Presidential Election 2016

Follow the 2012 Presidential Candidates on  YouTube Follow the 2012 Presidential Candidates on Twitter Follow the 2012 Presidential Candidates on Twitter

  Presidential Candidates  Age & Birthdate
  Presidential Candidates  Ancestry
  Presidential Candidates  Books
  Presidential Candidates  Careers
  Presidential Candidates  Childhood
  Presidential Candidates  Children
  Presidential Candidates  Education
  Presidential Candidates  Foreign Languages
  Presidential Candidates  Military Service
  Presidential Candidates  Parents & Grandparents
  Presidential Candidates  Religion
  Presidential Candidates  Siblings
  Presidential Candidates  Spouses
  Compare Presidential Candidates  Abortion
  Compare Presidential Candidates  Afghanistan
  Compare Presidential Candidates  Budget
  Compare Presidential Candidates  Business and Labor
  Compare Presidential Candidates  Capital Punishment
  Compare Presidential Candidates  China
  Compare Presidential Candidates  Civil Liberties
  Compare Presidential Candidates  Cuba
  Compare Presidential Candidates  Deficit
  Compare Presidential Candidates  Economy
  Compare Presidential Candidates  Education
  Compare Presidential Candidates  Energy
  Compare Presidential Candidates  Environment
  Compare Presidential Candidates  Foreign Affairs
  Compare Presidential Candidates  Guantanamo
  Compare Presidential Candidates  Gun Control
  Compare Presidential Candidates  Health Care
  Compare Presidential Candidates  Immigration
  Compare Presidential Candidates  Iran
  Compare Presidential Candidates  Iraq
  Compare Presidential Candidates  Israel
  Compare Presidential Candidates  Marijuana
  Compare Presidential Candidates  Minimum Wage
  Compare Presidential Candidates  National Security
  Compare Presidential Candidates  North Korea
  Compare Presidential Candidates  Palestinian Issue
  Compare Presidential Candidates  Poverty
  Compare Presidential Candidates  Prescription Drugs
  Compare Presidential Candidates  Same Sex / LGBT
  Compare Presidential Candidates  Social Security
  Compare Presidential Candidates  Stem Cell Research
  Compare Presidential Candidates  Taxes
  Compare Presidential Candidates  Trade Issues

  Republican Convention
    Chris Christie
    Rick Santorum
    Ann Romney
    Ted Cruz
    Mike Huckabee
    Condoleezza Rice
    Paul Ryan
    Clint Eastwood
    Jeb Bush
    Marco Rubio
    Mitt Romney
  Democratic Convention
    Debbie Wasserman Schultz
    Rahm Emmanuel
    Julian Castro
    Michelle Obama
    Sandra Fluke
    Elizabeth Warren
    Bill Clinton
    Caroline Kennedy
    John Kerry
    Jill Biden
    Joe Biden
    Barack Obama


At the very heart of it, the United States of America is a nation of immigrants. So why are there such passionate and heated debates on the subject of immigration? What has changed, or has the matter always been as explosive as it is now and was merely obscured by the sands of time? We’re going to take a deep look at the issue, and try to unearth the truth behind it. So, kick off your shoes, take a breath/a sip of coffee/ chug from the bottle, and read on. This is important, folks.

(i) Immigration, Immigration, From Whence Did You Come?

(ii) Immigration, Immigration, Why Do We Need You?

(iii) Immigration, Immigration, Why Don’t We Need You?

(iv) Immigration, Immigration, How Doth We Legislate Thee?

(v) Immigration, Immigration, Show Me Your Numbers!

(vi) Candidates’ Position

(i) Immigration, Immigration, From Whence Did You Come?

Humans have been in the migrating business since the dawn of time, both from a religious and scientific perspective. Archeological finds, DNA analysis and more recently, written records, confirm this.

Migration, emigration and immigration are fundamentally the by-product of the ‘push and pull’ of a subject’s natural, social, economic and political environment. The weather, natural resources of the land, religion, culture, wealth, skin color, conquest, governance and a myriad of other factors, all play, whether individually or in concert, a major role in precipitating migration, emigration and immigration. In almost all instances, the ‘push’ from the original location, and the subsequent ‘pull’ from the final destination, will involve a significant percentage of the original community.

It is no different for our country. All of us, even the Native Americans (but that’s another story altogether), are here because our ancestors took a gamble. They braved the forces of nature, the threats of the wild, the malice of their fellow men, and made the journey to land of plenty, where the storied streets are paved with gold, just so their children can have a better future. Of course, there have also been plenty of occasions where people were brought into the country against their will, or those that chose to come to avoid persecution. In fact, all of these reasons were evident in the Mayflower that voyaged across the Atlantic in 1620 with the Pilgrims of Plymouth. A perusal at our nation’s ancestral demographic data will illustrate the point even better.

Immigration has proven to be the fuel that powered the nation’s growth, be it from the expertise, wealth or labor it brought in. It has also created the dynamic multiculturalism that pervades our daily way of life in modern America, and in the process, enriching the country’s traditions, art, music and food. The birth of the American identity, a fluid and mythical concept, are inherently intertwined with the manner of its birth as a nation, and its people.

The government recognized this fact from day one, as typified with this speech made by our nation’s first President and Commander of the Revolutionary Army, George Washington.

However, they were cognizant of the fact that like everything else, all that glitters is not always gold, and treated the issue of immigration with the cautious deliberation it demands. Our national immigration policies are reactionary in nature. It has been tailored, refined and rewritten over the past two centuries in direct response to the shifting socioeconomic, political and demographical factors prevalent at the time, and as a result, it created five notable periods of major immigration movement into the country.

The first period was between 1882-1920, where immigration restrictions were enacted officially for the first time in the nation’s history. Prior to that, the government left the issue in the hands of the private enterprises, confident that the ebb and flow of demand for human capital will automatically police the immigration flow. However, for reasons that were seemingly dictated more out of fear than anything else, the people from a long list of nations were denied the right to emigrate, which at one point almost excluded everyone from outside of Europe.
An assimilationist history of immigration to America by Encyclopaedia Britannica

The second period (1921 - 1942), saw to the implementation of the most restrictive immigration regulations in American history and as a result, a very significant reduction in immigration flow into the country. During the period, a fix quota system was used to limit the numbers of immigrants from outside of 'modern Europe'. Matters were not helped by the destructive after-effects of the Great Depression.

The third period (1943-1965) heralded the arrival of a more liberal immigration policy for the country. Both Franklin Delano Roosevelt (32nd President, 1933–1945), and Harry Truman (33rd President, 1945–1953), engineered the repeal of laws that were designed to prohibit immigration from a majority of Asian nations. However, it was a shallow victory as the small quotas proved to be an ineffective incentive, and the victory became a merely a symbolic one.

The next period (1965 – 1985) saw the country returning to its open-armed immigration policy. The demands from the manufacturing sector and the post-WWII goodwill contributed to Congress’ change of heart. It saw to the arrival of immigrants from Latin America, Asia, Eastern Europe, and perhaps for the first time, major legal immigration from African nations. Interestingly, most of the fundamentals of the immigration policy enacted during the period remain in place to this day. The most interesting aspect of these new policies probably lies in the fact that the citizens of ‘old Europe’ no longer had a privileged, and at times, automatic right, to emigrate here.

The final period (1986-now) saw to a change in focus away from legal immigration and toward illegal immigration. With the increasing number of illegal aliens in the country, most of them for economic reasons, the government began to enact deterrent legislations aimed at both the illegal aliens and their employers. Initiatives were also taken to tackle the growing menace of organized border crossings through the U.S.-Mexico border, which introduced the element of crime into the mix.

However, the parallel amnesty offered to illegal aliens and over-stayers, coupled with enhanced border securities, did not work as well as planned. The stringent border controls proved to be a disincentive for illegal workers to leave, as they feared the prospect of no longer being able to reenter the country.

In a February 2010 report by the Homeland Security, it was stated that there are approximately 10.8 million illegal aliens in the country, and unlike previous years, they are dispersed all over the country, making enforcement more difficult. The partisan nature of Congress which has only heightened over the past few decades, has prevented the introduction of any new immigration policies and legislations that many contend are critically needed to get a handle of the problem.

(ii) Immigration, Immigration, Why Do We Need You?

Officially, the United States allows four types of immigration:

(i) Reuniting legal immigrants/permanent residents with their families
(ii) Sourcing workers with specific skillsets to fulfill local needs
(iii) Providing asylum for refugees or people facing persecution
(iv) Promoting national diversity by bringing in immigrants from countries with historically low immigrant numbers.

However, there is nothing altruistic behind the American government’s, or any other for that matter, decision to open their borders to foreigners. Immigration has never been about kindness, spreading the wealth or saving those persecuted in their own homeland. Immigration is, first and foremost, leveraging the human capital requirements of a growing economy. It offers our growing industries with the workers and expertise needed to maintain the momentum of growth. It also maintains the competitive edge of our industries through innovation transfers, stabile and lower wages, a hungry workforce and in some cases, it fulfills the gaping requirement of a sector (those ordinarily shunned by the locals).

Additionally, immigration is also an excellent long-term demographic shaping and recovery tool. It lowers the average national age of the population (immigrants are almost always in the younger age bracket), maintains national birthrates and population growth (lower income and middle class immigrant families traditionally have higher birthrates). Some may consider this as trivial, but the Japanese and ‘Old Europe’ are probably kicking themselves in the foot now for not taking this seriously enough in their future planning even as late as the 90s. As it is now, the Japanese are starting to feel the pinch, while Europe will be facing a variation of the same crisis in several decades.
“Population aging in Europe is occurring because of the interaction of four demographic developments. First, fertility rates in all EU countries are, and are projected to remain, below the natural population replacement rate. Second, the recent decline in fertility rates followed the postwar baby boom, and the impending retirement of these cohorts will lead to a transitory increase (albeit lasting several decades) in the old-age dependency ratio. Third, life expectancy at birth, having increased by eight years since 1960, is projected to rise by a further six years for males and five years for females by 2050, with most gains resulting from longer life spans. Fourth, large net migration inflows are projected up to 2050: although cumulating to close to 40 million people, they will not offset low fertility and growing life expectancy.

Indeed, according to official projections, between 2004 and 2050, the number of young persons in the EU (aged 0–14) will drop by 18 percent. The working-age population (15–64) will fall by 48 million, or 16 percent, whereas the elderly population aged 65+ will rise sharply, by 58 million (or 77 percent), and the fastest-growing segment of the population will be the very old (aged 80+).”
IMF Finance and Development Magazine, September 2006, Volume 43, Number 3 (Giuseppe Carone and Declan Costello)

(iii) Immigration, Immigration, Why Don’t We Need You?

It needs to be said: for all the benefits of immigration, it also poses an inherent danger and the ever-present threat of dismantling the social construct of a nation. Additionally, aside from the standard playbook reasons which we will touch on momentarily, the tragedy of 9/11 has actually made many of us, in varying degrees, afraid, and the taint of xenophobia has inevitably reared its incredibly ugly head.

This is an oversimplification, a charge that we fully agree with. But the fact is, in the ten years since 9/11, there are noticeable reversals of our social growth, in our ability accept and assimilate different cultures into our own. Where a dastar worn by a Sikh used to be a unique talking point in the 90s, it is now viewed with suspicion. A pious Muslim taxi driver performing his prayers by the park under the cool shade of a tree on a sunny day use to draw our admiration. Now, this will more likely precipitate whispers and finger pointing. A bearded Hindu man is routinely labeled as a trained jihadi. As a nation, we are suffering from a collective post-traumatic stress disorder, and we are afraid. We shouldn’t feel guilty about this, but neither should we base our every future decision around it. Simply put, we must learn to set this fear aside, and argue the issue of immigration using a rational approach.

One of the primary concerns behind any immigration policy is the displacement of opportunities for local workers and the secondary economic effects, not least in the drop of average wages and fringe benefits. The influx of a foreign workforce realigns old standards and practices, negates existing leverages and draws new lines across the sand on existing employee-employer relationships. The process is not always instantaneous, but as sure as the sun will rise, it is a certainty.

There is also the issue of immigrant integration into a society. Too few, and they run the risks of being absorbed or repulsed by their host community. Too many, and the host community is open to the risks of being unraveled and reshaped. The United States, for all of its open-arms policy to foreign talents, lack a structured and coherent integration process. Moreover, with no support infrastructure at a local level to assist immigrant integration processes, everything is left to chance, and once again, reactionary. This approach is especially flawed when dealing with a massive, single area influx, which will strain the healthcare, education and other prevailing public and social infrastructure.

Now, this is even before we include illegal immigration into the mix, which will see the aforementioned risks being augmented many times over. With over ten million illegal immigrants in the country (the number varies depending on who you ask, but the error margin is about a million in either direction), accounting for a third of the foreign workforce, the figures are cause for great concern. This is especially true in border towns, where the lack strategic, legal and enforcement support from the federal and state governments give rise to a siege mentality among the populace there.

The situation is further exacerbated when criminal elements insert themselves into the situation, introducing drugs, human trafficking and cross border violence into the already volatile mix. Words like ‘invasion’ are being bandied with increasing regularity, and coupled with the constant threat of terrorism, there is a fear that vigilantism by over exuberant members of the border communities might find popular support, especially (and worryingly) from less reputable section of these communities (remember the Minuteman vigilante group and their eventual transformation into common robbers?). Putting all that aside, the deaths of immigrants looking for work in the country alone ought to raise questions about existing U.S. immigration policies, and facilitate the reengineering of these legislations.

(iv) Immigration, Immigration, How Doth We Legislate Thee?

Managing the national immigration agenda is probably one of the most underrated, yet critical, aspects of any presidency. An equilibrium between competing forces has to be attained in order to leverage immigration towards the country’s advantage. The demands of the business, public, and international sectors must be carefully weighed, and policies require careful consideration to fulfill current, as well as future exigencies, while diligently preserving the nation’s well-being. The John Adams-led Federalist administration paid the price for mismanaging the issue and was unceremoniously driven out of office by the electorate as a consequence of the 1798 Alien and Sedition Act.

Since then, there have been repeated attempts by administration after administration to develop an effective national immigration policy. However, all the legislations are reactive in nature, and heavily influenced by prevailing public sentiments and short term socioeconomic interests, which resulted in the introduction of an unending array of legislations, with a fair sprinkling of commissions, international agreements and repeals thrown in. We have compiled below a legislative timeline featuring some of the most far-reaching and historically significant judicial developments since independence.

Legislative Timeline

1781    Articles of Confederation [replaced by the U.S Constitution in 1788]

Immigration falls under the purview of individual states, who in general, adopted an open arm policy to immigrants from Western Europe.

1788    U.S. Constitution

Immigration is still under the jurisdiction individual states.

1790    Alien Naturalization Act  

Immigration and naturalization are allowed to free white persons of good moral character who have been in the country for a minimum of two years. The act was tailored not only to address foreign naturalization, but also to exclude Native Americans from the process (the ‘non-citizen’ argument was designed to facilitate confiscation of their land by the federal government).

1798    Alien and Sedition Act  

Act to Establish A Uniform Rule of Naturalization
Residency requirement for naturalization was increased to fourteen years

Act Concerning Aliens
Act Respecting Alien Enemies
Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes against the United States
The Act was in response to the 1798 Quasi War between the United States and France. It confers the president with discretionary powers to either imprison or deport aliens and/or naturalized citizens suspected of being a threat to the country.

1800    U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9.        

The passing of the British’s 1807 Slave Trade Act (Act for the Abolition of the Slave Trade) saw to Congress declaring that all slave immigration as illegal, by virtue of Article I, Section 9, of the U.S. Constitution.

1802 The Naturalization Law of 1802

Amendment of the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798; residency requirement for naturalization was reduced from fourteen to five years.

1848 Treaty of Guadalupe

The treaty confers American citizenship to 80,000 Mexicans residing in areas* conquered by the United States in the American-Mexican War of 1846-48.
*Areas: California, Nevada, New Mexico; a majority of Colorado, Utah and Arizona; parcels of Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas, and Wyoming.

1862 Homestead Act

The Act bestows the federal government the authority to redistribute land to settlers for a nominal sum (between 13 cents to $1.25 per acre) to spur development in outlying regions of the country, as well as an incentive to attract immigrants that the nation sorely needed then. Settlers were each accorded 160 acres of unclaimed federal land, with several loose and rarely regulated provisions attached. 1.7 million settlers and 270 million acres later, the whole demographic profile of American society changed as immigrants from West and Central Europe, and the Scandinavia, took full advantage of the Act.

1864 Thirteenth Amendment

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
The abolishment of slavery presented African-American forced-immigrants that were already in the country the opportunity to seek citizenship.

1864 Immigration Act (Sess. I, Chap. 246; 13 Stat. 385)

The Act, designed to increase the flow of migrant laborers to the country after the disruption of the Civil War, saw to the creation of the position of Commissioner of Immigration to facilitate the objective. In addition, migrant laborers, upon qualifying for permanent residency, will also be exempted from compulsory military service.

1868 Burlingame-Seward Treaty

Article V of the treaty, signed by Congressman William H. Seward and Anson Burlingame (Envoy Extrordinary and Minister Plentipotentiary to China) for the Americans, and High Envoys and Ministers of the Emperor of China, Chih Kang and Sun Chia Ku for the Chinese, stipulates that both countries

“recognize the inherent and inalienable right of man to change his home and allegiance, and also the mutual advantage of the free migration and emigration of their citizens and subjects respectively from the one country to the other, for purposes of curiosity, of trade, or as permanent residents…. They consequently agree to pass laws making it a penal offence for a citizen of the United States or Chinese subjects to take Chinese subjects … without their free and voluntary consent respectively.”

The Act was designed to encourage and increase the flow of migrant laborers from China. It did not last long, however, and was repealed in 1880.

Envoy Extrordinary and Minister Plentipotentiary, Anson Burlingame (standing), and High Envoys and Ministers, Chih Kang and Sun Chia Ku (seated, center)

1868 Fourteenth Amendment

“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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The Amendment essentially ensures that every person born in the country qualifies for citizenship. The Amendment was challenged several times, but the Supreme Court, in the landmark 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, upheld the Amendment and the rights of citizenship by jus soli.

1870 Naturalization Act of 1870

The Act expunged the free white persons provision from the 1790 Alien Naturalization Act and extended naturalization laws for persons of African or other descent.

1875 Page Act
1882 Chinese Exclusion Act

The Page Act of 1875 and the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act attempts to deal with the problem of Chinese immigrant workforce. They were initially brought in by local business owners beginning in the 1850s using "coolie- labor" contracts. However, triads from mainland China usurped the role of American agents and became the primary source of Chinese laborers, and even extended their supply to include women for prostitution. The costs of employing these laborers increased significantly, raising the ire of business owners, and also, social and religious bodies (for entirely different reasons, of course). Congress was lobbied hard, and despite opposition from the administration, imposed restrictive legislations against Chinese immigrants.

1882 Immigration Act

Federal authorities were officially tasked with the processing of all immigration related applications. Further, an administrative tax of 50 cents for each immigrant arriving in the country was introduced to purportedly offset the cost of maintaining immigration-related agencies and its staff. The Act also placed restrictions against immigrations of “convicts (except those convicted of political offenses), lunatics, idiots”.

1891 Immigration Act (Sess. II Chap. 551; 26 Stat. 1084)

The amended Act saw to the establishment of the Bureau of Immigration under the authority of the Treasury Department. It also stipulates that all immigrants must subject themselves to questioning and inspection by agents of the Bureau at the port of entry. They are required to supply their personal information as well as their reasons for visiting, after which, they must undergo a medical examination. Additionally, persons “whose ticket or passage is paid for with the money of another or who assisted by others to come” are prohibited from entering the country.
Note: Polygamists immigrants were forbidden from entering the country under the Act.

1900 Organic Act of 1900

The Act was passed two years after the annexation of Hawaii, and it conferred American citizenship to all Hawaiians.

1911 United States Immigration Commission (Dillingham Commission)

The commission was established to address the growing concerns over the long-term effects of immigration to the country.
“A majority of the commission favor the reading and writing test as the most feasible single method of restricting undesirable immigration”, as well as “concluding that new immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe pose a grave threat to American culture and society and it should be restricted”.

1917 Immigration Act of 1917 (Asiatic Barred Zone Act)

The Act increased the immigrant entry tax to $8 per person, a substantial sum during the time. Additionally, an expanded list of undesirables prohibited from entering the country was included, namely, “… idiots, imbeciles, feeble-minded persons, epileptics, insane persons; persons who have had one or more attacks of insanity at any time previously; persons of constitutional psychopathic inferiority; persons with chronic alcoholism; paupers; professional beggars; vagrants; persons afflicted with tuberculosis in any form or with a loathsome or dangerous contagious disease; persons not comprehended within any of the foregoing excluded classes who are found to be and are certified by the examining surgeon as being mentally or physically defective, such physical defect being of a nature which may affect the ability of such alien to earn a living; persons who have been convicted of or admit having committed a felony or other crime or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude; polygamists, or persons who practice polygamy or believe in or advocate the practice of polygamy; anarchists, or persons who believe in or advocate the overthrow by force or violence of the Government of the United States… aliens over sixteen years of age, physically capable of reading, who cannot read the English language, or some other language or dialect, including Hebrew or Yiddish… Any country not owned by the U.S. adjacent to the continent of Asia…

1921 Emergency Quota Act

Sixty-Seventh Congress, Session I, Ch.8, 1921

In essence, the Act curtails immigration from any given country to 3% of the country’s total workforce currently in the United States.

1924 Immigration Act (Johnson–Reed Act)

Immigration fell under the joint-purview of the State Department and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). Additionally, all visitors to the country must obtain a visa from their country of origin prior to visiting.

National Origins Act
Revised the quota administered under the 1921 Emergency Quota Act. Immigration from any country is now capped at 2% of the country’s total naturalized citizens currently residing in the United States based on figures from the 1890 Census.
Asian Exclusion Act (43 Statutes-at-Large 153)
Prohibits the immigration of people from East Asia and the Indian subcontinent

1924 Labor Appropriation Act of 1924

Instituted the creation of the U.S. Border Patrol

1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (McCarran–Walter Act)
The annual quota is further revised to one-sixth of 1 per centum of the number of inhabitants in the continental United States in 1920”.
In addition, an automatic exclusion list was included, which featured, among others, aliens who are feeble-minded, insane, possessing a psychopathic personality, drug addicts, alcoholics, TB patients, professional beggars, polygamists and prostitutes.

1965 Immigration and Nationality Act (Hart-Celler Act)

The Act ended discrimination on the basis of nationality and race, and instead, placed skill sets, ‘immediate relatives’, artistic excellence and political/religious persecution as the new defining immigration criteria. The Act also abolished all direct restrictions on East Asia immigration. However, an annual immigration limit is imposed; 120,000 from the Western hemisphere and 170,000 from the Eastern.

1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (Simpson-Mazzoli Act)

The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act is the most comprehensive piece of immigration legislation in American history. Its coverage extends to almost every facet of existing immigration laws. The Act offered amnesty to illegal aliens and the opportunity for them to obtain legal working status for those who have been gainfully employed in the country since January 1, 1982 (additional stipulations apply). The Act, sometimes derisively called the Immigration Amnesty Act, eventually facilitated the amnesty of 2.8 million illegal aliens.

1990 Immigration Act of 1990

The notable changes introduced by the Act included an increase of the annual immigration quota (to 700,000), the Diversity Visa Lottery Program and removing sexual preferences from its exclusion list.

1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996

The Act easily trumps the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act in terms of its breadth, coverage and complexity. However, it does not contain any significant new legislative addition and is essentially a bureaucrat’s wet dream. It details enhancements and SOP’s of administrative, regulatory and enforcement activities for affected branches of the federal government.

2006 Secure Fence Act

The Act confers the Department of Homeland Security with the authority to assume operational control of the land and maritime borders of the United States and Mexico. It also authorizes the construction of a 700 miles long physical barrier along selected border locations, aimed at curtailing attempts to enter the country illegally.
Those who have been gainfully employed in the country since January 1, 1982 (additional stipulations apply). The Act, sometimes derisively called the Immigration Amnesty Act, eventually facilitated the amnesty of 2.8 million illegal aliens.

(v) Immigration, Immigration, Show Me Your Numbers!

a. Immigration By Year (2001-2010)

b. Immigration By The Decade; Past 100 Years

c. Immigration Against Total Population (%, Annual, 2001-2010)

Sources: U.S Bureau of Census (Actual and Estimates) & Department of Homeland Security

d. Immigration Against Total Population (%, By Decade, 1920-2010)

Sources: U.S Bureau of Census & Department of Homeland Security

e. Source of Immigration, By Region (1820 - 2010)

Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security

f. Illegal Immigrant Population (2005-2010)

Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security



2012 Libertarian Presidential Nominee
Former Governor of New Mexico

Gary Johnson

Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson

Johnson Position on Immigration

He is against the current militarized border between the United States and Mexico, and envisions a time when there will be free-flowing traffic between the two countries. He believes that a new legislation on drugs would put a stop to a majority of smuggling activities at the border. Johnson is also of the opinion that controlled immigration is beneficial to the country and dismisses the idea that immigrants are taking away jobs from hard working Americans, citing the fact that most of the jobs being involved are the low paying ones that are less attractive for locals.
Johnson's profile, official website and positions on the issues

2012 Democratic Presidential Nominee
Current President of the United States

Barack Obama

Presidential Candidate Barack Obama

Obama Position on Immigration

Immigration: Yea or Nae
“In recent days the issue of immigration has become once more a source of fresh contention in our country with the passage of a controversial law in Arizona and the heated reactions we’ve seen across America… Given the levels of frustration across the country, this is understandable, but it is also ill-conceived… Our task … is to make our national laws actually work, to shape a system that reflects our values as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants… And that means being honest about the problem and getting past the false debates that divide the country rather than bring it together… Contrary to some of the reports that you see, crime along the border is down. And statistics collected by Customs and Border Protection reflect a significant reduction in the number of people trying to cross the border illegally… Finally, we have to demand responsibility from people living here illegally… They must be required to admit that they broke the law. They should be required to register, pay their taxes, pay a fine and learn English… They must get right with the law before they can get in line and earn their citizenship.”
July 1, 2011, Speaking at the American University’s School of International Service in Washington

On Amnesty
“If the majority of Americans are skeptical of a blanket amnesty, they are also skeptical that it is possible to round up and deport 11 million people. They know it’s not possible. Such an effort would be logistically impossible and wildly expensive. Moreover, it would tear at the very fabric of this nation—because immigrants who are here illegally are now intricately woven into that fabric. Many have children who are American citizens. Some are children themselves, brought here by their parents at a very young age, growing up as American kids, only to discover their illegal status when they apply for college or a job.”
July 1, 2011, Speaking at the American University’s School of International Service in Washington

On Deportation
“We have a system right now that allows the best and the brightest to come and study in America, and then tells them to leave, set up the next great company someplace else. We have a system that tolerates immigrants and businesses that breaks the rules and punishes those that follows the rules. We have a system that separates families, and punishes innocent young people for their parents’ actions by denying them the chance to earn an education or contribute to our economy or serve in our military… These are the laws on the books. I swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books. But that doesn’t mean I don’t know very well the real pain and heartbreak that deportations cost. I share your concerns, and I understand them. And I promise you we are responding to your concern and working every day to make sure we are enforcing flawed laws in the most humane and best possible way.”
July 25, 2011, Obama speaking at the National Council of La Raza event in Washington

On Legislation
“We need immigration reform that will secure our borders, and punish employers who exploit immigrant labor; reform that finally brings the 12 million people who are here illegally out of the shadows by requiring them to take steps to become legal citizens We must assert our values and reconcile our principles as a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws.”
Jun 28, 2008, Obama speaking at the National Association of Latino Elected & Appointed Officials conference in Washington

U.S. Mexico Border Fence
“So here’s the point. I want everybody to listen carefully to this. We have gone above and beyond what was requested by the very Republicans who said they supported broader reform as long as we got serious about enforcement. All the stuff they asked for, we’ve done. But even though we’ve answered these concerns, I’ve got to say I suspect there are still going to be some who are trying to move the goal posts on us one more time. You know, they said we needed to triple the Border Patrol. Or now they’re going to say we need to quadruple the Border Patrol. Or they’ll want a higher fence. Maybe they’ll need a moat. Maybe they want alligators in the moat. They’ll never be satisfied. And I understand that. That’s politics.”
May 10, 2011, Obama speaking at the Chamizal National Memorial in El Paso, Texas

Clockwise from top left: Secondary border fence between San Diego sector & Tijuana; Levee-Wall at Hidalgo County, Texas; Vehicle fence in El Paso, New Mexico; and pedestrian fence Eagle Pass, Texas
Obama's profile, official website and positions on the issues

2012 Republican Presidential Nominee
Former Governor of Massachusetts

Mitt Romney

Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney

Romney Position on Immigration

Immigration: Yea or Nae
“I am a great proponent of legal immigration… Many of you are living proof of the unique strength of America that is constantly renewed by new Americans. The promise of America has brought some of the world’s best and brightest to our shores.”
September 2, 2011, speech to the Republican National Hispanic Assembly Convention in Tampa, Florida
"I love immigration. I love legal immigrants coming into our country ... My guess is everybody in this room is a descendant of an immigrant or an immigrant himself. So we love immigration as Americans. Immigration brings us education, new cultures, ideas, innovative talent. It's wonderful to have legal immigration. I don't like illegal immigration."
February 8, 2007; Radio Iowa News

On Amnesty
Very much against.
Illegal immigration has got to end and any form of citizenship amnesty is troublesome.

September 13, 2007; Midland Reporter-Telegram
"The idea of an amnesty-type provision is something I oppose and continue to oppose."

On Legislation
"Governor Romney believes more state and local authorities should work with the federal government to enforce immigration laws. This builds off of his experience in Massachusetts where he deputized the State Police to work with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and enforce federal immigration laws ... Governor Romney will provide additional resources to enforce existing immigration laws throughout the nation. We cannot be serious about our immigration laws until we provide the resources needed to enforce them. "
November 9, 2007, Official Press Release from
"We must stop providing the incentives that promote illegal immigration… As governor, I vetoed legislation that would have provided in-state tuition rates to illegal immigrants and I strengthened the authority our state troopers had to enforce existing immigration laws."
September 2, 2011, speech to the Republican National Hispanic Assembly Convention in Tampa, Florida
"Let me tell you about immigration from my standpoint. I think number one, we should secure out border, and number two, We should put in place an employment verification system. And by that I mean that everybody who is not a United States citizen with a valid social security number would be expected to get a card with their name and number and some biometric information and would indicate their work status. Whether they have a visa that allows them to work here or not. And then when an employer is thinking of hiring someone, if they don't have a valid social security number, he/she ask for the card, they put the number in the computer, and the federal database immediately tells them whether they are available to be working or not. If they're not, you can't hire them. And if you do, you get the same penalties and fines as if you are not paying your taxes."
April 3, 2007, Romney answering questions in the "Ask Mitt Anything" forum in Derry, New Hampshire.

U.S. Mexico Border Fence
“civil but resolute ... to do a better job of securing its borders, and as president, I will. That means completing construction of a high-tech fence, and investing in adequate manpower and resources.”
September 2, 2011, speech to the Republican National Hispanic Assembly Convention in Tampa, Florida
Mitt Romney’s Campaign Ad on Immigration

Romney's profile, official website and positions on the issues




Declared 2012 Republican Presidential Candidate
U.S. Representative from the State of Texas

Ron Paul

Presidential Candidate Ron Paul

Paul Position on Immigration

Immigration: Yea or Nae

He was a strong advocate right until the early 90s when he turned into a qualified opponent of immigration.
“My approach to immigration is somewhat different than the others. Mine is you deal with it economically We're in worse shape now because we subsidize immigration. We give food stamps, Social Security, free medical care, free education and amnesty. So you subsidize it, and you have a mess. Conditions have changed. And I think this means that we should look at immigration differently. It's an economic issue more than anything. If our economy was in good health, I don't think there'd be an immigration problem. We'd be looking for workers and we would be very generous."
Dec 23, 2007, Interview with NBC’s Tim Russert in the NBC’s 2007 "Meet the Candidates" series

On Amnesty

“There’s an incentive for a lot of our people not to work, because they can get welfare. Then there’s a lot of incentive because they know they’re going to get amnesty. We gave it to the illegals in the ‘80s. Then, we put mandates on the states to compel them to have medical care. And you say, well, that’s compassionate. What happens if the hospital closes and then the people here in this country don’t get medical care? So you can’t divorce it from the economics. You’ve got to get rid of the incentives. No amnesty. No forced benefits. It just won’t work if you try to see this in a vacuum. You have to deal with it as a whole, as an economic issue as well.
Jan. 5, 2008, speaking at the 2008 Republican primary debate at St. Anselm College in New Hampshire

On Deportation
"One side says use the US Army, round them up ship them home. The other side says give them amnesty... The first choice—sending twelve to fifteen million illegals home—isn't going to happen and shouldn't happen… if each case is looked at separately, we would find ourselves splitting up families and deporting some who have lived here for decades, if not their entire life, and who have never lived for any length of time in Mexico. This would hardly be a Good Samaritan approach to the problem. It would be incompatible with human rights."
Page 153 from Paul’s 2011 book, Liberty Defined

On Legislation
Paul believes that the 14th Amendment is ripe for an... amendment.
"...birthright citizenship, originating in the 14th amendment, has become a serious cultural and economic dilemma for our nation… No other wealthy, western nations grant automatic citizenship to those who simply happen to be born within their borders to non-citizens. These nations recognize that citizenship involves more than the physical location of one’s birth; it also involves some measure of cultural connection and allegiance. In most cases this means the parents must be citizens of a nation in order for their newborn children to receive automatic citizenship…
     I’ve introduced legislation that would amend the Constitution and end automatic birthright citizenship. The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868, on the heels of the Civil War. The country, especially the western territories, was wide open and ripe for homesteading. There was no welfare state to exploit, and the modern problems associated with immigration could not have been imagined…
     Our founders knew that unforeseen problems with our system of government would arise, and that’s precisely why they gave us a method for amending the Constitution. It’s time to rethink birthright citizenship by amending the 14th amendment."
October 2, 2006, Ron Paul in his Texas Straight Talk column, ‘Rethinking Birthright Citizenship’

U.S. Mexico Border Fence

“There was an immigration bill that had a fence in it, but it was to attack amnesty. I don’t like amnesty. So I voted for that bill to stop the amnesty, but I didn't like the fence. I don't think the fence can solve our problem. I find it rather offensive.”
December 12, 2007, Interview with ABC’s John Stossel on

More on Paul  

Declared 2012 Republican Presidential Candidate

Matt Snyder

Presidential Candidate Matt Snyder

Snyder Position on Immigration

  • Control the border—that means knowing who’s coming in, and knowing when they’re leaving.

  • Begin a 6 month registration period for those who are here already—ID’s issued, addresses noted, temp. SS #’s, background checks, fingerprints.

  • Anyone who doesn’t come forward within those 6 months is hiding. They risk deportation if caught.

  • Immigrants guaranteed minimum wage to ensure equal pay and equal competition against American workers.

  • Criminal activity means deportation.

  • After 5 yrs., immigrants over 15 yrs. of age test for citizenship.

  • Those who are here to work for a better life while respecting our laws and our culture are welcome. NO financial aid from Feds.

More on Snyder  

Declared 2012 Republican Presidential Candidate

Vern Wuensche

Presidential Candidate Vern Wuensche

Wuensche Position on Immigration

• Wuensche believes that first and foremost we must secure our borders, recognizing that many illegals are not simply Hispanics seeking work but may be terrorists. Moving troops from Afghanistan to our southern border would be a more effective use of our resources.

• He believes that to save taxpayers money we should immediately deport illegal aliens who are felons or who carry disease.

• He believes that all individuals must show proof of citizenship to vote.

• He believes that no citizenship preference should be given illegal aliens who are here as it will only encourage more to enter illegally.

More on Wuensche  

Support our website with Google Plus

Comment on Immigration

    © 2007-2012
About Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy Contact Us 2016 Candidates