Submissions received
Stephanie Steel submitted her own paper
Ms. Steel is a student at Princeton University. In her introductory note she wrote: I am submitting a report I wrote for my junior paper in opposition of HR 4437, its attached to the email. My paper draws from a variety of sound sources and I included my bibliography and put asterisks on the two sources I found to be most helpful in forming my argument : Lisa Marie Cacho - an article exposing the ludicrisy of white injury and Doug Massey's book Crossing the Border. He is a professor at my school who has some of the leading empirical research on immigration, he has a few books so he would be a good person to read up on.	The American Fantasy: xenophobic immigration policy and its influence on the racial tensions that perpetuate segregation and disparity in California’s Public Schools
My comments to Ms. Steel’s submission Ms. Steel wrote her paper with the intention of analyzing how xenophobia affects immigration policy; she took HR.4437 as a reference point. In this sense, Ms. Steel’s report is not a comprehensive analysis of the immigration issue that meets the criteria of the $100 challenge posted here. Nevertheless, I value this report for a very good scientific analysis of the extremely touchy subject of xenophobia in Americans’ approach to immigration. I recommend the reading of this report to all opponents of increased immigration. When reading this paper, one wishes that the author put more emphasis on explaining where xenophobia originates and how it plays in today’s American society. For someone who has some knowledge of the anti-Semitic propaganda in Nazi Germany, the similarities to the present day anti-immigration rhetoric are striking. I encourage Ms. Steel to write a paper comparing the anti-Semitism of that time to the anti-immigration propaganda now. The weakest part of this report is that the author appeals to compassion when looking into how to resolve current immigration problem. This compassionate approach means that we should grant currently illegal immigrants legal status on humanitarian grounds. Taking this action implies that by giving amnesty to illegal immigrants, we give them something that is ours, that we in fact share with them our wealth. This approach is not based on facts and logic. The facts are that, objectively, increased immigration has contributed to the present economical boom. The American middle class benefits the most from cheap immigrant labor. Please read: http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/katz/papers/mex_immig_nber_wp.pdf . There are billions of poor people around the world and Americans cannot help all of them out of compassion. In other words, being compassionate is not a good, realistic argument for helping current illegal immigrants. Americans need to be selfish in pursuing what is best for them. The point of the arguments presented in my essays is that it is in the best egoistic interest of Americans to admit more immigrants. By admitting more immigrants, Americans do not need to give up any part of their wealth. Quite the opposite, they open a new venue to enrich themselves. As the paper by Ms. Steel does not meet formal criteria for the $100 challenge, she cannot receive this award. However, because there are not many challenges that have been submitted, and in recognition for her good work in analyzing the touchy subject of xenophobia, I am granting to Ms. Steel an honorable mention award in the amount of $99. Henryk A. Kowalczyk October 13, 2006

Don Pratt submitted a paper by Fredo Arias-King
Mr. Pratt is a Director of Alamo Alliance, one of many grass root anti-immigration organizations. A few hours after submitting a paper by Fredo Arias-King, Mr. Pratt withdrew his submission writing to me: "had I known you were such a blatant open borders activist, I would have made no submission." Not much later Mr. Pratt reversed his decision by writing to me: "On second thought, do not withdraw my submission. That article is far to important, and should be read by as many as possible." Mr. Fredo Arias-King is a Harvard-trained businessman and Sovietologist.	Immigration and Usurpation Elites, Power, and the People's Will July 2006 by Fredo Arias-King
My comments to Mr. Arias-King’s paper The paper by Mr Arias-King was presented for the $200 award in the category of reports on immigration that support a policy of sealing the border, rejecting amnesty for illegal aliens, and limiting immigration afterwards. In the introduction to his paper, Mr. Arias-Kings writes that his analysis has been perplexed by his wondering, “Why are politicians so keen on mass immigration while the common American is not?” In other words, the purpose of this paper was not to address the complexity of the immigration issue, but to discuss some politics associated with it. Therefore, this paper does not formally meet the criteria for $200 award. However, let us look to see if Mr. Arias brought some valuable arguments that might still qualify his essay for awards offered in my challenge. The paper by Mr. Arias is based on the assumption that politicians are for increased immigration when Americans are not. Sadly for Mr. Arias, facts prove otherwise. HR.4437 was easily approved in the House. The Senate barely agreed on S.2611 with its lame pro-immigration offer. Since then, there is a stalemate among politicians, as neither orientation can achieve majority. Congress perfectly reflects the split among Americans on this issue. Candidly speaking, the whole paper by Mr. Arias is based on the false assumption. When reading the paper by Mr. Arias, it becomes clear how the author wrote a lengthy but futile report. Mr. Arias spent a lot of time among politicians and he seems to believe that what politicians say or do moves civilization forward. It is Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, and millions of much smaller enterprises who together move civilization forward. It appears that Mr. Arias did not notice this fact. Mr. Arias worked as an aid for Vicente Fox during his presidential campaign in 1999-2000. In course of this work, he met with many U.S. politicians. When speaking with Mr. Arias, these politicians did what most politicians do, they told him what they believed he, as a representative of Mexico, would be pleased to hear. In other words, they gave him smooth talk about how they supported increased immigration from Mexico. Unfortunately, Mr. Arias took that sweet talk as a solid political declaration. In his lengthy paper, Mr. Arias leaves no doubt that he has read many books. However, the attentive reader easily notices that the more information Mr. Arias gathers, the more confused he becomes. He roams around in meaningless sentences, filled with quotations, hoping that an average reader would be impressed by the erudition of the author and would feel embarrassed by not being able to understand the message. Further, Mr. Arias anticipates that when finally he writes something that can be understood, the reader will be so confused that the message would be accepted uncritically. What does Mr. Aries write, when he finally writes something that could be understood? He compliments Mexicans as “kind and hardworking, with a legendary hospitality”, and then he goes to the core message, “Mexicans are seemingly unable to produce anything but corrupt and tyrannical rulers, oftentimes even accepting them as the norm, unaffected by allegations of graft or abuse.” When developing this thought, Mr. Arias paints a picture of Latinos as inferior people. He clarifies, “In a Latin environment, there are fewer costs to behaving "like a knave," which explains the relative failure of most Spanish-speaking countries in the Hemisphere”. I was always under the impression that millions in Latin America are trapped in the historical ballast of a cursed history. Mr. Arias corrected me that people there are simply pathological “knaves”. As more Mexicans have moved into the U.S. in recent years, Mr. Arias warns that “These pathologies are already evident across the border” and with more Latinos among us “the quality of democracy may indeed be affected”. There is only one word to define political beliefs based on an assumption that some people are inferior and other are superior. Mr. Arias knows the magic word, he knows what his political agenda is; therefore he jumps ahead of his opponents, and complains that people of his political orientation are labeled as “racist”. By mentioning this word first, he hopes to immunize himself from being recognized as a racist. When looking into possible ways out of our current immigration situation, Mr. Arias carefully avoids endorsing any particular solution. However, he explores some possible scenarios. In particular, he describes in detail the possibility that, disappointed with the inability to resolve this problem by political means, some Americans may “take up civil disobedience” that might become not so civil. In particular: “Their direct actions are already being reported: local officers taking it upon themselves to detain illegal migrants, sit-ins at immigration offices, vandalizing of Mexican restaurants, threatening calls to the Hispanic mayor of Los Angeles, etc. Once these types of mobilizations begin, they will be difficult to stop”. Mr. Arias knows that he would go to prison for openly exhorting Americans to take baseball bats and smash windows of Mexican restaurants. However, hiding behind quasi-scientific gibberish, it is exactly what he suggests to do. Summarizing, in his paper Mr Arias-King explores a problem that does not exist; he naively believes that politicians move the world forward; he considers Latinos as inferior people; and Kristallnacht is his inspiration to solve our immigration problem. No way has it qualified for any award offered in my challenge. Is there anything good in the Mr. Arias paper? Yes. Mr. Arias noticed that the European Union, by tough accession laws, were able to “force elites in lesser-developed aspiring members (Spain in the 1980s and Central European countries in the 1990s) to adopt painful and otherwise politically unfeasible reforms that affect special interests but that benefit average citizens.” Mr. Arias is right when suggesting that Washington could use similar methods in dealing with Mexico. For making this observation and for the courage to say that Americans can learn something form Europeans, I am willing to give Mr. Arias-King a consolation prize of $1. Obviously, Mr. Pratt is getting nothing. Henryk A. Kowalczyk October 13, 2006

Tom Narum submitted a video presentation by Roy Beck
Mr. Tom Narum is an Executive Director of CitizensForASecureBorder.org, one of many grass root organizations that - in his opinion - are against illegal immigration, and - in my opinion - are against immigration in general. The submitted video is a great opportunity to elaborate on this difference.	Immigration by the Numbers by Roy Beck Link to the video
My comments to Mr. Beck’s video Mr. Beck can easily sell sand to Bedouins. The video is a masterpiece of propaganda. As with every propaganda material, the purpose of it is not to find the facts and understand the circumstances. The purpose is to arm wrestle the facts to show that a number of immigrants need to be cut. As I write in “Migration to the future”, “The Immigration Act of 1924 was structured to limit immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe, and in the view of many was intended to prevent the immigration of three million Polish Jews. Until 1965, essentially all immigration of Asians was banned. Plainly, racism was the undertone of all of the immigration laws until 1965.” For Mr. Beck, this was the golden era of immigration. During those years, with some fluctuations, for every one thousand Americans, an average of one immigrant was admitted to the country every year. If we can imagine a community with a population of 1000, that would be the equivalent of one person moving in per year. Would it even be noticed in the life of the community? Could we even call it immigration? In the years 1925-65, immigration was in such low numbers that it did not affect this nation nor the outside world. For practical reasons, we may say that during those four decades, there was no immigration at all. Mr. Beck clearly stated that he wants to return immigration to the level before 1965. Mr. Beck;s twisted argument is that he claims that he is pro immigration but with limited numbers. On his website he asks to be called an "immigration-reduction organization." He does not dot the “i” and he does not tell us that he wants to reduce the immigration to zero, as it practically was before 1965. In my writings about immigration, I intentionally state that some people are for immigration, some against it. Tom Narum corrected me in his e-mail that: “It is over ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION or ILLEGAL ALIENS and not a fight of immigration that is legal.” After making this statement, Mr. Narum submitted the video by Mr. Beck, which calls for legal immigration to be practically nonexistent. Like most of opponents of immigration in general, Mr. Narum purposely avoids acknowledgment that the simplest way to eliminate illegal immigration is by allowing more people to come here legally. From my e-mail exchange with immigration opponents, I concluded that most of them - similar to Mr. Narum - honestly believe that they are for legal immigration and against illegal immigration. With the video submission, Mr. Narum was caught with his hand in the cookie jar, lying to himself. Could it be that Mr. Beck is right? Maybe we really need to cut immigration to almost zero, as it was in 1965. Arguing against immigration, Mr. Beck complains that to accommodate a population increase, we needed to build new roads, new schools, and new sewer plants. He sees it as a burden; I see it as an asset. Thanks to the work of immigrants, our infrastructure is more developed than it would be without them. We have more roads, more schools, and more sewer plants. More people live here, but the country is richer too. Telling us that with a larger population we would have more polluted lakes and rivers is demagogy big time. Most Western European countries have a population density much higher than here in the U.S. – do they have an environmental catastrophe? With a sweet smile, Mr. Beck is poisoning the minds of his listeners with the thought that a tight labor market is the best friend any worker ever had. What he does not say is that this is not sustainable. For Mr. Beck, the world has not changed since 1925. At that time the economy was mostly a local affair; most goods were consumed within the same country in which they were manufactured. At about that time, the first airplanes took off for commercial flights. The first radio transatlantic telephone service was established in 1927 and it cost $16 for a three-minute conversation. People who invented computers were just born. In 1965, the first transatlantic telephone cables were already in service, as were the first transoceanic airline flights. Television was still mostly local; however, the first satellite transmissions were taking place which evolved into commercial applications in the early 1970’s. The year 1965 can be seen as marking the end of the world’s rebuilding after the WWII. Western Europe was in full swing with economic prosperity, followed closely by Japan. “Global village” was the term of the season. People around the world realized that the economy was getting global. The leaders of the U.S. recognized that the era of splendid isolation was over. Those were the circumstances behind the changing of the immigration law that allowed more people in. Mr. Beck even today cannot comprehend the importance of the changes that took place between 1925 and 1965. It is not surprising that it is beyond Mr. Beck’s intellectual capabilities to understand the technological changes that happened in the world since 1965. He did not notice mass transportation systems that can affordably move people and goods around the globe. He posts his views on the internet but he has not gotten it yet that thanks to the internet, employees of a company in Iowa can have their desks in India. I had in mind people like Mr. Beck when I wrote in “Will desperation prevail?”: “They do not want to recognize that today an American worker already competes directly with workers in China or Mexico, and this cannot be changed. We can only decide if this foreign worker works, spending his money and paying taxes, here or abroad. “ People like Mr. Beck “turn around and walk away when facing this dilemma. It is meaningful that none of my critics even touched this pivotal aspect of the immigration issue.” In other words, Mr. Beck is pulling the wool over people’s eyes when he says that with fewer immigrants there will be more better paid jobs for Americans. Immigrants give the U.S. economy a momentum that benefits both immigrants and Americans. If the immigrants go, prosperity would follow. It would not take long before Silicon Valley would be somewhere in Malaysia and Wall Street in Shanghai. Mr. Beck reached the peak of arrogance when stating that the purpose behind immigration to the U.S. is in “rescuing people from the Third World poverty”. Some people sometimes may act out of compassion and against their basic economic interest. However, it is human that most people most of the time follow their basic economic interest. It is particularly true in the case of illegal immigration. In this case, Mr. Beck states – falsely – that the anger for this situation should be put “on public officials who have set immigration numbers without regards to the effect on American people”. The falsehood of this statement is two-fold. First, public officials set legal immigration numbers far below actual immigration, which partially is illegal. Second, for every illegal immigrant working here there is one American business giving employment. In other words, the truth is quite opposite to what Mr. Beck is saying – American people have regarded immigration as beneficial to them and have given employment to foreigners. They acted in their best economical interest, and did it in opposition to what public officials told them to do. We have so many immigrants, many of them undocumented not because of the actions of public officials but due to decisions that millions of Americans have made out of their free will, and in their best economic interest. Fortunately, the government has not had enough police power to circumvent the freedom of Americans that hire foreigners. Playing with colorful gumballs, Mr. Beck is trying to scare Americans that with a pro-immigration policy, billions of poor people would come and “destroy the social fabric of this country.” It is a straight lie, as nobody ever suggested that we should open the borders and let everybody in. The question is very simple. If John Smith, an American, wants to hire Juan Gonzales from Mexico, should Mr. Beck have a right to stop him from doing so? Some public officials believe that yes, and as a result, we have immigration laws not adhering to reality, and not respected by most parties concerned. Mr. Beck points out that in some communities, Americans are suffering due to the negative side effects of increased immigration. This is a dirty propaganda trick as Mr. Beck is taking the negative effects of present laws ridiculously limiting legal immigration and turning them around in order to advocate for even more bizarre laws practically eliminating immigration. Due to the current faulty laws, we have about 12 million people living outside our legal structure or, using Mr. Beck term, outside “the social fabric of this country”. We know very little about who they are and what they are doing. Traditionally, many Mexicans were coming back and forth to the U.S. taking some seasonal jobs, as they were available, and were staying with their families in Mexico when there was less work here. With increased difficulty in crossing the border, many of these migrant workers brought their families here. Now they stay here, regardless of whether there is work or not, adding to the burden that some communities have. The solution that Mr. Beck advocates is in making currently ridiculous laws even more ridiculous and believing that in some magic way problems would disappear. As I write in the “Migration to the future”, if an American wants to hire a foreigner, he or she should be able to do it legally without bureaucratic hassles. However, such a foreigner from Day One should be woven into “the social fabric of this country”. If such a person would break our laws, we should send that person back home, knowing that a replacement would be easy to find. With such simple rules, any criminal activity related to immigration would be marginal, no bigger that in any other areas of the economy, as only individuals of clearly criminal intentions would be benefiting from breaking the law. Chicago is doing well now and is a very prosperous city. Detroit is not doing equally well, neither is St. Louis. There are no borders between Chicago and Detroit, or many other places of poverty in our country. Nevertheless, not all the poor from the whole country come to Chicago, only those who can find a job here and are willing to bear all the risks and inconveniences of relocating. Similar market mechanisms will work on a global scale if we would relax immigration laws and let in those foreigners that can find work here. This is obvious for someone who understands how the economy works. Unfortunately, Mr. Beck does not; any more than many other supporters of restricted immigration. In solving the immigration issue, one more time we have to bow to Ronald Reagan, who said, “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem”. Immigrants accelerated America’s economic growth and through this, some of the problems of our society became more visible and bothersome. In particular, about 47 million Americans do not have health insurance and about 16 million more are underinsured. Every day more and more Americans lose their health insurance. Immigrants add to this problem. However, even if all of them would leave, the crisis of the American health care system would stay. In the same way, American children learn less in school than children in most other developed countries do. No doubt, immigrants add to this problem. However, even if all of them would leave, would our schools suddenly teach math as well as in Germany or Japan? The viciousness of Mr. Beck’s video is in sneaking the message that by cutting the number of immigrants we would have all our problems solved. Statistics show that the middle class is being squeezed within the last two decades. As expected, Mr. Beck has only one explanation – too many immigrants. The truth is that the government has too much control over the economy and only big business has enough money to lobby for favorable regulations. That would not change even if all immigrants would leave. Our country has many problems. Increased immigration did not cause these problems. Mexicans and all other illegal immigrants are as much a cause of the problems of our nation as Jews were the cause of the problems in Germany in 1930’s. The issue is in what kind of nation we want to be; ergo, what kind of government we want. Throwing immigrants out of the country or blocking new ones from coming in will not mend our political system. In response to my posting about immigration, my opponents sent me many messages full of anger and frustration. Most of my opponents feel offended when told that racism motivates them. Only very few would identify themselves with Mr. B who wrote to me: “If we are termed "Racist" to be pro American, then so be it; we will wear it proudly.” The perfidy of Mr. Beck video is in fact that under the illusion of an academic lecture he plays on hidden racist emotions and tries to justify and rationalize them. Mr. Beck gives to a xenophobe an illusion of rational argument. This is exactly how Nazism poisoned the minds of Germans. In the light of the above deliberation, obviously the video by Mr. Beck does not qualify as presenting arguments effectively contradicting my views, and Mr. Narum cannot get the $200.00 award for proving me wrong. Mr. Beck is getting the title of the Master of Deception and nothing else. Henryk A. Kowalczyk October 13, 2006

Terry L. Webb submitted a text that he wrote in response to my essays about immigration
Mr. Terry L. Webb has been one of my most vigorous adversaries. We exchanged many e-mails. The submitted paper summarizes Mr. Webb’s arguments. With his submission Mr. Webb wrote to me: "I am very passionate about the subject."	A submission by Terry L. Webb
My comments to Mr. Terry L. Webb I have received many critical comments and have exchanged e-mails with many of my adversaries. Mr. Webb has been one of my most passionate opponents. His submission is very important as it represents the position of many anti-immigration activists. In his first paragraph, Mr. Webb puts in doubt my personal integrity by questioning if I am “honestly trying to be objective”. Later, he even escalates to a statement, “You neither love this country, nor are you capable of dealing with the real social issues…”. This way, instead of pointing weaknesses in my reasoning, Mr. Webb declares me guilty and challenges me to prove otherwise. If I used the same tactic in responding to Mr. Webb’s challenge, I could accuse him of a lack of knowledge and an inability to think logically, and it would be the end to not much fruitful discussion. Putting aside the unfairness of the personal attack, there is merit in Mr. Webb’s challenge. Mr. Webb brings to light facts that he believes are essential, but I did not consider or barely mentioned in my texts. In particular, Mr. Webb focuses on the high ratio of criminal behavior among Latino immigrants. There is a Polish proverb that says, ”Shavings fly where wood is being chopped,” which means that some negative side effects are an inseparable part of progress. In my text “Migration to the future”, I tried to look at immigration from a broad historic perspective. I concluded that migrations are an inherent part of the progress of our civilization; therefore, in our policies we should look into solutions accommodating this process. In particular, it means accepting increased immigration due to its benefits and finding policies that would minimize negative side effects. Mr. Webb sees immigration from the street level. He sees gangs around the corner. He sees overcrowded houses, congested schools, jammed hospitals, and overpopulated prisons – all of them full of Latinos. This is the way in which most Americans experience immigration every day. The growth of the nation’s economy is an abstraction in this picture. The well-being of the nation on a 20- or 50-year horizon is something unreal in this experience. The instinctive solution for all these problems seems simple – let us get rid of all these immigrants. It is unrealistic to expect that Mr. Webb, as much as every other American, would become an expert in economy, sociology, and psychology in order to understand the complexity of our immigration situation. If we have a health problem, we consult our doctor; we go to our mechanic to fix our car and so on. In the same way we have public officials, political leaders, and media commentators – and we assume that they have made an effort to understand all aspects of our current immigration issue. Then, we measure our own observation against what our political leaders are saying. If we hear a reflection of our own opinions, we assume that both they and we are right. Unfortunately, sometimes our political elites fail us. If a politician would do his or her homework on immigration, than he or she would likely arrive at conclusions similar to mine. However, would this politician get the vote of Mr. Webb and others like him? Unlikely. At least it would take additional time and effort to convince Mr. Webb that his instinctive solutions are as wrong as the instinct to push the brake pedal all the way down when our car goes out of control. It is meaningful that politicians and media commentators justify their anti-immigration orientation by opinion polls. They say that 70-80 percent of Americans are for limiting immigration. None of them is saying that they did a comprehensive analysis and have arrived at this or that conclusion. If we would use the analogy with doctors, it would be similar to our doctor saying that open heart surgery is no good because a majority of patients instinctively feel that taking a knife and cutting wide open the chest of a person that is already seriously sick is not a good idea. We trust our doctors because we know that they know. Unfortunately, it is much harder to verify what politicians know. Sadly, we have politicians – we lack political leaders. We have public officials that do not tell the truth to their constituents if the truth would put at risk their chances of being elected to the next term. In the same way, we have media outlets that can make more money by bouncing back to Mr. Webb what he can see on the street than by fatiguing him with an explanation of a big picture approach to immigration. The anger and frustration of Mr. Webb and others like him are understandable; however, they are misdirected. As I explained in my response to Mr. Beck, administrative attempts to limit immigration have resulted in massive illegal immigration that accounts for most of the problems listed by Mr. Webb. Therefore, the solution is not in kicking illegal immigrants out of the country at the risk of chocking the economy at the same time. The solution is in changing laws so every foreigner arriving here, from Day One, would be woven into the social fabric of our society. This way, we can easily sort out troublemakers, minimizing most of the problems that anger Mr. Webb so much. Some of Mr. Webb’s statements require a separate answer. For example, Mr. Webb writes: “unrestricted immigration is National Suicide”. In this passionate declaration the term “unrestricted immigration” is undefined; nor is “national suicide”. This line is meaningless. It is just a pathetic banality, but has resonance making Mr. Webb look good and me look bad. These kinds of platitudes with a solid defamation twist are typical for many anti immigration activists. In the same way as Mr. Arias, Mr. Webb mentions the dirty word “racism” first, hoping that this would immunize him from being called this name by others. Unfortunately, the racial overtone is clearly noticeable in his text. I would suggest reading the submission by Ms. Steel. In the closing of his arguments, Mr. Webb debates the four lies about immigration. Those arguments are worth quoting in their entirety and rebutted. “LIE no. 1 »There is nothing the United States can do to stop illegal immigration.« The Truth: Internal enforcement of immigration law has become a joke. Social Services are being depleted.” Here, Mr. Webb argues with his own (by the way, erroneous) vision of the arguments by proponents of increased immigration. In my texts, I clearly state that stopping immigration is doable. We can seal our borders as effectively as Soviet Union did. However, in the process we would become more like them, and likely go bankrupt as they did. “LIE no. 2 »Illegal immigrants take jobs Americans don't want.« The Truth: Illegal aliens take jobs at a hourly rate that lower-class American Citizens can't live on, but Americans would take these jobs at a fair hourly rate.” First, putting immigrants aside, Americans are not eager to take many low paid jobs; however, if bribed accordingly (meaning being overpaid), they would consider taking them. In this case, an employer ends up with an overpaid employee that feels underpaid, and likely is underperforming. An immigrant would take this job for less and likely would be over- performing, appreciating the opportunity. If we kick immigrants out of the country permanently, most employers would make an extra effort to move as many low level jobs as possible abroad. Americans looking for low-end jobs would be left with even smaller offerings in this category. Second, immigrants employed in any capacity increase the size of the economy, therefore creating new jobs. Immigrants my work at barely survival wages on the production line in a local factory. However, thanks to these low wages, this factory might be able to stay opened at all, creating jobs for Americans in the community. “LIE no. 3 »Illegal aliens are an economic plus for America.« The Truth: American Citizens are furious that illegal aliens receive government-funded Health Care, education benefits, and subsidized housing. Illegal households created a net fiscal deficit of ten billion dollars in 2002. Medicaid (2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured (2.2 Billion) food assistance such as food stamps, free school lunches, FEDERAL PRISON AND COURT FEES ......etc...etc...” It is striking how many anti-immigration arguments are concentrated along government giveaways. Where is the government getting the money from? In my texts I explained how misleading are the numbers illustrating how much it costs us to provide social services to illegal aliens. Simply, if low-income people are taking more in social services than they pay in taxes, that means that something is wrong with our political system. If the government needs to pay more in social services when more people do productive work, there is nothing wrong with people working; the problem is with our government. If the logic applied by Mr. Webb is correct, it would mean that the more people who work at low wages, the more we lose as a country because we spend more on welfare. In my view, some monies are disappearing somewhere, or the whole argument makes no sense. In my approach, the focus is in keeping businesses striving so if needed, the government would have a source of funds for needy people. Nevertheless, too many people in America depend on government-funded health care, on subsidized housing, food stamps, and free school lunches. Mr. Webb, please do not set up one group of government assistance recipients against another. Please tell me how to change our political system so that more people can become financially independent. “LIE no. 4 »Only bigots object and oppose illegal immigration.« Americans should not have to financially support people that sneak in our country and make a mockery of our FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS. WAKE UP, HENRYK.....ARE YOU LISTENING YET......” I do not know from where Mr. Webb pulled this argument. I doubt that there is even one American that supports illegal immigration. As I explained in my response to Mr. Beck, the only issue is in supporting or opposing immigration in general. Some people that oppose immigration in general, like Mr. Narum for example, hypocritically claim that they are against illegal immigration, and at the same time want to keep legal immigration almost nonexistent. People that support immigration in general realize that presently illegal immigrants have been trapped by the nonsense of our political system. Some Americans have told illegal immigrants “Please come we will give you jobs”, when others told them “You are criminals”. Americans need to resolve this discrepancy among themselves. In this sense, it is not illegal immigrants but millions of American employers who have made a mockery of our immigration laws. And last but not least, if someone in America would not be making money on millions of illegal immigrants, they would not be here. As I stated in one of my comments, illegal immigrants have contributed to the Social Security fund, securing a check for Mr. Webb when the time comes. Summarizing, Mr. Webb’s submittal falls short from being even close to shaking the integrity of my reasoning. Therefore, this submittal does not qualify for the $200 award. However, I appreciate the effort taken by Mr. Webb. None of the public officials or media commentators made a similar effort. Mr. Webb’s views are strongly affected by his everyday experience and he does not have enough scientific background to sort out what is of primary importance. It is nothing to be ashamed of, as most of the American political elite does not do it any better. In this sense, I see Mr. Webb as an authentic truth seeker and I have decided to reward his effort with a form of a consolation prize in the amount of $20. Henryk A. Kowalczyk October 13, 2006

Submissions received

Stephanie Steel

submitted her own paper

Ms. Steel is a student at Princeton University. In her introductory note she wrote:

I am submitting a report I wrote for my junior paper in opposition of HR 4437, its attached to the email. My paper draws from a variety of sound sources and I included my bibliography and put asterisks on the two sources I found to be most helpful in forming my argument : Lisa Marie Cacho - an article exposing the ludicrisy of white injury and Doug Massey's book Crossing the Border. He is a professor at my school who has some of the leading empirical research on immigration, he has a few books so he would be a good person to read up on.

The American Fantasy:

xenophobic immigration policy and its influence on the racial tensions that perpetuate segregation and disparity in California’s Public Schools

My comments to Ms. Steel’s submission

Ms. Steel wrote her paper with the intention of analyzing how xenophobia affects immigration policy; she took HR.4437 as a reference point. In this sense, Ms. Steel’s report is not a comprehensive analysis of the immigration issue that meets the criteria of the $100 challenge posted here. Nevertheless, I value this report for a very good scientific analysis of the extremely touchy subject of xenophobia in Americans’ approach to immigration. I recommend the reading of this report to all opponents of increased immigration.

When reading this paper, one wishes that the author put more emphasis on explaining where xenophobia originates and how it plays in today’s American society. For someone who has some knowledge of the anti-Semitic propaganda in Nazi Germany, the similarities to the present day anti-immigration rhetoric are striking. I encourage Ms. Steel to write a paper comparing the anti-Semitism of that time to the anti-immigration propaganda now.

The weakest part of this report is that the author appeals to compassion when looking into how to resolve current immigration problem. This compassionate approach means that we should grant currently illegal immigrants legal status on humanitarian grounds. Taking this action implies that by giving amnesty to illegal immigrants, we give them something that is ours, that we in fact share with them our wealth. This approach is not based on facts and logic. The facts are that, objectively, increased immigration has contributed to the present economical boom. The American middle class benefits the most from cheap immigrant labor. Please read: http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/katz/papers/mex_immig_nber_wp.pdf . There are billions of poor people around the world and Americans cannot help all of them out of compassion. In other words, being compassionate is not a good, realistic argument for helping current illegal immigrants. Americans need to be selfish in pursuing what is best for them. The point of the arguments presented in my essays is that it is in the best egoistic interest of Americans to admit more immigrants. By admitting more immigrants, Americans do not need to give up any part of their wealth. Quite the opposite, they open a new venue to enrich themselves.

As the paper by Ms. Steel does not meet formal criteria for the $100 challenge, she cannot receive this award. However, because there are not many challenges that have been submitted, and in recognition for her good work in analyzing the touchy subject of xenophobia, I am granting to Ms. Steel an honorable mention award in the amount of $99.

Henryk A. Kowalczyk

October 13, 2006

Don Pratt
submitted a paper by

Fredo Arias-King

Mr. Pratt is a Director of Alamo Alliance, one of many grass root anti-immigration organizations.

A few hours after submitting a paper by Fredo Arias-King, Mr. Pratt withdrew his submission writing to me: "had I known you were such a blatant open borders activist, I would have made no submission." Not much later Mr. Pratt reversed his decision by writing to me: "On second thought, do not withdraw my submission. That article is far to important, and should be read by as many as possible."

Mr. Fredo Arias-King is a Harvard-trained businessman and Sovietologist.

Immigration and Usurpation
Elites, Power, and the People's Will
July 2006
by Fredo Arias-King

My comments to Mr. Arias-King’s paper

The paper by Mr Arias-King was presented for the $200 award in the category of reports on immigration that support a policy of sealing the border, rejecting amnesty for illegal aliens, and limiting immigration afterwards. In the introduction to his paper, Mr. Arias-Kings writes that his analysis has been perplexed by his wondering, “Why are politicians so keen on mass immigration while the common American is not?” In other words, the purpose of this paper was not to address the complexity of the immigration issue, but to discuss some politics associated with it. Therefore, this paper does not formally meet the criteria for $200 award.

However, let us look to see if Mr. Arias brought some valuable arguments that might still qualify his essay for awards offered in my challenge. The paper by Mr. Arias is based on the assumption that politicians are for increased immigration when Americans are not. Sadly for Mr. Arias, facts prove otherwise. HR.4437 was easily approved in the House. The Senate barely agreed on S.2611 with its lame pro-immigration offer. Since then, there is a stalemate among politicians, as neither orientation can achieve majority. Congress perfectly reflects the split among Americans on this issue. Candidly speaking, the whole paper by Mr. Arias is based on the false assumption.

When reading the paper by Mr. Arias, it becomes clear how the author wrote a lengthy but futile report. Mr. Arias spent a lot of time among politicians and he seems to believe that what politicians say or do moves civilization forward. It is Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, and millions of much smaller enterprises who together move civilization forward. It appears that Mr. Arias did not notice this fact. Mr. Arias worked as an aid for Vicente Fox during his presidential campaign in 1999-2000. In course of this work, he met with many U.S. politicians. When speaking with Mr. Arias, these politicians did what most politicians do, they told him what they believed he, as a representative of Mexico, would be pleased to hear. In other words, they gave him smooth talk about how they supported increased immigration from Mexico. Unfortunately, Mr. Arias took that sweet talk as a solid political declaration.

In his lengthy paper, Mr. Arias leaves no doubt that he has read many books. However, the attentive reader easily notices that the more information Mr. Arias gathers, the more confused he becomes. He roams around in meaningless sentences, filled with quotations, hoping that an average reader would be impressed by the erudition of the author and would feel embarrassed by not being able to understand the message. Further, Mr. Arias anticipates that when finally he writes something that can be understood, the reader will be so confused that the message would be accepted uncritically.

What does Mr. Aries write, when he finally writes something that could be understood? He compliments Mexicans as “kind and hardworking, with a legendary hospitality”, and then he goes to the core message, “Mexicans are seemingly unable to produce anything but corrupt and tyrannical rulers, oftentimes even accepting them as the norm, unaffected by allegations of graft or abuse.” When developing this thought, Mr. Arias paints a picture of Latinos as inferior people. He clarifies, “In a Latin environment, there are fewer costs to behaving "like a knave," which explains the relative failure of most Spanish-speaking countries in the Hemisphere”. I was always under the impression that millions in Latin America are trapped in the historical ballast of a cursed history. Mr. Arias corrected me that people there are simply pathological “knaves”.

As more Mexicans have moved into the U.S. in recent years, Mr. Arias warns that “These pathologies are already evident across the border” and with more Latinos among us “the quality of democracy may indeed be affected”. There is only one word to define political beliefs based on an assumption that some people are inferior and other are superior. Mr. Arias knows the magic word, he knows what his political agenda is; therefore he jumps ahead of his opponents, and complains that people of his political orientation are labeled as “racist”. By mentioning this word first, he hopes to immunize himself from being recognized as a racist.

When looking into possible ways out of our current immigration situation, Mr. Arias carefully avoids endorsing any particular solution. However, he explores some possible scenarios. In particular, he describes in detail the possibility that, disappointed with the inability to resolve this problem by political means, some Americans may “take up civil disobedience” that might become not so civil. In particular: “Their direct actions are already being reported: local officers taking it upon themselves to detain illegal migrants, sit-ins at immigration offices, vandalizing of Mexican restaurants, threatening calls to the Hispanic mayor of Los Angeles, etc. Once these types of mobilizations begin, they will be difficult to stop”. Mr. Arias knows that he would go to prison for openly exhorting Americans to take baseball bats and smash windows of Mexican restaurants. However, hiding behind quasi-scientific gibberish, it is exactly what he suggests to do.

Summarizing, in his paper Mr Arias-King explores a problem that does not exist; he naively believes that politicians move the world forward; he considers Latinos as inferior people; and Kristallnacht is his inspiration to solve our immigration problem. No way has it qualified for any award offered in my challenge.

Is there anything good in the Mr. Arias paper? Yes. Mr. Arias noticed that the European Union, by tough accession laws, were able to “force elites in lesser-developed aspiring members (Spain in the 1980s and Central European countries in the 1990s) to adopt painful and otherwise politically unfeasible reforms that affect special interests but that benefit average citizens.” Mr. Arias is right when suggesting that Washington could use similar methods in dealing with Mexico. For making this observation and for the courage to say that Americans can learn something form Europeans, I am willing to give Mr. Arias-King a consolation prize of $1. Obviously, Mr. Pratt is getting nothing.

Henryk A. Kowalczyk

October 13, 2006

Tom Narum

submitted a video presentation by

Roy Beck

Mr. Tom Narum is an Executive Director of CitizensForASecureBorder.org, one of many grass root organizations that - in his opinion - are against illegal immigration, and - in my opinion - are against immigration in general.

The submitted video is a great opportunity to elaborate on this difference.

Immigration by the Numbers

by Roy Beck

Link to the video

My comments to Mr. Beck’s video

Mr. Beck can easily sell sand to Bedouins. The video is a masterpiece of propaganda. As with every propaganda material, the purpose of it is not to find the facts and understand the circumstances. The purpose is to arm wrestle the facts to show that a number of immigrants need to be cut.

As I write in “Migration to the future”, “The Immigration Act of 1924 was structured to limit immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe, and in the view of many was intended to prevent the immigration of three million Polish Jews. Until 1965, essentially all immigration of Asians was banned. Plainly, racism was the undertone of all of the immigration laws until 1965.” For Mr. Beck, this was the golden era of immigration. During those years, with some fluctuations, for every one thousand Americans, an average of one immigrant was admitted to the country every year. If we can imagine a community with a population of 1000, that would be the equivalent of one person moving in per year. Would it even be noticed in the life of the community? Could we even call it immigration? In the years 1925-65, immigration was in such low numbers that it did not affect this nation nor the outside world. For practical reasons, we may say that during those four decades, there was no immigration at all.

Mr. Beck clearly stated that he wants to return immigration to the level before 1965. Mr. Beck;s twisted argument is that he claims that he is pro immigration but with limited numbers. On his website he asks to be called an "immigration-reduction organization." He does not dot the “i” and he does not tell us that he wants to reduce the immigration to zero, as it practically was before 1965.

In my writings about immigration, I intentionally state that some people are for immigration, some against it. Tom Narum corrected me in his e-mail that: “It is over ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION or ILLEGAL ALIENS and not a fight of immigration that is legal.” After making this statement, Mr. Narum submitted the video by Mr. Beck, which calls for legal immigration to be practically nonexistent. Like most of opponents of immigration in general, Mr. Narum purposely avoids acknowledgment that the simplest way to eliminate illegal immigration is by allowing more people to come here legally. From my e-mail exchange with immigration opponents, I concluded that most of them - similar to Mr. Narum - honestly believe that they are for legal immigration and against illegal immigration. With the video submission, Mr. Narum was caught with his hand in the cookie jar, lying to himself.

Could it be that Mr. Beck is right? Maybe we really need to cut immigration to almost zero, as it was in 1965. Arguing against immigration, Mr. Beck complains that to accommodate a population increase, we needed to build new roads, new schools, and new sewer plants. He sees it as a burden; I see it as an asset. Thanks to the work of immigrants, our infrastructure is more developed than it would be without them. We have more roads, more schools, and more sewer plants. More people live here, but the country is richer too.

Telling us that with a larger population we would have more polluted lakes and rivers is demagogy big time. Most Western European countries have a population density much higher than here in the U.S. – do they have an environmental catastrophe?

With a sweet smile, Mr. Beck is poisoning the minds of his listeners with the thought that a tight labor market is the best friend any worker ever had. What he does not say is that this is not sustainable. For Mr. Beck, the world has not changed since 1925. At that time the economy was mostly a local affair; most goods were consumed within the same country in which they were manufactured. At about that time, the first airplanes took off for commercial flights. The first radio transatlantic telephone service was established in 1927 and it cost $16 for a three-minute conversation. People who invented computers were just born.

In 1965, the first transatlantic telephone cables were already in service, as were the first transoceanic airline flights. Television was still mostly local; however, the first satellite transmissions were taking place which evolved into commercial applications in the early 1970’s. The year 1965 can be seen as marking the end of the world’s rebuilding after the WWII. Western Europe was in full swing with economic prosperity, followed closely by Japan. “Global village” was the term of the season. People around the world realized that the economy was getting global. The leaders of the U.S. recognized that the era of splendid isolation was over. Those were the circumstances behind the changing of the immigration law that allowed more people in. Mr. Beck even today cannot comprehend the importance of the changes that took place between 1925 and 1965.

It is not surprising that it is beyond Mr. Beck’s intellectual capabilities to understand the technological changes that happened in the world since 1965. He did not notice mass transportation systems that can affordably move people and goods around the globe. He posts his views on the internet but he has not gotten it yet that thanks to the internet, employees of a company in Iowa can have their desks in India. I had in mind people like Mr. Beck when I wrote in “Will desperation prevail?”: “They do not want to recognize that today an American worker already competes directly with workers in China or Mexico, and this cannot be changed. We can only decide if this foreign worker works, spending his money and paying taxes, here or abroad. “ People like Mr. Beck “turn around and walk away when facing this dilemma. It is meaningful that none of my critics even touched this pivotal aspect of the immigration issue.” In other words, Mr. Beck is pulling the wool over people’s eyes when he says that with fewer immigrants there will be more better paid jobs for Americans. Immigrants give the U.S. economy a momentum that benefits both immigrants and Americans. If the immigrants go, prosperity would follow. It would not take long before Silicon Valley would be somewhere in Malaysia and Wall Street in Shanghai.

Mr. Beck reached the peak of arrogance when stating that the purpose behind immigration to the U.S. is in “rescuing people from the Third World poverty”. Some people sometimes may act out of compassion and against their basic economic interest. However, it is human that most people most of the time follow their basic economic interest. It is particularly true in the case of illegal immigration. In this case, Mr. Beck states – falsely – that the anger for this situation should be put “on public officials who have set immigration numbers without regards to the effect on American people”. The falsehood of this statement is two-fold. First, public officials set legal immigration numbers far below actual immigration, which partially is illegal. Second, for every illegal immigrant working here there is one American business giving employment. In other words, the truth is quite opposite to what Mr. Beck is saying – American people have regarded immigration as beneficial to them and have given employment to foreigners. They acted in their best economical interest, and did it in opposition to what public officials told them to do. We have so many immigrants, many of them undocumented not because of the actions of public officials but due to decisions that millions of Americans have made out of their free will, and in their best economic interest. Fortunately, the government has not had enough police power to circumvent the freedom of Americans that hire foreigners.

Playing with colorful gumballs, Mr. Beck is trying to scare Americans that with a pro-immigration policy, billions of poor people would come and “destroy the social fabric of this country.” It is a straight lie, as nobody ever suggested that we should open the borders and let everybody in. The question is very simple. If John Smith, an American, wants to hire Juan Gonzales from Mexico, should Mr. Beck have a right to stop him from doing so? Some public officials believe that yes, and as a result, we have immigration laws not adhering to reality, and not respected by most parties concerned.

Mr. Beck points out that in some communities, Americans are suffering due to the negative side effects of increased immigration. This is a dirty propaganda trick as Mr. Beck is taking the negative effects of present laws ridiculously limiting legal immigration and turning them around in order to advocate for even more bizarre laws practically eliminating immigration. Due to the current faulty laws, we have about 12 million people living outside our legal structure or, using Mr. Beck term, outside “the social fabric of this country”. We know very little about who they are and what they are doing. Traditionally, many Mexicans were coming back and forth to the U.S. taking some seasonal jobs, as they were available, and were staying with their families in Mexico when there was less work here. With increased difficulty in crossing the border, many of these migrant workers brought their families here. Now they stay here, regardless of whether there is work or not, adding to the burden that some communities have. The solution that Mr. Beck advocates is in making currently ridiculous laws even more ridiculous and believing that in some magic way problems would disappear.

As I write in the “Migration to the future”, if an American wants to hire a foreigner, he or she should be able to do it legally without bureaucratic hassles. However, such a foreigner from Day One should be woven into “the social fabric of this country”. If such a person would break our laws, we should send that person back home, knowing that a replacement would be easy to find. With such simple rules, any criminal activity related to immigration would be marginal, no bigger that in any other areas of the economy, as only individuals of clearly criminal intentions would be benefiting from breaking the law.

Chicago is doing well now and is a very prosperous city. Detroit is not doing equally well, neither is St. Louis. There are no borders between Chicago and Detroit, or many other places of poverty in our country. Nevertheless, not all the poor from the whole country come to Chicago, only those who can find a job here and are willing to bear all the risks and inconveniences of relocating.

Similar market mechanisms will work on a global scale if we would relax immigration laws and let in those foreigners that can find work here. This is obvious for someone who understands how the economy works. Unfortunately, Mr. Beck does not; any more than many other supporters of restricted immigration. In solving the immigration issue, one more time we have to bow to Ronald Reagan, who said, “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem”.

Immigrants accelerated America’s economic growth and through this, some of the problems of our society became more visible and bothersome. In particular, about 47 million Americans do not have health insurance and about 16 million more are underinsured. Every day more and more Americans lose their health insurance. Immigrants add to this problem. However, even if all of them would leave, the crisis of the American health care system would stay. In the same way, American children learn less in school than children in most other developed countries do. No doubt, immigrants add to this problem. However, even if all of them would leave, would our schools suddenly teach math as well as in Germany or Japan? The viciousness of Mr. Beck’s video is in sneaking the message that by cutting the number of immigrants we would have all our problems solved.

Statistics show that the middle class is being squeezed within the last two decades. As expected, Mr. Beck has only one explanation – too many immigrants. The truth is that the government has too much control over the economy and only big business has enough money to lobby for favorable regulations. That would not change even if all immigrants would leave.

Our country has many problems. Increased immigration did not cause these problems. Mexicans and all other illegal immigrants are as much a cause of the problems of our nation as Jews were the cause of the problems in Germany in 1930’s. The issue is in what kind of nation we want to be; ergo, what kind of government we want. Throwing immigrants out of the country or blocking new ones from coming in will not mend our political system.

In response to my posting about immigration, my opponents sent me many messages full of anger and frustration. Most of my opponents feel offended when told that racism motivates them. Only very few would identify themselves with Mr. B who wrote to me: “If we are termed "Racist" to be pro American, then so be it; we will wear it proudly.” The perfidy of Mr. Beck video is in fact that under the illusion of an academic lecture he plays on hidden racist emotions and tries to justify and rationalize them. Mr. Beck gives to a xenophobe an illusion of rational argument. This is exactly how Nazism poisoned the minds of Germans.

In the light of the above deliberation, obviously the video by Mr. Beck does not qualify as presenting arguments effectively contradicting my views, and Mr. Narum cannot get the $200.00 award for proving me wrong. Mr. Beck is getting the title of the Master of Deception and nothing else.

Henryk A. Kowalczyk

October 13, 2006

Terry L. Webb

submitted a text that he wrote in response to my essays about immigration

Mr. Terry L. Webb has been one of my most vigorous adversaries. We exchanged many e-mails. The submitted paper summarizes Mr. Webb’s arguments. With his submission Mr. Webb wrote to me:

"I am very passionate about the subject."

A submission

by Terry L. Webb

My comments to Mr. Terry L. Webb

I have received many critical comments and have exchanged e-mails with many of my adversaries. Mr. Webb has been one of my most passionate opponents. His submission is very important as it represents the position of many anti-immigration activists.

In his first paragraph, Mr. Webb puts in doubt my personal integrity by questioning if I am “honestly trying to be objective”. Later, he even escalates to a statement, “You neither love this country, nor are you capable of dealing with the real social issues…”. This way, instead of pointing weaknesses in my reasoning, Mr. Webb declares me guilty and challenges me to prove otherwise. If I used the same tactic in responding to Mr. Webb’s challenge, I could accuse him of a lack of knowledge and an inability to think logically, and it would be the end to not much fruitful discussion.

Putting aside the unfairness of the personal attack, there is merit in Mr. Webb’s challenge. Mr. Webb brings to light facts that he believes are essential, but I did not consider or barely mentioned in my texts. In particular, Mr. Webb focuses on the high ratio of criminal behavior among Latino immigrants.

There is a Polish proverb that says, ”Shavings fly where wood is being chopped,” which means that some negative side effects are an inseparable part of progress. In my text “Migration to the future”, I tried to look at immigration from a broad historic perspective. I concluded that migrations are an inherent part of the progress of our civilization; therefore, in our policies we should look into solutions accommodating this process. In particular, it means accepting increased immigration due to its benefits and finding policies that would minimize negative side effects.

Mr. Webb sees immigration from the street level. He sees gangs around the corner. He sees overcrowded houses, congested schools, jammed hospitals, and overpopulated prisons – all of them full of Latinos. This is the way in which most Americans experience immigration every day. The growth of the nation’s economy is an abstraction in this picture. The well-being of the nation on a 20- or 50-year horizon is something unreal in this experience. The instinctive solution for all these problems seems simple – let us get rid of all these immigrants.

It is unrealistic to expect that Mr. Webb, as much as every other American, would become an expert in economy, sociology, and psychology in order to understand the complexity of our immigration situation. If we have a health problem, we consult our doctor; we go to our mechanic to fix our car and so on. In the same way we have public officials, political leaders, and media commentators – and we assume that they have made an effort to understand all aspects of our current immigration issue. Then, we measure our own observation against what our political leaders are saying. If we hear a reflection of our own opinions, we assume that both they and we are right.

Unfortunately, sometimes our political elites fail us. If a politician would do his or her homework on immigration, than he or she would likely arrive at conclusions similar to mine. However, would this politician get the vote of Mr. Webb and others like him? Unlikely. At least it would take additional time and effort to convince Mr. Webb that his instinctive solutions are as wrong as the instinct to push the brake pedal all the way down when our car goes out of control.

It is meaningful that politicians and media commentators justify their anti-immigration orientation by opinion polls. They say that 70-80 percent of Americans are for limiting immigration. None of them is saying that they did a comprehensive analysis and have arrived at this or that conclusion. If we would use the analogy with doctors, it would be similar to our doctor saying that open heart surgery is no good because a majority of patients instinctively feel that taking a knife and cutting wide open the chest of a person that is already seriously sick is not a good idea. We trust our doctors because we know that they know. Unfortunately, it is much harder to verify what politicians know. Sadly, we have politicians – we lack political leaders. We have public officials that do not tell the truth to their constituents if the truth would put at risk their chances of being elected to the next term. In the same way, we have media outlets that can make more money by bouncing back to Mr. Webb what he can see on the street than by fatiguing him with an explanation of a big picture approach to immigration.

The anger and frustration of Mr. Webb and others like him are understandable; however, they are misdirected. As I explained in my response to Mr. Beck, administrative attempts to limit immigration have resulted in massive illegal immigration that accounts for most of the problems listed by Mr. Webb. Therefore, the solution is not in kicking illegal immigrants out of the country at the risk of chocking the economy at the same time. The solution is in changing laws so every foreigner arriving here, from Day One, would be woven into the social fabric of our society. This way, we can easily sort out troublemakers, minimizing most of the problems that anger Mr. Webb so much.

Some of Mr. Webb’s statements require a separate answer. For example, Mr. Webb writes: “unrestricted immigration is National Suicide”. In this passionate declaration the term “unrestricted immigration” is undefined; nor is “national suicide”. This line is meaningless. It is just a pathetic banality, but has resonance making Mr. Webb look good and me look bad. These kinds of platitudes with a solid defamation twist are typical for many anti immigration activists. In the same way as Mr. Arias, Mr. Webb mentions the dirty word “racism” first, hoping that this would immunize him from being called this name by others. Unfortunately, the racial overtone is clearly noticeable in his text. I would suggest reading the submission by Ms. Steel.

In the closing of his arguments, Mr. Webb debates the four lies about immigration. Those arguments are worth quoting in their entirety and rebutted.

“LIE no. 1 »There is nothing the United States can do to stop illegal immigration.« The Truth: Internal enforcement of immigration law has become a joke. Social Services are being depleted.”

Here, Mr. Webb argues with his own (by the way, erroneous) vision of the arguments by proponents of increased immigration. In my texts, I clearly state that stopping immigration is doable. We can seal our borders as effectively as Soviet Union did. However, in the process we would become more like them, and likely go bankrupt as they did.

“LIE no. 2 »Illegal immigrants take jobs Americans don't want.« The Truth: Illegal aliens take jobs at a hourly rate that lower-class American Citizens can't live on, but Americans would take these jobs at a fair hourly rate.”

First, putting immigrants aside, Americans are not eager to take many low paid jobs; however, if bribed accordingly (meaning being overpaid), they would consider taking them. In this case, an employer ends up with an overpaid employee that feels underpaid, and likely is underperforming. An immigrant would take this job for less and likely would be over- performing, appreciating the opportunity. If we kick immigrants out of the country permanently, most employers would make an extra effort to move as many low level jobs as possible abroad. Americans looking for low-end jobs would be left with even smaller offerings in this category.

Second, immigrants employed in any capacity increase the size of the economy, therefore creating new jobs. Immigrants my work at barely survival wages on the production line in a local factory. However, thanks to these low wages, this factory might be able to stay opened at all, creating jobs for Americans in the community.

“LIE no. 3 »Illegal aliens are an economic plus for America.« The Truth: American Citizens are furious that illegal aliens receive government-funded Health Care, education benefits, and subsidized housing. Illegal households created a net fiscal deficit of ten billion dollars in 2002. Medicaid (2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured (2.2 Billion) food assistance such as food stamps, free school lunches, FEDERAL PRISON AND COURT FEES ......etc...etc...”

It is striking how many anti-immigration arguments are concentrated along government giveaways. Where is the government getting the money from?

In my texts I explained how misleading are the numbers illustrating how much it costs us to provide social services to illegal aliens. Simply, if low-income people are taking more in social services than they pay in taxes, that means that something is wrong with our political system. If the government needs to pay more in social services when more people do productive work, there is nothing wrong with people working; the problem is with our government. If the logic applied by Mr. Webb is correct, it would mean that the more people who work at low wages, the more we lose as a country because we spend more on welfare. In my view, some monies are disappearing somewhere, or the whole argument makes no sense.

In my approach, the focus is in keeping businesses striving so if needed, the government would have a source of funds for needy people. Nevertheless, too many people in America depend on government-funded health care, on subsidized housing, food stamps, and free school lunches. Mr. Webb, please do not set up one group of government assistance recipients against another. Please tell me how to change our political system so that more people can become financially independent.

“LIE no. 4 »Only bigots object and oppose illegal immigration.« Americans should not have to financially support people that sneak in our country and make a mockery of our FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS. WAKE UP, HENRYK.....ARE YOU LISTENING YET......”

I do not know from where Mr. Webb pulled this argument. I doubt that there is even one American that supports illegal immigration. As I explained in my response to Mr. Beck, the only issue is in supporting or opposing immigration in general. Some people that oppose immigration in general, like Mr. Narum for example, hypocritically claim that they are against illegal immigration, and at the same time want to keep legal immigration almost nonexistent. People that support immigration in general realize that presently illegal immigrants have been trapped by the nonsense of our political system. Some Americans have told illegal immigrants “Please come we will give you jobs”, when others told them “You are criminals”. Americans need to resolve this discrepancy among themselves. In this sense, it is not illegal immigrants but millions of American employers who have made a mockery of our immigration laws. And last but not least, if someone in America would not be making money on millions of illegal immigrants, they would not be here. As I stated in one of my comments, illegal immigrants have contributed to the Social Security fund, securing a check for Mr. Webb when the time comes.

Summarizing, Mr. Webb’s submittal falls short from being even close to shaking the integrity of my reasoning. Therefore, this submittal does not qualify for the $200 award. However, I appreciate the effort taken by Mr. Webb. None of the public officials or media commentators made a similar effort. Mr. Webb’s views are strongly affected by his everyday experience and he does not have enough scientific background to sort out what is of primary importance. It is nothing to be ashamed of, as most of the American political elite does not do it any better. In this sense, I see Mr. Webb as an authentic truth seeker and I have decided to reward his effort with a form of a consolation prize in the amount of $20.

Henryk A. Kowalczyk

October 13, 2006

Official announcement of awards given: October 15, 2006 The rules of the $100 Challenge
In the category of reports on immigration supporting an open-border policy. Five awards of $100 each available: No awards granted.
In the category of reports on immigration that support a policy of sealing the border, rejecting amnesty for illegal aliens, and limiting immigration afterwards. Total of four awards of $100 each, one award of $200 available: No awards granted
Other awards granted: Ms. Stephanie Steel, an honorable mention award of $99.00 for the report on xenophobia in the immigration policy. More... Mr. Terry L. Webb, a consolation prize in amount of $20.00 for the persistence in seeking the truth about immigration. More... Mr. Fredo Arias-King, a consolation prize in amount of $1.00 for one good idea. More... Mr. Roy Beck, the title of Master of Deception for the video about immigration. More...

The rules of the $100 challenge
The purpose	I intend to give awards to people who make an extra effort to seek the truth about our immigration mess. I hope that this will encourage citizens to actually learn and understand the arguments of the opposing side.
My awards	From my personal funds, I intend to give ten (10) awards. Five (5) of them, $100 each, are allocated for the individuals who point me to reports on immigration that support an open-border policy. Five (5) of them are allocated for the individuals who point me to reports on immigration that support a policy of sealing the border, rejecting amnesty for illegal aliens, and limiting immigration afterwards. Out of these five awards, four (4) will be $100 each and one (1) will be $200, for pointing me to the best report in this category. The maximum amount of awards from my personal funds is $1,100. I reserve the right to change the number of awards, the amount given for each award, the total amount given, or not to give any awards at all.
Donated awards	Individuals or organizations that would like to join me and give their own awards for reports on the immigration subject are encouraged to contact me to arrange details. Donors can establish their own rules for the awards they fund.
Criteria	In order to qualify for an award, a person needs to point me to a report on immigration that thoroughly covers the issue, and is based on facts and logical arguments. The complexity of the submitted report should be equal to or better than that of my essays on immigration posted on this web site, “Migration to the future” and “Neither immigration nor reform”. An author of a report can present his or her own report. Reports that support an open-border policy will qualify only if published on or before June 15, 2006. Reports that support the policy of sealing the border, rejecting amnesty to illegal aliens, and limiting immigration afterwards can be submitted if they have been written before September 30, 2006. All submissions should be made by e-mail only. In the case that more than one person submits the same report, only the earliest submission will qualify for the award. The time stamp on the received e-mail will decide.
The process	I will review submissions as they arrive. All submissions will be listed here with my preliminary opinions about their chances to get an award. I expect and encourage visitors to this site to express their opinions about the submissions. I anticipate that after hearing from others, I might change my view in at least some instances.
Time frame	All submissions need to arrive before the end of the day of September, 2006. Final decisions about awards will be made on or before October 15, 2006.
The jury	I will make final decisions with the advice from visitors to this site. Some may question my ability to be objective in the evaluation of submissions presenting a view opposing mine. In those instances, prominent people of science, the media, or politics can override my opinions. For example, if congressman Sensenbrenner or Bill O’Reilly from Fox News disagreed with my choices, their opinions would prevail.
FAQ	Q. Do I need to write a report on immigration in order to qualify for the award? A. No, you just need to find a report that, in your opinion, covers immigration better than I did in my texts published on this website. Q. I am a high school student and I wrote a paper on immigration for a school assignment. Can I submit it? A. Yes. If it supports an open-border policy, please provide some evidence that your report was written before June 15, 2006. Q. I looked at the headlines of your immigration report; I disagree with you, and do not want to waste my time reading your arguments. I listen to the O’Reilly Factor and believe that he is right. Can I submit his website? A. No, Bill O’Reilly has strong opinions but has no comprehensive analysis to support them.