ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily




The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

Greg Siskind on Immigration Law and Policy

Gutierrez May Support Rubio's DREAM Bill

Rate this Entry

Luis Gutierrez has told Fox News Latino that he may support Marco Rubio's Dream Act proposal depending on  the actual wording of a bill. Rubio promises a bill will be introduced within a few weeks, though as I noted before, I'll believe it when I see it. The cynic in me believes Rubio counted on Democrats reflexively opposing his measure which would allow Republicans to argue Democrats are more interested in Latino votes than actually solving immigration problems. But actually having a vote where all the Democrats back Rubio and most Republicans oppose him would be a disaster. And an elaborate ceremony at the White House with an enthusiastic Barack Obama signing the bill surely won't make the Romney folks happy. But we shall see...

Submit "Gutierrez May Support Rubio's DREAM Bill" to Facebook Submit "Gutierrez May Support Rubio's DREAM Bill" to Twitter Submit "Gutierrez May Support Rubio's DREAM Bill" to Google Submit "Gutierrez May Support Rubio's DREAM Bill" to StumbleUpon Submit "Gutierrez May Support Rubio's DREAM Bill" to Reddit Submit "Gutierrez May Support Rubio's DREAM Bill" to Digg Submit "Gutierrez May Support Rubio's DREAM Bill" to del.icio.us

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags

Comments

  1. beppenyc's Avatar
    Bloomberg is the only one that understand why we don`t have an immigration reform in this country,too bad that he does not run for the white house!

    http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20120522/POLITICS/120529971
  2. Jack's Avatar
    Mr. Salinas called restrictions on immigration in the U.S. "ridiculous"

    Read more: http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20120522/POLITICS/120529971#ixzz1vdPzBbeD


    Ridiculous? More like common sense--unless you think a U.S. population of a billion+ is a good idea. We're already on that tragic path even with our supposedly limited immigration policy.
  3. USC's Avatar
    "Ridiculous? More like common sense--unless you think a U.S. population of a billion+ is a good idea. We're already on that tragic path even with our supposedly limited immigration policy."

    Have you ever peeped out of the airplane when flying over "fly over" country? How about driving from LAS to the South Rim? Those empty desolate vistas need to be populated. Who is anyone to say whether the right population for the USA is 50 million or 2 billion. You want bureaucrats to pick the right number? That is how things were done "Back in the USSR".

    Besides, a reduction in population is achieved by mass sterilization and not through movement of people. You would do well to remember that if a couple have less than 2 children then that population is on the way to extinction. That is what is happening in Europe.

    China wants to half its population so they came up with the one child policy. If you are serious of the US achieving a population reduction you should be petitioning your Congressmen/Senators to emulate China's one child policy.
  4. gg's Avatar
    Bipartisan push for Startup Act 2.0 which includes builtin HR3012/S1983 ...

    thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/economy/228855-freshmen-senators-push-high-skilled-immigration-proposals
  5. Jack's Avatar
    "fly over" country

    That's simplistic. It's about carrying capacity, not open space.


    "Those empty desolate vistas need to be populated."

    NEED to be? Why? And with what water? I think most people actually value "empty desolate vistas".


    "Who is anyone to say whether the right population for the USA is 50 million or 2 billion. You want bureaucrats to pick the right number?"

    I think we should listen to biologists and ecological scientists more than shortsighted and self-interested plutocrats. You don't even need an exact optimal population number, just a direction: at least avoid policies (high immigration) which are pushing you in the wrong direction.


    "If you are serious of the US achieving a population reduction you should be petitioning your Congressmen/Senators to emulate China's one child policy."

    Why? The population growth problem in the U.S. isn't due to birthrate, but immigration.
  6. USC's Avatar
    "Why? The population growth problem in the U.S. isn't due to birthrate, but immigration."

    That's a good one, Jack.

    Here is a link for you:

    http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/censusandstatistics/a/How-The-U-S-Population-Clock-Works.htm

    From the above link:

    "For example, during November 2011, the U.S. Population Clock used the following estimates in producing its estimated running total:

    oOne birth every 8 seconds

    oOne death every 12 seconds

    oOne net international immigrant (including military personnel) every 43 seconds

    oResulting in a net gain of one person every 16 seconds"

    So, your assertion stands disproved.

    The birth rate by a factor of 5+ and the death rate by a factor of 3+ (as opposed to immigration) cause an intolerable increase in population.

    If your serious about this issue, you should work on getting the birth rate down and the death rate up. How? Forcible sterlization and denial of medical care to of those deemed unworthy.




  7. Janet in California's Avatar
    USC:

    "So, your assertion stands disproved."

    You nailed him real good on that one. LOL!!


  8. Sa's Avatar
    Where is the Republican Dream bill?
  9. Jack's Avatar
    USC, I did not understand your post but that's OK. I am going by studies like this by the Census Bureau. Pew had the exact same figure (82%).

    The U.S. Census Bureau projects the U.S. population will grow 42% between 2010 and
    2050.1 The 2010 Census determined the US population to be approximately 309 million
    persons.2 The Census Bureau estimates it will rise to 439 million by 2050.3 Based on trends of
    the last half century, it is estimated that the majority of that population growth (82%) will be due
    to immigrants and their descendants.4

    http://www.fema.gov/pdf/about/programs/oppa/demography_%20paper_051011.pdf
  10. gg's Avatar
    Steve King - Pick your immigrant "dog"

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3c-hsLnPQO4#!
  11. gg's Avatar
    Poll: Romney pulls ahead by 6 points in key swing state Florida - Looks like democrats are going to leave immigrants high and dry with no reform for years to come.


    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/229047-poll-romney-leads-obama-by-6-points-in-key-swing-state-florida

  12. Legal and no longer waiting's Avatar
    Jack, let's explain to you very simply. If over a period of time, 50 people were born, 45 people died, 5 people moved in, and 3 people moved out, the population increased by 7 people. You count as if 5 those 7 came from immigrantion. USC counts correctly that 2 came from net migration and 5 came from net births.

    You can try to rig your math all you want, but the truth is that natural births contribute more to population growth.
  13. Jack's Avatar
    "You can try to rig your math all you want, but the truth is that natural births contribute more to population growth."

    The "math" is from the Census Bureau and Pew Research. Their projections factor in the descendants of immigrants. It's right in what I posted. The descendants of immigrants are counted in the effect of immigration on population growth and you do not appear to be accounting for that.
  14. Yet Another Voice's Avatar
    Jack, please let me understand. Are you NOT a descendant of immigrants?

  15. USC's Avatar
    "The "math" is from the Census Bureau and Pew Research."

    The figures I cited were from the Census Bureau (see link) and are a reflection of where the population growth is occuring today. You are citing an irrelevant projection of what the situation will be in 2050. Given that ecologists are NOT scientists (though, they do claim to be) there isn't any way to predict what the population will be 10 years out let alone 40.

    As to the math, though it is simple high school math, it might well be beyond the capabilities of ecologists and environmental "scientists" I will throw a couple of hints to get you started. Compute the LCM (to compare population growth from births and immigration), figure out the number of seconds in a year, divide by 43 to figure out the increase from immigration. Unless immigrants are rabbits on steroids your cite is complete garbage and trash.
  16. USC's Avatar
    "The "math" is from the Census Bureau and Pew Research."

    No it is not from the Census Bureau. It is only from the Pew Hispanic Center. See link below from the FEMA report you cite.

    http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/85.pdf

    As I said your conclusions are flawed.

Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: