Sometimes it’s easy to miss the most outlandish and unrealistic statements made in the immigration debate given the level of dialed up rhetoric. A recent report from the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), however, appears to have been written to test just how far into the realm of fantasy the debate can be taken. In Birthright Citizenship for the Children of Visitors: A National Security Problem in the Making?, author W.D. Reasoner (a pseudonym) makes so many preposterous assumptions and calculations that one wonders whether the author used an alias to avoid embarrassment.

In their latest effort to scare people about the imminent threat of babies, the paper attempts to estimate the number of U.S. citizen children born to foreigners in the U.S. on temporary non-immigrant visas in one year. However their “methodology” is deeply flawed. Here’s an example of how they calculate the number of babies born to tourists:

CIS calculates the total number of women aged 18-34 who were admitted as visitors for pleasure in 2009 and arrives at 3,890,774. Determining that 20% of these women (778,154) remain in the U.S. long enough to have a child (3 months or longer), CIS “calculates what percentage of these women might in fact give birth” by looking at the “fertility of recently arrived foreign-born women.” The paper relies on U.S. census data that shows that 5% of all foreign-born women aged 18-35 who arrived within the last year reported giving birth during the year. But they then apply this 5% fertility rate to the tourist population and find that 39,000 births may be attributed to women who arrived as tourists.

They do similar calculations for other short-term non-immigrants on temporary visas and those who arrive from Canada and Mexico without I-94s and arrive at a grand total of 192,100 to 199,200 estimated births in 2009 from all foreign visitors.

Looking at recent Census data, however, we see that 2,381,000 women between 20 and 34 arrived between 2000 and 2009, or roughly 264,555 each year. Applying that 5% fertility rate to foreign-born women who arrived within one year, you get about 13,000 possible births. So CIS apparently believes that tourists and other short-term visitors have 15 times as many babies as foreign-born residents in the U.S. Really?

There are other problems as well.

Admissions vs. People. CIS’s calculations are inconsistent. For example, counting admissions is not the same as counting persons—the same person can be admitted several times in one year, and it is impossible to determine the number of unique admissions.

Fertility. Using this 5% fertility rate from the Census Bureau is highly problematic because a disproportionate share of those 5% would be legal permanent residents and other women who intend to remain in the U.S. for a longer period of time. One cannot apply the same fertility rate to tourists and other short-term residents as is used for residents who have families in the United States.

Gender. The fact that the report focuses exclusively on women either reflects some disturbing gender biases or a fundamental misunderstanding of how babies are made, or both. The insinuation seems to be that women of child bearing age cannot resist the biological impulse to have a baby, and that men (whether foreign born or U.S. born) play no role in the process.

Citizenship of Parents. CIS’s calculations ignore the fact that, while one parent may be a tourist, the other parent is more likely to be a U.S. citizen or green card holder. In other words, they are counting the children of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents among the “anchor babies.”

Piling on to a foundation of faulty methodology, the author then takes another huge leap and suggests that the U.S. citizen children of nonimmigrants are threats to national security because they “enter and reside in the United States whenever and wherever he chose, secretly harboring his hatred, an unknown sleeper agent of al Qaeda or any of the other multitude of terrorist organizations with an anti-Western bias and a violent anti-American agenda, waiting for the call to arms.”

There is absolutely no evidence that the child of a tourist or foreign student is more likely to be a terrorist than the child of a U.S. citizen. In fact, it is far more likely that U.S. citizen children of foreign visitors would serve in the military, become entrepreneurs, make important scientific discoveries, work as Congressional staff, hold public office, and otherwise contribute to the U.S.

Rather than continuing a debate that is fueled by fiction and irresponsible rhetoric, we need an honest discourse about how to create an immigration system that works for the U.S. economy and for U.S. families.

Photo by Farruska.

At a House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration hearing today, a panel of conservative religious leaders made the case for common sense solutions to our immigration problems—comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) that secures our borders, follows the rule of law and provides a pathway to citizenship for the roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the U.S. While the hearing, The Ethical Imperative for Reform of Our Immigration System, started off with ethical and biblical arguments supporting and opposing reform, it later evolved into what most immigration debates eventually boil down to—fairness, justice and the punitive aspects of a reform effort.

The majority witnesses—Dr. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, Bishop Gerald Kicanas of Tucson and VP of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and Dean Mathew Staver of the Liberty University School of Law—testified to the moral and biblical mandate to care for “the least of these among us,” the “strangers” who reside in our land, and to act justly and mercifully by enacting comprehensive immigration reform. Faith leaders will continue to reach out and support the undocumented population, Dr. Land said, but “only a proper government response can resolve our immigration crisis.”

“Get tough on immigration” hardliners—Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) and Rep. Steve King (R-IA)—however, pushed back on religious leaders by citing scripture that quote the “rule of law” and advocate the “punishing of wrongdoers.” “Americans need not repent for wanting to follow the rule of law,” Rep Smith said, “A truly Christian approach would be to end illegal immigration.” Likewise, the single witness for the minority, Dr. James R. Edwards, Jr. of the restrictionist group Center for Immigration Studies, testified that biblical precepts of compassion and mercy “might not apply to civil government of the nation-state of which we are citizens. Sometimes, such application would actually be harmful and wrong.”

Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL)—among others—took particular offense to Dr. Edwards’ distinction. Rep. Gutierrez replied, “I want my government to be a reflection of my values, don’t you?” Rep. Charles Gonzalez (D-TX) asked Dr. Edwards if our current immigration laws were just and whether deporting 11 million undocumented immigrants currently living here was considered “justice?” Dr. Edwards replied “no” to both questions.

The underlying tension in the room, however, wasn’t whether our immigration system is broken (everyone in the room agreed on that) but in how to fix it—and a step further, what a “just punishment” might look like. While the majority of committee members and witnesses agreed on CIR as a solution, immigration restrictionists championed the Arizona SB1070 model—enforcement through attrition—that is, create enforcement laws so harsh that people choose to leave the state. Rev. Mathew Staver, Dean of Liberty University School of Law, argued that deportation wasn’t the answer and that the conservative “amnesty” scare tactic wasn’t helping anyone:

I call upon those who label an earned path to legal status as amnesty to stop politicizing this debate needlessly and to honestly acknowledge the difference.

Dr. Richard Land echoed Rev. Staver’s complaint that “amnesty” is, in fact, something very different from proposed CIR proposals.

Some critics, however, suggest that “comprehensive reform” is a code for amnesty, but such action is not amnesty because it does not merely pardon an offender. My proposal requires lawbreakers to pay a fine, learn to read, write and speak English, and follow a rigorous process for legal status. Penalties, probation, and requirements do not equal “amnesty.” Going to the back of the line behind those who have, and are trying, to come here legally is not amnesty. These are principles of justice and fairness that respect the rule of law and treat all parties involved (American citizens, legal immigrants and illegal immigrants) with dignity.

While restrictionist committee members continued to argue that CIR and its prescribed penalties—paying fines, going back to the end of the line, etc.—were simply not enough, religious leaders like Rev. Staver, continued to drive home the point that immigration is not a “right left” issue, but a “right wrong” issue, a moral issue, and that we “should not allow partisan politics to deter us from the ultimate goal of fixing a broken system.”

Photo by Lone Primate.

Today in Politico, hard right, conservative Gary Bauer continues the restrictionist tradition of blaming immigrants for everything from pot holes to climate change. In his editorial, Bauer cites a 2008 report by the restrictionist group Center for Immigration Studies and seeks to link climate change legislation and immigration reform legislation (and a half dozen other ideas for which he advocates) to make the wholly unclear point the immigrants are once again to blame for our environmental problems.

Bauer cites a 2008 CIS report which identified immigrants as the cause of global warming:

Immigrants would ultimately produce less CO2 if they just remained in their “less-consuming, less-industrialized, and less CO2 emitting” home countries.

Bauer then goes on to write:

As a conservative, I maintain a healthy skepticism of the theory of man-made global warming. I also believe that more people enjoying the fruits of modernity and economic development is a good thing — as long as those people arrived legally and obey the law.

In other words, he doesn’t believe in global warming, but we should stop immigration because immigrants are a huge contributor to the factors that cause it. Besides being a ridiculous argument, Bauer seems to contradict himself—wouldn’t immigrants still be the cause of global warming even if they came here legally?

As the IPC previously stated:

When it comes to the environment, immigrants are not the problem—the US lifestyle , our systems of production and consumption and the policies that shape them are. We need real, rational solutions and leadership on environmental issues, not scapegoats. CIS assumes that we are in a lifeboat with limited resources , and with too many people, we’ll all sink. Yet when it comes to the global warming crisis , we’ll all sink or swim together.

The number of strange correlations Bauer attempts to draw in this piece is confounding. One thing, however, is clear: Bauer and CIS’s intent isn’t environmentalism. They’re only politicizing and exploiting the issue—and highlighting shoddy research—in order to continue a crusade to tar immigrants (and liberals).

The only thing Bauer and his friends at CIS are doing when it comes to these two critical issues is attempting to distract attention from the real solutions to immigration and the global warming crisis. We do need a better, more regulated approach to immigration and the environment, but wishing away immigrants and blaming them for climate change does nothing to that end.

Photo by \<.

Rather than address the concerns being raised, Camarota instead implied that the organizer had a “deep hatred of American workers.”

For more information on CIS go here, here, here or here.

Immigration and climate change might not seem to have much in common, but a bitter battle has been waging between the anti-immigrant movement and mainstream environmental groups for decades. The John Tanton Network is, as usual, deeply involved in this conflict.

The latest example of anti-immigrant attacks on environmentalists comes from Center for Immigration Studies, a controversial anti-immigrant group founded by John Tanton, who also founded the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

Spearheading the effort is Jerry Kammer, senior research fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies with his memo entitled, “Strategic Negligence: How the Sierra Club’s Distortion on Border and Immigration Policy Are Undermining Its Environmental Legacy”.

Jerry Kammer isn’t just writing about the Sierra Club, he’s also taking his attacks to the Breakdown the Walls conference in Phoenix, Arizona. He intends to speak on a panel today titled, “The Politics of the Environment in the Modern World.” Jerry Kammer and Center for Immigration studies are trying once again to divide and conquer environmentalists in the hopes of bringing climate-concerned activists into their anti-immigrant fold.

Leaders in the John Tanton Network may seem to have a genuine interest in environmental issues, but it is important to remember that John Tanton built his network in part from the $1.2 million he received from the Pioneer Fund. The Pioneer Fund is a foundation that has a history of promoting the genetic superiority of white, European-Americans.

Organizations founded by or in connection with Tanton should not be considered legitimate environmental voices. While Tanton has a long history in environmental organizations, including the Sierra Club, his increasing dissatisfaction in the 1970’s with progressive environmentalists led him down an extreme path. He eventually created groups like FAIR and CIS to focus on U.S population control, and forged troubling ties with white nationalists.

In the 1990s, Tanton helped with an effort to pressure the Sierra Club to officially take an anti-immigration position. A major battle ensued, with many Sierra Club members seeing the proposed stance as fundamentally racist. Tanton later wrote that “the Sierra Club may not want to touch the immigration issue, but the immigration issue is going to touch the Sierra Club!”

At the time, Carl Pope, current Sierra Club chairman, considered it a hostile takeover attempt, “The whole idea of people trying to hijack an organization to advance their cause was outrageous,” Pope told a Washington Times Reporter in 2006. “And I found many of the things he [Tanton] had said since I had known him deplorable and unconscionable.”

Jerry Kammer is trying to continue what Tanton started; he is attempting to green hate and force an anti-immigrant voice onto the environmental movement.

Kammer has attacked Carl Pope for trying to protect the integrity of the Sierra Club. Pope said if the Sierra Club comes out in favor of lower immigration levels, “we would be perceived as assisting people whose motivations are racist.” Kammer referred to it as a “smear campaign”.

The only ‘smear’ that is evident here is the one anti-immigrant groups are trying to pull on legitimate environmentalists.