City per night for a hotel room here are a few examples (Wednesday, Thursday, Friday nights to reflect both mid-week and weekend rates) according to Hotels.com.

I have stayed at all of these hotels at one time or the other over the years.

Mid-tier hotels near LaGaurdia and JFK airports are also getting about $300 per night.

The average price of a hotel room in the city is reported to be $301 per night.

Of course, this also does not include the substantial taxes that are levied on hotel rooms in New York City. Taxes are going to increase the per night rate by about 20% (see total cost above).

I once was in New York City for a night and then traveled to Ashland, Kentucky the next day for another business meeting. The taxes on my hotel in Manhattan alone were more than my hotel rate in Kentucky.

It is reported that the illegals in New York City are not just getting shelter at hotels in the city.

Sanctuary hotels also offer social freebies, according to the city’s Department of Homeless Services. Many hotels provide bilingual operational support services, including child care, job training, computer access, personal care items, and laundry service. Migrants can also receive trauma or mental health counseling.

Hotel room rates are just one example of the compounding effects of illegal immigration.

Far more troubling is what is going on in the labor market.

Yes, there is a need for immigrant labor in certain sectors of the economy.

However, how does the United States absorb 10+ million illegal immigrants into the labor market in three years without negatively impacting the jobs and wages of native born workers?

A UK firm, Standard Chartered recently released a research report that estimated that half of the job growth this fiscal year beginning in October, 2023 is the result of jobs that have gone to undocumented immigrants.

Source: https://twitter.com/zerohedge/status/1799608998561231342/photo/1

What is striking in this chart is comparing the job growth this year in undocumented immigrants (dark green) to legal immigrants (blue) and to native born workers (light green).

This research further amplifies what I have reported in the past about U.S. employment trends that show that all of the job growth in recent years has gone to foreign born workers.

It is true that some of this is due to the fact that native-born boomers are aging out of the workforce.

However, their children and grandchildren are not taking those jobs.

In the last four years, the number of foreign born workers has increased by approximately 4 million workers while the number of native born workers has been flat. 

A growing economy has masked the potential societal issues with this trend.

However, a slowing economy and a future recession will be a different story.

We may not see a recession next month or even within the next year. However, we will see one in the foreseeable future. 

We will then see the full force of the compounding effects of illegal immigration when millions who want to work can't find a job--both natives and immigrants.

At that point we are going to wish we had multiples of that $151 billion we spent last year on illegals to take care of a lot of joblessness and economic suffering.

The full compounding effects of illegal immigration is yet to come.

The Anchors Around Our Necks

Anchor babies are getting a lot of attention thanks to Donald Trump.

There were an estimated 350,000-400,00 children born in the United States last year to mothers who are illegal immigrants. As a result of the prevailing interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution each of these children are considered to be United States citizens.

To put that in perspective, that is about 1 out of every 10 births in this country!

Can you imagine anyone who voted for the 14th Amendment in 1866 at the federal or state level thinking that we would be conferring citizenship to this many as a result of this provision?

Birthright citizenship is extremely rare in most countries. In fact, Canada and the United States are the only countries with advanced economies that recognize it.

It is estimated that there are now at least 4 million minor children of illegal immigrants who are U.S. citizens. At least another 1 million children were brought into the country with their parents illegally.

It is a legitimate question to ask whether this policy (law? constitutional provision?) makes any sense today.

The Compounding Costs of Birthright Citiizenship

The costs of this policy are enormous.

Consider just the cost of K-12 education for these children and the burden this is placing on school budgets across the country. With average costs nationally approaching $13,000 per pupil, the illegal immigrant students are adding over $6.5 billion to school costs nationally.

Each anchor baby is also eligible for welfare which is guaranteed to U.S. citizens. As a result, their entire families benefit from our welfare dollars with food stamps, Medicaid, housing assistance and welfare cash assistance.

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, 71% of illegal immigrant Hispanic families with children were receiving some form of welfare assistance in 2009. That number was 57% when including all immigrant households. By comparison, only 39% of households headed by native born citizens were receiving any welfare assistance.

It is without question that the birthright citizen policy has proven to be an enormous incentive magnet for illegal immigration. It is a natural human desire to want to provide a better life for your children than what you had growing up. The people who come to the United States are coming to better their own lives but they are also clearly motivated for a better future for their children.

The decision to come to the United States is made even easier when you know that the American taxpayer is going to provide you with the money to help pay for the support of your children.

The longer term effects of this policy are even more insidious.

Due to the fact that you have minor children who are U.S. citizens living in households with parents who are illegal immigrants, those who want to enforce the immigration laws against illegals are called "heartless" because they want to "break up these families".  As a result, each birth further undermines any attempts to fix the problem. We just keep digging ourselves into a deeper and deeper hole.

These U.S.-born children of illegal aliens are also eligible to sponsor the immigration of family members once they come of age. At 18, an “anchor baby” can sponsor an overseas spouse and unmarried children of his own. At full majority age at 21, he can sponsor parents and siblings.

The bottom line is that the anchor baby policy sets in motion compounding effects that create multitudes of adverse impacts that further undermine our laws and any hope for a reasonable and rational immigration policy going forward.

As I have pointed out before, it is not that the United States is not already the most welcoming nation for legal immigrants on the entire planet.

• Although the United States has less than 5% of the world's population, 20% of all international migrants reside in the United States.

• 45 million immigrants currently live in the United States. This is 4 times as many who live in any other country in the world.

• Approximately 1 million immigrants are granted legal permanent residency status in the United States per year. 10.7 million were granted permanent status over the last 10 ten years.

What is most troubling to American voters is the fact that all of this should have been preventable if we had simply enforced current immigration law over the last 30 years.

What Does The 14th Amendment Say?

That brings us to the 14th Amendment. What does it actually say?

Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 1:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." (emphasis added)

That seems fairly clear except for the words I underlined above..."and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

Is a child born in the United States to parents who are illegal immigrants "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" when those parents are unlawfully present in our country?

This is the crux of the argument that is made by those (Donald Trump included) that believe that the 14th Amendment does not automatically confer birthright citizenship to children of illegal immigrants. At a minimum, they believe that Congress has the right to define what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means.  It has already been accepted that this means that children born to foreign diplomats do not gain U.S. birthright citizenship nor do members of certain Indian tribes.

I would further argue that the very actions of the federal government in not enforcing the immigration laws means that illegal immigrants that are here have effectively not been "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States" by the consistent failure of our government to enforce the country's jurisdictional borders.  How can an illegal immigrant be considered to be subject to the jurisdiction of our country if they are here illegally but our government is doing nothing about it?

Trump and Polling

I found it interesting that in the most recent polling data I could find on the issue of birthright citizenship (Rasmussen, April 20, 2015), 54% of the respondents agreed that children of illegal aliens born in the United States should not "automatically become a citizen of the United States" compared to 38% who believed they should.

You can say what you want about Donald Trump but his polling numbers are where they are because he is striking a chord with a large segment of the American electorate. Look no further than those polling numbers on birthright citizenship and this was before Trump elevated the issue in public discussion.

Trump understands that anchor babies are an anchor around our necks if we are to have any chance to fix the immigration system.

We likely cannot (and should not) do anything about the past but we surely should not continue to compound the problem going forward be it by judicial challenge, legislation or constitutional amendment to remove birthright citizenship. I would advise moving forward on all three fronts to cover all the bases.

It is time to remove this anchor from around our necks.

Minimum Wage, Maximum Leverage

The issue of illegal immigration continues to divide Washington, DC. We saw it again last week when Congress could not agree on a bill that would fund Homeland Security and also prevent funding President Obama's "executive action' to legalize 4 million illegal immigrants.

We will see more headlines this week as Congress kicked the issue down the road for another seven days.

The argument we have heard most often for immigration reform in the past is that the United States does not have enough workers.

In fact, when President Obama announced his "executive action" in December he said the following.

"Part of staying competitive in a global economy is making sure that we have an immigration system that doesn’t send away top talent, but attracts it.” 

President Obama has supplemented this argument with a "humanitarian" view in his latest action in that generally those illegals that would be allowed to gain "legal" status through his use of his "executive authority" are the parents of U.S. citizens. In other words, if you came to this country illegally and had children that were born here, that then becomes your ticket to stay in this country. President Obama would call it keeping families together.

It would seem logical to me that if this is the case why wouldn't a minimum requirement also be that the parents should produce evidence that they also fully paid for the hospital costs involved with the birth?  If they did not pay or the costs were paid by Medicaid, why would we not require the newly legalized workers to be required to pay these costs back as a condition of their work permit status?

As an example, a vast majority of births in a number of hospitals in Texas are to illegal immigrants. At Parkland Hospital in Dallas (yes, the hospital in which John F. Kennedy died in) births to illegal immigrants have made up almost 75% of total births in recent years. Over half of the births at LBJ Hospital in Houston have been to illegal immigrants in recent years. Nationally, it is estimated that almost 1 in 10 births in this country today are to an illegal immigrant. A large portion of the costs for these births are paid by Emergency Medicaid or the costs are just absorbed as a loss by the hospital as these illegal immigrants do not pay anything for the birth.

Under Obama's "executive action", if an illegal immigrant has to produce a birth certificate to prove they are the parent of a U.S. citizen, shouldn't they also have to produce evidence the birth was not paid by U.S. taxpayers or was a bad debt of the hospital?

And shouldn't they be obligated to pay this money back since the birth is, in effect, their ticket to access the U.S. jobs market? The amount owed could be withheld from their future wages on an installment basis. The money could also be allocated specifically to fund Obamacare costs. This would be the logical way to handle this issue if President Obama's "executive action" is allowed to stand. Or does that make too much common sense?

Let's also examine the argument that we need the workers.

Hotels, restaurants, construction and a number of service industries argue that there are not enough Americans willing to work at lower paid jobs. They argue we need to provide opportunity to low-skilled foreign-born workers to enter the United States to do these jobs that will result in an overall benefit to the economy

On the other end of the education spectrum, high tech computer companies in Silicon Valley and other industries that covet STEM college graduates (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) are big supporters of opening the borders for these graduates arguing we are developing enough native-born citizens with these skills.

What are the facts?

I thought this chart from The Washington Post that shows unemployment rates by college major was particularly interesting on that score.

Note that the current unemployment rate of recent high school graduates in the U.S. is almost 18%. The unemployment rate for experienced high school diploma holders is 9.9%. The unemployment rates for high school drop-outs is traditionally even higher. Where is the need to bring in more unskilled labor? There are already millions of Americans without jobs.

Notice also that the unemployment rate for recent college graduates is higher for Computers, Statistics and Mathematics majors (8.3%) than for Communications and Journalism majors (8.2%). If we can't employ nearly 1 out of 10 recent college graduates in Computers, Statistics and Mathematics, why do we think there is a need to bring thousands of additional foreign workers here. Why don't we get these young Americans employed first before bringing in additional immigrants?

The truth is that many of our political leaders and business interests keep calling for "immigration reform" when they really just want to increase the numbers of "legal" immigrants despite the fact that our economy can't provide enough good paying jobs to native born citizens as it is.

We are already providing legal "Green Card" status to over 1 million immigrants per year. No other country in the world provides more legal immigration each year than the United States already does.

The reality is that immigration reform is not so much an economic issue as it is a political issue. Democrats need the votes. That is all they seem to care about.

Corporate interests want to keep wage costs down. The labor unions should be anti-immigration but are more concerned with the success of the Democrat party than their own members.

Republicans in Congress are caught between the monied interests who want the cheap labor supply and their rank and file voters who fervently oppose illegal immigration. It is all about political interests and has very little to do with the best interests of this country, the American people, or especially, the American worker.

For the average American worker, the higher the immigration levels are, the lower their wages will be. That is basic economics. It is simple supply and demand.

That is why I would like to see the Republicans turn the tables on President Obama and the Democrats and combine an increase in the federal minimum wage with defunding of Obama's "executive action".

Pass the Homeland Security funding bill as a clean bill. Immediately thereafter, have the House of Representatives pass a bill increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $7.50 and defund Obama's executive action on immigration in the same bill and send it to the Senate

Failure to pass this bill requires Democrats in Congress and the President (if it passes and he vetoes it) to admit that 4 million illegal immigrants take priority over American workers.  And it also puts Democrats on the spot in that they have consistently been calling for an increase in the minimum wage for years. They suddenly don't want it if it means we can't legalize more illegal immigrants. That is a tough position to defend in anyone's home district or state.

Bear in mind that 29 states already have minimum wage laws in place that are in excess of the federal law. That should lay to rest fears that the GOP would be selling out on a major adverse economic issue.

Such a move could also be used by the Republicans to show that they are "working for the American worker" and are also "willing to compromise" on issues.

Sure, the Democrats would argue that GOP is just playing politics. However, I would much rather be on the Republican side of that political issue than be accused of trying to shut down the government or holding Homeland Security hostage to get the illegal action of the President de-funded.

What about you?

(Note: It goes without saying that the strategy I propose would have those on the Hill arguing it could not be done because it would violate some aspect of the Budget and Appropriations process. In other words, it would be illegal. However, when did that stop President Obama?  My advice to Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader McConnell? It is time to start playing the game the way the other side plays the game.

Do Illegal Immigrants Deserve This Much Credit?

I am really getting to like the work of the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA).  Last week I wrote about their report that showed how millions are claiming tax credits for higher education that they are not entitled to.  This week I came across a July, 2011 report that shows how illegal immigrants are actually collecting far more in dollars from the IRS than they are paying in federal income taxes.

How is this possible?  REFUNDABLE TAX CREDITS!

The TIGTA Report dated July 7, 2011 is entitled "Individuals Who Are Not Authorized to Work in the United States Were Paid $4.2 Billion in Refundable Credits".   The $4.2 billion was entirely the result of refundable tax credits for the Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC) for the 2010 tax year.

Peter Schulkin with the Center for Immigration Studies explains what this means in a memorandum he wrote on the subject last month.

The ACTC is a bit of a misnomer since it does not have to do with multiple children but rather represents the refundable portion of the Child Tax Credit (CTC) when the CTC (worth up to $1,000 per qualifying child) results in a negative total tax due. In short, filers for the ACTC have no federal income tax liability and the ACTC amount represents Treasury money that is distributed to them.

An illegal immigrant cannot qualify for a legitimate Social Security number to use to file income tax returns or for any other purpose. However, the IRS allows illegal immigrants to apply for a nine-digit Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) to be used to file federal income tax returns, and all but a small minority of returns filed with ITINs are filed by illegal immigrants.

The Table below from Schulkin's memorandum shows the numbers.

Using Table 1, it can be seen that for the 2010 processing year more than three million returns were filed with ITINs. Of these, 2.3 million paid no federal income taxes and collected an aggregate of $4 billion from the Treasury in refundable tax credit money from the ACTC. Of those who did not file for the ACTC, most used the CTC to reduce or eliminate their tax liability and thereby recover all or part of any federal income tax money withheld by employers. Of all of the 2010 ITIN filers, fewer than one-quarter paid any federal income taxes, which amounted to about $0.87 billion in total. Thus, on a net basis, ITIN filers gained $3.13 billion ($4.0 billion minus $0.87 billion) from the IRS in the 2010 processing year. The sum of row 6 in Table 1 equals $7.37 billion, which represents an approximation of the total net outflow of IRS funds to ITIN filers for the 2005-2010 processing years.

What are some conclusions that can be drawn from this data?

• Supporters of illegal immigration argue that illegal workers are paying large sums of taxes in this country and deserve government benefits.  In fact, of those actually filing tax returns, less than 1 in 4 owed any tax according to this data..
• Due to the refundable nature of the child credit we are providing money to illegal immigrants and the more children they have the more we pay.  This is yet another incentive for illegal aliens to enter, reside and work in the United States without authorization.
• When you consider that each of the 3+ million tax returns (and 2.2 million tax returns that claim the refundable tax credit) that are filed with ITIN's are almost assuredly illegal immigrants why is it so hard to enforce the immigration laws?  The IRS has an address on the tax return of the filer and they most likely also have the name of the employer as well.  I don't think you can have a clearer case that the federal government has no interest in enforcing the immigration laws.

We have an unemployment rate of over 9%, we borrow over 40 cents of every dollar we are spending in the federal budget and we have total federal debt of over $14 trillion and we allow this to occur?  It is beyond belief.

Something We Should All Agree On

There are three big reasons in my mind that illegal immigration should be taken seriously by any citizen of the United States irrespective of your political allegiance.

Yes, I understand the empathy one should feel for any human being that wants to escape a bad situation and better themselves. However, as I wrote recently, there are literally millions and millions of people in the world who want to migrate to the United States.

The United States already has 4 times as many immigrants living within its borders as any other country in the world. We can't take everyone. Where do we cut it off? 5 times? 6 times? 10 times?
Who decides?

Let's look at three rational reasons to have immigration laws and secure borders. I have to believe that almost everyone would find something they agree on here if they looked at this issue rationally rather than emotionally--Republican, Democrat, Conservative, Liberal, Young or Old.

A Nation of Laws

First, we are a nation of laws. Society does not operate if we do not adhere to the laws that are written and are on the books. There may be those who do not like the laws. If that is the case, there is a constitutional process to change the law.

A society that functions is based on law and order. It does not work if everyone decides what the law should be and takes the law into their own hands. That brings chaos and, ultimately, anarchy.

Our laws should also be applied in such a way as to insure equal justice. Why should we let millions flood over our Southern Border or overstay temporary visas when there are millions waiting in line to come to this country legally? There is absolutely no justice in that.

Many opponents of the Border Wall claim it is racist. However, the fact is that there are 3.8 million people on the current waiting list to gain legal immigration status in this country due to family or employment reasons. Almost all are from what we would consider minority populations. A third of them are actually from Mexico.

However, current law only permits any one country from receiving more than 7% of the annual visa issuances for permanent legal immigrant residency annually. This is the case in order that any one country does not dominate the legal immigration process. Again, the law is about fairness and equal justice.

For 2019, the per country limit is estimated to be 25,620.

Divide the number of applicants by the per country limit and you will see that most of these people have a rather long wait ahead of them to gain admittance to the United States legally.

Are we supposed to just wink and tell those in Mexico, El Salvador or Honduras to not worry about our laws? Come ahead. There is nothing to stop you.

What about those in the Philippines, India, Vietnam, China and Bangladesh? How is this fair to them?

Sustainability

Second, there seems to be no recognition of the enormous sustainability issues regarding illegal immigration. This is especially surprising considering the importance of this issue with Democrat and younger voters in particular.

Too many immigrants puts too much strain on our resources. It puts unnecessary strain on everything in our society---our water, our sewer systems, our roads, our infrastructure and our environment. It contributes to congestion and urban sprawl.

Add to this what it does to increase the financial strain on our schools and our health system, not to mention our law enforcement and justice system.

As this report points out, there are 730,000 illegal immigrants currently imprisoned in the United States for crimes other than illegally entering the country. Illegals make up an estimated 3% of the population of the United States but account for 20% of federal prison inmates. 91% of criminal aliens are from Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, Colombia or Guatemala.

The financial and human cost is enormous and it is made more difficult when the flow of immigrants is not managed and controlled as it is supposed to be through our legal immigration system.

This says nothing of the challenge it presents to social order as masses of illegal immigrants find it hard to assimilate into a society and culture they are unfamiliar with. This inevitably results in problems as Europe as discovered to their regret.

Economics and Jobs

Third, there is the economic dimension. Has there been a need in the United States for the labor that many illegal immigrants provide? Absolutely. However, it has come at a significant cost to those American workers who are most vulnerable in the U.S. economy today---those with lower education or few skills.

The added supply of illegal immigrant workers has substantially reduced opportunities and wages for those Americans at the bottom of the economic ladder. It has simply been a question of supply and demand. The supply of workers coming here illegally has artificially suppressed incomes of those Americans who are most vulnerable economically.

What concerns me even more today is that we seem to be on the cusp of a technology and innovation revolution that will put even more pressure on low-skills jobs. This will further squeeze American citizens at the bottom of the economic rung. In addition, what are we to do with the millions and millions of illegal immigrants who are already here and yet may end up unemployable due to low education and skills?

I wrote previously about the recent Bain report that predicts that 40 million current jobs could be eliminated by automation in the United States by 2030. That is just over 10 years away.

It is a recipe for disaster that makes our current state of affiars look tame by comparison. And the current state is not that great.

Consider this recent report from several economists with the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta entitled "Building A Skilled Workforce For A Strong Southern Economy."

The thesis of the article is that there is already a significant job skills gap in the South (where there are substantial numbers of illegal immigrants)  There are many more low skill workers than there are low skill jobs. The South also has more high skills workers than high skills jobs. However, most jobs today require middle skills (more than a high school education but less than a college degree).

We see the effects of this every day. Too many people with low education and skills that unemployable. In addition, many recent college graduates who are underemployed because they are overqualified for the available middle skills jobs.

Can you see the obvious problem of permitting millions of  low education and low skilled immigrants to flood across the southern border while we already have a skills gap and the gap is likely to get much larger in the year ahead?

Something We Can Agree On Somewhere?

It should not matter what your political persuasion is.

Law and order conservative. See Reason #1.

Far-left liberal environmentalist. See Reason #2.

Pragmatic independent who is most concerned about economic issues. See Reason #3.

Illegal immigration must cease.

Sensible immigration reform needs to be enacted.

There is simply no excuse that this issue has been allowed to fester for decades.

This is something we should all be able to agree on.

Wiil Birthright Citizenship Survive The Supreme Court?

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments about the birthright citizenship question this Spring with a decision by the end of the Summer.

Source: https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/12/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-trumps-challenge-to-birthright-citizenship/

President Trump signed an executive order on his first day of his second term changing the policy of providing birthright citizenship to babies born on U.S. soil to illegal alien parents and those whose parents are here on temporary visas. These babies are popularly referred to as "anchor babies".

President Trump's order was quickly challenged in federal court by 22 Democrat-led states and several civil rights organizations. This undoubtedly was no surprise to Trump. However, it set the stage for this important issue to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The birthright citizenship question has never been directly confronted by the Supreme Court on the issue of the children of illegal immigrants . Trump's order did not apply to babies born to immigrants who are lawful permanent residents.

Is is also important to note that the Trump order only applies to future anchor babies. It does not attempt to strip citizenship from past anchor babies.

This is an issue I wrote about in these pages ten years ago entitled, "An Anchor Around Our Necks" detailing the compounding costs of birthright citizenship.

This was before Donald Trump even started making headlines about the issue when he first ran for President in 2016.

Let's take a deeper look at the issue of birthright citizenship and the legal issues that will be before the Supreme Court. 

Will birthright citizenship survive the Supreme Court?

Many take it for granted the U.S. Constitution allows anyone born on U.S. soil the privileges of citizenship.

However, if you look deeply at the issue you can see that it is not quite that clear cut.

The United States is decidedly in a distinct minority in providing citizenship this way. Among developed countries, Canada is the only other country in the world to provide birthright citizenship.

In fact, the trend in recent years has been to eliminate birthright citizenship. Ireland was the last European Union country to eliminate it in 2005. France did away with it in 1993. The UK in 1983.

Australia (1986) and New Zealand (2006) are other countries that eliminated birthright citizenship in recent years.

The common narrative repeated by many is that birthright citizen is a fundamental right for anyone born in the United States provided by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,

Therefore, it can only be eliminated by constitutional amendment. However, as stated above, this question has never been directly decided by the Supreme Court.

What does the 14th Amendment actually say which was originally enacted to insure that slaves would be recognized as citizens?

Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 1:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." (emphasis added)

That seems fairly clear except for the words I underlined above..."and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

Is a child born in the United States to parents who are illegal immigrants "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" when those parents are unlawfully present in our country?

This is the foundational argument behind Trump's executive order. His argument is that the 14th Amendment does not automatically confer birthright citizenship to children of illegal immigrants. These individuals are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as they are citizens of other countries.

Even if one believes that Trump cannot do this through executive order many believe that Congress has the right to define what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means. It has already been accepted that this means that children born to foreign diplomats do not gain U.S. birthright citizenship nor do members of certain Indian tribes.

If the birth of a child in the United States to parents who are members of an Indian tribe who were also born in the United States are not U.S. citizens based on a reading of the 14th amendment how is it far-fetched to conclude that a child born to two illegal immigrants is automatically a U.S. citizen by birth?

I would further argue that the very actions of the federal government in not enforcing the immigration laws means that illegal immigrants that are here have effectively not been "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" by the consistent failure of our government to enforce the country's jurisdictional borders. 

How can an illegal immigrant be considered to be subject to the jurisdiction of our country if they are here illegally but our government is doing nothing about it?

The Center for Immigration Studies did a study in 2018 that estimated 300,000 children were born in the United States that year to mothers who are illegal immigrants. To put that in perspective, that is about 1 out of every 12 births in this country!

It is hard to believe that the numbers are not higher today especially considering the surge of illegals into the country over the last four years.

As a result of the prevailing interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution each of these children are considered to be United States citizens.

500,000 additional children were born to legal immigrants. It should be noted that children born to legal permanent immigrants would still be considered U.S. citizens under the Trump order in that they "are subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.

Taken together, births to immigrants made up about 20% of all U.S. births in 2018 according to that study.

This overall estimate would seem to be accurate today in that the foreign-born population is now 15.6% of the U.S population (a higher percentage that it has ever been). In that this immigrant population is younger and has generally higher fertility rates than the native population it follows that about 20% of all births in any year are to immigrants.

Source: https://cis.org/Report/ForeignBorn-Population-Grew-51-Million-Last-Two-Years

U.S.-born children of illegal aliens are also eligible to sponsor the immigration of family members once they come of age. At 18, an “anchor baby” can sponsor an overseas spouse and unmarried children of his own. At full majority age at 21, he or she can sponsor parents and siblings under our "chain migration" laws.

Can you imagine anyone who voted for the 14th Amendment in 1866 at the federal or state level thinking that we would be conferring citizenship to this many as a result of this provision?

Or to even consider the fact that people could transport themselves within a day from any point in the world to the United States?

Michael Anton of the Claremont Institute wrote what I have found to be the best overall argument for why citizenship birthright should be ended. He has extensively researched the legislative history behind the 14th Amendment deliberations in 1866.

It seems that those who wrote and voted on the 14th Amendment had no intention that they would be conferring birthright citizenship on anyone whose parents were unlawfully in the United States.

It is also not debatable that the American people were never brought into the conversation as Anton observes.

The American people did not willingly, knowingly, or politically adopt birthright citizenship. They were maneuvered into it by the Left and by the Left-allied judiciary. They’ve never debated it or voted on it. They’ve simply been told that it’s required by the Constitution.

What is in the legislative history to support the view that birthright citizenship was never intended by the 14th Amendment?

Senator Jacob Howard was one of the authors of the 14th Amendment and specifically offered the amendment language that added the words, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". This is his explanation of the reasons for that language and its import.

This suggests that to acquire birthright citizenship a person has to be born within the limits of the United States and be fully subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

This was made even clearer by the clarifying comment of Senator Johnson of Maryland during the debate about the 14th Amendment.

Now, all this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power—for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us—shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States entitled everywhere to the character of citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States. (emphasis added)

Of course, the slaves that were the primary focus of the 14th Amendment met both of these requirements. They had been born in the United States and they were not subject to the sovereign authority of any other country. 

In my mind the most persuasive argument that the 14th Amendment does not confer birthright citizenship is understanding the reasons that the citizenship clause was included therein to begin with.

Earlier in 1866 Congress had passed into law "The Civil Rights Act of 1866"  in order to define citizenship and affirm that all citizens are equally protected under the law. Of course, this was primarily intended to make clear that slaves were citizens and had all the rights of any other citizens.

However, Congress became concerned that the law could be overturned sometime in the future or that it could be declared unconstitutional on the basis that there was no authority for Congress to confer particular rights to all citizens rather just outlawing discrimination.

Therefore, the leading proponents of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 proposed the 14th Amendment with the intention of eliminating all doubts about the law's constitutionality.

As a result, the Citizenship Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment parallels the citizenship language in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the Equal Protection Clause parallels nondiscrimination language in the 1866 Act.

Of note, Representative John Bingham of Ohio, who is sometimes referred to as the "Father of the 14th Amendment", stated that the Citizenship Clause in the 1866 Civil Rights Act was meant to require that someone not only be born in the United States but also not owe allegiance to any foreign sovereign.

I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen..

I also doubt that Senators Howard, Johnson and Representative Bingham or others at that time could have envisioned a time in which Chinese, Russian, Mexican or Honduran women would come to the United States and have a child that would be a U.S. citizen.

That child could then as a U.S. citizen at age 21 sponsor their parents and siblings to become U.S. citizens under our "chain migration" policies.

It sets in motion a compounding effect that increases exponentially over time.

What is "chain migration"?

Under the United States’ current immigration system, most migrants receive a green card simply because they are the relative of an earlier migrant, not because of what they can contribute to American society. 

This creates a “chain” of immigrants who can then sponsor other immigrants in the same manner. These, in turn, may sponsor more immigrants, and so on.

As more and more immigrants are admitted to the United States, the population eligible to sponsor their relatives for green cards increases exponentially. This means that every time one immigrant is admitted, the door is opened to many more.

Do you think that those who wrote the 14th Amendment could ever imagine we would have Chinese billionaires fathering hundreds of children using IVF in order to provide U.S. citizenship?

Source: The Wall Street Journal

 

Chinese billionaires are using American surrogates to create “mega-families” of more than 100 children.

Wealthy businessmen have effectively used lax US surrogacy laws to create breeding programmes with the intention of creating an “unstoppable family dynasty”, The Wall Street Journal reported.

Nathan Zhang, the founder of IVF USA, a network of fertility clinics in the US and Mexico, said some of his “crazy rich” Chinese clients wanted hundreds of American-born babies.

As long as birthright citizenship is continued it will be a magnet for illegal immigration, birth tourism and schemes like we are seeing with rich Chinese men. It incentivizes people from all over the world to break our laws to come here. The longer the practice continues the more illegal immigration we are likely to get.

If we are ever to get meaningful immigration reform it is necessary to cease providing birthright citizenship or it will undermine almost anything else we do.

Trump deserves credit for having the courage and personal constitution to be willing to elevate this issue to public debate. It is an issue that deserves public scrutiny and discussion. Whether it goes anywhere in the near term will be determined by the United State Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court is unwilling to end the policy, it may require a constitutional amendment which will be next to impossible to achieve in the short term considering the current political divide in the country.

However, the fact remains that until birthright citizenship is terminated, a wall is built to staunch the flow of illegals, and strict enforcement policies are adhered to, it will continue to be difficult to reach the goal of the sensible and sustainable immigration reform the United States desperately needs.

In Defense of the Indefensible

 Last month Kamala Harris said that the the border of the United States was secure.

Source: https://thetexan.news/vice-president-harris-calls-southern-border-secure-under-biden-administration/

It is just one example where Democrats either have to outright lie or turn themselves into a pretzel attempting to justify what is transpiring on the southern border of the United States.

Do these numbers suggest that the border is secure? 

Mind you that these are just the numbers of illegals that were apprehended and released into the country.

It does not include those that snuck in undetected.

The Biden administration is on track to allow 5 million illegal immigrants to enter the country in two years.

It is all being done in direct contravention of the laws of the United States of America.

These numbers also do not account for the massive amounts of drugs being smuggled into the country across that border. This includes Fentanyl which is primarily manufactured in small labs in Mexico from raw materials sourced in China.

Fentanyl now accounts for the vast majority of U.S. drug overdose deaths.

Credit: https://www.statista.com/chart/18744/the-number-of-drug-overdose-deaths-in-the-us/

Those are sad, sad statistics.

On the other hand, what is amusing is seeing the reactions of the people and politicians in Democrat strongholds such as Martha's Vineyard, New York City, Washington, DC and Chicago when they have to deal with illegal immigrants showing up in their areas.

In these areas it is not uncommon to see this sign in someone's yard or apartment window.

Martha's Vineyard, which saw 50 illegal immigrants flown into the liberal enclave by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, mades sure that the illegals were removed within one day.

Source: https://freebeacon.com/latest-news/illegal-immigrants-get-the-boot-after-one-day-on-marthas-vineyard/

The locals stated that they simply did not have the room to house the illegals.

However, you have to wonder how they expect Del Rio, Texas to be better equipped to handle the onslaught of illegals by the Biden administration's failure to enforce the nation's immigration laws?

It goes without saying that New York City, Washington, DC and Chicago are in a better position to deal with illegals than Martha's Vineyard but we are also hearing nothing but complaints from them as well.

Each of these cities has also proudly stated they are "sanctuary" cities.

Source: https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-city-rankings/sanctuary-cities

New York City Mayor Eric Adams has declared a "state of emergency" due to 17,000 illegals showing up in his city.

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nyc-mayor-adams-declares-state-emergency-17000-migrants-spark-shelter-crisis

Washington, DC Muriel Bowser declared a "public health emergency" in the nation's capital last month as the illegals arrived from Texas.

Source: https://www.texastribune.org/2022/09/09/texas-busing-migrants-dc-emergency/

Mayor Lori Lightfoot stated that she welcomed the migrants but then turned around and started sending the illegals to hotels in suburban areas outside of the city of Chicago.

Source: https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/immigration/chicago-welcomes-texas-migrants-then-sends-them-to-suburbs/

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tried to defend the illegal immigration and take a shot at Governor DeSantis by claiming that there was a labor shortage and the immigrants were needed to pick crops in Florida and elsewhere in the South.

The only problem with that is that it is AGAINST THE LAW for anyone in the United States to employ an illegal alien.

Anyone hiring an illegal immigrant is in violation of Title 8 U.S.C. Section 1324.

Source: https://jsberrylaw.com/blog/is-it-a-crime-to-employ-undocumented-immigrants/

Does Nancy Pelosi not know that or is she encouraging employers to break the law?

It just goes to show how the Democrats are attempting to defend that which is indefensible.

Is there any hope that this will change?

The only solution I see is for the voters to send a strong message to the Democrats in the November mid-term elections.

If Republicans make significant gains in Congress and the Biden administration still does not take actions to enforce the immigration laws it may be necessary to consider impeachment efforts for those who have violated their oath of office. That would logically begin with Secretary of Homeland Security Mayorkas.

I do not want that to be the case but something has to be done for the Democrats to get the message.

We have no country if we have no borders.

We also have no country if our leaders do not enforce our laws.

There is no doubt we need reform of our immigration laws.

However, any immigration reform law needs to have strict limits about who gets in and how many are allowed in.

Right now the Democrats seem unwilling to accept any limits.

Therefore, why would they sign off on any legislation that would require strict limits they would have to honor when there are effectively no limits now?

That is why they ignore the laws with impunity in furtherance of what they apparently believe is beneficial to their political objectives.

Democrats need to be disabused of the notion that we will simply let our leaders ignore our laws.

That is why the only solution to the chaos on the southern border appears to be to curtail the power of Democrats in Congress until they come to their senses.