http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/001720.html
Overall, the country

Look at the projections, based on what was without a doubt an undercount in the 2000 census.

"the most reliable estimates are far below that number"

http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1101040920-695827,00.html

[In a single day, more than 4,000 illegal aliens will walk across the busiest unlawful gateway into the U.S., the 375-mile border between Arizona and Mexico.]

Presumably Time magazine attempted a 'reliable estimate' for their cover story. Or maybe they're just a bunch of "anti-immigration fanatics"?

So, like I said, look at the projections. Add in the influx of illegals. And then ask: Why would it stop? How many would come, and then stay, and have kids here, kids who will be automatic citizens, as a result of the 'willing worker, willing employer' "reform"? (Try answering those questions.)

Count the immigrants, legal and illegal, plus their kids.

Estimate non-quota and quota family reunifications.

Allow for pressure to increase the quota flow on 'humane' grounds, since the critical mass of immigrants in the US will only grow.

"It won't even come close to doubling our population by 2050."

I didn't say "by 2050"; I said:

"shortly after 2050"

Meaning within half a generation or so.

But I am not surprised: you are a typical ideologue, impervious to facts.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/cfml/printable.cfm?id=1204

"Here's a link to the US Census Bureau's own population projections 'consistent with the 2000 census':http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/usinterimproj/"

And nothing in this link supports your earlier statement: "...at the current rate immigration will about double our population shortly after 2050. Do you think knowing all the facts may have changed a few of those votes?"

It won't even come close to doubling our population by 2050. Another questionable statement you made: "Most accept that the figure for them runs at over 1 million per year." Most who? Most anti-immigration fanatics? If that's the case, then it's a true statement. But the most reliable estimates are far below that number.

Again, get your facts straight. Even if you intend to continue your anti-immigration rhetoric, then at least you won't seem like such a dunce if you spew accurate data.

I help people. This is what I do.

Here's a link to the US Census Bureau's own population projections "consistent with the 2000 census":

http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/usinterimproj/

I don't know whether they attempt to estimate the number of illegals in their projections -- probably not. Most accept that the figure for them runs at over 1 million per year. And with Bush rewarding them for coming, why would the influx stop? And why would we expect that those who would give illegals here now legal status would stop there? And not go on to grant them permanent residence and then citizenship? And for all who would follow, legal and illegal? And

"...at the current rate immigration will about double our population shortly after 2050. Do you think knowing all the facts may have changed a few of those votes?"

I believe that if you knew all the facts, or even a summary, then you would have changed the above statement and probably a lot of other opinions that you hold that are based on false information spewed by organizations like FAIR.

"decide for themselves"

About what? I'm not so interested in a he-said, she-said about this poll.

Having lived in California from 1970 - 2000, and seen what happened there, I've already made up my mind.

But speaking about the poll, I also went to the NIF site and read the summary.

I wonder if when they asked about current immigration levels, where 39% said they wanted them to remain the same, they also told the pollees that the US now admits more legal immigrants than all other nations combined, so many that at the current rate immigration will about double our population shortly after 2050. Do you think knowing all the facts may have changed a few of those votes? Nonetheless I notice that the total of those who want to see levels reduced or want a total cutoff is about the same as those who want the same or more.

Regarding this question:

"Congress is considering a bipartisan immigration reform proposal that would do several things. I am going to read you several items. Please tell me if you would favor or oppose this part of the proposal."

The choices offered did not seem to include simple, stepped up enforcement of current immigration law, including arrest and deportation of illegals, and more action against employers as a way to deal with those illegals here now, to discourage more of them from coming, and to punish employers who hire them.

So having read the poll, all in all I agree with FAIR that it's a hack job designed to manipulate a lot of probably ignorant respondents, and to show that Americans want to amnesty millions of illegals, and favor flooding the country with even more "guest workers" -- all that 'willing worker, willing employer' crap Bush carries on about.

Sorry, but I'm not buying it.

Having read the report of the immigration poll myself, I can only conclude that the only sham is FAIR's comment. Everyone should read the report of the poll itself and decide for themselves.

"false choice"

Why is "mass deportations" (sic) of illegals a "false choice", or seen as one? What would be the scenario there? That by some big coincidence, a "mass" of illegals are all arrested at about the same time, it takes about the same amount of time for each of their cases to make it through the immigration system, and again at about the same time they are all loaded onto a train -- Nazi cattle car style -- and sent off to Mexico (where most of them come from, no doubt)?

I don't get this phrasing, this kind of thinking.

But I do get the human angle in all of this, and am not insensitive to it.

However, I suggest the best strategy is to begin to enforce immigration law, all of its provisions, including arresting and (expeditiously, I hope) deporting illegals. And if over time the number of deportations becomes 'massive', then isn't this just an indication of the scale of the problem?

A nation that shrinks from arrest and deportation, on whatever scale, is doomed.