Immigration

In researching this subject I have discovered that dependent upon the source, numbers and estimates vary wildly, generally dependent upon the source's point of view. So in the interest of neutrality I will simply rely upon the figures published by the Department of Homeland Security, numbers that are fairly close to those published by the Pew Hispanic Center.

In researching this subject a quote of Mark Twain's comes to mind:

Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.

Given no universally acceptable source, the DHS will have to do.

In 2007, according to the DHS 1,052,415 persons became legal permanent residents (LPR) of the United States, generally since 2000 the number of illegal residents arriving per year has been averaging around 1,380,000.

As of January 2006 the estimate of legal immigrants (LPRs) was 12.1 million

In 2006 roughly 33.7 million I-94 visitors were admitted (The I-94 form is required for entry into the United States for non-immigrants from all countries other than Canada and Mexico.) and an additional 141 million visitors (from Canada and Mexico) were admitted.

For figures on illegal immigration, go here:
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ill_pe_2006.pdf

In summary, 11.6 million unauthorized immigrants were living in the United States in 2006, of those, 6.6 million were from Mexico. The estimated margin of error, at a 90% confidence level, is plus or minus 150,000.

The unauthorized resident immigrant population is defined as all foreign-born non-citizens who are not legal residents. Unauthorized residents refer to foreign-born persons who entered the United States without inspection or were admitted temporarily and stayed past the date they were required to leave.

These people are coming from: Mexico 6,570,000, El Salvador 510,000, Guatemala 430,000, Philippines 280,000, Honduras 280,000, India 270,000, Korea 250,000, Brazil 210,000, China 190,000, Vietnam 160,000, Other Countries 2,410,000

And the top five locations they are living in are: California 2,830,000, Texas 1,640,000, Florida 980,000, Illinois 550,000, New York 540,00

Let us put these numbers into some perspective, the illegal immigrant population of the United States exceeds the populations of each of these countries:

Cuba, Greece, Chad, Portugal, Belgium, Czech Republic, Tunisia, Hungary, Dominican Republic,Rwanda, Belarus, Haiti, Bolivia, Guinea, Sweden, Benin, Somalia, Burundi, Azerbaijan, Austria, Serbia, Bulgaria, Switzerland, Israel, Honduras, El Salvador, Tajikistan, Togo, Papua New Guinea, Libya, Paraguay, Jordan, Sierra Leone, Laos

The number of illegal immigrants in the United States is more than double the population of any of these countries:

Nicaragua, Denmark, Slovakia, Kyrgyzstan, Finland, Turkmenistan, Eritrea, Norway, Singapore, Croatia, Costa Rica, Georgia, United Arab Emirates, Central African Republic, Ireland, New Zealand, Lebanon, Palestinian Territories, Bosnia and Herzegovina

The number of illegal immigrants in the United States is more than triple the population of any of these countries:

Moldova, Republic of the Congo, Liberia, Lithuania, Panama, Uruguay, Albania, Mauritania, Armenia

The number of illegal immigrants in the United States is more than four times the population of any of these countries:

Kuwait, Jamaica, Mongolia, Oman, Latvia, Kosovo, Namibia, Macedonia, Slovenia, Lesotho, Botswana, Gambia, Guinnea-Bissau, Estonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Gabon, Mauritius, East Timor, Swaziland

There are a further 80 countries on this list which is comprised of sovereign states and self-governing dependencies.

If you add the legal and illegal immigrant residents of the United States, you can add the following countries to the list:

Ghana, Taiwan, Yemen, Romania, Mozambique, Australia, Syria, Madagascar, Sri Lanka, Cote d'Ivoire, Cameroon, Angola, Chile, Netherlands, Kazakhstan, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Niger, Malawi, Guatemala, Zimbabwe, Ecuador, Senegal, Mali, Zambia

The complete list of sovereign states and self-governing dependencies contains 222 countries. Of those countries 175 have lower populations than the number of legal and illegal immigrants in the US.

Considering just illegal immigrants, 149 countries have a lower population.

Consider that fact... we could absorb the entire population of any of those countries and the number would be less than the number of illegals we currently have.

The figures for population for sovereign states and self-governing dependencies comes from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population

Some of you may have a problem with the term illegal immigrant, may I point out that the definition of illegal is 'forbidden by law or statute' and/or 'contrary to or forbidden official rules, regulations, etc.' The term is not used to describe their motives or behavior outside of their immigration status... they are in this country contrary to law or statute, they did not follow the rules to get here.

Just a small dose of perspective

~Finntann~

Whose election is it anyway?

Does anyone else have a problem with the fact that a foreign national just raised $2.5 million for an American presidential candidate?

Elton John played a benefit concert for Hilary Clinton last night at Radio City Music Hall raising $2.5 million: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/politics&id=6074098

Am I wrong? I'm not a lawyer, so correct me if I'm misguided, but I think the law says:

11CFR110.20 7b Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.

(c) Contributions and donations by foreign nationals to political committees and organizations of political parties. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or donation to: (1) A political committee of a political party, including a national party committee, a national congressional campaign committee, or a State, district, or local party committee, including a non-Federal account of a State, district, or local party committee, or (2) An organization of a political party whether or not the organization is a political committee under 11 CFR 100.5.

I'm sure there is a loophole, as those donating were the concert goers, not Sir Elton John, but...

Could one not argue that his performance was an indirect contribution that would fall into the category of "other thing of value"?

I can't say that a violation of election law occurred, still it strikes me as not complying with the spirit and intent of the law at the least.

Still this bothers me, with all due respect to Sir Elton John, but I thought we settled the issue of those of British title being involved in American politics in 1783.

My honest opinion is that who gets elected president of these United States is none of his damn business! As who gets elected prime minister in his country is none of ours.

Given the 1996 campaign finance controversy one might expect a little more sensitivity to foreign involvement in our political process.

Some quotes attributed to Elton John:

“ I’ve always been a Hillary supporter, there is no one more qualified to lead America."

“I’m amazed by the misogynistic attitudes of some of the people in this country. And I say to hell with them .... I love you Hillary, I’ll be there for you.”

As the saying goes "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". I lived in Swindon, England for a while, frequented their pubs and nightclubs, and in my experience Americans have nothing over the English when it comes to misogyny.

The story doesn't begin with Elton John though:

Elvis Costello netted Hilary more than $1.5 million at a birthday fundraiser last October:

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/elvis-costello-sings-to-clinton/1900702162

How much foreign involvement do we need in our political process?

Personally, legal or not, I find endorsements by foreign nationals extremely distasteful and that they produce the exact opposite of the intended effect. While I grant that Sir Elton John has a musical gift, I fail to see how his musical abilities qualifies him to comment on American politics or recommend to us "the candidate most qualified to lead us" nor do I find someone with a English grammar school education to the age of 15, overly competent to judge.

But I'll save the fame equals intelligence debate for another day.


Finntann