Issues‎ > ‎


In my opinion, immigration is a global phenomenon rather than uniquely American.     People immigrate due to a number of factors which can be described as push-and-pull.     Push factors include the American policy of pandering to big American Agriculture business that lower corn price in Mexico that causes local Mexican farmers to become uncompetitive. Without a mean to support their families, they just head north of the border to become an illegal in the U.S. Pull factors are the rewards that the U.S. are giving to the illegals such as non-enforced work rules, free medical care and education for their kids. In order to reduce the number of illegal immigrants to the U.S., I believe that we need to eliminate both the push and pull factors. I think the U.S. can learn a lot from other countries regarding the problems of immigration.     As an immigrant myself who came to the U.S. as a political refugee, what are my thoughts on it and what do I support?

Because immigration is a hot and controversial subject, I think it’s best if we put it into a particular framework.    Personally I like the UNHRC’s (United Nation Refugee Agency) framework:

The practice of granting asylum to people fleeing persecution in foreign lands is one of the earliest hallmarks of civilization. References to it have been found in texts written 3,500 years ago, during the blossoming of the great early empires in the Middle East such as the Hittites, Babylonians, Assyrians and ancient Egyptians.

The 1951 Refugee Convention establishing UNHCR spells out that a refugee is someone who "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country."

Global migration patterns have become increasingly complex in modern times, involving not just refugees, but also millions of economic migrants. But refugees and migrants, even if they often travel in the same way, are fundamentally different, and for that reason are treated very differently under modern international law.

Migrants, especially economic migrants, choose to move in order to improve the future prospects of themselves and their families. Refugees have to move if they are to save their lives or preserve their freedom. They have no protection from their own state - indeed it is often their own government that is threatening to persecute them.

As you notice from the UN declaration above which states that “refugees and economic migrants are fundamentally different.”     Countries do make a distinction between refugees and economic migrants.  It is wrong to put everyone into one basket.    All countries that are supportive of refugees actually don’t support illegal economic migrants to their countries that violate their countries' laws. Laws must be upheld in order to have civilized and fair society.     That’s what I also believe.   I am 100% supportive of refugees, but I am against illegal economic immigration.     There is nothing contradictory about it.    The only reason I might vote against a law for refugees is if I think it may put our national security at risk.     I generally support legal immigrants who follow American laws. In time of economic stress, I believe it's wise to cut down the number of legal immigrants to the country so we don't flood the job market with extra labor that causes hardship for everyone -- both the people who are already here and the new arrivals. I also wholeheartedly support the immigration of the best and brightest to America.    I believe that America becomes a richer and stronger country due to the contributions of these extraordinarily talented individuals. However, I strongly oppose the importation of cheap labor disguised as the “best and brightest” to displace American workers.

Please keep these points in mind as you read about my writings on immigration which I intend to do in the months ahead.


I am not the only one who believes Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren is terrible. These are the voices from Americans across the nation who expressed their views about her on the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, the Hill, San Jose Mercury News, the Washington Post, etc. in the comment sections of the articles that mentioned her name:

medocad at 8:22 PM April 22, 2011 Someone should remind the Congresswoman that when she took the office, she swore to uphold the constitution of the US. Immigration and defending the borders is part of the oath. It is the Federal Government's obligation to deport people who are in the country illegally. I don't care if they have committed a crime or not. Being here is a crime punishable by deportation.