Economic Recovery: Profits From Overseas Ops Double Fed Ex 1st Qtr Profit – 1700 American Workers To Be Laid Off

FedEx 1Q profit doubles; will cut 1,700 jobs

FedEx Corp. indicated Thursday that the global economic recovery remains uneven. It touted strength in its international shipping operations while moving to fix the weak spot in its business: its money-losing U.S. trucking business.

FedEx did raise its financial outlook for the full fiscal year after its first-quarter net income doubled. But the projections for the second quarter and full year fell shy of Wall Street expectations, and the stock dropped almost 3 percent in premarket trading.

Growth in international air shipments has been driving FedEx’s results lately. That continued in the first quarter. But the FedEx Freight segment lost money again as demand for large items like refrigerators and other appliances continues to be weak. As it competes with other trucking companies to ship a limited amount of freight, FedEx has been forced to forgo the rate increases that are helping its other segments grow.

FedEx will combine its FedEx Freight and FedEx National less-than-truckload operations on Jan. 30, closing 100 facilities and cutting 1,700 workers. FedEx says the move, along with other cost cuts, will ensure the trucking business is profitable next year.

Less-than-truckload shippers take goods from many different manufacturers and consolidate them into a single truck for delivery.

The move suggests that big companies like FedEx, which is a bellwether for broader economic health, are feeling that the global economy still has a way to go for a full recovery.

The world’s second-largest package delivery company now expects to earn between $1.15 and $1.35 per share for the quarter ending in November, below analysts’ expectations of $1.36 per share.

For the full fiscal year that ends in May, the company now expects net income of $4.80 to $5.25 per share. That’s up from its estimate of $4.60 to $5.20 per share in July but some analysts were forecasting earnings as high as $5.60 per share, according to Thomson Reuters.

The Memphis, Tenn., company earned $380 million, or $1.20 per share in the fiscal first-quarter that ended in August, compared with $181 million, or 58 cents per share a year ago. That’s slightly under the $1.21 per share that Wall Street expected.

The reinstatement of some employee compensation programs, higher pension, medical and aircraft maintenance expenses, and a loss at FedEx Freight countered improvements at its Express and Ground operations.

Revenue rose 18 percent to $9.46 billion.

FedEx shares fell 2.9 percent to $83.45 in premarket trading.

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/markets/headline_news/article.jsp?content=b4534970

McAuleys World Comments:

This article is all about what Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich would call “The Great Decoupling of Corporate Profits from Jobs”… search for Reich’s article of that name.
Reports of quarterly profits by multinational corporations and a “phantom” recovery in the DJIA is an unreliable indicator of an American economic recovery… the record profits being reported by many DJIA companies have nothing to do with American business operations … Fed Ex being the latest example … There is nothing wrong with Fed Ex or GM posting a profit from overseas operations … the problems arise when the politicos and the press try to claim an “American Recovery” based on business growth in Red China or the Far East … or to claim an American Recovery, that is not only “jobless”, but is based on policies that continue to ship American Jobs and manufacturing capacity overseas ….
Even Clinton’s Labor Secretary Reich noted that $30 billion of the GM “bailout” went to create jobs in Red China before he stated, “GM officials say no American taxpayer money is being used to expand in China. But money is fungible. Because of our generosity, GM can now use the dollars it doesn’t have to spend in the United States meeting its American payrolls and repaying its creditors, for new investments in China.”
Reich went on to say, “GM now sells more cars in China than it does in the US, but makes most of them there. The company now employs 32,000 hourly workers in China. But only 52,000 GM hourly workers remain in the United States – down from 468,000 in 1970.”
My research would indicate that GM now employees 40,000 in China and 48,000 in America. By 2012 GM will employ more people in China than in the US – what are the implications for GM’s pension and medical fund liabilities …
Since Reich’s article was published GM has transferred control of GM-China to the Chinese Government for a 1 time payment of $85 million dollars, shielding any of the GM/China profit from American Taxation …
Profits are not “evil” they are the reason a Company exists … however, quarterly profit announcements are not a reliable indication or “bell weather” of how the US economy has rebounded …
We need to re-examine Governmental policies and stewardship that allows $30 billion dollars of taxpayer money, money intended to “stimulate” the American economy and create American jobs, to be used to expand auto production in China … and then have the Government’s handpicked GM leadership team transfer control of a $30 billion dollar investment for a single $85 million dollar payment from the Chinese Government … GM will sell 2 million cars in China in 2010, GM transferred control of it’s Chinese operations, in perpetuity, for the price of $42.50 per 2010 unit …

Economic Recovery? No Spinning These Numbers – August 2010 Lenders Foreclose More Homes Than At Any Time Since Mortage Crisis Began

US homes lost to foreclosure up 25 pct on year

LOS ANGELES — Lenders took back more homes in August than in any month since the start of the U.S. mortgage crisis.

The increase in home repossessions came even as the number of properties entering the foreclosure process slowed for the seventh month in a row, foreclosure listing firm RealtyTrac Inc. said Thursday.

In all, banks repossessed 95,364 properties last month, up 3 percent from July and an increase of 25 percent from August 2009, RealtyTrac said.

August makes the ninth month in a row that the pace of homes lost to foreclosure has increased on an annual basis. The previous high was in May.

Banks have been stepping up repossessions to clear out their backlog of bad loans with an eye on eventually placing the foreclosed properties on the market, but they can’t afford to simply dump the properties on the market.

Concerns are growing that the housing market recovery could stumble amid stubbornly high unemployment, a sluggish economy and faltering consumer confidence. U.S. home sales have collapsed since federal homebuyer tax credits expired in April.

That’s one reason fewer than one-third of homes repossessed by lenders are on the market, said Rick Sharga, a senior vice president at RealtyTrac.

[The reason only 1/3 of the foreclosed homes are  “on the market” is that the banks are tryoing to protect the value of their inventory of foreclosed homes, by limiting the number on the market thay are artificialy propping up the value of the “foreclosed home market”. The Government tax credit did not create “new housing demand” it simply shifted sales forward … Google: Federal Home Trac Credit Fraud – to read about the mismanagement of that program by the Federal Government – or Google: Mortgage Fraud Continues]

“These (properties) are going to come to market, but very slowly because nobody wants to overwhelm a soft buyer’s market with too much distressed inventory for fear of what it would do for house prices,” he said.

As a result, lenders are putting off initiating the foreclosure process on homeowners who have missed payments, letting borrowers stay in their homes longer.

The number of properties receiving an initial default notice – the first step in the foreclosure process – slipped 1 percent last month from July, but was down 30 percent versus August last year, RealtyTrac said.

Initial defaults have fallen on an annual basis the past seven months. They peaked in April 2009.

Barney Frank - Chairman House Banking Committee - The Man In Charge Of Watching Over Fannie

Still, the number of homes scheduled to be sold at auction for the first time increased 9 percent from July and rose 2 percent from August last year. If they don’t sell at auction, these homes typically end up going back to the lender.

More than 2.3 million homes have been repossessed by lenders since the recession began in December 2007, according to RealtyTrac. The firm estimates more than 1 million American households are likely to lose their homes to foreclosure this year.

[Realty Tracs number are way off, that or the AP is not reporting them correctly – At least 8 million homes have been foreclosed – 2.3 million homes have been foreclosed and placed on the market for sale. More than 2.3 million homes have been foreclosed in the States of Michigan and Nevada alone]

In all, 338,836 properties received a foreclosure-related warning in August, up 4 percent from July, but down 5 percent from the same month last year, RealtyTrac said. That translates to one in 381 U.S. homes.

The firm tracks notices for defaults, scheduled home auctions and home repossessions – warnings that can lead up to a home eventually being lost to foreclosure.

Among states, Nevada posted the highest foreclosure rate last month, with one in every 84 households receiving a foreclosure notice. That’s 4.5 times the national average.

Rounding out the top 10 states with the highest foreclosure rate in August were: Florida, Arizona, California, Idaho, Utah, Georgia, Michigan, Illinois and Hawaii.

Economic woes, such as unemployment or reduced income, are now the main catalysts for foreclosures.

Lenders are offering a variety of programs to help homeowners modify their loans, but their success rates vary. Hundreds of thousands of homeowners can’t qualify or fall back into default.

The Obama administration has rolled out numerous attempts to tackle the foreclosure crisis but has made only a small dent in the problem. Nearly half of the 1.3 million homeowners who enrolled in the Obama administration’s flagship mortgage-relief program have fallen out.

The program, known as Making Home Affordable, has provided permanent help to about 390,000 homeowners since March 2009.

[A program that was touted by Obama as something that would help 9,000,000 home owners at a cost of nearly $700 billion dollars has in fact helped only 300,000 and tens of thousands leave the program every month as their homes sink futher “under water”]

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2010/09/16/general-us-foreclosure-rates_7933661.html?boxes=Homepagebusinessnews

 

August 2010 Employment Numbers: Economy 200,000 jobs short of breakeven point – Unemployment rises to 9.6%

McAuley’s World Comments in Blue:

Companies add 67K workers, but jobless rate rises             AP

Thousands of Job Seekers Attend Job Fair In Detroit (Aug 2010)

WASHINGTON – Private employers hired more workers over the past three months than first thought, a glimmer of hope for the weak economy ahead of the Labor Day weekend. But the unemployment rate rose because not enough jobs were created to absorb the growing number of people looking for work.

Companies added a net total of 67,000 new jobs last month and both July and June’s private-sector job figures were upwardly revised, the Labor Department said Friday. [See my comments below]

Stocks surged after the report’s release. The Dow Jones industrial average rose more than 100 points in afternoon trading and broader indexes were all up. [Yes, after it was reported that 67,000 “net jobs’ were added and not lost … as was expected … wait until Tuesday when the vacation has ended and people return to their offices and digest the “true story” … please read on] ….

….. Overall, the economy lost 54,000 jobs as 114,000 temporary census positions came to an end. For the first time this year, the manufacturing sector lost jobs, down a net total of 27,000 for the month….

http://cbs5.com/wireappolitics/Companies.add.67.2.1894681.html

“Companies added a net total of 67,000 new jobs last month”…. no wait“Overall, the economy lost 54,000 jobs”… you cannot have a “net total increase” and “Overall, lose jobs” at the same time.

 Private companies “allegedly” added 67,000 jobs – there was no “net increase” as the economy, as a whole, lost a “net” of 54,000.

Remember that today, when the press and the Obama Administration claims that jobs have been “added”, the number includes the new “saved or created” concept. After all the numbers were “crunched”, including all the claims of “saved or created” … the economy lost a total of 54,000 jobs in August, there was “zero net jobs gained”. The net loss of 54,000 jobs includes the 67,000 jobs that were allegedly saved or created. But for the claim that there were 67,000 jobs “created or saved” the economy would have lost 114,000 total jobs in August. Once again, there was zero “net job increase” in July 2010.  

 The United States needs to “create” a minimum of 150,000 new jobs, “actual jobs” as opposed to imaginary or “virtual” jobs, each and  every month, to maintain an “employment equilibrium” – to have the economy keep pace with new workers entering the workforce – to have “zero change” in the unemployment rate – no increase – no decrease.  If employers eliminate jobs, the economy must create and equal number of new jobs, in addition to the 150,000 jobs needed to accomodate the new workers entering the work force, just to break even. The U.S. economy needed to create at least 1.2 million new jobs between January and the end of August 2010 to maintain an “employment equilibrium” for 2010. (8 months x 150,000 per month = 1.2 million). We are at least ½ million new jobs short of “employment equilibrium” for 2010 (even when we count all of the claimed “saved or created” nonsense jobs).

Query: With a short fall of ½ million new jobs to date in 2010, ½ million jobs short of keeping pace with new workers entering the workforce, never mind creating jobs to replace those jobs that have been lost, why hasn’t the unemployment rate changed (increased) since January 2010?  The January 2010 unemployment rate was 10%, today the Obama Administration claims our unemployment rate is 9.6%. If we haven’t created enough jobs to maintain an “”employment equilibrium” with the new workers entering the work force, how did our unemployment rate drop?

Example: In August 2010 the economy needed to create 150,000 new jobs to stay even with the number of new workers entering the work force. The economy actually lost 54,000 jobs …. so in August 2010 the economy was a total of 204,000 jobs short of breaking even ( 150,000 new workers entering the work force plus 54,000 jobs that were lost  in the month …).  

 The shortfall of ½ million new jobs means that the economy fell 40% short of creating enough jobs to maintain an “employment equilibrium”, never mind creating enough new  jobs to reduce the unemployment rate.

How has the Obama Administration kept the unemployment rate from rising? (How is the Obama Administration cooking the books?).

1). For every “new worker” who enters the economy without a job being created for them, the Obama Administration claims that 1 unemployed worker gives up their job search and leaves the work force. This is a fraud, but it manufactures  a false “employment equilibrium” for the press to report.

2). When the Obama Administration claims to “save” a job, the “save” can be a monthly event – a single individual working for a single employer can have the same job “saved” up to 12 times in a year. Not 12 jobs, 1 job 12 times. When 12 jobs are lost you cannot create a true “employment equilibrium” by saving 1 job 12 times, because that still leaves 11 unemployed people.

 Do I smell something burning… are those numbers done yet … shouldn’t someone stop cooking the numbers and look for some real solutions?

While I was reading various blogs today I noted an amazing number of wild claims about unemployment during G. W. Bush’s Presidency … these are the true facts and not some wild political claims:

Average Annual Unemployment Under G.W. Bush – all 8 years – 5.2 %

Highest Annual Unemployment Rate During G.W. Bush: 5.99 (2003)

Lowest Annual Unemployment Rate During G.W. Bush: 4.61 (2007) Just before the Democrats took over Congress …

B. OBAMA’S ANNUAL UNEMPLOYEMNT RATES:       2009   –  9.2%

                                                                                      Jan – Aug  2010   –  9.6%      

http://www.miseryindex.us/urbyyear.asp

Unemployment Numbers Hit 9 Month High – 500,000 File New Unemployment Claims

Employers appear to be laying off workers again as applications for unemployment insurance reached the half-million mark last week for the first time since November. Initial claims for jobless benefits rose by 12,000 last week to 500,000, the Labor Department said Thursday.

It was the fourth increase in the past five weeks and evidence that the economic recovery has weakened. Homebuilders and other construction firms are laying off more workers as the housing sector slumps after the expiration of a popular homebuyers’ tax credit. State and local governments are also cutting jobs to close large budget gaps.

“This is obviously a disappointing number that shows ongoing weakness in the job market,” said Robert Dye, senior economist at the PNC Financial Services Group. The four-week average, a less volatile measure, rose by 8,000 to 482,500, the highest since December.

The increase suggests the economy is creating even fewer jobs than in the first half of this year, when private employers added an average of about 100,000 jobs per month. That’s barely enough to keep the unemployment rate from rising. The jobless rate has been stuck at 9.5 percent for two months. Stock futures fell on the prospects of more layoffs.

Dow Jones industrial average futures had risen by 50 points before the report was released. They dropped immediately afterward and were down six points shortly before the market opened.

Jobless claims declined steadily last year from a peak of 651,000 in March 2009 as the economy recovered from the worst downturn since the 1930s. After flattening out earlier this year claims have begun to grow again. Dye said that claims showed a similar pattern in the last two recoveries, but eventually began to fall again.

The current elevated level of claims is a sign employers are reluctant to hire until the rebound is well under way. That’s what happened in the recoveries following the 1991 and 2001 recessions, which were dubbed “jobless recoveries.”

The number of people continuing to receive benefits fell by 13,000 to 4.5 million, the department said. The continuing claims data lags initial claims by one week. But that doesn’t include millions of people receiving extended unemployment insurance, paid for by the federal government.

About 5.6 million unemployed workers were on the extended unemployment benefit rolls, as of the week ending July 31, the latest data available. That’s an increase of about 300,000 from the previous week.

During the recession, Congress added up to 73 extra weeks of benefits on top of the 26 weeks customarily provided by the states. The number of people on the extended rolls has increased sharply in recent weeks after Congress renewed the extended program last month.

It had expired in June.

Private employers added only 71,000 jobs in July. But that increase was offset by the loss of 202,000 government jobs, including 143,000 temporary census positions. July marked the third straight month that the private sector hired cautiously.

Economists are concerned that the unemployment rate will start rising again because overall economic growth has weakened significantly since the start of the year. In a healthy economy, jobless claims usually drop below 400,000. But the recent increases in claims provide further evidence that the economy has slowed and could slip back into a recession.

Many analysts are worried that economic growth will ebb further in the second half of this year. After growing at a 3.7 percent annual rate in the first quarter, the economy’s growth slowed to 2.4 percent in the April-to-June period.

Some economists forecast it will drop to as low as 1.5 percent in the second half of this year.

http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2010/08/19/2010-08-19_half_a_million_are_jobless_unemployment_numbers_hit_9month_high.html#ixzz0x43i6hde

May 2010 Jobs Report – Econcomy Is Still Losing Ground – Job Creation Isn’t Keeping Pace With The Number Of New Workers

The following is being reported by the Associated Press:

“The government also said 431,000 jobs overall were created last month, but most of those jobs, 411,000, came from the government’s hiring of temporary census workers. The overall number also fell short of expectations. Economists polled by Thomson Reuters had forecast employers would add 513,000 jobs.” http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100604/ap_on_bi_st_ma_re/us_wall_street  http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/06/Heritage-Employment-Report-May-Jobs-Struggle-to-Appear

The straight forward math is this, private employers added 20,000 (20 thousand) employees last month when a gain of 513,000 was expected. Over the next 60 days, the 411,000 part time census workers will rejoin the ranks of the unemployed. Last month’s (April 2010) job hires were largely due to “temporary summer hires”.

The Obama Adminiistration is claiming that the unemployment rate has dropped from 9.8% to 9.7% – a drop that isn’t being related to temporary hiring (becasue if it was related to temporary hiring – then the Obama Administration would need to report an increase in the unemployment rate after the people are “laid off” from their temporaray work)  the “lower” unemployement number is being related to the fact that “300,000 people have given up on their job searchs”.

Please note that the Government does not count an individual who has exhausted their unemployment benefits as being “unemployed”.

In our recent past the Liberal Media has reported that it takes between 150,000 and 200,000 new jobs each and every month to keep up with population growth – any “private job” creation number below that means the economy is shrinking. These statements are correct. 

With only 21,000 jobs created by private employers in May 2010, we are somewhere between 130,000 and 180,000 jobs short of breaking even for the month.

Personally, I find it surprising that no media outlet has pointed out that, over the last 6 months, the Obama Adminstration has reported that the usual “growth” in the number of individuals entering the “job market” has been off set by an equal number of people “giving up their job searches”. What a remarkable coincidence! 

Read and compare these historical statements from our liberal media: 

  •  The New York Times, 08/08/03: The economy must add about 150,000 jobs or more each month to keep up with population growth and bring down the jobless rate over a long period of time. In the 1990’s, the economy created an average of 181,000 jobs a month.  http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/08/business/08ECON.html?pagewanted=2 
  • The San Francisco Examiner – April 3, 2004: Total jobs outside the farm sector soared by 308,000, the Labor Department reported Friday, the unemployment rate rose to 5.7 percent from 5.6 percent in February primarily because 179,000 people entered the labor force. (A net gain of 129,000 jobs and the unemployment rate went up) http://articles.sfgate.com/2004-04-03/news/17423578_1_worst-job-recovery-job-growth-labor-market
  • Washinton Post 09/04/04 : Employers added 144,000 jobs to their non-farm payrolls in August on a seasonally adjusted basis, an improvement after two months in which job growth essentially stalled, but barely enough to keep pace with population growth. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A60680-2004Sep3?language=printer
  • The Los Angles Times 09/04/04: U.S. employers added a net 144,000 jobs to their payrolls in August and the nation’s unemployment rate dropped a notch to 5.4% (WOW – 5.4%, not 9.9%) –  Unless employment growth averages 228,250 a month from September through December, Bush will be the first post-Depression president to finish his term with fewer jobs than when he started. http://articles.latimes.com/2004/sep/04/business/fi-jobs4
  • The Boston Globe 01/08/05: US employers boosted payrolls by 157,000 jobs in December, keeping the economy on a path of moderate expansion and completing the first year of job growth since 2000. The month’s job gains were slightly less than analysts expected, and just enough to keep up with the natural growth of the labor force and prevent unemployment from rising.  Over the past year, the economy has averaged 186,000 new jobs a month, and whittled three-tenths of a point from the December 2003 unemployment rate of 5.7 percent. All told, the nation added a net 2.2 million jobs last year, the most since 1999, when the economy created 3.2 million. http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2005/01/08/us_gains_157000_jobs_in_december/

Until the Obama Adminstration admits we are not on course for a recovery, the proper corrective measures will not be taken.

“Spinning” the numbers doesn’t help the average Amercian or improve our economy …..

We were promised that if the “Stimulus Plan” was passed the unemployment rate would not rise above 8%, and that millions of new jobs would be created in the “private sector”. Reuters reported that the Country lost over 3 million jobs in the 1st 10 months after the “stimulus” was signed 18 months ago. http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2009/10/30/afx7069921.html

The New York Times has reported that the “total number of jobs lost” through the 1st of this year is 8 million. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/weekinreview/04norris.html?_r=2&scp=2&sq=floyd&st=cse

Between the start of the recession and the 1st of Janauary 2010 a total of 8.1 million jobs were lost.   http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/jobs_picture_20100108/

At the end of January 2010, the U.S. Government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the number of “jobs lost” had increased to 8.4 million.  http://dailycaller.com/2010/02/08/unemployment-drops-while-total-jobs-lost-increases/ 

On that same day, the Obama Administration reported that the unemployment rate dropped from 10% to 9.7 %. This happened despite the fact that the Administration reported that they had “overestimated job creation” by over 800,000 jobs. We lost 800,000 jobs and the unemployment rate dropped from 10% to 9.7%.  http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/04/news/economy/jobs_outlook/

In March 2010 the BLS reported a loss of 20,000 jobs in February 2010. A loss of 20,000 jobs would mean that the US was between 170,000 and 220,000 jobs short of breaking even in February 2010. The “official” unemployment rate remained “unchanged”. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0303/breaking54.html

In April 2010 the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that 162,000 jobs were created in March 2010. Temporary census jobs counted for 48,000 of the jobs while 114,000 were in the private sector. The 114,000 “private sector” jobs were certainly a welcome sign, but the number of new jobs were 50,000 jobs below the number needed to “break even” for the month. The “official” unemployment rate remained unchanged.  http://www.employmentmetrix.com/blog/2010/04/good-news-for-job-seekers-march-jobs-report-shows-growth.html?no_prefetch=1

The report for May 2010, which was relased today, is discussed above. (411,000 of 431,000 jobs created are temporary census jobs). The 20.000 jobs created in the private sector falls far short of the 150,000 to 200,000 needed to break even for the month, however, we are told that the unemployment rate dropped from 9.8% to 9.7% because 300,000 “unemployed” workers stopped looking for work.

Exactly where are these 300,000 unemployed workers who suddenly gave up on finding work? What a surpise! A 6th straight month where the “job creation numbers” fall short of the “break even point” without a single increase in the “unemployment rate”.  

I’m sorry, I don’t believe it for a minute. These numbers are more thoroughly cooked than my Christmas Goose!   

If an individual has “access” to unemployment benefits they must report that they are “able, available and seeking” work …… in order to collect benefits. 

It appears that the number of “lay-offs” per month may have returned to pre-recession levels, however, new job creation is not keeping pace with the natural and historical growth in the Country’s labor pool. If “job creation” isn’t keeping pace with the natural growth rate of the “labor pool” we should be seeing, as we have always seen in the past, an increase in the monthly unemployment rate.  http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/06/Heritage-Employment-Report-May-Jobs-Struggle-to-Appear

The economy is not in recovery and if the books were not being cooked, the unemployment rate would be rising.

When President Obama says “our economic policies are working” and “we are heading in the right direction” he is either in self denial or he is, as is claimed, more interested in “spinning” the facts for his personal poltical benefit than he is interested in helping working Americans, or more imporantly, helping those Americans who wish they were working.

For a comparison of the average annual unemployment rates during the George W Bush Presidency and our 1st 18 months under Barack Obama (Chart of average annual unemployment rates from 1948 through 2009) see: http://www.miseryindex.us/URbyyear.asp?StartYear=1948&EndYear=2009

The Immigration Debate; The Arizona Law & Its Place In The History Of American Immigration Laws

Enough already with the race baiting from the left …..

Arizona’s new law is neither unconstitutional nor does Arizona’s new law call for racial profiling.

For a discussion of Arizona’s new “immigration law” see  https://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2010/05/05/the-immigration-debate-arizonas-law-facts-from-fiction-are-you-tired-of-being-lied-to/     or https://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2010/05/14/el-debate-de-inmigracion-la-ley-de-arizona-hechos-de-la-ficcion-%c2%bfesta-cansado-de-que-nos-mientan/ 

THE CURRENT POLITICAL SPIN

The left is trying to create a poltical advantage and distract the American public from the real issues of unemployment a faltering economy and rising crime rates with fabricated claims of racism in the new Arizona law, a law which is incorrectly being called an “immigration law” when in fact the law focuses on the prevention of criminal acts and the enforcement of exisiting criminal laws. See: https://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2010/05/05/the-immigration-debate-arizonas-law-facts-from-fiction-are-you-tired-of-being-lied-to/     or  https://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2010/05/14/el-debate-de-inmigracion-la-ley-de-arizona-hechos-de-la-ficcion-%c2%bfesta-cansado-de-que-nos-mientan/ 

The race baiters are not interested in uniting our neighborhoods, healing our wounds or bringing people together, for making our Country a safer place for all, for bringing an end to the illegal drug smuggling or sexual trafficking trade, for ending 21st century slavery ……. they are hoping to bring destruction, to destroy communities and to divide the people for their own personal gain.  

Earliest History of America’s Immigration Laws

The United States Constitution was adopted in 1789. Congress adopted the first “immigration law” one year later in 1790 when it granted citizenship to the first “immigrants”. Subsequent legislation passed in the 1790’s required prospective citizens to renounce or give up former allegiances to other “Sovereign Nations” and to surrender titles of nobility granted by foreign monarchs prior to being granted citizenship in our great country. 

In 1798 Congress authorized the President to expel “dangerous” aliens in the Alien Friends Act and the Alien Enemies Act. 

The Naturalization Act of 1802 expanded the provisions of the 1795 law and created a “five-year legal residency requirement” prior to granting an immigrant citizenship. Then in 1808, Congress enacted a law forbidding the importation of slaves.

No official immigration records were kept until 1820, but it is estimated that 250,000 immigrants, 1/4 of a million people, arrived in the United States between 1790 and 1820 – the 1st 30 years of the Constitutionally governed United States. It is estimateed that an additional 10 million immigrants came to American between 1820 and 1875 when the US passed its first “restrictive” immigration law.

A total of 10 million 250 thousand people “immigrated” to the United States between 1790 and 1875. The first “restrictive immigration law” in 1875 excluded “convicts” and “prostitutes”, the 1st classes of individuals to be denied “lawful entry” into the United States. Those same “class” restrictions continue to this day. 

In 1903 the United States added “anarchists” to the list of those to be “denied entry” into the United States. An anarchist is someone who who seeks to overturn, by violence, all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchists

In 1918 Congress expanded this exclusion when it enacted the “Anarchist Act” which expanded the definition of those to be denied entry to include,  “a person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against any established rule, law, or custom.”. The Act of 1918 did not only deny admission to the United States but also provided a basis to deport “anarchists” out of the Country.

The Act specifically identified the following people

            (a) aliens who are anarchists;

(b) aliens who advise, advocate, or teach, or who are members of, or affiliated with, any organization, society, or group, that advises, advocates, or teaches opposition to all organized government;
(c) aliens who believe in, advise, advocate, or teach, or who are members of, or affiliated with, any organization, association, society, or group, that believes in, advises, advocates, or teaches:
(1) the overthrow by force or violence of the Government of the United States or of all forms of law, or
(2) the duty, necessity, or propriety of the unlawful assaulting or killing of any officer or officers, either of specific individuals or of officers generally, of the Government of the United States or of any other organized government, because of his or their official character, or
(3) the unlawful damage, injury, or destruction of property, or
(4) sabotage;
(d) aliens who write, publish, or cause to be written or published, or who knowingly circulate, distribute, print, or display, or knowingly cause to be circulated, distributed, printed, or displayed, or knowingly have in their possession for the purpose of circulation, distribution, publication, or display any written or printed matter, advising, advocating, or teaching opposition to all government, or advising, advocating, or teaching:
(1) the ovethrow by force or violence of the Government of the United States or of all forms of law, or
(2) the duty, necessity, or propriety of the unlawful assaulting or killing of any officer or officers of the Government of the United States or of any other government, or
(3) the unlawful damage, injury, or destruction of property, or
(4) sabotage;
(e) aliens who are members of, or affiliated with, any organization, association, society, or group, that writes, circulates, distributes, prints, publishes, or displays, or causes to be written, circulated, distributed, printed, published, or displayed, or that has in its possession for the purpose of circulation, distribution, publication, or display, any written or printed matter of the character in subdivision (d).  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_Exclusion_Act

Limits on Immigration- Immigration Quotas – The 1920’s

In the 1920’s Congress implemented the first numerical controls on immigration. Enacted first, as a temporary measure, the 1921 Quota Law marked a major shift in the U.S. approach to immigration control. The law limited immigration from each foreign nation to 3% of the number of foreign-born persons of that nationality residing in the U.S. as of the 1910 census.

The total quota for the Country was 357,000 new immigrants per year.

In 1924, Congress further restricted immigration by reducing the immigration quota from 3% of foreign-born persons under the 1910 census to 2% of the foreign-born under the 1890 census. This change cut the total quota of new immigrants per year to 164,667.

During the 1930’s and the “Great Depression” more people emigrated out of (left) the United States than “immigrated” into the Country. In the entire decade of the 1930’s only 500,000 ( 1/2 million) immigrants entered the United States. In the year 1932 only 35,000 (thirty five thousand) immigrants entered the country while 100,000 (one hundred thousand) left or emigrated out of the country.

In the 1940’s the United States negotoated the first of its “temporary worker” programs with Mexico. 

In a 1948  response to problems created by the devastation of Europe in World War II and the Nazi Holocaust, Congress adopted the Displaced Persons Act that allowed for the admission into the U.S. of some 400,000 non-citizens. 

The Sovereign Right To Regulate Immigration

All sovereign nations have the right to regulate immigration.

See: The Human Rights Library of the University of Minnesota: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/immigrationlaw/chapter2.html

“The broad power of the federal government to regulate the admission, removal, and naturalization of non-citizens has its roots in the early history of the United States. Modern statutes, Supreme Court decisions, and federal agency regulations attest to the plenary (plenary = unlimited or full) nature of this power.” http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/immigrationlaw/chapter2.html

THE SOURCE OF THE FEDERAL POWER 

Throughout the history of the United States the Supreme Court has upheld all manner of federal statutes regulating immigration. By contrast, Supreme Court decisions preclude states from passing legislation that directly impinges on this area of federal dominion. The Supreme Court’s basis for action is clear when the area regulated is naturalization. Article 1, § 8, clause 4, of the United States Constitution specifically grants Congress the power to establish a “uniform Rule of Naturalization.” By expressly allocating this power to Congress, the Constitution prevents the confusion that would result if individual states could bestow citizenship. The Constitution does not, however, explicitly provide that the power to deny admission or remove non-citizens rests with the federal government as opposed to state governments. In the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government’s exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Ultimately the Supreme Court found the plenary power to be an inherent sovereign power. http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/immigrationlaw/chapter2.html

Early cases cite specific constitutional provisions to support the inference that the federal government possesses complete power over international relations, including immigration matters. In addition to citing the foreign commerce power, the Supreme Court in Nishimura Ekiu v. United States (Sup.Ct.1892) cites the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization; the power to declare war, and to provide and maintain armies and navies; and the power to make all laws necessary and proper. The Fong Yue Ting v. United States (Sup.Ct.1893) case adds the power to define and punish piracies, felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations. http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/immigrationlaw/chapter2.html

The Migration and Importation Clause in Article I, § 9, clause 1, provides: “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight….”. The specific limit on congressional power before 1808 could be construed to imply that after 1808, Congress would have power over migration and importation. http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/immigrationlaw/chapter2.html

The War Power, found in Article I, § 8, clause 11, is an additional source of federal control over immigration. The War Power gives Congress the authority to “declare war.” The War Power authorized the exclusion and expulsion of enemy aliens. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of such provisions in Ludecke v. Watkins (Sup.Ct.1948).

National Sovereignty

The United States Supreme Court ultimately found the source of the federal power to regulate immigration in a combination of international and constitutional legal principles. The Chinese Exclusion Case (Sup.Ct.1889) was the first case to hold that the federal power to exclude non-citizens is an incident of national sovereignty. The Court reasoned that every national government has the inherent authority to protect the national public interest. Immigration is a matter of vital national concern. Furthermore, it is the role of the federal government to oversee matters of national concern, while it is the province of the states to govern local matters. Therefore, the Court found that the inherent sovereign power to regulate immigration clearly resides in the federal government.

Subsequent cases reinforced national sovereignty as the source of federal power to control immigration and consistently reasserted the plenary and unqualified scope of this power.

Fong Yue Ting v. United States (Sup.Ct.1893) explicitly held that the power to expel or deport (now “remove”) non-citizens rests upon the same ground as the exclusion power and is equally “absolute and unqualified.”

“To be a sovereign nation, a people must have control over its territory. Without such control, a nation would be unable to govern itself and its borders effectively, and as a result, would be subject to the sovereignty of other nations. The power to regulate immigration is therefore inherent in the Constitution’s creation of a sovereign nation.” 

THE SCOPE OF THE FEDERAL POWER

To date there have been no successful challenges to federal legislation that refuses admission to classes of non-citizens or removes resident aliens. Federal immigration power thus appears limitless. Indeed, the Supreme Court has stated: “[O]ver no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete.” Fiallo v. Bell (Sup.Ct.1977), Kleindienst v. Mandel, (Sup.Ct.1972), and Oceanic Steam Nav. Co. v. Stranahan (Sup.Ct.1909). Extreme judicial deference bears witness to the truth of this statement.

The United States Constitution & The United Nations Charter

The Constitution and the U.N. Charter have been dismissed as grounds for opposing federal immigration power. The federal courts and immigration authorities have without much consideration rejected an assertion in Hitai v. INS (2d Cir.1965), Vlissidis v. Anadell (7th Cir.1959), and Matter of Laurenzano (BIA 1970) that the immigration quota system is inconsistent with the U.N. Charter. The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of federal statutes that detain non-citizens for the brief period necessary for their removal proceedings (Demore v. Kim (Sup.Ct.2003)) and that exclude non-citizens on the basis of race (Chinese Exclusion Case (1889)) and political belief (Kleindienst v. Mandel (Sup.Ct.1972)). Moreover, excluded non-citizens have no constitutional right to a hearing. Shaughnessy v. Mezei (Sup.Ct.1953). Mezei also determined that excludable non-citizens can be indefinitely detained if their country of origin refuses to accept them.

THE FUNCTIONS OF THE THREE BRANCHES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN REGULATING IMMIGRATION

The plenary and unqualified power of the federal government to regulate immigration, naturalization, and related foreign policy belongs to Congress. The possible international consequences of decisions in this area have made the federal judiciary extremely reluctant to substitute its judgment for the legislature’s. Justice Jackson articulated the Court’s position in Harisiades v. Shaughnessy (Sup.Ct.1952): “[A]ny policy towards aliens is vitally and intricately interwoven with contemporaneous policies in regard to the conduct of foreign relations, the war power, and the maintenance of a republican form of government. Such matters are so exclusively entrusted to the political branches of government as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry or interference.” Subsequent decisions echo this sentiment. Since the judiciary poses no obstacle, Congress has been historically free to “exclude aliens altogether or prescribe the terms and conditions upon which they may enter and stay in this country.” Lapina v. Williams (Sup.Ct.1914).

For example, Congress exercised its plenary authority in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”) that facilitated the removal of non-citizens.

The Supreme Court and the Paths To Citizenship

The Fourteenth Amendment “contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only, birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark (Sup.Ct.1898). As with exclusion and deportation (now “inadmissibility” and “removal”), the Supreme Court has accorded great deference to the naturalization guidelines set by Congress. In United States v. Ginsberg (1917) the Court stated, “An alien who seeks political rights as a member of this nation can rightfully obtain them only upon the terms and conditions specified by Congress. Courts are without authority to sanction changes or modifications; their duty is rigidly to enforce the legislative will….” In cases involving classifications in the naturalization process, the Court has given a near absolute presumption of validity to distinctions drawn by Congress.

Congress has been historically free to “exclude aliens altogether or prescribe the terms and conditions upon which they may enter and stay in this country.” Lapina v. Williams (Sup.Ct.1914).

The Executive Branch and Immigration

As in other areas of the law, the function of executive agencies in the field of immigration is to enforce the legislation passed by Congress. The Executive Branch is not empowered to create Immigration Policy.

A Brief History of 20th Century Immigration Law Reform 

THE 1952 ACT

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA) consolidated previous immigration laws into one coordinated statute. As amended, the 1952 Act provided the foundation for immigration law in effect today.

The 1952 Act retained the national origins quota and established a 150,000 person limit.

Within the quota system, four types of entrance preferences were established. First preference was given to those entrants with skills or experience needed by the U.S. economy. Those persons with close family relations to U.S. citizens or permanent residents received lower preferences.

It should be noted that spouses, children, and parents of U.S. citizens were not and are still not subject to the quota or preference system. For that reason, they are called “immediate relatives.”

Following the passage of the 1952 law a large increase in apprehensions of deportable non-citizens occurred. The Border Patrol, numbering just about 1,000 strong, apprehended 800,000 deportable non-citizens in 1952; in 1954, that number increased to one million.

THE 1965 AMENDMENTS

The 1965 amendments replaced the national origins formula with a limit of 20,000 on each country in the Eastern Hemisphere and an overall limit of 170,000 for that hemisphere. The law established a quota of 120,000 for the Western Hemisphere, without preferences or country limits to take effect in 1968. ( A total of 290,000 new “legal immigrants” were to be allowed per year).

The 1965 amendments abolished the old four-preference system and established in its place a seven-preference system for close relatives and those immigrants with needed occupational skills from the Eastern Hemisphere.

Spouses of U.S. citizens were permitted to immigrate without reference to the quota or preference system.

Under the preference system, unmarried adult children of U.S. citizens received highest preference; second preference was granted to spouses and unmarried children of permanent residents. The preference for immigrants of “exceptional ability” and those in “the professions” was changed from first to third. Other relatives of citizens and permanent residents received the fourth and fifth preferences. Sixth preference was given to needed workers. Seventh preference was allocated to refugees.

THE 1976 AMENDMENT

The 1976 amendment applied the Eastern Hemisphere preference system to the Western Hemisphere, both hemispheres were subject to the 20,000 per country limit and the seven preference system.

THE 1978 AMENDMENT

The 1978 amendment established a world-wide quota of 290,000 and applied the same per country limits and seven preference system to both hemispheres. This worldwide ceiling eliminated the hemisphere consideration and allowed visas to go where the need was greatest.

Illegal Immigration in the 1970’s

The number of deportable non-citizens, which fell in the 1950s, climbed rapidly in the 1960s and 1970s, as did the number of total entries. In 1972, one half million deportable non-citizens were apprehended. By 1977, that annual figure had doubled. The Border Patrol had grown to a force of 2,400.

The Immigration Service estimated that, between undetected border crossings and violations of legal entry conditions, millions of undocumented non-citizens were living in the U.S. in 1974. In 1979 the Border Patrol apprehended one million deportable non-citizens. That year, the INS employed almost 11,000 personnel and had a 300 million dollar budget.

THE 1980 REFUGEE ACT

The Carter Administration asked for special legislation to deal with the issue of the “”Mariel Boat Lift” that delivered 100,000’s of Cubans to the shores of Florida. It later became evident that Fidel Castro, the Communist dictator in Cuba, had emptied his prisons and placed untold number of Cuban criminal felons on the boats with the non-criminal Cubans seeking asylum in the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariel_boatlift . The boat lift began on April 1, 1980 and ended in October 1980.

Estimates vary on how many of the incoming immigrants were “undesirables” or former felons. The low estimate placed the number at 7,500 with a high estimate of 40,000 covicted felons. Congress adopted an official estimate of 12,500. Approximately 2700 of the immigrants were denied entry due to their criminal past.

The “boat lift” was depicted in the movie “Scarface”.

THE 1986 IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL ACT (IRCA) 

In 1980 the United States Census Bureau counted 2,047,000 undocumented non-citizens in the country. Based on the Bureau of Census experience in miscounting other segments of the population, the Bureau had estimated that there were 5,965,000 undocumented persons in the country on census day April 1, 1980. 

The 1986 the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) dealt with the major problem of undocumented workers by imposing sanctions on employers while it legalized the status of undocumented entrants who had arrived prior to January 1, 1982.

In response to the demand for foreign agricultural labor, IRCA created a program that granted temporary and permanent resident status to qualified agricultural workers.

The IRCA did not substantially restructure the immigration law as it pertains to immigration quotas or the requirements for admission.

Another major goal of IRCA was improvement of enforcement and services. The act increased border patrol as well as other enforcement activities of the INS to deter unlawful entry of aliens into the U.S..

In exchange for the increased enforcement provisions of IRCA, Congress offered a broad amnesty for many undocumented non-citizens already present in the country. The one-time, limited amnesty program allowed qualified non-citizens who met its strict deadlines to obtain permanent resident status. To qualify, non-citizens were required to show that they had entered the United States before January 1, 1982, and had resided unlawfully and continuously in the United States from that date until the date they applied for amnesty. Non-citizens who entered with a valid nonimmigrant status that later expired could also qualify for amnesty by showing that their unlawful status was known to the U.S. government. Applicants were specifically required to (1) have been physically present in the U.S. since November 1986, except for “brief, casual, and innocent” absences; (2) meet most of the requirements of immigrant admissibility to the United States; (3) have not been convicted of any felony or of three or more misdemeanors committed in the United States; (4) have not assisted in any form of persecution; and (5) register for the draft, if required to do so.

Non-citizens who met these requirements and filed an application between May 5, 1987, and May 4, 1988, were granted temporary residence. After 18 months of temporary residence, the non-citizens had one year in which to apply for adjustment to permanent resident status or they would become undocumented once again. To adjust to permanent resident status, applicants were again required to meet the criteria for permanent residence and also meet minimal English and civics requirements.

IRCA mandated procedures to ensure strict confidentiality. The Act allowed voluntary organizations to receive applications and forward them to the INS. Whether a non-citizen applied through such an organization or directly to the INS, access to information in the applications was restricted to INS officers with no deportation responsibilities and the INS could only use the information to make a determination on the application or impose penalties for false statements.

Despite these precautions, response to the amnesty program was less enthusiastic than expected. The INS originally estimated that between two and four million applications would be filed by the almost 5.5 million illegals estimated to be in the Country, but when the program ended, only 1.4 million people had applied for amnesty.

A proposal to extend the application deadline passed the House of Representatives but died in the Senate, due to fears that an extension would send the message that the U.S. could not enforce its immigration laws. The program thus ended as planned on May 4, 1988.

Another concern in adopting IRCA was the potential adverse financial impact on the states. For this reason, IRCA included extensive provisions disqualifying newly legalized non-citizens (except Cuban/Haitian entrants) from receiving most federal public welfare assistance for five years. Appropriations were also included to compensate state and local governments for other public assistance and medical benefits conferred upon people granted amnesty, as well as for the costs of incarcerating undocumented non-citizens and “Mariel” Cubans.

IRCA also established a separate program for granting temporary and permanent status to qualified agricultural workers. This program was the result of agribusiness pressure for greater availability of such farm workers.

THE IMMIGRATION ACT OF 1990

In 1990, Congress passed a series of amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act, collectively referred to as the Immigration Act of 1990 (“1990 Act” also known as “IMMACT 90”).

The most visible feature of IMMACT 90 was the increase by approximately 35% in the numerical limitation system, or overall immigration allowed. IMMACT 90 established an annual limit for worldwide immigration of 700,000 for three years, after which it decreased to 675,000. Because other provisions of the 1990 Act allowed immigration of groups not counted in the 700,000, and a separate law permitted as many as 125,000 refugees to be legally admitted, the actual worldwide immigration limit was closer to 800,000.

This number represented a nearly 300% increase over the 290,000 immigrants allowed in 1978. 

The 1990 Act increased the allocation for both family-related and employee-related immigration. In addition, the new law created a separate basis by which “diversity” immigrants, that is, nationals of countries with relatively low numbers of immigrants since 1965, could gain entry.

Of the first 700,000 annual allotment, 465,000 visas were made available to family-sponsored immigrants, 140,000 for employment-based immigrants, and 55,000 for diversity immigrants.

Beginning October 1, 1991, all family-sponsored immigration was limited to approximately 480,000 annually for two years, after which the yearly limit dropped to 465,000. The relatively large percentage of the overall limit allocated to family-related immigration reflected the continued commitment to family unity as a primary goal of immigration policy.

There is still no limit on immigration by immediate relatives.

The 1990 Act did guarantee admission of at least 226,000 other relatives of U.S. citizens and permanent residents, an increase of approximately 65,000 over the former quota, set just 4 years previously in 1986.

THE ACTS OF 1996 (AEDPA and IIRIRA)

Three new immigration acts were signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996.

The first of these acts was the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), which became law on April 24, 1996.

The second was the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (Welfare Reform Act), which became law on August 22, 1996. The changes made by the Welform Reform Act were part of a comprehensive reform of the American Welfare System and were not reforms solely made to target immigrants or illegal immigrants.

The third was the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), which became law on September 30, 1996. The AEDPA and IIRIRA increased the number of criminal acts for which a non-citizen could be removed and eliminated nearly all forms of relief for non-citizens with criminal convictions.

IIRIRA also stiffened the requirement for affidavits of support for immigrants entering on the basis of their relationship to U.S. citizens or permanent residents. A sponsor must agree in the affidavit to provide support for the immigrant at an annual income that is not less than 125% of the federal poverty standard. Also, the sponsor must reimburse the government if the non-citizen receives means-tested public benefits within ten years of admission, unless he or she has naturalized. IIRIRA also added a ground of removability for any non-citizen who becomes a “public charge” within five years of admission.

Like the affidavit of support requirement, the 1996 Welfare Act reflected Congress’ concern that immigrants were placing an increasing burden on the federal budget. The Welfare Act made most non-citizens, including permanent residents, ineligible for federal benefits such as food stamps and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Immigrants who entered the country after August 22, 1996, were ineligible for all means-tested public benefits for a period of five years. The Welfare Act also authorized the states to deny benefits to certain classes of non-citizens.

In 1998 reinstated federal benefits for most permanent residents who were receiving them before passage of the Act.

SECTION 434 & SECTION 642 of the 1996 ACT

The 1996 law states the following: 

Pursuant to § 434 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA, P.L. 104-193) and § 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA, P.L. 104-208) states and localities may not limit their governmental entities or officers from maintaining records regarding a person’s immigration status, or bar the exchange of such information with any federal, state, or local entity.

This language was placed in the “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” of 1996 in repsonse to the creation “Sanctuary Cities” and the adoption of “Sanctuary City Statutes” by many U.S. cities,

As the previous parargarphs clearly establish, Immigration Laws and Quotas are the responisbility of the Federal Government, any attempt by State of City Governments to usurp this power from the Federal Government is unconstitutional. A States attempt to enforce a Federal Immigration Law is not unconstitutional. Simply put, while States and Cities don’t create Immigration Law, they are expected to enforce them.

http://www.ilw.com/immigrationdaily/news/2009,1026-crs.pdf

 WHAT IS A SANCTUARY CITY?

The term “Sanctuary City” refers to a city or state that enacts policies which are favorable to illegal immigrants. Specifically, sanctuary cities often mandate local laws which prevent inquiry into a person’s immigration status.

How does one administer the Federal, State and Local criminal laws and civil laws governing the allocation and distribution  of Federal, State and Local Welfare benefits? 

Sanctuary policies are a violation of federal law, such as the section 642(a) of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which prohibits the embedding of illegal immigrants, and the March 2005 United States Supreme Court case, Muehler v Mena, which stated that law enforcement has the right to ask about immigration status.

While the laws differ from Commmunity to Community, an example of a “Sanctuary City” ordinance, taken from the city of Tacoma Park, Maryland, follows: 

“Introduced by: Councilmember Seamens First Reading: October 22, 2007:   Second Reading: October 29, 2007

CITY OF TAKOMA PARK, MARYLAND, ORDINANCE NO. 2007-58,

AN ORDINANCE REAFFIRMING AND STRENGTHENING THE CITY OF TAKOMA PARK’S IMMIGRATION SANCTUARY LAW

WHEREAS, in 1985, as an expression of these values, the Takoma Park City Council passed the City of Refuge Ordinance, which prohibits City employees, including police officers, from cooperating with federal immigration authorities in the enforcement of civil and criminal immigration laws and prohibits City employees from requesting or disclosing information regarding the immigration status of individuals.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TAKOMA PARK, MARYLAND:

SECTION 1. Title 9, Civil Liberties and Human Relations, Chapter 4, Rights of Non-U.S. Citizens in Takoma Park, of the Takoma Park Code (2004 edition) is amended as follows:                                                                   9.04.010 No City enforcement of immigration laws.                            A. No agent, officer or employee of the City, in the performance of official duties, shall assist the United States Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the investigation or arrest of any persons for civil or criminal violation of the immigration and nationality laws of the United States.

9.04.020 No inquiries into citizenship. No agent, officer or employee of the City, in the performance of official duties, shall ask any person about his or her citizenship or immigration status or inquire about any person’s citizenship or immigration status with any third person. No agent, officer or employee of the City, in the performance of official duties, shall release any information regarding the citizenship or residency status of any City resident.immigration status of any individual to any third party.”

http://www.takomaparkmd.gov/clerk/agenda/items/2007/102907-2.pdf

The intent of the Tacoma Park, Maryland statute is obvious, a liberal attempt to usurp the Federal Governements authoirty to regulate immigration into the United States and to disrupt the co-operation between Federal, State and City Law Enforcement officials while they attempt to enforce the laws of this Country. How does one enforce Federal or State welfare laws that prohibit dispersing benefits to illegal aliens while reserving the benefits for citizens and “legal immigrants” if one cannot make a legal determination of who is in the Country legally and who is here illegally? 

The devastating effect this short sighted, unconstitutional activity could have on the safety of America became all to clear on September 11, 2001.

 THE COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM 09/11/2001

The September 11, 2001, attacks resulted in significant changes in immigration law and policy. Congress passed several acts intended to improve national security, including the USA Patriot Act (115 Stat. 272), the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act (116 Stat. 543), and the Homeland Security Act (116 Stat. 2135). One of the most dramatic consequences of these measures was the elimination of the INS and the transfer of immigration functions to the Department of Homeland Security in 2003. Other provisions of these acts broadened the class of people who can be excluded or removed for terrorist activity, mandated increased screening of applicants for admission, and called for new data systems to track non-citizens in the U.S.

Department of Homeland Security

In November 2002, Congress passed the Homeland Security Act (116 Stat. 2135), which abolished the Immigration and Naturalization Service and transferred most immigration functions to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). As suggested by the Commission on Immigration Reform some years earlier (see § 1-7.6, supra), the INS’ service and enforcement functions were separated in this reorganization. These functions have been divided among three bureaus within the DHS: the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), which adjudicates immigrant and nonimmigrant petitions, naturalization petitions, asylum applications, and other matters; the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which includes the Border Patrol and immigration inspections at ports of entry; and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which enforces immigration laws in the interior of the U.S..

Restrictions on Immigration

The USA Patriot Act (115 Stat. 272) broadened the definition of terrorist as used in the grounds for inadmissibility and removal. Under this Act, anyone who endorses or provides financial support to a terrorist organization, or who actually participates in terrorist activities, is inadmissible or removable.

To identify possible terrorists, U.S. consulates are required to check visa applicants’ names against “lookout lists” prior to issuing a visa.

Monitoring of Non-Citizens in the U.S.

After September 11, the INS was criticized for its inability to track non-citizens in the U.S. or to identify persons who might pose a threat to national security. In 2002, the INS promulgated regulations requiring nonimmigrants from twenty-five countries to register at INS district offices and report periodically as to their whereabouts and activities in the U.S. See § 8-2.2(c), infra. That same year, the INS and the State Department implemented a new database system, called “SEVIS” to track foreign students. Immigration authorities also began to enforce change of address reporting requirements that had been part of the INA since 1952 but were rarely publicized or enforced.

ATTEMPTED IMMIGRATION REFORM OF 2007

U.S. House Passes Drake Amendment to Eradicate Sanctuary Cities. Amendment withholds federal funding for localities that violate Section 642(a) of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act

July 25, 2007

Washington D.C. — The U.S. House of Representatives today passed an amendment by Representative Thelma Drake (R-Va.) to H.R. 2638, the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008.  Passing by a voice vote, Rep. Drake’s amendment aims to eliminate what are commonly referred to as “sanctuary policies” in local municipalities, whereby law enforcement officials are barred from asking suspects about their immigration status or reporting them to Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE).  The amendment will ensure that existing law is enforced uniformly across the country by withholding federal funding for cities that choose to violate section 642(a) of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA).

“Although predominately a federal issue, we have all witnessed how the epidemic of illegal immigration can impact members of a local community,” said Rep. Drake.  “Solving this problem is going to require the commitment from all levels of government to engage in an active partnership.

“Sanctuary cities undermine these partnerships by willfully and selectively choosing to disregard federal laws that are already on the books.  Most Americans agree that if you want to get serious about addressing our nation’s failed immigration system, enforcing existing laws is a good place to start.

“This amendment says that when Congress took steps to eradicate sanctuary policies back in the Nineties, we meant it.  I am committed to ensuring that this language remains in the legislation and is signed into law by the President.”

Under section 642(a) of IIRIRA, a “Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.”

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ca50_bilbray/morenews/drakeamend.shtml

The Democratically controlled U.S. Senate blocked a vote on the Drake Amendment in 2007 & 2008.

THE ARIZONA LAW 2009

See: https://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2010/05/05/the-immigration-debate-arizonas-law-facts-from-fiction-are-you-tired-of-being-lied-to/

The State of Arizona passed Arizona House Bill 2162 and it was signed into law on April 26, 2010. http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2162c.htm

On the day the law wasssigned into effect Arizona has at least 4 ”Sanctuary Cities” violating the Federal Law; Phoenix, Tuscon, Chandler and Mesa. 

Section 3 of the Arizona is titled; “Cooperation and assistance in enforcement of immigration laws.”

Section 3 of the Arizona Law mandates that all State, Local and City Employees enforce both Federal and State laws regarding criminal acts committed by illegal aliens. The law mandates that the laws be enforced “concurrently” by all Federal, State and Local law enforcement officials.

Section 3 does not permit law enforcement officials to stop and ask anyone for their ID. No one!

Section 3 does require that once law enforcement officials have “stoppped, detained or arrested” an individual and are “conducting a criminal investigation”, the suspect will be asked for identification.

All indivuals who find themselves the subject of an investigation will be asked for their ID.

PRESUMPTION OF LAWFUL CITIZENSHIP UNDER THE ARIZONA LAW

Any individual who can produce one of the following pieces of identification is presumed to be a “lawful citizen of the United States”:  1).  A valid Arizona driver license. 2).  A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license. 3).  A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.  4).  If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.

Section 3 also provides, “A law enforcement official or agency may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution”.

FEDERAL DETERMINATION OF CITIZENSHIP STATUS UNDER THE ARIZONA LAW

If some one is “stopped, detained or arrested” and cannot produce identification, the law enforcement officals are instructed to continue their investigation, however, the determination of whether any individual is an “illegal alien” is determined according to Federal Law: “In the implementation of this section, an alien’s immigration status may be determined by: 1.  A law enforcement officer who is authorized by the federal government to verify or ascertain an alien’s immigration status, or 2.  The United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement or the United States Customs and Border Protection Act pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c).”

THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG – SCAAP PAYMENTS – THE HIDDEN COST OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: 

SCAAP is a payment program administered by OJP, through its component the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), in conjunction with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) bureau within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).2 SCAAP was authorized by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 to provide federal assistance to states and localities for the costs of incarcerating certain criminal aliens who are in custody based on state or local charges or convictions.3 In fiscal year (FY) 2005, BJA distributed $287.1 million in SCAAP payments to 752 state, county, and local jurisdictions.4

The following table displays the 10 jurisdictions that received the largest SCAAP payments from the FY 2005 appropriation. Collectively, they accounted for nearly 69 percent of the SCAAP payments made from that appropriation.

TOP TEN SCAAP RECIPIENTS – FY 2005
State Jurisdiction Amount
California State of California5 $ 85,953,191
New York State of New York 24,022,356
Texas State of Texas 18,582,484
New York City of New York 15,893,255
Florida State of Florida 12,806,110
California Los Angeles County6 12,530,034
Arizona State of Arizona 12,139,791
California Orange County 6,562,437
Illinois State of Illinois 4,731,269
Massachusetts State of Massachusetts 4,728,549
TOTAL $197,949,476
       

 

  The program only reimburses states and localities that incur correctional officer salary costs for incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens who: (1) have at least one felony or two misdemeanor convictions for violations of state or local law, and (2) are incarcerated for at least four consecutive days during the established reporting period.7 Applicants for funding are required to provide correctional officer salary costs, the total of all inmate days, and details about eligible inmates housed in their correctional facilities during that period.

In April 2005, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report stating that 80 percent of the SCAAP aliens were incarcerated in the five states of Arizona, California, Florida, New York, and Texas in FY 2003.

The total costs for Federal, State and Local detection, apprehension, arrest and incarceration  are in the 100,’s of billions of dollars.

REPEAT OFFENDERS IN THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT COMMUNITY

The Department of Homeland Security reported the following to Congress.

Congression asked the Department of Homeland Security to determine how many criminal offenses were committed by criminal aliens who were released from state or local custody without a referral to DHS for removal from the United States.

To address this question, the DHS performed limited testing to determine the number of subsequent arrests of criminal aliens who were released from state or local custody. We based our testing on information from the vetted FY 2004 SCAAP database, which was the last year when ICE reported to BJA on the status of every person identified in support of applications for SCAAP funding. There were 262,105 records in that database. We requested assistance from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to have those records compared to arrest data in the FBI’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC).

After querying NCIC, the FBI provided us with nearly 433,000 text files that could not be searched by automated means. The volume of files was too great to search manually and quantify the results. Consequently, we judgmentally selected a sample of 100 criminal histories, which we reviewed for evidence of arrests of criminal aliens subsequent to June 30, 2003. The criminal histories for 73 of the 100 individuals documented at least one arrest after that date. Those 73 individuals accounted for a total of 429 arrests, with 878 charges and 241 convictions. These figures represent an average of nearly six arrests per individual.

The charges for the 73 individuals ranged from traffic violations and trespassing to more serious crimes, such as burglary or assault. Some of those charges included:

• 166 drug-related;

• 37 immigration-related;

• 213 burglary, robbery, or theft;

• 40 assault;

• 10 property damage;

 • 3 terrorist threat;

and 13 weapons charges.

Based on this limited sample, the DHS could not statistically extrapolate the number of offenses committed by undocumented criminal aliens who were released from local custody without a referral to ICE. Based on the information available to us in the criminal histories, we could not determine the number of the criminal aliens in our sample that were deported, if any, and later arrested after reentering the United States. We also could not determine if ICE was notified before the criminal aliens in our sample were released from custody. But if this data is indicative of the full population of 262,105 criminal histories, the rate at which released criminal aliens are rearrested is extremely high. http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/OJP/a0707/final.pdf

IMMIGRATION 2010

Today, in 2010, as in every year since the mid 1980′s, the US has allowed at least 1 million (1,000,000) new immigrants to enter this Country. More than 1 million each and every year. Yes, despite our economic down turn, over 1,000,000 immigrants entered this Country as LPRs (Legal Permanent Residents) in 2009. http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/lpr_fr_2009.pdf            Yes, the exact number, according to the Obama Administration, was            1,130, 818 ( 1 million, 130 thousand, 8 hundred and eighteen) for the year ending December 2009.

An additional 1,000,000 immigrants were granted the rights of “Naturalized Citizens” in 2009. http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/natz_fr_2009.pdf

In addition to these numbers, believe it or not, it is estimated that 160 million (160,000,000) non-immigrant admissions occur on an annual basis. Non-immigrant admission include, ”tourists and business travelers from Canada, Mexican nationals with Border Crossing Cards, ….”.  http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ni_fr_2009.pdf

The United States allows more “legal” immgration every year than all the other Countries in the world  combined.

ClimateGate: Debunking Global Warmings 5 Sacred Myths

The Global Warming Myth – Debunking Global Warmings 5 Commandments

The Five Things You Need To Know About The Global Warming Myth

1).  Carbon Dioxide, CO2, is not a pollutant. Carbon Dioxide is a naturally occurring element in our atmosphere. Carbon Dioxide is no more a pollutant than say, oxygen or nitrogen. Without CO2 there would be no life on earth.  http://www.eoearth.org/article/Carbon_cycle  . Carbon Dioxide is the food which keeps plants alive. Through photosynthesis plants transform CO2 into plant food. Oxygen is produced as a waste product. All living things are dependent on this ”Cycle”. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/carbon_cycle2.php 

Carbon Dioxide is called a “green house gas” because it allows visable light to pass through while it absorbs infrared and near infrared rays. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide  

The human body produces CO2 naturally. The Human Respiration System is the system that controls the exchange of oxygen for CO2 in the Human Body. Everytime you breath out you are exhaling CO2.

Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. Carbon Dioxide is a natural atmospheric element. All life on earth is dependent on CO2. Without CO2 there would be no life on earth. Compared to past history, the Earth’s atmosphere is currently CO2 “impoverished”.On average, there is less CO2 in the atmosphere today than there has been since life formed on earth.

2). Even at present levels, Carbon Dioxide is a trace gas. Current CO2 levels are only a small fraction of the Earths atmosphere, CO2 represents less than 1/2 of one percent of the atmosphere today.

The CO2 content in the atmosphere is measured in terms of CO2 parts per million (ppm) by volume. At present the globally averaged concentration of CO2 is stated as 387 PPM. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide  For every million parts (1,000,000,000 parts) in the atmosphere 387 of those parts are CO2. CO2 levels have increased over the past 50 years from 320 PPM to today’s 387 PPM, an increase of 67 PPM.  

The CO2 level today, 387 PPM, can be compared to with a level of  8000 PPM (20X todays levels) 500 million years ago or CO2 levels of 2000 – 3000 PPM (5 to 6 times todays levels) during the Jurasic Period, when the Great Dinosaurs roamed the earth. http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1.shtml

During the ice ages CO2 levels fell to between 200PPM and 280 PPM. During interglacial periods the CO2 Level has been measured at between 280 – 310 PPM. One does not need a calculator to see that current CO2 levels are much nearer to those recorded during the Ice Age and the interglacial periods than that time when Earth’s great green forests were first formed. CO2 is essential for plant life and growth. 

In a longer historical context – Earth’s current CO2 Levels are quite low. http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-08-18/dioxide.htm

In fact, in Earth’s entire history there have only been two prior periods where CO2 levels were this low, . http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-08-18/dioxide.htm ,   ”Today, at 370 PPM our atmosphere is CO2-impoverished”  http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous climate.html . “So far the signal of a discernible human contribution to global climate change has not emerged from this natural variability or background noise.”

“Without the warming caused by natural levels of CO2 and water vapor in our atmosphere, the average surface temperature of our planet would be well below freezing.” http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=17726

3). Human’s produce a very small percentage of  the CO2 found in the Atmosphere:

Over 95% of the total CO2 emissions into our atmosphere would occur even if humans were not present on Earth. For example, the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands, such as dead trees and grasses, results in the release of about 220 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide every year. This carbon dioxide alone is over 8 times the amount emitted by humans. There are many other sources of CO2 in the Earth’s atmopshere. 

The Earth’s Oceans contain 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide ,  http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=17726 .

If 5% of todays CO2 is produced by human activity (95% would occur if no humans existed on the planet) then a simple calculation will provide us with an absolute figure for Human CO2 production. 387 PPM CO2 x 5% = 19.35 PPM.

How does this compare to the Earth’s total atmosphere?

Well for every 1 Million (1,000,000) parts of atmosphere, there are Seven Hundred Eighty One Thousand (781,000) parts Nitrogen, Two Hundred Ten Thousand (210,000) parts Oxygen, Nine Thousand Parts (9,000) Argon and Three Hundred Eighty Seven Parts (387) CO2. All other gases account for the remaining 500 plus parts. http://web.rollins.edu/~jsiry/VapgasAt.htm 

Total CO2  in the atmosphere represents . (CO2 is less than half of one tenth of 1 percent of the atmosphere – If the atmosphere were a $100 dollar bill – all the CO2 in the atmosphere would equal less than 4 cents). http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/atmos_gases.html .  

I asked a scientific friend to help me conceptualize this amount with an everyday example. Just how big is the total contribution of manmade CO2 to the Earth’s atmosphere? The friend couldn’t remember where he first heard this comparison, so I cannot provide a site, he didn’t want to take personal credit, but here goes; “Imagine a Farmers field 100 miles long and 100 miles wide. It is filled with corn. A mouse sitting in the middle of the field farts.” Ask yourself,”Will the fart affect the crop?” As much as manmade CO2 affects our global temperatures. 

4). Temperature Impacts CO2 Level   –  CO2 levels do not drive Temperature Change

First, CO2 levels rise and fall with the seasons or time of day. CO2 levels rise in the Autumn and Winter as green plants go dormant or die. The plants cease to “process” CO2 as part of their food chain. In the spring and summer CO2 levels fall as these same plants come back to life and consume CO2 in photosyntesis. Likewise CO2 levels fluctuate in the night and day. http://www.learner.org/courses/envsci/visual/animation.php?shortname=anm_co2_levels

Read:  Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Science, MIT http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/30/lindzen-on-negative-climate-feedback/

CO2 levels follow changes in temperature, not the other way around.  http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2,Temperaturesandiceages-f.pdf .

“ There is, overall, a good match between temperature and CO2 and temperature. One important piece of information that can be determined from ice core data is whether changes in temperature follow or proceed changes in CO2.” “Changes in temperature precede changes in CO2″  http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yrfig.htm  

http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth ,

First, the total increaase in Global Temperatures over the last 100 years is ……….  7/10s of one degree. That is right, total Global warming over the Century is less than 1 degree.  During that same century the Sun’s measurable intensity or heat has increased.  

“Actual climate history shows no such correlation (that CO2 caused an increase in temperature) and there is no compelling evidence that the recent rise in temperature was caused by CO2.                                                                                           http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Climate_Change_Science.html#Correlation

Numerous papers published in major peer-reviewed scientific journals shows the Sun is the primary driver of climate change. http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N26/EDIT.php , http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/03/16/the-coming-global-cooling/ , http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Climate_Change_Science.html#Sun_Activity , http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

5). Current Global Warming trends are neither catastrophic nor are they unusual given the Earth’s very recent past.

Global Warming Alarmists state that man made CO2 is responsible for what is becoming a catastrophic increase in Global temperatures. (You know the 1 degree increase in the last century).

Science has told us for decades (decades prior to the Global Warming Alarmist taking the stage) that earth’s last ice age (referred to as the “little ice age”) began sometime near the year 1400 and lasted until approximately 1860.  This “little ice age” was responsible for disasters like the “Irish Potato Famine”. The end of the “little ice age” was not preceeded by an increase in CO2 levels. Other natural causes were responsible for the “global warming” which followed the end of the “little ice age” and continues to this date. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html , http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Climate_Change_Science.html#Hockey

During the Middle Ages (1066 – 1485) a time that saw the Norman’s conquest of England, King Richard The Lion Hearted, The Crusades – all 7 of them, the Early Italian Renaissance – a period of time long before the  ”Industrial Revolution”, mankind contributed very little to Global CO2 levels. The Middle Ages experienced a period of global warming that exceeds the global warming of today. Yes, temperatures were higher than they are now, significantly higher.  http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Climate_Change_Science.html#Hockey , http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/06/1049567563628.html ,

“A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today’s temperatures are neither the “warmest ever” nor are the Temperatures producing extreme conditions “never seen before”. The findings of these 240 studies stand in stark contrast to the claims of the alarmists. The findings prove that the world had a medieval warm period between the ninth and 14th centuries, with world temperatures significantly higher than today’s. They also confirm claims that a little Ice Age began in about 1300, with the world cooling dramatically. Just before the turn of the century, in 1900, the world began to warm up, but as of today, has still to reach the balmy temperatures of the Middle Ages.  The end of the little Ice Age is significant because it implies that the records used by climate scientists (THE ALARMISTS) date from when the Earth was relatively cold, thereby exaggerating the significance of today’s temperature rise. According to the researchers, the evidence confirms suspicions that today’s alleged “unprecedented” temperatures are simply the result of examining temperature change over too short a period.   http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/06/1049567563628.html

The Global Warming Alarmists have choosen the “Little Ice Age” to begin their temperature measurements and comparisons. By choosing the coldest period in Earth’s history over the last 10,000 years, the Alarmists are assured of finding data that will show a warming trend. But the warming trend is not unusual when compared to all of Earth’s prior warming trends.

 Philip Stott, emeritus professor of bio-geography at the University of London, said: “What has been forgotten in all the discussion about global warming is a proper sense of history.” http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/06/1049567563628.html , http://www.michaelkeller.com/news/news575.htm , http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/history_health.html , http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/886494/posts ,  http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2514
 

If mankind were to cease all economic production and cease buring all carbon fuels, at best, a 2% reduction in CO2 levels could be had. Additional reductions from manking would need to involve an end to “respiration” – manking would need to stop breathing. Having achieved these miniscule reductions, at fantastic cost and loss of personal freedom, nature could, in the bat of an eye, dramatically reverse any man made reduction. You see, temperature drives the CO2 level, CO2 levels do not drive temperature.    

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=8326 , http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html

Recent studies call into question wether Global Warming is continuing – the studies refute the wild claims concerning the amount of  ”warming” that occurred in the 1990’s. Even the ultra-green “Discovery Channel” has noted studies which indicate “global warming” is on “hold” and may not reappear for decades. That “Global Temperatures have flatlined since 2001″. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29469287/

The Boston Globe has asked, “Where is the Global Warming?”, before noting, “But for many people, the science of climate change is not nearly as important as the religion of climate change. When Al Gore insisted yet again at a conference last Thursday that there can be no debate about global warming, he was speaking not with the authority of a man of science, but with the closed-minded dogmatism of a religious zealot. Dogma and zealotry have their virtues, no doubt. But if we want to understand where global warming has gone, those aren’t the tools we need.” http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/03/08/wheres_global_warming/

UPDATE: 11/05/09

Carbon Dioxide irrelevant in climate debate says MIT Scientist

The pdf file located at the link above from the Science and Public Policy Institute has absolutely, convincingly, and irrefutably proven the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming to be completely false.

Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT’s peer reviewed work states “we now know that the effect of CO2 on temperature is small, we know why it is small, and we know that it is having very little effect on the climate.” http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monthly_report/sppi_monthly_co2_report_july.html      http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/cooler_heads_lindzen-talk-pdf.pdf              

The global surface temperature record, which we update and publish every month, has shown no statistically-significant “global warming” for almost 15 years. Statistically-significant global cooling has persisted for very nearly eight years. Even a strong el Nino – expected in the coming months – will be unlikely to reverse the cooling trend. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/co2_report_july_09.pdf
 
One of the basic premises of Global Warming rests on the assumption that CO2 not only “holds” heat in the earth’s atmosphere, but that it, CO2, also prevents the heat from radiating out into space during earths normal cooling process. Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT has published a study, which underwent comprehensive peer review prior to publication, which demostrates the flaws or inaccuracies in this theory. Dr. Litzen’s study refutes the theory that CO2 is currently preventing heat radiation, because the study demonstrates that there has been no decrease in heat radiation as had been assumed. http://www.watchmanbiblestudy.com/News/2009/08/18%20Carbon%20Dioxide%20irrelevant%20in%20climate%20debate%20says%20MIT%20Scientist.htm  http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/co2_report_july_09.pdf    
 
ADDITIONAL READINGS ON THE TOPIC:
Dr Richard Lindzen, PhD Harvard University and Alfred P Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, ; “Don’t Believe the Hype Al Gore is wrong. There’s no “consensus” on global warming.” – http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597
And this on Britian’s High Court (Supreme Court of Britian) rulings concerning the inaccuracy of Al Gore’s film, an “Inconvenient Truth”,  ”If the UK Government had not agreed to send to every secondary school in England a corrected guidance note making clear the mainstream scientific position on these nine “errors”, he, the ruling Judge, would have made a finding that the Government’s distribution of the film and the first draft of the guidance note earlier in 2007 to all English secondary schools had been an unlawful contravention of an Act of Parliament prohibiting the political indoctrination of children.” Yes, the Highest Court in England ruled Gore’s movie was political indoctrination and not science.  http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

For a very specific review of 35 of the erroreous claims made by Gore in his film see: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

Notice: WATTS UP WITH THAT can now be located at Wattsupwiththat.com

For a very humorous, yet alarming, post on how the “scientific consensus” on the issue of Climate Change have been reached, see this post on the creation of “THE HARVARD ENERGY INITIATIVE” and the “inititaves” relationship to climate science (An insiders look at the Harvard Faculty Club?). http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/04/richard-lindzen-climate-of-fear.html

“On the other hand, the funding of climate science as such has grown nearly by one order of magnitude since 1988. Have you ever seen $1.7 billion, the amount that the climate science swallows annually? Or one point seven billion dollars a year worth of mostly junk science? It’s not just the overall macroscopic number we are familiar with. I also know some of the microscopic mechanisms that generate it.”

Harvard energy initiative

On Monday, we had a faculty lunch meeting at the Faculty Club and one of the topics was the so-called “Harvard energy initiative”. A short story is that a large amount of money was given to something described by these three words – and up to 10 new faculty positions are expected to be created – except that no one knows what “Harvard energy initiative” means and what people should be hired. So one of the rather well-known Earth and Planetary Scientists at Harvard decided to meet with the physics department and to ask for ideas what “Harvard energy initiative” could mean…… The well known Physicis Department Professor stated, “I know what “high energy physics” means – we study physics of high-energy particles to determine the architecture of matter at very short distances” ….. Obviously, our colleague has a different energy in mind. Energy whose main feature is that it is not conserved. Energy that does not commute with momentum because whenever energy has to commute, we lose energy. It’s more about the energy industry except that the initiative will quite obviously be anti-industry because of the very basic philosophical preconceptions of those who are trying to kickstart the project. If you think for a while, you know exactly what will most likely happen. They will probably hire a couple of not-so-intelligent people and promote them to climate scientists and energy initiative professors who will strengthen the “scientific consensus” that the “climate change is real” and the humankind is approaching a catastrophe. They won’t be developing any new energy technologies because this is what either the greedy corporations or MIT are doing. Harvard’s image is different and its energy initiative will be doing something else except that no one knows what it is.  The proposed energy initiative should include the Physics Department, Earth and Planetary Sciences, the Kennedy School of Government, the Harvard Law School, and virtually any other Harvard school you can think of. Great. So what kind of science will you do by combining these people? Note that the university in this story, namely Harvard University, is not such a bad school after all. In fact, it is the most prestigious school in the world. Once you see what mechanisms determine how the new money is spent at Harvard, you may guess how good an investment are the billions of new dollars that are currently flowing to the U.S. climate science every year. Most of this amount is wasted money paid to the people who don’t want to make progress in science. Instead, they have already decided that they already know the most important insights about the world – that it is approaching a climate apocalypse – and by being paid, they do what is really important, namely to increase the political power of the “true believers” who are going to “save the world”. Yes, indeed, I am talking about $1.7 billion worth of religious bigots, and I apologize to the few exceptions for this generalization.””  I reccommend the full post:  http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/04/richard-lindzen-climate-of-fear.html

Also See: Lindzen: Deconstructing global warming   http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/27/lindzen-deconstructing-global-warming/    containing a PDF link to Dr Lindzen’s full report. The report sites the fact that two of the leading “proponents” of Global Warming admit that the “true science” is unsettled, however, that doesn’t matter – “we shouldn’t let that stop us from implementing “other agendas”. Read it for yourself ……. “The idea of climate change should be seen as an intellectual resource around which our collective and personal identities and projects can form and take shape. We need to ask not what we can do for climate change, but to ask what climate change can do for us….Because the idea of climate change is so plastic, it can be deployed across many of our human projects and can serve many of our psychological, ethical, and spiritual needs.We will continue to create and tell new stories about climate change and mobilize them in support of our projects. These myths transcend the scientific categories of ‘true’ and ‘false’”. The actual words from the “Founders” of Climate Change Science …….. I guess they have no shame. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/cooler_heads_lindzen-talk-pdf.pdf

Dr. Lindzen’s actual presentation on this subject can be viewed here: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=22D4DD5727161348

%d bloggers like this: