AMERICANS, we are losing Mexicans. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, more Mexicans exited the United States than entered it from 2005 to 2010. I conclude that aggressive tactics to encourage "self-deportation" work. Deportation (the regular jackbooted kind), border walls, surveillance drones, harassment of brown people with or without suspicious accents, all of it! And recessions. Recessions, too. Recessions mostly, maybe. And maybe not. America's economic downturn is a big part of the story, but it's not the whole story. Mexico has an economy, too. And it's not going so badly there, which is one reason we should not expect Mexican immigration to return to trend as American growth and employment returns to trend. As Michael Barone argues:
The Pew analysts hesitate to say so, but their numbers make a strong case that we will never again see the flow of Mexicans into this country that we saw between 1970, when there were fewer than 1 million Mexican-born people in the U.S., and 2007, when there were 12.7 million.
One reason is that Mexico's population growth has slowed way down. Its fertility rate fell from 7.3 children per woman in 1970 to 2.4 in 2009, which is just above replacement level.
Meanwhile, Mexico's economy has grown. Despite sharp currency devaluations in 1982 and 1994, its per capita gross domestic product rose 22 percent from 1980 to 2010.
Mexico, like the United States, experienced a recession from 2007 to 2009. But since then, Mexico's GDP has grown far faster than ours -- 5.5 percent in 2010 and 3.9 percent in 2011.
Mr Barone goes so far as to argue that, since the era of mass Mexican immigration is over for good, the shape of the immigration debate in America will never be the same. "The key immigration issue for the future", Mr Barone maintains, "is whether America, like our Anglosphere cousins Canada and Australia, will let in more high-skill immigrants." I'm not so sure American worries about visits from our Mexican neighbours will fade this much, but it does seem likely that Republicans in this year's primaries have been fanning nativist embers bound to fade, perhaps at great cost to their electoral prospects.
Anti-immigration sentiment is reliably inflamed by recession. A shrinking economic pie inspires paranoia about out-group designs on the natives' dwindling shares. But as growth and employment pick up, Americans will rediscover our traditional expansive spirit of welcome. And as awareness spreads of the retreating tide of Mexican immigration, even the least hospitable among us will lighten up a little.
Yet Mitt Romney is stuck with debate clips in which he goes on about "self-deportation" and bullies Rick Perry for displaying the compassion and good sense born of his experience governing a border state. Mr Romney needs to improve his position among Hispanic voters; he trails Mr Obama by about 40% in the polls. And, as my colleagues point out in this week's print edition, Hispanics "account for over 20% of the population in several swing states, including Colorado, Florida, Nevada and New Mexico" and Democrats are looking hungrily at Arizona, which has put in place controversial measures against illegal immigration now before the Supreme Court. So you can be sure Mr Romney is giving this Etch-A-Sketch a good shake. Will it help? Michael Tomasky of the Daily Beast says it'll help a little, but not a lot; Mr Romney certainly won't match George W. Bush's 42% of the Hispanic vote:
Romney ... will make some moves that will impress the largely white commentariat, and he'll bump up a little among certain high-income Latino demographics. But average Latino voters, men and women who work really hard every day for white bosses, are just going to find that he reminds them too much of the guy who docks their pay when the bus comes late. And they won't be wrong—he basically is that guy. There's no overcoming that. He's a 31 percenter at best.
My colleague adduces some supporting considerations:
... Democrats are doubtful that Republicans can win over many Hispanic voters. “You can't do it when at a very baseline level you make American citizens feel unwelcome in their own country,” says Joaquin Castro, a Democratic state representative from San Antonio, Texas. It will not help that in the middle of the campaign the Supreme Court will draw attention once again to the Republicans' obstreperousness on the issue by ruling on the Arizona law.
Buena suerte, Mr Romney!
(Photo credit: AFP)
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
Not all immigrants from Mexico are criminals. Some have been here years without any record for any crimes that just want to provide for their family and be safe. They do noy have that luxury in Mexico. Imagine if the tables were turned? We are the land of opportunity, right? What about the honest immigrants? I am an american thats still believes in God and the wrath of God.
The push to bring in and force illegal immigrants to leave is a matter of economic power. In economic health, the drive of economic powerhouses brings them in and in recession, the drive to remove risk from the governments books drives them out. We are brainwashed to think they are all bad, or criminals, however, the largest gang in the country, which is mexican, constitutes only 50000-70000 members; throw in a few odd thousand for other criminals, and it still comes no where near the total population. We are not being preached laws for order, we are being preached laws for the powerful to gain profit. If my friend is arrested, and I did not know he was a criminal, does that mean I should go to jail as well? The immigration process is so much harsher and different for peoples from the carribean, central america and south america than for others around the world it is ridiculous. We have smoke and rhetoric blown in our face while an entire population of people are basically used as a commodity. The testing process for getting in is a test most americans wouldn't pass, and the attitude we have towards them is the result of constant propaganda against them; thus, we are as much controlled and treated the same as them by people with power, and the only difference is an illusory status placed on both of us, with no input of ourselves. People born here are encouraged to stay here by being given legal status, simply because they most likely haven't been influenced by forces outside of this "machine". In short, america has lost its character. America was never supposed to be the most powerful, or the most influential country in the world. Even if only for themselves, it was fought for by people who believed in making it a bastion of freedom and personal liberty, and limited control to keep the peace, not rule the most important aspects of life, to be preserved at all costs. Convince your subject that he is free, and he is truly enslaved. Say you are free, and become the ultimate middle man, and both the producer and the supplier will be bent to your will. That is the logic behind power.
Hispanics and illegal aliens are not equal! A Hispanic is an American citizen....an illegal alien is a criminal! Stop placing Hispanics (American citizens) and illegal aliens (criminals) in the same categories!
Ironic, considering the Romney family history of border crossing.
Dear Sir(s) and or Madam(s),
I find this article most amusing. In his private life Mr. Romney is secretly pro-immigrant labor, he hires undocumented immigrant laborers because they work cheap. It was a public secret during Mr. Romney's term as Governor of Massachusetts that the Romney family employed undocumented immigrants as gardeners and domestic servants.
He is a shrewd businessman, Mr. Romney, always the first to exploit cheap labor, never afraid to take advantage of a good deal.
Well, I suppose it makes sense. The simplest way to deport people is to deport their jobs.
Mexican migrants are economic migrants. Nowadays almost all migrants into the US are moved by economics, not ideals.
Let´s say almost 100% of the Mayflower´s settlers came for idealistic reasons: to build a better society in which to live as compared to the Old World they left behind.
As centuries passed the freedom differential gradually leveled out. Today you could make a valid point that personal freedom is greater in several nations than it is in America.
The standard of living differential has leveled off as well, only that not as fast.EU pci PPP as of right now is still only 70% that of the US. Still, that´s small enough a difference for immigration flows to stop: few Europeans would move to America just in order to boost their incomes by 30%.Would you move to Luxembourg to achieve a 30% income increase? Please remember it is the chance of getting such an increase, nothing is assured, and in fact first generation immigrants rarely achieve average standards of living in their host countries.
Migration to America by the peoples who built America in the XVIII-XIX centuries has lost its economic justification. As for the pursuit of freedom and wish to establish and live under a good government, people arent´t as yet moving from Texas to Switzerland because of the language barrier, lack of imagination...and stringent Swiss immigration requirements.
Income differentials between the US and the Third World still make immigration worthwhile. Peru´s PPP pci is about 20% that of the US. Thus an average Peruvian will see his income multiplied by 5 if he comes to the US and achieves the average level of American income. If the US freely opened its borders as it did for most of the XIX century literally hundreds of millions-plane tickets are extremely inexpensive compared to what transatlantic travel cost in past centuries-would come in a matter of very few years. The vast majority of Americans would think of such a scenario as a nightmare: in four or five years to become a minority and be a stranger in your own neighborhood. Anybody in any other nation would feel the same if put under similar circumstances. But that wasn´t the case for XIX century´s America. As far as immigration is concerned, American exceptionalism is over.
Immigration is ruled by those three variables: income differentials, barriers of entry and freedom/good government differentials. The freedom differential accounts for a small share of the volumes of immigration, but a significant share in the volume of achievement of the immigrant flow itself. For example Central-European Jews in the pre-WWII Nazi era came to America while giving up a superior standard of living, just in search of freedom. And eventually they achieved well above their share. Same could be said of religious settlers in the XVII century or Cubans in the 1960s.
But immigration is one thing and assimilation quite another.
Assimilation has to do with two variables: how welcoming the original population is to the new arrivals and how the new arrivals judge the culture that surrounds them by comparison with the one they left behind. In a well-connected world the Old Culture lingers on. In a society were intra-ethnic relationships, marriage and neighborhoods are the preferred option, assimilation will slow down and ethnic stratification will become a defining factor. But the key variable is the perception by the immigrant of the New Culture into which they come. Take Italians in the early XX century: they lived in ghettos and married mostly intra-ethnically, yet becoming an average American was a cherished goal: the achievement of a superior way of life. Third generation assimilation was the result.
The American Way of Life is no longer viewed as overwhelmingly superior by Latin Americans, nor by most ethnic groups coming into the US, except for those originally from the most backward places of the planet, of which there are few, since they can not even afford transportation costs or entry barriers-lifting mechanisms (be it smuggler´s price or ICE requirements).
When only 7% of the American public approves of the US Congress and a majority of Americans think the country is on the wrong track, why should anybody be surprised immigrants no longer think the American way of life is the best and only way to go? Especially when the rest of the world is catching up.
Believe or not there is a somewhat organized attempt at inflating the perceived value of today´s American Culture through propaganda, for example in the media and particularly through the US-based TV Spanish-speaking networks. This is again counter-productive, for only the feeble-minded buy into propaganda in general in any society, while most are impervious and those of better understanding are angered by it. Propaganda is like printing money: it doesn´t change the fundamentals and over time it may make them worse.
The freedom/good government differential therefore plays a bigger role in assimilation than in immigration itself. And right now it is uncomfortably small. A radical improvement in the American political discourse would change the equation, but we know the chances of that are slim to none in the near future.
What about the other leg of assimilation, the welcoming of the newcomers by the established population? We barely need to mention the obvious. Arizona´s laws and the incredibly irresponsible anti-immigrant demagoguery of the GOP has two results: to alienate the immigrant population into non-assimilation and to assure the Democratic party a monopoly on the representation of ethnic groups that as time goes by will give it unbeatable numerical strength. An obtuse tactic that can only be explained by the fact that able and realistic Rockefeller Republicans opt out of politics nowadays and stay in the private sector, while the mediocre linger, be they called Moon-Based Gingrich or Holy Man Sanatorium.
But I think the most damming factor that has turned the tables on the traditional American inclusiveness and resulting welcoming of the newly arrived is structural microeconomics. After all, riots against the Irish flood in the XIX century ended in bloodshed, something unthinkable nowadays-and for as long as the economy doesn´t slide into a new Great Depression-.Yet the Irish assimilated.
The difference is that for most of the XIX century immigrants settled in the frontier and when you have your farm and you are taming a wilderness, your neighbor is the guy who helps you recover your lost cattle, who joins in the defense of your land against evildoers, who does his share in the numerous public works that benefit everybody. Your neighbor is a welcome help, unless he is a total psychopath, in which case he will become an outlaw in no time. He may speak Swedish, German or whatever Alpine dialect, he can be a drunk or believe in any obscure religion: never mind that as long as he has a couple of good hands to help you out for your mutual benefit.
Today people mostly work for somebody else´s Corporation. When you are hired for a salary, any newcomer is an unwelcomed competitor that may take your job away and lower your wages. Even the people you grew up with are potential rivals and thus the friendship and partnership built on shared chores and shared profits dissolves into the very opposite: mistrust and isolation.
In this atmosphere for a demagogue it is enough to categorize humans into groups according to whatever label that describes them as a distinct minority and profit from the witch hunt. Illegal aliens, abortion clinics staff, Muslims, Gays, billionaires (of course this is the one group that can best defend itself)...any label that includes only a minority is good enough to rally against. The politics of divisiveness they call it now. Julius Caesar was more succinct: Divide and Conquer.
One possible solution would be to institute a production model based on small and middle-sized companies, partnerships when possible .If I design and build brake pads any expert on ceramics that helps me improve the quality of my product will be welcomed, and as we work together, make money together and depend on each other chances are we´ll get along very well. If he happens to be born in Sri Lanka or follows the teachings of Buda, that will awaken my curiosity rather than my aversion.
A society in which economic production is based on small, competing worker-owned units (like XIX century small-farm America was) will be democratic, inclusive and welcoming of immigrants. A society in which the means of production are owned by a few and managed by even fewer hands will inevitably slide into abuse, self-perpetuation of a birth-based rather than merit-based aristocracy, oligopolism and stagnation. Government intervention to preclude this outcome that is already upon us through company-size regulation and forcible break ups depending on economy of scale calculations would help solve many societal and even economic problems.
In the unlikely event that the US goes that extra mile and reinvents itself, the American Dream would once again be a distinct and better option with respect to other nations´ standards; indeed in the same way that XIX century America was a European Melting pot and attracted the admiration of the Old Continent, XXI century America could become a World melting pot and be a beacon for the whole planet. Otherwise it will just be a somewhat convenient if ever more anachronistic place for some immigrants to make a few bucks and more or less get by while the rest of the World catches up and then gets ahead on different ways.
Regarding the narrow subject of Mexican migration, I believe it is pretty much over. The reason is demographics, as well as the three aforementioned variables: income differential, freedom/good government differential and barriers to entry.
The barriers to entry have become truly prohibitive. I remember twenty three years ago I was as much an XVIII century libertine as today, although of course the years do weight on us...well, the point is that I picked up this tropical girlfriend and drove her all the way to Tijuana, Mexico. I wanted her to stay with me for a couple of months and after that part our ways happily, as indeed happened. Entering the US at the time was so easy some people didn´t pay any smuggler: they just ran at night and if they were lucky and made it to the southern suburbs of San Diego that was the end of the story. In my case I just walked to the border fence and soon enough found a coyote. He would cross the woman over to the US for...Forty dollars. Pay on delivery. I kissed her goodbye, drove to the legal border entry, drove back into the US and parked my car in the place I had arranged with the smuggler: a gas station near the border. I was pretty much falling asleep when around 2:00 a.m. the "coyote" knocked on my door:"Here´s the girl, give me the money". And that was that. She had a good time but didn´t seem to enjoy the way life in America was lived: after a few months(she was already on her own) she went back to the sun, the warm sea and the palm trees and never returned.
I was in the same border about two years ago or so. It looks like the Berlin Wall now. The price to cross is 3,000 dollars-a 75 fold increase. If people are caught, which is most of the time, they scan their fingerprints and threaten them with long jail terms. Ranchers often shoot at migrants at night in the mountains. Crossing has become so difficult people go through the desert now: I have met some who have walked across the Sonoran desert for as much as six days, drinking who knows what stuff they dig up from under the saguaro cacti. The enormity of such an ordeal is almost unfathomable unless one has at least driven with the air conditioner off through that forsaken desert that seems as if a transplant from another planet. By the way, migrants who try to sneak over on their own without paying a coyote are routinely shot dead by smugglers. Regarding ICE, they treat them worse than cattle.
As for freedom differentials, clearly for a Mexican the government of his own country will treat him far better than that of the US. Unless he is into drug smuggling, in which case he probably has money enough to get a legal visa, his chances of being incarcerated, pulled over, questioned and so on in Mexico are negligible, while in America, formerly the Land of the Free, he will always be a fugitive looking above his shoulder. He will not be able to start a business, legally sell a service nor get employment without breaking the law. He can not even drive a car-well, he could, but as soon as he gets pulled over, which will be soon enough, he will be in trouble.
As for the income differential, I was crushing a few numbers last week of a number of nations including Mexico. It seems in 2002 the PPP pci for that nation was 25 % that of the USA. By 2011 is was 31% that of America.(The figure for ill-behaved Argentina is 36%, for Spain 63%, for Japan 71%, for the EU as a whole 70%, for Germany 79% and for Norway 111%, all pci PPP).
On current trends for the last decade in another ten years Mexico´s PPP pci will be around 40% that of the US.(Germany 86%,Norway 144%).Immigration to the US is only worthwhile for a poor Mexican peasant, since most of the middle class would not be able to get in America the kind of jobs that would make enough of an income difference to make the hassle worthwhile.
But here comes the decisive variable: fertility rates. In line with the Pew findings, the average Mexican woman had over 7 children in her life in 1970, but only 2.4 now.
This is a momentous change. Imagine a peasant. He can barely make ends meet. He can probably find land for two or three of his kids to farm, but the rest simply have to go away and find something else to live on. And they did. Most went to the cities and a sizable portion immigrated to the US. Compare that with an urban Mexican family of 2012 with two children. The most valuable property most people have is their home. At least one of those two kids will be able to inherit a home in due time. He or she will not be destitute. Now imagine they are the two kids sons of parents who only had one brother or sister. Chances are they will all have houses to inherit as well as other property. The standard of living has increased. Their parents will most likely be able to give them an education or enough capital to set up a small business. The Chinese instituted the one-child policy for a reason. At the very least per capita wealth doubles every generation as population decreases.
People emigrate in their youth. Once they are middle aged either they already own houses with or without mortgages to pay, have jobs they are reluctant to loose or have set up businesses they can not do without. Or else they are too worn out to go on an adventure whose happy ending is far from a foregone conclusion. They are likely to have children that need to be taken care of and generally about every reason not to disrupt their lives. And urban people are more reluctant to emigrate. If a subsistence farmer emigrates he can always return to his land after a few years and keep on farming. Perhaps he brings with him enough money to build an inexpensive house or buy a car, cattle and so on. An urban dweller when emigrating looses his job and his seniority. When he returns unless he brings with him enough money to set up a business-far more than what a subsistence farmer needs- he will be forced to look for a job in disadvantageous conditions since he is on his return older and may have lost skills. In a corporation-dominated working environment, he has lost his most productive years, his opportunities to advance, and chances are he will be placed in an inferior job. It is not in the interest of the average income urban worker to emigrate unless the income differentials are very high, which is not the case between the US and Mexico, even less if the barriers to entry are as stringent as they have become.
Mexican mass migration in the past was the result of that 7.4 fertility rate. Five of those seven children had to go somewhere. And the wild devaluations of 1982 and 1994 left many people with nothing to loose. Now the economy although far from brilliant is stable enough for people to get by within the standards they are used to, and those extra five kids that had to be sent some place simply do not exist anymore.
Mexican migration has stopped, and it´s not a fluke. It is unlikely it will pick up again. There simply aren´t enough candidates.
I hope I didn´t bore you guys to death.
No one's going to read this all. This would make a unmanageable blog post, never mind a comment.
slow clap... I disagree with a few of your stances, but you are right in that propaganda works not by presenting one variable, but several confounding variables to attack and change overall character, to the point that the country thinks that making a some discrimination socially unacceptable constitutes a free society, where labels are tossed around for people to make sense and feel grounded in this confusing and engineered environment.
THE MEXICAN EMIGRANTS THAT I KNOW WENT TO USA KNOWING THEY HAD A JOB OFFER, IN MUST CASES THAT IS WHY THEY BORROW 3 TO 5 THOUSANDS DOLLARS TO GET THERE, WHEN THERE IS NOT JOB OFFER THEY DON´T HAVE THE INCENTIVE TO RISK.
Most keyboards are equipped with a key above the shift key known as the "caps lock" key. Pressing this will return your keyboard to its default of lowercase letters.
Regards, The Usual Suspect 2.0
The issue of the illegals is probably overblown by many politicians to polish up their vote-catching racist credentials. Many illegals are probably stuck in a joblessness Nirvana with no money to buy a ticket home.
Whoa. Whoa everybody. Stop everything and look.
Happyfish18 has said something that made sense.
Its interesting that as several people have pointed out in the comments that its not just illegal immigration on the wain, it's also much harder for well educated and skilled workers to move to America. Anecdotally of my Irish friends a large percentage of whom have emigrated and are highly skilled (valuable degrees, second languages and work experience) have moved to Canada & Australia, or Asian and found work relatively quickly, many have long term residency, where as none have moved to the US due to the draconian nature of the more recent residency/work laws. This is surely a large handicap to a country that has a long history of immigrant innovators and buisness owners, not to mention scientists and researchers.
I don't know about Australia, but in Canada its always going to be more difficult to find work in Canada than America, even during good times. Its a much smaller population and market. I know many people on H1B Visas in America immigrate to Canada, because they couldn't get an Greencard. They told me in Canada its easy to get a PR, but more difficult to find work in your field.
Imagine the economic catastrophe facing the US if it had the same demographic prospects as Japan (a 30% decrease in population by 2040 instead of the 30% increase that the US expects).
The fact is that most of this population increase will come from Hispanic immigrants.
So do we keep them uneducated (working as janitors and farmhands) OR do we make sure they get a decent education (and become globally competitive professionals paying for our social security)?
Exactly. America was about acceptance and freedom, and establishing a sense of brotherhood that transcends our sensory pathways. When all who wish for freedom stand with logic and character, the obfuscations of the power hungry fade, and corruption destroyed.
About 13 percent of the world's adults or more than 640 million people say they would like to depart their country permanently according to a Gallop poll. That’s an estimated 150 million of the world's adults have said they would like to move to the United States as the most desired destination for potential migrants. In a Pew Hispanic Center study that foreign nationals from South of our border have stopped pouring into the U.S., and the net numbers even indicate that they're going back home. More than half of Mexican-born people in the U.S. are illegal, and Mexicans make up nearly 60 percent of all illegal migrants here. What they haven’t estimated is the numbers of illegal migrants and immigrants from not just from across the border, but the visa overstay that have permanently settled here illegally. This isn’t just about foreign nationals from across our border, but the unwelcomed visitors from overseas; from every region of the world.
The federal government or any organization can keep spitting these numbers out, but if the avid reader does his own research, this is just numbers conjured up to pacify the American people. From what I have surmised the figures of illegal people here is well into 20 million plus. Any survey can be engineered to make it less than they are? Probably they are not counting the hundreds of thousands of ‘foothold’ babies, unborn or who gain immediate citizenship when they are conceived. The illegal Mother can immediately claim, all the same welfare services for the child/ children as any U.S. born citizen or naturalized citizen immigrant. Once situated the whole family moves into the Section 8 housing. Each state wherever the family settles is forced by unfunded mandates, for infant delivery, food stamps, entitlements and subsidized housing. All paid for by the already overtaxed population.
What is significant that if Arizona gains a positive decision from the high court of the land, there will certainly be hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens sweeping throughout the country, seeking desperately for a new place to live? Interesting enough these persons will head for states with no policing enforcement as California, Nevada, Utah, Washington State and locations that have ignored the pleading of taxpayers about the burden of tax costs. These states already suffering from massive deficits will soon be overwhelmed by more illegal’s, than they had already. California being the paradise, with no enforcement against sanctuary city ordinances. This is the epitome of ‘Poetic Justice’ as California, run by Liberal state legislators have deceived their own legal residents, to subsidize the illegal immigrant invasion. Voters must demand from GOP House speaker John Boehner and his elite class stop blocking the bipartisan E-Verify “THE LEGAL WORKFORCE ACT” from being initiated in Congress by Texas Sen. Lamar Smith. Taxpayers are continuously afflicted at the hands of dishonest politicians who have sold us into financial bondage by allowing illegal immigration to persist almost unimpeded in coming here. Less than 28 bipartisan co-sponsors are needed to head this to the House floor.
Although immigrants account for 12.5 percent of the U.S. population, they make up about 16 percent of the workforce. They are overrepresented among workers largely because the rest of our population is aging: Immigrants and their children have accounted for 58 percent of U.S. population growth since 1980.
Moreover, immigrants tend to be concentrated in high- and low-skilled occupations that complement -- rather than compete with -- jobs held by native workers. And the foreign-born workers who fill lower-paying jobs are typically first-hired/first-fired employees, allowing employers to expand and contract their workforces rapidly.
It's true that an influx of new workers pushes wages down, but immigration also stimulates growth by creating new consumers, entrepreneurs and investors. As a result of this growth, economists estimate that wages for the vast majority of American workers are slightly higher than they would be without immigration. U.S. workers without a high school degree experience wage declines as a result of competition from immigrants, but these losses are modest, at just over 1 percent. Economists also estimate that for each job an immigrant fills, an additional job is created.
It's worth noting that although the unauthorized immigrant population includes more people from Mexico than from any other country, Mexicans are also the largest group of lawful immigrants.
illegal immigrants are ineligible for in-state tuition at most public colleges and universities, putting higher education effectively out of their reach. And laws prohibiting unauthorized immigrants from getting driver's licenses or various professional credentials can leave them stuck in jobs with a high density of other immigrants and unable to advance.
Some things you should know:
The Union that represents Border Officials contend that if we provided enough visas to meet the economy's demand for workers, border agents would be freed to focus on protecting the nation from truly dangerous individuals and activities, such as drug-trafficking, smuggling and cartel violence.
Fact is, we need immigrants - "illegal" or otherwise.
As the Congress continues to squabble over mandatory E-Verify, the Obama Administration has issued a statement that it is getting ready to introduce a big expansion of the electronic application. A second law to support The Legal Workforce Act H.R. 2885 is to amend the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011 (H.R.140); the country cannot maintain in subsidizing billions of dollars being extracted from the 50 states? Bad politicians should be thrown out of office, not excluding state Governors, Mayors, Judges and all elected officials, and replace them with Fresh Tea Party leaders who will insure everybody gets their fair share of the American Dream and enforce all laws attributed to the Constitution and the Rule of Law. NumbersUSA is maintaining a data base of all related information and you should investigate their website for the latest news.
This is not just about Mexicans, but Asians, Europeans and others who have strained our compassionate welfare programs, that every state has had to cut back public assistance on US citizens and permanent residents, with green cards. It’s about anybody who violates a sovereign countries law? Both political parties are to blame for this conflict, as Democrats are out to lure more votes, legal or otherwise? The republicans are for larger profits of cheap labor from the business community, which has lowered wages for the average American worker. Either party can be trusted to perform correctly, that is why the Constitutional Tea Party is swelling daily with new members in thousands of chapters as people are despondent with the direction of this country. This nation is near bankruptcy and with a 16 Trillion dollar deficit owed to foreign investors; the interest is more than the GDP.
The Tea Party will enforce our immigration laws, that will represent the people, will introduce a well regulated farm bill so Guest Workers can arrive here and mandatory depart after their contract expires, with no amnesty. That the farming and agricultural industry will pay the benefits for their labor and not each state’s taxpayers. There will no importation of migrant poverty anymore, cutting off access to welfare programs. Another set of regulations to amend, would be a careful examination of the current visa system allowing around a million legal immigrants annually into the U.S. No further violation can be tolerated from businesses and we should only permit the highest brains in engineering, science, mathematicians and technology professionals to immigrate here.
That is assuming our immigration laws are just and fair to everybody, which they are not. Freedom is an idea and value, power comes with it, but it fails if it uses that power to define it.
You got that right, TE. Reverse immigration or self-induced deportation is gaining steam, what with the prolonged recession, showing no signs of letting up in the US.
Good news, I guess, for the paranoid, xenophobic, anti-immigrant, mean-spirited rightwing supporters, who blame minorities for all the problems facing the nation. Trouble is, soon they may have no one left to throw the blame on, or vent their frustrations upon!
There has been a concerted effort, I believe, to blur the lines between the topics of immigration and illegal aliens as though they are one and the same. It's dishonest. Many people are concerned about the cost of having so many illegal aliens in the US. Government assistance such as food stamps, emergency room health care plans, and public school educations are among the costs incurred. This is more about money than any kind of xenophobia.
Why wouldn't this work?
1. Announce a year (or two) from now illegal aliens will be deported in droves (--enforce existing law)
2. Announce heavy fines for employers knowingly employing undocumented workers (--enforce existing law)
3. Grant a huge increase in green cards so Mexican workers can come to the US legally, documented, and ready to pay taxes.
Despite a steady decline in the average household size and an improved economy, the US remains the "land of opportunity" for many Mexicans. The key factor that motivates Mexicans to seek work in the US is the wide disparity in wages between the two countries. Even at the lowest level of the employment scale, US wages are significantly higher than in Mexico. The current trend in reverse labor migration between the US and Mexico reflects the severe recession which impacted key industries that rely heavily on illegal immigrants - hotels, restaurants and housing construction. The current nativist sentiment (played over and over again in US labor history) will disappear quickly once the economy of border states such as Arizona improve. Arizona, in particularly, cannot have a sustain economic boom without Mexican labor. The bottom line is that Canadians move to the US for lower taxes and Mexicans move to the US for higher wages.
Of course the wages are lower, but life costs much less and in Mexico they hae all their health costs covered!
The Mexican average income is twice our minimum wage and the cost of living in Mexico is less than 25% of what it cost US. Their economy is strong and there are plenty of jobs. More Mexicans are going home than are coming to America.
Unfortunately, the rest of US have no place to go. Just more of the same and it is going to get worse.
except for those rendered unable to legally obtain jobs by the mexican government, those statistics, which are substantial, are not reported for the well being of the government and people like carlos slim.
Government's FUDGE the employment numbers? I'm SHOCKED! SHOCKED!
These are people who could have stayed, and would have if the policies of our government were better. These are people that could have made our country better.
-
What is going on here isn't that we are losing Mexicans- we are losing Americans.
I don't think those are the types of Mexicans who are leaving. I'd think it's the unemployed who think if they can't find a job here, might as well go back home to the family.
Then we should turn this country back into the land of opportunity. It is supposed to be a place where anyone with the determination to get ahead can. If they can't, then I think the people who've been allowed to run this country so far should be replaced.
Let's fix this economy, so that people will again realize that being an American is the better than being anything else.
Congratulations on your optimist idealism Publius.
But unfortunately, R.R. has a point:Mexican migrants are economic migrants.Nowadays almost all migrants into the US are moved by economics, not ideals.
Let´s say almost 100% of the Mayflower´s settlers came for idealistic reasons:to build a better society in which to live as compared to the Old World they left behind.
As centuries passed the freedom differential gradually leveled out. Today you could make a valid point that personal freedom is greater in several nations than it is in America.
The standard of living differential has leveled off as well, only that not as fast.EU pci PPP as of right now is still only 70% that of the US.Still, that´s small enough a difference for immigration flows to stop:few Europeans would move to America just in order to boost their incomes by 30%.Would you move to Luxembourg to achieve a 30% income increase? Please remember it is the chance of getting such an increase, nothing is assured, and in fact first generation immigrants rarely achieve average standards of living in their host countries.
Migration to America by the peoples who built America in the XVIII-XIX centuries has lost its economic justification.As for the pursuit of freedom and wish to establish and live under a good government,people arent´t as yet moving from Texas to Switzerland because of the language barrier, lack of imagination...and stringent Swiss immigration requirements.
Income differentials between the US and the Third World still make immigration worthwhile.Peru´s PPP pci is about 20% that of the US.Thus an average Peruvian will see his income multiplied by 5 if he comes to the US and achieves the average level of American income.If the US freely opened its borders as it did for most of the XIX century literally hundreds of millions-plane tickets are extremely inexpensive compared to what transatlantic travel cost in past centuries-would come in a matter of very few years.The vast majority of Americans would think of such a scenario as a nightmare:in four or five years to become a minority and be a stranger in your own neighborhood.Anybody in any other nation would feel the same if put under similar circumstances.But that wasn´t the case for XIX century´s America.As far as immigration is concerned, American exceptionalism is over.
Immigration is ruled by those three variables:income differentials, barriers of entry and freedom/good government differentials.The freedom differential accounts for a small share of the volumes of immigration,but a significant share in the volume of achievement of the immigrant flow itself.For example Central-European Jews in the pre-WWII Nazi era came to America while giving up a superior standard of living,just in search of freedom.And eventually they achieved well above their share.Same could be said of religious settlers in the XVII century or Cubans in the 1960s.
Americans can't become minorities by adding more Americans. All Americans will still be Americans.
Well said.Depends on assimilation, though.
I think that in turns depends on what you define as American. As far as I'm concerned, if you are willing to protect and defend this country, if you are here to try to make your own way, if you follow the law and treat others as Americans, then you are an American in my book, and I'd be proud to have you as a fellow citizen.
All the other differences are just a distraction. If we have that in common, then we are the same people.
Publius50- can you run for President? Please?
:) Publius50, I welcome you as a fellow american and a brother, regardless of anything else.
Maybe it's Romney that should have dropped out way back then. If he had just sat on the sidelines and let Gingrich and Santorum fight for the nomination, he'd have had a clearer shot in 2016. Oh well, too late for that I guess.
You are right, it is a strategy for Romney that might have been better. I am assuming that you think Romney won't beat Obama, but could have taken on the fresh person the Democrats will throw in the race in 2016. But the candidate to watch for the Republicans is Paul Ryan. A young, straight talking, intelligent guy with the conservative credentials, and has also spent a great deal of time as a legislator will probably be a shue in
So instead of Gingrich, Santorum, Perry, Cain, and Bachmann, Romney should've waited to run against Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, and Bobby Jindal?
You have to be kidding. The Grinch who wants to be the new owner of the Moon or Sanitarium, who desperately needs medication? The insanity level in America will get them 30% and the sheep will give them another 13 to 15%. We just don't have enough nutcases to make a voting majority. Yet! Remember, McShame and grizzly received only 43% in 2008. It was mind boggling that they did that well. Now, if the GOP had run Goofy and Minnie Mouse, they might have won.
Is that Elizabeth Shue-in?
Hey restrained. #1. We will never elect another Bush. Christie can't take care of his own body, why would we entrust him with the Nation. Rubio can't tell the truth or speak without notes and appeals to Cuban-Americans only. Ryan's financial ideas will grow the 1% while sending the rest of US into bankruptcy. Cantor couldn't get arrested outside of rural Virginia. And Jindal? His own words will reveal him as the joke he has become. Anybody else? The current GOP is lost in the extreme.
And for the Democrats, you have Andrew Cuomo and Joe Biden. Good luck with that.
That's all you have to offer?
Ridiculous.
Well, I personally don't think that Romney can beat Obama. I base this on the fact that I don't think that he can bring enough people to the poles in key southern swing states states like Virginia and North Carolina, and Florida is questionable for Romney also. It is likely that Obama is going to carry the other big states besides Texas. This includes Ohio, New York, Illinois, and of course California. It will be a closer popular vote than it was for McCain vs. Obama, but it is the electoral votes that count. Michigan and Pennsylvania will be interesting swing states to watch. And Romney will carry Texas and most of the rest of the south, but I don't think Mitt has the juice or the money. He will make a better showing than McCain, but McCain only ran, in my opinion, to save Romney for this election. This leaves 2016 wide open. The GOP has a rising star from a key swing state, and four years from now he will be able to run on how the democrats have bankrupted everyone in America with huge deficits, even though the deficits or most of them were hardly Obama's fault, at least as long as Obamacare gets dumped in the toilet and flushed by the Supreme Court like it deserves, and who do the Dems have waiting in the wings for 2016. I hardly think that Joe Biden will be a candidate in 2016. Hillary, who probably would have been better than Obama as president from the get go is going to be nearly 70. So I hardly imagine she'll be interested by that point. What will happen to the dems in 2016 will be what happened to the republicans in 2012. They'll get this great group of nobodies rounded up, who knows maybe Howard Dean will run again, and they'll duke it out durign the primaries, and it will be the candidate like Mitt Romney or John Kerry, It will be someone who is tolerable, but not a sure fire bet, and the Republican will have their boy that they have been grooming the past couple of years. Ole budget boy will have a solid platform and he will be well known, he's a Catholic which is a hundred times more tolerable than a Mormon to conservative voters, he is handsome, and clear talking, and he seems pretty smart with that good old Midwestern down to earth demeanor. All Paul Ryan has to not do in order to become President in 2016 is he must avoid any and all John Edwards types scandals.
You are out of your ryan-infected mind. He will be lucky to be re-elected to the House of Insanity, of which, he is a leading wingnut.
You are out of your ryan-infected mind. He will be lucky to be re-elected to the House of Insanity, of which, he is a leading wingnut.
"Rubio can't tell the truth or speak without notes and appeals to Cuban-Americans only."
1. I'm pretty sure he CAN tell the truth. Or are you talking about the Senate biography thing?
2. Why is the ability to speak without notes relevant? I seem to recall reading that Obama's pretty dependent on the teleprompter.
3. I'm not a Cuban-American, and I like Rubio.
You like Rubio? What's to like? Sound like you have been infected by Faux Snooze, limburger and the Ignorance Virus. I suppose you think Clarence Thomas is an American Patriot, instead of the bought and paid for traitor he and his wife have become to the 99%ers.
I don't watch Fox News, have no idea what Limburger is (a sort of cheese, Bing tells me) and have absolutely no opinion about Clarence Thomas.
As for why I like Rubio, his foreign policy standpoint appeals to me.
Limbaugh is a stinky, right-wing blowhard. Thomas has no opinion of any worth. What particular "foreign policy standpoint" are you referring to. Keeping the door closed to Cuba? An outdated and ridiculous policy.
Oh, you meant Limbaugh. You'll get no disagreement from me there.
And no, I meant continuing and expanding the US's efforts to protect and spread prosperity and democracy. In the case of Cuba, Rubio's wrong. I'll concede that.
It would be to the US's and the Cuban people's advantage to take down the sanctions, although it might be a good idea to do so in exchange for some sort of limited political reform.
Do we really need to tell everyone else how they should live. Amerika has it's own tsunami of a mess to repair. Like becoming a government of, by and for all of US. We are and have always been a plutocracy. The democracy BS handed out by the government is nothing but brainwashing of the ignorant. Why else have we dumbed down our education system? The GOP needs idiots every couple of years to vote for them. They don't spend billions on brainwashing because they need to get rid of a few bucks.
Cheers
obfuscating political rhetoric does not constitute a point; all attacking the character of a candidate achieves is not obtaining a perfect candidate, only the best at pretending to be perfect.
Is that who you want for office?
Democracy in America is and always has been a myth. We began by allowing only White landholders the right to vote. Women, children, people of color; they didn't count. America is a country where the wealthiest and their corporations are the new Royalty and not in name only. Exploitation and Greed Rule. They control everything and with student loans growing uncontrollably, we will soon become a society where our most educated Citizens will be indentured servants.
Nothing like starting out life owing $100,000, with a job you could have gotten if you dropped out of High School, and a law preventing eliminations of that debt through bankruptcy. Europeans, you should count your blessing to be living where you are. I would join you if I could. One thing, too much austerity will kill your economy. The Conservative Brits are waking up to that fact today.
Cheers and Good Luck
which is why I am trying to leave USA for Germany, to try to avoid having huge college student loans.
I could not agree more. America has morphed into the land of corporate slavemasters & indentured economic slaves, struggling to meet their debt payments, till death do part..
The incredible irony is that hordes of greed-stricken & delusional 'rich-wannabes' live in mass denial of this tragic truth, egged on by their mannipulative corporate slavemasters, who dangle the 'economic-freedom' carrot in their bedazzled faces, even as they work them to the bone, in pursuit of their self-serving agendas.
Let the con games continue!!
Germany's is great. Check out Sweden and Norway. Their Education systems are terrific and their economies are very strong. And, best of all, they are hiring. Good luck.
Cheers
Until you naturalize in Germany, Big Brother 'll find you, plus you might not get credit in Germany if you move there, and in Germany getting an apartment, or any type of housing, plus a phone, internet, extraordinarily expensive car insurance, anything and everything over there requires credit checks. They are likely worse than we are in the U.S. about the whole thing. Also, until you obtain German citizenship the IRS can garnish your wages and tax returns. If you want to avoid creditors you should join the military in the U.S. Then you would have the servicemens and sailors relief act where they lower you interest rates automatically, which military lawyers will help you fill out. Also the services each have there own loan repayment program, and you might qualify if you graduated to go to Officers Candidate School.
Well, the government has always been bought and sold. The constitution had provisions enshrining slavery because the rich wealthy landowners had the predominance of political power in the country when the document was written.
From about 1950 to 1980 is really the only time in history when the money powers didn't control the government part and parcel, and even then you had the Vietnam war which was essentially about selling munitions and making millionaires into billionaires by awarding them government contracts. As Eisenhower called them "the military industrial complex" still ruled the day even during the golden age of milk and honey in America.
So we have always been owned by big moneyed slavemasters and will likely always be indentured economic slaves. It's the American way and it has now been globalized.
Hey Craig in 20 years your college loans, at least the Federal ones will be forgiven. At least you have something to look forward to. Don't give up hope buddy. Everything will work out in the end, maybe.
I appreciate the depths of your comments. However, federal loans do not just disappear. You will pay them or they will follow to your grave. That is why they cannot be included into a personal bankruptcy.
Time to free US slaves. Let the Revolution Continue...
I appreciate the depths of your comments. However, federal loans do not just disappear. You will pay them or they will follow to your grave. That is why they cannot be included into a personal bankruptcy.
Time to free US slaves. Let the Revolution Continue...
Sweden and Norway are hiring and are beautiful Countries to live and have a Family in.
Check out Stockholm, Sweden. Join them and receive a minimum of 5 weeks vacation, Holidays, sick leave, 16 months of maternity leave, education available through PhD, healthcare, excellent daycare @$45 per Child, per month, clean Air, Earth & Water. I can go on...
Exposed my case: I am mexican, when I was a child, my family were poor, but they never migrated to USA. Me and my older brother was educated by Public Schools. Since 16, I have been studying and working. Thanks to the public education, I've got a degreee and later, a Master, LL.M., My brother is an ingeneer. He actually is working in a supplier carmaker in GTO. Like ours, there are many mexicans who are better from the past: well educated, middle class, and travel to USA to shopping, not working in low wages and prosecuted by ICE.
I wish my father would have done the same thing, oh well, i might have to be the one who returns the family back to México.