Illegal Immigration

80,194 Views | 1178 Replies | Last: 7 hrs ago by Cal88
AunBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Liars, hypocrites, and morons. MAGAts by any other name. . .
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- (maybe) Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Last night I flew from Phx and had to undergo "additional screening" because my ID was an old drivers license.

I was set to the side with two mothers each with two young children, from Mexico. They were going to LA and Oakland, respectively. The kids were between 7 and 10.

We had to wait 20 minutes for an agent to show up and do the screening, which involves swabbing our bags and checking for traces of explosive material chemicals.

During this time, I made friends with the kids, and explained the process to the mothers. They were nervous and I helped calm them down.

I have no idea what their papers indicated, why they couldn't just pass through with passport.

They kids wanted a photo with me and our conversation continued into the boarding area and we greeted a goodbye as they met the aunt in Oakland waiting for them.

As I made new friends, welcomed them to California and gave them advice to "learn English in school as young as possible", I thought of all you racist ignorants here.

Zippergate
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Congrats on being a wonderful person, but why do you hate African Americans?
Zippergate
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Zippergate said:




Does this mean only illegal immigrants actually from Mexico and Canada count towards the 4,000 per day? Is this real? Does anyone have subsection 2ac?
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The level of instinctive fear of foreigners is astonishing.

I was an international affairs major because I was attracted to learning different languages, cultures, lives.

The xenophobic American way is not just unattractive, but economically unfounded. As an international economics concentration major, we examined international trade, comparative advantages of each nation, and market efficiency disturbances (negative externalities) such as tariffs, quotas, subsidies, regulations, etc.
And I find that the focus on this horas of "OMG, illegals are coming to get us" is so mis-founded.

This is not a call on my part for unrestrained borders.

But there are millions here as a drain on the system because they are not legal, so can't work to add to the GDP, and can't pay taxes to support all of us.

It's cruel and economically weak.

oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

The level of instinctive fear of foreigners is astonishing.

I was an international affairs major because I was attracted to learning different languages, cultures, lives.

The xenophobic American way is not just unattractive, but economically unfounded. As an international economics concentration major, we examined international trade, comparative advantages of each nation, and market efficiency disturbances (negative externalities) such as tariffs, quotas, subsidies, regulations, etc.
And I find that the focus on this horas of "OMG, illegals are coming to get us" is so mis-founded.

This is not a call on my part for unrestrained borders.

But there are millions here as a drain on the system because they are not legal, so can't work to add to the GDP, and can't pay taxes to support all of us.

It's cruel and economically weak.



Close the border. Allow a moderate amount of refugees in, based on checks done outside our border. Anyone already here has a year to learn basic English, civics, and American history and can them become a citizen. At that time, anyone who fails to do so or does not want to be a citizen should be deported.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

concordtom said:

The level of instinctive fear of foreigners is astonishing.

I was an international affairs major because I was attracted to learning different languages, cultures, lives.

The xenophobic American way is not just unattractive, but economically unfounded. As an international economics concentration major, we examined international trade, comparative advantages of each nation, and market efficiency disturbances (negative externalities) such as tariffs, quotas, subsidies, regulations, etc.
And I find that the focus on this horas of "OMG, illegals are coming to get us" is so mis-founded.

This is not a call on my part for unrestrained borders.

But there are millions here as a drain on the system because they are not legal, so can't work to add to the GDP, and can't pay taxes to support all of us.

It's cruel and economically weak.



Close the border. Allow a moderate amount of refugees in, based on checks done outside our border. Anyone already here has a year to learn basic English, civics, and American history and can them become a citizen. At that time, anyone who fails to do so or does not want to be a citizen should be deported.

Wow. Im surprised.
I like this, except for your requirement to learn English. Why would you place that on your list - I think that's absurd and only based in the xenophobia I mentioned.

1. Have you ever tried to learn a foreign language?
2. Some are too old to do so. Others may have other impediments to it.
3. Do you believe non English speaking is a threat to you, to America, the economic or social prosperity?

By the way, your proposal would NEVER be accepted by the GOP.

PS
It takes a hell of a lot longer than 1 year to learn a foreign language, though I suppose you said "basic". That's a wide range.
I used to teach English to immigrants who fled Salvador in the 90's. I discovered, many were illiterate in their home language.

People need to get outside the USA to become more familiar with life outside their own little bubble. And I'm referring primarily to folks in the flyover states who've never left. You went to Cal and are therefore miles ahead.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

oski003 said:

concordtom said:

The level of instinctive fear of foreigners is astonishing.

I was an international affairs major because I was attracted to learning different languages, cultures, lives.

The xenophobic American way is not just unattractive, but economically unfounded. As an international economics concentration major, we examined international trade, comparative advantages of each nation, and market efficiency disturbances (negative externalities) such as tariffs, quotas, subsidies, regulations, etc.
And I find that the focus on this horas of "OMG, illegals are coming to get us" is so mis-founded.

This is not a call on my part for unrestrained borders.

But there are millions here as a drain on the system because they are not legal, so can't work to add to the GDP, and can't pay taxes to support all of us.

It's cruel and economically weak.



Close the border. Allow a moderate amount of refugees in, based on checks done outside our border. Anyone already here has a year to learn basic English, civics, and American history and can them become a citizen. At that time, anyone who fails to do so or does not want to be a citizen should be deported.

Wow. Im surprised.
I like this, except for your requirement to learn English. Why would you place that on your list - I think that's absurd and only based in the xenophobia I mentioned.

1. Have you ever tried to learn a foreign language?
2. Some are too old to do so. Others may have other impediments to it.
3. Do you believe non English speaking is a threat to you, to America, the economic or social prosperity?

By the way, your proposal would NEVER be accepted by the GOP.


If I moved to another country that had a different primary language, I would have basic proficiency in it within a year. Requiring folks living here to learn our primary language is not xenophobic. Likewise, your third point/question is nonsensically aggressive, just like calling folks here ignorant racists and attaching an image of a middle finger.
Zippergate
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

The level of instinctive fear of foreigners is astonishing.

I was an international affairs major because I was attracted to learning different languages, cultures, lives.

The xenophobic American way is not just unattractive, but economically unfounded. As an international economics concentration major, we examined international trade, comparative advantages of each nation, and market efficiency disturbances (negative externalities) such as tariffs, quotas, subsidies, regulations, etc.
And I find that the focus on this horas of "OMG, illegals are coming to get us" is so mis-founded.

This is not a call on my part for unrestrained borders.

But there are millions here as a drain on the system because they are not legal, so can't work to add to the GDP, and can't pay taxes to support all of us.

It's cruel and economically weak.


Fair enough, Tom. But we're not in the classroom. Look at what mass migration does in reality. In a dysfunctional state like California, what happens to housing, social services, crime, education, etc? California has the world's most naturally endowed, productive economy the world has ever seen. It has second highest per capita revenue in the country. So why is it in such bad shape, with corporations and rich people leaving left and right? Why is education in such an abysmal state? It's not all the fault of mass migration, but much of it is.

I don't care about studies that say mass migration adds to the economy, they're obviously biased. Hordes of uneducated, unproductive people don't add to average economic output nor do they add to the average quality of life. They may add to the nominal size of the economy but they are a net drain and have an overall negative impact, particularly to the lower end of the economic spectrum. This does not mean that we shouldn't take in some of these people for various reasons, but we should stop kidding ourselves that they are making the country better. Quite the contrary, given the completely unsustainable fiscal situation, they are an unwelcome added burden at a time when we can't even afford the commitments the government has already made.

Of course, the vast majority who come just want a better life. I harbor no ill will toward them and I certainly regret the derogatory statements Trump has made about them. But is that really the litmus test for whether they should be allowed in? There are five billion people who could benefit from coming to the US. Should we allow them all in? It's not that I hate them, it's that I care more about the people already in this country. How about we take care of Americans first? Adults sometimes must make difficult, adult decisions. Our leaders need to stop acting like spoiled children. A pox on both the parties who have sold us out to special interest and their own political gain. Close the border.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Republicans have decided to keep the border open and Biden will campaign on that. Next year, the Dems should demand citizenship for Dreamers with that bill. Hardball.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Zippergate said:

concordtom said:

The level of instinctive fear of foreigners is astonishing.

I was an international affairs major because I was attracted to learning different languages, cultures, lives.

The xenophobic American way is not just unattractive, but economically unfounded. As an international economics concentration major, we examined international trade, comparative advantages of each nation, and market efficiency disturbances (negative externalities) such as tariffs, quotas, subsidies, regulations, etc.
And I find that the focus on this horas of "OMG, illegals are coming to get us" is so mis-founded.

This is not a call on my part for unrestrained borders.

But there are millions here as a drain on the system because they are not legal, so can't work to add to the GDP, and can't pay taxes to support all of us.

It's cruel and economically weak.


Fair enough, Tom. But we're not in the classroom. Look at what mass migration does in reality. In a dysfunctional state like California, what happens to housing, social services, crime, education, etc? California has the world's most naturally endowed, productive economy the world has ever seen. It has second highest per capita revenue in the country. So why is it in such bad shape, with corporations and rich people leaving left and right? Why is education in such an abysmal state? It's not all the fault of mass migration, but much of it is.

I don't care about studies that say mass migration adds to the economy, they're obviously biased. Hordes of uneducated, unproductive people don't add to average economic output nor do they add to the average quality of life. They may add to the nominal size of the economy but they are a net drain and have an overall negative impact, particularly to the lower end of the economic spectrum. This does not mean that we shouldn't take in some of these people for various reasons, but we should stop kidding ourselves that they are making the country better. Quite the contrary, given the completely unsustainable fiscal situation, they are an unwelcome added burden at a time when we can't even afford the commitments the government has already made.

Of course, the vast majority who come just want a better life. I harbor no ill will toward them and I certainly regret the derogatory statements Trump has made about them. But is that really the litmus test for whether they should be allowed in? There are five billion people who could benefit from coming to the US. Should we allow them all in? It's not that I hate them, it's that I care more about the people already in this country. How about we take care of Americans first? Adults sometimes must make difficult, adult decisions. Our leaders need to stop acting like spoiled children. A pox on both the parties who have sold us out to special interest and their own political gain.
Close the border.


Okay, well, it seems that you may have stated some concessions or softened your tone, but then you make assertions and are absolutist right back where you started.

You claim that California is a failing state because of immigrants?
You say they don't add to the economy?
That schools are bad because of them?
That they are a drain on social services?
Etc

And you don't care to debate it as in the classroom with theory because you just seem to KNOW, is that right?

Well, it seems then that there's not much to discuss with you. Because you are rigid, fixed, to your belief about it.

I was thinking about all the positive factors immigrants provide for you which you don't recognize, and I was thinking of that film…


What is the mockumentary "a day without a Mexican"?

Mockumentary suggests what would happen in California if all the state's Latino residents were to mysteriously disappear.


And yet, that wouldn't be my final solution.

I think if we as Americans were to try and solve the problems of our society or of the world, we need to begin with a heart and a willingness to say we don't know, don't have all the answers.

I find it frustrating to read your posts because your attitude reflects neither.

Okay, well, that's my initial reaction.
I'm just deflated by your post.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The humiliation of gay hating Republican House Speaker continues as his bill to impeach Mayorkas fails.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/house-republicans-homeland-security-secretary-mayorkas-impeachment_n_65c278a0e4b0dbc806ae62c2
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mayorkas vote:

The House voted mostly along party lines, but Republicans suffered a number of defections which torpedoed the vote. Democrats remained united.
The vote was 214-216.
The vote was on two articles of impeachment that accused Mayorkas of having "refused to comply with Federal immigration laws" and the other of having violated "public trust."


The vote comes after a spate of vacancies largely on the Republican side that made the margins for House Speaker Mike Johnson incredibly tight.

Three Republicans,
* Colorado Rep. Ken Buck,
* Wisconsin Rep. Mike Gallagher, and
* California Rep. Tom McClintock,
joined the Democrats in voting against the resolution.

GOP Rep. Blake Moore of Utah joined the no side to allow the House GOP to bring up the vote again.

House Republicans also have three vacancies after the departures of Kevin McCarthy and Bill Johnson, and the expulsion of George Santos.

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise was not present for the vote, as he is still recovering in Louisiana from a stem cell transplant.


-

Party Breakdown of the 118th Congress

219 Republicans
212 Democrats
0 Other
4 Vacancies *

*The House voted to expel Rep. George Santos (R-NY) 12/1/2023.
*Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) resigned 12/31/2023.
*Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH) resigned 1/22/2024.
*Rep. Brian Higgins (D-NY) resigned 02/02/2024.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

The humiliation of gay hating Republican House Speaker continues as his bill to impeach Mayorkas fails.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/house-republicans-homeland-security-secretary-mayorkas-impeachment_n_65c278a0e4b0dbc806ae62c2




Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Today in the #FailGOParty they:
- decided not to secure the border
- decided to lose part of Ukraine to Russia
- lost a vote to provide aid for Israel
- failed to impeach Mayorkas

What a bunch of losers
Zippergate
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

Zippergate said:

concordtom said:

The level of instinctive fear of foreigners is astonishing.

I was an international affairs major because I was attracted to learning different languages, cultures, lives.

The xenophobic American way is not just unattractive, but economically unfounded. As an international economics concentration major, we examined international trade, comparative advantages of each nation, and market efficiency disturbances (negative externalities) such as tariffs, quotas, subsidies, regulations, etc.
And I find that the focus on this horas of "OMG, illegals are coming to get us" is so mis-founded.

This is not a call on my part for unrestrained borders.

But there are millions here as a drain on the system because they are not legal, so can't work to add to the GDP, and can't pay taxes to support all of us.

It's cruel and economically weak.


Fair enough, Tom. But we're not in the classroom. Look at what mass migration does in reality. In a dysfunctional state like California, what happens to housing, social services, crime, education, etc? California has the world's most naturally endowed, productive economy the world has ever seen. It has second highest per capita revenue in the country. So why is it in such bad shape, with corporations and rich people leaving left and right? Why is education in such an abysmal state? It's not all the fault of mass migration, but much of it is.

I don't care about studies that say mass migration adds to the economy, they're obviously biased. Hordes of uneducated, unproductive people don't add to average economic output nor do they add to the average quality of life. They may add to the nominal size of the economy but they are a net drain and have an overall negative impact, particularly to the lower end of the economic spectrum. This does not mean that we shouldn't take in some of these people for various reasons, but we should stop kidding ourselves that they are making the country better. Quite the contrary, given the completely unsustainable fiscal situation, they are an unwelcome added burden at a time when we can't even afford the commitments the government has already made.

Of course, the vast majority who come just want a better life. I harbor no ill will toward them and I certainly regret the derogatory statements Trump has made about them. But is that really the litmus test for whether they should be allowed in? There are five billion people who could benefit from coming to the US. Should we allow them all in? It's not that I hate them, it's that I care more about the people already in this country. How about we take care of Americans first? Adults sometimes must make difficult, adult decisions. Our leaders need to stop acting like spoiled children. A pox on both the parties who have sold us out to special interest and their own political gain.
Close the border.


Okay, well, it seems that you may have stated some concessions or softened your tone, but then you make assertions and are absolutist right back where you started.

You claim that California is a failing state because of immigrants?
You say they don't add to the economy?
That schools are bad because of them?
That they are a drain on social services?
Etc

And you don't care to debate it as in the classroom with theory because you just seem to KNOW, is that right?

Well, it seems then that there's not much to discuss with you. Because you are rigid, fixed, to your belief about it.

I was thinking about all the positive factors immigrants provide for you which you don't recognize, and I was thinking of that film…


What is the mockumentary "a day without a Mexican"?

Mockumentary suggests what would happen in California if all the state's Latino residents were to mysteriously disappear.


And yet, that wouldn't be my final solution.

I think if we as Americans were to try and solve the problems of our society or of the world, we need to begin with a heart and a willingness to say we don't know, don't have all the answers.

I find it frustrating to read your posts because your attitude reflects neither.

Okay, well, that's my initial reaction.
I'm just deflated by your post.
And you don't care to debate it as in the classroom with theory because you just seem to KNOW, is that right?

Completely wrong. You clearly implied that comparative advantage, free trade etc--ivory tower models with assumptions completely detached from the real world--somehow guarantee that all immigration is good for the economy. I stated that growing the economy is not the correct metric; what matters is per capita economic output, distribution of that output, and quality of life. We have a larger economy thanks to the tens of millions of illegal immigrants but are we better off? It is axiomatic that we are not on a per capita basis, that the underclass has been disproportionately negatively affected and that quality of life overall has declined. Poorly educated, unskilled labor adds less value to the economy, consumes more government benefits, burdens government services, etc. I don't make the rules; it's math.

I'm sure "A day without a Mexican" is a touching story, but how is that evidence of anything? I lived in Japan for a few years and I can assure you that all the jobs that Mexicans do here get done over there (and the service there is incomparably better). While they pay more for strawberries, they pay a lot less in an infinite number of other direct and indirect ways.

I think if we as Americans were to try and solve the problems of our society or of the world, we need to begin with a heart and a willingness to say we don't know,

We don't know, but we know that whatever the answer is it has to involve taking in whoever ends up on our doorstep. Did I get that right? The reality is, we do know. What we have been doing hasn't worked. It's been a failure. Left and Right share in the blame, I'll grant you that, but mass illegal immigration was always a mistake and it's even worse now. It's ruining our quality of life and we can't afford it. I think it was Milton Friedman who said that it is just obvious that you cannot have open borders coupled with a welfare state. And it's not just here. Do you think it's working for Sweden where rapes and car bombings, formerly unheard of, are now routine? Do you think it's working in the UK where large parts of London are governed by Sharia law? Do you the French are better off with the hundreds of no-go zones?


I'm just deflated by your post.

Likewise. To be against illegal immigration is not to be racist. That is jumping to a conclusion that may or may not be true. We need to move beyond such simplistic, politically motivated rhetoric and start dialoging in good faith to solve problems. With illegal immigration, you see only the positives you want to see which reinforce your magnanimous self-image and ignore the larger deleterious impacts on the African American community, for example. They were blinded to it before, but they see it now and they're raising the issue. Why aren't you listening to them?
Zippergate
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Highly instructive from Naomi Wolf, lifelong liberal. Here's a small sample...
https://open.substack.com/pub/naomiwolf/p/what-is-a-culture?r=aiop6&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Yes, the White House and the UN are recruiting and funding humans from El Salvador, Honduras and Panama, along with those from a total of 114 countries, to unlawfully migrate with USAID and State Department and UN funding here. "In El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, USAID funded pre-departure training for seasonal workers on their rights under the H-2 visa program."
That is what this inflow is being called "seasonal workers." But these folks are being recruited, trained, made "aware" of migration and "transit routes", staged, dressed and housed, given, per my earlier essay on the UN program, loaded ATM cards, envelopes of cash, free meals en route in staging centers, and direct bank transfers, and are relatively hugely empowered - not at the mercy, as in the past, only of "jackals" and the hideous elements, but with the whole prestige and the massive apparatus of the US government and the UN behind them and supporting them. Then they are "transited" to be deposited at the border, to walk across without stay or hindrance, and to be transported after that via plane and bus to everywhere in our nation.

They are shipped then to where, locally, as in New York City, free housing in hotels, free electronic tablets, free scooters, free medical care, await them.

New York City plans to spend one billion to house unlawful immigrants for free, in hotels, for three more years. Why is New York City expecting that for the next three years, these immigrants won't be able to house themselves? Why incentivize their journeys in this way?
Did your immigrant grandparents get free housing in a hotel for three years? Did mine? If you are a recent legal immigrant to the aUS, did you get three years of free collective housing?

No - in the past immigrants to this nation were let into this country and, whether poor or rich, Anglophones or not able to speak a word of English, they were expected to do their best; in the Lower East Side, in Queens, in Brooklyn's Little Caribbean, in Chinatown, in New Jersey, in Detroit, in Cleveland. And through this expectation, were born great innovation, entrepreneurship and contributions to the national wealth of ideas and resources; children were educated; the American Dream was strengthened, and it persisted.

For these unlawful immigrants' future care, in contrast, the New York State Governor wishes to earmark $2.4 billion out of her state's budget for just one year. In Salem, Massachusetts, a storefront with delectable fresh fruit, meat and seafood, is not open to those elderly or veteran or disabled Americans nearby who are not enrolled in certain USDA benefit programs that the facility requires for shoppers to enter its nicely designed doors.

But if you can get past the application process to shop there, this facility offers, incredibly enough, subsidized Doordash delivery of free or subsidized food, to a largely illegally-immigrated population.


movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Didn't the Heritage Foundation twenty years ago estimate the average uneducated illegal immigrant costs us $400,000?

A friend worked at Head Start in the far east bay and said her client base was 100% Latino. Fifteen years ago a friend raised money for coats for the poor for winter for a TriValley business organization. The families that lined up early for free coats were 98% Latino.

Our test scores have been below Mississippi for decades. #50? Walnut Creek isn't a low scoring district.

I met a young couple at an illegal / unpermitted home restaurant in a barrio about 10 years back... his wife just came out of neo natal care in Oakland where she was for 2 months with her high risk birth for twins. The babies are fine, thankfully. But his wages as a painter will never reimburse the costs of those services.
Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:

Our test scores have been below Mississippi for decades. #50?
I thought this turd of a statement deserved a spotlight all to itself.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Eastern Oregon Bear said:

movielover said:

Our test scores have been below Mississippi for decades. #50?
I thought this turd of a statement deserved a spotlight all to itself.


Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Eastern Oregon Bear said:

movielover said:

Our test scores have been below Mississippi for decades. #50?
I thought this turd of a statement deserved a spotlight all to itself.


Decades is an exaggeration. California, despite being much wealthier, has problems with reading and English proficiency.

https://napavalleyregister.com/opinion/columnists/community-voices-california-needs-to-look-to-mississippi-to-help-younger-students-really/article_9d89eb7a-1f63-11ee-b73c-17580980b63e.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/edsource.org/2019/reading-scores-drop-in-california-most-states-in-much-watched-national-test/619237%3famp=1

https://www.google.com/amp/s/edsource.org/2023/flat-test-scores-leave-california-far-behind-pre-covid-levels-of-achievement/698895%3famp=1
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Eastern Oregon Bear said:

movielover said:

Our test scores have been below Mississippi for decades. #50?
I thought this turd of a statement deserved a spotlight all to itself.


People from Mississippi might say:
"As if it's your god given right to finish ahead of us - god forbid we do anything well. F-ing elitist!"

Yes, that's right! MovieLover is exactly what his brethren of the bedeviled rail against.
Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

movielover said:

Our test scores have been below Mississippi for decades. #50?
I thought this turd of a statement deserved a spotlight all to itself.


Decades is an exaggeration. California, despite being much wealthier, has problems with reading and English proficiency.

https://napavalleyregister.com/opinion/columnists/community-voices-california-needs-to-look-to-mississippi-to-help-younger-students-really/article_9d89eb7a-1f63-11ee-b73c-17580980b63e.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/edsource.org/2019/reading-scores-drop-in-california-most-states-in-much-watched-national-test/619237%3famp=1

https://www.google.com/amp/s/edsource.org/2023/flat-test-scores-leave-california-far-behind-pre-covid-levels-of-achievement/698895%3famp=1
I have to admit that movielover has a point. When I posted above, I was thinking of state educational rankings which I had looked up a few days ago. California was generally in the 20s and Mississippi was 48th or 49th. However, it then occurred to me that movielover had said test scores, so I looked those up. At least over the last few years, California is near the bottom and Mississippi is higher. I doubt that's been true for long. Still, by his chosen metric, movielover was more right than I was in this case. I went back to edit my post, but Bearister had already quoted it, so it was too late to remove it.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Reading through the anti-immigrant stances on these pages, it's amazing America was able to rise up and become the economic engine it did in the 1900's, what with all the non-English speaking, uneducated poor masses who flowed through Ellis Island at the turn of the century.



Of course, there were phobic sentiments back then, too.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Immigrants as a percentage of total population of United States, over time:



How many people in the U.S. are immigrants?

The U.S. foreign-born population reached a record 44.8 million in 2018. Since 1965, when U.S. immigration laws replaced a national quota system, the number of immigrants living in the U.S. has more than quadrupled. Immigrants today account for 13.7% of the U.S. population, nearly triple the share (4.8%) in 1970. However, today's immigrant share remains below the record 14.8% share in 1890, when 9.2 million immigrants lived in the U.S.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/immigrants-learn-english-immigrants-language#:~:text=About%2091%20percent%20of%20immigrants,here%20from%201900%20to%201930.


The ability to speak English is an important part of immigrant assimilation in the United States. In contemporary politics there is a concern that although earlier waves of immigrants learned English, newer cohorts are doing so at lower rates. This brief uses U.S. Census data to answer this concern and show that English language acquisition rates have increased over the past 100 years.

About 91 percent of immigrants in the United States between 1980 and 2010 reportedly spoke English compared with 86 percent who lived here from 1900 to 1930.

While immigrants with different backgrounds are more or less likely to learn English than others, our analysis unambiguously shows that today's immigrants are more likely to learn English than immigrants in the beginning of the last century.



I guess sometimes people just run with their own assumptions, when actually they don't know what they are talking about.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mind you, the above posts are Not A Call For Open Borders.

It's just to highlight the fact that the sky isn't falling.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/immigrants-learn-english-immigrants-language#:~:text=About%2091%20percent%20of%20immigrants,here%20from%201900%20to%201930.


The ability to speak English is an important part of immigrant assimilation in the United States. In contemporary politics there is a concern that although earlier waves of immigrants learned English, newer cohorts are doing so at lower rates. This brief uses U.S. Census data to answer this concern and show that English language acquisition rates have increased over the past 100 years.

About 91 percent of immigrants in the United States between 1980 and 2010 reportedly spoke English compared with 86 percent who lived here from 1900 to 1930.

While immigrants with different backgrounds are more or less likely to learn English than others, our analysis unambiguously shows that today's immigrants are more likely to learn English than immigrants in the beginning of the last century.



I guess sometimes people just run with their own assumptions, when actually they don't know what they are talking about.


Apples and Oranges. This doesn't prove your point although you love to pin folks who want to restrict illegal immigration as uncompassionate ignorant racists. The landscape at the end of the 19th Century was much different than what we have today. At that time, they were still giving out land to folks who'd settle west.
Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

Reading through the anti-immigrant stances on these pages, it's amazing America was able to rise up and become the economic engine it did in the 1900's, what with all the non-English speaking, uneducated poor masses who flowed through Ellis Island at the turn of the century.



Of course, there were phobic sentiments back then, too.
I'm reminded of the line from Blazing Saddles which was spoken grudgingly:

"OK, we'll take the <Blacks> and <Chinese> but we don't want the Irish!"
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
As long as Trump is the head of the Republican party and there are disloyal Americans in the House who pledge loyalty to Trump over the country, Republican Party will remain a joker party. Loonies have been considering me a RINO anyway but count me as a conservative Democrat now. Will make it official with change in party affiliation . Killing the border bill by the idiots did it for me. Maybe more former Republicans like me joining and contributing to the Democratic Party will bring some sanity to that party but the Republican Party is currently hopeless and destructive.

concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

As long as Trump is the head of the Republican party and there are disloyal Americans in the House who pledge loyalty to Trump over the country, Republican Party will remain a joker party. Loonies have been considering me a RINO anyway but count me as a conservative Democrat now. Will make it official with change in party affiliation . Killing the border bill by the idiots did it for me. Maybe more former Republicans like me joining and contributing to the Democratic Party will bring some sanity to that party but the Republican Party is currently hopeless and destructive.



Reaction 1:
OMG Thank You!
I know you don't like me, but where can I mail you this kiss on your lips!???

Reaction 2:
Gee, and I thought it was the lame impeachment vote yesterday that did it for you. Count-your-votes-Nancy was snickering cackling howling at dumbass Mike Johnson for gaveling out his own failed proposal. What a dumbass!

Reaction 3:
It's about time, you moron!
Trump has been wreaking havoc all over the GOP for 7 years, and the nation ever since that birtherism racism nonsense!



Spicy language aside, it's great to have you make the flip, too. Welcome.
As I have said, the GOP needs to suffer tremendous losses, so that it can examine itself and reinvent itself with a shedding of the stupidity that doesn't work. Without that moment of getting crushed, they won't be incentivized to do so.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

concordtom said:

https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/immigrants-learn-english-immigrants-language#:~:text=About%2091%20percent%20of%20immigrants,here%20from%201900%20to%201930.


The ability to speak English is an important part of immigrant assimilation in the United States. In contemporary politics there is a concern that although earlier waves of immigrants learned English, newer cohorts are doing so at lower rates. This brief uses U.S. Census data to answer this concern and show that English language acquisition rates have increased over the past 100 years.

About 91 percent of immigrants in the United States between 1980 and 2010 reportedly spoke English compared with 86 percent who lived here from 1900 to 1930.

While immigrants with different backgrounds are more or less likely to learn English than others, our analysis unambiguously shows that today's immigrants are more likely to learn English than immigrants in the beginning of the last century.



I guess sometimes people just run with their own assumptions, when actually they don't know what they are talking about.


Apples and Oranges. This doesn't prove your point although you love to pin folks who want to restrict illegal immigration as uncompassionate ignorant racists. The landscape at the end of the 19th Century was much different than what we have today. At that time, they were still giving out land to folks who'd settle west.


Hmmm.
I'm going to post this photo for you.
It's from a google search on
"Brooklyn 1900 crowded street"



You see, Brooklyn was packed then. And those ships were aiming right for them.

The truth is, I think, there is still LOTS of room for more people in this country. You just don't like it because it represents change from what you're used to.

I don't want millions more here, either. I like our wide open spaces.
But, you know, so did the Native Americans.

The "it's different this time" excuse expired a while ago.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Eastern Oregon Bear said:


I'm reminded of the line from Blazing Saddles which was spoken grudgingly:

"OK, we'll take the <Blacks> and <Chinese> but we don't want the Irish!"

Watch it there, Boyo!

Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

oski003 said:

concordtom said:

https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/immigrants-learn-english-immigrants-language#:~:text=About%2091%20percent%20of%20immigrants,here%20from%201900%20to%201930.


The ability to speak English is an important part of immigrant assimilation in the United States. In contemporary politics there is a concern that although earlier waves of immigrants learned English, newer cohorts are doing so at lower rates. This brief uses U.S. Census data to answer this concern and show that English language acquisition rates have increased over the past 100 years.

About 91 percent of immigrants in the United States between 1980 and 2010 reportedly spoke English compared with 86 percent who lived here from 1900 to 1930.

While immigrants with different backgrounds are more or less likely to learn English than others, our analysis unambiguously shows that today's immigrants are more likely to learn English than immigrants in the beginning of the last century.



I guess sometimes people just run with their own assumptions, when actually they don't know what they are talking about.


Apples and Oranges. This doesn't prove your point although you love to pin folks who want to restrict illegal immigration as uncompassionate ignorant racists. The landscape at the end of the 19th Century was much different than what we have today. At that time, they were still giving out land to folks who'd settle west.


Hmmm.
I'm going to post this photo for you.
It's from a google search on
"Brooklyn 1900 crowded street"



You see, Brooklyn was packed then. And those ships were aiming right for them.

The truth is, I think, there is still LOTS of room for more people in this country. You just don't like it because it represents change from what you're used to.

I don't want millions more here, either. I like our wide open spaces.
But, you know, so did the Native Americans.

The "it's different this time" excuse expired a while ago.


Most immigrants in that era entered the United States through New York Harbor. I can see why you can find a picture of NY being crowded. Most of the rest of the country was fairly empty, except for those pesky Native Americans.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.