I appreciate Prof. Codevilla’s responding last week to my response to his article on the futility of border controls in the Claremont Review of Books (the original article now appears to be online). (…)
I’ll address several other misconceptions in his article below the fold.
Jobs Americans won’t do: At the center of Prof. Codevilla’s jeremiad is the hoary claim that there just aren’t enough Americans suited to do the hard work our society needs to function, and therefore Mexican workers are necessary to fill the vacuum.
Simply as a matter of numbers, this is incorrect. There are perhaps 7 million illegal aliens in the labor force (the other four million or so don’t work), but there are three times that many native-born Americans of working age, with no more than a high-school education, who aren’t even in the labor force. And this doesn’t count those who are unemployed (i.e., actually looking for work) or underemployed (for instance, they have a part-time job but want a full-time one).
What’s more, a detailed look at immigrants by occupation shows that virtually every occupation contains a majority of native-born workers. Some examples:
- Maids and housekeepers: 55 percent native-born
- Taxi drivers and chauffeurs: 58 percent native-born
- Butchers and meat processors: 63 percent native-born
- Grounds maintenance workers: 65 percent native-born
- Construction laborers: 65 percent native-born
- Porters, bellhops, and concierges: 71 percent native-born
- Janitors: 75 percent native-born
How can an occupation be described as “a job Americans won’t do” when most people who do it are, in fact, native-born Americans?
Nor is this just the tail end of some better time, with Americans represented by aging holdovers still willing to do blue-collar work; fully one-third of the native-born in high-immigrant occupations are under 30.
What’s more, the presence of large-scale immigration appears to exacerbate the exodus of Americans from blue-collar occupations. One of my colleagues frequently drives from Washington to central Pennsylvania and notes that it’s remarkable how, as you leave the immigrant-heavy Washington area, the fast food places at each subsequent interchange seem to somehow find a larger and larger share of American kids able to flip burgers.
The data on teen employment bear this out. While it is true that labor force participation for teenagers — the “swarms of youth in malls and campuses” Prof. Codevilla sniffs at — has been declining across all ethnic groups and levels of education, immigration accelerates the process. My colleague Steven Camarota has estimated that “On average, a 10 percentage-point increase in the immigrant share of the labor force reduces the labor force participation rate of U.S.-born teenagers by 5.79 percentage points in 1994-95 and 4.57 percentage points in 2006-07.” More immigrants means fewer teenagers working.
Read all of the rest and the destruction of the other myths.
California Congressman Elton Gallegly (R-Simi Valley)This is my Congressman’s response to President Obama’s MEGA-PANDER to Hispanics along the Texas-Mexican border today.
From the press release:
U.S. Rep. Elton Gallegly, (R-CA), Chairman of the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement, issued the following statement on President Obama’s call today for Congress to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants:
“Providing a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, as the President called for again today, without requiring illegal immigrants to return to their countries of origin and apply for legal status, is amnesty.
“Amnesty will not pass Congress, Mr. President. It is unfair to the 26 million American workers who are unemployed or underemployed and it is unfair to those who are waiting to legally immigrate to the United States.
“Conservatively, seven million people are working in the United States illegally. Instead of focusing on creating jobs and getting 26 million Americans back to work, the President’ proposal would give millions of illegal immigrants the opportunity to work legally in the United States, attract more illegal immigrants looking for the same opportunity, and take more jobs from American workers.”
My Man, Elton!
I could not have said it better myself.
Several Republican senators are seeking to amend the law that grants full U.S. citizenship to children born to illegal immigrants in this country, and voters strongly support such an effort.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 61% of Likely U.S. Voters believe that a child born in the United States to a woman who is here illegally should not automatically become a U.S. citizen. That’s up slightly from last August but is the highest level of support for a change in the existing law found in five years of Rasmussen Reports surveying.
Twenty-eight percent (28%) disagree and feel that children born to illegal immigrants in this country should automatically become American citizens as is currently the practice. That’s down six points from August. Another 11% are undecided.
Easier proposed than the reality of the situation. Changing this policy now WOULD require a U.S. Constitutional Amendment which is very difficult to realize. So, this is really HOT AIR and not an attainable goal, despite the news that foreign nationals are sponsoring American birth tourism for pregnant women.
For months, officials say, the house was home to “maternity tourists,” in this case, women from China who had paid tens of thousands of dollars to deliver their babies in the United States, making the infants automatic American citizens. Officials shut down the home, sending the 10 mothers who had been living there with their babies to nearby motels.
“These were not women living in squalor — it was a well taken care of place and clean, but there were a lot of women and babies,” said Clayton Anderson, a city inspector who shut down the house on March 9. “I have never seen anything like this before. We really couldn’t determine the exact number of people living there.”
For the last year, the debate over birthright citizenship has raged across the country, with some political leaders calling for an end to the 14th Amendment, which gives automatic citizenship to any baby born in the United States. Much of the debate has focused on immigrants entering illegally from poor countries in Latin America. But in this case the women were not only relatively wealthy, but also here legally on tourist visas. Most of them, officials say, have already returned to China with their American babies.
Immigration experts say it is impossible to know precisely how widespread “maternity tourism” is. Businesses in China, Mexico and South Korea advertise packages that arrange for doctors, insurance and postpartum care. And the Marmara, a Turkish-owned hotel on the Upper East Side in New York City, has advertised monthlong “baby stays” that come with a stroller.
There are three better ways to fight illegal immigration and you can do these immediately (or as soon as Congress or state legislatures) act:
1. E-Verify for employment, hold employers accountable with jail terms for executives who allow/promote illegal employment
2. Tighten up the Southern U.S. border with Mexico and require Visas from countries in Central and South America.
3. Welfare Reform, especially in California.
Trying to change the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to outlaw natural birth citizenship to children of illegal immigrants is tilting at windmills. There are easier and quicker remedies.
Former Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman said Tuesday that her party must change its approach on immigration if it wants to be successful in California.
“My view is that the immigration discussion, the rhetoric the Republican Party uses, is not helpful; it’s not helpful in a state with the Latino population we have,” Whitman said during a brief interview following a speech at a George W. Bush Institute conference on the economy. “We as a party are going to have to make some changes, how we think about immigration, and how we talk about immigration.”
In her remarks, among the first made by the former EBay chief since she spent $144 million of her fortune on her campaign loss to Democrat Jerry Brown, Whitman did not offer specific prescriptions.
Oh I get it – pander to the Hispanic vote so YOU can win an election. This will NEVER happen.
How about supporting sound government, including immigration policies, soliciting input of the Hispanic/Latino communities and communicate your ideas better?
And, most importantly, treating your Hispanic housekeeper like a true member of your family instead of kicking them out of their job and saying you don’t know me and I don’t know you.
Read this new study and now you know where many of your taxpayer dollars are going and why illegla immigrants continue to flood the United States.
Thirteen years after welfare reform, the share of immigrant-headed households (legal and illegal) with a child (under age 18) using at least one welfare program continues to be very high. This is partly due to the large share of immigrants with low levels of education and their resulting low incomes — not their legal status or an unwillingness to work. The major welfare programs examined in this report include cash assistance, food assistance, Medicaid, and public and subsidized housing.
Among the findings:
- In 2009 (based on data collected in 2010), 57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 18) used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children.
- Immigrant households’ use of welfare tends to be much higher than natives for food assistance programs and Medicaid. Their use of cash and housing programs tends to be similar to native households.
- A large share of the welfare used by immigrant households with children is received on behalf of their U.S.-born children, who are American citizens. But even households with children comprised entirely of immigrants (no U.S.-born children) still had a welfare use rate of 56 percent in 2009.
- Immigrant households with children used welfare programs at consistently higher rates than natives, even before the current recession. In 2001, 50 percent of all immigrant households with children used at least one welfare program, compared to 32 percent for natives.
- Households with children with the highest welfare use rates are those headed by immigrants from the Dominican Republic (82 percent), Mexico and Guatemala (75 percent), and Ecuador (70 percent). Those with the lowest use rates are from the United Kingdom (7 percent), India (19 percent), Canada (23 percent), and Korea (25 percent).
- The states where immigrant households with children have the highest welfare use rates are Arizona (62 percent); Texas, California, and New York (61 percent); Pennsylvania (59 percent); Minnesota and Oregon (56 percent); and Colorado (55 percent).
- We estimate that 52 percent of households with children headed by legal immigrants used at least one welfare program in 2009, compared to 71 percent for illegal immigrant households with children. Illegal immigrants generally receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children.
- Illegal immigrant households with children primarily use food assistance and Medicaid, making almost no use of cash or housing assistance. In contrast, legal immigrant households tend to have relatively high use rates for every type of program.
- High welfare use by immigrant-headed households with children is partly explained by the low education level of many immigrants. Of households headed by an immigrant who has not graduated high school, 80 percent access the welfare system, compared to 25 percent for those headed by an immigrant who has at least a bachelor’s degree.
- An unwillingness to work is not the reason immigrant welfare use is high. The vast majority (95 percent) of immigrant households with children had at least one worker in 2009. But their low education levels mean that more than half of these working immigrant households with children still accessed the welfare system during 2009.
- If we exclude the primary refugee-sending countries, the share of immigrant households with children using at least one welfare program is still 57 percent.
- Welfare use tends to be high for both new arrivals and established residents. In 2009, 60 percent of households with children headed by an immigrant who arrived in 2000 or later used at least one welfare program; for households headed by immigrants who arrived before 2000 it was 55 percent.
- For all households (those with and without children), the use rates were 37 percent for households headed by immigrants and 22 percent for those headed by natives.
- Although most new legal immigrants are barred from using some welfare for the first five years, this provision has only a modest impact on household use rates because most immigrants have been in the United States for longer than five years; the ban only applies to some programs; some states provide welfare to new immigrants with their own money; by becoming citizens immigrants become eligible for all welfare programs; and perhaps most importantly, the U.S.-born children of immigrants (including those born to illegal immigrants) are automatically awarded American citizenship and are therefore eligible for all welfare programs at birth.
- The eight major welfare programs examined in this report are SSI (Supplemental Security Income for low income elderly and disabled), TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families), WIC (Women, Infants, and Children food program), free/reduced school lunch, food stamps (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), Medicaid (health insurance for those with low incomes), public housing, and rent subsidies.
None of this is surprising, since I live in California and go into the stores in Los Angeles County and see the Food Stamps, WIC and whatever being used routinely. And, the California POLS wonder why there are massive state and federal budget deficits?
California is broken and the first start of a solution is to secure the Mexican border, adopt E-Verify for employment and modify the welfare rules ala the Bill Clinton reforms in the 90’s – like in many states.
Well, not really but you get the idea – they have surged in population growth in California.
Latino children for the first time made up a majority of California’s under-18 population in 2010, as Hispanics grew to 37.6% of residents in the nation’s most populous state.
A new U.S. Census report showed the state’s non-Hispanic white population fell 5.4% over the past decade, a continuing trend offset by a 27.8% surge in Hispanics and 30.9% increase in non-Hispanic Asians.
Though in decline, white Californians remained the state’s largest demographic group at 40.1%. But demographers said Hispanics were poised to take the lead.
Underlying the demographic shifts, California grew at its slowest pace in the past decade in more than a century. The population rose 10% to 37.3 million, an increase in line with the national average.
As in California, Hispanics are gaining ground in many other states, such as North Carolina, as whites are on the verge of becoming a minority among all newborn children in the U.S.
What does this mean for California politics when these Hispanic children mature and start to vote? Just as it is now for the very Blue Democratic California – TOUGH.
Since past electoral history has shown a propensity for Hispanics and Latinos to vote anywhere from 60-75% for Democratic Party candidates, the GOP will be at a demographic disadvantage. There are, of course, districts both Congressional and Legislative where their population numbers will not have as great an impact. And, with redistricting by an impartial commission, the GOP will have a chance there.
So, what happened and why did this growth of Hispanics occur?
Easy- the illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central America of the 1980’s to present had children born in the United States as middle-class whites either died or migrated out of the state to Nevada, Arizona or other states like Colorado.
Mr. Frey said the decline of whites and blacks in the decade, as well as the slowdown of Hispanic growth, is partly attributable to more middle-class families leaving pricey California for more affordable places elsewhere. (…)
“I think it’s a middle-class flight,” Mr. Frey said. “California is still very pricey, so to the extent people can get affordable housing they leave.”
But, California is now a no-growth Democratic state which by the way heavily regulates business.
Good luck with solving that California state budget shortfall.
And, the Republicans? They will be a dwindling minority party like in New York, Massachusetts and Maryland.
Yesterday’s hearing, chaired by my Congressman Elton Gallegly proved partisan and combative with Democrats accusing Republicans of playing racial politics.
A congressional hearing led by Rep. Elton Gallegly quickly turned partisan and combative on Tuesday, with Democrats accusing Republicans of trying to drive a wedge between African-Americans and Latinos over illegal immigration.
Some lawmakers are trying “to pit black against brown” by essentially arguing that illegal immigration is the reason minority communities still struggle nearly 50 years after Martin Luther King Jr. led a landmark civil rights march on Washington, said Rep. John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat who was one of the founding members of the Congressional Black Caucus.
“This is a very sensitive subject,” said Conyers, who called the idea of dividing minority groups “abhorrent and repulsive.”
Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Los Angeles, charged that the hearing was an attempt to divert attention from the real causes of high unemployment among African-Americans.
“We cannot afford to let people who have political agendas divide us,” she said.
Gallegly, who called the hearing as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement, disputed the assertion it was part of a divide-and-conquer strategy.
“I think it’s shameful,” the Simi Valley Republican said of the Democrats’ accusations. “I hope we’ll bring a little more civility to hearings in the future.”
I am glad to clue in Conyers and Waters, there is already a racial divide between Hispanics and African-Americans and it has nothing to do with illegal immigration. I know the Democrats need racial demographics in order to win elections, particularly statewide in California, but to bury their head in the sand about the impact of illegal aliens on society is just pathetic.
The balance between Republican calls to reduce government regulation of business and the GOP’s campaign against undocumented workers is about to be tested by a bill that would mandate use of an illegal-worker detection system, which critics say would cripple U.S. agriculture by depriving farmers of cheap labor.
House immigration subcommittee chairman Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.) said Thursday that he plans to introduce the bill to mandate the use of E-Verify within the next month. The program is already mandatory for government agencies and contractors and used voluntarily by nearly 250,000 businesses to check the legal status of potential hires. But Gallegly said he hopes making it a requirement for all U.S. enterprises will drive out illegal workers entirely.
“If there was ever a need to do something quickly, when we have 14 million Americans who aren’t working today, I think they deserve to be put in the front of the line,” the California Republican said at a hearing on the use of E-Verify.
About damn time.
I think such a bill would have an excellent chance of passage. But, will President Obama who needs the Hispanic vote in 2012 veto the legislation?
Well, too bad.
In an early indicator of how congressional Republicans will legislate on immigration, House GOP leaders are expanding an inquiry into an enforcement program that allows employers to check the immigration status of employees.
The E-Verify program has long been championed by Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee’s immigration panel, which will hold a hearing on it Thursday.
Many business owners believe that Gallegly and other House Republicans want to make E-Verify, currently a voluntary program for companies, mandatory. Critics of such a move, many of them farmers, warn that it could destabilize the agricultural economy, which is heavily dependent on undocumented immigrants, and jeopardize millions of jobs held by American citizens that are upstream and downstream of farm labor.
The fact is that agricultural mega-business have been using cheap, illegal aliens for most of their labor for decades at great cost to American taxpayers.
Well, it is way cheaper than hiring native born Americans or mechanizing their farming/manufacturing operations. Hence, more profits. But, the taxpayers are picking up the tab for the illegal aliens and their American born (and american citizen) children e.g. public education, medicaid, criminal justice et. al..
E-Verify is a sensible reform and if the large agricultural companies cannot obtain enough labor then there is always a guest worker program for which they can apply.
Let’s get the illegal aliens and their hidden costs out of the shadows and back to their home countries while supplying jobs for Americans.
I will gladly pay a bit more for my lettuce and grapes.
South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham
You would have thought that Senator Graham would have learned from the last time he tried for some illegal immigration amnesty.
Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) have rekindled their alliance on immigration reform, taking some early steps to test the political will for addressing the contentious issue this year.
Their call list hasn’t focused so much on House and Senate members who’ve been reliable pro-immigration votes in the past. Instead, they’re looking to a strange-bedfellows mix of conservative and liberal constituencies that can provide a “safety net” of support, as Graham put it, once the issue heats up.
“It’s in the infant stage,” Graham told POLITICO. “I don’t know what the political appetite is to do something.”
For all the groups getting a call from the pair, it is the presence of Graham himself who elevates the odds — however bleak — that the Senate could move on a comprehensive, bipartisan overhaul bill. Graham abruptly departed the talks last spring and took with him any hope of getting a bill in the past Congress.
Now, conservative evangelicals, the AFL-CIO, the Service Employees International Union, business organizations and immigrant advocacy groups say they have gotten word from Schumer’s office that a renewed effort is under way. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce confirmed that it is back in the mix, after a hasty exit last year when Schumer proposed a legislative framework with a temporary worker program that favored labor unions.
And Schumer and his staff have quietly begun reaching out to some unlikely players in the Senate, including Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who has professed a newfound freedom since winning reelection last year without the Republican Party’s help.
I agree with Stacy that this is probably just a shakedown for campaign cash from the open borders crowd and U.S. Chamber of Commerce. But, like Michelle, do not trust Graham. The only saving grace is the House GOP.
Hey! Senator Graham – how about enforcing the immigration laws and securing the borders first?
Can someone PLEASE run against Grahamnesty in a South Carolina GOP primary.