Jump to content
Accelerated Evolution

It seems we've avoided a new debate on this issue for far too long..


Recommended Posts

I'll start the topic off with this really good article, posted in the washingtonpost. It's quite an unbias and neutral article for coming from a mainstream news source.

NOTE: I DO NOT fully agree with all of said views, especially with the almost neutralish type opposition to the amnesty (guest worker) ideas. I felt his criticism of it was way too muted. As well as his opposition to penalties against illegal immigrants.

Conspiracy Against Assimilation

By Robert J. Samuelson

Thursday, April 20, 2006; Page A25

It's all about assimilation -- or it should be. One of America's glories is that it has assimilated many waves of immigrants. Outsiders have become insiders. But it hasn't been easy. Every new group has struggled: Germans, Irish, Jews and Italians. All have encountered economic hardship, prejudice and discrimination. The story of U.S. immigration is often ugly. If today's wave of immigration does not end in assimilation, it will be a failure. By this standard, I think the major contending sides in the present bitter debate are leading us astray. Their proposals, if adopted, would frustrate assimilation.

On the one hand, we have the "cop" school. It adamantly opposes amnesty and would make being here illegally a felony, as opposed to a lesser crime. It toughens a variety of penalties against illegal immigrants. Elevating the seriousness of the crime would supposedly deprive them of jobs, and then illegal immigrants would return to Mexico, El Salvador or wherever. This is a pipe dream; the numbers are simply too large.

But it is a pipe dream that, if pursued, would inflict enormous social damage. The mere threat of a crackdown stigmatizes much of the Hispanic population -- whether they're legal or illegal immigrants, or whether they've been here for generations. (In 2004 there were 40 million Hispanics, says the Pew Hispanic Center; about 55 percent were estimated to be native-born, 25 percent legal immigrants and 20 percent illegal immigrants.) People feel threatened and insulted. Who wouldn't?

On the other hand we have the "guest worker" advocates. They want 400,000 or more new foreign workers annually. This would supposedly curtail illegal immigration -- people who now sneak into the country could get work permits -- and also cure "shortages" of unskilled American workers. Everyone wins. Not really.

For starters, the term is a misnomer. Whatever the rules, most guest workers would not leave. The pull of U.S. wages (on average, almost five times what can be earned in Mexico) is too great. Moreover, there's no general shortage of unskilled workers. In March, the unemployment rate of high school dropouts 25 years and older was 7 percent; since 1996, it has been below 6 percent in only two months. By contrast, the unemployment rate of college graduates in March was 2.2 percent. Given the glut of unskilled workers relative to demand, their wages often lag inflation. From 2002 to 2004, consumer prices rose 5.5 percent. Median wages rose 4.8 percent for janitors, 4.3 percent for landscapers and not at all for waitresses.

Advocates of guest workers don't acknowledge that poor, unskilled immigrants -- whether legal or illegal -- create huge social costs. Every year the Census Bureau issues a report on "Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States." Here's what the 2004 report shows:

· Since 1990 the number of Hispanics with incomes below the government's poverty line has risen 52 percent; that's almost all (92 percent) of the increase in poor people.

· Among children, disparities are greater. Over the same period, Hispanic children in poverty are up 43 percent; meanwhile, the numbers of black and non-Hispanic white children in poverty declined 16.9 percent and 18.5 percent, respectively.

· Hispanics account for most (61 percent) of the increase of Americans without health insurance since 1990. The overall increase was 11.1 million; Hispanics, 6.7 million.

By most studies, poor immigrants pay less in taxes than they use in government services. As these social costs have risen, so has the backlash. Already, there's a coalition of Mayors and County Executives for Immigration Reform. It includes 63 cities, counties and towns, headed by Republicans and Democrats, ranging from Cook County, Illinois (population: 5.3 million) to Gilliam County, Oregon (population: 1,817). Coalition members want the federal government to reimburse their extra costs.

We have a conspiracy against assimilation. One side would offend and ostracize much of the Hispanic community. The other would encourage mounting social and economic costs. Either way we get a more polarized society.

On immigration, I am an optimist. We are basically a decent, open and tolerant nation. Americans respect hard work and achievement. That's why assimilation has ultimately triumphed. But I am not a foolish optimist. Assimilation requires time and the right conditions. It cannot succeed if we constantly flood the country with new, poor immigrants or embark on a vendetta against those already here.

I have argued that our policies should recognize these realities. Curb illegal immigration with true border barriers. Provide legal status (call it amnesty or whatever) -- first work permits, then citizenship -- for most illegal immigrants already here. Remove the job lure by imposing harsh fines against employers who hire new illegal immigrants. Reject big guest-worker programs.

It's sometimes said that today's Hispanics will resemble yesterday's Italians. Although they won't advance as rapidly as some other groups of more skilled immigrants, they'll still move into the mainstream. Many have -- and will. But the overall analogy is a stretch, according to a recent study, "Italians Then, Mexicans Now," by sociologist Joel Perlmann of Bard College. Since 1970 wages of Mexican immigrants compared with those of native whites have declined. By contrast, wages of Italians and Poles who arrived early in the last century rose over time. For the children of immigrants, gaps are also wide. Second-generation Italians and Poles typically earned 90 percent or more compared to native whites. For second-generation Mexican Americans, the similar figure is 75 percent.

One big difference between then and now: Immigration slowly halted during and after World War I. The Italians and Poles came mainly between 1890 and 1915. Older immigrants didn't always have to compete with newcomers who beat down their wages. There was time for outsiders and insiders to adapt to each other. We should heed history's lesson.

Link to comment
  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

No comments on illegality of people hopping the border to look for work (at the cost of somebody that did the tedious yet legal route). The economic data on the benefits and drawbacks of such have been so skewered in the name of politics that it's really hard to tell what's true anymore.

But on assimilation? All that needs to be asked is whether or not we really want a monoculture.

Personally, I'd rather have Britney Spears be isolated to the suburban mid-class, but that's just me... >_>

Link to comment

But on assimilation? All that needs to be asked is whether or not we really want a monoculture.

Well yeah, if we ever hope to continue to coexist as one people or progress as a society, culture and single united nation. Whether it be technologically, ethically, politically or societally/socially. :mellow:

I guess what I'm trying to say is, postmodernist multiculturalism = societal, cultural, ethical and political regressionism/destructionism/retardism! And will eventually affect technological and other progress as well.

Link to comment

Well yeah, if we ever hope to continue to coexist as one people or progress as a society, culture and single united nation. Whether it be technologically, ethically, politically or societally/socially. :mellow:

I guess what I'm trying to say is, postmodernist multiculturalism = societal, cultural, ethical and political regressionism/destructionism/retardism! And will eventually affect technological and other progress as well.

Because Canada fails it, what with its 'two languages' and 'multiple nations' schemes of socialism.

Link to comment

But on assimilation? All that needs to be asked is whether or not we really want a monoculture.

Im not even going to get into another "Anti-multiculturism" debate.

However on the fact of immigration. America was founded on immigrants, and while i hate the idea that they 'take our jarbs', They have every right to come into america to find work, however they should bring they're families, not just send money back to their families in mexico.

As far as illegal immigrants go, we shoul just send them back like we have been doing, i dont think its as big of a problem as alot of people say. I dont think they should be given "Amnesty" or "Benifits"... Theyre ILLEGAL immigrants. not LEGAL but ILlegal.

Link to comment

To those of you advocate punishing the illegal immigrants, how do we go about doing so? I suppose we could fund it with money taken from the illegals, but that wouldn't be much and would lead to corruption. We really can't find all of them, and they hold enough jobs that taking them all too suddenly would seriously hurt businesses. I believe those businesses deserve it, but that would be serious damage which has to be considered. I believe we should begin bringing more in legally. We should, in fact, allow them all to enter. Then Fox is forced to take action to stop his people from leaving, we come off as the good people, and we don't pay a cent. Those people would then want us to take over Mexico to free their cousins and get them their former territory, and we oblige to stop the massive human rights violation. Good PR, we don't spend a dime for another couple of years, and we kill off some of the people in a war.

Link to comment

The article seems ok to me, I think legal immigration should be made a lot easier (what the crap, 5 year wait list) and illegal immigration a lot harder (I actually support the "wall" idea). If illegal immigration is very hard then there is no valid argument against amnesty for all illegal workers here which I think is absolutely necessary.

Link to comment

Any man or woman who is willing to run their ass over miles of hostile ground only to break their back for the rest of their natural life at a below minimum wage job in an attempt to make a better life for their children and family is ok in my book. Its sad how quickly we forget that we're all immigrants of the children of immigrants.

Link to comment

Any man or woman who is willing to run their ass over miles of hostile ground only to break their back for the rest of their natural life at a below minimum wage job in an attempt to make a better life for their children and family is ok in my book. Its sad how quickly we forget that we're all immigrants of the children of immigrants.

Indeed, but there are a few valid points

1) rule of law. if the law is not respected, it is useless. Laws are necessary for society.

2) Security. If we allow crossing the border to be too easy, we will be taken advantage of by someone, and deaths will result.

3) should the illegal immigrants be treated as second class citizens? I say no. It would be better if all people in the US were either guests (not permanent) or citizens.

Link to comment

Yeah... I'd like an explanation of that too.

And don't say it's because "they take our jobs", because the same people who claim that illegal immigrants make it impossible for some legal citizens to find jobs are the same people who say that people on welfare who can't find jobs just aren't trying hard enough.

Link to comment

I’m going to act as GPS, for a moment, and post an article from the libertarian parties web sight.

The benefits of open immigration

I personally agree with every thing in this article except for the mention removing access to public schools, which is really, the only issue I differ on with the libertarian party, and why I think they will never become a mainstream party.

We should provide free education to the masses; no first world nation can survive with a largely uneducated population. After all, do you wont someone voting that cant even read?

Also, there is one more point that I disagree. This article recommends not allowing access to government social services for their descendants. I personally support the 14 amendment, section 1

Amendment XIV.

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And thus, I believe that they should be able to become citizens and gain the full rights of a citizen

Link to comment

...what?

there's like 11 million people here who CAN'T become citizens and therefore CANNOT legally organize or do anything to improve their position really. Many states are allowing their children to go to public schools but not giving need-based scholarships to state colleges which is really idiotic because it's like mandating that they stay undereducated. The only argument against amnesty is just "well more people would come lol". I think it's good to let a lot of people come legally anyway.

anyway I agree with poophy and the gps article except for all the "LOL NO WELFARE" stuff

Link to comment

I’m going to act as GPS, for a moment, and post an article from the libertarian parties web sight.

The benefits of open immigration

I personally agree with every thing in this article except for the mention removing access to public schools, which is really, the only issue I differ on with the libertarian party, and why I think they will never become a mainstream party.

We should provide free education to the masses; no first world nation can survive with a largely uneducated population. After all, do you wont someone voting that cant even read?

Also, there is one more point that I disagree. This article recommends not allowing access to government social services for their descendants. I personally support the 14 amendment, section 1

And thus, I believe that they should be able to become citizens and gain the full rights of a citizen

Another "good" article I guess. The only down side of it being that it's only talking about legal immigration!

Unless they were talking about illegal immigration, under some kind of idiotic "open borders" ideology. In which case they lose any and all credibility in this matter.

Here's a much better and more accurate read.

The Big Lie: Illegal Immigration Benefits Americans

Jim Kouri

March 20, 2006

It's widely been reported that illegal aliens comprise upwards of 27 percent of the US prison and jail population. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection -- two agencies within the Department of Homeland Security -- claim in several reports that they've apprehended over 100,000 criminal aliens whose offenses go far beyond violation of immigration laws and regulations.

Sadly, only about 25 percent of expenses for imprisoning criminal aliens is reimbursed by the federal government to state and local governments. This creates a hardship for taxpayers in states with high incarceration rates for criminal aliens. The proponents of open borders or lax immigration enforcement always point to the benefits derived from illegal immigration such as the amount of taxes they pay into the government system. Evidence, however, exists that refutes those claims. For instance, there is an abundance of anecdotal evidence that suggests a large number of illegal aliens are paid "off-the-books" therefore those wages are not taxed.

The National Research Council has estimated that the net fiscal cost of immigration ranges from $11 billion to $22 billion per year, with most government expenditures on immigrants coming from state and local coffers, while most taxes paid by immigrants who actually do pay taxes go to the federal treasury.

The net deficit is caused by a low level of tax payments by immigrants, because they are disproportionately low-skilled and thus earn low wages, and a higher rate of consumption of government services, both because of their relative poverty and their higher fertility.

This is especially true of illegal immigration. Even though illegal aliens make little use of welfare, from which they are generally barred, the costs of illegal immigration in terms of government expenditures for education, criminal justice, and emergency medical care are significant.

Californian officials have estimated that the net cost to taxpayers in order to provide government services to illegal immigrants approached $3 billion during a single fiscal year. The fact that states must bear the cost of federal failure turns illegal immigration, in effect, into one of the largest unfunded federal mandates existing today.

In addition, according to the Center for Immigration Studies, even with free trade, the United States continues to enjoy a higher real wage than other nations, due to the superiority of US technology. If taken to an extreme and the US removed all barriers to migration, most foreign workers would move to the United States, lured by the higher wages available here; Foreign labor would essentially cease to exist.

However, with all labor now in the United States, the prices of goods would return to their level of self-sufficiency, prior to the opening of trade. That is, perfectly free migration entirely eliminates the gains from trade that US natives had enjoyed. World income rose with the migration, but the natives of foreign countries in this case received more than all of this rise, since the income of US natives declined. With the world's majority of low-wage workers in the US, there would be tremendous damage to free trade and its benefits, with US middle and upper-middle class workers suffering the brunt of declining wages.

The urge for a utopian state of existence and a desire to make all things equal by the American Left has given way to a desire simply to make all things equal sans utopia. In their passion for a neo-Marxist level for the masses, they've decided consciously or subconsciously that if they could not bring the World's population up to the American level of prosperity and wealth, then they will bring US citizens down to the World's level of poverty and misery. For this is a result of seeing free trade as a zero-sum entity, and self-alienation of the American Left from their own country, the USA.

Sources: National Criminal Justice Research Service, Department of Justice, The Center for Immigration Studies, National Institute of Justice

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he's a staff writer for the New Media Alliance (thenma.org). He's former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed "Crack City" by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He's also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He's a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com. He's also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he's syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. He's appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc. His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com. Kouri's own website is located at http://jimkouri.us

Link to comment

Can someone explain to me the problem with having a lot of people move here from Mexico?

Well what's wrong with having an equal amount of people move here from China or Japan or africa or anywhere and everywhere else in the world? Why just "a lot of people from Mexico?" ( < I don't know why, but after reading that last quote of his again. It's beginning to sound almost racist in a way... :mellow: )

If we do really need more immigration then, after a very thoroughgoing study and debate, we could increase the number of people we allow legally in every year. But there is no logical or legal defense for illegal immigration.

Link to comment

there's like 11 million people here who CAN'T become citizens and therefore CANNOT legally organize or do anything to improve their position really. Many states are allowing their children to go to public schools but not giving need-based scholarships to state colleges which is really idiotic because it's like mandating that they stay undereducated. The only argument against amnesty is just "well more people would come lol". I think it's good to let a lot of people come legally anyway.

anyway I agree with poophy and the gps article except for all the "LOL NO WELFARE" stuff

I agree and i dont agree, i believe that their school children should be put into school as long as there here. However, if they are found they should be deported, as caine stated, "1) rule of law. if the law is not respected, it is useless. Laws are necessary for society." so on that point, they should not be given benifits.

I do think however that they should drastically lower the requirements for citizenship, some of the history related aspects of the test are totally moot. the united states is a country formed on immigrants, it should not discriminate the type of immigrants. I love it that rascists will protest immigration when they are in a country of no inherent nationality, except for maybe french and english.

Link to comment

Indeed, but there are a few valid points

1) rule of law. if the law is not respected, it is useless. Laws are necessary for society.

I suggest you read something about Anarchy. You don't have to agree with it, but laws are not necessary for any society. They are necessary for certain societies, like this one, to work the way they were intended.

2) Security. If we allow crossing the border to be too easy, we will be taken advantage of by someone, and deaths will result.

It's not like crossing the border is that hard anyway. We could make it harder to cross, but I'm not certain how much that would help. However, I do agree with the basic premise of that argument.

Link to comment

Well what's wrong with having an equal amount of people move here from China or Japan or africa or anywhere and everywhere else in the world? Why just "a lot of people from Mexico?" ( < I don't know why, but after reading that last quote of his again. It's beginning to sound almost racist in a way... :mellow: )

If we do really need more immigration then, after a very thoroughgoing study and debate, we could increase the number of people we allow legally in every year. But there is no logical or legal defense for illegal immigration.

I'm not really going to respond to the first point, as I don't understand how the hell he started talking about that. But, the second point is right; there is no logical defense for illegal immigration. There is, however, logical defense for changing the law so that what is now illegal immigration would no longer be illegal.

Link to comment

i agree with alot of the points of anarchism, I just cant work well under large urban enviroments.

I agree with this to some extent. That is, I see reasons why anarchy wouldn't work in a large urban environments, whereas I see no reason why anarchy wouldn't work in small rural environments. I still don't completely agree that anarchy wouldn't work in the city, but it certainly wouldn't work now or for a long time without a societal paradigm shift.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...