Posted on 04/30/2006 6:21:01 AM PDT by sinkspur
In Texas, we shouldn't need a Hispanic boycott to demonstrate the significance of immigrants. They've been driving growth in the state economy for more than 30 years.
But maybe we could use a reminder about their increasing clout, and the assets and challenges they bring to the mix.
That might boost appreciation and provoke new initiatives to improve the future.
Immigrants' success at assimilating here -- in particular, their ability to close the gap in education and income -- will go a long way in determining Texas' prosperity.
For those who believe that immigration is more threatening than promising, consider that it accounted for more than half the job growth in the country from 1996 to 2002.
It may not be surprising that foreign-born workers accounted for 86 percent of the growth among mechanics and construction workers. But they also represented 27 percent of the group that includes doctors, scientists and teachers, and 31 percent of new health and science technicians, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The numbers would be higher, if not for rules that restrict the number of highly skilled foreigners who want to work here. In fiscal 2006, the annual cap for so-called H-1B visas was reached two months before the fiscal year even started.
Immigrants have been a crucial complement to the economy, with their numbers climbing when times were strong and waning in the downturns. Which means there's something a lot worse than having immigrants flow into Texas and the United States: having them not come here.
On Monday, Hispanics and other immigrants are planning rallies and a consumer boycott in major cities across the country. Their primary goal is to influence the immigration debate in Washington, which has become increasingly polarized.
Some lawmakers are focused on reducing undocumented workers and even punishing them. They propose to build fences between the U.S. and Mexico and beef up border patrols.
There have been some high-profile raids on employers in the past few weeks and talk about deporting an estimated 11 million illegals. That notion is both destructive and impractical.
Others talk about creating amnesty and guest-worker programs, proposals aimed at helping immigrants improve their lot here and keeping the flow of foreign-born residents coming.
"The only way to move forward is to move forward together," says Pia Orrenius, a senior economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas and a former member of the President's Council of Economic Advisers.
"Somehow, we have to legalize people who are already here," she says. "But we also need to have a system in place to keep employers honest and make sure there's a level playing field."
Here's what I'm wondering: Why do anything at all?
The state's population has grown at roughly twice the rate of the nation since 1970, largely because of the influx of foreign-born residents and a higher birth rate among Hispanics.
Because immigrants are younger, they also offer a counterweight to the aging baby boomer generation. Texas ranks as the second-youngest state, thanks to immigrants, and this demographic trend boosts labor markets, consumer sales and the housing industry.
But the federal government has intensified its campaign against illegal immigrants, primarily in the name of national security. It has become much more difficult for undocumented workers to get driver's licenses and do their banking.
Rumors of raids on big employers have sent a chill through the immigrant community, and workers fear mass deportations.
"Illegal immigration was working before, because we weren't enforcing the laws, and people lived almost as if they were legal," Orrenius says. "Now we've changed the rules of the game, so we need a more comprehensive solution."
Which leads to the current debate in Washington. A guest-worker program would make life easier for many immigrants, Orrenius says, but the rules can't be too complex or they'll be sidestepped again.
Some current restrictions are confounding. We allow a steady flow of low-skilled, often illegal, immigrants into the country, and they do many jobs that natives shun. But they generally take in more in public benefits than they pay out in taxes -- usually in the form of schooling for their children and medical care.
(Low-skilled natives also use more than they pay for, because skills, not nationality, most closely correlate with income.)
The workers who put more into the pool than they take out -- those with high skills and high income -- are restricted by federal policies.
From 2001 to 2003, we temporarily allowed 195,000 H-1B visas a year. Often used by engineers and scientists, almost all H-1Bs have bachelor's degrees, and half hold advanced degrees.
The annual cap is back at 65,000 visas, and it's not nearly high enough. In 2004, the cap was reached five months into the fiscal year, says the latest Economic Report of the President. In 2005, the cap was reached on the first day. In 2006, the visas were gone two months before the year began.
Orrenius says the current debate over immigration is similar to past conflicts. In the 1850s and early 1900s, there were backlashes against immigrants from Germany, China, Ireland, Italy and Poland.
Today, it's Mexico and Central America that account for 37 percent of immigrants, followed by Asia (25 percent) and Europe (14 percent).
People often complain that immigrants can't speak and write English, and Orrenius says that's reminiscent of the literacy laws that were proposed for newcomers almost a century ago.
She doesn't see much difficulty in our economy absorbing immigrants. They total about 36 million people, with fewer than 30 percent undocumented. Our total population is almost 300 million.
The bigger challenge is helping immigrants develop skills more quickly, so they can earn more and have better prospects. That puts the onus on education, because high school dropout rates remain twice as high for Hispanics, even in subsequent generations.
Texas has been confronting this problem for years, dealing with chronic underfunding in many poorer school districts.
Maybe immigration reform could help.
Many immigrants, especially illegals, pay payroll taxes and never collect from Social Security. The government keeps track of those numbers, and the pool was valued at $463 billion in 2002.
Imagine what some of that money could do on the local level.
If 20 million illegals were forced home, it would force a revolution in Mexico.
The Feds know where to find them as well...They just won't act on the information they have. Below is the link to the story:
I heard an interesting theory yesterday.
This so called migration is the first and by far the largest since the original colonists, that speaks primarily one language, as such does not need to learn a common language in which to effectively communicate with each other and do everyday business.
Most other prior migrations involved small portions of mainly Europeans who spoke various languages. Since they tended to settle in common areas once here they didn't understand each other, so rather than learn many languages they learned the native common language, ENGLISH, as a neccessity.
Of course the libs have also made an tax payer funded industry out of catering to each group in it's own language which has also contributed to effectively rendering the melting pot theory moot.
I'm not so sure about that.
"The more than $4.7 billion in costs incurred by Texas taxpayers annually result from outlays in the following areas..."
And in CA it's over 10 billion annually.
I'm almost afraid to let any law that protects and empowers the American citizen get to the SCOTUS.
Some quotes from:
All European life died in Auschwitz By Sebastian Vilar Rodrigez
I walked down the street in Barcelona, and suddenly discovered a terrible
truth, Europe died in Auschwitz.
We killed six million Jews and replaced them with 20 million Muslims.
And under the ***pretense of tolerance***, and because we wanted to prove to ourselves that we were cured of the disease of racism, we opened our gates to 20 million Muslims (or Mexicans), who brought us stupidity and ignorance, religious extremism and lack of tolerance, crime and poverty ...
(*** my emphasis - FotS)
Respnse: To ask the question means you are already defeated.
You are simply incapable of any kind of rational discussion. All you do is whine like a baby with a full diaper.
You nailed him.
....the extent of sinkspur's intellectual prowess on full display /sarc>
Do you have anything to add to the topic without attacking another poster?
Despite the fact that the author of this article is cheering on the contribution of highly educated immigrants, I doubt that many of the 12 million illegals here now have Phd's.
If I recall correctly, Clinton did that all the time.
This year the libs are siding with illegals. In 2000 they made Linda Chavez resign her selection of Sec. of Labor because she had an illegal living or working with her (can't remember all the details).
Incredibly, you & about 6-8 other posters are so adament about defending illegal aliens and amnesty programs as opposed to over 80% of Americans who are opposed to amnesty programs and the impact of 18-20 million illegal aliens on our country. By the way we are talking about ILLEGAL ALIENS, not legal immigrants. If the 18-20 million illegal aliens want to become legal immigrants, than they need to return (or be deported) back to their country and then return as legal immigrants. That is how the system works! Not by rewarding illegal aliens with amnesty programs.
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.