Download a PDF of this release here.
NPG Releases Position Paper on Sanctuary Legislation
Analysis finds that lack of immigration enforcement and accommodation of illegal aliens cause population growth, decrease quality of life.
After the Supreme Court deadlock in the landmark case of United States v. Texas, Negative Population Growth (NPG) has released a new Position Paper today on the issue of sanctuary legislation. NPG President Donald Mann notes: “Not surprisingly, pro-sanctuary advocates have once again portrayed America’s mass immigration numbers as a humanitarian effort – as well as a holy grail for economic growth. However, NPG’s newest Position paper highlights the real costs of such immigration-driven population growth, showing that a number of the President’s recent programs are simply setbacks on the road to a sustainable future.”
The new NPG Position Paper, titled Sanctuary Cities: Politics Overshadow Responsible U.S. Immigration Policies, counters recent pushes to further expand America’s sanctuary jurisdictions – as well as accommodation for illegal aliens. Mann explains: “President Obama foresaw rich returns in his controversial DACA and DAPA programs, which would grant permanent legal status and ultimately green cards to some 11 million unlawful residents, while doubling the annual intake of new legal immigrants.” However, Mann warns: “Sadly, throughout the High Court’s consideration of this important case, there was absolutely no expression of concern over the recent surge of imported population growth, nor of the subsequent consequences it has created. Unexplained here is how vast acceptance of immigrant populations will increase per capita incomes, create more full-time and high-quality jobs, or improve the quality of life for average American citizens. The reality is that it simply won’t happen.”
The NPG Position Paper works first to explain a long-debated question: what is a sanctuary jurisdiction? Through analysis of legislation and policies around the country, the paper defines a sanctuary jurisdiction as “Any community… which has adopted policies, passed laws, issued executive orders, and/or implemented regulations which: shield illegal aliens from lawful prosecution… including the refusal to detain and/or the release of unlawful immigrants without notification to appropriate federal authorities; entitle unlawful immigrants to benefits which are not available to U.S. citizens or legal immigrants… create an environment which enables immigrants to circumvent America’s existing legal immigration process; and/or establish a ‘penalty-free zone,’ encouraging more immigrants to enter the U.S. illegally or to stay beyond their visa expiration.”
The paper notes: “By NPG’s definition, there are sanctuary jurisdictions across the U.S. In fact – under our nation’s present executive orders, policies, and mass immigration levels – one could argue that America itself has become a sanctuary jurisdiction.” Highlighting the growing trend of acquiescence of unlawful immigration, as well as statistics for recent federal sanctuary policies, the paper also demonstrates that a majority of Americans stand in opposition to sanctuary legislation. “A July 2015 Rasmussen poll found that: ‘62% of likely U.S. voters think the U.S. Justice Department should take legal action against cities that provide sanctuary for illegal immigrants. …58% believe the federal government should cut off funds to cities that provide sanctuary for illegal immigrants.” The NPG paper goes on to explain how today’s levels of mass immigration – including sanctuary policies – are driving U.S. population growth, which is at the root of many of America’s greatest problems.
Mann notes: “According to the Census, immigration will soon surpass births as the primary driver of U.S. population growth. So I’d like to see discussion of the consequences of that growth: a lack of affordable housing, drought and water shortages, and the loss of open space and farmland.” The NPG Position Paper concludes: “America’s embrace of sanctuary policies only serves to diminish our rule of law, environment, and threaten our future. We must insist on enforcement of existing laws – which includes the complete elimination of sanctuary policies… and reduce the U.S. population to a much smaller, truly sustainable size. Changing our present immigration policies in this way is absolutely essential, if we are ever to preserve our natural resources and ensure an enjoyable – or even livable – quality of life for future generations.”
World population, now over 7.3 billion, is predicted to rise to 9 billion by 2050, an increase of almost two billion, or 23%, in the short space of only 34 years from now.In the highly unlikely event that per capita greenhouse gas emissions could possibly be decreased by an equal percentage in such a short space of time (a blink of an eye) the total amount of worldwide emission would remain the same!
From this simple illustration it would appear that without drastically reducing the size of world population, there is no solution to the problem.None at all.So then why do our world leaders pretend that there is one?What is to be gained by pretending rather than by proposing a solution that would solve the problem – a reduction in the size of world population to not more than 1- 2 billion?
Latest posts by NPG (see all)
- NPG Awards National Student Scholarshipsfor 2018-2019 Academic Year - July 17, 2018
- THE EPA, CAR EMISSIONS, AND CALIFORNIA - July 12, 2018
- NPG is Pleased to Announce the Winners of Our 2018 Essay Scholarship Contest - July 9, 2018