0 comment Wednesday, December 3, 2014 | admin
A while back when the subject of 'Favorite People on the Right' came up, among my choices, I mentioned Lou Dobbs, mostly because of the work he does on bringing immigration issues to the attention of many Americans. He also does great work reporting on the sovereignty issues, like the plans for a North American Union.
However occasionally he says things which indicate he still has a very liberal consciousness in certain ways. For example on this evening's show, he went into a rant about the latest Center for Immigration Studies report; he thinks the report conflates legal and illegal immigration, and he was very adamant that it's illegal immigration that is the problem. Of course that point of view, in my opinion, is one that is harmful to the cause of America, promoting the rather legalistic and simplistic view that the only problem with the millions of illegals here is that they don't have the correct paperwork. That viewpoint denies the importance of culture, demographics, and a number of other important considerations. But I'll just quote Lou's rant, and let you judge for yourselves. Dobbs introduces Bill Tucker, who reports on the CIS study:
DOBBS: Well, the presidential candidates in both political parties have now discovered that illegal immigration is a critical and important issue for Americans and anyone who doubts that illegal immigration is a tremendous and rapidly escalating crisis need only look at the most recent study of Census Bureau numbers. That study shows this nation is experiencing the highest level of immigration legal and illegal in three generations. And as Bill Tucker now reports more than half of the 10 million people arriving in the United States over the past seven years have arrived here illegally.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
TUCKER (voice-over): No other nation is as welcoming to immigrants as the United States. Thirty-eight million people living in the country are immigrants. That's one out of every eight Americans. Not since the days of Ellis Island have immigrants represented so much of our population, but not all immigrants are here legally.
One-third of them are here unlawfully and since 2000, more than half of those entering the United States have been illegal aliens. The Center for Immigration Studies analyzed data collected by the Census Bureau in March of this year. The analysis is revealing and raises some tough questions. STEVEN CAMAROTA, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES: When we looked at rates of poverty, health insurance coverage and welfare use, it reminds us that when people say all that matters is a willing worker and a willing employer. That's not all that matters. There are many other things.
TUCKER: Such as the impact on poverty rates, social services, health care and schools.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: One of the things that has been going on in a lot of schools is a lot of overcrowding. And what we found was that in the last 20 years immigration accounts for all of the increase in school enrollment in the United States.
TUCKER: Twenty percent of illegal immigrants lack any health care insurance and all immigrants account for 71 percent of the uninsured since 1989. While immigrant households are more likely to have someone in the house with a job, the poverty rate is sharply higher in immigrant households than it is in native born households and one-third of immigrant households use it at least one welfare program. The primary reason for these problems comes down to a poor education. Since 2000, 35.5 percent of immigrants never finished high school. They are fit for only low wage, low skill jobs.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TUCKER: And that represents a huge shift in historic trends. Thirty years ago immigrants coming to this country were more likely to have a college degree than native born Americans. Lou, today that is clearly not the case.
DOBBS: Now who did this study?
TUCKER: The Center for Immigration Study looked at data provided by the Census Bureau, March...
DOBBS: Well I have to say that what I resent here on the part of the Census Bureau and the center is this conflation again of immigrants and illegal immigrants. Frankly, as we bring in people lawfully into this country, as a matter of public policy, I don't think any of us should care one way or the other about their education level, any of that, or the number of programs, social programs that are being employed.
The issue here is illegal immigration. This government, this federal government, and each of its agencies refuses to deal with the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants and we should never be a part of that conflation and that purposeful obfuscation on the part of those who are pro-amnesty, pro-open borders and pro-massive illegal immigration at any cost to the United States.
Those are dramatic numbers. But again, I just -- I'm deeply concerned that this Census Bureau, this federal government is not making a distinction between legal and lawful immigrants. Of course, more than two million people entering the country lawfully every year. Thank you very much. Bill Tucker.''
[Emphasis mine]
Now, what immediately raised my hackles is that Dobbs says that we shouldn't be concerned about the low educational levels of immigrants or about their usage of social programs, as long as they are legal immigrants. However he offers no argument to justify his views on that issue.
He says that it is the proponents of amnesty who are purposely lumping together legal and illegal immigration. In a sense, I suppose that is correct; the open borders proponents generally try to tar any restrictionist with the 'anti-immigrant' brush, implying that restrictionists in general are bigots who hate immigrants ''just because''; just because they are different, or just because most immigrants nowadays, as the study confirms, are from third-world countries.
But most restrictionists play into the hands of these people by protesting loudly 'I'm not opposed to immigrants or immigration; I'm only opposed to illegal immigration!' This of course suits the open borders crowd just fine; they've made the restrictionist become defensive, and act like a cornered animal, and most importantly, they've managed to extract from the restrictionist the statement that he or she supports 'any immigration just as long as it's LEGAL.'
So there you go; the open borders crowd has gotten a blank check from you; you've said that as long as immigrants are here legally, with the correct documents, you are happy to welcome them, and you can raise no objection to their being here, because they are LEGAL, and you've just said that legality is the only issue with immigration.
So I immediately doubt the seriousness of any restrictionist who says the 'as long as it's legal' line. Now, I haven't heard Lou Dobbs say this so plainly in the past, but maybe I haven't been paying enough attention.
I have often wondered why CNN, which is the most politically correct, leftist, open-borders, one-world, news channel, would employ Lou Dobbs, if he really were such a staunch opponent of one of their cherished leftist/globalist causes.
If his rant today accurately represents his beliefs on immigration, that legality is all that is at issue, then he is simply another variety of liberal, and not the hard-line immigration restrictionist as embodied in his image.
His point that the quality of the immigrants we take in, as indicated in their educational level and their welfare usage, is not a valid concern, is also troubling.
Suppose our sneaky elites somehow manage to increase legal immigration levels substantially, as would have been the case with the failed amnesty bill. Suppose we start taking in 5 or 10 million legal immigrants each year. Will all our troubles evaporate? Obviously not. The quality of the immigrants we receive is all-important. If the immigrants come here legally, and are granted citizenship quickly as seems to be the trend as everybody frets over the poor immigrants being forced to 'wait too long' for citizenship, then they are here to stay, as are their progeny, forever. Once upon a time, when we actually had standards for our immigrants, that was not such a problem, but now, we allow people from countries where good record-keeping is not part of their culture, and we thus have no knowledge of their history: are they law-abiding? Do they have communicable or hereditary diseases? The quality of the immigrants that we now accept is not comparable to that of past generations of immigrants. Quality does matter, as much as quantity. To say that a legal document is all that's needed to fit into our society, and that anybody with the right paperwork is good enough to join our American family is naive at best, and deluded at worst.
Culture matters. Genetics matters. Educational level and skills matter. Compatibility with our country matters. Attitude matters.
In all of the above areas, the immigrants we receive at present, the legal ones as much as the illegals, don't measure up.
The people who are touting Lou Dobbs as a possible independent candidate for the Presidency are naive; his tough-talking persona does not mean that he is anything more than another media personality, whose restrictionist persona may be deceiving.
However occasionally he says things which indicate he still has a very liberal consciousness in certain ways. For example on this evening's show, he went into a rant about the latest Center for Immigration Studies report; he thinks the report conflates legal and illegal immigration, and he was very adamant that it's illegal immigration that is the problem. Of course that point of view, in my opinion, is one that is harmful to the cause of America, promoting the rather legalistic and simplistic view that the only problem with the millions of illegals here is that they don't have the correct paperwork. That viewpoint denies the importance of culture, demographics, and a number of other important considerations. But I'll just quote Lou's rant, and let you judge for yourselves. Dobbs introduces Bill Tucker, who reports on the CIS study:
DOBBS: Well, the presidential candidates in both political parties have now discovered that illegal immigration is a critical and important issue for Americans and anyone who doubts that illegal immigration is a tremendous and rapidly escalating crisis need only look at the most recent study of Census Bureau numbers. That study shows this nation is experiencing the highest level of immigration legal and illegal in three generations. And as Bill Tucker now reports more than half of the 10 million people arriving in the United States over the past seven years have arrived here illegally.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
TUCKER (voice-over): No other nation is as welcoming to immigrants as the United States. Thirty-eight million people living in the country are immigrants. That's one out of every eight Americans. Not since the days of Ellis Island have immigrants represented so much of our population, but not all immigrants are here legally.
One-third of them are here unlawfully and since 2000, more than half of those entering the United States have been illegal aliens. The Center for Immigration Studies analyzed data collected by the Census Bureau in March of this year. The analysis is revealing and raises some tough questions. STEVEN CAMAROTA, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES: When we looked at rates of poverty, health insurance coverage and welfare use, it reminds us that when people say all that matters is a willing worker and a willing employer. That's not all that matters. There are many other things.
TUCKER: Such as the impact on poverty rates, social services, health care and schools.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: One of the things that has been going on in a lot of schools is a lot of overcrowding. And what we found was that in the last 20 years immigration accounts for all of the increase in school enrollment in the United States.
TUCKER: Twenty percent of illegal immigrants lack any health care insurance and all immigrants account for 71 percent of the uninsured since 1989. While immigrant households are more likely to have someone in the house with a job, the poverty rate is sharply higher in immigrant households than it is in native born households and one-third of immigrant households use it at least one welfare program. The primary reason for these problems comes down to a poor education. Since 2000, 35.5 percent of immigrants never finished high school. They are fit for only low wage, low skill jobs.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TUCKER: And that represents a huge shift in historic trends. Thirty years ago immigrants coming to this country were more likely to have a college degree than native born Americans. Lou, today that is clearly not the case.
DOBBS: Now who did this study?
TUCKER: The Center for Immigration Study looked at data provided by the Census Bureau, March...
DOBBS: Well I have to say that what I resent here on the part of the Census Bureau and the center is this conflation again of immigrants and illegal immigrants. Frankly, as we bring in people lawfully into this country, as a matter of public policy, I don't think any of us should care one way or the other about their education level, any of that, or the number of programs, social programs that are being employed.
The issue here is illegal immigration. This government, this federal government, and each of its agencies refuses to deal with the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants and we should never be a part of that conflation and that purposeful obfuscation on the part of those who are pro-amnesty, pro-open borders and pro-massive illegal immigration at any cost to the United States.
Those are dramatic numbers. But again, I just -- I'm deeply concerned that this Census Bureau, this federal government is not making a distinction between legal and lawful immigrants. Of course, more than two million people entering the country lawfully every year. Thank you very much. Bill Tucker.''
[Emphasis mine]
Now, what immediately raised my hackles is that Dobbs says that we shouldn't be concerned about the low educational levels of immigrants or about their usage of social programs, as long as they are legal immigrants. However he offers no argument to justify his views on that issue.
He says that it is the proponents of amnesty who are purposely lumping together legal and illegal immigration. In a sense, I suppose that is correct; the open borders proponents generally try to tar any restrictionist with the 'anti-immigrant' brush, implying that restrictionists in general are bigots who hate immigrants ''just because''; just because they are different, or just because most immigrants nowadays, as the study confirms, are from third-world countries.
But most restrictionists play into the hands of these people by protesting loudly 'I'm not opposed to immigrants or immigration; I'm only opposed to illegal immigration!' This of course suits the open borders crowd just fine; they've made the restrictionist become defensive, and act like a cornered animal, and most importantly, they've managed to extract from the restrictionist the statement that he or she supports 'any immigration just as long as it's LEGAL.'
So there you go; the open borders crowd has gotten a blank check from you; you've said that as long as immigrants are here legally, with the correct documents, you are happy to welcome them, and you can raise no objection to their being here, because they are LEGAL, and you've just said that legality is the only issue with immigration.
So I immediately doubt the seriousness of any restrictionist who says the 'as long as it's legal' line. Now, I haven't heard Lou Dobbs say this so plainly in the past, but maybe I haven't been paying enough attention.
I have often wondered why CNN, which is the most politically correct, leftist, open-borders, one-world, news channel, would employ Lou Dobbs, if he really were such a staunch opponent of one of their cherished leftist/globalist causes.
If his rant today accurately represents his beliefs on immigration, that legality is all that is at issue, then he is simply another variety of liberal, and not the hard-line immigration restrictionist as embodied in his image.
His point that the quality of the immigrants we take in, as indicated in their educational level and their welfare usage, is not a valid concern, is also troubling.
Suppose our sneaky elites somehow manage to increase legal immigration levels substantially, as would have been the case with the failed amnesty bill. Suppose we start taking in 5 or 10 million legal immigrants each year. Will all our troubles evaporate? Obviously not. The quality of the immigrants we receive is all-important. If the immigrants come here legally, and are granted citizenship quickly as seems to be the trend as everybody frets over the poor immigrants being forced to 'wait too long' for citizenship, then they are here to stay, as are their progeny, forever. Once upon a time, when we actually had standards for our immigrants, that was not such a problem, but now, we allow people from countries where good record-keeping is not part of their culture, and we thus have no knowledge of their history: are they law-abiding? Do they have communicable or hereditary diseases? The quality of the immigrants that we now accept is not comparable to that of past generations of immigrants. Quality does matter, as much as quantity. To say that a legal document is all that's needed to fit into our society, and that anybody with the right paperwork is good enough to join our American family is naive at best, and deluded at worst.
Culture matters. Genetics matters. Educational level and skills matter. Compatibility with our country matters. Attitude matters.
In all of the above areas, the immigrants we receive at present, the legal ones as much as the illegals, don't measure up.
The people who are touting Lou Dobbs as a possible independent candidate for the Presidency are naive; his tough-talking persona does not mean that he is anything more than another media personality, whose restrictionist persona may be deceiving.
Labels: American Identity, Illegal Immigration, Legal Immigration, Mass Immigration, Open Borders
0 comment Wednesday, November 12, 2014 | admin
I've said before that I believe a third party is sorely needed, given the fact that the two main parties in our country share similar ideas about immigration and multiculturalism. Both parties generally are very careful to limit any criticism of immigration to the illegal variety. This is just not honest, and it is just one more form of political correctness and obfuscation of the truth, as with all forms of political correctness.
Both parties support multiculturalism and the 'proposition nation' idea, and a more or less open-ended commitment to perpetual immigration.
A while back I said that I had hopes for the American Third Position Party. I think those hopes were misplaced, after reading this piece and its comment thread a couple of times.
''... we need an immigration policy that makes sense and that protects American jobs.
Before we go any further, it is important for me to make a few points. It is not a bad thing that people want to come to this nation from another country. A lot of people that want to come to the United States are really hard working and have really solid character. This nation has a long tradition of immigrants arriving to build a better life here. At different times this country will need different levels of immigration, but we will always need new immigrants. People on one side of a border are not more "valuable" than people on another side of a border. There is a reason why our founding fathers believed that "all men are created equal". In every nation on earth there are really wonderful people. We should love all men, women and children no matter where they were born and no matter what they look like. God created us all and He loves us all dearly.
This is just more of the kind of thing G.W. Bush was fond of saying, and I am sure various Democrats have said it many times as well.
Before someone says that I am being a purist or ''letting the perfect be the enemy of the good'', please don't.
The hour is late for us; we don't have time to dally with the PC approach and the egalitarian platitudes.
I am sure others will do what they will, but I am crossing A3P off my list of possibilities. I am sure they would not care to have my support in any case.
Both parties support multiculturalism and the 'proposition nation' idea, and a more or less open-ended commitment to perpetual immigration.
A while back I said that I had hopes for the American Third Position Party. I think those hopes were misplaced, after reading this piece and its comment thread a couple of times.
''... we need an immigration policy that makes sense and that protects American jobs.
Before we go any further, it is important for me to make a few points. It is not a bad thing that people want to come to this nation from another country. A lot of people that want to come to the United States are really hard working and have really solid character. This nation has a long tradition of immigrants arriving to build a better life here. At different times this country will need different levels of immigration, but we will always need new immigrants. People on one side of a border are not more "valuable" than people on another side of a border. There is a reason why our founding fathers believed that "all men are created equal". In every nation on earth there are really wonderful people. We should love all men, women and children no matter where they were born and no matter what they look like. God created us all and He loves us all dearly.
This is just more of the kind of thing G.W. Bush was fond of saying, and I am sure various Democrats have said it many times as well.
Before someone says that I am being a purist or ''letting the perfect be the enemy of the good'', please don't.
The hour is late for us; we don't have time to dally with the PC approach and the egalitarian platitudes.
I am sure others will do what they will, but I am crossing A3P off my list of possibilities. I am sure they would not care to have my support in any case.
Labels: Legal Immigration, Mass Immigration, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Proposition Nation
0 comment Friday, September 12, 2014 | admin
Will wonders never cease? The New York Times, inexplicably, tells some truths on immigration. Whatever brought this about, I wonder?
Immigration at Record Level, Analysis Finds
Immigration over the past seven years was the highest for any seven-year period in American history, bringing 10.3 million new immigrants, more than half of them without legal status, according to an analysis of census data released today by the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington.
One in eight people living in the United States is an immigrant, the survey found, for a total of 37.9 million people � the highest level since the 1920s.
The survey was conducted by Steven A. Camarota, director of research at the center, which advocates reduced immigration.
Mr. Camarota has been active in the national immigration debate. Independent demographers disputed some of the survey�s conclusions, but not Mr. Camarota�s methods of data analysis.
A large proportion of recent immigrants, both legal and illegal, are low-skilled workers and about one-third of those have not completed high school, giving them significantly less education than Americans born in the United States, according to the study, which is based on census data as recent as March of this year.
The survey focuses on public costs associated with the new generation of immigrant workers. It does not, however, analyze contributions they make by paying taxes and taking undesirable, low-income jobs � an omission criticized by some immigration scholars.''
Well, the article was just fine until that last paragraph, in which the NYT reverts to form and brings in the old 'some scholars say...' kind of thing, in an attempt to provide their own editorializing about the content of the article.
But let's leave aside the New York Times and their political correctness, and go right to the source that they are reporting on here: the report by the Center for Immigration Studies.
Immigrants in the United States, 2007
Among the report�s findings:
*
The nation�s immigrant population (legal and illegal) reached a record of 37.9 million in 2007.
*
Immigrants account for one in eight U.S. residents, the highest level in 80 years. In 1970 it was one in 21; in 1980 it was one in 16; and in 1990 it was one in 13.
*
Overall, nearly one in three immigrants is an illegal alien. Half of Mexican and Central American immigrants and one-third of South American immigrants are illegal.
*
Since 2000, 10.3 million immigrants have arrived � the highest seven-year period of immigration in U.S. history. More than half of post-2000 arrivals (5.6 million) are estimated to be illegal aliens.
*
The largest increases in immigrants were in California, Florida, Texas, New Jersey, Illinois, Arizona, Virginia, Maryland, Washington, Georgia, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania.
*
Of adult immigrants, 31 percent have not completed high school, compared to 8 percent of natives. Since 2000, immigration increased the number of workers without a high school diploma by 14 percent, and all other workers by 3 percent.
*
The share of immigrants and natives who are college graduates is about the same. Immigrants were once much more likely than natives to be college graduates.
*
The proportion of immigrant-headed households using at least one major welfare program is 33 percent, compared to 19 percent for native households.
*
The poverty rate for immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18) is 17 percent, nearly 50 percent higher than the rate for natives and their children.
*
34 percent of immigrants lack health insurance, compared to 13 percent of natives. Immigrants and their U.S.-born children account for 71 percent of the increase in the uninsured since 1989.
*
Immigrants make significant progress over time. But even those who have been here for 20 years are more likely to be in poverty, lack insurance, or use welfare than are natives.
*
The primary reason for the high rates of immigrant poverty, lack of health insurance, and welfare use is their low education levels, not their legal status or an unwillingness to work.
*
Of immigrant households, 82 percent have at least one worker compared to 73 percent of native households.
*
There is a worker present in 78 percent of immigrant households using at least one welfare program.
*
Immigration accounts for virtually all of the national increase in public school enrollment over the last two decades. In 2007, there were 10.8 million school-age children from immigrant families in the United States.
*
Immigrants and natives have similar rates of entrepreneurship � 13 percent of natives and 11 percent of immigrants are self-employed.
*
Recent immigration has had no significant impact on the nation�s age structure. Without the 10.3 million post-2000 immigrants, the average age in America would be virtually unchanged at 36.5 years.
[...]
California clearly has the largest immigrant population; New York, the state with next largest number of immigrants, has fewer than half as many. Table 1 shows how concentrated the immigrant population is: Only a few states represent the majority of the foreign-born population. In 2007, the nearly 10 million immigrants in California account for 27 percent of the nation�s total immigrant population, followed by New York with 11 percent, Florida and Texas with 10 percent each, and New Jersey with 5 percent. These five states account for 61 percent of the nation�s total foreign-born population, but only 32 percent of the native-born population. The table also shows evidence that the immigrant population is becoming more dispersed.''
[all emphases mine]
Note that last sentence: some people who by some amazing stroke of luck live in relatively unaffected areas imagine that the immigrant tidal wave is limited to the border states, and is thus not a national problem. These short-sighted people think they will escape the effects if they have been relatively unaffected as yet, but the reality, shown by this study, is that the immigrants are fanning out across the nation. I hear quite a few people saying 'give them back the Southwest; just write it off', but the Latino immigrants, legal and illegal, don't just want the border states; they are in every corner of the nation, or soon will be.
The study is very detailed, with statistics regarding education, health insurance, welfare use, and demographics among the immigrants.
One interesting bit of information quoted above is that even with the presence of these immigrants, the average age in America stays virtually the same. Doesn't that put the lie to the often-repeated canard that 'America is aging, graying, and we need these young, vital immigrants to give our country a new infusion of fresh energy and youth.' I have heard some variation of that statement more times than I've had hot dinners. I hear it in regard to Europe, too; 'Europe is graying and aging and dying off; they need young new immigrant blood to revitalize them.' But at least we know it's not true in our case. Immigration isn't making us 'younger' as a nation, and it certainly isn't making us more intelligent or better educated (look at the educational attainment of the immigrants) but it is making our country more crowded and our resources considerably strained.
There seems to be a large percentage of Americans who have accepted the cliches about how we are a nation of immigrants. These people are usually so deracinated that they have no loyalty to kin or nation or tribe. But even if these soul-dead people can't bring themselves to care about our heritage, our history, our way of life, our unique culture, can they not see the societal costs represented by tens of millions of uneducated, unassimilable, economically burdensome strangers?
And shouldn't the example of Europe, with its similarly dependent and unassimilable immigrants provide a warning to us? Before too long we might well be witnessing similar scenes in our streets, with angry immigrant 'youth' rioting and burning.
I don't know if this relatively objective bit of reporting by the NY Times represents a change, or if it's just a fluke or a mistake. I do know that most of the old media do nothing but obfuscate and propagandize in favor of immigration and 'diversity', but if they begin to publish facts like these, a few of the more obtuse among us might catch on that there is a huge demographic change afoot in America, and that it ain't just business as usual, and it isn't 'just like the immigration we've always had.'
Anybody with their eyes open and their brain engaged figured this out some time ago, but there are some stubborn deniers out there who may get a clue if the old media start putting the clues in plain language for the slow-witted.
Immigration at Record Level, Analysis Finds
Immigration over the past seven years was the highest for any seven-year period in American history, bringing 10.3 million new immigrants, more than half of them without legal status, according to an analysis of census data released today by the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington.
One in eight people living in the United States is an immigrant, the survey found, for a total of 37.9 million people � the highest level since the 1920s.
The survey was conducted by Steven A. Camarota, director of research at the center, which advocates reduced immigration.
Mr. Camarota has been active in the national immigration debate. Independent demographers disputed some of the survey�s conclusions, but not Mr. Camarota�s methods of data analysis.
A large proportion of recent immigrants, both legal and illegal, are low-skilled workers and about one-third of those have not completed high school, giving them significantly less education than Americans born in the United States, according to the study, which is based on census data as recent as March of this year.
The survey focuses on public costs associated with the new generation of immigrant workers. It does not, however, analyze contributions they make by paying taxes and taking undesirable, low-income jobs � an omission criticized by some immigration scholars.''
Well, the article was just fine until that last paragraph, in which the NYT reverts to form and brings in the old 'some scholars say...' kind of thing, in an attempt to provide their own editorializing about the content of the article.
But let's leave aside the New York Times and their political correctness, and go right to the source that they are reporting on here: the report by the Center for Immigration Studies.
Immigrants in the United States, 2007
Among the report�s findings:
*
The nation�s immigrant population (legal and illegal) reached a record of 37.9 million in 2007.
*
Immigrants account for one in eight U.S. residents, the highest level in 80 years. In 1970 it was one in 21; in 1980 it was one in 16; and in 1990 it was one in 13.
*
Overall, nearly one in three immigrants is an illegal alien. Half of Mexican and Central American immigrants and one-third of South American immigrants are illegal.
*
Since 2000, 10.3 million immigrants have arrived � the highest seven-year period of immigration in U.S. history. More than half of post-2000 arrivals (5.6 million) are estimated to be illegal aliens.
*
The largest increases in immigrants were in California, Florida, Texas, New Jersey, Illinois, Arizona, Virginia, Maryland, Washington, Georgia, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania.
*
Of adult immigrants, 31 percent have not completed high school, compared to 8 percent of natives. Since 2000, immigration increased the number of workers without a high school diploma by 14 percent, and all other workers by 3 percent.
*
The share of immigrants and natives who are college graduates is about the same. Immigrants were once much more likely than natives to be college graduates.
*
The proportion of immigrant-headed households using at least one major welfare program is 33 percent, compared to 19 percent for native households.
*
The poverty rate for immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18) is 17 percent, nearly 50 percent higher than the rate for natives and their children.
*
34 percent of immigrants lack health insurance, compared to 13 percent of natives. Immigrants and their U.S.-born children account for 71 percent of the increase in the uninsured since 1989.
*
Immigrants make significant progress over time. But even those who have been here for 20 years are more likely to be in poverty, lack insurance, or use welfare than are natives.
*
The primary reason for the high rates of immigrant poverty, lack of health insurance, and welfare use is their low education levels, not their legal status or an unwillingness to work.
*
Of immigrant households, 82 percent have at least one worker compared to 73 percent of native households.
*
There is a worker present in 78 percent of immigrant households using at least one welfare program.
*
Immigration accounts for virtually all of the national increase in public school enrollment over the last two decades. In 2007, there were 10.8 million school-age children from immigrant families in the United States.
*
Immigrants and natives have similar rates of entrepreneurship � 13 percent of natives and 11 percent of immigrants are self-employed.
*
Recent immigration has had no significant impact on the nation�s age structure. Without the 10.3 million post-2000 immigrants, the average age in America would be virtually unchanged at 36.5 years.
[...]
California clearly has the largest immigrant population; New York, the state with next largest number of immigrants, has fewer than half as many. Table 1 shows how concentrated the immigrant population is: Only a few states represent the majority of the foreign-born population. In 2007, the nearly 10 million immigrants in California account for 27 percent of the nation�s total immigrant population, followed by New York with 11 percent, Florida and Texas with 10 percent each, and New Jersey with 5 percent. These five states account for 61 percent of the nation�s total foreign-born population, but only 32 percent of the native-born population. The table also shows evidence that the immigrant population is becoming more dispersed.''
[all emphases mine]
Note that last sentence: some people who by some amazing stroke of luck live in relatively unaffected areas imagine that the immigrant tidal wave is limited to the border states, and is thus not a national problem. These short-sighted people think they will escape the effects if they have been relatively unaffected as yet, but the reality, shown by this study, is that the immigrants are fanning out across the nation. I hear quite a few people saying 'give them back the Southwest; just write it off', but the Latino immigrants, legal and illegal, don't just want the border states; they are in every corner of the nation, or soon will be.
The study is very detailed, with statistics regarding education, health insurance, welfare use, and demographics among the immigrants.
One interesting bit of information quoted above is that even with the presence of these immigrants, the average age in America stays virtually the same. Doesn't that put the lie to the often-repeated canard that 'America is aging, graying, and we need these young, vital immigrants to give our country a new infusion of fresh energy and youth.' I have heard some variation of that statement more times than I've had hot dinners. I hear it in regard to Europe, too; 'Europe is graying and aging and dying off; they need young new immigrant blood to revitalize them.' But at least we know it's not true in our case. Immigration isn't making us 'younger' as a nation, and it certainly isn't making us more intelligent or better educated (look at the educational attainment of the immigrants) but it is making our country more crowded and our resources considerably strained.
There seems to be a large percentage of Americans who have accepted the cliches about how we are a nation of immigrants. These people are usually so deracinated that they have no loyalty to kin or nation or tribe. But even if these soul-dead people can't bring themselves to care about our heritage, our history, our way of life, our unique culture, can they not see the societal costs represented by tens of millions of uneducated, unassimilable, economically burdensome strangers?
And shouldn't the example of Europe, with its similarly dependent and unassimilable immigrants provide a warning to us? Before too long we might well be witnessing similar scenes in our streets, with angry immigrant 'youth' rioting and burning.
I don't know if this relatively objective bit of reporting by the NY Times represents a change, or if it's just a fluke or a mistake. I do know that most of the old media do nothing but obfuscate and propagandize in favor of immigration and 'diversity', but if they begin to publish facts like these, a few of the more obtuse among us might catch on that there is a huge demographic change afoot in America, and that it ain't just business as usual, and it isn't 'just like the immigration we've always had.'
Anybody with their eyes open and their brain engaged figured this out some time ago, but there are some stubborn deniers out there who may get a clue if the old media start putting the clues in plain language for the slow-witted.
Labels: Demographics, Illegal Immigration, Legal Immigration, Mass Immigration, Open Borders
0 comment Tuesday, July 1, 2014 | admin
At American Thinker, there is a piece on immigration, called The Dangerous Mythology of Immigration, written by Frank Burke.
This is a pretty good article, especially when contrasted with the usual party-politics theme of AT. And the writer actually discusses the negatives of immigration -- immigration per se, not just illegal immigration. I am actually surprised that this appeared at AT.
It's actually not that far off from what we have discussed (I and my readers) in the beginning days of this blog. Back then it seemed that immigration was the focus of many of my pieces, and I was intent on discussing the forbidden topic of legal immigration, and of reminding people that the problem, contrary to the politically correct view, was immigration of all kinds, not just the illegal kind. I was intent on discussing it because it was not being sufficiently discussed, and it was not on the table for discussion in many places.
The subject of legal immigration and its problems did receive considerable attention on VDare and a couple of paleoconservative websites and blogs back when I first started blogging, but even many of the immigration-skeptic blogs and forums were very adamant about legal immigration being absolutely off limits for discussion. Some groups, though their stated mission was to defend our borders and so on, would eject commenters from their forums if the taboo against criticism of legal immigration was violated.
One blog in particular, run by an activist, not only banned violators, but did so in a most public way by openly shaming the violator as a racist, and warning others to avoid offending. There are others of the same type that I am sure you know of.
So it is a sign of progress, I suppose, that AT, which is a very middle-of-the-road site, runs a piece which takes a skeptical tone about legal immigration as well as illegal.
The writer of the piece, Frank Burke, mentions the sentimentalization of immigration which somewhat clouds rational discussion:
''Adding to the difficulty of crafting a just and effective policy is the amount of mythology and emotionalism surrounding the entire immigration question. Some of this is understandable. Immigration is a central facet of the American identity and is reflected in one of our most cherished icons: the Statue of Liberty. Virtually all our family histories boast chapters on immigration.''
Now, stop right there. Not all of us have family histories involving immigration. My ancestors were all colonists; none came to an established country called 'America'. The idea that everybody is descended from immigrants is one of the biggest and least-questioned myths on the subject; I am surprised Mr. Burke did not pick up on this.
I might quibble, too, that the Statue of Liberty is not a cherished icon for me; why should it be? In any case, it was not intended from the beginning to be a symbol of immigration nor was it meant as a sort of pre-modern neon sign announcing ''come on in; we never close'', like a sign on a greasy spoon along the highway.
But other than that, the article makes good points.
Burke mentions the three mistaken beliefs about immigration:
Myths:
"Give me your tired, your poor.." People come because they want to be Americans .Everybody wants the same thing
The first one we recognize as Emma Lazarus's overwrought poem on the base of the Statue. But as Burke mentions, America did examine immigrants for things such as communicable diseases and other undesirable conditions. Some people were sent back; there was no ''we take anybody'' policy, as there seems to be now.
The second myth is one we've talked about here a lot. Most people who immigrate today are, in my perhaps cynical opinion, economic migrants or just plain opportunists, who recognize our weakness and come here to get what they can before the carcass is picked clean. Most have no interest in becoming 'Americans' and openly say so. I've heard many immigrants brazenly say that they have a 'right' to come here, because this is a country for everybody, not for Americans.
The third myth, that we all want the same thing, is also pretty obviously false. It is based on an idea that I've tried to discredit here: the idea that all peoples are basically the same, with the same needs (yes, we all need food, water, and oxygen, but beyond that?) and the same desires. We are not all the same under the skin, although this sentimental twaddle lives on.
Burke quotes JFK's words:
In June of 1963, in delivering the commencement address at American University, John F. Kennedy sought to advance a nuclear test ban treaty by equating the attitudes of the United States and the Soviet Union, stating, "For in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's futures. And we are all mortal."
Those commonalities, which could also be applied to animal species as well, are not enough to bind us together in any kind of common purpose.
In all, it's a good piece, with some fairly savvy comments. Inevitably, though, there always has to be at least one of these:
''Posted by: Concord Bridge Nov 28, 02:59 PM
Despite the unemployment problem we now have, I have far less concern for immigration than I do for the lack of assimilation. [Full disclosure: my father came to the US as a child.] I welcome anyone who wants to become an American and achieve the American dream of providing for a better future for one's children. Further, I welcome those who are willing to work for what they want and don't look for handouts. They have been the strength of America and there is no reason why they should not be welcome. That being said, I believe in an immigration system that puts America first. That means we do not allow immigration of Muslims and others who seek to do harm to our American way of life. ''
Some of my readers don't accept my belief that recent immigrant origin tends to bias people in favor of new immigrants and immigration in general. Yet I see this kind of comment all the time. It's depressing that some people are so rigid in their defense of immigration, even in the face of all the problems associated with it, because they have so sentimentalized, or personalized, the issue. Any criticism of immigration or immigrants is seen as threatening or hostile, or an outright attack on their own 'right' to be here.
Immigration leads to more immigration, and on and on.
And the commenter's mention of assimilation as being the main criterion for whether immigrants are beneficial is not challenged. This notion of the melting pot and 'assimilation' is another unchallenged popular belief. Many, many Republicans think, still, that oh, say, the Somali who was arrested in the attempted 'Christmas Tree bombing' was just not assimilated enough. Has everybody forgotten the Lackawanna terrorist group who were born and raised in this country? And the '7/7' bombers in the UK? They were "assimilated."
Besides, it is not just a matter of whether people want to assimilate (many don't) but whether they can -- many can't. But it apparently is not politically correct to recognize this.
Why do Republicans, who so often express disdain for much of the politically correct dogma and speech restrictions, fail to see their own political correctness in believing in egalitarian blank-slate-ism?
Maybe, given another 9 or 10 years, Republicans will have moved another inch or two to the right and they will come around to actually rejecting leftism as a whole. Maybe. If we have that long.
One last bit of irony: if you click over to the article, you may see an ad placed right in the midst of the article which shows several 'diverse' individuals and says 'We Are America.'
The ad is "Paid for by the Center for Community Change''
''The Center typically works in urban areas, especially communities of color, and attempts to form autonomous citizen-based groups to work on local issues of concern. It has, for example, had projects in New Orleans, Columbus, Ohio, and Kentucky.
[...]
CCC launched the Fair Immigration Reform Movement (FIRM) as its immigrant rights project in 2000. FIRM has acted as an advocacy umbrella for many organizations, helped build coalitions, and provided technical assistance. In January 2007, FIRM collected signatures from 250 organizations nationwide supporting comprehensive immigration reform, addressed to majority Leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid."
As to its funding?
''Center for Community Change is funded in part by individuals who are members of the Democracy Alliance.''
"At least 80 wealthy liberals have pledged to contribute $1 million or more apiece to fund a network of think tanks and advocacy groups to compete with the potent conservative infrastructure built up over the past three decades," The Washington Post reported in August, 2005.
Rob Stein's PowerPoint presentation on how the Right built a strong infrastructure of think tanks, non-profits, non-profit groups, scholarship recipients, academics, lobbyists, right wing activists and the media led to the founding of the Democracy Alliance, and also a separate organization, the New Progressive Coalition founded by entrepreneurs Andy and Deborah Rappaport.
The Democracy Alliance tries to keep a low profile and its wealthy donors prefer anonymity. According to published reports, organizations funded by Democracy Alliance are asked not to reveal the funding.''
So even in the middle of an article examining immigration critically, we get an ad promoting immigration, an ad by one of the left's many 'activist' groups, funded by the usual suspects.
On and on.
This is a pretty good article, especially when contrasted with the usual party-politics theme of AT. And the writer actually discusses the negatives of immigration -- immigration per se, not just illegal immigration. I am actually surprised that this appeared at AT.
It's actually not that far off from what we have discussed (I and my readers) in the beginning days of this blog. Back then it seemed that immigration was the focus of many of my pieces, and I was intent on discussing the forbidden topic of legal immigration, and of reminding people that the problem, contrary to the politically correct view, was immigration of all kinds, not just the illegal kind. I was intent on discussing it because it was not being sufficiently discussed, and it was not on the table for discussion in many places.
The subject of legal immigration and its problems did receive considerable attention on VDare and a couple of paleoconservative websites and blogs back when I first started blogging, but even many of the immigration-skeptic blogs and forums were very adamant about legal immigration being absolutely off limits for discussion. Some groups, though their stated mission was to defend our borders and so on, would eject commenters from their forums if the taboo against criticism of legal immigration was violated.
One blog in particular, run by an activist, not only banned violators, but did so in a most public way by openly shaming the violator as a racist, and warning others to avoid offending. There are others of the same type that I am sure you know of.
So it is a sign of progress, I suppose, that AT, which is a very middle-of-the-road site, runs a piece which takes a skeptical tone about legal immigration as well as illegal.
The writer of the piece, Frank Burke, mentions the sentimentalization of immigration which somewhat clouds rational discussion:
''Adding to the difficulty of crafting a just and effective policy is the amount of mythology and emotionalism surrounding the entire immigration question. Some of this is understandable. Immigration is a central facet of the American identity and is reflected in one of our most cherished icons: the Statue of Liberty. Virtually all our family histories boast chapters on immigration.''
Now, stop right there. Not all of us have family histories involving immigration. My ancestors were all colonists; none came to an established country called 'America'. The idea that everybody is descended from immigrants is one of the biggest and least-questioned myths on the subject; I am surprised Mr. Burke did not pick up on this.
I might quibble, too, that the Statue of Liberty is not a cherished icon for me; why should it be? In any case, it was not intended from the beginning to be a symbol of immigration nor was it meant as a sort of pre-modern neon sign announcing ''come on in; we never close'', like a sign on a greasy spoon along the highway.
But other than that, the article makes good points.
Burke mentions the three mistaken beliefs about immigration:
Myths:
The first one we recognize as Emma Lazarus's overwrought poem on the base of the Statue. But as Burke mentions, America did examine immigrants for things such as communicable diseases and other undesirable conditions. Some people were sent back; there was no ''we take anybody'' policy, as there seems to be now.
The second myth is one we've talked about here a lot. Most people who immigrate today are, in my perhaps cynical opinion, economic migrants or just plain opportunists, who recognize our weakness and come here to get what they can before the carcass is picked clean. Most have no interest in becoming 'Americans' and openly say so. I've heard many immigrants brazenly say that they have a 'right' to come here, because this is a country for everybody, not for Americans.
The third myth, that we all want the same thing, is also pretty obviously false. It is based on an idea that I've tried to discredit here: the idea that all peoples are basically the same, with the same needs (yes, we all need food, water, and oxygen, but beyond that?) and the same desires. We are not all the same under the skin, although this sentimental twaddle lives on.
Burke quotes JFK's words:
In June of 1963, in delivering the commencement address at American University, John F. Kennedy sought to advance a nuclear test ban treaty by equating the attitudes of the United States and the Soviet Union, stating, "For in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's futures. And we are all mortal."
Those commonalities, which could also be applied to animal species as well, are not enough to bind us together in any kind of common purpose.
In all, it's a good piece, with some fairly savvy comments. Inevitably, though, there always has to be at least one of these:
''Posted by: Concord Bridge Nov 28, 02:59 PM
Despite the unemployment problem we now have, I have far less concern for immigration than I do for the lack of assimilation. [Full disclosure: my father came to the US as a child.] I welcome anyone who wants to become an American and achieve the American dream of providing for a better future for one's children. Further, I welcome those who are willing to work for what they want and don't look for handouts. They have been the strength of America and there is no reason why they should not be welcome. That being said, I believe in an immigration system that puts America first. That means we do not allow immigration of Muslims and others who seek to do harm to our American way of life. ''
Some of my readers don't accept my belief that recent immigrant origin tends to bias people in favor of new immigrants and immigration in general. Yet I see this kind of comment all the time. It's depressing that some people are so rigid in their defense of immigration, even in the face of all the problems associated with it, because they have so sentimentalized, or personalized, the issue. Any criticism of immigration or immigrants is seen as threatening or hostile, or an outright attack on their own 'right' to be here.
Immigration leads to more immigration, and on and on.
And the commenter's mention of assimilation as being the main criterion for whether immigrants are beneficial is not challenged. This notion of the melting pot and 'assimilation' is another unchallenged popular belief. Many, many Republicans think, still, that oh, say, the Somali who was arrested in the attempted 'Christmas Tree bombing' was just not assimilated enough. Has everybody forgotten the Lackawanna terrorist group who were born and raised in this country? And the '7/7' bombers in the UK? They were "assimilated."
Besides, it is not just a matter of whether people want to assimilate (many don't) but whether they can -- many can't. But it apparently is not politically correct to recognize this.
Why do Republicans, who so often express disdain for much of the politically correct dogma and speech restrictions, fail to see their own political correctness in believing in egalitarian blank-slate-ism?
Maybe, given another 9 or 10 years, Republicans will have moved another inch or two to the right and they will come around to actually rejecting leftism as a whole. Maybe. If we have that long.
One last bit of irony: if you click over to the article, you may see an ad placed right in the midst of the article which shows several 'diverse' individuals and says 'We Are America.'
The ad is "Paid for by the Center for Community Change''
''The Center typically works in urban areas, especially communities of color, and attempts to form autonomous citizen-based groups to work on local issues of concern. It has, for example, had projects in New Orleans, Columbus, Ohio, and Kentucky.
[...]
CCC launched the Fair Immigration Reform Movement (FIRM) as its immigrant rights project in 2000. FIRM has acted as an advocacy umbrella for many organizations, helped build coalitions, and provided technical assistance. In January 2007, FIRM collected signatures from 250 organizations nationwide supporting comprehensive immigration reform, addressed to majority Leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid."
As to its funding?
''Center for Community Change is funded in part by individuals who are members of the Democracy Alliance.''
"At least 80 wealthy liberals have pledged to contribute $1 million or more apiece to fund a network of think tanks and advocacy groups to compete with the potent conservative infrastructure built up over the past three decades," The Washington Post reported in August, 2005.
Rob Stein's PowerPoint presentation on how the Right built a strong infrastructure of think tanks, non-profits, non-profit groups, scholarship recipients, academics, lobbyists, right wing activists and the media led to the founding of the Democracy Alliance, and also a separate organization, the New Progressive Coalition founded by entrepreneurs Andy and Deborah Rappaport.
The Democracy Alliance tries to keep a low profile and its wealthy donors prefer anonymity. According to published reports, organizations funded by Democracy Alliance are asked not to reveal the funding.''
So even in the middle of an article examining immigration critically, we get an ad promoting immigration, an ad by one of the left's many 'activist' groups, funded by the usual suspects.
On and on.
Labels: Assimilation, Legal Immigration, Mass Immigration, Open Borders, Proposition Nation, Universal Nation