Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Senate Bill will Increase US Population by 193 Million by 2026

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
jerry611 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 05:11 AM
Original message
Senate Bill will Increase US Population by 193 Million by 2026
Say hello to 3rd world nation status. These illegals will literally sink this country into the ground. This is a perfect example why the border needs to be secured and we need to start deporting. The middle class is going to evaporate.

ANY Senator that votes for this bill will not get my vote or support in 2006 or beyond....

--------------------------
Bill permits 193 million more aliens by 2026
By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
May 16, 2006


The Senate immigration reform bill would allow for up to 193 million new legal immigrants -- a number greater than 60 percent of the current U.S. population -- in the next 20 years, according to a study released yesterday.
"The magnitude of changes that are entailed in this bill -- and are largely unknown -- rival the impact of the creation of Social Security or the creation of the Medicare program," said Robert Rector, senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation who conducted the study.
Although the legislation would permit 193 million new immigrants in the next two decades, Mr. Rector estimated that it is more likely that about 103 million new immigrants actually would arrive in the next 20 years.
Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican who conducted a separate analysis that reached similar results, said Congress is "blissfully ignorant of the scope and impact" of the bill, which has bipartisan support in the Senate and has been praised by President Bush.
"This Senate is not ready to pass legislation that so significantly changes our future immigration policy," he said yesterday. "The impact this bill will have over the next 20 years is monumental and has not been thought through."
The 614-page "compromise" bill -- hastily cobbled together last month by Republican Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Mel Martinez of Florida -- would give illegal aliens who have been in the U.S. two years or longer a right to citizenship. Illegals who have been here less than two years would have to return to their home countries to apply for citizenship.
Although that "amnesty" would be granted to about 10 million illegals, the real growth in the immigrant population would come later.
As part of the bill, the annual flow of legal immigrants allowed into the U.S. would more than double to more than 2 million annually. In addition, the guest-worker program in the bill would bring in 325,000 new workers annually who could later apply for citizenship.
That population would grow exponentially from there because the millions of new citizens would be permitted to bring along their extended families. Also, Mr. Sessions said, the bill includes "escalating caps," which would raise the number of immigrants allowed in as more people seek to enter the U.S.
"The impact of this increase in legal immigration dwarfs the magnitude of the amnesty provisions," said Mr. Rector, who has followed Congress for 25 years. He called the bill "the most dramatic piece of legislation in my experience."
Mr. Rector based his numerical projection on the number of family members that past immigrants have sponsored.
Immigration into the U.S. would become an "entitlement," Mr. Sessions said. "The decision as to who may come will almost totally be controlled by the desire of the individuals who wish to immigrate to the United States rather than by the United States government."

Although most opposition has come from conservatives, liberals are growing increasingly uneasy about increasing the competition for American jobs -- especially the low-paying ones.
Sen. Byron L. Dorgan, North Dakota Democrat, said yesterday that he would introduce an amendment to strip out the guest-worker program, warning that the legislation would "pull apart the middle class in this country."
One of the most alarming aspects of the bill, opponents say, is that it eliminates a long-standing policy of U.S. immigration law that prohibits anyone from gaining permanent status here who is considered "likely to become a public charge," meaning welfare or other government subsidy.
This change is particularly troublesome because the bill also slants legal immigration away from highly skilled and highly educated workers to the unskilled and uneducated, who are far more likely to require public assistance. In addition, adult immigrants will be permitted to bring along their parents, who would eventually be eligible for Social Security even though they had never paid into it.
Mr. Rector estimated that the eventual cost of the bill to the American taxpayer would be about $50 billion per year. Mr. Sessions said he hopes to educate his colleagues about what's in the bill before they vote on it, but there's little evidence that they're interested.
Last month, he asked the Senate Judiciary Committee to conduct an in-depth study and hold hearings into the fiscal impact of the bill as well as the impact the bill would have on future immigration. The committee produced no study and held one hearing strictly on the fiscal aspects of the bill. Only three of his fellow panel members showed up, he said.
--------------

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060516-125016-4401r.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Divine Discontent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 05:23 AM
Response to Original message
1. bye bye middle class!
I couldn't agree more... sigh. and I wanted to barf watching bush last night, such a two faced liar.... sucking up to both sides "illegals add crime to our neighborhoods! most of the people are honest law abiding" pretty much in the same minute!


CHECK THIS OUT -----> www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 05:28 AM
Response to Original message
2. A Washington Times article...
...about a report from the Heritage Foundation? You read that schlock?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jerry611 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 05:33 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. I've read the same kind of stuff everywhere else
Why do you support amnesty? You want to bring in all of Mexico's poor and you think this will make us a better country? Hell, we might as well invade Mexico and make it a state if we are taking in half their population.

The amount of unskilled labor being brought in will destroy the middle class. That's not bias reporting, that's not racism, it's common sense!

We have had 7 amnesty programs. None have solved the problem. And there is no way in hell I will ever support #8. It's gotten to be just too many people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeighAnn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 06:09 AM
Response to Reply #3
13. Indigenous
I just don't see how you can try to keep people off of land to which they are indiginous.

How about amnesty, but only in the parts of the U.S. that the white man/Spaniards stole from them? This seems fair to me. That or give them back the land altogether. Why put up this charade of trying to deny people their right to their ancestral home? Has it ever worked?

Yes, either give them amnesty on their native land or else give it back to Mexico and let's can the imperialism. Either that or let's just get along, and as a nation quit doing things like dropping bombs on children, things that make other people want to harm us to the point that we want to build REALLY BIG FENCES to keep the scary people from hurting us and stealing the jobs everybody says that nobody wants.

And why is all of this white indignation coming from people named "O'Reilly" and "Hannity"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jerry611 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 06:29 AM
Response to Reply #13
23. With that mentality in mind...
...why not give the colonies back to Britain?

The Mexican war ended in 1845. The Mexican government signed the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. They no longer have claim to that land.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 07:04 AM
Response to Reply #3
28. Why do you assume I support amnesty?
I'm suggesting that uncritical reading of a right-wing religious nutjob's newspaper article about a right-wing think tank's position on immigration isn't exactly what I would expect from your average DU poster.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 05:34 AM
Response to Original message
4. why assume they all want to be citizens?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 05:35 AM
Response to Original message
5. Article talks about the "escalating caps", but does not give a number
That question does concern me, but I am skeptical that the whole population of Mexico is going to move here within 20 years.

::media fecal roster::
Washington Times==Moonie
NY Post==Murdoch
that Pittsburgh paper=Richard Mellon Scaife
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 05:46 AM
Response to Original message
6. "new legal immigrants "
are neither illegal nor aliens. They are americans just like you and me. How the heck did your family get here? The best way to fund the boomer retirement bulge is to increase the size of the young end of the workforce. That will allow us to pay out the committed benefits without raising taxes through the roof. Gee, what a disaster that would be. Thanks for yet another spew of rightwing xenophobic hate-screed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 06:14 AM
Response to Reply #6
15. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 06:26 AM
Response to Reply #15
20. What a horrible post
Edited on Tue May-16-06 06:30 AM by LostinVA
My GGF also came from Italy. Sicily, in fact, in 1918. He worked his ass off to give his kids a better life. All of his grandkids went to college. He was never able to read and write English, and spoke very broken English, even though he came over here at 17. He proudly flew the Italian flag on certain holidays, except during WWII... where all six of his sons served and where one of them fell and left his body on foreign soil. Of course, during this same time, he helped a brother sneak out of Italy and then sneak across the Canadian border into the US. He didn't want his brother to die for Mussolini. His brother worked for him in his barbershop, and after the war stayed here, as a good citizen and as a valued and active member of his church and comminty.... but as an "Illegal." According to you, all of these things made him a bad American. Screw that.

Because of this and his struggles, I am understanding of the plight of immigrants, both legal and "illegal" to this country. You apparently did not learn from your ancestors problems and troubles. You also didn't apparently learn what coming to this country means to many people. That's too bad.

on edit: What you said about Mexicans is EXACTLY what the John Birchers and their fellow travelers said about your greasy wop GGF and my greasy wop GGF when they came from Italy. EXACTLY. It's ironic to me that you can't see the irony....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jerry611 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 06:37 AM
Response to Reply #20
24. what's horrible is you can't see the difference...
Seriously...
You truely believe that the immigrants of today are just like the immigrants of the early 1900's?
Come on!

We also were a richer country back then. We didn't have a $10 trillion dollar national debt. I feel for poor people in Mexico. But I also feel for the middle and lower class here in America that will be ripped up because of immigration bills like the one in the Senate right now.

You don't have to take my word for it. You will see for yourself in 20 years. America will become a 3rd world nation. We don't have the money or resources to take in 100+ million people in such a short time span. It will sink us. It's not racism. It's mathematics. We cannot afford it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 06:47 AM
Response to Reply #24
27. No, what's horrible is YOU can't see there is no difference
Between the xenophobes who hated your nasty, Catholic, foreign GGF and mine, and what you're saying about the new people. IT IS NO DIFFERENT! Cognitive dissonance.

You can't see beyond your cant. It must be lonely living in such a walled philosophy.

I'm not arguing with you about this.

Nice RW source, btw. That's against DU rules. Try using the Nation or something next time....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
endarkenment Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 07:39 AM
Response to Reply #15
30. How sad for you.
Really, how sad that you fail to see that your story is the same as your latino cousins. How sad that yet another son if immigrants has fallen for the rightwing hate speech that claims that 'these' immigrants are 'different'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr.Green93 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 05:47 AM
Response to Original message
7. One upside
Most will vote Democratic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starbucks Anarchist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 05:58 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. Not necessarily.
A lot of them are social conservatives who will vote Republican on abortion or gay marriage alone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 06:12 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. Oh really?
Please provide a link that demonstrates that new immigrants tend to vote republican. At least as far as latino immigrants go - they vote strongly Democratic.

http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/back901.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jerry611 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 06:23 AM
Response to Reply #14
18. Most are catholic
Many hispanics are very devout catholics.

It's one reason why the hispanic vote is currently split. In the last election, Bush got more of the hispanic vote than Kerry in some states like Florida. Where I live there are catholic churches just for hispanics. And every Sunday they are PACKED!

The ones that vote Democrat arn't doing so because of ideas. They are doing it because the Democrats are providing welfare.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starbucks Anarchist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 06:25 AM
Response to Reply #14
19. I didn't say most of them do.
I meant that a sizable chunk votes Republican as well, and I seem to recall * increasing his percentage of Latinos by 10% more than in 2000, precisely because of the social issues on the table.

In fact, more socially conservative African-Americans voted for him in 2004 because of the same issues.

Here's an anecdotal article regarding what I wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4765255.stm

A visit to North Carolina this week brought me face to face with a humorous and thoughtful illegal immigrant, Carlos from Venezuela.

I was chatting to Carlos about the president and John Kerry, the Democratic contender he beat in 2004.

Carlos agreed that Bush had his troubles. "But," he said, "he's better than Kerry.

Why? John Kerry supports abortion rights.

From the bottom of the pile in American society - from a man who is not yet even a proper citizen here but whose children will be - comes a message that hostility to abortion and to homosexuality - a belief in other words in Bush values - is going to be the wave of the future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kurth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 05:50 AM
Response to Original message
8. Adding 200 MILLION people to our environment, roadways, schools, hospitals
social services system, etc.

Talk about a suicide plan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OhioChick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 06:17 AM
Response to Reply #8
17. My thoughts exactly. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKNancy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 05:53 AM
Response to Original message
9. jerry611
Please snip the article down to a maximum of four paragraphs to comply with copyright rules.
You have one hour from the time of your post to edit.

Thanks
OKNancy
LBN Moderator
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jerry611 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 06:26 AM
Response to Reply #9
21. Missed it...
...but noted for future reference
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stilpist Donating Member (335 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 05:58 AM
Response to Original message
10. Fighting over crumbs.
The big-money interests can always count on one group of have-nots fighting another while the rich rake it in. It's always so easy to get the two lowest rungs on the ladder at each other's throats when they should both be looking higher for their common problem.

- stil
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
last1standing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 05:58 AM
Response to Original message
11. You should note that this is from a right wing source.
DU rules state that while articles from right wing sources can be used for LBN they should be noted as such.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 06:28 AM
Response to Reply #11
22. I doubt this poster cares
He is not really pro-immigration. He can say he is pro "legal" immigration... but only if they learn English ASAP, never protest as they are legally allowed to do, never fly their Mexican flag nor be publicly proud of their heritage, etc. Basically the same thing the John Birchers said about HIS great-grandfather when he came here from Italy. Ironic, huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quickesst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 07:24 AM
Response to Reply #11
29. You can afford....
to be magnanomous if the issue does not affect you directly. I'm pretty new here, but I don't believe in opening my mouth if I'm not going to be honest about it. I work construction. There is a construction boom going, or so I hear. But, alas, here I sit, collecting my "workers unemployed compensation. The one thing that really bothers me about some lefties is their damn the toredoes, full speed ahead on any liberal issue whether they understand it or not. And they do it, not for the reason of reason, but to let EVERYBODY within earshot know what a great liberal they are. If I'm working in a profession, and living in an area, that has not been affected by the influx of illegal aliens, I could afford to decry the evil republicans for the sake of loudly proclaiming my "liberalness" too. There is a definate reality disconnect, not only with left and right, but among the respected parties itself.
If you are for amnesty, open borders, unchecked security, blah, blah, blah, because you think it's the "liberal" thing to do, well, guess what, it's the same exact agenda the corporations and the neocons want. Cheap labor. I am, I believe, a fair-minded, decent person, and I try to help in situations when I can, but I am not ready to lower my family's status to less than what it is now, simply because I have worked too hard, and too goddamn long for what I have. Like I said, if my life and occupation will not be affected, and I do not see, or can't see, that it will have an impact in the future, then yes, I can afford to be a crusader too. Spewing right-wing crap? Well, it you think so, and if it will help promote the delusion that everything liberal is good, and everything conservative is bad, then have at it. I have no desire to live in a restricted bubble myself.
We may as well take those immigrants who felt it was the right thing to do when they chose the legal path to citizenship, and let them know just how fucking dumb they are to expend so much energy, study, desire, patience, and hard work to attain citizenship.
Racist? No. If my view was racist, I would work for closed borders around the entire perimeter of the USA, and forbid any person of a different race or culture to enter the US. And by the same token, where is the hue and cry for those of other nationalities, chinese, vietnamese, somali, etc., who risk even more to be here. But no, Mexico is the hot topic of the day, so we don't want to acknowledge that there are many people of many races trying to get in the country. If it's not in the spotlight, it's not worth discussing. Right?
I've learned a lot from a lot of different people here at DU, and I have changed some long held beliefs because of the wise words from wise people here. I thank you and appreciate it. I just cannot commit myself wholesale to the liberal agenda, because I believe, which is my right, that there is a lack of honesty among some. Not a conscious lack, but one that is not realized because the forest is in the way of the trees.
One last question. IF A PERSON WELCOMES A LATINO WHO HAS WORKED HARD TO ATTAIN LEGAL STATUS IN THE UNITED STATES BY GOING THROUGH THE PROPER CHANNELS, BUT, DOES NOT WELCOME THAT SAME PERSON IF HE TAKES THE ILLEGAL, JUST GIVE IT TO ME BECAUSE I'M HERE PATH, HOW DO YOU RECONCILE A CHARGE OF RACISM WHEN THE REASON FOR SUCH AN ACCUSATION IS NEUTERED BY THE FACT THAT THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO IS THE MECHANISM THAT BROUGHT THEM HERE? Thanks.
quickesst
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 06:15 AM
Response to Original message
16. i woke up to read this bullshit..the washington times?
i did notice stormfront was down so i guess the washington tomes is taking up the slack. nothing like reading a racist article first thing in the morning...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 06:38 AM
Response to Original message
25. Wow, i bet the prison industry is very excited.
Get congress ready making some petty criminalization laws, and we'll have 193 million
slaves. Make it a crime to not have a bank account. Make it a crime to be late for
work. Make it a crime to have sink cleansers not locked up away from potential children
who would eat them... and then lock up anyone who violates the new order... keep those
prisons packed... an oh, boy, those prisoners will all count demographically, so
best to plan the concentration camps in republican areas, so they can make the population
look mixed... and all the guard jobs this 'll create... gosh the economic planners are
really just advisin' the senate to shit... Perhaps they should create a new kind of
passport that is not american, but that the 193 million new slaves can carry... one that
gives them slave rights to a space big enough to lie down in a prison cell, and access to
a toilet once a day... the new bill of rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bridget Burke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 06:43 AM
Response to Original message
26. "Charles Hurt: Craptacular Partisan Hack"....
Edited on Tue May-16-06 07:27 AM by Bridget Burke
Daily Kos, from 2005. www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/5/13/25724/2213

Which links to Left in the West: http://leftinthewest.com/?p=983

What has he done in the past?....

When the RNC wanted to fire its guns on General Clark, who did they get to write a hatchet piece and ignore his service to America by referring to him as “Mr. Clark”? That’s right. Charles Hurt.

When House Republicans, worried about fate of their ethically damaged leader, needed someone to scapegoat Nancy Pelosi, to whom did they turn, regardless of a complete lack of evidence of any wrongdoing? That’s right. Charles Hurt.

When the RNC wanted a journalist to repeat their charge that John Kerry was poor on defense or that the decorated war hero had not earned his medals, to whom did they turn? That’s right. Charles Hurt.

When big business needed a shill to pimp their bankruptcy bill, who described it as “reform” aimed at “deadbeat dads, compulsive gamblers, and habitual frenzy shoppers”? That’s right. Charles Hurt. (Charles Hurt, on the other hand, defended bankruptcy when filed by anti-abortion protesters seeking to avoid paying fines for breaking the law.)


Lots more at both sites. With MANY links to other details of Charles Hurt's illustrious career as (far Right) Republican mouthpiece.

Now he's getting on the "immigration will ruin the USA" bandwagon.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moderator DU Moderator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 07:40 AM
Response to Original message
31. Lock - Note the Washington Times
and other right-wing sources are allowed in LBN if it is newsworthy.
However, this post breaks the copyright rules and is inflammatory, therefore the lock.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 10:07 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC