Immigration - Demography vs. Border Control
 

http://www.twincities.com/opinion/ci_5616125

Very good opinion paper. I am not a big fan of the "leave it alone, the problem will solve itself" but Shannon O'Neil brings up some very good point.

• Mexico's demographic change
• Our need for labor when the Baby Boomers retire

"This suggests that demography might accomplish what border enforcement has not. In the next decade, the tide of northbound Mexican labor likely will recede. " I don't buy this and there is no real proof that it will. Ten years is a long time, no one, esp Ms. O'Neil knows what is going to happen next year, needless to say over the next ten years.

"This would include an efficient guest-worker program that rises and falls with labor needs and also provides a potential path to citizenship." I would agree with part A, but there is no need to promise citizenship, they should remain guest workers.

Why? Why wouldn't you want them as citizens?

I don't think we need more citizens if we have an effective guest worker program. It is not needed that they become citizens. We need to stem the tide not encourage it.

What, d'ye think your going to run out of room?

The second point brings us to the fact that we will need more citizens to support your old ass Merc. If you want to keep getting social security you better be inviting immigrants over.

Merc's fine with inviting them over as guest-workers....he just doesn't want them to share in the benefits of citizenship whilst they're over... I mean, God....if America started letting immigrants in and then letting them become citizens where would she be? America didn't get where it is today by letti....oh hang on, yes it did.

Not at all but it is not unlimited. Who says we should have to take in the worlds masses??? Screw that. You guys take them. Why don't you let an unlimited number of the Eastern Europeans and Arabs to move to your country? You know that is a huge issue in the UK right now. Why don't you just open your doors to them on an unlimited basis?

So what? Don't get all frigging indignant about it. There is an end to all resources. I don't really care how we got our start, that was something for the history books. We are talking about our future and survival as a republic and a nation.

Actually, I would be a lot less strict about it than we currently are. Most of what we read about it is hype. The numbers don't really stack up to a mountain of panic. Britain is one of the hardest places to gain asylum in and isn't so easy to get in on other terms either. We hear all about the Eastern European workers coming to Britain, we hear significantly less about those who return home after a few months, disillusioned by the fact that England is cold, rainy and pretty unfriendly to foreigners.

Yes, I know it's a huge issue right now. That's because it has been blown out of all proportion by newspapers selling copy by outrage and politicians racing to gain the votes of Mr and Mrs Middle England.

Incidentally, nobody talked about you having to take the world's masses. The article mentioned guest worker programmes as a possible route to citizenship, not a promise as you then characterised it.

I think you'll find, so is that article.

he said indignantly....

If your country is one of that hardest to get into, why shouldn't we get a bit smarter and do the same. Our lax laws and immigration policy are a big problem for us. It is a drain on our social systems which we cannot at this time care appropriately for our own CITIZENS. Out Constitution applies to our citizens, not to every tom, dick, and harry that comes here under false pretenses and in an illegal manner. A practical approach is to develop a well thought out guest worker program for the people we need to do the work required. We don't need 14 family members here illegally when maybe only a few are actually working. And people bitch about not having appropriat health care.

I disagree.

Because you don't have to deal with the issue. You get to sit across the pond and throw stones at our policy and our problems. Look in the mirror.

What you are talking about is illegal immigration. I am talking about legal immigration. Are you of the opinion then that there should be no instances of people not born in America, or to American parents, being granted citizenship?

Because if you follow our example you'll end up as fucked up as we are going to be. We also have a demographic timebomb to deal with. As I said, our immigration and asylum 'problems' aren't actuallywhat they have been portrayed to be. Populist politics and the treatment of these issues as political footballs, have led us to act in a way that is not in the nation's best long term interests.

Umm....are you suggesting that I refrain from commenting on any issue relating to America? Because if that is what you are suggesting, might I humbly invite you to kiss my English Arse?

So...are you disagreeing that the article is putting forward what it sees as relevant to the future survival of America? Or are you just disagreeing with the article's premise?

I am talking only about illegal immigration, not legal immigration. I think anyone who applies through the normal process should be so allowed. That is not the problem we are discussing. The problem is people coming here, over staying their visas, and or entering illegally across our pourous borders. You have the benifit of being an island. We need to become an island to control the traffic.

We are talking about MILLIONS of people, not a few hundred thousands.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200704/world-in-numbers

I disagree with the articles basic premise, although I do agree, as previously stated, that we need an effective guest worker program. I don't agree with her predictions or recommendations.

True.....In the UK we are talking about a few hundred thousands...but then again proportionately you taking millions is an equivalent. Your population is huge compared to ours. What percentage of your overall population are we talking here?

The numbers vary but this is about the average estimates:

"The number of illegal immigrants in the United States has grown to as many as 12 million, and they now account for about one in every 20 workers, a new estimate says. "

"It is difficult to accurately measure the number of illegal immigrants in the United States, but most public agencies and private groups had settled on a figure of about 11 million.

The Pew Hispanic Center used Census Bureau data to estimate that the United States had 11.1 million illegal immigrants in March 2005. The center used monthly population estimates to project a current total of 11.5 million to 12 million.

The report estimates that 850,000 illegal immigrants have arrived in United States each year since 2000"


http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

What is that as an overall percentage of the population, about 4 or 5%?

I believe it is a percent of the active workers, but I can't besure because I did not see the original Pew study.

Think of it like this, Leeds or Hull are cities in the UK with approximately 850,000 people each, that is the same as adding a city of Leeds every year. Where does it end?

Well. If you were to add the city of Leeds each year to the UK, that would have a different effect than if you added the city of leeds to America each year. Also, they don't all have to be in one place, fundamentally altering the demographics of any one town or city.

If you were to add half that number per year to the UK it would be entirely balanced out by the number of people leaving. How many people leave the US in any one year?

Current population is 301,565,665

http://factfinder.census.gov/home/sa....html?_lang=en

You have a population of over 300 million and you are worried about 11 million?

It was just an example. Any way you look at it that is a very large number of people. Can't you see how that would put a strain on our social systems???

How many of them are claiming social security?

I understand they place a strain....but they also do a lot of the necessary but unpleasant jobs that many other people aren't willing to do, right?

April 7, 2007, 5:21PM
Immigrants march in L.A. to protest Bush visa plan


By PETER PRENGAMAN
Associated Press

LOS ANGELES — Thousands of people marched today through downtown, demanding a way for the country's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants to become citizens and condemning President Bush's latest proposal.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...n/4695908.html

The strain is not on the SS system. It is on health care and prisons, among other things.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...5BC0A9649C8B63 (from 2002)

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N13461203.htm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16285023/

http://www.migrationinformation.org/...lay.cfm?ID=417

Dana, check with you tomorrow, have to go to work.

Why bother, you two aren't going to agree. You start out with a report that says 5 million when it's actually 3.5 times that. Old saws like they do dirty jobs that nobody else will do, which is pure myth. They do unskilled labor, for lack of skills and they'll work cheaper because they haven't the overhead.

Sure we have room for them, but they don't want to live where we have room. There's plenty of air to breath, too. If they were trees, it wouldn't be a problem. But they aren't, they're people, people than need infrastructure and services, both of which are expensive and they aren't paying for.

With the billions of dollars they take back to Mexico, why haven't they done anything there? You know, businesses and companies, to establish a decent economy there. Because all their potential customers and employees are here?

I though much of the article was pointing towards the fact that they have started to develop their economy now?

No, it only says This is an echo of past claims that didn't bear fruition.

Anyone else catch all the protecting and serving that went on at the recent immigration protests?

I was going to post this later today.

Fuck the police and the media.

The police did not have to use that force and this would never been reported like this if a camera person did not get hurt.

It is pathetic that someone in the media has to get hurt before they will report what the police did negatively.

Good strategy for protesters by the way.

Apparently as long as they were in the street and moving it was OK, but when they were congregating in the park the cops cleared them out. At least that's what I can make of what I've seen on TV.

I'm glad they kicked their asses.

You're glad the police kicked the asses of people who were doing nothing illegal? Why?

Disorderly conduct and failure to disburse are hardly legal. If ordered to move and you fail to do so you will suffer the consequences.

I'm all about letting people come here...the more the merrier. Of course, not willy-nilly...we gotta check 'em out and shit. But we started as a country of immigrants...we should remain so.

Wrong. Not only because "failure to disburse" (this doesn't apply, anyway, because it looks to me like the media was moving when asked in the videos) when you aren't doing anything wrong should never be met with violence, but also:

I have no problem with LEGAL immigrants. If you cross the border illegally you get to turn around and go back home and take all your kids, mothers, grandmothers, etc, with you. I don't care if they were born here or not. Circumvent the process or pay the price.

Maybe they just needed a work out or a warm up or something for a bigger ass kicking later. I don't know.

That doesn't really bother me per se. Obviously, I'm concerned about it from a security standpoint. But it can't be that big of a deal because we really haven't been doing much to stop it all these years, IMO.

That sounds par for the LAPD, yeah.

The Los Angeles Police Department: We'll treat you like a King! :D

So when the water gets up to your chin it's no big deal because you've never done anything about it in the past.

Point taken. But the targeting of illegal immigrants seems to have gained traction only since 9/11...and I suspect that it's partially rooted in xenophobia and racism. I'm not sure illegal immigration is as big of a problem as some make it out to be. After all, the 9/11 bastards came to this country legally.

Since 9/11 the numbers of illegals has grown damn near exponentially.

I hope the LAPD gets the pants sued off of them. Their actions were complete BS.

Oh you mean this fella?????????????

The Arrest Record of Rodney King
Rodney King's criminal history played a large role in the high-speed chase that led to his arrest, in his controversial and violent arrest, and in the trials that followed. King explained his decision to flee--at a speed exceeding 110 mph--from CHP officers as resulting from a fear that his arrest for speeding would lead to a revocation of his parole and a return to prison: "I was scared of going back to prison and I just kind of thought the problem would just go away." Sergeant Stacey Koon, the supervising officer at King's arrest, concluded (correctly, it turned out) from King's "buffed out appearance" that he was most likely an ex-con who had been working out on prison weights--and assumed therefore that he was a dangerous character. Finally, it was King's criminal history that explained the decision of prosecutors to keep him off the witness stand. If King testified, defense attorneys would be allowed to present the jury with his record of arrests--a record that might influence their deliberations.
Many of King's problems with the law stem from his serious drinking problem. According to his parole officer, Tim Fowler, King "was a basically decent guy with borderline intelligence....His problem was alcoholism." (Cannon, p40.)
King's Trouble with the Law Prior to His Beating
July 27, 1987: According to a complaint filed by his wife, King beat her while she was sleeping, then dragged her outside the house and beat her again. King was charged with battery and pleaded "no contest." He was placed on probation and ordered to obtain counseling. He never got the counseling.
November 3, 1989: King, brandishing a tire iron, ordered a convenience store clerk to empty the cash register. The clerk grabbed the tire iron, causing King to fall backwards and knock over a pie rack. King swung the rack at the clerk and fled the store with $200. King was arrested and charged with assault with a deadly weapon, second-degree robbery, and intent to commit great bodily injury. In a plea agreement, King pleaded guilty to the robbery charge and the other charges were dropped. He was sentenced to two years in prison, but was paroled on December 27, 1990.
The Arrest of Rodney King on March 3, 1991
March 3, 1991: After being seen speeding on the 210 freeway by CHP officers, King led them on a chase at speeds estimated at up to 110 to 115 mph. When finally stopped, King refused requests to get into the prone position and appeared to charge one of the officers. He was beaten and arrested. King was charged with felony evading. Charges were later dropped.
King's 3/3/91 Arrest Record

King's Trouble with the Law After March 3, 1991
May 11, 1991: King was pulled over for having an excessively tinted windshield. Although King was driving without a license and his car registration had expired, King was not charged.
May 28, 1991: King picked up a transvestite prostitute in Hollywood who happened to be under surveillance by LAPD officers. King and the prostitute were observed in an alley engaging in sexual activity. When the prostitute spotted the officers, King sped away, nearly hitting one of them. King later explained that he thought the vice officers were robbers trying to kill him. No charges were filed.
June 26, 1992: King's second wife reported to police that King had hit her and she feared for her life. King was handcuffed and taken to a police station, but his wife then decided against pressing charges.
July 16, 1992: King was arrested at 1:40 A.M. for driving while intoxicated. No charges were filed.
August 21, 1993: King crashed into a wall near a downtown Los Angeles nightclub. He had a blood alcohol level of 0.19. King was charged with violating his parole and sent for sixty day to an alcohol treatment center. He was also convicted on the DUI charge and ordered to perform twenty days of community service.
May 21, 1995: King was arrested for DUI while on a trip to Pennsylvania. King failed field sobriety tests, but refused to submit to a blood test. He was tried and acquitted.
July 14, 1995: King got into an argument with his wife while he was driving, pulled off the freeway and ordered her out of the car. When she started to get out, King sped off, leaving her on the highway with a bruised arm. King was charged with assault with a deadly weapon (his car), reckless driving, spousal abuse, and hit-and-run. King was tried on all four charges, but found guilty only of hit-and-run driving.
March 3, 1999: King allegedly injured the sixteen-year-old girl that he had fathered out of wedlock when he was seventeen, as well as the girl's mother. King was arrested for injuring the woman, the girl, and for vandalizing property. King claimed that the incident was simply "a family misunderstanding."
September 29, 2001: King was arrested for indecent exposure and use of the hallucinogenic drug PCP.

Soooooooooooo......

While you observed the actions of the protesters at the event what did you see to make you jump to those conclusions???? I mean you were there, correct?

I didn't jump to anything--I don't have to. I can read articles from reliable news sources.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...050201705.html

Oxymoron?

At least it's not the Washington Times... ;)

Aw c'mon, there's no such thing as the Washington Times ... it's just a bad dream.

The actions of the protesters off camera are irrelevant. Nothing justifies what happened on camera.