Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Hispanics and assimilation
Immigration, primarily from Mexico and other points south, animates conservatives as few other issues do. I say "immigration" rather than "illegal immigration," because many conservatives are not solely concerned with the lack of control over our borders, even if they couch their arguments in these terms. It is not dodgy to say that many conservatives would object if we reduced illegal immigration by massively increasing the amount of lawful immigration from Hispanic countries. They worry about the impact of large numbers of Hispanics on our economy, society, and culture.
I do not share these concerns, which perhaps explains why I annoy my readers on those rare occasions when I work myself up to write about immigration. In my personal experience, Hispanics are -- in the fullness of time -- as or more likely to learn English, start businesses, work hard, go to church, and uphold the values of the United States than any other "white ethnic" immigrant group (to use a term that at least used to dominate ward politics in Chicago).
Linda Chavez, a conservative of impeccable credentials, makes precisely this point in an excellent op-ed piece in this morning's Wall Street Journal, "The Great Assimilation Machine." It is behind the subscriber wall, which is a great shame because it is perfect fodder for discussion on blogs. No matter, I'm going to rely on fair use and the humane wisdom of Dow Jones' lawyers and extract some useful excerpts (bold emphasis added).
The real story of Hispanic assimilation, however, is a lot less gloomy -- although a bit more complicated -- than the critics charge. Part of the problem is the interpretation of statistics: As we are in the midst of a huge influx of new immigrants, legal and illegal, including seven million Mexicans who have arrived since 1990, any statistical snapshot that includes these newcomers (who make up about half the adult Hispanic population) will distort the overall moving picture....
English proficiency is, of course, essential if Hispanics are to fully assimilate into the mainstream, and one issue many Americans have expressed great concern over. But despite anxiety that Hispanics aren't learning English and will soon insist that the U.S. become bilingual, the evidence suggests otherwise. True enough, most Hispanic immigrants have poor English skills: The 2000 Census reported that 26 million people spoke Spanish at home, and of these, 14 million were unable to speak English well. But there is nothing unusual about this; historically most immigrant groups have taken a generation or more to produce fluent English speakers. In 1900, nearly 50 years after the peak period of German immigration, 600,000 students attended German bilingual schools in the U.S.
But if Hispanic immigrants have been slow to learn English, their American-born progeny have quickly adapted. English is the preferred language of virtually all U.S.-born Hispanics; according to a study by the Pew Hispanic Center, indeed, 78% of third-generation Hispanics cannot speak Spanish at all. Even in Southern California, an area with the largest population of Spanish speakers in the nation, 96% of third-generation Mexican Americans prefer to speak English at home, according to a recent study by sociologists Ruben Rumbaut, Douglas Massey and Frank Bean.
This strikes me as no different from other immigrant groups. It is a myth that immigrants from earlier waves themselves inevitably learned serviceable English. Some did, many did not. Many of these immigrants would bring their children along to translate from Yiddish or Russian or Polish or Chinese when they had to deal with a government bureaucrat or bank officer. And the grandchildren cannot speak the Old World language at all. If we look at Hispanics longitudinally rather than as a snapshot, the pattern seems to hold.
The fear that Hispanics are or will become an isolated, economically alienated group within the larger American society also does not jibe with a variety of other measures. A 2006 Commerce Department study reported that Hispanics are opening businesses at a rate three times faster than the national average. In 2002, the last year for which detailed data are available, there were 1.6 million Hispanic-owned businesses generating $222 billion in revenue. Most of these businesses are family affairs, with few employees, but some 1,500 Hispanic businesses employed 100 or more people, generating $42 billion in gross receipts.
Half of all Hispanics own homes. This is substantially below the 76% of non-Hispanic whites that are homeowners. A Department of Housing and Urban Development analysis of Hispanic home ownership trends suggests that the gap can be explained by a number of factors, including age. Home ownership increases with age, but nearly twice as many Hispanics as non-Hispanic whites are under 35, while only 10% of Hispanics, but nearly one quarter of whites, are over 65.
Indeed, given the proportion of Hispanics who are here illegally (according to some estimates) and the relative youth of the Hispanic population, it is extremely encouraging that half of Hispanics own homes. That implies a degree of economic success that weakens the suspect argument that Hispanic immigrants -- illegal or otherwise -- burden state and local governments disproportionately.
Finally, consider that ultimate indicator of assimilation, intermarriage. One in four Hispanics marries a non-Hispanic white spouse, but nearly one-third of all U.S.-born Hispanics who are married have non-Hispanic spouses; and the percentage is slightly higher among college-educated Hispanic women (35%). There is a curious, and provocative fact buried in all this. The Population Reference Bureau notes in its 2005 study of intermarriage that, because most children of intermarriages are reported as Hispanic on Census data, "Hispanic intermarriage may have been a factor in the phenomenal growth of the U.S. Hispanic population in recent years, and it has important implications for future growth and characteristics of the Hispanic population." In other words, the widely cited prediction that by mid-century Hispanics will represent fully one third of the U.S. population fails to take into account that increasing numbers of these so-called Hispanics will have only one grandparent or great-grandparent of Hispanic heritage. At which point Hispanic ethnicity will mean little more than German, Italian or Irish ethnicity does today.
In other words, America's "one drop of blood" theory of ethnic identification, the bastard child of racial classification schemes in the old South, is artificially inflating the "Hispanic" population at the expense of other "white ethnics." I strongly suspect that the debate over immigration, illegal and otherwise, would change radically if we eliminated this structural bias by classifying people according to the ethnicity of their mother (if we cannot eliminate official ethnic identification entirely).
Finally, Chavez's last sentence invites an obvious objection: Hispanic ethnicity will not "mean little more than German, Italian or Irish ethnicity does today" as long as we distinguish between Hispanics and other whites in our employment laws and government contracting rules. We never should have included Hispanics in "affirmative action" regulation, and it is time to revise those laws to recognize precisely the point that Chavez makes: Hispanics are "white ethnics"* just like the Germans, Italians, Jews, Polish, and Irish once were, and should be regarded as such under the law. That reform alone -- once enacted -- would go a great distance toward cooling the much overheated national "conversation" about immigration.
____________________________________________________
*Granted, some Hispanics are also descended from Africans. Such people obviously should not be disqualified from the protections afforded blacks because they are also Hispanic. Similarly, Hispanics who maintain Native American tribal identification should not be shorn of legal protections as Native Americans simply because they also have an Hispanic identity.
28 Comments:
By 
D.E. Cloutier, at
Tue Jun 05, 11:40:00 AM:
On the lighter side:
One of my friends saw a Mexican eagle cross the border into Texas a couple of years ago. In the bird's talons was a snake. Apparently the bird and the snake on the Mexican flag decided to live in the United States, too.
By 
, at
Tue Jun 05, 11:46:00 AM:
"Linda Chavez, a conservative of impeccable credentials..."
Does it bother you that Chavez states that all conservative opposition to the bill is racist or anti-hispanic bigotry?
By , at
Tue Jun 05, 12:03:00 PM:
Linda Chavez has gone Al Sharpton on us. So what about it? She doesn't actually say that people who oppose the amnesty bill are worse than Hitler, but she implies it.
From Chavez's article at Townhall.com:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/LindaChavez/2007/05/25/latino_fear_and_loathing
"Some people just don't like Mexicans -- or anyone else from south of the border. They think Latinos are freeloaders and welfare cheats who are too lazy to learn English. They think Latinos have too many babies, and that Latino kids will dumb down our schools. They think Latinos are dirty, diseased, indolent and more prone to criminal behavior. They think Latinos are just too different from us ever to become real Americans..."
<...>
"Unfortunately, among this group is a fair number of Republican members of Congress, almost all influential conservative talk radio hosts, some cable news anchors -- most prominently, Lou Dobbs -- and a handful of public policy "experts" at organizations such as the Center for Immigration Studies, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, NumbersUSA, in addition to fringe groups like the Minuteman Project..."
<...>
"Stripped bare, this is what the current debate on immigration reform is all about. Fear of "the other"..."
<...>
"Where once the xenophobes could advocate forced sterilization and eugenics coupled with virtually shutting off legal immigration from "undesirable" countries, now they must be content with building walls, putting troops on the border, rounding up illegal aliens on the job and deporting them, passing local ordinances..."
<...>
"But we need to quit pretending that the "No Amnesty" crowd is anything other than what it is: a tiny group of angry, frightened and prejudiced loudmouths backed by political opportunists who exploit them."
<...>
"But there are other problems with allowing the xenophobes to derail comprehensive immigration reform. We've struggled long and hard as a nation to overcome our prejudices..."
By , at
Tue Jun 05, 12:07:00 PM:
So, if you oppose the "immigration reform" bill, you are a racist and a bigot. Is that a fair statement?
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Tue Jun 05, 12:24:00 PM:
Use a name, anonymous commenters. It is hard to figure out who is saying what. You can type some kind of name at the bottom of your comments.
By TigerHawk, at
Tue Jun 05, 12:37:00 PM:
It is interesting that the anonymous commenters to this post have not engaged the point of the post in the least -- they are arguing over assertions that I did not make, and that Chavez did not make in the essay to which I linked.
No, I do not think that opponents of the immigration bill are inherently racist or bigoted. There are a lot of good reasons to oppose the immigration bill, and even I have not figured out whether I support it or not.
However, there is no denying that there has been a broad nativist streak in the Republican Party since its absorbtion of the "Know Nothings" at the time of its founding. Since that time, the Republicans have fairly systematically opposed immigration, legal or otherwise. Not all of that opposition has been founded on a passion for legality, but instead a desire to defend a certain conception of American culture. That desire can come in a relatively benign form or a racist and bigoted form, and there is no doubt that both versions are in play in today's right wing. The benign version includes a legitimate concern that English remain the principal language of the United States, that our national traditions continue to be revered, and that "Latin" forms of social organization do not influence -- too heavily, at least -- the American culture and economy. I certainly have respect for those concerns, even if I think that Hispanics do not represent the threat to those interests that many conservatives believe they do. That is why I linked to Chavez' article -- I think it shows that Hispanics are, in fact, assimilating at a similar rate and with comparable success to other "white ethnic" groups.
A final point. I lived in Chicago a long time, a city with close to a million Mexicans. I never saw the opposition to Mexicans that one sees in southern California and the American southwest. Mexicans in Chicago start small businesses in neighborhoods that desperately need businesses, and they fill up that city's many Roman Catholic churches on Sunday. By and large, the Catholic Mexicans in Chicago are just another version of the waves of Catholic immigrants that have washed over that city in the last 150 years -- sort of Chicago version 4.0. I wonder if the different reaction to Mexicans in California and the southwest stems from the Protestantism that dominates the "Anglo" populations in those parts of the country. Are the Mexicans thought to be more "alien" in the southwest because they are Catholic? If their Catholicism is part of it, then aspects of the immigration debate really are a continuation of the traditional nativist strain within the Republican Party.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Tue Jun 05, 01:30:00 PM:
In my view, religion has nothing to do with it, TH. People in the West don't pay much attention to the thoughts and beliefs of their neighbors.
In California, much of the opposition stems from the ghettoization of neighborhoods. Twelve Mexican families would move into one house and zoning officials would little about it.
Until the massive migration of Hispanics during the 1970s, most affluent Californians liked the "old Spanish" influence. You saw it in architecture. You saw it at restaurants. You saw it in company logos.
But one day long-time residents looked at store signs in cities like Santa Ana and saw no words in English. The joke in many communities became "Will the last American turn out the lights and take the American flag with them."
By Christopher Chambers, at
Tue Jun 05, 01:47:00 PM:
I think the analogy with Sharpton by one of the commenters is pretty funny, and apt in many respects.
Seriously, though, I think you're seeing the bizarre convergence of this Sharptonesque approach with her harpie-right wing tunnel vision. It;s delusional to think that this new wave of immigration from Mexico and Central America can augment white, family values ranks. Come on...these people do NOT consider themselves "white" on any level. Only Cubans who took off in 1959 and now run Miami think that way. Most are indeed mixed with native tribes or black African in some way, and regardless, there is an identity that doesn't bind the guy mowing your lawn to Dick Cheney or Bil Gates. Nor should we take this church-going, non-birth control using, respect the family stuff too far. There are a lot of problems in their comunity as(in EVERYONE'S) with infidelity, macho nonsense that rivals the denigration of women in some extreme islamic and other uber-traditional societies, crime, alcoholism, reliance on entitlement programs, etc etc.
There are insular communities being built-up and while that's not a bad thing when it's temporary, there doesn't seem to be a rush to yes--assimilate. We don't mind it, or we ignore it, because it doesn't have the dangerous character of what's happening in Europe with millions of Muslim immigrants living in closed communities. But just because Hispanic youths aren't "radicalizing" and studying to kill people, doesn't mean these pockets are a good thing.
I know Mexican immigrants here in the DC area who have no problem stating the obvious: You stole this land from us in 1847, and in that bullcrap with the Alamo. This is payback. They just dn't state it outside of mi familia...
Perhaps all new immigrants should take lessons from the Puerto Ricans. They assimilated but retained an identity. Indeed it venerates, rather than hides, the significant African presence and influence. They have self contained neighborhoods in many places but it's not something closed off to the rest of the society.
Linda seems to think that these folks can be part of a new conservative majority WHILE, consciously or unconsciously, having an Hispanic hegemony in that majority would be a sweet thing for her. I just don't see things shaking out that way, frankly.
I'm ambivalent about a lot of these immigration issues. Perhaps some of the negative tug goes to the traditional hostility of all immigrant groups to blacks. I mean, we were here from the get-go, and we didn't swim over here, or jump some wall. Yet every group coming here has tried to say to the whites--and Linda knows this--"hey, at least we aren't like these blacks." I was glad martin Scorsese made "Gangs of New York," as too many people had no clueof this nation-making aspect of US history. Or indeed that blacks didn't invent urban riots. This was an exclusive creature of white people until the 1960s. Sometimes immigrants were the victims of so-called "nativists" (usually Protestant americans). Yet in some of the most vicious, it was new immigrants who were attacking blacks.
That said, black people are starting to understand very clearly that Hispanics have their own agenda and will cut us loose as "allies" in a split second. But just because they'll do that, doesn't mean they will embrace Linda Chavez's view of the situation either.
It would be stupid to just leave it to you all on right to battle this out. Believe it or not, liberals are not looking at your infighting and smirking...they are dreading the time when they'll have to deal with this as well.
By ScurvyOaks, at
Tue Jun 05, 02:50:00 PM:
Chavez makes a number of excellent points. I'm like you, TH, in that immigration is not an issue I jump up and down about. I think there are a lot of good aspects of the immigration bill, but I do think it falls down on enforcement. I would prefer a compromise that involves both a fence and paths to citizenship, while also providing for considerable numbers of legal immigrants. I do actually care about control of the border, because it would enable us to have policies about the volume of immigration that are more than aspirational.
I live in Old East Dallas (a heavily Hispanic area, btw), so I offer a perspective from a border state. I heartily reject the hypothesis that anti-Catholicism has anything to do with the different reactions in the Southwest compared to Chicago. It's all about geography and history. The reconquista is never going to come to Chicago. Anglos here can readily see the day when Texas is irredenta Mexico. That strongly affects the point of view.
Finally, notwithstanding my overall agreement with Chavez, there are points about the cultural differences that still give me some pause. For a serious articulation of the point of view contrary to Chavez's, see this post from my neighbor Rod Dreher:
http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/crunchycon/2007/05/ferocious-differences.html
By TigerHawk, at
Tue Jun 05, 03:34:00 PM:
OK, so several commenters have resoundingly rejected my hypothesis that anti-Catholicism plays a role in the different view of Mexicans in the border states and Chicago. Let me test a milder version: In Chicago, a fundamentally segregated city, Hispanics go to mass shoulder-to-shoulder with other white ethnics. Chicagoans, therefore, encounter Hispanics as co-religionists, which may have the effect of lowering social barriers between groups. If that is less true in the largely Protestant American southwest, then it may simply be that southwesterners are more likely to see Hispanics as "the other."
By the way, anti-Catholicism ran deeply through the Republican Party for virtually its entire history. Even if you are broadly correct that anti-Catholicism is a big deal in the immigration debate, I think it is a mistake to assume that it has suddenly been eradicated (although the alliance of interests between the social conservatives and the Catholic Church has undoubtedly weakened that strain of Republicanism).
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Tue Jun 05, 03:54:00 PM:
The election of JFK changed things, TH.
People in Illinois and in the Northeast often think in terms of ethnic blocs. That was how Democrats in those states built coalitions to win elections. People in the West paid less attention to such things.
In Southern California you often don't know your neighbor's name. You certainly don't care about his religion. Most of the time you don't care about your own religion.
Today most prejudice in this country is economic, not racial or religious. Very few white people care if Bill Cosby moves next door. And very few Americans ever cared if Mexican-American actor Ricardo Montalbán, a native of Mexico City, moved next door.
By , at
Tue Jun 05, 04:33:00 PM:
It's rational for folks to "worry about the impact of large numbers of Hispanics on our economy, society, and culture." That many Hispanics arrive here illegally or are allowed to enter because of loose family ties, exacerbates the problem. When our government is unable or unwilling to do anything about controlling Hispanic immigration, it just throws these folks over the top. If seven million Poles had arrived in New Jersey since 1990, people would have similar attitudes towards them.
As for religion, the Israelis have had trouble assimilating and living alongside the large numbers of Russian Jews that have immigrated there.
Speaking from experience, one cannot look at assimilation on a person-by-person basis. Or even as a percentage of an entire population of a given ethnicity. What's important is the gross number of non-assimilated immigrants. Those numbers are what give rise to ghettos (in this case barrios) and a raft of social ills.
To make mayonnaise, the cook must add the oil slowly. Too fast and you're left with a heterogeneous mess in the bowl.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Tue Jun 05, 05:45:00 PM:
At the same time many native-born Americans don't want to do the hard jobs.
I saw a highway work crew outside Amarillo, Texas. The men were goof-offs.
"Have you guys ever heard of manual labor?" I joked.
"Yeah, man," one worker answered. "He moved back to Mexico."
By , at
Tue Jun 05, 05:57:00 PM:
How likely is it that legal and illegal Catholic Mexican immigrants would voluntarily serve in the U.S. Armed Forces in defense of our country at home or abroad? Is this an unspoken factor in the minds of politicians? Is there any merit to the notion that having a large number of Catholic Mexicans "on our side" could be an asset in the ongoing battle against radical Islam?
By , at
Tue Jun 05, 08:39:00 PM:
swergna - actually it is very likely. Have you seen who is in the Califoria National Guard these days? How about the naturalization ceremonies in Iraq among those serving the US?
That all said, DEC is right on this issue, sorry TH. Princeton is not likely to return to Mexico, California might.
And as for the article you posted - I feel so very much better knowing that in three generations the millions who are here now will be assimilated - what is that, 60 or 90 years? How many more will come in that time?
It is indeed a VERY sad day when I find myself beginning to agree with Buchanan. This is not something I like.
By TigerHawk, at
Tue Jun 05, 08:48:00 PM:
And as for the article you posted - I feel so very much better knowing that in three generations the millions who are here now will be assimilated - what is that, 60 or 90 years?
I'd say 45 years, which is roughly the time it takes to get the grandchildren into the work force, and also roughly the pace of assimilation of the ethnics that have come before.
Everybody should read Thomas Sowell's book Ethnic America, which rather compellingly argues that there is nothing new under the son. A century ago people were in a panic that Jews -- Jews! -- were having so many children that it would transform our culture. Seems pretty silly now.
By , at
Tue Jun 05, 09:16:00 PM:
Chavez is an idiot.
Enough immigrants can simply obliterate:
English as the language of commerce and government, already common in Southern California.
Our current enlightenment culture.
Separation of Church and State.
And a whole lot of other things.
Already LA is really just Mexico City North, and governed accordingly. All these millions: around 40 million or so very likely under the Amnesty for Illegals bill, will simply overwhelm and replace the current culture and language with that of Mexico.
Now, TH you may think it an excelling thing to turn the US into Mexico. Others of us don't. We don't want to live in Mexico, as second class citizens, with the wrong skin (white) and wrong language (english). So yeah, that makes us awful racists and nativists and anti-Catholic bigots and the like.
That's the line of the WSJ, Chavez, and the rest who want to turn the US into Mexico. End upward mobility for working and middle class people in a sea of impoverished Mexicans. Around 40 million.
But the idea that Mexicans will assimilate with 40 million of them here? Laughable.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Tue Jun 05, 11:27:00 PM:
TH: "Seems pretty silly now"
And a lot of American Indians ignored the uncontrolled European migration to the New World. Look what happened.
By , at
Wed Jun 06, 12:47:00 AM:
The illegal aleins dont want to assimulate they want to steal our land and create AZLAN and its being fananced by the evil CFR
By Fausta, at
Wed Jun 06, 07:56:00 AM:
How likely is it that legal and illegal Catholic Mexican immigrants would voluntarily serve in the U.S. Armed Forces in defense of our country at home or abroad?
Very likely.
For instance, Hispanics are over-represented in the Marines, where 20% are Hispanic with more than 1/3 of them being Mexican.
By , at
Wed Jun 06, 10:42:00 AM:
Not to quibble (who am I kidding) - but I figure a generation is 20 to 30 years, which is how I get 60-90 years. 45 years for three generations would imply a generation is 15 years, and that seems mighty short, particularly if you are measuring the time to enter the workforce for the third one - don't we prohibit child labor?
By , at
Wed Jun 06, 03:50:00 PM:
Tiger Hawk you are right on the mark with many of your comments. Unfortunately, one only need to go back to the late 1800's and early 1900's to hear much of the same debate maybe even a bit more heated. At the time the issue was the Irish. They were the first major wave of Catholics to hit our shores, they were dirt poor and they were not well-educated. They did all of the jobs no one else would do. At the time though, almost all of them entered Ellis Island the right way. Nonetheless, the common signs on the doors of prospective employers were "Irish need not apply."
Not long after came the Italians and they too were poor, Catholic and uneducated and worse yet they did not speak the language! Our cities were being overrun by the Irish and the Italians and our civil services were stretched very thin at the time. However, 100+ years later where would our country be today without the tremendous contributions of the Irish and Italians?
The great business guru Peter Drucker, who was almost always right about major shifts in the landscape of America, said the one reason why America will always be great is because of the many immigrants who come to our shores. These people are the ones who help us reinvent America. It is our immigrants who force us to stay competitive while not letting the malaise set in of a homogenic society like those of Western Europe.
I am as conservative a person as one will meet, but I am also a second generation American whose Grandparents served in such distinguished roles as "Domestic" or Maid, Grain mover, railroad worker, etc. When I hear people I really admire like Bill Bennett, Lora Ingraham and a number of other conservatives go off on this topic without any real solutions (other then round everyone up and deport them), I cringe to say the least. And when one of the greatest institutions in America, The Heritage Foundation, comes up with their ridiculous calculation of cost ($2.5 Trillion) without any off-setting benefits of this wave of people,(e.g. new tax revenues, social security payments before they are eligible, nevermind 12 million more consumers who are earning more each year) it really makes me wonder what is really behind their broader motivation. The only answer I can come up with is that all of these guys see is 9 - 12 million new Democratic voters. If that is really the issue I just wish they would say that instead of making the Republican party look like a place where these people will never be welcome..?
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Wed Jun 06, 07:35:00 PM:
The issue isn't immigration, Anonymous (3:50 p.m.). The issue is illegal immigration. Either you believe in the rule of law or you don't.
By , at
Thu Jun 07, 12:09:00 PM:
Dec I whole-heartedly believe in the rule of law. With that said, I am also a realist. What do you propose we do with the 9 million people who are working here illegally. If you say round them up and send them back you are not living in a world of reality. We already have a tight labor market and if we sent these people back (which by the way is also impossible...) who fills their places and at what cost? Please realize the natural rate of unemployment is 4% we are at 4.5% today. Take out 9 million workers and America's growth engine comes to a screeching halt. So give me a solution - please!
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Thu Jun 07, 01:52:00 PM:
What are you saying, Anonymous? We should obey the law only when it is convenient to do so?
I don't have a horse in this race. I am an international businessman and a libertarian Republican. I don't care who lives where. At the same time, I don't believe that Americans who do care about this issue should be dismissed with accusations of bigotry and Fourth-of-July speeches about American history. These people have strong arguments.
Yes, I ignored your request for a solution. I don't do free consulting work.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Thu Jun 07, 02:02:00 PM:
P.S.
"Take out 9 million workers and America's growth engine comes to a screeching halt."
We live in a global economy. That statement is hyperbole, in my view.
However, Americans would have to start cutting their own grass.
By , at
Fri Jun 08, 04:31:00 PM:
DEC, I am back (anonymous)with respect to the rule of law there are absolutes (no killing, stealing, selling prohibited products, etc.) and then there are those laws that are not enforced whole-heartedly (e.g speed limits, parking violations, and countless other violations that are low on the priority list.) I have to say, that I dont hold the guy who is working his arse off trying to provide a better life for his family as one who is breaking the law. Actually there should be a law for the guy who is sitting on his ass collecting welfare checks and bitching about all of the "Mexicans" stealing his job. Which brings me to the second point you make about our "Global Economy". How many service based jobs are internationally traded? Are you going to call a plumber in Germany to fix your faucet? Which by the way a well-paid illegal may in fact be the guy they send over to do the work. If you have not noticed our illegal workforce is doing a lot more then just cutting grass and cooking fast order meals. The reason I say that our economy comes to a screaching halt is that if you look at where most of the job growth or our "Goldilocks economy," it is not coming from large multi-national companies (as a matter of fact they are the ones that are laying off people.) The real growth of our economy is coming from small entrepreneur based endeavors. Which is one of the reasons why every month and subsequent follow-up months our new jobs data has to be adjusted upwards to reflect this. Now granted these small businesses are finding ways to reach more globally then ever before, but I would argue that you would be surprised to see how many illegals run the back offices of these micro businesses.
One last point of clarification, I also am an international business person where over 80% of the products my company sells are made in Europe and sold throughout the world.
Lastly Dec, I am regular reader of your listings here on TH, and I am a fan of many of your comments. I will say I am a bit bummed to see that you cannot throw in a few potential solutions for this tough problem..? (referencing I dont do consulting work..?)
By , at
Wed Jun 20, 10:18:00 PM:
If the rate of immigration outpaces the rate of assimilation, there no longer is a need to assimilate. If you dont believe this, I suggest you go to Miami or LA and try to find someone who speaks english (willingly). Those towns are now pretty much openly hostile to Americans. Chavez leaves one thing out, in the past, immigrants WANTED to assimilate, I as a firsthand observer see the opposite. We are being invaded by a culture that wants nothing to do with us other than stealing our jobs and our country. It is already pretty much too late, becuase the corporations hungry for cheap labor and politicians hungry for votes, and a ruling class that wants docile obedient slaves is going to see it that the American middle class is run into the ground. Its not a democratic or a republican issue, BOTH parties are selling us out. Just go on the net and look at voting records on the issue.
