Posted on 01/08/2007 5:57:57 AM PST by A. Pole
Too long. Got a summary?
Immigration by the Numbers
This is the celebrated demonstration that Roy Beck has been giving to scores of audiences across the nation, as well as on many TV programs, including C-SPAN. Using colorful, eye-catching props, he entertains and shocks audiences with the population consequences of current U.S. immigration policies. Thousands of people across the country are finding that there is no easier way to communicate their concerns about immigration to friends, relatives and fellow citizens than by showing them Roy's video.
Click here to view this video online
The favorite part for many is the "gumballs" demonstration that illustrates the unethical nature of our immigration policy which drains the smartest, most energetic people from Third-World societies which desperately need their leadership. Taped before a college audience, the feature presentation is only 16 minutes. It is ideal for use in programs of luncheon organizations, church study groups, college and high school classes, and simply at home among friends and relatives.
This video is packed with the facts and analyses that make moral and practical sense of a complex and highly contentious issue.
which drains the smartest, most energetic people from Third-World societies which desperately need their leadership
I'm sure you're talking about illegal immigration but one of the greatest triumphs of our LEGAL immigration policy is that it has always attracted the best and brightest to our country. To see this benefit to our nation stood on it's head as a reason to resist immigration (and again I'm sure you're referring to illegal immigration) doesn't impress me.
In 1970 our population was 203 million, today it is 300 million, and by 2030 it will be 364 million. Much of our population growth, 3/4, comes from immigrants. As a matter of publlic policy, do we want this kind of growth and what impact will it have our infrastructure and culture?
Corrrection: 1965 legislation.
Bump for further review.
I'm already aware of the issues. Watching a 30 minute video(after the stops and starts) won't educate me any further. I'm sure those who haven't given any thought to the issue will have their eyes opened.
Are you trolling or what?
You said that you do not have time to have a look at video (which is short and you would not need to see it all) and asked me to provide some comment. So I posted few sentences from NumbersUSA and you pick the one least relevant to dismiss the whole issue. Have you no shame?
No. Legal immigration has always added to this country. I can trace my ancestors back to immigrants and unless you're a full blooded American Indian so can you. If the video doesn't distinguish between leagal and illegal immigration (judging from your synopsis it doesn't) then it's worse than worthless. Tell me I'm wrong and simply misunderstood your post.
It is 13 munutes and 41 seconds and it doesn't stop and start, just a little at the beginning during the screen credits. Immigration by the Numbers
Based on your comments, you don't appear to have a grasp of the issues. I don't see how you can make the statement that the video "won't educate me any further" without viewing it. The changes that took place in 1965 did more than just attract the "best and brightest" from other countries. Chain migration has boosted the numbers up from 178,000 a year to 1 million. The lack of control over our borders has added another 500,000 to 1 million illegal immigrants annually. These self-selected immigrants are mostly the poor and uneducated of Latin America.
Leaving out the emotional hot buttons associated with the immigration issue, there are very real and predictable demographic results that must be discussed as a matter of public policy. You seem to be unwilling to do that.
It discusses only LEGAL immigration.
Yes. Forget my irrelevant post (I regret that I listened to you and posted it) and see the video.
If it discusses only legal immigration then it's worthless on 2 counts. Illegal immigaration is a far larger problem and legal immigration has always been productive for this country.
Are you a total nativist? No more immigration? Period? Ever? From anywhere?
But these two are connected, if the Third World countries stagnate, you will get more poor from there as well.
One of the reason why the illegals flood from Mexico is that lost their livelihood on farms thanks to NAFTA.
This question is addressed in the video.
It is an interesting point as to whether our LEGAL immigration policies drain other countries of their best and brightest talent.
I see another slant to this....
The fact that we import the best and brightest has the side effect of masking the fact that we are not producing the best and brightest from our own schools.
Yes, we do have the best universities in the world - that's why foreign students come here. And this is precisely my point. Our K-12 system is not producing enough talent to fill our universities and the demands of an economy that needs a constant flow of brains.
It's no accident that if you go into a hospital the doctors are probably from another country. Our mathematicians are all too often born elsewhere. Ditto all too many of our engineers, physicists, nurses and other professionals.
I am not making an xenophobic comment here - please don't misunderstand. I am trying to point out our inability to produce these people from kindergarten up. There is a disconnect between our K-12 system and our university system. This flaw is masked by talented immigrants.
We don't realize we can't product enough doctors to fill our needs - because we import them. This masks the problem of our own school system.
Wall. Minefields. Armed patrols. Sort of like the Iron Curtain - but in reverse. No problems.
Personally, though, I'd blame their own corrupt leadership. Even if you're smart and energetic, you can't get ahead unless you're connected. We might as well take 'em and reap the benefits. We just don't need their peasantry. We DEFINITELY don't need a peasant class in the USA...
Immigrants have always augmented our natural talent even when our schools were better than they are now. As I recall Einstein was an immigrant.
You can't separate illegal from legal immigration when it comes to the demographic impact. Legal immigration policy needs to be discussed as well in the context of how to solve the illegal immigration problem. Many want to legalize the status of the 11 to 20 million illegals who are already here. Doing so has an impact on legal immigration because these new legalized residents can sponsor more legal immigrants based on current law.
What You Don't Know About the Immigration Bill
Are you a total nativist? No more immigration? Period? Ever? From anywhere?
Ah, now comes the name calling and false choices. No, I am not against all immigration, nor am I a nativist [except I do believe that if we are a country, we have a right to determine who comes in and who stays.] My wife is a naturalized citizen, my paternal grandmother came from Liverpool, my niece just adopted a baby from China, and my daughter is studying in Berlin. Legal immigration is good and beneficial as long as there are limits. Those limits need to be discussed in an unemotional, factual way so we can have good public policy.
We take in more legal immigrants annually than the rest of the world combined. I have lived overseas in nine different countries for a total of 25 ytears of my adult life and have visited over 50 more. The US does a better job of assimilating immigrants than almost any other country with the possible exeception of Canada. I have no problem dealing with other cultures and people, but we need to revisit the 1965 immigration legislation and gain control over our borders, including visa overstays.
It is true Einstein was an immigrant - as was my mother.
But, we are importing talent now in vastly larger numbers. It's a matter of the increaed amount.
Take away Philipino immigrants and our hospitals are almost empty of nurses. Take away Indian doctors and the ER's are in trouble.
Take away the foreign students and the University of California system shuts down.
This is not a diatribe against legal immigration, but it is a concern about the lack of our ability to train enough of our own citizens.
I think its a matter of degree - what used to be a trickle is now a torrent.
The H1B visa limits need to be raised and we should change that mechanism so that it is easier to become a citizen. We need trained, educated people who can contribute to our economy. Yes, we need to improve our own educational system, but we will still need additional talent just due to demographics.
Demographically - if our school system were adequate - we should be able to produce our own native talent.
But it is not adequate and therefore we don't.
The talented immigrant should be "in addition to" - not "because we have to."
For the most part we do. Our fertility rate is just about at replacement level, i.e., 2.09 children born/woman (2006 est.). With a growing economy, we need more people. This is a proper use of our visa system, e.g., H1B, H2B,E1, E2, etc.
We also need to change some of our input systems, e.g., doctors. The AMA artifically limits the number of new doctors through the limits placed on our medical schools.
The talented immigrant should be "in addition to" - not "because we have to."
Agreed. We should have control over who comes into our country and for what purpose. Right now, we have 500,000 to one million who are self-selected, i.e., illegals, who enter without regard to the needs of our country.
Regardless of 'talent', the numbers are simply not sustainable. We need a moratorium on immigration to allow assimilation.
My post was about legal immigrants not illegal immigrants.
Illegals of any kind - professional, vocational...whatever....need not apply.
You are confusing the status of people here on visas and those coming here through the legal immigration system. We currently allow about 1 million legal immigrants a year. Prior to 1965, the number was about 178,000 a year.
I don't know of anyone who has any real understanding of the problem and knowledge of the system advocating a complete moratorium on LEGAL immigration. I believe our numbers of legal immigrants should be reduced but not to zero. How long would your proposed moratorium last? As an aside, it would never fly politically.
I understand. Illegals are by definition, not acceptable. There is however the reality that there are 11 to 20 million already here and more coming every day. They are adding to our numbers, including overburdening our educational system.
>>>I LIKE the idea of draining the "smartest, most energetic people from Third-World societies." [...]Its the illegals I would like to stop.
>>>But these two are connected, if the Third World countries stagnate, you will get more poor from there as well.
The loss of their "smartest, most energetic" encourages the corrupt leaders and left-leaning citizens of those countries to see the error of their ways and allow economic freedom to blossom, turning their wasting country into growth markets that attract talent, rather than lose it.
Current example: Some Chinese and Indian engineers are returning to their homelands from the US to participate in those growth markets.
LEGAL immigration of QUALIFIED, TALENTED people WILLING to assimilate - YES.
ILLEGAL immigration of UNQUALIFIED, UNTALENTED people UNWILLING to assimilate - NO!
Wont fly? That's an understatement.
"...UNQUALIFIED, UNTALENTED people UNWILLING to assimilate...."
Describes the bulk of the legal immigrants as well.
Immigration is also different from refugee status and political asylum seekers, most of whom are from the third world these days (they used to be from eastern Europe, behind the Iron Curtain).
The estimates are that we may be getting up to 25,000 refugee and asylum seekers from Iraq alone.
We have no disagreement on how we view illegals.
They need to be stopped. Those that are caught here need to be deported.
Employers that employ them need to be stopped, too.
Meanwhile Gov. Arnie is extending health care coverage for all children in the state including illegals.
We are not winning this war either.
It is probably too late. The WH and Dems will approve the proposed "comprehensive immigration bill" that will legalize the status of 11 to 20 million illegals and not secure our borders, encouraging millions more of Latin America's poor and uneducated to come here. Eventually, we will be like the life boat swamped with taking on too many survivors. When one of our cyclical economic downturns occurs, people will realize the scope of the problem belatedly. Then it will be whom do you believe, the politiicans or your own lying eyes?
There is also the "Annual Diversity Visa Lottery" which offers 50,000 permanent resident visas to lucky winners from selected nations (those nations which have sent more than 50,000 immigrants to the US in the previous 5 years are ineligible). Because European immigration was so heavy in the first part of the 20th century, for the most part, Europe is excluded from the Diversity Visa Lottery program. Diversity visas allow lucky winners to live in the United States along with immediate family members and eventually become citizens. The whole intent of the program is to "diversify" the US population.
Freddie Adu, the professional soccer player who was the youngest person ever to play professionally in the US got to America because his mother won the diversity visa lottery from Ghana. Now he's a millionaire at age 18.
The Diversity Visa Lottery program doesn't reward the world's "best and brightest," it rewards the luckiest.
I KNOW it is too late. No way are we going to round up 20 million people and put them on buses.
The gate has been open too long.
In other words, we are not taking responsibility for our future needs, but relying on third world countries to pick up the slack for us.
Do you really want people who were raised well by their parents to reap the fruits of their sacrifice while dumping old parents and benefiting you?
It would be very wicked. Either you are willing to take young productive people TOGETHER with those to whom they owe, or do not take them at all!
Exactly.
We set the conditions and the individuals have the choice to accept them or not. Mexicans send back over billion dollars a year to their families. Legal immigrants can go back as often as they want to visit their families. Why should we allow people to bring in their aged and infirm parents who then become the responsibility of the US taxpayer? How do the immigration laws of Poland operate? How many legal immigrants do you allow in every year? Has there been anyone comparable to a Zbigniew Brzezinski at the highest levels of the Polish government?
The point is that we currently allow legal immigrants to sponsor their parents coming into the US. Chain migration is a problem.
(Note: that isn't an insult... you are actively stating that you are purposefully ignoring the video because you actively ignore the possibility that it could potentially teach you something. That is the definition of "willful ignorance". My comment is not an attempt to label your entire intellectual profile as "ignorant".)
It is very hard to immigrate to Poland.
Has there been anyone comparable to a Zbigniew Brzezinski at the highest levels of the Polish government?
There are too few immigrants to make is probable. Still people of not Polish ethnic descent can achieve the highest offices
The point is that we currently allow legal immigrants to sponsor their parents coming into the US. Chain migration is a problem.
Bringing aged parents is rather a humanitarian moral issue (like paying debt), the chain migration is more related to siblings, children and other relatives.
You are forgetting two things: Improving American society has greatly benefitted the entire planet, and immigrants send home billions of dollars annually. The parents they are beholden to are not lost and forgotten. Heck, they can live a far better lifestyle staying at home with an influx of a few hundred bucks per month than they could with just that amount living here.
Or maybe you should consider the alternative that I am cognizant of the facts because I got them from a source other than this video and simply disagree with the conclusions?
Your response is very liberal in nature, as in "If you don't agree with my conclusions you must be stupid or uninformed".
Odd that you also do not reveal your "alternative source". If it were reliable, one would think you would be able to assert it with confidence.
Or tax their remittances enough to offset the costs incurred by their presence. At the current rate of 45 billion dollars annually, it just might make a dent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.