Record numbers of Illegal Immigrants are returning to their home countries. Many of their American Children prefer to stay in the U.S. While this may mean some families are torn apart, perhaps this is their only recourse versus staying in the U.S. living in Fear.
May God guide them to make the right decision for themselves and for their families!
Illegal Immigrants Returning to Mexico in Record Numbers
By Kris Gutierrez 08/22/2008 --
Illegal immigrants are returning home to Mexico in numbers not seen for decades — and the Mexican government may have to deal with a crush on its social services and lower wages once the immigrants arrive.
The Mexican Consulate's office in Dallas is seeing increasing numbers of Mexican nationals requesting paperwork to go home for good, especially parents who want to know what documentation they'll need to enroll their children in Mexican schools. "Those numbers have increased percentage-wise tremendously," said Enrique Hubbard, the Mexican consul general in Dallas. "In fact, it's almost 100 percent more this year than it was the previous two years." The illegal immigrant population in the U.S. has dropped 11 percent since August of last year, according to the Center for Immigration Studies. Its research shows 1.3 million illegal immigrants have returned to their home countries. Some say illegal immigrants are leaving because a soft economy has led to fewer jobs, causing many laborers to seek work elsewhere. Others argue that a tough stance on immigration through law enforcement has spread fear throughout the illegal population. "There's no question there's a variety of suggestions that people are in fact returning," said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies. "Remittances, which is the money immigrants send home to Mexico, have gone down dramatically over the past year. Again, probably part the economy, but also part enforcement, leading to fewer people being here." Advocates for immigrants are disturbed by the trend. Albert Ruiz, an organizer for the League of United Latin American Citizens, agrees that more undocumented immigrants are going home — but says families are being torn apart in the process. If a father is deported, Ruiz says, his family members in America are forced either to fend for themselves or follow him to a country where they've never even lived. "So the mother is saying we should return home with the breadwinner of the family to Mexico, and the children are saying, I don't want to leave, I'm a U.S. citizen, I don't know that country," said Ruiz.
Mexican President Felipe Calderon plans to help returning nationals by providing food, medical care and temporary shelter if needed. But reports are already out in Mexico that the large number of illegal immigrants returning home could drive down wages and put pressure on social services — the same concerns many Americans have with illegals living and working in the U.S.
Illegal Immigrants Returning to Mexico in Record Numbers
By Kris Gutierrez 08/22/2008 --
Illegal immigrants are returning home to Mexico in numbers not seen for decades — and the Mexican government may have to deal with a crush on its social services and lower wages once the immigrants arrive.
The Mexican Consulate's office in Dallas is seeing increasing numbers of Mexican nationals requesting paperwork to go home for good, especially parents who want to know what documentation they'll need to enroll their children in Mexican schools. "Those numbers have increased percentage-wise tremendously," said Enrique Hubbard, the Mexican consul general in Dallas. "In fact, it's almost 100 percent more this year than it was the previous two years." The illegal immigrant population in the U.S. has dropped 11 percent since August of last year, according to the Center for Immigration Studies. Its research shows 1.3 million illegal immigrants have returned to their home countries. Some say illegal immigrants are leaving because a soft economy has led to fewer jobs, causing many laborers to seek work elsewhere. Others argue that a tough stance on immigration through law enforcement has spread fear throughout the illegal population. "There's no question there's a variety of suggestions that people are in fact returning," said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies. "Remittances, which is the money immigrants send home to Mexico, have gone down dramatically over the past year. Again, probably part the economy, but also part enforcement, leading to fewer people being here." Advocates for immigrants are disturbed by the trend. Albert Ruiz, an organizer for the League of United Latin American Citizens, agrees that more undocumented immigrants are going home — but says families are being torn apart in the process. If a father is deported, Ruiz says, his family members in America are forced either to fend for themselves or follow him to a country where they've never even lived. "So the mother is saying we should return home with the breadwinner of the family to Mexico, and the children are saying, I don't want to leave, I'm a U.S. citizen, I don't know that country," said Ruiz.
Mexican President Felipe Calderon plans to help returning nationals by providing food, medical care and temporary shelter if needed. But reports are already out in Mexico that the large number of illegal immigrants returning home could drive down wages and put pressure on social services — the same concerns many Americans have with illegals living and working in the U.S.
Posts
61 comments:
"But reports are already out in Mexico that the large number of illegal immigrants returning home could drive down wages and put pressure on social services — the same concerns many Americans have with illegals living and working in the U.S."
Yet, those of us who have been stating this very thing about it here in the USA have been deemed nativists, bigots, racists, xenophobe, etc., etc. Funny how when the shoe is on the other foot they seem to get it.
Liquid,
You know as well as I do that the reason so many are here is due to the complicity of Business, the Administration and the Govts of the other countries have supported them coming here for decades, particulary since NAFTA.
I support the families making their decisions and making plans to relocate as they wish, safely and in peace. For their citizen children that choose to stay, I also support their choices as Fellow Americans.
I do believe both economies will be negatively impacted if large volumes of people leave however because I believe that overall, they are a positive gain to our economy as Bernanke and Greenspan have both noted. The receiving countries currently do have poor economies however I believe many of those making plans to return will be taking their skills and work ethic with them along with their savings and worldly goods and may wind up helping their economy.
BTW Liquid, I dont call you names. Remember, I do not allow name calling on this site.
Bernanke and Greenspan only care about the GDP of the country, cheap labor increases that number, if they had their ways, American workers would all be making minimum wage.
"Trail of Tears"? Oh, please!
Children are very adaptive when it comes to moving. Besides I am sure their parents have instilled in them "everything Mexican" such as the culture and language so they should feel right at home in Mexico. Mexico allows dual citizenship anyway.
Pat,
Read the article.
The citizen children ARE NOT GOING.
Families aren't being torn apart, they are choosing to do this or that, all on their own. If the children are US Citizens and are old enough to make a decision to stay here, it is probably due to being a Sr. in High School or are going to college, meaning they are probably 18 and older or very close to being 18.
Again, blame the parents for their decisions, had they chose to come here the LEGAL way, they would not be in this position, one of which they knew one day may come.
Don't the children have Mexican citizenship in addition to American citizenship? Why are the parents asking the Mexican government what paperwork is needed to enroll in the Mexican schools if they are not taking the children with?
Both economies negatively impacted?? Lets see, Mexicans left Mexico, there economy improved. Less people means less job creation, means less poor, means less government assistance (like they were already getting that (sarcasm)), less taxes, less everything.
Now Mexicans are returning to there country and Mexico is complaining of depressed wages and pressures on social services??
Maybe if they all left the USA our economy might improve, even though we have inflation we would now see an increase in wages thereby decreasing the inflation overall. But that just makes to much sense.
1.3 million have left? Since the illegal alien supporters are always telling us that they are only here to work, can anyone tell us where those 1.3 million open positions are now?
Its funny that if illegals break into our country, its viewed by their apologists as a good thing for them, for us and for our economy, but if they go back its viewed as a bad thing. ( Shouldnt Mexico be excited to get back all their hard-working citizens who just want to work?) That shines the light on the real truth behind the support for illegals from Mexico and Mexican-Americans in this coutry. Its nothing more than a racial and political thing. They illegal supporters dont care about the individual illegal per se, they just want to see more of them in this country.
Anon, Obviously you do not get it.
Our own businesses and our government partnered with the sending government to allow the rate of illegal immigration into our country. The workers themselves are but a pawn of this effort.
The majority of PROs are Humanitarians. We care about people being used this way. As I said I believe the people who are making this choice should be supported. Like the family focused people they are, of course they are planning for their childrens´ future.
However, I believe the end result will be negative both for our country and the recieving country from an economic perspective. We are already seeing the impact in AgJobs, in Meat Packing, in Construction and in mom & pop Latino businesses.
The originating countries did not have jobs to begin with and benifitted due to the money sent back to families. Now there will be more people with fewer jobs. We, in America, with our aging population and declining economy will surely see negative impacts.
Life is cyclical. This has happened before in America (e.g. Operation Wet Back). In a few years most of you will be crying for their labor to return. Perhaps next time they won´t. Why should they when their work ethic and sales revenue are not appreciated.
Liquid,
I do think you are right. The citizen children of high school age are more likely to make a choice to stay vs the younger, elementary aged citizen children who will not have a choice but to return.
Anon,
Actually the article said they are leaving both out of fear and due to the economy (fewer jobs). I suspect also more and more companies are participating in e verify or at least more diligent in checking proper documentation. I dont know about what area you live in but in the DFW area there are plenty of Construction jobs available. They are always looking for hard workers looking to work in this 100+ summer heat. I hear they pay pretty well too. Just check the ads in the Dallas Morning news on line edition.
Hi Dee,
Can you post any evidence that Operation WetBack caused economic hardship for this country? Since you are contending that sending illegals home is bad for the economy I would be interested in any evidence of such . Operation WetBack happened over 50 years so any historical data, analysis, and facts would be more compelling than any knee-jerk articles claiming that with modern day deportations.
"Families being torn apart..." that dog won't hunt. If the children are minors, they must go with their parents and they will be no more foreigners in their homelands than their parents were when they came here. This is another of those things we have mentioned repeatedly, especially with regard to the award of birthright citizenship before a child of an illegal reaches his majority.
In many ways, this is very good news all around. I doubt that fear is much of a factor however. After all, if an illegal is apprehended what is the worst he or she can expect -- deportation and probably an illegal return within 24 hours.
"For their citizen children that choose to stay,"
I guess you mean even the minor children???
A Corporate Model for Dealing with Illegal Aliens
Following World War II, in 1945-46, more than 8 million ethnic Germans were expelled from the Eastern Territories in less than a year. Although this amply demonstrated the logistic feasibility of a mass repatriation of foreign nationals, few Americans believe it is desirable or necessary to undertake a similar effort now to rid the U.S. of most of its 12 million illegal aliens. In any event, everyone knows it couldn’t be done overnight even with our modern transportation systems. That, of course, does not deter the mass legalization proponents from claiming time and again that mass overnight deportation is the only model under consideration.
Krikorian has suggested a different and more suitable model from the business world. When a business needs to down size it may (1) institute a hiring freeze, (2) make some layoffs, and/or (3) create incentives for early retirement. The analogues for illegal aliens would be (1) secure borders to stop new illegal violations and settlements, (2) conventional deportations, and (3) the creation of incentives for self-deportation by denying employment opportunities to the illegals.
This is a suitable model because, properly administered, it could be very effective. It is fair because it incorporates the same general rules under which citizens, who have a much higher degree of entitlement, must work.
Even Ruben Navarrette, columnist for the San Diego Union and the darling of the pro-illegals, has conceded the need for some if not all of these measures. He says by way of enforcement that we need to stiffen penalties on employers. This certainly is a way of denying employment opportunities to illegals particularly if those penalties are on an escalating scale. Moreover, he agrees that the word “knowingly” must be removed from any future reform proposals because that loophole permits employers to escape punishment merely by claiming they “didn’t know” an employee was illegal. The elimination of this single word is therefore of vital importance.
Navarrette is serious about enforcement. He would add an identification card, better tools for the border patrol, continued workplace raids, accelerated deportations, arrest of an employer once in a while, and an extension of the deployment of the National Guard at the border. These are all good ways to help enforce the law.
On the other hand, Navarrette wants to legalize those aliens who can prove they have been here 5 years or longer. This is not an unreasonable proposal when it is coupled with his other requirements: irrefutable proof of length of time in the U.S., fluency in English, a $5,000 fine, and a criminal background check. In addition, illegals would have to initiate and process applications for legal entry in their homelands and then accept a position at the back of the line of all prior applicants. Navarrette would also impose a lifetime ban on welfare, food stamps and Medicaid but allow those whose applications are approved to collect whatever they had contributed to Social security.
Krikorian’s “conventional deportations” could be construed to be applicable only to the illegals who have been here less than five years. Limiting deportations to more recent arrivals would be consistent with Navarrette’s recommendation. But since many deportees are back in the U.S. within 24 hours and since 97% of those who attempt to violate the border are ultimately successful, simple deportation is not a solution. Without some additional penalty, deportation is not much of a disincentive for the illegal who wishes to return.
Many will disagree with Navarrette regarding his proposal to increase the allotment of green cards, including H1B visas for highly skilled workers and triple the number of legal immigrants admitted annually to 3 million. The former might be reasonable if that increase is precisely tailored to the demonstrated needs of our economy and approved by local unions and professional organizations. Of course, citizens must be assured first dibs on all jobs at the standard wage rate for citizens with equal credentials and experience.
The proposal to triple the number of legal immigrants ignores all the changes in our society, economy, government, education, technology, natural resources, demography and lifestyles that have occurred since the previous immigration waves of the 19th and early 20th centuries. When proposals of this nature are made there is never any reasonable rationale whereas there is an ample rationale for reducing the number of annual legal immigrants allowed. Declining natural resources, congested highways and streets, and environmental damage are only a few of the many reasons to reduce that number to more like the 200,000 per year. This was the level just a few years ago. According to the UN, the annual output of pollutants by Americans is 20 metric tons per capita. This means that as our population increases by another 300 million people before the end of this century, we will produce another 6 billion tons of pollutants annually at the present rate. Even if we were to be able to reduce our annual output to 10 metric tons per capita (the output of Mexico) we would still be unable to reduce our total annual production of green house gases below the present level, leaving us with the status quo ante.
Labor demands are certainly important as Navarrette suggests but families should be required to apply as a group to avoid the family reunification ploy. Nevertheless, in a competitive world, education and skills cannot be ignored and are certainly far from “silly” as Navarrette has condescendingly called them.
No democratically-elected government, however firm the demands or wishes of their constituents might be, has been able to move quickly to solve problems that profoundly affect the country they are sworn to protect against enemies, foreign and domestic. Often, in its attempts to act, government is unable to avoid policies that have unintended consequences because policymakers rarely understand the scope and long term impact of their actions. Likewise, although members of Congress and the President may understand the need for action they may not fully appreciate the danger or cost or long term effect of further delays. As a result of this lack of a sense of urgency, they fail to expend the energy necessary to achieve compromise on bipartisan solutions to the important problems facing our country. Moreover, they tend to evaluate new proposals in terms of the here and now rather than what those proposals, if enacted, might mean to the long term viability of the American culture, language, ideals, environment, natural resources and prosperity. Their prodigious myopia leads to another set of unintended consequences later when it may be too late to correct their errors.
Just as often it means that Congress and the Administration have failed to comprehend the import of the dramatic changes that have occurred in our country over the last 100 years. Many of them are still living in the past. Their thinking is still constrained by the false idea that since America was once a nation of immigrants with seemingly unlimited natural resources, it should or can always be. They are deluded into thinking the status quo in that regard is in the national interest.
Does this sound like they have changed with the times? Does it sound like they have fully digested all of the changes in our government, economy, population, natural resources, education, technology, demography and lifestyles that should affect their thinking about major problems like immigration, illegal aliens, birthright citizenship, and population growth. The present Administration and the Congress have neither responded to these changes nor to the exigencies of long term population growth occasioned by excessive legal immigration and the uncontrolled, unarmed invasion by illegal aliens, some of whom would do us great harm.
Many proclaim the importance of secure borders but at the same time propose a mass legalization of the illegals already present in the U.S., granting to them what many call, with some justification, an outright amnesty not unlike the failed one of 1986. The 1986 measure assumed that once amnesty was granted to those already here, the borders could then be secured to avoid future problems. Instead, that amnesty gave a green light and extended an open invitation to millions of additional illegals. Obviously, the borders should have been secured before any amnesty was granted and yet, in spite of the aftermath of the 1986 measure, a significant number of those in Congress want to repeat that mistake. It doesn’t matter whether there are some conditions imposed for legalization, this approach will still be perceived as an open invitation for additional millions of illegals. Those who cannot meet the conditions will simply stay on illegally while their progeny acquire birthright citizenship.
The greatest perfidy of many of those who claim that they support secure border is that they offer only lip service and continue to deny the DHS the tools it needs to achieve that goal. Anyone with knowledge about horrendous amount of vehicular and pedestrian traffic and the others circumstances at the borders knows that only the most stringent measures have any hope of success. Improvements in staffing and infrastructure at the borders are bound to fail unless they are buttressed by changes in the rules of engagement and a defense in depth.
The rules of engagement must permit hot pursuit and the use of lethal force against drug runners and other violent criminals encountered in the immediate environs of the border. Other illegals who are apprehended must be detained and required to work on border infrastructure projects at minimum wage for an appropriate time before they are released with the admonition that if they ever return illegally they will do hard time for two years for the first repeat offense and five years for each subsequent offense. No form of catch and release can be permitted even for those apprehended immediately at ports of entry. If illegals are simply escorted back across the border, they will try again and again, sometimes in the same day, with an ultimate success rate of 97%. Obviously, a policy of immediate expulsion is utterly useless and ineffective.
Defense in depth means a program of vigorous and continuous internal enforcement using mandatory E-verification of work status as one of its most important tools. Both employers and employees that violate the rules must face an escalating schedule of penalties sufficient to deter future violations. To be effective the cost of breaking the law must always dramatically exceed the benefits.
Other features of the failed comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) proposals of the past include new forms of visas, major increases in the number of visas granted, and a huge temporary worker program without any teeth to assure that these workers are indeed temporary and that they promptly return to their homelands when their visas expire.
While no one wishes to deny employers the labor they need, immigration policies must assure that foreign workers are paid at the same rate as their citizen counterparts and that they are provided with full family health care coverage so that that cost is not offloaded on the unsuspecting public. Employers must demonstrate that they have been unable to meet their needs by offering their jobs to qualified citizens at a living wage. Otherwise, the importation of cheap foreign labor would constitute unfair competition with citizen workers.
There is a broader issue related to our ability to assimilate large numbers of legal immigrants and illegal aliens or foreign workers. Krikorian has pointed out how the changes in American society have made it much more difficult if not impossible to achieve the kind of assimilation that occurred following past waves of immigration. Trans-nationalism, a cousin of globalism, facilitated by modern communication, is only one of several factors that reduce the probability of assimilation.
The characteristics of our newest immigrants are not that different from those of a century ago. Their faces and their languages may be different but their aspirations, work ethic, and desire to improve their lives and those of their families are not much different from those of the earlier immigrants. They are not necessarily the poorest of the poor but now they come from what many of us would call third world countries. The earlier immigrants from Europe were often poor but they came from countries that were never considered third world. Those countries were the font of learning and scientific achievement.
So what is different today that justifies a more critical view of the newest immigrants and illegal aliens? It is the changes in America itself more than the differences in the immigrants. The society, economy, government and technology of the past, which were so fundamental to our success in dealing with the waves of immigration extending from the middle of the 19th century to the early 20th century, no longer exist. The changes that define modern America mean we can no longer depend on what once worked to assure the assimilation of millions of foreign-born immigrants and illegal aliens.
A vast unsettled continent lay before the Founding Fathers and their successors. Its natural resources were virtually untapped and appeared limitless. Arable land and water were abundant. Family farms were scattered across the landscape and farming, hunting, fishing and herding employed more Americans than any other occupation. Now thirsty cities are buying up water rights to serve their burgeoning populations leaving behind the land made unproductive by the lack of water resources. The ranches and farms will no longer be able to produce the food needed to feed the growing numbers of Americans as our population doubles again by the end of this century to 600 million people.
When one young leader spoke eloquently and passionately in 1933 about the need for change and denounced the old system, the people were receptive. Elsewhere, in 1950, another such leader sounded a similar note. The press fell in love with both and never questioned who their friends were or what they really believed in, until it was too late and the moment had passed. When they said they would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, the adulation was predictable. When they promised to restore lost power and bring justice and equality to all, the people said, Heil!” or “Viva Fidel”. When these leaders said, “I will be for change and I’ll bring you change” the cheers were unending. Does that sound familiar?
But nobody asked about the change, so by the time the concentration camps were set up and the executioner’s guns rang out, the people’s guns had been taken away. By the time everyone was equal, they had no rights and equality was worth nothing. By the time the press noticed, it was too late because it was now controlled by the government or the propaganda ministry. The endings of these stories are well-known. Millions died, treasuries were depleted, and more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes to escape the tyranny of change.
Luckily, in America, we would never fall for a young leader who promised change without asking, what change? How will you carry it out? What will it cost America? How is the change you offer different from the change all politicians offer? And the free media would never be seduced by political rhetoric of change. Instead it would examine all of the consequences of proposed changes and ask the hard questions about how these changes would be paid for while paying down the national debt, balancing the budget, restoring the value of the dollar, and repairing America’s decaying infrastructure. No, we wouldn’t do that in America, would we?
To suggest that the main reason for the opposition to excessive legal immigration and the flood of illegal aliens is the fact that they are not from Northern Europe is at once an error and a gross oversimplification. Nevertheless, this is the chief argument of those like Ruben Navarrette who refers disdainfully to those who disagree with him as “nativists”.
Immigrants in the past were largely white, but now they are not; they used to want to assimilate, but now they don’t; they used to be self-sufficient, but now they seek out government assistance. We’ve all heard those laments and they are largely true. But the America of our ancestors no longer exists and that is a fact. Change, of course, is inevitable. Some changes will be good; other changes will be bad as they were in the Germany of the 1930s and the Cuba of the 1950s and beyond. We all welcome the spread of cheap communications and transportation but mourn the weakening of our communities; the establishment of trans-national communities; acceptance dual citizenship; the failure to enforce, language, citizenship and immigration laws; the use of drugs; the spread of fast foods; the dumbing down of our schools, the excessive cost of education and health care; and the inactivity and increasing obesity of our children.
Certain changes have been embraced by some but not by others; the growth in government, for instance, is seen by the Left as recognition of our social responsibility to the poor and the marginalized but feared by the Right as likely to erode liberty and personal responsibility and require confiscatory taxes. One presidential candidate promises higher taxes, the other advocates making the present tax rates permanent. Neither discusses paying down the national debt, balancing budget, fixing our decaying infrastructure or restoring world confidence in the dollar as the international medium of exchange. One proposes various alternative energy initiatives coupled with a new push for conservation but opposes development of known oil fields and nuclear power. The other sees offshore drilling as essential to provide oil during the lengthy transition period to alternative energy sources and for the other uses of oil and petrochemicals that cannot easily be replaced.
We are all familiar with the inherent characteristics of our modern society and how they affect the way we live. Fewer understand or even think about how immigration undermines many of the objectives that our modern, middle-class society sets for itself and exacerbates many of the problems brought on by modernization. As Mark Krikorian put it, “…mass immigration is incompatible with a modern society”. John Fonte, a Hudson Institute scholar, stated it even more succinctly, “It’s not 1900 anymore.” Those who keep haranguing us about our immigrant past fail to see how changes in our society make it a whole new ball game that needs fresh thinking rather than remaining mired in the past.
The process of Americanizing immigrants was tumultuous and wrenching for everyone involved but eventually successful. Those prior immigrants have indeed become one people because American nationality is not based on blood relations, like a biological family, but is more like a family growing partly by adoption, where new immigrants attach themselves to their new country and embrace the cultural and civic values of their native-born brethren as their own. Instead of rejecting the moral underpinnings of our republic as the archaic thoughts of some crusty old men, the earlier immigrants earned the right to claim those moral principles as their own as though they were blood of blood, and flesh of flesh of the men who wrote the Declaration of Independence, and so they are.
This was illustrated poignantly in 1920 when Japanese American children in Honolulu’s McKinley High School referred to “our Pilgrim forefathers” and were able to recite the Gettysburg Address from memory. And they had every right to do so because they had adopted those moral principles on which our country was founded and which were totally foreign to the country of origin of their parents.
The changes in America since the mid 1800s and early 1900s are many. Some examples of those changes are as follows:
Economy: A century ago, what economists call the primary sector of the economy (farming, fishing, hunting, and herding) still employed more Americans than any other, as it had from the dawn of humankind. Today only 2 percent of our workforce occupies itself in this way. Meanwhile, the tertiary sector (service industries) now employs 80 percent of working Americans, and the percentage is climbing.
Education: Along with the change in the economy, education has become more widespread. Nearly a quarter of American adults had less than 5 years of schooling in 1910; as of 2000, that figure is less than 2 percent. Likewise, the percentage that had completed high school increased six fold, from about 13 percent of the totals to 84 percent. And the percent of college graduates increased tenfold from 2.7 to 27 percent. Another way to look at it is that in 1900, only a little more than 10 percent of high-school age children were actually enrolled in school; in 2001, nearly 95 percent were.
Technology: In 1915, a three-minute call from New York to San Francisco cost about $20.70 (about $343 in 2000 dollars); the same call in 2000 cost 36 cents. In 1908, a Model T cost more than two years’ worth of the typical worker’s wages; a Ford Taurus in 1997 (a much better car) cost eight months’ work. A thousand-mile airline trip in 1920 would have cost the average American 220 work hours; by 2000, it cost perhaps 11 work hours.
Demography: The birthrate fell by half during the past century, while infant mortality fell by 93 percent. In 1915, sixty-one out of 10,000 mothers died during childbirth; in 2001, only one out of 100,000 did. Life expectancy went from 47 years in 1900 to 77 years a century later, while people 65 and older have tripled as a share of the nation’s population, from about 4 percent to more than 12 percent.
Government: In 1900, total government spending at all levels equaled about 5.5 percent of the economy; by 2003, it was more than 36 percent. Total government employment (federal, state and local) went from little more than 1 million in 1900 (about 4 percent of the workforce) to more than 22 million in 2000 (more than 16 percent of the workforce).
Lifestyle: America’s population was still 60 percent rural in 1900; in 2000, only 21 percent of Americans lived in rural areas (and only a tiny fraction was involved in farming). The average household went from more than 4.5 people to a little more than 2.5, while the number of people per room in the average house fell from 1.1 in 1910 to 0.4 in 1997.
These major changes require new policies and outlooks regarding immigration and our ability to maintain the cohesiveness of our country through effective assimilation and the discouragement of trans-national enclaves and communities. The original ideal of our country are timeless but the willingness of legal immigrants and illegal aliens to accept them is in doubt
This is not to say that the national goal should be zero net immigration. Again Krikorian has the right idea. He suggests a zero-based budgeting approach. This would mean that rather than dealing with reductions from the previous level of immigration we should start with zero immigration and then work up. “From zero we must then consider what categories of immigrants are so important to the national interest that their admission warrants risking the kinds of problems…” inherent in excessive immigration numbers. The three major categories that must be considered are: family-based, skills-based, and humanitarian immigration. Navarrette again agrees with Krikorian that family-based immigration makes no sense except for spouses and minor children. “The others are grown adults with their own lives, for whom “family reunification” is a misnomer. Navarrette would abandon the skills-education criterion and shift it to a needs basis. In other words, if we need nurses, our immigration policies should enable a fast track for the admission of those with skills and credentials in this area. I would add fluency in English as a criterion for those professions, like medicine, where this is important. In fact, I would give special consideration and priority to all applicants who are fluent in English. Krikorian suggests that aliens of extraordinary ability and outstanding professors and researchers should also be admitted quickly with a minimum of bureaucratic delay.
Policymakers have not changed with the times. They have not have fully digested all of the changes in our government, economy, population, natural resources, education, technology, demography and lifestyles that should affect their thinking about major problems like immigration, illegal aliens, birthright citizenship, and population growth. The present administration and the Congress have neither responded to these changes nor to the exigencies of long term population growth occasioned by excessive legal immigration and the uncontrolled, unarmed invasion by illegal aliens, some of whom would do us great harm.
There is a broader issue related our ability to assimilate large numbers of legal immigrants and illegal aliens or foreign workers. Krikorian has pointed out how the changes in American society have made it much more difficult if not impossible to achieve the kind of assimilation that occurred as a result of past waves of immigration.
The characteristics of our newest immigrants are not that different from those of a century ago. Their faces and their languages may be different but their aspirations, work ethic, and desire to improve their lives and those of their families are not much different from those of the earlier immigrants. They are not necessarily the poorest of the poor but now they come from what many of us would call third world countries. The earlier immigrants from Europe were often poor but they came from countries that were never considered third world.
So what is different today that justifies a more critical view of the newest immigrants and illegal aliens? It is the changes in America itself more than the differences in the immigrants. The society, economy, government and technology of the past, which were so fundamental to our success in dealing with the waves of immigration extending from the middle of the 19th century to the early 20th century, no longer exist. The changes that define modern America mean we can no longer depend on what once worked to assure the assimilation of millions of foreign-born immigrants and illegal aliens.
A vast unsettled continent lay before the Founding Fathers and their successors. Its natural resources were virtually untapped and appeared limitless. Arable land and water were abundant. Family farms were scattered across the landscape and farming, hunting, fishing and herding employed more Americans than any other occupation. Now thirsty cities are buying up water rights to serve their burgeoning populations leaving behind the land made unproductive by the lack of water resources. The ranches and farms will no longer be able to produce the food needed to feed the growing numbers of Americans as our population doubles by the end of this century. It appears no one is paying attention.
Dee, the majority of the "pro's are Hispanics. Their so-called humanitarism only comes into play because most of the illegals are ethically like themselves. They hold no humanitarism toward Americans citizens who have suffered because of illegal immigration and they certainly wouldn't have any if most of these illegals were Chinese for example. We aren't stupid so just tell it like it is!
Didnt the Mexican Govt used to call these people heros? Where is their hero welcome when then come back?
Several factors are at play here. Fewer construction and service related jobs. ICE enforcement. State enforcement. Greater employer/employment scrutiny. Increasing cost of living and the mortgage crisis. The border fence, and last but not least, the outcry by citizens that the costs associated with illegal immigrants (medical, school, prison, depressed wages etc.) are impacting the standard of living of the citizens themselves.
In short, a number of factors are all converging at the same time that diminish the prospects of illegal immigrants to achieve the "American Dream" and they're returning home.
Ulty, Interesting (and very long) post. I´m still reading. I see you posted it on your blog as well. I´ll have to study it some more before I respond.
Pat,
No. Minorities tend to stick together with each other and with Liberals, Humanitarians, Christian Groups, etc. Havent you noticed? All of the various PRO Immigration Reform forums, blogs, demonstrations, are usually multi ethnic. I´ve seen it over and over and over again, even in the PRO Blogosphere.
The picture shown looks like people
(more American Indian than Mexicans) walking through snow. You can not compare illegal aliens returning to Mexico with the American Indians-"Tail of Tears".
Illegal Mexicans are returning home
dee. Do you really think the illegals travel by foot through snow whan they return to Mexico?
It is Hispanics who are mostly sympathetic to these illegal aliens that are ethnically like themselves, not other minorities. I see no huge "pro" movement on the part of blacks or other minorities or no unified "pro" movement of minorities. You are dreaming as usual.
pat, I am an American. My grandparents were born in Mexico but came to the United States of America legally and have been citizens of the USA for over 60 years. Both of my parents were born in the USA. My family are Americans with Mexican heritage. dee does not speak for my family or thousands or millions of Americans with Mexican heritage.
We are proud Americans and do not agree with the population entering this country illegally.
I have heard of that organization and it is good to know that there are Hispanics out there that value the rule of law and do not have a tribal mentality but are Americans through and through. My hat is off to you loyal, law abiding Hispanic-Americans!
Actually, You dont speak for me was formed by John Tantons organization FAIR. Ira Mehlman is their Communications Director. They do NOT allow open enrollment. I tried to join several times. They are just a puppet website comprised of ANTIs looking for puppet members.
"You Dont":
Obviously YOU are a puppet too. Just because you SAY you are Hispanic doesnt mean you are. In fact, if you were, you would already know how bogus that organization is. If you had any integrity, you would form your own organization and start your own blog. You are probably just a sock puppet here to disrupt. So sad!
Actually, American Latinos, particularly in the SW, are Native American and Latino.
If you were Latino, you would know this!
"You Dont",
Ok, if you are real, then email me.
dee_perezscott@yahoo.com
If you are real, and credible, there is no reason for you not to email me and tell me a little about yourself.
Obviously you are NOT real so you wont, but I thought I would offer you the opportunity to at least attempt to be credible!
Lets see how brave and credible you are! I will let the viewers know if you are real!
So if you are Hispanic and don't think like Dee, then you are surely or truly not a real Hispanic?? Great mindset there Dee, you keep exposing your ignorance and racism daily.
Actually, they are mestizos and that means that they are native indian and Spaniard. Latinos typically live in Latin America and not here.
liquid, dee must think that this new Hispanic member is a "coconut" or a "vendido". That is what she and her pro group call Hispanics who don't agree with their immigration views. If they don't have the tribal mentality then that is what they call them.
dee, I don't belong to any organization. I chose to use you don't speak for me as my name as "YOU DON'T SPEAK FOR ME OR MY FAMILY OR MANY OTHER AMERICANS OF HISPANIC DESCENT". I am hispanic and absolutely do not think like you. Sorry, I guess me being an American gives me the right not to be like you. Your rhetoric gives Americans of hispanic descent a bad name.
Liquid,
It is easy for your side to make up names. Happens ALL the time! I have seen this done in many comment sections.
See how that person is backing off the name now?
As Chris Matthews would say, Hah!
"YOU ARENT",
I see you backed off the name you originally posted.
I am still waiting for your email:
dee_perezscott@yahoo.com
IF you are who you say you are, this should NOT be an issue. Tell me about yourself.
My guess is, its the Evil Anonymous again, playing games again!!!
Back to Topic:
As I said, the reason so many are here is due to the complicity of Business, the Administration and the Govts of the other countries have supported them coming here for decades, particulary since NAFTA.
I support the families making their decisions and making plans to relocate as they wish, safely and in peace. For their citizen children that choose to stay, I also support their choices as Fellow Americans.
Ulty,
I also believe younger citizen children may want to stay in the US and live with relatives if the family so chooses.
Whatever the family chooses, it is certainly up to them.
Liquid, you cannot blame the parents for this, at least not completely. It is our own government, business and the originating government that has created this environment.
Pat, You are wrong. Across the SW, from TX to CA, Latinos who are also Native Americans have been thriving for decades, centuries, as my mother and her extended family have lived. This has happened in Texas, NM, AZ and CA.
Think of the Kickapoo tribe in South Texas. The indigenous people are Native to the Land!!
For Latinos, you can see our Native roots in our eyes, in our cheekbones, in our facial features. Most of us have dark brown hair and brown eyes. Native to TX through to CA.
dee said
"backed off the name you originally posted"
What in the world are you talking about? Do you think you can boss everyone around? I don't have to email you, I don't have to do anything you say. This is the USA-
get with the program. Show your patriotic side for this country, if you have one.
YouDont/Anonymous,
Please stick to the topic of this Blog per Blog rules.
The topic is Trail of Fears.
Comments: Heading home due to Fear and Soft Economy.
I will not allow you or anyone else Hijack my Blog (as I have told you before Anon.) by going off topic. But good try!
Remember, as all frequent commenters know, Rules are,
1. No profanity or Name Calling
2. Keep to the topic of the blog you are commenting on.
3. No Hijacking of Blogs with off topic comments or profanity.
4. Off Topic Comments and any-all profanity will be deleted.
Take Care.
To All Viewers:
Blog Mission:
To provide a forum where people, both PRO and ANTI, can discuss American Immigration Issues and Political Issues civilly, freely and safely thereby reducing the hate, anger and misunderstandings currently inherent in most of these discussions.
Discuss Immigration Issues with a Mexican American. Truth, Honesty and the American Way!
God Bless America!!
Back to Topic:
As I said, the reason so many are here is due to the complicity of Business, the Administration and the Govts of the other countries have supported them coming here for decades, particulary since NAFTA.
I support the families making their decisions and making plans to relocate as they wish, safely and in peace. For their citizen children that choose to stay, I also support their choices as Fellow Americans.
dee, I never use profanity, on your blog or anywhere else. If I called you a name, please let me know what it was. AND, just like you, I support the families who have entered this country illegally to return to their homeland.
You Dont,
I will give this one more try.
IF you are who you say you are, please write to me.
I want to have a discussion with you.
I promise confidentiality.
Plenty of people write me, including Liquid and Ulty and many, many more on both the PRO and ANTI side.
You have nothing at all to fear.
Dee Perez Scott
dee_perezscott@yahoo.com
Even the Minutemen and Jim Gilchrist write to me.
Christie too.
Also Prof Borjas and Robert Reich.
As well as many, many PRO bloggers and members of the PRO Blogosphere.
I have read in Hispanic forums they THEMSELVES calling other Hispanics who don't share their immigration views, "coconuts and vendidos", dee! Those aren't words made up by white people!!!
Those "indigenous" you describe are also native to Mexico and points southward. Don't confuse Mexican indians with American indians.
What you should care about is our government and any of our past and present administrations being complacent on illegal immigration and making sure they are not rewarded for it!! What you are essentially doing is letting them get away with it by letting them keep their "ill gotten booty" aka illegal aliens. We should hold ALL accountable in this law breaking fiasco and make ALL of the wrongs, right! Which means making e-verify mandatory, securing our borders, throwing the bums out of office that where were "complacent" and deporting the illegal aliens. ALL are punish and ALL is fair. What isn't fair is making the American people pay for any of this.
Arizonian,
Of course I know that.
There were just some comments made by that person that raised my blogging antanae. I will not say which ones but any Latina would spot them in a second.
The link you provided reminded me of a quote I saw on a BET roundtable discussion with Obama and Hillary supporters. The comment was, "Do you want to be known as the one that did not support the first..."
It also reminds me of a response to an op ed I wrote in the 80s titled "Why do you call me Mexican when I am an American." A Black responder replied, "Sometimes it is kind of cozy being a member of a minority group."
I liked his response because I knew we were both proud Americans and he caused me to reflect on my own question and take a second look at life in general.
Pat, You really are silly. The Natives, the Indigenous, were not bounded by boundaries of today. Consider all of the Southwestern tribes that inhabited and still inhabit TX, AZ, NM and CA and Northern Mexico.
In the SW, many of the native tribes speak Spanish. Try visiting some reservations.
Once borders WERE drawn aka the U.S.A. all those south of our border had no rights to enter this country at will and not considered to be "indigenous" to this country. Many Mexicans are of Aztec ancestry and they were never this far north in the first place!
Once borders WERE drawn aka the U.S.A. all those south of our border had no rights to enter this country at will and not considered to be "indigenous" to this country. Many Mexicans are of Aztec ancestry and they were never this far north in the first place!
Right, the mestizos (mixed native indian and Spaniard) do speak Spanish. They comprise 60% of the Mexican people.
Pat,
Here is a list of Indian tribes in Mexico:
Amuzgo Indian tribe Ch'ol Indian tribe Cochimi Indian tribe Cocopa Indian tribe Cora Indian tribe
Guarijio Indian tribe Huichol Indian tribe Kickapoo Indian tribe Kiliwa Indian tribe Kumiai Indian tribe
Matlatzinca Indian tribe Mixe Indian tribe Mixtec Indian tribe Nahuatl/Mexica Indian tribe Oaxaca Chontal tribe
Opata Indian tribe Paipai Indian tribe Pima Bajo Indian tribe Popoluca Indian tribe Seri Indian tribe
Tabasco Chontal tribe Tarahumara Indian tribe Tepehuan Indian tribe Tlahuica Indian tribe Toltec Indian tribe
Tubar Indian tribe Yaqui Indian tribe Yucatec Maya Indian tribe Zapotec Indian tribe Zoque Indian tribe
Here are the Texas Tribes, several based on both sides of the Rio Grande, including the Pueblo and Lipan tribes.
http://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/texas/index.htm
I am also very familiar with the Kickapoo tribe which is in the US and MX, especially since their casino is based on the border in Eagle Pass.
http://www.native-languages.org/kickapoo.htm
To your point Arizonian, natives within these tribes speak both their own language, Spanish and English. In Eagle Pass many people are Latino and Kickapoo.
You can run but you can't hide, dee. I read your distortions of the truth in the Hispanic Business Forum about the Postville raids.
Post a Comment