Anthony Burgess would have described the Hummer driver as a hemisemidemiwit.

US Immigration stattistics would tend to disagree with the conclusions of the Dream on America article. Immigration peaked with Reagan, dropped sharply under Clinton, and started growing again under Bush. What's most contradictory is that the top country of origin for immigrants to the US in 2003 was the UK. These stats would seem to indicate it is not only alive and well, but that the shores of the US are more attractive under this poor President. Go figure? Check out the graph on page 5 http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/aboutus/statistics/2003Yearbook.pdf

WB, Immigration is my field of expertise and I'm afraid that you did not read the data correctly.

For one, if you read carefully, you'll see that legal immigration to the US is in steady decline (a fact that is not necessarily a bad thing, yet): 2001=1,064,318 2002=1,063,732 2003=705,827

Second, if you were familiar with the Immigration process and priority dates, you would know that in many cases it takes several years to complete the processing of a petition, therefore, many of those approved in 2003, probably petitioned in 2001 and 2002, some probably even before that. Also, not contained in this report is information on emigrants (aliens permanently departing the United States).

Third, the UK is NOT "the top country of origin for immigrants to the US in 2003", as the reigning champ continues to be Mexico, followed by Asian countries, but even their numbers have decreased. I wonder where you got that from, if anything, maybe the UK is the top country of origin for NON-immigrant aliens (i.e. business visitors, tourists, temporary workers, students)?

However, it's worthwhile to recognize, that 69.7% of all immigrant petitions are Family based, which means the main concern of the applicants is family reunification, and not an assesment of US political appeal.

For the later, instead of reading between the lines of a US immigration report, the clear answer is to ask plainly in a global poll, and that's what the Dream on America article refers to.

In my personal experience, I can tell you the article is not that far off.

One: Legal + illegal measures the intent of people to come to this country more purely than a measure of those that legally applied and were lucky enought to be approved. But that being said, the Clinton years still average less than the Bush years have in a post 9/11 world of tightening standards. There appears to be a fairly traceable recession/immigration trend obvious in the graph. Recessions appear to depress immigration, and that is certainly the story of the early Bush years. Two: I agree there is a lag if you apply legally. Three: I got the stat from the highlight list. You're right, I read it incorrectly. It says nonimmigrant.