JayC

Mass immigration to the US is not good, in fact, it’s very, very bad. Economically, socially, and culturally it’s bad. Why does it continue? Well, there are perhaps four main reasons why we accept so many immigrants here.

First, Corporations/employers in general like a supply of cheap labor. A significant majority of new immigrants - legal and illegal - are unskilled and are willing to accept low wages. This keeps wages low for unskilled Americans. Blacks and poor whites suffer most. Why pay more when there’s a new immigrant willing to do the job? Big business uses new immigrants as a taxpayer-subsidized labor supply - they pay minimum wage knowing that many Latinos, many of whom bring family members here, will apply for, and get, State/Federal assistance in order to support themselves and their families… Overall, the net result is that the type of immigrants we are generally receiving contribute little to the American economy, to the extent that what they put in is taken straight out by subsidization, low tax returns, and the transfer of wages to relatives abroad.

Second, the liberal-left just adores mass, non-white, immigration. They despise the Western heritage of the United States, and see the importation of foreigners with foreign cultures as a good way to destroy what they view as “European cultural hegemony� in this country. These people are the ones who believe in multi-culturalism - assimilation is a dirty word for them.

Third, many members of Congress have districts with large immigrant communities. In return for support from these communities, they refuse to back the strict enforcement of current immigration laws, and are unlikely to vote for any new laws that restrict immigration, especially those concerning family preference. After all, “Jose’s� vote depends upon his “right� to import his five brothers and three sisters and parents and in the end, half his village from Mexico.

Last, George W. Bush, who never was that smart, believes that Latinos/Hispanics are natural cultural conservatives and so will eventually vote for the Republican party. This despite of all the evidence that new immigrants usually support the Democrats because the Democrats are the ones most likely to lamely hand over welfare checks to new arrivals.

When I read on these pages comments from the British attacking anyone with an anti-immigrant stance it makes me laugh. Most of you “Brits� whining are probably the ones who think there is too much legal and illegal immigration to the UK - according to a recent “Yougov� poll in the UK 70% of the British would like to reduce, or at least contain, legal and illegal immigration, and want to see a crackdown on bogus refugees/asylum seekers.

What a bunch of hypocrites you are.

Marky B

Yawn.

Rob S

theres another thread on this group with Alan Greenspans comments om the subject - so do we bother with you or someone who knows what he's talking about?

Rob S

theres another thread on this group with Alan Greenspans comments om the subject - so do we bother with you or someone who knows what he's talking about?

JayC

"Yawn" - in other words you don't have a clue. Oh well, ignorance is bliss!

JayC

Do you know anything about economics at all? Can you even spell the word? Greenspan is not supporting the current historically unprecedented levels of UNSKILLED mass immigration we are experiencing. I doubt you even know who Greenspan is - he's the Chairman of the Federal Reserve by the way, and his is only an opinion, whatever he says.

The only immigrants we should be receiving are the most highly-qualified. 100,000 a year maximum, from whatever country. At the moment, we get 500,000 illegals a year and more than a million legal, about 80% percent of whom are Latino, most of whom never even finished high school. We really don't need to import people who can barely read and write their own language, never mind speak English. We have about 10 million unemployed in the US - if the Corporate types would pay better wages - even $8.00 an hour - there would be no reason to import unskilled labor. The ones who lose out are the poorest Americans, perpetually consigned to low incomes because an immigrant will do the job for peanuts.

President Bush has a plan to give an amnesty to the estimated 3-4 million illegal Mexicans living here. It'll probably fail, but if it does pass Congress, it will need the support of conservatives. Conservatives will demand a crackdown on immigration - not just the illegal variety, but legal, as well. First, get rid of the abomination that is the Green Card lottery - or Visa/Diversity lottery, or whatever you want to call it. This is inherently racist, favoring non-European countries. Second, abolish the Visa Waiver - too many potential Islamic terrorists in Western Europe now to allow anyone to come here without a background check. Third, stop Family Preference, or at least limit it to spouses. No more importation of brothers and sisters would be a good start. And if you allow spouses in, make sure they get properly screened by authorities. At the moment, about 50% percent of these marriages are bogus.

As an American, I'm encouraged that for the first time in a long time, public opinion is starting to turn against the current levels of immigration. Family, friends, and colleagues say the same things I’ve been saying for years - essentially that enough really is enough. There is now a plurality of Americans who want a sizeable reduction in both legal and illegal immigration. This is good news. Unlike the UK, which has a government that is really just an elected dictatorship, almost unaccountable in many ways, America has a very responsive system of government. Members of Congress will respond to their electorates' concerns, and the sooner the better.

Adios!

jaytee

The Immigration Myth.
By Linda chavez and John J. Miller.

Reprinted from the May 1996 Reader's Digest.

Americans like immigrants as individuals-the decent, hardworking Korean grocer on the corner, the Russian computer programmer who lives down the street or the Filipino nurse who works at the local hospital. But as a nation we don’t seem to think much of immigration in general.

In a 1994 Newsweek survey, for example, half the public agreed that "immigrants are a burden because they take our jobs, housing and health care." Passions run high. "We are flooding areas of the country with millions of uneducated immigrants," complained one Wall Street Journal reader. They "take over, impose their culture and don’t even try to assimilate."

Everyone agrees that we must police our borders against illegal immigrants. But some, including Presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, want to declare a moratorium on all immigration. Sen. Alan Simpson (R., Wyo.) has sponsored a bill that would reduce the number of legally admitted non-refugee immigrants from 675,000annually to 540,000.

Yet in sharp contrast to the prevailing rhetoric that feeds on the misinformation, the evidence shows that the problems attributed to immigration are false or greatly exaggerated. In reality, today’s immigrants contribute positively, in much the same way our own ancestors did. We would only hurt ourselves by shutting the door in their faces. It’s time to debunk the myths that are clouding our public debate and policy.



Myth: Today’s immigrants are less educated than in the past.
In fact, the educational level of immigrants has been increasing, not decreasing. About one-third of all new immigrants in 1960 had less than eight years of schooling. In the past decade, that proportion has dropped one-quarter. The percentage of immigrants with a college education and with advanced degrees has been increasing too. In the 1980’s, for example, there were about 11,000 foreign-born engineers and scientists here. By 1992 that number had doubled.

An astonishing 40 percent of engineering doctorates at American universities in 1993 went to foreign-born professionals, who have become a vital force in the high-technology sectors critical to our future-telecommunications, biotechnology, chemicals and computers.

"How important are immigrants to my company?" asks T.J. Rodgers, president and CEO of Cypress Semiconductor, a manufacturer of high-performance computer chips in San Jose, Calif. "We would be out of business without them." In the research and development offices of the firm, pins on the world map represents employees places of birth. Almost half lie outside American borders. Home countries include China, Ghana, India, Panama, the Philippines, Russia, Taiwan and Zimbabwe.

This is true of countless firms in America’s computer industry. At giant Intel, maker of the Pentium processor use in millions of home computers, many of the people working on the Santa Clara-based company’s top projects are immigrants. Take Indian-born Ryan Manepally. He co-developed the concept for a computer-to-computer video-conferencing product that would allow, for instance doctors in different states to discuss X rays simultaneously. Intel CEO Andy Grove is from Hungary, and at least six of the company’s 29 corporate vice presidents are also immigrants.

"Without immigrants, we would have to send work overseas," notes Anant Agrawal, Indian-born vice president of engineering at Sun Microsystems, Inc., a leading designer and manufacturer of workstations used for commercial and technical computing. "That certainly would not help the American economy."



Myth: Immigrants steal jobs from Americans.
Behind this myth, notes economists Julian Simon, is a basic fallacy: that the number of jobs is finite, and the more that immigrants occupy, the fewer there are for others. Numerous studies dispute this myth. For instance, the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution in Arlington, VA., found that between 1960 and 1991, the ten states with the highest immigration presence had a lower unemployment rate than the ten states with the lowest immigrant presence. Blacks-often portrayed as economic victims of immigration-were found to earn more when they live in cities with large immigrant populations than they do in cities with small ones.

Immigrants, notes Simon in a resent Cato Institute report on immigration, "make new jobs by spending their earnings on the output of other workers." What’s more, less skilled immigrants take work Americans shun. IBP, Inc., near Garden City, Kan., operates the world’s largest meat-packing plant. Workers at IBP are reasonably paid-$7 to $10.35 per hour. Yet most of the workers on the "kill floor" there and at a nearby competitor, Monfort, are from Mexico or Southeast Asia. Meat-packing is the most hazardous job in the United States. Workers make several cuts on carcass every few seconds for eight hours a day, six days a week. The kill floors can get wet with water and blood, and even the most experienced worker can fall or get cut. "There are jobs that native-born Americans simply won’t do," says Steve Orozco, a program specialist at Job Service Center, a state agency in Garden City. "Meat-packing is one them."

The 40 workers at the Dalma Dress Manufacturing Company in New York City are all foreign-born. "Hardly any Americans apply for a job here," says Tonia Sylla from Liberia, an 11-year veteran. "Even when they so, they don’t last long." Says Dalma’s owner, Armand DiPalma, "Immigrants are the only labor pool we have."

Half of the 800,000 garment workers in the United States are immigrants, part of a $120-billion industry. If they were not doing work, the jobs would probably move overseas. "Every time you see a Made in the USA’ label on a piece of clothing," says Bruce Herman of the Garment Industry Development Corporation, "chances are you can thank an immigrant."



Myth: Immigrants are welfare moochers.
Because immigrants admitted as refugees are guaranteed cash and medical assistance by federal law, the proportion of foreign-born on welfare is 6.6 percent, versus 4.9 percent of native-born. However, only 5.1 percent of non-refugee working-age immigrants-the vast majority of legally admitted foreign-born-receive welfare benefits, compared with 5.3 percent of working age native-born.

In reality, the work ethic of today’s immigrants is just as strong as that as that of the Irish, Italians and Poles of yesteryear. According to the 1990 census, foreign-born males have a 77 percent labor-force participation rate, compared with 74 percent for native-born Americans. Hispanics have the highest rate of any group, 83 percent.

No doubt, too, many immigrants receive government benefits. However, the problem is not the immigrants but our overgenerous welfare state. California, for example burdened as it is by federally mandated programs, it is also laden with state-sponsored aid programs. The strain on the taxpayers boiled over in 1994 when Proposition 187, a ballot measure that denies benefits to illegal immigrants, passed by a huge margin.

Texas, on the other hand, spends less on welfare. It has taken in millions of immigrants in recent years without the public backlash. Gov. George W. Bush opposes laws modeled on Proposition 187, which have gone nowhere in the Texas legislature.

"Immigrants have the determination to succeed," declares Patricia Charlton, who arrived penniless from Jamaica in 1981 and started work at McDonald’s in Manhattan. She worked her way up, eventually being named a regional manager of the year. She’s married, owns a house and has a child in private school.

Like Charlton, immigrants often start on the lowest rungs of the economic ladder and move up. Typically, their household income reach parity with the native-born after about ten years, according to census figures. "Often immigrant-owned businesses invest in inner cities where rents are cheap, becoming a revitalizing force there," says Stephen N. Solarsh, a New York City business and real-estate advisor to many immigrant owned businesses. Korean immigrant Kim Suk Su, for example, currently owns property in some of the worst areas in Brooklyn, N.Y. Each was vacant when he bought it, but today most are back on the tax rolls.

Koreans Choi Duckchun and his wife, Hea Su, work seven days a week in their New York delicatessen, paying a $15,800 monthly rent and a $10,000 monthly payroll, while trying to save enough to eventually send their three children to college. It’s a struggle, and crime is a problem. Nevertheless their hard work pays off. "In Korea, money and politics determine everything," Choi says. "Here it’s the land of opportunity."

There is one final irony in the charge that immigrants are welfare moochers. Most immigrants arrive in their prime working years, their late 20s. "The payroll taxes of these young immigrants," notes economists Simon, "help underwrite the Social Security checks of America’s senior citizens."



Myth: Immigrants don’t want to assimilate.
Language is the key issue for assimilation, and self-interest impels most foreign-born to learn ours quickly-unless government gets in the way. "I didn’t speak any English when I came here in 1984," says Miguel Angel Rivera, who lives in Baltimore. "I didn’t need to because I was washing dishes and busing tables." Then the Salvadoran decided to become a waiter. "I started working the floor and picked up English from the customers," he says. Today Rivera is fluent. He also owns and operates Baltimore’s Restaurante San Luis, which specializes in Chinese and Salvadorian cuisine. "I have no problem communicating with any of the customers," he says.

Although many immigrants don’t speak a word of English when they arrive here, most recognize that learning it is the key to their economic success. A study of Southeast Asian refugees in Houston found that fluent English speakers earned almost three times as much money as those who only spoke a few words.

Progress might even be faster among the young were it not for bilingual education, which can reinforce the native tongue and delay the learning of English for years. Failed policies such as bilingual education and multicultural curricula are not being demanded by Mexican laborers or Chinese waiters. Instead they are being rammed down immigrants’ throats by federal, state and local governments, at the behest of native-born political activists and bureaucrats.

Culturally, immigrants believe in the melting pot and want to join the mainstream. Ninety percent of Hispanics are "proud" or "very proud" of the United States, according to recent Latino National Political Survey. Greg Gourley teaches citizenship classes at several Seattle-area community colleges. To become citizens, immigrants must speak, read and write in English, and pass an exam about U.S. history and government. The test is not easy. "If they didn’t want to be Americans, they wouldn’t be here," Gourley says. "We’ve got a waiting list a mile long."

Not every politician has jumped in the anti-immigration bandwagon. Many, including House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R., Texas), Sen. Joe Liberman (D., Conn.), and Gov. George Pataki (R., N.Y.), see through the myths, and understand that the United States gains when the legal immigrants arrive. As Sen. Spencer Abraham (R., Mich.) says, "We should not shut the door to people yearning to be free and to build a better life for themselves and their families."

jaytee

Cutting Immigration Myths Down to Size
by Stephen Moore and Stuart Anderson

Stephen Moore is director of fiscal policy studies and Stuart Anderson is director of trade and immigration studies at the Cato Institute.

Although there is strong bipartisan support for getting tough on illegal immigration by strengthening border enforcement, proposed changes to our legal immigration system are far more controversial. Supporters of further restrictions on legal immigration fail to make a convincing case for why they are necessary. They typically rely on conventional myths that are easy to debunk.

The most common myth: America has "uncontrolled" and "unprecedented" immigration. In fact, the U.S. immigration system is both limited and highly regulated. A U.S. citizen can sponsor a spouse, parent, sibling, or minor or adult child. A lawful permanent resident can sponsor only a spouse or a child. Essentially the only other way to immigrate to America is as a refugee or through the strict employment-based system. All of the family and employment categories are numerically capped, with the exception of the spouses, children and parents of U.S. citizens. Immigration actually declined naturally in both 1994 and 1995. Today 9 percent of the American population is foreign born. We are less of a nation of immigrants in 1996 than we were at anytime between 1850 and 1940 -- when the foreign-born population was at times almost twice as high as it is today.

The second immigration myth: Current immigration law permits massive "chain migration." This term is used to describe what happens when one immigrant arrives and sponsors relatives, causing one after another to come to the United States over a short period of time. Nothing in current immigration law allows a person to sponsor an aunt, uncle, cousin or other "extended" family member.

Senator Alan Simpson (R,WY), for example, says that one immigrant's arrival eventually leads to 80 relatives moving to America. A General Accounting Office study found that the data "fail to confirm the existence or future likelihood of massive chain migration." The study found that an average of 12 years passes from the time an immigrant comes to America and the time he or she sponsors a close relative. A repetition of that pattern means that a quarter of a century wouldpass between the first and third "link" in the chain.

Myth number three: Our legal immigration system leads to illegal immigration because "many illegal aliens first came in legally." Yes, they come legally -- but primarily as students or tourists who overstay their visas, not under any family category. It is therefore fatuous to argue that cutting family-based immigration will somehow reduce illegal immigration. Targeted measures, such as Senator Abraham's amendment to the Senate's illegal immigration bill, would address that problem by preventing those who overstay their visas from receiving any new visas for at least three years.

Myth number four: Immigrants impose a financial burden on taxpayers. Immigrants do make somewhat heavier use of means-tested welfare programs than natives. There have been especially flagrant abuses by immigrants of particular welfare programs, such as Supplemental Security Income. But because immigrants tend to come to the United States during the start of their working years --between the ages of 18 and 35 -- they make very large net contributions to the two largest income transfer programs: Social Security and Medicare. When the payroll tax contributions of immigrants are taken into account, the Urban Institute found that the foreign born constitute a net fiscal windfall to the public sector of some $20 billion a year. To the extent that welfare use by immigrants is a problem, this can be addressed by restricting the welfare eligibility of immigrants, not by keeping immigrants out.

Myth number five: Immigrants depress the wages and working conditions of American citizens. New widely cited research purportedly by the Bureau of Labor Statistics declares that immigrants are responsible for "about 50 percent of the decline in real wages for the lowest-skilled workers." Yet this "study" was never sanctioned or endorsed by the BLS. It is also contradicted by virtually all other studies on the subject. According to economist George Borjas, who is often cited by the opponents of immigration: "The methodological arsenal of modern econometrics cannot detect a single shred of evidence that immigrants have a sizeable adverse impact on the earnings and employment opportunities of natives." For example, in the 1980s the U.S. accepted 7 million new immigrants, but unemployment fell sharply and family incomes rose.

The final myth: Immigration must be reduced because Americans say so in polls. When polled within the appropriate context, Americans favor immigration. Republican pollster Vince Breglio found that by a two-to-one margin, voters support allowing U.S. citizens to continue sponsoring their adult children and brothers and sisters. And a national poll just released by the independent Grass Roots Research firm found that 61 percent of Americans agree with the statement that, "Anyone, from any country in the world, should be free to come to America if they are financially able to provide for themselves and their family."

Legal immigration has been one of the few constants throughout American history that has consistently served the nation well, both culturally and economically. In the immigration debate, the burden of proof should be on those who suggest shutting the golden gates tighter. So far, they have not made that case.

Marky B

First of all we respect the right that you have to come onto this site and express your beliefs. Don't abuse that right by generalising about Brits and calling us hypocrites. I think we are more aware of our feelings towards immigration than you are. There is a massive difference between illegal immigrants/asylum seekers and the type of immigration discussed on this forum.

Most of the people on this site will be moving to the US because
a) They have married/are marrying a US citizen or
b) They are skilled/highly skilled workers who are needed in the US.
c) They are investing (a minimum of $500 000), and therefore contributing greatly, (jobs etc). to your nation

Brits can't just move to the US because they feel like it. There aren't masses of Brits swimming the Atlantic as if it was the Rio Grande. There aren't ship loads of Brits secreted in hidden chambers of cargo ships. Fortunately our quality of life is such that most of us are quite happy here and not so desparate to move to the US as the poor souls who have to resort to such ends. We can't even enter the diversity lottery here!

What I am saying is that if you have a gripe about immigration to the US then you are entitled to that opinion. But frankly you've made yourself look extremely stupid because this isn't the site to take your anger out on. Do your research before you start spouting your views.

This site is called British Ex-Pats. It's very simple, it's at the top of every page.

Karen23

Hello MarkyB, just to say that you are the one who looks rather stupid. I don't agree with all that JayC said but his was clearly not an anti-British statement. I think he was just commenting on the fact that a majority of Brits would choose to emigrate if they could, and so are obviously unhappy with their country for whatever reason, and that perhaps one reason they are unhappy is because they feel their country is being overwhelmed by so many immigrants and foreign cultures. Isn't it just a little bit hypocritical for some Brits in here to condemn Americans for feeling just the same way? Think about it

And btw, Jay wasn't anti-immigrant per se - he opposed the large numbers we have coming in now because they are largely unskilled. Perhaps you need to read what he said again.

Also, as a former INS employee I can say that you want to check your facts maybe. Brits are one of the highest offenders regarding fake marriages. And there are very few Brits -in the low hundreds per year - who invest $500,000 in order to gain permanent resident status. This visa category is used far more by people from India than anywhere else, as strange as it might seem.

Regarding the person who quoted the Cato institute in defense of current immigration levels, the Cato institute is a conservative, privately funded org. that tends to be a mouthpiece for business organizations. Of course they favor unlimited immigration. More profits for big business at the expense of the American unskilled. The Wall Street Journal editorials are just the same - no surprise there.

I think all Americans would welcome qualified immigrants, in much more limited numbers, from whatever country, whether it be England or India or wherever. What we are getting tired of is the many unskilled, semi-literate people coming here who contribute little to the economy, who take money away from the health/education and general welfare sectors of the economy while contributing not that much in return.

Karen23

Oh, I forgot to post a response to a piece of nonsense another Jay wrote in this link (this is in response to Jaytee, not JayC). Jaytee quotes from the Cato institute or from some other mass-immigration propaganda that:

"Legal immigration has been one of the few constants throughout American history that has consistently served the nation well, both culturally and economically. In the immigration debate, the burden of proof should be on those who suggest shutting the golden gates tighter. So far, they have not made that case."

Actually, large scale legal immigration was cut back dramatically in the 1920's by Congress from a million+ a year to less than a hundred thousand. The result of this reduction was ASSIMILATION. America ceased to be a country of mass-immigration from the mid-20's until 1965, and consequentially we were better off for it, economically and socially. In the 1950's, for example, America reached a position of world economic dominance it has never attained again. In the 1950's we had a very low level of immigration.

Think about it: when hundreds of thousands of immigrants from Eastern Europe and Italy were allowed to come here year after year they just reinforced the cultural/linguistic habits of the ones who had recently arrived. Communities were formed all along the East Coast where Yiddish/Italian/Russian etc were the common languages, where the economic outlook was limited by the nucleus of the community. Ghettos were the result.

Limiting immigration allowed the Jews and the Italians and the rest to broaden their horizons, to enter the mainstream. Right now, with levels of immigration exceeding those of 1880-1924, you have Hispanic communities where English is hardly spoken, where every year each new influx of immigrants prevents real assimilation into the majority.

Jaytee, come on now, forget the propaganda, read some history!

lisalalauk

Speaking for myself, my husband and I have now been apart for 6 years out of our 7 year relationship and we are just beginning to see the light after 2 years of the Immigration process to the US. My husband and I met while we were both serving members of the Armed Forces, we have both left now but to be together we have to live in either England or the US, since we have agreed that his career now comes first I am moving to the US. I have no intentions of living on welfare and will work for the rest of my life as I do not plan to have children, there are no monetry reasons for my move, we just want to be together, and from the many stories I have read on these forums this is the case for the majority.

When I finally do arrive in the US I hope I don't receive comments similar to the above and hope I will be welcomed.

Lisa

jaytee

These sad people do America a great disservice.

Aaron Sergeant

OK, lets get down to the basics, some people come to this country to be a productive part of it, some to abuse it, regardless of where they came from or how they go through the borders, the abusers and users are simply not welcome, since I know I am not one of them, I know I am not personally being attacked by the comments in the thread,

jaytee

You sound like an extremist. All I hear from you is negativity because the negative is all you choose to focus on, completely ignoring the positive aspects of legal immigration. Here in America, there are shining examples from every race and their contributions are worth everything. I am tired of listening to the garbage that comes from sad, unworldly people. As I said before, they do America a great disservice.