pew hispanic: Page 1
One of the more ludicrous talking points around is that net migration from Mexico has fallen to zero, and thus it's safe to pass comprehensive immigration reform without encouraging more illegal immigration. The answer to that argument is to point out that when the U.S. economy improves, illegal immigration will almost assuredly pick up.
From Pew Hispanic :
In the year following the official end of the Great Recession in June 2009, foreign-born workers gained 656,000 jobs while native-born workers lost 1.2 million, according to a new analysis of U.S. Census Bureau and Department of Labor data by the Pew Hispanic Center.
As a result, the unemployment rate for immigrant workers fell 0.6 percentage points during this period (from 9.3% to 8.7%) while for native-born workers it rose 0.5 percentage points (from 9.2% to 9.7%).
There's more at , including how immigrants - especially Latinos - saw their wages fall. Most importantly, there's this:
Over the two-year period from 2008 to 2010, second quarter to second quarter, foreign-born workers have lost 400,000 jobs and native-born workers have lost 5.7 million jobs.
Note that they aren't breaking immigrants/foreign-born down by status; however, a good number of those are in fact illegal aliens. Certainly, there's to an extent a difference between the job categories that illegal aliens fill and the native-born fill, and a company might have more of a need for the 300th fruit picker than another company has for the 300th accountant. However, many of those jobs that the foreign-born are doing could have been done by Americans instead, and with a net gain to the economy; see this.
If you don't like the statistics above, follow the plan.
When Arizona enacted an unauthorized immigrant enforcement bill earlier this year, the immigration policy debate reignited across the country. Even so, the new survey shows that immigration does not rank as a top voting issue for Hispanics. Rather, they rank education, jobs and health care as their top three issues of concern for this year's congressional campaign. Immigration ranks as the fifth most important issue for Latino registered voters and as the fourth most important issue for all Latinos.
However, the survey finds that two-thirds (66%) of Latino registered voters say they talked about the immigration policy debate with someone they know in the past year. It also finds that those who have had these conversations are more motivated to vote in the upcoming election than are those who haven't. Nearly six-in-ten (58%) Latino registered voters who have discussed the immigration debate say they are absolutely certain they will vote in November, compared with just four-in-ten (39%) of those who have not talked about the immigration debate.
Needless to say, the above is not how most politicians - Democrats or Republicans - act. They seem to believe that immigration is the primary motivation for Hispanics, when - despite Arizona - 34% of them haven't even discussed the issue with others. It's certainly the top motivating factor for Hispanic leaders and others who hope to profit monetarily or electorally from increased numbers of Hispanics, but to their base it's not a top-tier issue.
Pew: illegal immigration inflow fell (Obama not involved; Bush responsible for 5 million; 60% from Mexico; 9.3% of CA's workforce) - 09/04/10
Pew Hispanic recently released a study entitled "U.S. Unauthorized Immigration Flows Are Down Sharply Since Mid-Decade" (link). There are links to two previous studies with similar findings by the Department of Homeland Security and the Center for Immigration Studies here.
According to Pew's study:
The annual inflow of unauthorized immigrants to the United States was nearly two-thirds smaller in the March 2007 to March 2009 period than it had been from March 2000 to March 2005...
...This sharp decline has contributed to an overall reduction of 8% in the number of unauthorized immigrants currently living in the U.S. - to 11.1 million in March 2009 from a peak of 12 million in March 2007, according to the estimates. The decrease represents the first significant reversal in the growth of this population over the past two decades...
...Even though the size of the Mexican unauthorized population living in the United States has not changed significantly since 2007, the inflows from that country have fallen off sharply in recent years. According to the center’s estimates, an average of 150,000 unauthorized immigrants from Mexico arrived annually during the March 2007 to March 2009 period - 70% below the annual average of 500,000 that prevailed during the first half of the decade...
A few notes:
1. Only two months covered by their study were during the Obama administration; if you see someone claiming this has something to do with Obama immigration, leave a cite in comments.
3. However, the study notes that "Nearly half of unauthorized immigrants living in the country in 2009 - 47%, or 5.2 million people - arrived in 2000 or later." The responsibility for all of those illegal aliens lies with Bush; his proxies from Michael Chertoff to Michael Gerson; other "Bushies" such as his brother Jeb Bush; and his current and former supporters. Those who currently push the "Miss Me Yet" line should be constantly publicly reminded of that statistic.
4. The study notes that "Mexico accounted for 60% of unauthorized immigrants in 2009, or 6.7 million people. Other Latin American nations accounted for 20% of the total, or 2.2 million people. South and East Asia accounted for 11% of the total, or 1.2 million people." A minor talking point used by illegal immigration supporters is to claim that few on the pro-enforcement side talk about European illegal aliens; remind them of that statistic.
5. And: "In 2009, 59% of unauthorized immigrants resided in California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois and New Jersey. However, the share living in those states has declined from 80% in 1990, as unauthorized immigrants have dispersed to new settlement areas." That helps explain why politicians in non-border states attempt to pass pro-enforcement bills. Note that some illegal immigration supporters question why someone in, say, Massachusetts might be concerned about this issue; confront them with that statistic.
6. And, another statistic Bush and his unrepentant supporters are responsible for: "The number of children who are unauthorized, 1.1 million in 2009, declined slightly over the decade. By contrast, the population of U.S.-born children with at least one unauthorized parent nearly doubled from 2000 to 2009, when they numbered 4 million." The far-left and related groups work very hard to prevent illegal aliens in mixed-status families from being deported, and Bush made the situation far worse.
7. And: "States with the largest shares of immigrants in the labor force are Nevada (9.4%), California (9.3%), Texas (8.7%) and New Jersey (8.7%)... The unemployment rate for unauthorized immigrants of all ages in March 2009 was higher than that of U.S.-born workers or legal immigrants - 10.4%, 9.2% and 9.1%, respectively." If we deported all of them tomorrow, not every one of those jobs would be immediately filled by an unemployed American, and the economy would suffer further due to the loss of consumers. However, it would would free up jobs for Americans and if done over time wouldn't have as great an economic impact, offset by less spending. Make that argument to illegal immigration-supporting and -enabling politicians to their face on video and hold them responsible.
8. The study provides more evidence in support of attrition: the illegal alien population in the U.S. isn't fixed; with increased enforcement the numbers could be reduced even further.
An estimated 340,000 of the 4.3 million babies born in the United States in 2008 were the offspring of unauthorized immigrants, according to a new analysis of Census Bureau data by the Pew Hispanic Center.
Unauthorized immigrants comprise slightly more than 4% of the adult population of the U.S., but because they are relatively young and have high birthrates, their children make up a much larger share of both the newborn population (8%) and the child population (7% of those younger than age 18) in this country.
Jeb Bush and Robert Putnam offer "A better welcome for our nation's immigrants" (link). It's part of a push for amnesty mentioned here about a year ago. In the piece, they mislead about assimilation and consistently fail to to be intellectually honest. They start with this:
On our national birthday, and amid an angry debate about immigration, Americans should reflect on the lessons of our shared immigrant past. We must recall that the challenges facing our nation today were felt as far back as the Founders' time. Immigrant assimilation has always been slow and contentious, with progress measured not in years but in decades. Yet there are steps communities and government should take to form a more cohesive, successful union.
Consider what one leader wrote in 1753: "Few of their children in the country learn English. The signs in our streets have inscriptions in both languages. . . . Unless the stream of their importation could be turned . . . they will soon so outnumber us that we will not preserve our language, and even our government will become precarious." Thus Ben Franklin referred to German Americans, still the largest ethnic group in America. A century later, Midwestern cities such as Cincinnati and St. Louis were mostly German-speaking. So worried were their native-born neighbors that Iowa outlawed speaking German in public and even in private conversation.
Now, see immigration tradition fallacy for what they're engaging in. Drawing lessons from the past has to be done carefully because the situations between then and now are different. For instance, it would be exceedingly difficult for Iowa to outlaw speaking Spanish in public nowadays. Bush and Putnam fail to note that one possible reason why German-speakers are confined to small pockets in the U.S. is because of such laws and because of societal pressures that don't exist anymore or that are much attenuated.
Proponents and opponents of immigration agree on one thing: Learning English is crucial to success and assimilation. Yet learning a language as an adult is hard, so first-generation immigrants often use their native tongue. Historically, English has dominated by the second or third generation in all immigrant groups. Most recent immigrants recognize that they need to learn English, and about 90 percent of the second generation speak English, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. Research by sociologists Claude Fischer and Michael Hout published in 2008 suggests that English acquisition among immigrants today is faster than in previous waves.
Fewer immigrants of Mexican origin than of any other major origin group say they speak English very well (16%).
Nearly three-quarters of Mexican immigrants (71%) say they speak English just a little or not at all. That is also the case with 64% of immigrants from the Dominican Republic; 62% from Central America; 57% from Cuba; and 44% from South America. Among Puerto Ricans, 35% report that they speak English just a little or not at all. (Figure 10)
...One reason for the low share of Mexican-born immigrants who speak English very well is that Mexicans are the least likely among the major country-of-origin groups to have graduated from college...
...Most Mexicans (56%), Cubans (60%), Dominicans (52%) and Central Americans (51%) say they speak only Spanish at home. By contrast, 32% of Puerto Ricans and 42% of South Americans speak only Spanish at home.
...On the job, Mexican and Cuban immigrants are the most likely among the major origin groups to speak only Spanish—a third do. Half of Mexicans speak only Spanish or mainly Spanish at work, the largest share of any major group. At the opposite end, most Puerto Ricans (51%) speak only English or mainly English, the sole major origin group to do so.
The above is especially important since Mexicans and Mexican-Americans are the largest group within Hispanics. Bush and Putnam fail to ask whether we'd be doing better if most Hispanic immigrants were from South America; obviously, asking questions like that is not in any way politically correct. But, if they aren't willing to discuss that, how should we trust their opinions?
Residential integration of immigrants is even more gradual. Half a century ago, sociologist Stanley Lieberson showed that most immigrants lived in segregated enclaves, "Little Italy" or "Chinatown," for several generations. This segregation reflected discrimination by natives and the natural desire of "strangers in a strange land" to live among familiar faces with familiar customs. Only with suburbanization, encouraged by government policy in the 1950s and 1960s, did the children and grandchildren of the immigrants of the 1890s and 1900s exit those enclaves. That many of today's immigrants live in ethnic enclaves is thus entirely normal and reflects no ominous aim to separate themselves from the wider American community.
Obviously, there's a huge difference between small enclaves and the current situation in, say, Los Angeles where ethnic enclaves stretch for mile after mile. That's not "normal" if your point of reference is small ethnic enclaves.
They then discuss intermarriage; if anyone has studies that make the contrary point please leave a comment. Then:
Moreover, the aging of our population places a premium on young, productive workers, many of whom must come from immigration.
The problem is that they're lumping all types of immigration together. Speaking generally, immigrants from some countries or with some backgrounds are going to be more productive than those from other countries or with different backgrounds. Jeb Bush and Robert Putnam aren't intellectually honest enough to point that out.
Then, they offer their suggested fixes:
-- Provide low-cost English classes, in cooperation with local civic and religious groups, where immigrants build personal ties with co-ethnics and native-born Americans. These connections foster assimilation and help newcomers navigate our complex institutions.
-- Invest in public education, including civics education and higher education. During the first half of the 20th century, schools were critical to preparing children of immigrants for success and fostering a shared national identity.
-- Assist communities experiencing rapid increases in immigration, which is traumatic for those arriving here and for receiving communities. Schools and hospitals bear disproportionate costs of immigration, while the economic and fiscal benefits from immigration accrue nationally.
The problem is, again, we aren't living a century ago: times are different. Nowadays, the far-left has more power and many of those "civic and religious groups" will oppose assimilation with a small number of them being radical. Most Hispanic organizations work to oppose immigration enforcement and, in order to obtain more power, are not keen on assimilation. Would Jeb Bush and Robert Putnam put the National Council of La Raza in charge of "foster[ing] assimilation"? Whether they would or not, that's what would happen. The same applies to the schools: there are too many examples of far-left teachers and school boards opposing immigration enforcement and assimilation. As for the economic benefits that "accrue nationally", see the immigration economics posts for what they aren't mentioning.
They end on this naive note:
But we ought not to airbrush our ancestors' difficulties in assimilation, nor fail to match our forebears' efforts to help integrate immigrants. Government, churches, libraries, civic organizations and businesses must cooperate to address this challenge, as they did a century ago.
That's great. However, far-left and racial power groups have different ideas, and they'd be in charge. And, Jeb Bush and Robert Putnam offer no clue as to how they'd do anything other than give those groups even more political power.
ADDED: Regarding assimilation and the schools, recall Arizona's recent attempt to make sure that those teaching English can speak the language. That received light pushback from the Washington Post (link), heavier pushback from the Obama-linked Center for American Progress ("Arizona Expands Its Discrimination: Teachers With Heavy Accents Can’t Teach English, Ethnic Studies Are Banned", thinkprogress.org/2010/04/30/arizona-teachers) and overall what they're trying to do wasn't presented as a no-brainer by most of the establishment. Do Bush and Putnam have a plan to overcome the inevitable pushback their assimilation plans would receive? That would be a good question to ask them at their public appearances.
Recall also that a Zogby poll done in Mexico showed that 58% of Mexicans agreed with this question: "the territory of the United States' Southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico." Other good questions to ask them would be:
1. What specifically do they intend to do about such sentiments?
2. Aren't such sentiments dangerous?
3. Should we allow people to immigrate here if they don't believe that we have a right to parts of our territory?
4. And, what are their contingency plans if things don't work out? What if we allow millions more people to come here and the Bush/Putnam assimilation plans fail?
Dalia Fahmy of ABC News offers "Expensive Aliens: How Much Do Illegal Immigrants Really Cost?" (link), an article similar in scope to the recently-discussed misleading article by FactCheck. She's slightly more balanced then the other article, but this at the end jumps out:
Jeffrey Passel, a senior demographer at the Pew Hispanic Center, takes the debate one step further. He points out that most attempts to find a meaningful number are usually futile, since the data are so difficult to collect. And anyway, he says, what is the point?
"We don't generally ask these questions about anybody else," says Passel. He points out that using the "cost" argument, one could make a case against parents who generally benefit more from public schools than the taxes they pay. "It's not a subject that there is a definitive answer to."
Obviously, the reason why people ask that question is because illegal aliens aren't supposed to be here. There are plenty of Americans who we'd be very lucky if they picked up and moved to another country, but we can't force them to leave. Foreign citizens who are here illegally are a different matter entirely: if enough people worked at it in an intelligent and effective fashion, we could encourage many or most to return home. That's the goal of things like the new Arizona immigration law; perhaps Passel needs to pay more attention to current events.
WaPo admits: massive immigration has created a "troubling" situation (second generation Hispanics) - 12/07/09
Last month, the New York Times admitted some of the troubling aspects of the immigration policy they support. Now comes NC Aizenman of the Washington Post with "Struggles of the second generation" (link, via this) in which they likewise admit that the policies they support have created a "troubling" situation.
Almost all of it is a sketch of the child of Mexican immigrants who's trying to turn his life around. The rest includes:
Whether [the millions of children of Latino immigrants] succeed will have consequences far beyond immigrant circles. As a result of the arrival of more than 20 million mostly Mexican and Central American newcomers in a wave that swelled in the 1970s and soared during the 1990s, the offspring of Latino immigrants now account for one of every 10 children, both in the United States and the Washington region.
Largely because of the growth of this second generation, Latino immigrants and their U.S.-born children and grandchildren will represent almost a third of the nation's working-age adults by mid-century, according to projections from U.S. Census Bureau data by Jeffrey S. Passel, a demographer with the nonpartisan Pew Hispanic Center in Washington.
Not since the last great wave of immigration to the United States around 1900 has the country's economic future been so closely entwined with the generational progress of an immigrant group. And so far, on nearly every measure, the news is troubling.
Second-generation Latinos have the highest high school dropout rate -- one in seven -- of any U.S.-born racial or ethnic group and the highest teen pregnancy rate. These Latinos also receive far fewer college degrees and make significantly less money than non-Hispanic whites and other second-generation immigrants.
The flow of immigrants from Mexico to the U.S. declined to the lowest level in a decade during the past year, a sign that the recession is deterring economic migrants from heading north in search of jobs.
However, there is no evidence of an increase between March 2008 and March 2009 in the number of Mexicans returning home from the U.S., according to an analysis by the Pew Hispanic Center, an independent research group in Washington.
For what it's worth, Mexican government data shows that 226,000 fewer people - a 25% drop - left Mexico to work in other countries in the year ending in August 2008 ("Mexican Data Say Migration to U.S. Has Plummeted" by Julia Preston of the New York Times, link):
The trend emerged clearly with the onset of the recession and, demographers say, provides new evidence that illegal immigrants from Mexico, by far the biggest source of unauthorized migration to the United States, are drawn by jobs and respond to a sinking labor market by staying away... "If jobs are available, people come," said Jeffrey S. Passel, senior demographer at the Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research group in Washington. "If jobs are not available, people don’t come." ...The net outflow of migrants from Mexico - those who left minus those who returned - fell by about half in the year that ended in August 2008 from the preceding year.
Unfortunately, many illegal aliens are not returning home, apparently expecting things to improve. Now that the NYT admits that the jobs magnet attracts people to come here illegally, it's just a minor jump to them calling for an increase in workplace enforcement in order to discourage illegal crossing even more and in order to encourage the many illegal aliens who remain in the U.S. to return home. Obviously, the NYT has no interest in that but instead has suggested subsidizing illegal aliens until the economy improves and has supported giving them stimulus jobs.
Preston brings on Steven Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies to say that enforcement works: "The latest evidence suggests that you can reverse the flow... It is not set in stone, so with some mix of enforcement and the economy, fewer will come and more will go home."
Chart shows percentage of foreign country's population in U.S.: Guyana at 32%, Mexico at 11% - 04/27/09
There's a chart here (see UPDATE) showing the percentages of various foreign countries populations who now live in the U.S. The data is from a government source and Pew Hispanic and is from 2007. The figures are probably on the low side.
Latino convicts now represent the largest ethnic population in the federal prison system, accounting for 40 percent of all those convicted of federal crimes, according to a study released Wednesday by the Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan think tank.You can download the full report at pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=104
In 2007, Latinos, who make up 13 percent of the United States population, accounted for one third of all federal prison inmates, a result the study attributed to the sharp rise in illegal immigration and the increased enforcement of immigration laws.
Nearly half of all Latino offenders, or about 48 percent, were convicted of immigration crimes, while drug offenses were the second-most prevalent charge, according to the report...
They include the note that federal prisoners only represent about 6% of those sentenced for a felony. And, the offenses of the Hispanic prisoners was mostly a function of their immigration status:
Among sentenced non-citizen Latino immigration offenders, more than eight-in-ten (81%) were convicted of entering unlawfully or residing in the U.S. without authorization. In contrast, more than nine-in-ten (91%) U.S. citizen Latino immigration offenders were convicted of smuggling, transporting or harboring an unlawful alien.
57%: The economy
43%: National security
33%: The environment
20%: Energy policy
Note that two surveys were conducted, and all adults Latinos were eligible. Thus, the persons answering that question could be Puerto Ricans, native born Mexican-Americans, legal immigrants, illegal aliens, or so on.
Further, voters (presumably citizens) were asked "What one issue mattered most to you in deciding how to vote for president?" They were not given a choice of responses. Only 6% named immigration, behind the economy/jobs (31%), "change" (13%), Iraq (7%), and "candidate attributes" (14%). No one appears to have named Sarah Palin as a reason one way or another. Only 2% named Bush, and only 1% named things related to the Republican party.
None of the above is very favorable to those who support massive/illegal immigration, so NC Aizenman of the Washington Post supplies the orthodoxy (link):
Still, Mark Hugo Lopez, co-author of the survey released today, cautioned that the current results may reflect Latinos' increasing concern with the economy more than mounting apathy over immigration. He noted that 75 percent of Hispanics reported that immigration should be at least a "very important" priority for President-elect Barack Obama, and 88 percent cited it as at least "important."Hacks are funny.
Lopez also said the current poll did not necessarily disprove the impression of many analysts that the Republican Party's opposition to the legalization plan contributed to Obama's two-to-one victory over Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) among Hispanics. Although previous polling indicated that registered Latino voters had more confidence in Democrats' ability to manage the economy, a September poll by the Pew Hispanic Center also found that 55 percent of Latino registered voters believed Democrats had more concern for Hispanics, compared to 6 percent who cited Republicans.
"We don't have any evidence to be able to tease out the independent effect of immigration [on the election's outcome]," said Lopez. "There are several possible scenarios there and I don't think our survey allows us to tease them out."
Barack Obama reiterates support for driver's licenses for illegal aliens (Carolyn Lochhead) - 01/28/08
Sen. Barack Obama easily won the African American vote in South Carolina, but to woo California Latinos, where he is running 3-to-1 behind rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, he is taking a giant risk: spotlighting his support for the red-hot issue of granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.She's actually right about most of that, but she forgot to include New York governor Eliot Spitzer in her list of casualties. It also isn't clear from her article who exactly is renewing Obama's support for those who've broken our laws; no quotes from Obama or an official spokesman are provided.
It's a huge issue for Latinos, who want them. It's also a huge issue for the general electorate, which most vehemently does not. Obama's stand could come back to haunt him not only in a general election, but with other voters in California, where driver's licenses for illegal immigrants helped undo former Gov. Gray Davis.
It's also not entirely true that "Latinos... want them". Latinos who are here legally can already get them. As for those who put their race ahead of the best interests of their country, see page 14 of the 2007 Pew Hispanic Survey (pewhispanic.org/files/reports/84.pdf). Respondents were asked whether there should be a check for immigration status before granting a license. 85% of non-Hispanics said yes, as did 40% of all Hispanics. A majority of native-born Hispanics (56%) said yes, but a majority of foreign-born Hispanics (66%) said no. Whether any of the latter included illegal aliens isn't clear.
So, just as long as Obama goes for the foreign-born Hispanics (perhaps including illegal aliens), he's got it made. It's only the other 75%+ of American citizens he needs to worry about.
The article also quotes Gil Cedillo and former Clinton administration official Federico Pena, who's now a supporter of Obama. In 2006 he led a group that tried to thwart a Proposition 187-style measure in Colorado and the spokeswoman for that group was the vile Polly Baca, meaning that Pena is linked at least tangentially linked into the Western Union gravy train.
More on Obama's immigration issues here.
I don't have an original link for this, but according to "The menace of multiculturalism":
A poll for the Pew Hispanic Center finds that 55 percent of Americans of Mexican descent consider themselves Mexicans first. A similar study of Muslim immigrants in Los Angeles finds that only 10 percent think of themselves as Americans rather than citizens of the countries they abandoned for new lives here.