PDA

View Full Version : Immigration Debate Changing


Porpoise101
November 8th, 2016, 05:38 PM
Preface: I'm not sure that this is exactly current events, but it is a recent interesting article I've found.

In 1994, California Governor Pete Wilson aired television ads showing people scrambling across the Mexican border near San Diego. “The rules are being broken,” a narrator intoned. “Pete Wilson has had the courage to say enough is enough.” Wilson, who at one point trailed in the polls, ended up cruising to an easy re-election.

Two decades later, the rhetoric around immigration hasn’t changed much — just look at Virginia, where long-shot challenger Dave Brat upset Eric Cantor in part by promising to “secure the border” and “reject any proposal that grants amnesty” to undocumented immigrants.

But while the rhetoric has stayed largely the same, immigration hasn’t. The immigration debate, now as then, focuses primarily on illegal immigration from Latin America. Yet most new immigrants aren’t Latinos. Most Latinos aren’t immigrants. And, based on the best available evidence, there are fewer undocumented immigrants in the U.S. today than there were in 2007. Even the latest immigration crisis — a sudden influx of unaccompanied minors, for which President Barack Obama requested $4 billion in emergency funding to address on Tuesday — represents a break from past patterns: The children are from Central America, not Mexico, and are primarily escaping violence in their home countries, rather than seeking jobs in the U.S.

The immigration debate gets one thing right: The foreign-born population is growing. In 2012, according to data from the Census Bureau, there were more than 40 million people living in the U.S. who weren’t born here, up 31 percent since 20001; the native-born population grew just 9 percent over that time. The foreign-born now represent 13 percent of the population, near a historical high. The drivers of that growth, however, have changed significantly in recent years.

Fewer across the border, more across the Pacific

In the mid-2000s, the surge began to ebb. Demographers cite several factors: A long decline in the birthrate in Mexico meant there were fewer young Mexicans seeking jobs north of the border. Improvement in the Mexican economy meant there were better opportunities closer to home. Tightened border security and increased deportations likely also played a role.

Then the recession hit, and turned a gradual decline into a steep drop. Construction jobs, a major source of employment for Mexican migrants, all but disappeared, and many other jobs also became scarce. As a result, immigration slowed, and many Mexicans living in the U.S. went home. By 2010, net migration from Mexico — the number of immigrants minus the number of emigrants — had fallen roughly to zero, and may even have turned negative, according to the Pew Research Center.

As immigration from Mexico has been falling, migration from other countries has continued to rise. In the past five years, the number of new immigrants (those in the country less than a year) from China has risen 37 percent, to more than 70,000. Immigration from India and other Asian countries is also increasing, though at a more modest rate.

As a result, Asia has surpassed Latin America as the dominant source of new immigrants to the U.S. Asia accounted for 45 percent of all new immigrants in 2012, compared to 34 percent for Latin America. Mexico is still the largest single country of origin for new immigrants, but its lead is shrinking fast: Mexico accounts for 14 percent of all new immigrants, down from 45 percent in 2000. India, meanwhile, now accounts for 12 percent, and China for 10 percent.

This shift has begun to change the makeup of the overall immigrant population. Immigrants from Latin America are, on average, poorer and less educated than native-born Americans. Asian immigrants are the opposite: They are, on average, wealthier and better educated — not just compared to other immigrants but also compared to native-born Americans.4
Illegal immigration levels off

The immigration debate, of course, tends to focus on illegal immigration. There are in fact two separate debates about the undocumented: What to do about those who are here already, and how to prevent more people from entering the U.S. illegally. The two issues often get lumped together, but the data suggests the trends are very different.

Almost by definition, illegal immigration is difficult to track. But Pew has developed a well-regarded methodology for calculating the size of the unauthorized population, which essentially involves subtracting the number of legal immigrants from the total foreign-born population, subject to certain adjustments.5 According to Pew’s estimates, the undocumented population grew rapidly in the 1990s and early 2000s, rising from 3.5 million in 1990 to a peak of about 12.2 million in 2007. The total dropped during the recession, however, and has been roughly flat since then at about 11.7 million in 2012.6 A narrow majority — about 52 percent — are from Mexico, although a growing share are from Central America and, increasingly, Asia.

In other words, the number of undocumented immigrants remains high, but illegal immigration — the number of new undocumented workers entering the country each year — has fallen close to zero. On a net basis — people entering minus those leaving or being deported — illegal immigration was probably negative between 2007 and 2012.

New frontiers

Despite the changing patterns of immigration, however, the public debate has continued to focus on illegal migration from Mexico. One reason for that is likely that people experience immigration on a local, not a national, level. And immigration, including undocumented immigration, is spreading to parts of the country where it was relatively rare just a few years ago.

Take Hazleton, Pennsylvania, a small coal-country city about an hour southwest of Scranton. In 2000, the city had fewer than a thousand immigrants, less than 4 percent of its population of nearly 25,000. A decade later, nearly a quarter of its residents are foreign-born, and a third of the population speaks Spanish.8 The sudden population shift has led to conflict: In 2006, the city passed an ordinance, the “Illegal Immigration Relief Act,” that aimed to punish landlords who rented to undocumented immigrants and employers who hired them. The mayor at the time, Louis Barletta, told the Washington Post that he wanted to make the city “the toughest place on illegal immigrants in America.” Federal courts blocked the law as unconstitutional and earlier this year the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the city’s appeal.

Hazleton represents a broader shift in the geography of immigration. In 1990, immigrants made up more than 20 percent of the population in just one state, California, and more than 10 percent in just five. In 2012, three states had immigrant populations of at least 20 percent, and another 12 states plus the District of Columbia had immigrant populations in the double digits. Even many states where immigrants are a comparatively small share of the population have seen substantial growth: In Utah, for example, immigrants made up 8.4 percent of the population in 2012, up from 3.4 percent in 1990. In Georgia, the immigrant population has risen from 2.7 percent to 9.5 percent of the total population over the same time period.

The geographic spread of immigrants is particularly striking in the groups that tend to draw the most political opposition: Immigrants who are here illegally or who don’t speak English. States like California, Texas and New Mexico that have long had large Spanish-speaking populations have seen a flattening-out or even a decline in the share of residents who don’t speak English fluently. Meanwhile states farther from the border, such as Washington state, New Jersey and Maryland, have seen big increases in their limited-English-proficient populations.” Article @ 538 (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/immigration-is-changing-much-more-than-the-immigration-debate/)

Interesting to say the least, but I don't think anyone is surprised that the Republicans are behind the times. It's also interesting that the amount of illegal immigrants has really shifted, and that states with decreasing amounts are more liberal. Take California, Texas, and Florida. These states are more liberal than they were, while places where there is an increased presence of illegal immigrants have become more conservative. I'm referring to places in the Midwest especially.

phuckphace
November 8th, 2016, 06:51 PM
These states are more liberal than they were, while places where there is an increased presence of illegal immigrants have become more conservative.

who would've thought???

Step 1. peaceful cohesive community
Step 2. Third-World immigration
Step 3. crime and alienation skyrocket
Step 4. HITLER

it's not that difficult a concept. it's easy to kid yourself into believing the pro-amnesty propaganda when you don't live next door to 30 illegals packed into a 1,200 sq. ft house and hear gunshots and randomers coming and going at all hours of the night (drug deals). that shit turns fence-sitters into wall-builders in a fucking hurry.

Paraxiom
November 9th, 2016, 04:50 AM
who would've thought???

Step 1. peaceful cohesive community
Step 2. Third-World immigration
Step 3. crime and alienation skyrocket
Step 4. HITLER

Modify step 2 into "certain 'third-world' (the term is somewhat vague now, especially if Mexico is included) immigration" and I'm more with you now.


it's not that difficult a concept. it's easy to kid yourself into believing the pro-amnesty propaganda when you don't live next door to 30 illegals packed into a 1,200 sq. ft house and hear gunshots and randomers coming and going at all hours of the night (drug deals). that shit turns fence-sitters into wall-builders in a fucking hurry.

But your beloved wall will solve all problems through *insert physical barrier* here, and all your problems will just disappear!

Ragle
November 9th, 2016, 05:39 AM
That's why there's a need to modfiy The Wall Song US-like:


We don't need no education
We do need just border control

No dark sarcasm in that oval white house room
Hey, Trumpy, let us built The Wall.

All in all we need just another bricks in the wall
All in all you've to put just another brick in the wall

da da da

Porpoise101
November 9th, 2016, 10:46 AM
Ok but the point of the article is that Mexican and illegal immigration isn't really relevant anymore. Or that it should not be considered that way as most immigrants are legal ones from Asia.

Vlerchan
November 9th, 2016, 10:48 AM
Or that it should not be considered that way as most immigrants are legal ones from Asia.
It's much easier to demonize poorer people, though.

What do you also think will happen to Asian immigration under Trump?

Porpoise101
November 9th, 2016, 10:51 AM
What do you also think will happen to Asian immigration under Trump?
Obama had a few executive orders which promoted skilled immigrants to come to the US and start businesses. Trump could easily remove or amend that, which would slow some Asian immigration. To slow it more, he'd have to change laws on student visas and work visas.

Vlerchan
November 9th, 2016, 10:54 AM
To slow it more, he'd have to change laws on student visas and work visas.
I was thinking about the H1B1 programme in particular, since a huge number of Indian and Chinese workers enter the United States as part of that.

I do also wonder about my own status, as someone from a country with a recent history of terrorism. J1 visas will probably be eliminated, irrespective, that was promised during the campaign.

Porpoise101
November 9th, 2016, 05:07 PM
I was thinking about the H1B1 programme in particular, since a huge number of Indian and Chinese workers enter the United States as part of that.

I do also wonder about my own status, as someone from a country with a recent history of terrorism. J1 visas will probably be eliminated, irrespective, that was promised during the campaign.
I'm not sure. One of the biggest things that happened on Capitol Hill during the Obama years was getting Silicon Valley involved in US politics and influencing politicians. I doubt they will be very happy that their supply of skilled workers would be cut off.

I'm not sure how Congress will react to his proposals; I have half a mind he won't follow through on half of them. While Trump may not be influenced by special interests (or so he says), his fellow Republicans in Congress surely are. Already there is a fight over term limits, and the party is already having some tension. The next two years at least I feel will be defined by how Congress reacts to Trump and other factors. If they are more swayed by Trump, then Asian immigration may just falter. If not, things will be mostly the same.

Uniquemind
November 11th, 2016, 06:04 AM
I'm not sure. One of the biggest things that happened on Capitol Hill during the Obama years was getting Silicon Valley involved in US politics and influencing politicians. I doubt they will be very happy that their supply of skilled workers would be cut off.

I'm not sure how Congress will react to his proposals; I have half a mind he won't follow through on half of them. While Trump may not be influenced by special interests (or so he says), his fellow Republicans in Congress surely are. Already there is a fight over term limits, and the party is already having some tension. The next two years at least I feel will be defined by how Congress reacts to Trump and other factors. If they are more swayed by Trump, then Asian immigration may just falter. If not, things will be mostly the same.

I'll report what news comes from that area. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

I have older friends working in Silicon Valley now, we shall see.