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:
Point of fact: not all hispanics are obsessed with the "plight" of mexican ilegal migrants.
The Florida cubans are obsessed with Castro and Cuba.
The Florida Venezuelans are obsessed with Chavez and his cancer.
The Puertoricans in Florida and elsewhere are obsessed with the massive identity theft rings that victimize them and their kids to feed the illegal immigrant documentation market.
And most other native-born hispanics are obsessed with the non-existent economic recovery and making an honest living.
The best thing about mexican self-deportation is that maybe the democrats will remember that there are other, native-born, hispanics that count, too.
The second best thing is that the real national-security aspect in immigration is the need to bring in skilled immigrants that can contribute to the econnomy as well as *retain* the best of the foreign students coming to study in America.
Neither are subjects that can be addressed while the two parties obsess over the mexicans. So, yes, let's get the debate back where it belongs: the needs of the country and its citizens.
With the possibility of a republican government and America's economic strife, maybe it is a question of the rats leaving the sinking ship?
Please take the "rats" figuratively!
If His Mittlessness is elected President, know that he is the Anti-Christ and the Apocalypse has begun.
They will be no place for you or the "rats" to run.
While I'd like to see more highly skilled immigrants coming to America as much as anyone else, it is pretty ridiculous to think that there isn't a place for the low skilled, low cost immigrants in the labor force. Honestly, if someone wants to come to the United States and help make this country a better place for all its residents, I really couldn't care less where they come from.
There are a lot of people in the US who have a completely undeserved sense of entitlement that I would trade for a couple skilled, educated and hard working folks from around the world in a heartbeat.
if they come legally i all for it/ Howver immgrants help keep wages down
Wow! "Republican obstreperousness!" Quite a concept.
You mean these horrible racists are having the gall to pass laws that actually enforce their existing laws?
What next? Americans actually wanting to be in charge of their own country?
Next thing you know, the people of India, Australia, Germany and even China are going to be asking their illegal immigrants (oops, I mean undocumented workers) to obey their laws too.
Disgraceful!
America was CREATED by SETTLERS. Not "immigrants". Who here knows the difference?
The settlers used force?
Thomas Paine and Alexander Hamilton were immigrants by any definition.
Eh.. Settlers have been killing aborigens whenever they need some more land?
Sure the settlers used force. such is the history of the world. Now - the Land bridge Asians used force against the Europeans - and against each other. The Europeans used force against the vicious, treaty-breaking repeat offender Land Bridge Asians.
Research "Solutreans" sometime, why don't you? Try to keep up with the latest data, will you?
Paine and Hamilton were SETTLERS. You don't know the difference.
Genocidal maniacs?
Sure, they were settlers, buy what you count as settlers are less than 10% of population today. What about all the european immigrandts that came after US' independence?
They., too, have been SETTLERS. They came to contribute, and build.
The Post 1965 Desroy America Act broght in millions of un-assimable hostile aliens, who came to GET. And the illegals? TAKETAKETAKETAKETAKE. They are thieves. They take infinitely more than they contribute.
You can't impose your subjectivity as objectivity. Get real. You have a case of pretentious xenophobia.
Well, when you go threw all this crap about trying to bust these illegal immigrants and building up the boarder. The mexican population in the U.S. is going to fall, good bye most of the great cheap employment.
I don't know who or what you are - but you are absolutely DISGUSTING, and don't belong IN America. There's a lot more to a decent, successful Nation than "cheap labor" After all - you get what you pay for. Americans did fine wITHOUT Mexicans. Better in fact. Quality has dropped immensely, and the drop is in direct correlation TO so called "cheap labor. You, and whomever Recced your despicable post, need to move OUT of the USA. Move TO Mexico - or to a country that is loaded with "cheap labor" - if not outright slavery. Meanwhile YOU and YOUR ilk are despoiling MY country. So LEAVE.
I don't know who or what you are- but you are absolutely DISGUSTING and don't belong in America. There's a lot more to a decent, successful nation than keeping the Mexicans out. You, and whomever recced your despicable post, need to... do nothing. It's a free country, you can think what you like.
And I think you ought to leave MY country.
The perspective most of us have on immigration is heavily determined by our social class and where we live. If you are working class and have to compete with cheap immigrant labor regardless of their status it is natural for you to resent the depreciation of the worth of your labor and standard of living. If however you are affluent and benefit by the access to those cheap resources and do not live among the the poor immigrant population it is easy for you to be sympathetic to there plight and continued expanding populations. I also have noticed that until these immigrants started pushing out of the few states where they were once concentrated (California, Texas, New York, Florida) no one in the rest of the country seemed to care about the issue.
Oh yes the rest of the ountry DOES care. And the affluent beng sympathetic bit - those cooing noises mask the gloating, over getting cheap servants, with no rights, no stake, in the Nation
If I was Mexican, I would do anything and everything I could to try to get to the Los Estados Unidos. The only problem with immingrants is when they move they bring the third world with them. Also, alot of people resent the fact that they come here move into a ghetto live poor lives and then blame others who are more successful than them for their problems. Also, when in Rome do as the Romans do. For immigrants this means when you move to America learn English. As a language Spanish represents low economic status around the world. Even in Europe the Spanish are the poorest of all the Western European countries. Why would anybody insist on maintaining a language that represents poverty even on the world's richest continent? Hispanic immigrants who insist on keeping and using their language are just plain wrong, especially when they insist that we accommodate their linguistic inadequacies using tax dollars.
If I were to immigrate to Sweden I would learn Swedish. If I were to immigrate to Quebec I would learn French, maybe.
Just saying.
Actually, in 2009, real disposable income per household in Spain was within about 10-15% of the UK, Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, and Italy.
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=...
Before 9/11 it was very very easy to cross into the USA. Little by little it got much harder.
Illegal Mexican workers could cross back and forward to work in the US then return home to visit their families.
9/11 put a stop to that so many illegal Mexican workers brought their families to the USA because crossing the border 2 or 3 times a year was difficult. So part of the BOOM in Mexican immigration was caused by tighter borders. Now there's less work and more hassle in the US so many Mexicans are returning home with their entire family because their kids can't go to school, it's potentially dangerous to drive and the money being offered is less than it used to be.
There is a large element of self deportation.
About the economy of Mexico as an attraction: I DON'T THINK SO!
"Meanwhile, Mexico's economy has grown. .... its per capita gross domestic product rose 22 percent from 1980 to 2010."
Isn't that like 0.75 pa?
Mexico is a highly unequal society. A man earning about $450 -$550 US dollars a month(before tax) might think himself very lucky and above average for a no/low skilled worker. Meanwhile senior managers and Co directors receive $12,000 - $16,000 US dollars a month before tax plus a whopping car allowance etc.
It's a lot of very reluctant self deportation of men who sort of want to go home but know they face unemployment and underemployment for the rest of their life.
It shows that you don't know a lot of the mexican economy. Wages are lower, but also life costs. Health insurance is free, you can find great universities (free of charge) and the GDP Per capita increase is actually higher than 2% per year. But sure, we are one of the less equal societies, but have you checked how unequal is the US (also known as the former land of the opportunity)?
You;ve just revealed the TRUTH of this - the TRUTH - the Mexicans want ot go HOME.
mexico is their HOME.
Not Gringo Land.
Mexico.
That's WHY Americans RIGHTFULLY HATE THEM.
They are HERE because they, and their "leaders" in their HOME - CAN NOT create what Americans have creatged. They in FACT, destroy and undermine what Americans have created.
Theyu want to go HOME - but their HOME is a MESS.
They NEED to go HOME, and fix what's wrong with THEM.
THEY are destroying MY HOME.
MYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY HOME.
DeniseIam -- goodness such passion for your land --- you must be Cherokee? Sioux? Apache? Definitely not Mohican I saw the movie about the last one--
Hell man the recession put a stop to illegal immigration more than anything. They couldn't find jobs. Most of the illegals for about seven or eight years from say 2000-2007 were building McMansions during the housing boom. There haven't been any new developments in California, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Nevada or any of the other places that were booming for quite a while. They are just starting to sell all the houses that have set empty for the last three years. They left cause they couldn't find any jobs just like millions of other people. No sense being unemployed in America. It's not like things are cheaper here. Food and housing are expensive relative to Mexico's prices. They would have starved to death and been homeless had they stayed and not found work. That's why they left. 9-11 might have tightened border security a bit but for 7 years after 9-11 if someone really wanted to get into the U.S. all the security the government has wasn't going to stop them and it didn't.
She called herself a gringo. Isn't that supposed to be the Mexican way of insulting us gringos. Besides she right. Mexico has built what. They have done what. If you study American history, and I personally believe this, during the Mexican-American War when the U.S. liberated Mexico City from the evil Santa Anna,As far as the Mexican-American war went we just wanted to give them a good price for California, Arizona, and New Mexico and be done with the shit hole. It was a fair real estate transaction. It was a whole lot better deal than they got with Texas. We basically just stole Texas from ole Santa Anna. the Mexicans were celebrating in the streets because the gringos had arrived. The place was such a cesspool that the U.S. wanted nothing to do with it and we handed over the administration of Mexico to the French. When the Spanish conquered a place they didn't go about it the way the Anglo-Americans did. Us Anglo prefer whole sale genocide, the Spanish are all half-assed about conquering places. They preferred to mix and whatever. One thing about Mexico is that it is probably a whole lot better piece of real estate than the rest of North America. Most of what we bought from the Mexicans as a result of the Mexican-American War was desert and mountains. Look at what we have done with that crap, and what have they done with their plush tropical land?
Hell, Homeland Security rules make it tough even for USA-born Americans to return home after holidaying aboard. Not even Israel does that to its citizens.
No wonder people don't want to move to the USA; once you step foot outside its borders, you may never get back in -- and lose everything you've built.
America is no longer a free land. The UK, no doubt, may soon experience the same, if it already hasn't: Like the USA, too many security cameras and cops, too much racial/ethnic profiling, too much fear of foreigners.
America is not only losing Mexicans but several other nationals too. In the last five years more than 500,000 Indian, Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Australian and New Zealand professionals have left America. America is the place for making good bucks for all these immigrants; if they can get half of that income in their own motherland, they will love to go back and that what is happening since 2008 in America. For many immigrants; America is less suitable, morally, socially, politically and racially. They feel pain in their hearts that after pouring their blood to make America a America; still they do not get due credits and status. They have to work under pure American boss forever.
I wonder how long you've been in America, and where the heck you've been! I emigrated from India in 1969, and have never worked for a "pure" American boss! Rather, if they were, they never lauded it over me, and I never was or acted subservient. There are very few "pure" American bosses.
Your problem, I'll bet, stems from the fact that even after being here, working here, as you say "...pouring your blood to make America America...", you have never thought of yourself as "an American". Unless you do, all you'll have done is try to make the "good bucks" (as you call it), and then bail at the first signs of major problems. If it really "pained" your heart, and if you believed in yourself, you'd stay and try and fix things.
Have I "poured my blood"" No, not physically! Would I have? Absolutely! I served in the US Armed Forces for 27 years after coming here as a young 21-year old, with an education, a suitcase, and a lot of hope. I swore an oath, and I would have lived upto it.
Yes, America needs to ensure that it continues to pursue a liberal immigration policy. Heck, this country was built by immigrants, and is now run by their ancestors.
What America needs to also do is clarify the discussion on immigration. The discussion nowadays lumps all immigrants together, whether legal or not. The nation was built by immigrants; it must NOT be dismantled by ILLEGAL immigrants. As a legal immigrant, I am insulted by illegal immigration. I believe, and probably am in the minority, that every legal immigrant should feel insulted by illegal immigration.
America is a nation of laws. You don't enforce them selectively!
I am proud of my Indian background, and have raised my kids and grandkids to be so as well. However, I swore my allegiance to the US, and I am now an American! I similarly feel that dual-citizenship is hypocrisy! One person can only have clear allegiance to one nation (at a time)!
If you're unwilling to commit completely....pull the plug!
27 long years in American army can say much about you, your character and your mind. I salute you that being an Indian, you selected to join army at that age. But as far as American social system and politics is concern in other empliyment, America is not as good as people outside America think. Are you right in saying that working in American Army, you never had an American boss? But being an engineer, I worked with more or less "pure American bosses' all my 30 years in several different companies and since day one, I have faced unpleasant environment at my workplaces as far as social behavior is concern. Yes, I did shed my blood in making my self American and raising my children but some how not successful because of being Muslim, I have been scrutinized many times more than any other citizen, which is painful and very hard to accept.
In truth, the 27 years did not feel all that long. I enjoyed the spirit, the cameraderie, and the professionalism throughout. As far as it reflecting on my character, I'm not so sure. I'm like anyone else....but, I do take my oaths and commitments seriously.
I, too, am an engineer by schooling. Because of my education, I gravitated into more technical fields within the Army. Yes, I had American bosses....I just never bothered to find out whether they were "pure Americans"...as in, ancestors coming over on the Mayflower. In all likelihood, they were simply some generations removed from their immigrant ancestors. Some of them were Hispanic or black, but we were all just soldiers.
The point of my earlier post was that if YOU don't think of YOURSELF as an American, how can you expect others to think of you as such, treat you as such, etc.
I can understand that, being a Muslim, you are likely more sensitive to it....but, there is no nation which tries harder to be more sensitive to race and ethicity. Too sensitive, I feel, at times. But, then again, as often as I am searched or questioned, it has never bothered me. How could I, when I know and see that they are trying their damndest, to the point of stupidity....even pulling 4-year old kids aside?
You may have attempted to make a go of it in America. It certainly sounds like you have never meant her any harm....and I don't know you to say whether or not you really tried to assimilate. But, can you blame Americans for their hyper-vigilance? Yes, they go overboard sometimes; but most often it is because they are trying not to profile, to not be race-specific.
What if 6 Americans had flown commercial airliners into buildings in Saudi Arabia or (even) New Delhi? Do you not think that "whitey" would be profiled to the max, and far worse?
If pulling me out of line to search would make others feel safer, I would gladly be searched. But, then again, that is a mentality I had even in the Army. I would have died for people I never knew, because they were part of those I swore to protect.
You are right that because of 9/11 we Muslims have to face hard life every where in the world, beat more in the US. But what Bush-Cheney has done in Iraq just to take the revenge is childish, immoral, illegal and inhumane. Iraq war has not solved any problem but has created many more for not only America but the globe. Rather, he should have declared war on Bin Laden and Al-Qaida taking help and sacrifice of Muslims for that matter, the world would have been different. It is fact that Bin Laden and the war on terrorism has killed many times more Muslims around the Globe than any other and still Muslims are being called terrorists.
Thank you LPiplani
I am also a 30-year-ago legal immigrant, and you actually put it very accurately. As an immigrant, you know what it took to earn the right to come here and you love this country for giving you that right. ME TOO!
And now, the "undocumented workers" are pouring in. And maybe many of them are adding great value here.
But isn't it the right of Americans to decide who comes here? If every person who claims to be "adding value" can just walk in with no restriction, pretty soon there will be nothing left of what was once America.
What is a "pure" American? You mean a native American "Indian"?
"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."
It will be the same, we'll just replace Mexicans with the next wave of immigrants, as we've done many times before with the Irish, Italians, Chinese, etc.
Even in this, A.D. 2012, we have succeeded in making the purported "land of the free," "country where everyone can make it if they try hard enough," so unwelcoming to an entire group of people that they choose to leave it in greater numbers for an impoverished, drug- and crime-infested country with vastly worse outcomes in almost every meaningful indicator, than they choose to stay.
That's what 'self-deportation' means. Glad we're boasting about it. Great job, America!
While immigration has slowed, and the Mexican fertility rate has dropped, the birth rate of Latino-Americans isn't slowing at all. In Texas, 95% of the population boom we've seen over the last decade has been made up of Hispanics, the majority of which are home grown.
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2758
Its clear that the pro immigration Economist recognizes the short term pro growth benefits of an influx of unskilled labor. This neglects the fact that in Texas and other states, this has resulted in an ethnic generational gap in which a huge population of disadvantaged minorities makes us a lot poorer and less competitive. The booming population of children of the industrious hardworking immigrants who made the risky journey coming to the United States unfortunately often fall victim to the low class American gangster street culture of dependency they are raised in. A larger population of unskilled, uneducated, low culture dependents is not something that spells good things for the future of America.
are you for real?
Are you saying that you also fell victim to low class American gangster culture?
Nightscroft, your comment above is pretty racist stuff.
Anyway, I would just suggest that if your concerns are real, the answer is to seriously increase Texas' education spending, and to increase access of the poor to healthcare, to help ensure that immigrants and their children become economically-productive adults.
Unfortunately, I see that Texas thus far would prefer to go cheap on both counts, with generally predictable results, and to build a plutocracy of rich folks instead.
What exactly is racist about my comment? I've seen articles in the Economist about the deleterious effect that low class gangster street culture has on population. It glorifies the wrong sorts of things and inhibits kids ability to become educated productive members of society. Do you disagree? If so, why? And can you explain to me why you think this is racist? I've stated that I felt the US benefits from hardworking immigrants who come here. Its just that there children probably would have been better off being born in Mexico, rather than be exposed to low class America.
I would argue that your following comment, taken from above, is blatantly racist, and amounts to "dog whistling" -
"The booming population of children of the industrious hardworking immigrants who made the risky journey coming to the United States unfortunately often fall victim to the low class American gangster street culture of dependency they are raised in."
The first group is generally viewed as white ("risky journey" is a common description of the sea voyage from Northern Europe) -
While the second group ("American gangster street culture") is generally viewed as non-white.
And, you wrote that the first group is "often" a victim of the second.
Pretty racist stuff, actually.
Faedrus: You seem to intent on purposefully misinterpreting Nightscroft's statements. Anyone and almost everyone reasonably aware of the immigration issues would get the reference that was being made, risky journey on desert land! Based on personally interviewing many central american immigrants, I can assure you that Nightcroft's sentiments are echoed by the immigrant community, as sad as this may be. The debate does not proceed if we do not accept the facts - there is an education bias and race/immigration status seem to linked to it. Once we accept that we can find the best solution. At the same time, we can either use plain language to state the facts or unnecessarily qualify the statements to make sure that even the overly sensitive people do not feel offended, and then of course we will dilute and lose the content.
I was talking about Mexican immigrants whose children are having their family's native culture and values replaced by low class urban American street culture and values. I said nothing about Northern Europeans. I think you are paranoid.
Are you IN reality?
Quick - tell me the average IQ, and literacy rates, as well as EBT consumption, for Mestizos. And Negroes. Do it NOW. FAST. This the Economist n'est ce pas.
The PC term is "underclass."
I think from now on I'll just go with "low tide" and blame it on the Economist.
Nightscroft, you continue to make personal attacks on those who disagree with you. Ad hominem arguments are logical fallacies, and don't help your argument.
Anyway, urban American street culture is recognized as non-white. Eminem is an exception. If you criticize the culture, you're linking it to race.
In the meantime, regarding your reference to "a culture of dependency", high rates of Hispanic/Latino populations do not necessarily correlate to high rates of crime, as you seem to suggest.
For example, six of the top seven safest cities in the US (and some of the wealthiest) have a high percentage of Hispanics/Latinos - San Jose, El Paso, NYC, Austin, San Diego, and San Antonio.
http://www.morganquitno.com/cit07pop.htm
In the meantime, as the Hispanic/Latino population in the US has increased over the last twenty years, crime rates in the US have dropped. I'm not saying there's a correlation, however it's interesting to note.
Anyway, my polite suggestion is to reconsider comments such as "low class American gangster street culture of dependency".
Again, such comments appear to be uninformed, and racist.
"Anyway, urban American street culture is recognized as non-white. Eminem is an exception. If you criticize the culture, you're linking it to race"
I think you misread my initial comment and called it racist as a knee jerk reaction. You first somehow thought I was comparing Mexicans to Northern Europeans. I think you recognized your mistake and are now calling me racist for other reasons. You yourself seem to admit that low class urban gangster street culture is defined by people like Eminem. How is criticizing people like him or his black colleagues at all racist? They absolutely promote horrible lifestyles, drug use, laziness, crime, dropping out of school, etc. As another commenter pointed out, this is a concern shared by many Latino who see their native culture replaced by this low class urban American garbage in their children.
"In the meantime, regarding your reference to "a culture of dependency", high rates of Hispanic/Latino populations do not necessarily correlate to high rates of crime, as you seem to suggest. "
Did I say anything about crime rates? Do you suffer from some sort of dyslexia? I mean that very seriously, and not as a personal attack.
I think you are a racist Faedrus. The only way anyone could possibly construe what I said as racist would be if they assumed I was some white guy talking down on "lower black/hispanic culture". But why would you assume I am white? Is it because I am semi-literate and reading the Economist? You are the racist, Faedrus.
"...are now calling me racist for other reasons."
I said the language is racist. I have not said that you yourself are a racist.
"Did I say anything about crime rates?"
Yes, here -
"They absolutely promote horrible lifestyles, drug use, laziness, crime, dropping out of school, etc."
"But why would you assume I am white?"
Where have I made an assumption about your race?
"I think you are a racist Faedrus....You are the racist, Faedrus."
Interesting comment post. Okay, now my curiosity has been sparked. Where in my comments have I indicated racism? And, racism against whom?
You started talking about crime rates before i said that. You dont seem to be capable of following a logical progression of ideas. You assume I am white because otherwise how could anything i have said possibly be construed as racism. This must be because you assume no blacks or hispanics are literate and read the economist. Therefore you are actually a racist. Whatever though faedrus. Im sure the problem here is that you consider low class urban American culture to be the crowning achievement of civilization. No doubt you listen to hip hop, wear loose fitting clothing, sideways hats, and your home is decorated with spray paint graffitii. Please understand that many of us, including a majority in the latino community, do not feel the same way you do about this trash. Also understand that this has nothing to do with the race of these people. I think eminem is just as big a jackass as kanye west and puff diddy and every crook on the corner.
Nightscroft, this has been one of the more interesting TE comment threads I've been involved in in a long time.
Among things, you've put together a long string of bromides against urban culture, including this one -
"No doubt you listen to hip hop, wear loose fitting clothing, sideways hats, and your home is decorated with spray paint graffiti."
And then when I respond that such comments appear to be racists - given that such culture is broadly considered non-white - you're response is that I'm racist.
Interesting.
Anyway, here's a link you may want to consider, regarding psychological projection -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
Faedrus, i think some of the things you have said can only be described as bizarre. The accusation of an allusion to northern europeans perilous journey when i was clearly talking about latino immigrants was strange, and was the reason for my suspicion of dyslexia. You also need to learn the distinction between race and culture. One can criticize culture all day without being a racist. I can say that i hate the way certain middle eastern cultures place women in a subordinate societal role and not be racist against middle easterners( the fact that I have a french algerian wife largely confirms this). Likewise, I can say that low class urban gangster culture is deletrious to society without the least bit of racial animosity.
Faedrus, i think some of the things you have said can only be described as bizarre. The accusation of an allusion to northern europeans perilous journey when i was clearly talking about latino immigrants was strange, and was the reason for my suspicion of dyslexia. You also need to learn the distinction between race and culture. One can criticize culture all day without being a racist. I can say that i hate the way certain middle eastern cultures place women in a subordinate societal role and not be racist against middle easterners( the fact that I have a french algerian wife largely confirms this). Likewise, I can say that low class urban gangster culture is deletrious to society without the least bit of racial animosity.
I love your response. The people where you live must be so concerned with being politically correct that you just can't even fathom that someone would question the values promoted by low class urban street culture. In the hyper-cultural-relativist nightmare you call home, I'm sure people are just constantly anxious from trying to pretend that spray painting graffiti on a brick wall is just as worthy a form of artistic expression as anything in the NY metropolitan. You probably like to think that hip hop music about shooting the police, calling women ho's, doing drugs, dropping out of school, and being a criminal, is right up there with Mozart. You can't even imagine that someone would criticize these values. Its really pathetic.
The White domination of US politics and culture is over - face that, Whitey. An Hispanic/Black/Jewish coalition of Democrats now has a numerical lock on national politics. It doesn't get "better" from here, fellas - the reconquest of America by Latinos is baked in the cake.
So ask yourself this question - is it better to become an alien in your own native land and against your will, or to choose to become an alien by relocating to an alien place? I chose the latter.
"The White domination of US politics and culture is over."
As evidenced by the fact that 88% of the Supreme Court is white, over 75% of Congress is white, and a majority of the Executive Branch, including the Cabinet Secretaries and VP are white (with the President himself being 50% white)?
"An Hispanic/Black/Jewish coalition of Democrats now has a numerical lock on national politics."
Whites still provide about half of the Democratic vote...
And Republicans do, you know, control the House of Representatives, and Republican nominee Mitt Romney is tied with Barack Obama in national polls, so they're not exactly irrelevant.
"It doesn't get "better" from here, fellas - the reconquest of America by Latinos is baked in the cake."
17% of the country being Latino is a "reconquest"? My, you have a very low threshold for using the term "conquest."
"So ask yourself this question - is it better to become an alien in your own native land and against your will, or to choose to become an alien by relocating to an alien place? I chose the latter."
Good. This country lost an idiot when you left.
Oops, the Supreme Court is 77% white.
Clarence Thomas (an African-American) and Sonia Sotomayor (a Hispanic-American) supposedly represent the "Horde of Minorities" overrunning our country's positions of power...
Thanks for your reply, Marty. This is the most telling part of it IMO -
.
"Whites still provide about half of the Democratic vote..."
.
Non-Hispanic, non-Jewish Whites are pretty much the only identifiable ethnic group of size that divides its votes relatively evenly (within 60:40) between the parties. All the others are outside 70:30. The net effect of this to marginalize Whites (who cancel each other out at the polls) and place the others in a position of holding the balance of power - which they surely do. As the non-White share of the population rises, this control will only strengthen and eventually comprise a majority in its own right – with Hispanics being the numerically dominant group within that coalition. Congratulations, amigos – you win.
.
I suppose it's theoretically possible that the White current-majority could be persuaded to stand as a bloc, like the others, and reassert its control - but IDTS. Gotta' recognize when you're holding a losing hand and throw in your cards. I’d rather select for myself which part of the Third World life experience I’m to enjoy, rather than have it selected for me by default.
.
In any case, we’re each happy to be rid of the other, aren’t we?
America has 310 million people and has targeted having 450 million by 2050 - in about 40 years. Where will it get the additional 140 million people from if it is not attracting Mexicans? The European 'skilled and educated' workers that are spoken about will not come in numbers because of the ugliness of America. So the only other option is Asia. America will need to import people from China. That would also be good for US-Chinese economic ties. To have 20 or 30% Chinese Americans.
Errrr - why do we want that many people? You seem to think a cancer gorwth economy is a good idea. It's NOT.
What America NEEDS is Founding Stock Americans. America did GREAT until the Not SoGreatWave, and the 1965 Immigration Fraud Act. FOUNDING Stock Americans MADE America great.
"European 'skilled and educated' workers that are spoken about will not come in numbers because of the ugliness of America" - Are you kidding? I work part of each year in Europe and if the US had immigration policies like Australia's (where I now live) based primarily on skills and education rather than family relationships, there would be a mass wave of immigration of skilled and educated workers. The cultural pose of anti-Americanism (encapsulated in your comment) is often overcome by the desire for greater opportunity for success and higher standard of living (American middle-class lifestyles may not appeal to everyone, but they far outstrip their European counterparts materially). The fact that (to the great shame of the US) European primary and secondary (and, increasingly, undergraduate university) education is much better than American would also foster education/skills based immigration under such a scheme. Of course, the differential in opportunity between the US and Europe is narrowing as the Democratic party "Europeanises" the American economy (for reasons that are beyond me - they aim for an idea of Europe ca. 1970, but seem rather unacquainted with the current economic or policy situation). Which is why I now live in Australia...
I be happy if we had 50 miilion less tha we do now. A little more room.
I don't know why exactly but if you look at US government projections, that is the aim. I suspect it is because the Realist politicians will say that as US has more people it will have more international power. Another reason more people are needed is to pay of the huge debt from over-consumption - the economy will grow faster with higher immigration economists will say. Many are projected to be Latins but if the GOP restricts Latins then the US will have to get the people from elsewhere, or change its target.
Not large numbers of highly educated or skilled people would want to move to the US. Not those plugged into their local bit of European society which such people tend to be. Though its true that the unemployed or young from the periphery (Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Greece) might want the chance. Perhaps religious people would go too and those at the lower end would have done in the past but poor access to health and education and importantly falling median wages, high crime rates and a 60% chance of becoming obese by the age of 25 are turn-offs.
Unfortunately this actually is a weakness of the U.S. Even if we pretend otherwise, a good deal of our national growth comes from immigration. We need people to immigrate. If they don't it's like an Eastern European nation declining an invitation to join the E.U., damaging to the sense that the U.S. (or E.U.) is the place to be.
Also this just goes to show how dangerous making big assumptions on demographics can be for more than five years into the future.
maybe its time we better educated our own. Alos i doubt that the growth you speak of is all real. Whether they are H1-b's or laborers, immgrants is one of the reasons why wages have been stagnent. I freind of mine, a house painter, was complaining about having to compete againist those who hire illegals and could bid the jobs alot lower.
maybe its time we better educated our own. Alos i doubt that the growth you speak of is all real. Whether they are H1-b's or laborers, immgrants is one of the reasons why wages have been stagnent. I freind of mine, a house painter, was complaining about having to compete againist those who hire illegals and could bid the jobs alot lower.
I was referring to population growth and economic growth surrounding the immigrants. Unsurprisingly, states that have been the most harsh in arresting illegal immigrants have also seen the businesses that grew around them dwindle.
Additionally if illegal immigration was the cause of real wages* not increasing then we shouldn't have seen any increases over the past sixty years. Since the problem of wages started relatively recently (over the past few decades) and extends far beyond the blue collar work most illegal immigrants would be involved in I don't think the problem is solely from them.
*As opposed to the nominal value of wages.
wages stagnent from 1970 on. The first reason was a horde of boomers flooding the workplace. Then reagan took office and let in ten milion immgrants, not mention the illegal ones. basic econmics of supply and demand. If we reduce the number of foreign born labor, wages will go up because competiton for workers will increase.
This is exactly what happend after the black death in europe in the 1400's. landowners, gave serfs better pertentage of crops otherwise feilds would go fallow. A more ecent example would be the low unemployment 90's when jbs went begging. I saw fast food places offer benefits. Inseattle the help wanted pages would run 60 pages.
Let's not compare things as incredibly different as the Black Death and modern North American economics. The changes the Black Death created in Eurasia (particularly Western Europe) were nothing short of revolutionary. It makes about as much sense as comparing the War of Jenkins' Ear* to the Napoleonic Wars.
As for wages, that still ignores the fact that not many illegal immigrants work in middle-class jobs that have also seen stagnation.
*Yes, that was a war. There's some suggestion that the ear in question had never been cut off.
Many of the jobs they have taken have at meat packing plants construction etc. these jobs used to be middleclass.
No, that's considered blue collar work. In general the work that most illegal immigrants do -physically intensive labor- is considered blue collar work. Furthermore, this is still ignoring my main point. We have not seen many illegal immigrants work in statistics, computer programming, sales or other middle class work. Therefore we cannot consider the illegal immigrants to have been a major impact on the salaries of those jobs.
"And as awareness spreads of the retreating tide of Mexican immigration, even the least hospitable among us will lighten up a little."
They'll especially lighten up when, suddenly, no one in the US will want to pick apples, harvest lettuce, or work in slaughter houses.
I've done some of that, actually. It really sucks. Drove me all the way to grad school.
"Lighten up"? More likely, they will simple sieze the opportunity to denounce the laziness of the poor for not taking those jobs.
If past actions are indications of the future, the working poor will find less demanding jobs to do, and the US government will again be under pressure by business to open its borders.
I used to manage farms in an area where the vast majority of the labor was (and is) illegal, and seasonal. They would leave at the end of one season, and then arrive at the beginning of the next, like clockwork. For a border that was supposed to be secure, it definitely wasn't.
Per the comments of others on this site, my experience is that illegal immigration occurs in the US because of the labor needs of a dynamic economy at lower-wage levels.
There is also seasonal migration due to the weather - certain times the border is more hospitable to crossing.
You can actually see this evidenced via the rate of money transfers at casas de cambio; it's called the "Coyote Curve". When the weather is good, sponsors in the US send money over to the coyotes to bring their relatives/friends over. They're then held in safe houses until further payment is received to release them. Sadly, this often results in extortion and death when the US sponsor doesn't have the money to pay the newly inflated price for the release of their family member or friend.
I believe it.
While managing farms, a couple of those with whom I worked suggested that I change careers and become a Coyote, given that I was relatively fluent in Spanish, and the amount of money to be made.
However, I viewed it similar to being asked to become a cocaine dealer, and instead decided to pursue other, more honorable (and legal) career paths.
To play devil's advocate, an honest coyote would almost be a public service. If you kept your word on the rates to bring someone over, and didn't dump them in the desert to die or slaughter them after keeping them chained in a basement for weeks waiting for 10x what you said the original payment would be, you would be improving the general well being of those who would/may have come over anyway.
Of course, other coyotes would most likely attempt to kill you. Which is why I can't stand our idiotic purely symbolic stances on these type of issues; they allow thugs to run the black markets that we could instead leverage in a positive way (drug sales tax revenue, guest worker licenses, etc).
One of the more intelligent things I've ever heard about the US and it's economy is that - generally speaking - resources have "always" been cheap, and labor "always" expensive.
Hence the use of slaves early on, followed by mass immigration to populate its farms and factories, offers to "give me your tired, your poor", etc.
I was in Southern California last week, and virtually every single person I spoke to at a hotel, gas station, or convenience store spoke English as a second language. I would typically just speak Spanish because my Spanish was generally better than their English, and it made communication easier.
And, they're here for a reason. America needs the labor.
Once America admits it and quits politicizing this nonsense, the quicker it can come up with legal solutions to the problem, and decrease the social costs that such migrations naturally incur.
Agreed. Find out what the average cost is to immigrate illegally. Drop the price to 75% of that for a 6/12/18(?) month guest worker visa. More tax revenue, less crime due to gangs running the crossings, as well as the substantial creation of a victim population who cannot got go the police to report crimes.
But of course, that would mean we would be encouraging them to "take ar jerbs!"
Agreed, and agreed.
Having an Hispanic population which can increasingly tip elections makes a big difference, something alluded to in a great post by Nate Silver today.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/27/arizona-is-probably-...
Once that happens - and I think we're getting close - it becomes much for difficult for the issue to be demagogued on the Right.
And then suddenly, like magic, we'll all be for a legal solution to America's labor needs. I see Marco Rubio is already working on a Republican version of the Dream Act (although John Boehner downplayed it yesterday).
Anyway, hope springs eternal. :)
There are literally MILLIONS of able bodied Welfare parasites, that can do those jobs. Work or starve.
Every pick apples or harvest vegetables for a living?
I didn't think so.
After about forty years of age, because of physical limitations, it becomes increasingly impossible to harvest enough to make it pay for itself. Hence the need for a new labor pool.
It's sort of like a market for cigarettes. The previous pool keeps dying off. :)
when i was young the youth in the town helped harvest the apples, the schools even closed or at least gave the students time off at harvest time. Americans are capalbe of doing these jobs. The reason more don;t is that 30 years od illgal and legal immgration has so lowered the wages and conditon that mnay od these jobs are now not attractive.
When controlled atmosphere storage became common place in the US some forty years ago, it allowed apples to be stored nearly year-round, vs. 4-5 months previously.
This in turn greatly extended the market for apples in the US and worldwide, and the apple industry responded by aggressively planting apples in areas where apples had never been grown previously.
This led to a need for a huge amount of labor to prune, and then thin and harvest the crops, and well past the capacity of the local labor pool. Hence a large influx of undocumented labor.
My recollection is that the Washington apple industry alone needs apx. 140,000 apple harvesters any given year, well past the local labor pool in Central Washington, which is far removed from the closest (and wealthy) large metropolitan area of Seattle/Tacoma.
Most of these harvesters have in recent years been undocumented.
I don't see how this news hurts Romney. If the fervor dies down, Romney can stop taking such a hardline stance. He can spin it as "See, I told you that self-deportation works. But this is yet more evidence of this president's failed economic policies. Under this president, Mexicans looking for work are having an easier time finding a job in Mexico."
Hell, Romney can even do an about-face. "The threat of illegal immigration has passed. It's time to heal as a nation. So I'm supporting this bill giving those who are still in the country and are contributing to society, a path to legalization. This is not amnesty. It's el amnestio."
As for the Hispanic vote, I fear the window of opportunity for Republicans to win them back may have passed. The failure of Bush's path to citizenship due to opposition from his own party was a turning point. The political climate would really have to change a lot for Republicans to get behind something like that and nothing short of that will suffice. The best that can be hoped for at the moment is to slow the hemorrhaging of Hispanic votes.
'Hell, Romney can even do an about-face. "The threat of illegal immigration has passed. It's time to heal as a nation. So I'm supporting this bill giving those who are still in the country and are contributing to society, a path to legalization. This is not amnesty. It's el amnestio."'
I get what you're saying, and it's not wrong, but I don't think what Mitt Romney needs is ANOTHER reversal in his beliefs.
I think that this is one of those issues where Romney cannot reverse himself without suffering worse political penalty than whatever notional votes he would gain. Someone who had always been a conservative, especially one who had been harsh on immigrants for decades, would have a "Nixon to China" opportunity; Romney doesn't.
And even if Romney did take the chance, I think that the window of opportunity for Republicans generally to win them back has already closed. They still had a shot a decade ago. But Bush's gestures in that direction were slammed by Republicans in Congress. So, no further chances for a generation or two. (Just like Republicans deciding to embrace the Dixiecrats in early 1970s, thus losing what had been solid black support in exchange. It may have been a good bargin for Nixon; it has been a demographic disaster in the making ever since.)
It's just another sign of identity politics unfortunately. Obama has doubled the annual rate of deportations from the Bush administration years and is 30% higher than the historical average. This is at the same time that due to our recession and Mexico's improved economy as well, so it would stand to reason that this is a much higher overall percentage of illegal immigrants as well.
The way to stop illegal immigration is to slam businesses that hire illegal immigrants. But the bosses are campaign contributors.
There has to be a way for these businesses to hire the people who want to work without anyone having to break the law. But I doubt that Anglo hostility would decrease just because of that.
That's been tried. It doesn't work very well. Farmers in the U.S. found, to their surprise, that few 'native' Americans showed up to work and fewer stayed after the first day. And incidentally there isn't a big PAC for businesses that hire illegal immigrants so I have no idea where you got the 'campaign contributors' idea.
I think you misunderstood me. I know that Whites and Blacks have no interest in doing stoop labor. I meant that we ought to be able to find a way for Mexicans to come to work here without breaking the law.
It's by no means only farmers who hire illegal immigrants. Plenty of big companies do, as well. And there are politically influential farmers, too.
I believe one of the heads of a farmworkers union even offered some sort of contest/prize for 'native' Americans to come and work the jobs everyone is complaining that illegals are 'stealing' from them...and even with said cash prize didn't get any takers.
There is a way for businesses to hire people who want to work but as usual you need look no further than Government to find the problem. Of course Americans don't want to work long hours in the sun picking fruit. Why would they when the Government pays them Unemployment benefits and children's allowance and welfare which, along with any other income they can pick up "off the books", will satisfy their modest needs?.Minimum wage laws also distort the situation. Eliminating this disincentive to work at any job that may be distasteful might encourage these reluctant American workers.At the same time we should eliminate the social benefits that illegal workers get from the Government, which seem to be at the bottom of most of the complaints against illegal immigrants. The immigration problem would then take care of itself. The rabid xenophobes would still not be happy but that should not concern us.
Both unemployment and welfare run out, so that can't explain it.
We need some way for Mexicans to work here legally. But employers like illegal immigrants, because you can pay them less and treat them worse.
How do illegal immigrants dodge taxes? They have to live somewhere, and pay local property tax directly or indirectly. Unless they're working under the table, they pay the same withholding as anyone else does. Do they risk filing returns to get refunds? I don't know, but if not, they're paying more than US citizens.
So, how many years of this till we can get sensible immigration reform?
Calculate the years required for xenophobes plus prison guards to become less than 50% of voters. Or, perhaps more important, a smaller fraction of campaign donors than those hurt by current polciies.
" Calculate the years required for xenophobes plus prison guards to become less than 50% of voters."
Just out of curiosity, how would one go about doing that? I am not kidding. But I think I know what you were driving at...
Well, the xenophobes seem to be pretty good at self-identifying. (Not that they generally embrace the label, of course. But their stands pretty well belie their rejection.)