In 45 years, there will be more than 200 million U.S. Hispanics

[TheKurp]

And apparently ASF is too thick-headed to understand that being a racist doesn't necessarily mean having discriminatory feelings towards anyone who isn't white.

ASF, my feelings and beliefs have no foundation in what is perceived by the masses to be *politically correct*.

The difference between you and I is that I'm aware of my prejudices and know enough to not let my biases get in the way of reasonable thinking.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by Henry

"Hispanic-derived population is improving in the English language. (The literacy rate among this population is doubling about every 5-6 years) This is about the same for every immigrant group in our history. What's the issue unless your are a racist?"

Its only three sentences yet it completely debunks that entire rant above. Maybe you missed it.

I didn't miss it, but I did miss the source for the data. Maybe OPM would be kind enough to share it.

A useful comparison for Hispanics is how they compare in English fluency, education achievement and incomes compared to other immigrants. Start with income -- since everyone seems upset with me for suggesting Hispanics as a group have low incomes, which was the basis for this entire thread. Different Factors Affect the Academic Achievement of Asian and Latino Immigrant and Second-Generation Students offers this (unfortunately large) chart:

So, Hispanic immigrant incomes are falling relative to the native population, while Asian incomes are rising.

Most of this difference can be accounted for by differences in education by the immigrant populations. The differences in education in turn depend heavily on rates of attaining English literacy.

Asian-Nation reports the following differences among immigrant populations in attaining college educations. Since college education is the primary gateway for entering the higher-skilled workforce (with subsequent income gains), this data is highly instructive:

In terms of specific immigrant groups, the following immigrant groups have college degree attainment rates at least 25% above the U.S.-born average (these are from 1990):

India: 64.9%

Taiwan: 62.2%

Pakistan: 53.7%

Bangladesh: 51.9%

Iran: 50.6%

Hong Kong: 46.8%

Philippines: 43.0%

Japan: 35.0%

Korea: 34.4%

China: 30.9%

Former Soviet Union: 27.1%

United Kingdom: 23.1%

Canada: 22.1%

Peru: 21.0%

These immigrant groups have college degree attainment rates within 25% of that for the U.S.-born population (again from 1990):

Germany: 19.1%

Poland: 16.3%

Viet Nam: 15.9%

Cuba: 15.6%

Colombia: 15.5%

Jamaica: 14.9%

Greece: 14.8%

Ireland: 14.4%

Nicaragua: 14.6%

Ecuador: 11.8%

Haiti: 11.8%

Finally, the following have college degree attainment rates at least 25% below the U.S.-born average (1990):

Italy: 8.6%

Dominican Republic: 7.5%

Guatemala: 5.8%

Cambodia: 5.5%

Laos: 5.1%

El Salvador: 4.6%

Portugal: 4.6%

Mexico: 3.5%

What these stats show is that in general, Asian immigrants have college degree attainment rates that are significantly higher than that of the U.S.-born population. Amazingly, almost two-thirds of immigrants from India and Taiwan have at least a college education.

Notice that Mexico is at the bottom, with 3.5% attaining college educations (compared to, say, Taiwan at 62.2%). At the same time, Mexico is the largest single source of immigrants of any kind, representing for example about 75% of Hispanic immigrants to California between 1985-90.

Immigrants clearly vary greatly in their ability to assimilate -- learn English, achieve educations, and join the higher-skilled workforce. Mexican Hispanics, the largest group of immigrants, represent the lowest level of such assimilation. That fact does have major economic consequences for our country.

This needlessly long thread has been an extended attempt to disprove simple facts stated in my initial post. The facts are true.

If you hate the facts, stop spinning your wheels slinging slurs at me. Figure out how we can increase Hispanic English literacy rates -- and the literacy rates of all Americans. It's lack of literacy and education you should hate. And it's what I hate, for what it's worth.

Wake up. Tolerating illiteracy isn't kind and sensitive. It's robbing fellow people of their potential. Demanding literacy isn't bigoted, it's an act of kindness that lasts generations.

[TheKurp]

Again with the 1990 statistics. Have you passed out for the last 13 New Year's celebrations?

http://www.dom.state.ia.us/pubs_presentations/PP052001.pdf

Hispanic Immigrants Succeeding Faster Than Earlier Immigrants

Article compiled by William Smith

Iowa Utilities Board

The 2000 Census showed a continuing growth in Hispanic immigration into the United States. In many ways, Hispanic immigrants mimic the patterns of previous immigration as the success of second generations unfolds. On the other hand, recent immigrants are quicker to learn English and buy houses than earlier immigrations.

Consistent with the census, a study released by the Tomas Rivera Policy Institute in Claremont, California, http://www.trpi.org) shows that second generation Hispanics far surpass foreign-born Hispanics in educational and occupational accomplishment. These accomplishments are not well reflected in composite information and other averages because of the larger number of new immigrants with lower educational and economic standing. Educational gains lead occupation and income gains: second generation Hispanics have an average of 12.3 years of schooling compared to 13.5 for non-Hispanic whites. Annual income for a U.S.-born Hispanic male with a college degree lags non-Hispanic whites by 13%. This experience is not unlike other immigrant groups in the United States. But some differences are pointed out in the 2000 Census. Immigrant groups today are learning English faster. The Director of the U.S. Census Bureau notes that many arrive with some English language ability. He also believes that recent immigrants are becoming homeowners faster, while retaining more financial and social contacts with their country or origin. They are marrying outside the immigrant group more rapidly, too.

The census shows immigrants more evenly dispersed throughout the United States, with less clustering in the larger cities and along the coasts. A study conducted by several organizations in Nashville, Tennessee, showed the city offered a safe and welcoming home in the U.S., comparing favorably to first experiences in larger cities in Texas and California.

IMPLICATIONS

· Recent Hispanic immigrants may assimilate into Iowa’s society and economy more readily than earlier immigrants.

· Many Iowa cities can offer the same benefits Hispanic immigrants have found in Nashville.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by TheKurp

Again with the 1990 statistics. Have you passed out for the last 13 New Year's celebrations?

Maybe so. OK, Kurp, I'll give you an award for persistance.

I'm burned out on this. This has become the Groundhog Day of threads: every post, back to the beginning.

I've stated the case as clearly as I can, in about 31 different flavors. I'm not going for another 31 flavors. If the argument isn't good enough for you, that's fine: I've tried my best. I'm not going to dedicate my life to convincing you or others.

Let's touch base in 45 years.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

As noted above, I'm burned out on arguing these points. However, a useful body of pro-and-con arguments and citations have made their way into this thread. In the interest of further education on this issue, I will continue to post relevant citations here, mostly with little additional comment. (Again, I'm tired of arguing.) I encourage anyone else to do the same, whatever their position on the issues.

http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/publications/he/22/22f.html

Latinos: A Profile

[from Bilingual Education: A Critique, by Peter Duignan, Hoover Institution - 1996]

California, because of its large Latino population, has a higher dropout rate than the rest of the country (21 percent to 12 percent). In Los Angeles County, where most Latinos live, the rate is 28 percent. In California 10 percent of Asians, 12 percent of whites, 28 percent of Latinos, and 33 percent of black students do not complete school. As a result of this high dropout rate, many Latinos do not have the level of education necessary for good jobs in the U.S. economy.

But the reason Latinos drop out at such a high rate is disputed. Latino organizations claim it is because of a lack of bilingual education and courses in English as a second language. If this is so, how can the low level of Asian dropouts be explained? Although most California schools are bilingual in Spanish and English, only a few teach Asian languages. Hispanic students, it is charged, feel isolated and neglected and go to school in high poverty areas. A fact seldom admitted, however, is that Latinos have low expectations about the benefits of education. And Latino culture appears not to place as high a value on schooling as do Asians and whites, for example.

Socioeconomic status, not race, can help explain the difference in dropout rates between whites and blacks, some experts insist. When you control for income, the dropout difference in rates disappears between whites and blacks but not Latinos. The Latino rate is much higher in all income levels. Although black and white rates have dropped significantly since 1972, Latino rates while lower--34 percent to 30 percent--are still much higher than for blacks and whites. Blacks are now within 3.5 percent of the white rate.(33)

Latinos appear to have become the poorest ethnic minority in the United States. The 1995 Census Bureau statistics show that median household income rose for all America's ethnic and racial groups but declined for the twenty-seven million Latinos by 5.1 percent. For the first time in our history, the poverty rate was higher among Hispanics than among blacks. Spanish speakers, in 1997, represent 24 percent of America's working poor--up 8 percent since 1985. (Part of this increase resulted from the 1986 amnesty of 1.3 million illegals, who then brought in their relatives, two million or so, who were also poor, uneducated, unskilled, and with little or poor English.) By 1993, 30 percent of Latinos were considered poor; that is, they earned less than $15,569 for a family of four, and 24 percent were in the poorest class, earning income of $7,500 or less. (These figures, however, do not measure Aid to Families with Dependent Children, food stamp transfers, or indeed income in the underground economy.) Still, the drop in income for Hispanics since 1989 has been significant--14 percent, or from $26,000 to $22,900. At the same time black income was slightly rising.

The influx of illegal and family reunification immigrants since 1986 has, therefore, worsened Latino income. But even American-born Latinos have experienced "an almost across-the-board impoverishment."(34) Arturo Vargas, head of the National Association of Latino Elected Officials in Los Angeles, admits that a Latino middle class is growing but claims that most Spanish speakers are trapped in jobs like gardener, nanny, and restaurant worker, which will never pay well and from which they are unlikely to advance.(35) Others deny this and say most people move out of these low-paying jobs and are replaced by new immigrants who in turn move on to higher-paying jobs. This has been the experience in agriculture in California, for example, and in restaurant work in Washington, D.C., for people from Central America.

The declining income among Latinos is not well understood by researchers, but Thomas Sowell, a Hoover Institution economist, has explained that low income for many groups is caused by lack of education and large young families in which the mother seldom works. Furthermore, Latinos (like black Americans) are very diverse; there are middle-class Cubans in Miami and poor Puerto Ricans in New York, and poorest of all are the newest immigrants from Mexico and Central America. Scholars also point to structural changes in the U.S. economy, for example, the loss of jobs for unskilled and blue-collar workers. There are plenty of jobs in the high-tech economy, but these require greater education than most Latinos can attain, given their high school dropout rate--which now exceeds that of blacks. In 1990 census figures showed that, even among American-born Latinos, only 78 percent finished high school, compared with 91 percent of whites and 84 percent of blacks. In addition, some employers may discriminate against Latinos who often speak English poorly, have few marketable skills, and are seen as "disposable" workers. Certainly the presence of millions of new immigrants keeps wages down and incomes lower because the newest Latino immigrants are young, poor, and unskilled, so take jobs in low-paying industries such as agriculture, poultry processing, and janitorial services. This hurts earlier Latino immigrants who must move on to other unskilled jobs if they can find them.

For many scholars, such as Frank D. Bean, a demographer at the University of Texas, the main reason for the plight of Latinos is education or the lack of it. Even some Mexican Americans whose families have lived here for at least three generations have less schooling than their parents. Latinos have been steadily falling behind non-Latinos in college attendance rates. (In 1994 only 9 percent of Hispanics over twenty-four years of age had college degrees, while 24 percent of non Hispanics had degrees. Disturbingly, Latinos were doing better in 1975 when 5 percent had college degrees compared with 11.6 percent of non-Latinos.)

In 1997, in the Los Angeles Unified School District, 70 percent of the students are Latinos, and education levels are low because of underfinancing, overcrowding, busing, and bilingualism. Lack of skill in English, in particular, is a critical barrier to Latino success. Most Spanish-speaking immigrants who come to the United States have low education and skill levels and speak little or no English. But even the children of immigrants born here do not always acquire proficiency in English, and they drop out at an earlier rate than others. Wayne Cornelius, director of the Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies at the University of California at San Diego, put it starkly: "Limited English proficiency is the single most important obstacle to upward mobility among Mexican immigrants." Hard work is not enough; only instruction in English, not Spanish and English but English primarily, will give Latinos a chance to climb up the economic ladder.

The predicament of Latinos emerges more starkly when Latino immigrants are compared with other immigrant groups. Latino immigrants know less English than earlier European or Asian immigrants did. Asians, who have not as yet pushed for bilingual education, excel in high school and frequently graduate from college. Yet some Latino elected officials and multiculturalists still insist on bilingual-bicultural instruction.

Although some Texans support bilingual education, more support making English the official language--two-thirds of those polled would conduct government business in English only. Even in immigrant-hostile California, attitudes are changing. Asian and Hispanic immigrants are creating a new California, writes Patrick Reddy, a California pollster. In 1996, Anglos were half of the state's population with Hispanics at 32 percent, Asians 11 percent, and blacks 7 percent. If this trend continues, by 2000 California, Hawaii, and New Mexico will all be non-Anglo states. The new ethnics have profoundly influenced the workforce: 80 percent of Hispanics are working, and, by 2025, two-thirds of California workers will be Hispanic. By 2020 Hispanics are projected to be a majority in California and will change the state's social profile. Asians and Hispanics have more durable families, a strong work ethic, and thus a healthy lifestyle. But Hispanics in the United States, because they are urbanized and have more children, have a higher crime rate than Asians and Anglos. And Hispanics in the United States, who on average have less than ten years of schooling and a high dropout rate, have lowered California's ranking in educating its citizens. Asians are better educated than Anglos and have shown strong business skills, while the Hispanics have demonstrated a strong work ethic. California, therefore, will be a better, more prosperous place because of the new ethnics, says Reddy.(36) Others argue the opposite, especially if bilingual education continues.

Bilingual education expenditure under a Republican-controlled House and Senate increased from $117 million in 1995 to $157 million in 1997 (an increase of 34.2 percent), even though most objective analyses show bilingual education is a waste of time for Latino Hispanic students, reducing their mastery of English and access to better-paying jobs.

Bilingual Education: Yes or No?

Some members of the education bureaucracy, guided by the principle of "cultural maintenance," want Hispanic-surnamed children to continue to be taught Spanish language and culture and English only as a second language. The extremists among them even want Spanish to be a second national language. The Center for Equal Opportunity's president and CEO, Linda Chavez, accuses these advocates of bilingual education of being politicized and manipulated by cultural activists. The programs they favor, she claims, have failed and have undermined the future of the Latino children they were meant to help.(37) Chavez's criticisms are supported by the evidence. Latinos, Hispanics, or Chicanos taught in bilingual programs test behind peers taught in English-only classrooms, drop out of school at a high rate, and are trapped in low-skilled, low-paying jobs.

As noted earlier, the problem began in 1974 when the Supreme Court in Lau v. Nichols ignored two hundred years of English-only instruction in America's schools and said that students who did not speak English must receive special treatment from local schools. This allowed an enormous expansion of bilingual education. Advocates of bilingual education in the U.S. Office for Civil Rights had begun a small program in 1968 to educate Mexican American children, but by 1996 it had expanded from a $7.5 million to an $8 billion a year industry. The initial objective to teach English to Spanish speakers for one or two years was perverted into a program to Hispanicize, not Americanize, Spanish speakers. The federal program insists that 75 percent of education tax dollars be spent on bilingual education, that is, long-term native-language programs, not English as a second language. Asians, Africans, and Europeans are all in mainstream classes and receive extra training in English-as-a-second-language programs for a few hours a day. Hispanic students, in contrast, are taught in Spanish 70 to 80 percent of the time. New York is especially irresponsible in this regard, forcing children with Spanish surnames, even those who speak no Spanish at home, to take Spanish and to spend at least 40 percent of the class time in Spanish classes. New England schools are about as bad, forcing Spanish- and Portuguese-surnamed children to take Spanish or Crioulo!

Some critics of bilingualism claim that the vast majority of Spanish speakers want their children to be taught in English, not Spanish, and do not want the U.S. government to keep up Hispanic culture and language. The bilingual bureaucracy at local and federal levels wants to Hispanicize and to capture federal funds for schools. Meanwhile, other ethnic groups achieve higher academic scores, in part because they are not wasting time on bilingual classes and culture and failing to master the language of the marketplace and higher education--English. Since there are seldom enough bilingual teachers, Arab, Asian, and European students go right into classes with English-speaking students. They achieve higher scores and more of them graduate than the bilingually taught. The Center for Equal Opportunity in its reports shows the dangers of bilingualism and demands its reform. Otherwise the United States will become deeply divided linguistically and be stuck with a Latino underclass that cannot meet the needs of a high-tech workplace because its English is poor.

Since Latino immigration--legal or illegal--is likely to continue in the future and since Latino fertility levels are high, the Latino population will grow. According to Hoover economist Edward Lazear, the economic costs of not adequately educating Hispanics will be great, and their economic well-being will be lower than if they were to stay in school longer and focus on English, not on bilingualism.(38) Lazear argues that much of the anti-immigrant rhetoric in America is generated by government policies that reduce the incentives to become assimilated and emphasize the differences among ethnic groups in the population. Examples are bilingual education and unbalanced immigration policies that bring in large numbers of Asians and Hispanics who move into large and stable ghettos.

Rosalie Pedolino Porter, a bilingual education teacher for more than twenty years, is convinced that all limited-English-proficiency students can learn English well enough for regular classroom work in one to three years, if given some help. The old total immersion system still works best; the longer students stay in segregated bilingual programs, the less successful they are in school. Even after twenty-eight years of bilingual programs, the dropout rate for Latinos is the highest in the country. In Los Angeles the Latino students dropped out at double the state average (44 percent over four years of high school). Special English-language instruction from day one gets better results than Spanish-language instruction for most of the day.

Latino activists now call for limited recognition to be accorded to Spanish--inglés y más ("English and more") runs the slogan. (Official documents of various kinds are now printed in Spanish and other languages as well as English. At the Democratic convention of 1996 speeches were given in Spanish as well as English.) If this course continues, the demand for recognition of Spanish will inevitably change into a demand for recognition of Spanish as an official language. Such a transformation would give great benefits to Spanish speakers in public employment but leave others at a disadvantage. Bilingualism, or multilingualism, imposes economic transaction costs; the political costs are even higher. I do not wish to see the United States become a bilingual country like Canada or Belgium, which both suffer from divisiveness occasioned by the language issue.

I also would like to insist on a higher degree of proficiency in English than is at present required by applicants for naturalization in the United States. A citizen should be able to read all electoral literature in English--no more foreign-language ballots! For similar reasons, I oppose those educators in publicly funded high schools who believe that their task is to maintain the immigrant's cultural heritage. Such endeavors should be left to parents, churches, "Saturday schools," and the extended family. The role of the public schoolteacher is to instruct students in English and American culture and political values. English plays a crucial role in cultural assimilation, a proposition evident also to minority people. (In Brooklyn, for example, the Bushwick Parents Organization went to court in 1996 to oppose the Spanish-English education of Hispanics in the local public schools, arguing that this instruction would leave their children badly disadvantaged when they graduated.) As Ruth Wisse, herself a distinguished educator, puts it, before we encourage ethnic-language revivals in the European manner, "we should recall what millions of immigrants instinctively grasped: that English is the most fundamental pathway to America's equal opportunities."(39) (The European experience is likewise clear. "In general, mother-tongue education is unrealistic and unsuccessful. The children of immigrant parents rapidly acquire the language of their country of residence, and are often less comfortable and successful in their parents' mother-tongue.")(40)

A Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder (April 1996) asks the question, "Are immigration preferences for English-speakers racist?" The Center answers in the negative because one-third of humanity has some knowledge of the English language and most of these people are nonwhite. Although the 1996 immigration bills in the House and Senate had an English requirement for certain employee-based categories of immigrants, it was removed lest it discriminate against nonwhites.

Knowledge of English is an acquired, not an inherent, skill--anyone, white, black, or brown, can learn English. Immigrants line up to learn English because they believe that learning English will improve their prospects--and it does, significantly. English is the most widely used language in history. English is the language of science, technology, diplomacy, international trade, and commerce. Half of Europe's business is carried out in English, and more than 66 percent of the world's scientists read English. Eighty percent of the world's electronically stored information is in English. The world's forty million Internet users mostly communicate in English. Experts conclude that one-third of mankind speaks or understands some English. Selecting immigrants on the basis of some command of the language therefore cannot be discriminatory.

Bilingual education in California is a vast industry--about 1.3 million children attend bilingual classes at a cost of more than $5 billion a year. (In the United States 2.6 million students are enrolled in bilingual classes. There is, therefore, a financial incentive to keeping the system.) Schools that provide bilingual education are able to get numerous federal and state grants. Yet bilingual education is a bizarre and unsuccessful program. Only about 5 percent of children in bilingual classes ever make it into English-speaking classes each year. And large numbers of children, mostly Spanish speakers, leave school unable to read or write English, the official language of their adopted country. Shockingly, the federal legislation calling for bilingual education "expired a decade ago," yet bilingual education persists.

APPENDIX

Percent of High School Dropouts among Persons Sixteen to Twenty-Four Years Old, by Race/Ethnicity:

October 1975 to October 1994

Year | All races | White, non-Hispanic | Black, non-Hispanic | Hispanic

1975 13.9 11.4 22.9 29.2

1977 14.1 11.9 19.8 33.0

1979 14.6 12.0 21.1 33.8

1980 14.1 11.4 19.1 35.2

1981 13.9 11.4 18.4 33.2

1982 13.9 11.4 18.4 31.7

1983 13.7 11.2 18.0 31.6

1984 13.1 11.0 15.5 29.8

1985 12.6 10.4 15.2 27.6

1986 12.2 9.7 14.2 30.1

1987 12.7 10.4 14.1 28.6

1988 12.9 9.6 14.5 35.8

1989 12.6 9.4 13.9 33.0

1990 12.1 9.0 13.2 32.4

1991 12.5 8.9 13.6 35.3

1992 11.0 7.7 13.7 29.4

1993 11.0 7.9 13.6 27.5

1994 10.5 7.7 12.6 30.0

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Immigrant and Limited English Proficient Youth: Issues in the Great City Schools

Hispanic Dropout Rates Are Directly Related to Lack of English Fluency

• The status dropout rate for all youths (16-24 years old) was 11.0 % in 1992 (National Center for Educational Statistics, September 1994);
  
• The status dropout rate for Hispanic youth (16-24 years old) was 29.4% in 1992;
  
• However, the status dropout rate among Hispanics varied by English speaking ability; for those Hispanic youth, who spoke English very well or well, the status dropout rate was 16.6% and 30.4% respectively;
  
• In comparison the status dropout rate for Hispanics who did not speak English well was 61.8% and for those who did not speak English at all the rate was 83.2%; and
  
• The status dropout rate among non-Hispanics who did not speak English well was 17.0% in 1992.
  

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Women and Diversity - Facts 2003 -- Chapter 59: Immigrants

Nearly one-fifth of America’s school-age children speak a language other than English at home. Of these children, 79% speak Spanish at home. (Dallas Morning News)

Census Bureau: Languages Spoken in U.S. Homes by Persons Five Years Old and Over

Speak only English 198,601,000

Spanish 17,339,000

French 1,702,000

German 1,547,000

Italian 1,309,000

Chinese 1,249,000

Tagalog 843,000

Polish 723,000

Korean 626,000

Vietnamese 507,000

Japanese 428,000

Greek 388,000

Arabic 355,000

Hindi (Urdu) 331,000

Russian 242,000

Yiddish 213,000

Thai and Laotian 206,000

Persian 202,000

Armenian 150,000

Navajo 149,000

Hungarian 148,000

Hebrew 144,000

Portuguese 430,000

Dutch 143,000

Mon-Khmer (Cambodian) 127,000

Gujarathi (Indian) 102,000

(U.S. Census Bureau)

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Rand Corp: The Success of Immigrants Increasingly Depends on Their Education

(Excerpts)

The earnings of European and most Asian immigrants not educated in the United States increase fairly rapidly relative to those of natives. By the age of 30 to 35, these immigrants earn as much as or more than natives do (see Figure 4.2). In contrast, Mexican and Central American immigrants not educated in the United States experience flat or decreasing earnings after age 30, losing ground to natives as they age. Given that almost 50 percent of California’s immigrants come from Mexico and Central America, this distinction is especially relevant.

Education is the key determinant of earnings.

Differences in earnings among immigrant groups are probably less a product of place of origin than of educational level. South American immigrants, for example, whose educational levels are much closer to those of Europeans than to those of other Hispanic groups, earn substantially more than other Hispanic immigrants do. At the other end of the spectrum, Indochinese immigrants, whose educational levels are much closer to those of Mexican and Central American immigrants than to those of other Asian immigrants, have low earnings.

Many Hispanic immigrant teens fail to enroll in high school.

Immigrants from most places of origin enroll in California’s primary, middle, and high schools at the same rates as natives and are as likely as natives to graduate from high school. This is not true of Mexican and Central American immigrant children, however. Their enrollment rates begin to drop off in middle school and fall progressively further behind during the high school years. By age 20, only 45 percent of Hispanic immigrants have graduated from high school, compared to 90 percent of non-Hispanic immigrants and 88 percent of natives. It appears that instead of dropping out of the school system in the traditional sense, many Hispanic immigrant adolescents never attend school at all—they have come north to find work, not to attend school.

...

In sum, having a low level of education upon arrival in the United States means not only that the immigrants themselves will see reduced earnings, but that their offspring may need several generations to match the economic success of typical U.S. natives.

The Short Story

Immigrants from most places of origin appear to be attaining full participation in California’s society and economy at least as fast as immigrants have historically done. But the education and earnings of Hispanic immigrants—particularly those from Mexico—remain lower than those of other immigrant groups in both the first and the second generations.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

The Demography of California’s Immigrants

Hans P. Johnson

Testimony Before the Little Hoover Commission Hearing on Immigrant Integration

March 22, 2001

Public Policy Institute of California

[excerpts]

California’s population growth is unique and noteworthy, but equally remarkable is the nature and composition of that growth. As recently as 1970, almost 80 percent of the state's residents were non-Hispanic white. By 1998, that number had dropped to 52 percent, with Hispanics then comprising 30 percent of the state's population, Asians 11 percent, and African Americans 7 percent. Thus, in 1998, the minority population reached a point of near parity with the majority population. Indeed, the California Department of Finance projects that shortly after the turn of the century, no race/ethnic group will constitute a majority of the state's population. The 2000 Census might find that this has already occurred. If current patterns of immigration and fertility rates persist, by the year 2025 Hispanics will represent the single largest ethnic group in the state.

In general, immigrants from Asia, Canada, and Europe have relatively high levels of education and income. Southeast Asians are a notable exception. One of the fastest growing groups of immigrants in California in the 1980s, most Southeast Asians came to the United States as refugees of the Vietnam War. They have among the lowest levels of educational attainment and among the lowest incomes of any immigrant group in California. For example, in 1990 only about 5 percent of immigrants from Laos and Cambodia had graduated from college, compared to over 60 percent of immigrants from Taiwan and India.

Immigrants from Latin America also tend to be poorly educated and to earn low wages. Still, their labor force participation rates are quite high. Indeed, the working poor in California are likely to be immigrants from Latin America. About 90 percent of male immigrants ages 25 to 54 from Latin America are in the labor force. Despite their high levels of labor force participation and employment, over 25 percent of Mexican immigrants lived at or below the poverty level in 1990.

[excerpted charts]

[codeorama]

Originally posted by Atlanta Skins Fan

Here is data from the 1990 census. A little out of date, but still useful:

Thanks,

that actually makes some sense. Other than Montana, I've never really been to another area that has such a high concentration of whites...

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

I posted a Hoover Institution article on the failure of bilingual education a few posts back. (It's the very long post.)

If anyone wants the short argument why bilingual education is a disaster, it's this: humans are designed to acquire fundamental language skills between 0 and 12 years old. During these ages, we acquire language (even multiple languages) with incredible speed. After age 12, our ability to acquire language (for most people) slows to a crawl. This is one reason that people speaking a foreign language acquired after age 12 almost always speak with an accent: their brains literally can't hear and speak the language correctly anymore. For most people, learning a language after age 12 is a laborious process that mainly aims to achieve basic comprehension and childlike speech constructions.

The argument *for* bilingual education says learning English first slows down the rest of learning. But by postponing the acquisition of English, bilingual education condemns Hispanics to never mastering English, due to the age-12 rule.

By contrast, almost all other subjects can be learned at any age. So even if it takes Hispanics slightly longer to complete their educations if forced to learn English first (itself a debatable assertion), they can complete their full educations to any level desired without compromise. They can be as educated as they want to be, with close to the same effort as native English speakers, if forced to speak, read and write English well first -- prior to age 12.

Asserting the primacy of English in this country sounds fairly xenophobic and bigoted. It's not. It's a mature understanding of how people learn and what is required for higher skilled jobs.

[NavyDave]

Sorry mad mike but blacks cant be bigots:rolleyes:

I'm just surprised that it will take 40 years for that many hispanics to be here considering how they run for the border already.

Heck we might be able to hit Mexico and rename it New United States.

Then again we should just turn it into the 52nd state and put Rudy in charge of the place and clean up corruption.

And unlike you so quick to slam ASF I have to agree with him to an extent.

If the US Nationally adopts the liberal policy of bilinguals so they can have the hispanics voting for that particular party then the US is gonna go down hill identity wise.

I'm for every one having an opportunity here and I do see some hispanics doing jobs that our spoiled people here wont do however they should immigrate here legally.

Imagine if half the abortions here didnt happen in the past 30 years.

There would be 40 million taxpayers that do speak english named biff, buffy, Tyrone and Lakeisha.

[fansince62]

NavyDave...abortion has been the single hardest thing for me to come to a clear decision on. but I seized on that 40 million number also.......40 million potential people who will never be.....it is truly mind boggling no matter what your point-of-view happens to be....but, as others will be quick to note, this is not the subject of this thread........

[Art]

Please, read here to fully appreciate who ASF is. And, please, for goodness sake, read the HINT and you'll be very, very happy in life.

[TheKurp]

Art,

I noticed for the most part you stayed out of the fray.

Now I know why. You're far wiser than I where ASF is concerned.

Perhaps one day I too will be like the bass who swims right by the worm wiggling on the hook.

[tex]

A radical Hispanic movement's dream to retake the southwestern United States is becoming a reality with the aid of Mexican and U.S. policies, according to some immigration watchers.

A massive influx of illegal immigrants is "importing poverty" and growing an ethnic community with greater loyalty to Mexico than the U.S., maintains Glenn Spencer, president of Voices of Citizens Together, a California-based non-profit group.

"Unless this is shut down within two years, I believe that it will be irreversible, and that it will most certainly lead to a breakup of the United States," Spencer told WorldNetDaily. "I don't think there is any doubt about it."

A breakaway of U.S. states is a distinct possibility, according to prominent Chicano activist and University of California at Riverside professor Armando Navarro. In an interview with WorldNetDaily, Navarro would not answer directly whether he shared separatist aspirations, but said that if demographic and social trends continue, secession is inevitable.

"If in 50 years most of our people are subordinated, powerless, exploited and impoverished, then I will say to you that there are all kinds of possibilities for movements to develop like the ones that we've witnessed in the last few years all over the world, from Yugoslavia to Chechnya," Navarro said.

"A secessionist movement is not something that you can put away and say it is never going to happen in the United States," he continued. "Time and history change."

In a 1995 speech to Chicano activists, Navarro said demographic trends are leading to "a transfer of power" to the ethnic Mexican community in the Southwest. He notes that most studies show that within the next 20 to 30 years Latinos will comprise more than 50 percent of the population of California. This fact, and other cultural and social developments, are opening the door for "self-determination" and even "the idea of an Aztlan," he said in his speech.

Aztlan, the mythical birthplace of the Aztecs, is regarded in Chicano folklore as an area that includes California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and parts of Colorado and Texas. Spencer believes the aim is to create a sovereign state, "Republica del Norte," the Republic of the North, that would combine the American Southwest with the northern Mexican states and eventually merge with Mexico.

"I see that as the overarching goal of the Mexican government and many Mexicans who want self-determination," Spencer said.

'America's Palestinians'

On its website, a group called "La Voz de Aztlan," the Voice of Aztlan, identifies Mexicans in the U.S. as "America's Palestinians." Many Mexicans see themselves as part of a transnational ethnic group known as "La Raza," the race. A May editorial on the website, with a dateline of Los Angeles, Alta California, declares that "both La Raza and the Palestinians have been displaced by invaders that have utilized military means to conquer and occupy our territories."

But the threat of secession is not merely from groups that might be considered on the fringe, Spencer insists, noting the declarations of Mexican leaders, up to the highest office. Former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo said in a 1997 speech in Chicago to the "National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group, that he "proudly affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders and that Mexican migrants are an important ? a very important ? part of this."

Zedillo said that because of this fact his government proposed a constitutional amendment that allows Mexican citizens to hold dual citizenship. Spencer believes that the objective is to enable Mexicans in the United States to vote in the interest of Mexico.

Ultimately, many Mexicans hope for a "reconquista," a reconquest of territory lost when Mexico signed the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidlago at the end of the Mexican-American War.

"One could argue that while Mexico lost the war in 1848, it will probably win it in the 21st century, in terms of the numbers," Navarro told WorldNetDaily. "But that is not a reality based on what Mexico does, it's based on what this country does."

Spencer argues that misguided U.S. policies and lax enforcement have allowed a steady stream of 1 million illegal immigrants a year to enter the country. Demographers agree that instead of integrating into a "melting pot," new Hispanic immigrants, both legal and illegal, are building a distinct, politically active community.

The problem is not that they have a voice, Spencer says, but that they increasingly are acting according to the interests of Mexico.

Spencer believes that the Mexican government played an important role in the legal quashing of a 1995 California voter initiative, Proposition 187, that limited taxpayer funds to services for citizens only. After a visit with California Gov. Gray Davis in 1999, former Mexican President Zedillo told reporters that he had a commitment from Davis to ensure that "the catastrophic effects which were foreseen with Proposition 187 several years ago will not come to pass."

Among other signs of Mexican influence on U.S. affairs, Spencer notes that less than two years ago, West Los Angeles businessman Eddie Varon Levy became the first person living abroad to join the Mexican Congress. Varon Levy said one of his goals as a member of the Chamber of Deputies was to establish a special attorney's office to defend immigrants' rights.

Border erasure

The U.S. has tripled its border patrol budget over the past five years, but the flow of immigrants has barely changed. At the same time, Mexican President Vincente Fox has pressed for an eventual erasure of the southern border and encouraged Mexicans who seek work in the U.S.

At a speech one year ago at a border post in Nogales, just south of the Arizona border, Fox said: "We want to salute these heroes, these kids leaving their homes, their communities, leaving with tears in their eyes, saying goodbye to their families, to set out on a difficult, sometimes painful search for a job, an opportunity they can't find at home, their community or their own country."

Under the Fox regime, Mexico has an Office for Mexicans Abroad that provides survival kits for Mexicans who seek to enter the U.S. illegally.

Some immigration watchdogs in the U.S. believe, however, that all this does not add up to a desire by the Mexican government to retake the Southwest. Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Los Angeles office of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, believes statements by Zedillo and Fox indicate "they are looking for some way to gain leverage with regard to American policy."

"They want to create one market where they will be able to send workers here without any restrictions, because it's in their interest to do so," Mehlman said.

The incentive to cross the U.S. border is high. The average illegal worker can make about $60 a day in the U.S. compared to about $5 a day in Mexico.

Immigration hurts both countries

But Allan Wall, an American married to a Mexican and a resident south of the border for 10 years, maintains that immigration is not helping Mexico. "I see it having many bad effects where I live," said Wall, Mexico correspondent for Project U.S.A., an immigration reform group in New York. "It's kind of like welfare; it encourages people to use the U.S. as a safety (net) rather than solve the problems in Mexico."

On the U.S. side of the border, Mexican migrant workers are viewed by many lawmakers and officials as an economic boon. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has said that the illegal workers increasingly play an essential "anti-inflationary" role in the U.S. economy.

But Spencer argues that the most recent census confirms that the immigration tide is "importing poverty." Wall agrees that the influx is precipitating a demographic meltdown that could lead to a fracturing of the country. "The United States needs to drastically reduce immigration and go back to an assimilation model, where immigrants learn English and become American; otherwise it will be a disaster," Wall said.

Studies indicate most Americans believe immigration policy is not serving their interests, Mehlman said. "They're upset about it, but still haven't been upset enough to demand that the government change its policies."

Mehlman explained that the impact on the average citizen is not easy to assess. "Even though they are aware that this is not necessarily beneficial, it's hard to convince someone of how much it is costing in social costs, how much it might be costing in lost wages."

Polls show that most Americans want something done about immigration, said Spencer, but are afraid to speak out because they don't want to be labeled as racist, or anti-immigrant. "That's the weapon the other side uses against us," said Spencer, who served among Native Americans for many years. "It is very effective, and they know it, and so they use it at every opportunity."

Wall believes that the "whole discourse on immigration" must be changed. "We have to distinguish between being anti-immigrant and anti-immigration," he said. "Like any other public policy issue, it should be debated. Unfortunately the mainstream press is only giving us one side of the immigration issue."

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30212

[TheKurp]

Tex,

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that you just pulled this article without doing any research on Glenn Spenser. Feel free to correct me though.

http://www.onepeoplesproject.com/spencer.htm

If viewers got the impression that there was something else going on they were right. Glenn Spencer is not about curtailing illegal immigration. His beef is Hispanic immigration, particularly Mexican immigration, legal and illegal. Spencer is a hatemonger whose organization Voices of Citizens Together (VCT) has spent the past decade trying to fight a war based on a conspiracy theory that Mexicans are trying to reconquer the U.S. It is a popular theory that we hear often from white supremacists, so it is no surprise that it lands Spencer here.

Another thing on the internet that may raise doubts about his [spenser's] embracing of other cultures is what we found on his website which apparently came from Project USA. "Whatever the benefits of ethnic or racial diversity, we are already the most diverse country in the world. It is not clear we need more of it," the excerpt says, further going on to say that "Though we often hear the mantra 'Diversity is our strength,' polls show that Americans of all ethnic backgrounds are less than convinced." This, even with his selective hatemongering makes him still racist enough to make himself a contemporary of racists who are not as selective and that has placed him in the company of groups like the Council of Conservative Citizens, speaking at their conferences as well as the conferences of American Renaissance.

[tex]

TheKurp,

Here's more grist for the mill.

Rethinking Citizenship

By Matt Hayes

1-23-3

I looked in my immigration law practice's scheduling book, and saw a blank space after Irma's name. She did not leave a telephone number and had refused to tell our receptionist what the purpose of her appointment was, so we had to wait until she arrived to find out why she wished to see us.

When Irma arrived, she looked as if she could give birth at any moment. After two of us helped her into a chair, she explained that she had no immigration status and that her husband was in Ecuador. She said that their baby was expected in a week, and she wanted to find out if any immigration benefits would be available to her and her husband when the baby was born.

Irma was one of the tens of thousands of women who enter the U.S. each year with a single purpose in mind. It is not employment, or even a desperate effort to make out some claim for legal immigration status. It is to give birth to a child within the borders of the United States. Some run across borders at night, others enter on tourist visas and stay as long as it takes to give birth.

The benefits reaped by each of these women, and their families, are enormous. While it's true that none are eligible for federal public assistance, thanks to the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, the offspring of each is entitled to the full panoply of federal and state public assistance because they are citizens. When those children reach age 21, they can petition their entire family into the U.S. And during the time that child is reaching age 21, no immigration judge in the country will deport the mother, on the basis that doing so would cause hardship to the citizen child.

As you might expect, the U.S. has some of the world's least restrictive citizenship rules. With extremely rare exception, a person born in the U.S. is a U.S. citizen. Compare this to a country like Japan, where a family's successive generations can live without ever being conferred citizenship.

Citizenship by birth in the U.S. is not just a function of immigration law, it's a right guaranteed by the Constitution's 14th Amendment. Although the issue of citizenship for the children of noncitizens was litigated to conclusion in the 19th century, it's safe to say that never before in our history have so many people entered the U.S. illegally with the single-minded purpose of bearing a child on U.S. soil. Though Great Britain and Australia once had citizenship rules similar to the U.S., they were scrapped in the 1980s in the face of mounting illegal immigration.

"Anchor babies," as they are called, have probably always existed in the U.S. But it's hard to imagine them existing in the huge numbers they do now. The federal government, perhaps deliberately, does not track anchor baby births. The Federation for American Immigration Reform put the figure at 165,000 births in 2001. But other estimates put the number of children born to illegal aliens each year between 287,000 to 363,000.

Though the lack of federal tracking makes it difficult to ascertain the costs of these births, the hard information that is available shows the degree to which state taxpayers support the lives of people who are not even allowed to be in the U.S. In a recent year, California paid for 74,987 deliveries to illegal alien mothers, for a total cost of $215.2 million. In the same year, 36 percent of all Medi-Cal paid births were those to illegal alien mothers. In one Georgia county in 2001, taxpayers funded $650,000 in births to illegal alien mothers. That equates to $7.8 million per year for one U.S. county.

Though direct federal public assistance to illegal aliens has been outlawed for the last seven years, it has not hindered its availability to them if they come to the U.S. to give birth. Under a form of Medicaid called EMA, or "Emergency Medical Assistance," a doctor need only sign off on a form that states that harm might result to the illegal alien mother or child if money remains unavailable for treatment. Medicaid is then available. Medicaid administered on an EMA basis has been extended to pre- and postnatal care, surgeries having nothing to do with birth and even psychological treatment and foster care.

America's lax citizenship rules are now known throughout the world, and businessmen have found a way to profit. Travel agencies in Taiwan, Hong Kong and South Korea openly cater to people who wish to travel to the U.S., legally, to give birth. South Korean couples who want to avoid poor schools or compulsory military service for their sons travel to the U.S. on tourist visas that have been timed to coincide with the birth of their child. When the child reaches school age, he can enter any U.S. public school district for which he can demonstrate residency.

Even though many of America's seniors now struggle to pay for medicine, it has been almost four years since Congress mounted a serious effort to enact citizenship restrictions in these cases. It is unfortunate to be considering denying a baby born on American soil the privilege of citizenship that is his or her birthright, but until we come up with another solution, there must be a disincentive to stop women from entering the U.S. illegally just to give birth. Every year that America maintains its liberal citizenship rule is another year that U.S. taxpayers give millions of dollars in medical services to expectant mothers whose very presence in our country is illegal.

Matt Hayes began practicing immigration law shortly after graduating from Pace University School of Law in 1994, representing new immigrants in civil and criminal matters. He recently left the New York City law practice he founded in 1997 for the "more normal life" of insurance defense, and is author of The New Immigration Law and Practice, a textbook to be pubished by West Legal Publications in October, 2003.

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,76340,00.html

[tex]

TheKrup,

Here is a second helping.

Mexican car signs in Los Angeles:

"F**k You, this is still Mexico"

News & Commentary

By: Hal Turner

Monday, February 5, 2001

Los Angeles, CA -- While the rest of America is being told to "celebrate multiculturalism," some of those we've welcomed to this nation have a very different idea. It isn't being given any coverage in the local newspapers. You certainly won't be seeing it on television. But thousands Mexicans living in Los Angeles are aggressively bashing the United States with illuminated L.E.D. car signs that read "**** You, this is still Mexico."

This is an extension of ongoing, open hostilities by Mexicans throughout southern California against the US.

Last year, on the Fourth of July, Mexicans launched organized protests against the US, burning American Flags in front of a Veterans Cemetery then attacking white Americans protesting illegal immigration.

Aside from some local coverage, the rest of the nation heard little or nothing about the anti-American hatred being spewed, or the violent attacks on Americans by Mexican immigrants - most of them, illegals.

The incidents on July 4, and this latest America-bashing crusade using L.E.D. car signs is an example of the danger of multiculturalism. When people are encouraged to consider themselves members of sub-groups rather than simply "Americans" the consequences can be dangerous.

History is replete with examples of such balkanization in other countries leading to violence. One need only look at Kosovo, Bosnia or Rwanda to see recent examples of group-identity leading to death and destruction. But in this case, ethnic pride is less the situation than is real-estate.

Many of the Mexicans involved in this bash-America movement are part of groups seeking to reverse the outcome of the Mexican American War! These people view southern California, much of Arizona and New Mexico including the western portion of Texas to be sovereign Mexican territory. They refer to it as Aztlan.

While some have heard of this Aztlan movement over the course of several years, there has never been widespread coverage of it in the media. Through this story, we hope to begin changing the media silence.

The new Bush Administration has a lot on its plate and many of the issues they must confront are far more important in the immediate future. But the Administration would be wise to pay attention to this issue because our nation ought not tolerate foreigners within our borders whose mission includes redrawing the geographic boundaries of the United States.

As Citizens, we must make clear to everyone - especially those with little L.E.D. signs in their cars - that breaking up the United States will not be permitted. Those who attempt to do otherwise should be confronted by whatever means are necessary, and assisted with their exit from the country - whether they want to leave or not.

http://www.halturnershow.com/mexico.htm

[fansince62]

sounds like a california problem to me!!!...wonder how ms waters feels about this......

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by TheKurp

Tex,

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that you just pulled this article without doing any research on Glenn Spenser. Feel free to correct me though.

http://www.onepeoplesproject.com/spencer.htm

Kurp, at least you're consistent. Like a lot of PC folks, the first weapon in your arsenal is character assasination.

We're not arguing about Glenn Spencer. I don't know enough about him to say anything authoritatively about him. But I do know enough about character assasination to know that it is often -- perhaps most often -- used to smear opponents without having to seriously consider their arguments. It's a shabby tool when arguments should be won on their fundamental merits. If you feel good about your arguments, you should have no trouble winning on their merits.

I did five minutes research on the Spencer assertion about an organized Mexican attempt to erode the borders and raise Mexican population in the U.S. In fact, Mexican President Fox, shortly before 9/11, did in fact call for exempting Mexico from U.S. quotas for work and immigrant visas. In essence, he has called for completely unlimited Mexican immigration to the U.S., since few Mexican migrants ever return to Mexico.

As for the follow-on issues of California secession after Mexican-Americans attain a majority there -- obviously that's speculative, though it's clearly possible under democratic majority rule. The seeds for the possibility of such an outcome would be laid by unlimited Mexican immigration, and that *is* the official position of the Mexican government.

http://are.berkeley.edu/APMP/pubs/agworkvisa/getreal071801.html

7/18/01 News Report -- San Francisco Chronicle

Fox says U.S. should 'get real' on immigrants

by Robert Collier

Stepping into a growing U.S. debate, Mexican President Vicente Fox edged closer yesterday to proposing a broad amnesty for undocumented immigrants.

Speaking in Milwaukee at a convention of the National Council of La Raza, the main U.S. Latino lobbying group, Fox said that American immigration policies had failed and that many of the 3 million undocumented Mexicans north of the border should be granted residency.

Coming a day after the White House was forced by a storm of criticism to back away from a similar idea, Fox's words were a daring challenge to President Bush to break with the conservative wing of the Republican Party on the issue.

"The current immigration policies have failed because they ignore the reality of an integrated Mexican-U.S. labor market," Fox said to the gathering.

"It is time to get real. Instead of criminalizing labor migration, both countries should work together to regulate it based on common sense and the rule of law."

Fox -- who in the past has avoided demanding full legalization of illegal immigrants, long a hot-button issue among conservatives -- virtually endorsed it yesterday.

The Bush administration and Congress, he said, should "regularize the status of Mexican migrants already working and living in the United States."

"This will allow migrants who work hard, pay taxes and abide by the law to be treated equally and to travel freely," he said. "It will also allow employers to have a more stable workforce. There should be a clear and consistent path to permanent residence for those migrants who want, and are otherwise eligible, to do so."

Fox also outlined several points for a potential Mexican-American agreement:

• Exempting Mexico from U.S. quotas for work and immigrant visas.
  
• Establishing a guest worker program that uses temporary work visas.
  
• Allowing undocumented Mexicans to obtain driver's licenses and pay in- state tuition at public universities. (Bills to allow this are pending in the California Legislature.)
  

The Bush and Fox administrations are negotiating a broad agreement on immigration reform that the two presidents are expected to sign in Washington in September. The pact will be introduced to Congress, where it will be thrown in the mix with several already-introduced bills that contain variations of Fox's proposals.

Fox's remarks yesterday brought renewed criticism of the Mexican leader and Bush as well.

"Fox's goal is not legalization of migrant flows between the two countries, but Mexico's conquest of the United States," said Glenn Spencer, president of American Patrol, a Los Angeles anti-immigration organization.

Spencer warned Bush against taking grass-roots conservatives for granted. "Bush's message to voters is: 'You don't have any place to go except me.' It's a clever political trick, which will blow up in his face. People are really riled up about this. He's going to get the political fight of his life."

The fall will be a hot debating season, predicted Steven Camarota, research director for the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington think tank.

"A lot of Republicans are going to say, 'Why split our party on this? Whatever we do, the Democrats are going to claim credit.'"

[tex]

Atlanta Skins Fan,

You are correct Sir.

Personal attacks are the lowest form of debate and serve no purpose in conversation other than providing a last point of defense to a losing argument and to provide the speaker a false sense of superiority.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Most people probably assume the U.S. government can't be influenced significantly by Mexico, so there may be a tendency to dismiss the Mexican government point of view as irrelevant.

But the U.S. is greatly dependent on Mexico for oil (as well as cheap labor here and there). The U.S. Dept of Energy says that Mexico has the second largest oil reserves in the Western Hemisphere after Venezuela, at 26.9 billion barrels. We are importing 511 million barrels of oil per year from Mexico.

That's a massive amount of oil-based commerce, and the oil industry has repeatedly shown itself to be perhaps the most effective subverter of national interests in preference to its own. (For example, many major oil companies not only do not pay income tax -- they receive huge cash subsidies [yes, checks] from the U.S. government.) So the combination of our dependence on Mexico for oil and the effectiveness of the U.S. oil industry to have its way, means that Mexico has far more influence on our affairs and policies than we realize.

Understand here that I am talking about Mexico, not Americans of Mexican descent. Mexico is still a foreign country, last I checked.

Other large U.S. corporate interests are also aligned for massive Mexican immigration. Notably, corporate agribusiness benefits from greatly reduced labor costs. And agribusiness is another industry notoriously effective in its political influence.

At the same time, lower-wage U.S. workers see their incomes fall due the glut of immigrant labor, and middle-class workers see their taxes rise to support the costs of illegal immigrants and non-assimilated immigrants -- especially for poverty entitlements. Indirect costs rise as a larger share of the population exerts demand on general infrastructure (roads, air, schools, etc.) without paying for this infrastructure; these costs translate into higher taxes for middle and upper-income taxpayers.

I'm all for immigration. I just think the existing system doesn't make any sense. We have reasonably effective quotas set up for every country in the world, and then through massive illegal immigration, we are accepting essentially any Mexican who wants to come here. Evidence shows these Mexican immigrants as a group are not assimilating compared to other immigrant groups, and are disproportionately likely to continue speaking their native language, not complete their educations, remain in poverty, and produce second generations that continue to underperform.

Worse, the borders may be open due to an alliance between the Mexican government, U.S. business (oil and agribusiness), and U.S. politicians influenced by their money and lobby. In other words, our immigration policy may be determined largely by a foreign country and a handful of U.S. multinational companies who aren't even paying U.S. income tax.

Let me make an absurd but interesting analogy. Consider the U.S. like a football team. Call them the Redskins. Only a few extremists would suggest that new players must come from the children of existing Redskins -- obviously we need to bring in new players each year. Suppose the best way to do this was by scouting the country and bringing in the best players from every state in the union. But suppose the residents of Maryland thought it would be great to play for the Redskins, and just started showing up uninvited to Redskin Park. Then the governor of Maryland thought it would be a good idea that the Redskins be forced to accept these players, so he refused to stop them from coming and even suggested that the Redskins be forced to accept them. Then a lot of the Maryland players decided they didn't need to learn the playbook, but would still like to collect game checks. When team officials didn't seem to mind, it became apparent they were being paid off by Maryland-based businesses.

We're the only country in the world that is operating its "team" in this way. Immigrants are the lifeblood of this country, just like college players are the lifeblood of pro teams. But that doesn't mean we have to be stupid -- or corrupt -- in how we determine who gets to play for our team. Otherwise we're destined to become the Bengals of the world economy.

[Art]

I haven't read this debate. Don't know which side is right and which is wrong. I don't care really. Maybe I'll go look again. But, Tex, it is often untrue that namecalling is a sign of weakness in a debate. Often it is a sign of absolute truth and completely appropriate. If I were to say we should sterilize all Hispanics in this thread, and someone were to label me with a name, it would be appropriate, true, and powerful. Just not to me since I don't see how stupid I am. But, stupidity is easily seen. I'm not saying the names that have been used in this thread are appropriate or not, as I haven't read anything .

But, in the general sense, very often, name calling is a sign of strength, because it is very often true :0.

[TheKurp]

Tex and ASF,

You gentlemen are singling out Hispanics and accusing them of destroying our national identity and negatively impacting our economic health.

You want a group of people to bash that have a greater impact on our national identity and economy? Try taking on the overweight and obese. At least this group of people transcends all races, religions, and ethnicity.

Did you know that in 1998 the average net worth of normal weight women in their 50's was $225,973 compared with $90,303 for obese women?

Talk about an impact to tax collections.

Or how about this? http://www.drscottrigden.com/specialties/obesity/obesity_index.html

Diseases Associated with Obesity

15.6 million adults have type 2 diabetes, with 90-95% of these cases being overweight or obese. The prevalence of hypertension in obese adults is 38.4% for men and 32.3% for women. The prevalence of high blood cholesterol in overweight/obese men is 19% and 28% for obese women.

Heavier individuals are at increased risk for some types of cancers including uterine, colorectal, gallbladder, and kidney cancer. Almost half of post-menopausal women diagnosed with breast cancer are obese. Obese individuals have a 50-100% increased risk of death from all causes compared with normal-weight individuals. Table 1 summarizes important obesity facts from the National Institute of Health. Obesity is responsible for 320,000 premature deaths in the United States each year. That comes to 900 people daily, 38 per hour, and one death due to obesity every 100 seconds!!

The Costs of Obesity

The costs of obesity are immense. Psychologically, it is well documented that obesity seriously impairs patients from reaching personal and professional goals. They often have serious problems with self-esteem. The economic costs are staggering. The Food and Nutrition Board of the National Academy of Sciences estimated obesity-related medical costs in excess of $99 billion last year. The direct cost is $51.5 billion, representing 5.7% of the U.S. health expenditure and the indirect cost is $47.6 billion, comparable to the economic costs of cigarette smoking. The cost of pharmaceuticals required by the typical obese adult can be overwhelming. We recently did a survey showing that a typical patient in our office with severe obesity, hypertension, high cholesterol, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and type 2 diabetes could easily spend $418 per month on prescription drugs. This adds up to $5016 per year and over $50,000 in a decade.