Rethink your perceptions

In the middle of the night, 17 years ago in the Ukraine, an old man in old clothes knocked on Vasily Draka's door.

[antilib]

Just another pathetic out of touch liberal who does not recognize the damage done to the US by ILLEGALS!!!!!

[Unbelievable]

antilib wrote:

Just another pathetic out of touch liberal who does not recognize the damage done to the US by ILLEGALS!!!!!

Oh do tell us oh great anti-one, tell us all about it pleeeeeze, we're waiting.

[Tom Shuford]

The United States takes in roughly 1.3 million legal immigrants each year. That's more than the rest of the world combined.

Of course, for the past twenty years, we've taken in another 500,000 illegal aliens each year --- to supply businesses with cheap, exploitable labor and to supply ethnic pressure groups --- such as the National Council of La Raza (the Race)--- with the numbers they need to build ethnocentric power bases in the U. S.

According to Pew Research Center, the U. S. population --- around 200 milion in 1970, now at 304 million --- will be 438 million by around 2050 and the white population will 47% of the total population. Non-Hispanic whites were 85% of the population as late as 1970.

Non-Hispanic whites were 92% of the California population in. Today well over 50% of births in California are Latino.

Of coure, there is no capacity among politicians, the media and corporate interests to question whether the displacement of the non-Hipanic white majority is a good thing or not.

Perhaps this rapid demographic transformation of the U. S. is a good thing. Perhaps not. But is there is certainly no capacity to question it among political, business and media elites.

But if we cannot question it, at least we can understand how it happened.

The 1965 Immigration Act effectively ended significant immigration from Europe and replaced it with legal chain migration of extended families from Latin America and, secondarily, Asia.

This is not how the measure was sold by Senator Ted Kennedy, President Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic Party, but it was certainly effect.

If still curious, I did a piece on 1965 Act for EdNews.org :
http://www.ednews.org/articles/3512/1/Immigra...

[Tom Shuford]

CORRECTION:

In the post above, I noted that "Non-Hispanic whites were 92% of the California population in" and then failed to include the date: 1962.

Below is a more complete picture of the ongoing demographnic transformation of California.

Percent Non-Hispanic White:

1962 - 92%[In 1965 the Hart-Celler Immigration Act replaced national origins preferences favoring Europe with family reunification, which heavily favors countries of origin of the most recent immigrants, those from Latin America and Asia](1)

1980 - 67%

1990 - 57%

2000 - 47%(2)

2010 - 39%(projected: California Budget Project)(3)

2020 - 34%(projected)

Sources for these figures: See notes of another piece I did for Ednews.org , "Immigration and Schools, Part 1"
http://www.ednews.org/articles/29/1/Immigrati...

COMMENT: I don't know if the Democratic Party can do to North Carolina what it did to California, but it will certainly try.

As I noted in a letter published in the Greensboror News & Record:

"North Carolina's Democratic Party — as represented by the governor and leaders of the state House and Senate — have a ... record best encapsulated by the News & Record’s own Taft Wireback in a Jan. 26, 2005, report,“DMV memo OKs licenses for illegals”:

“'North Carolina has a wide-ranging reputation as a mecca for illegal immigrants from throughout the eastern third of the country seeking fraudulent licenses ... The state's poor reputation was the subject of a report broadcast nationally last week on CNN.'”

"Under public pressure the state’s Democratic Party leadership tightened up on drivers licenses in 2006 but are otherwise 'staying the course' on illegal immigration.

"In the 2007 session alone, they buried in committee and/or refused to allow a vote on a score of bills targeting illegal immigration."

[Equal time]

This article is just another "muddying the waters" attempt, either intentionally or ignorantly, to equate illegal "Mexican" aliens with legitimate immigrants. The USA has always benefitted from immigrants when the reason for accepting them was for the good of the country. In the last 30 years, and increasingly so, as liberals infiltrate the bureaucracy, it's been for the good of the Democrat Party. As more Americans move out of low incomes, more victims and uneducated voters are needed for the survival of the Dem Party. Let's keep immigrants and illegals a separate issue.

[susan boyer]

Again the blurring of the line between legal and illegal immigrants. Many Americans are getting really tired of this tactic which is constantly used by libs to make thier argument for open borders (votes). People from all over the world have sob stories and we can't help all of them. We need to set limits and rules versus immigration and it has to be legal entry. In fact, we merely need to enforce the laws we have on the books. And I would remind everyone to direct illegals to San Francisco and LA which are sanctuary cities. Go west, folks.

[Bitter EX democrackkk]

susan boyer wrote:

Again the blurring of the line between legal and illegal immigrants. Many Americans are getting really tired of this tactic which is constantly used by libs to make thier argument for open borders (votes). People from all over the world have sob stories and we can't help all of them. We need to set limits and rules versus immigration and it has to be legal entry. In fact, we merely need to enforce the laws we have on the books. And I would remind everyone to direct illegals to San Francisco and LA which are sanctuary cities. Go west, folks.

Ah, the myopic yankee witch with another brilliant statement. where do you get these ideas from, your arse?

[Tom Shuford]

Rob Neufeld: "Mr. Shuford, would you please put your comments and observations on the forum on immigration at http://thereadonwnc.ning.com ?"

Thanks for you invitation. I took a quick look at your site. It looks interesting. But I didn't see much discussion activity.

I am sure you understand that with limited time, we all have to prioritize sites we visit. I'll put your site on my mental "waiting list." Generate some sparks and I just might show up one day.

[Chuck Zimmerman]

susan boyer wrote:

Again the blurring of the line between legal and illegal immigrants. Many Americans are getting really tired of this tactic which is constantly used by libs to make thier argument for open borders (votes). People from all over the world have sob stories and we can't help all of them. We need to set limits and rules versus immigration and it has to be legal entry. In fact, we merely need to enforce the laws we have on the books. And I would remind everyone to direct illegals to San Francisco and LA which are sanctuary cities. Go west, folks.

Exactly why aren't We enforcing the immigration laws that had been effective previously?
bush.

[Rob Neufeld]

Tom Shuford wrote:

Rob Neufeld: "Mr. Shuford, would you please put your comments and observations on the forum on immigration at http://thereadonwnc.ning.com ?"
Thanks for you invitation. I took a quick look at your site. It looks interesting. But I didn't see much discussion activity.
I am sure you understand that with limited time, we all have to prioritize sites we visit. I'll put your site on my mental "waiting list." Generate some sparks and I just might show up one day.

The site was just started this morning. There will be a lot of activity. It would be great if you just copied and pasted your above text. Thanks!

[Rob Neufeld]

Equal time wrote:

This article is just another "muddying the waters" attempt, either intentionally or ignorantly, to equate illegal "Mexican" aliens with legitimate immigrants. The USA has always benefitted from immigrants when the reason for accepting them was for the good of the country. In the last 30 years, and increasingly so, as liberals infiltrate the bureaucracy, it's been for the good of the Democrat Party. As more Americans move out of low incomes, more victims and uneducated voters are needed for the survival of the Dem Party. Let's keep immigrants and illegals a separate issue.

Equal time, thank you for your comments. I think you raise some good points.

Let me say to all, the purpose of my piece was to put a human face on the issue. That is one approach. There are others.

For instance, there's Equal Time's approach. What are the political motives behind the issue? There's a long history of making policy decisions and creating public opinion campaigns for the sake of votes. How much of the hardline and immigration reform positions--on all sides--have to do with that?

Putting that factor aside, if we were to make judgments regardless of the political machinations, what would they be?

Arguments about the economic drain and criminal tendencies of immigrants do not pan out for me. Concerns about the racial and cultural make-up of America seem more to the point--I think this is more of the core concern of many immigrant citizenship opponents. And it's a very difficult one to talk about and figure out.

Talk about following immigration laws is too slippery. The laws keep changing, as Tom Shuler's comments show. So, it's not a matter of follow the law; it's a matter of what law do we want.

The economic motive of the laws--getting cheap labor--as opposed to the humanitarian motives--that's certainly worth a lot of discussion. The SAVE act will lose the country 10% of the Social Security surplus, I understand. So, the issue involves a complex mix.

Finally, I understand Equal Time's statement about how immigrants who gain citizenship include a high percentage of people who vote Democrat. But there are discrepancies. John McCain has supported citizenship proposals. Not all low-income people vote Democrat. There are large segments who vote Republican or Independent. I also think a look at "uneducated" voters (and I'm not sure how that's being defined--people without college education; people who are not smart; people who don't read or keep up with events--they're not the same groups) would indicate varied voting patterns.

It's interesting that Equal Times represents the issue as a class one, rather than ethnic. There's not too much talk about class in this country. Are you upper, middle, or low? If you're middle or low, do you vote Democrat as the comment suggests?

[AshevilleNative]

Thank you for this fascinting and well-written article, Rob Neufeld. Clearly, it will be taken as a controversial subject.

Having roots here in Buncombe County back to the 1700s, I want to say this. Unless one is 100% Cherokee, everyone who lives here now came from someplace else. The North Carolina mountains have always been the home to immigrants -- immigrants from Ireland, Scotland, Italy, England, Greece, France, you name it. Their personal decisions, their reasons for moving and their hard work to make a life here in WNC had virtually nothing to do with Democrats, Republicans, Liberatrians, Federalists, Whigs, liberals or conservatives.

[Tom Shuford]

Rob Neufeld: "Arguments about the economic drain and criminal tendencies of immigrants do not pan out for me."

Quoting an acquaintance of mine, Paul Nachman, from a letter of his in the LA Times, on the costs of mass low-skilled immigration:

"Have you ever glanced at the numbers crunched by Robert Rector, formidable domestic policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation? He shows that the average household headed by a low-skilled (i.e., high-school dropout) immigrant costs the rest of us, each year, about $19,000 more in benefits than the household pays in taxes."

Note the irony:

"....an upsurge in the high school dropout rate among our youth would be alarming, but the importation of millions of high-school dropouts from abroad is seen, somehow, as an economic boon."

Crime stats are deceptive, according to Heather Mac Donald, senior fellow, the Manhattan Intsitute, because they neglect generational effects:

“To be sure, many Hispanic immigrants are industrious strivers who seize every opportunity available to them, but too many of their children are assimilating into the underclass and adopting its values. The incarceration rate of Mexican-Americans jumps eight-fold ... between the 1st and 2nd generations, to a rate three and a half times that of whites ...”

Neufeld:

"Concerns about the racial and cultural make-up of America seem more to the point--I think this is more of the core concern of many immigrant citizenship opponents. And it's a very difficult one to talk about and figure out."

Indeed, but some scenarios seem to carry a high probability. Why take the risk? Nachman, continuing, from the LA Times letter:

"...the country becomes ever more ungovernable as -- driven by mass immigration -- it Balkanizes along ethnic lines, just what Theodore Roosevelt ["tangle of squabbling nationalities"] warned us against."

What a wild experiment the Democratic Party --- with, to be sure, some help from John McCain-type Republicans --- has launched us on.

[Ghost Dog]

Unbelievable wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh do tell us oh great anti-one, tell us all about it pleeeeeze, we're waiting.

If you have to ask what damage illegals are doing to this country you would be just to darn stupid to understand. Lets hope you or a family member is never raped, robbed or killed by a illegal who should never have been in this coutry to begin with.

[Lake28804]

Unbelievable wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh do tell us oh great anti-one, tell us all about it pleeeeeze, we're waiting.

Wow. Is that sarcasm or do you really need it spelled out for you?

[Rob Neufeld]

Ghost Dog wrote:

<quoted text>
If you have to ask what damage illegals are doing to this country you would be just to darn stupid to understand. Lets hope you or a family member is never raped, robbed or killed by a illegal who should never have been in this coutry to begin with.

Are you referring to statistics or your own experience? If statistics, are you saying we should fear all groups who have members who have committed crimes? What is your statistical source? If you have had an experience, that would be very pertinent to the discussion.

[H_Reasoner]

The immigration problem is not so much the presence of undocumented workers as it is the presence of the worker's extended family. We cannot expect to give a job to a worker and then have spouses, children, parents, aunts, uncles etc. accompany them and drain off public resources and entitlement programs.

It would not be so difficult for employers to register and sponser the number of foreign workers they need for an "Unaccompanied Tour" of employment. The employer should be required to pay for any medical care incurred while the worker is employed. This is done in other countries and could be done here. One worker should not be allowed to bring three four or five family members with them. I was sponsered for employment overseas and I was not allowed to bring my family or mooch off the host government's programs.

[illegal hater]

H_Reasoner wrote:

The immigration problem is not so much the presence of undocumented workers as it is the presence of the worker's extended family. We cannot expect to give a job to a worker and then have spouses, children, parents, aunts, uncles etc. accompany them and drain off public resources and entitlement programs.
It would not be so difficult for employers to register and sponser the number of foreign workers they need for an "Unaccompanied Tour" of employment. The employer should be required to pay for any medical care incurred while the worker is employed. This is done in other countries and could be done here. One worker should not be allowed to bring three four or five family members with them. I was sponsered for employment overseas and I was not allowed to bring my family or mooch off the host government's programs.

good point, and we should also repeal the anchor baby problem. if you are born from an illegal womb, then you too are illegal. their are also alot of american women getting pregnant by illegals who simply walk away with no support. the mother`s then have to rely on taxpayers for aid. close the borders!

[Concerned]

H_Reasoner wrote:

The immigration problem is not so much the presence of undocumented workers as it is the presence of the worker's extended family. We cannot expect to give a job to a worker and then have spouses, children, parents, aunts, uncles etc. accompany them and drain off public resources and entitlement programs.
It would not be so difficult for employers to register and sponser the number of foreign workers they need for an "Unaccompanied Tour" of employment. The employer should be required to pay for any medical care incurred while the worker is employed. This is done in other countries and could be done here. One worker should not be allowed to bring three four or five family members with them. I was sponsered for employment overseas and I was not allowed to bring my family or mooch off the host government's programs.

You're the man. Good ideas.

[asheville USA]

excellent article dispelling the myths surrounding this complex issue...