Do you think Trump is anti-immigration?

Democrats, Marxists, and Social Justice Warriors all claim that Donald Trump is opposed to immigration.  Many libertarians and Objectivists agree.  Many of these people believe that this is obvious because Trump has acted to prevent the flood of illegal aliens from crossing our borders that had taken place during the Biden administration.  Mind you, Congress has created immigration laws which were signed by previous Presidents.  It is the duty of the current President to enforce those laws.

There are good reasons why the immigration laws create a process of evaluation for those we allow to reside in the USA.  Terrorists, murderers, thieves, slavers, rapists, child molesters, and those who would wind up on the welfare rolls of a country already deeply in debt are all very reasonably considered undesirables or even Deplorables.  Many a Democrat believes that most Republicans are Deplorables, so surely the above enumerated undesirable immigrants must qualify as Deplorables.

Wait.  Judgments are made in a context.  Democrats have a different context for their evaluation of immigration.  For Democrats, a Deplorable is someone who is not dependent upon government and therefore not easily controlled.  So these undesirable immigrants are actually quite desirable in the eyes of those who lust for power.  No one lusts for power more than the Democrat, Marxist, Social Justice Warrior elitists.  The quest for power justifies any act.

Is there a basis for people who are not lunatics to believe that Trump is anti-immigration?  On the surface, his implementation of a $100,000 fee for H-1B visas appears to justify a belief that Trump is anti-immigrant.  Let us consider this evaluation with some care.

The H-1B visa program allows people with special skills, generally based on years of education, to reside in the USA for 3 years.  They may renew their H-1B visa for another 3 years.  There is a lottery to apply for an H-1B visa for those who would work for a for-profit company.  Non-profits, universities, and federal laboratory candidates do not have to be filtered and limited by the lottery.  There is a general lottery of 65,000 visa applications for those with a bachelor's degree or higher.  There is a smaller lottery of 20,000 for those applicants with master's degrees or higher which were awarded by U.S. accredited universities.  In Fiscal 2025, there were 343,981 registrations for the opportunity to apply for the H-1B visa.  There were about 120,000 selections.  First off, there are many more nationals of other countries who have master's degrees or higher than 20,000 and there are many more total registrants than there are total slots available.  The $100,000 fee did not apply to these 2025 applicants.  It will apply in 2026, but not to those foreign nationals who are already legally in the USA.  Most of them have graduated from U.S. universities.  One of the main consequences of Trump's changes to the program is that the foreign nationals who are already legally in the USA and who have been educated here, will be much less likely to be forced to leave the USA because someone who is not already here is being brought into the U.S. to work.  About 250,000 international students graduate from U.S. universities each year.  There are almost certain to be more than 120,000 registrants for H-1B visas from these students in 2026.  The number of H-1B visas awarded will not be very different after the Trump changes than before them.

In fact, Trump made it very clear to Laura Ingraham, who hates the H-1B visa program, that he sees a need for the special skills of H-1B visa holders.  I fully agree with Trump on this.  I have sponsored four scientists for H-1B visas over the years to work for my laboratory.  I currently have one Ph.D. scientist on my staff who is awaiting word on his application, which appears to have been delayed by the government "shut-down."

Laura Ingraham, J. D. Vance, and other Republicans who oppose the program commonly cite the idea that there are plenty of American residents who can meet all of our technical and scientific needs without foreign workers.  I have news for you.  Getting a Ph.D. in the hard sciences is a much tougher challenge and much more work than most Americans wish to undertake.  The IQ requirement is very high to begin with and the U.S. population compared to the world population is about 4%.  Laura, this means that there are many more high IQ people in the rest of the world than there are in the USA.  Yes, we more than hold our own on a per capita basis, but we are foolish to not import as much of the intelligence and dedication to professional skill development that the rest of the world can offer us.  The people we keep in the USA under the H-1B visa program have proven to be so productive that they have raised the standard of living for all Americans.  These are people we should welcome with open arms.

There have been abuses in the H-1B program by some companies.  Trump has been addressing some of those abuses.  The $100,000 fee on hires from outside the USA is one way he is addressing the abuses.  There is a claim that companies pay H-1B visa holders less than they pay comparable Americans.  This is not the case for my laboratory.  I am required by the Department of Labor to pay my present applicant more than I pay my American scientists.  In addition to that, I had to pay application fees and lawyer fees and put in tens of hours of my own time to do the voluminous paperwork for his application.  Believe me, if I could find a comparable American citizen scientist, I would find it much easier and more profitable to hire him (or her).

I would like to see the U.S. immigration law be more welcoming of immigrants than it is.  I do believe in a vetting process.  Open borders is not a viable option for a country with concern for the safety of its people and when that country is substantially a welfare state in extreme debt.  We benefit from immigrants who are committed to being productive.  Productivity is a necessary measure of merit. I think Trump realizes this.

CO2 Has Little Effect on the World's Temperature

An email that I received today from The CO2 Coalition organization provides four plots of global temperature versus either CO2 emissions or the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere that send a clear signal that CO2 at the concentrations long found in the atmosphere has little effect upon the temperature.  I want to be sure that my friends and relatives have an opportunity to see this very important data.

The consequences of pursuing net zero carbon emissions are catastrophic economically.  In addition, without mankind pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the long term trend was CO2 atmospheric concentrations so low that plants could not survive.  In 1850, atmospheric carbon dioxide was so low that plant life was hanging by a thread.  As the CO2 Coalition has repeatedly pointed out, farm production has benefited greatly due to the increased CO2 emissions of mankind since WWII.  The failure to use coal, natural gas, oil, and nuclear power results in the cost of all activities dependent upon energy increasing.  The carbon dioxide emissions due to carbon-based fuel use decrease the cost of food because their emissions are fertilizer for plants in addition to decreasing many processing and delivery costs in food production.  With 8.2 billion people on this Earth, a net zero policy will result in mass starvation. 

One wonders at the severe consequences of the highly irrational policies of those supporting the myth of catastrophic man-made global warming. Some of these people know what they are doing and they do not care as long as they gain power, wealth, or damage the capitalist system and the private sector.  Others have adopted policy beliefs without fulfilling their responsibility to understand what they are doing before they undertake actions with catastrophic consequences, commonly exercising force to make others comply.

 

The only climate change we need to fear is the start of the next Ice Age.

Thirtieth Anniversary of Anderson Materials Evaluation, Inc.

The 14th of July, 2025, is the 30th anniversary of my materials analysis laboratory, Anderson Materials Evaluation, Inc.  Within two weeks of the announcement that the recent merger of Lockheed and Martin Marietta was going to result in the closing of the Martin Marietta Laboratories - Baltimore laboratory, I incorporated Anderson Materials Evaluation, Inc.

I initially provided surface analysis services using x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS, also called electron spectroscopy for chemical analysis or ESCA) and a scanning Auger electron microprobe (SAM).  Soon, I added thermal analysis services (thermogravimetry or TGA, differential scanning calorimetry or DSC, thermomechanical analysis or TMA, and dynamic mechanical analysis or DMA) and metallographic microscopy.  Down the road awhile, we offered infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM).  We then added energy-dispersive x-ray spectroscopy (EDS) to our SEM.

Still later, we added mechanical testing capabilities with the purchase of a used Instron machine and we upgraded its electronic controls and software.  We purchased an ultraviolet - visible light or UV-Vis spectrometer.  Then came the purchase of our gas chromatography - mass spectrometer (GC-MS), followed by the purchase of our wavelength-dispersive x-ray fluorescence spectrometer (XRF).  Next, we purchased a 3-dimension high resolution digital optical microscope with surface profiling capabilities and an integrated laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS) elemental microanalysis spectrometer. Finally, our last major purchase was our x-ray diffraction instrument (XRD).  Through the years, I commonly paid myself less salary than my employees so I could invest more into expanding the laboratory's materials analysis capabilities.

This expanding instrument capability has helped us to provide a wide range of materials characterizations, failure analyses, materials verifications, quality control, detection of hazards, and research and development services.  We utilize these capabilities on materials as varied as metals, semiconductors, polymers, glasses, ceramics, composite materials, minerals and other inorganic chemicals, and organic liquids.  We presently employ 8 people, counting two interns and two other part time employees.

Today, Howard County, Maryland, presented me with my annual personal property tax bill.  My willingness to forgo income, purchase the equipment of my laboratory, and to take on risk, leaves me subject to a large tax bill annually for the value of my laboratory equipment.  That equipment depreciates, but if it is in use, it never depreciates below 25% of its initial cost.  This is one instance in which inflation is a good thing.  At least the expense of purchasing equipment in 1996 is much reduced by the inflation since then, along with the subsequent property tax.

Governments love taking from small businesses.  From each according to his ability or capability, to each according to someone's perception of their own need or maybe somebody else's need.  The force of government is most easily applied against a minority, such as capable small business owners.  Yet, after 30 years, I will continue working for as many more years as I can.  I still like solving materials problems and working with the kind of people who share my interest in using materials to improve the condition of mankind.

The Failure of Tulsa, Oklahoma Public High Schools

I graduated from Tulsa's Memorial High School in 1965.  I have a number of family members who still live in the Tulsa Metro Area.  I just looked up an evaluation website to see what the Tulsa Public School system was providing as an "education" at the high school level.

Let me start with my own high school.  Memorial High School students are 10 to 14% proficient in math and 10 - 14% proficient in reading.  This is about what most of the 18 public high schools in Tulsa are accomplishing in the way of an "education."  The best of the bunch are Tulsa Met High School (math proficiency <50%, Reading < 50%) and Booker T. Washington High School (Math 38%, Reading 53%).  Next is Dove Science Academy Tulsa High School (math 30 - 39%, reading 30-39%) where it is apparently thought that science can be performed without math and without being able to read.  Union High School, ranked fourth best of 18, boasts a 29% math proficiency and a 34% reading proficiency.  The fifth best is Tulsa Honor Academy High School (a charter school) proudly proclaiming the Honor in having a 25- 29% math proficiency and a 30 - 34% reading proficiency.  The Thomas Edison Preparatory High School is math 18% and reading 45%.  This cannot be preparation for college.  Perhaps it is preparation to enter a decent middle school somewhere else in the USA.

Of the remaining public high schools in Tulsa, not one of them has a math proficiency score as high as 20%.  Two of those schools have Sciences in their name and one of those has a math proficiency of 5% or less.  Four of the high schools have math proficiencies of 5% or less.

Nine of the Tulsa high schools have reading proficiencies of less than 20%.  Five of the high schools have reading proficiency for 10% or less of their students.

Why do the people of Tulsa pay for high schools and teachers at all, if this is viewed as anything close to an acceptable educational outcome?  Is it just so they can have high school football?  Tulsans are mad about football.  I love football.  But one can have both football and an education.  In my graduating class of about 250 individuals, two of our starters on our conference-winning football team went to The U.S. Military Academy at West Point.  One of them and another starting offensive lineman became MDs.  At least another two of my classmates became MDs.  One became a professor of economics at Northwestern University.  Numerous others became engineers, dentists, and lawyers.  The Tulsa public schools system has clearly destroyed my high school, along with many others.

Or do Tulsans pay taxes for useless high schools because the politicians and the teachers unions have completely bamboozled them? 

It is morally wrong to force children to attend failing high schools.  Among those Tulsa children forced to attend a useless high school, there are many whose time is being wasted.  Some would learn useful skills if they were allowed to work.  Others would teach themselves more than these useless schools are teaching them.  Parents have an obligation to educate their children.  Others do not have an obligation to educate the children of others.  What individuals must do morally for the children of others, is to not act to prevent them from getting an education.  When voters elect government officials who force children to waste their time in useless high schools, this is a case in which those voters are acting to prevent children from learning.  The Tulsa high schools are a moral abomination.

They are not alone.  The public schools of America are generally an abomination from elementary schools through the universities.  The complete system of American education needs to be torn down and restarted on rational principles.  Few young Americans are proficient in math and reading.  Few know enough science, civics, history, and economics/business practices to function as well as they ought to in an advanced capitalist economy and civilization.

It is a sad result that AI will actually be easily able to replace many of our uneducated people before long.  This should be a much harder task for AI to accomplish, but people who know nothing have also never learned how to know much of anything.  Mankind's primary means of survival is the mind.  If you will not train and optimize your mind, you will not thrive and you may well not survive.  Parents need to live up to their obligations and everyone else must at least not be roadblocks preventing a child who wants to learn and develop his mind from doing so.

An Update on My Immediate Family Share of the National Debt

The national debt of the federal government of the USA is now about $36.506312 trillion.  There are currently about 341.374 million Americans.  This means that each living American has a debt of $106,939.

My wife and I, plus our 3 daughters, plus our 3 granddaughters combined owe $855,512.  I doubt that my wife and I will live long enough to pay down our share of that sum, so whatever is left will devolve to our daughters and granddaughters.

The federal debt will likely continue to grow, despite the heroic efforts of DOGE.  Congress has not shown much appetite for reducing spending to the level of its current revenues in several decades.  I will be watching for any signs of increased responsibility on Congress's part.

See the historical plot of the Federal debt as a percentage of the USA GDP below:

As of the year 2024, our national debt as a percentage of GDP is about equal to that of 1946 at the end of WWII.  This is serious debt without the justification that the nation had with WWII.  After WWII, the population growth rate of the USA was high for several decades, which made it easier to grow the economy and hence the GDP.  The population growth rate is much lower now.  Congress will have to work harder to restrain spending increases in the near future than it did then if the national debt is to fall as a fraction of GDP.