The Center for Immigration Studies, a more-or-less anti-immigration organization, has released an analysis of the current state of immigration in the United States:
Immigration over the past seven years was the highest for any seven-year period in American history, bringing 10.3 million new immigrants, more than half of them without legal status, according to an analysis of census data released today by the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington.
One in eight people living in the United States is an immigrant, the survey found, for a total of 37.9 million people — the highest level since the 1920s.
The survey was conducted by Steven A. Camarota, director of research at the center, which advocates reduced immigration.
Mr. Camarota has been active in the national immigration debate. Independent demographers disputed some of the survey’s conclusions, but not Mr. Camarota’s methods of data analysis.
I’ve seen criticisms of the CIS but I’d rather see critiques of the analysis. The data are the data; the motives of the analyzers, while illuminating, don’t refute the findings.
There’s a certain amount of handwringing going on in the blogosphere about the findings but surely they’re no surprise. Anyone with eyes or ears has certainly noticed that we’ve got a lot of immigrants around these days.
I think (hope, anyway) that I’ve been pretty consistent in the opinion about immigration that I’ve expressed here. I don’t think that we have an immigration problem in the United States. To the extent that we do have a problem we have a problem with Mexican immigration or, more precisely, immigration that comes via Mexico since much of our Central and South American immigration comes via Mexico. I also believe that our Mexican immigration program will tend to take care of itself—Mexican demographics nearly guarantees it.
However, I do think that the concern that we’re seeing in the country about immigration is understandable. We’re experiencing the highest rate of immigration since the turn of the 20th century when millions of southern and eastern Europeans came here and created much of our current immigration folklore and romanticism. That immigration motivated our current public school system as a means of aculturating the children of the new arrivals and the system of quotas that prevailed until the 1960’s. I suspect we’ll see a similarly strong reaction this time around. The immigration is certain to have unexpected consequences both from the new arrivals themselves as I’ve commented on before and the reaction to them.
I also think that we’re imprudent to cede our immigration policy to another country as we have done with respect to Mexico especially when that policy is as socially damaging as the current one is to Mexico. But that’s a problem we really need to negotiate with the Mexican government. I wonder if the next administration will be as reluctant to do that as this one has been?
I think we should pay more serious attention to assimilation than we have recently. I tend to agree with what my friend John Burgess said last night that the stewpot is a better metaphor for our attitude towards assimilation than the salad bowl is. I also think that social pressure is the best tool for accomplishing that. There’s a difference between tolerance and being a patsy.
I do have a modest proposal for reform of immigration. The federal government should pay 100% of the cost of educating children of immigrants who qualify for Title I. If the states can’t enforce immigration law, it’s only fair that they be reimbursed for the consequences of what the federal government fails to do. BTW whatever happened to that promise of no unfunded mandates from the federal government?
Immigration is an issue that elected officials of both parties dearly want to avoid. It does not help either incumbent Democrats or Republicans for the very simple reason that the opinion of the American people as a whole on the subject of immigration differs so markedly from that of Democratic and Republican politicians (and other elites). While the presidential aspirants may be able to avoid the subject for the primaries, I doubt they’ll be able to continue that into the general election. The importance of the issue to independents, needed by both Democrats and Republicans for victory, will likely preclude that.
By the way our immigration rate and percentage of immigrants in the population is double that of France and has been for our entire history. We can take it.
I also believe that our Mexican immigration program will tend to take care of itself—Mexican demographics nearly guarantees it.
Well, yeah. In twenty years there won’t be anyone left in Meixco.
BTW whatever happened to that promise of no unfunded mandates from the federal government?
You didn’t really believe that one, did you?
Immigration is an issue that elected officials of both parties dearly want to avoid. It does not help either incumbent Democrats or Republicans for the very simple reason that the opinion of the American people as a whole on the subject of immigration differs so markedly from that of Democratic and Republican politicians (and other elites).
The worst of it is the utter contempt for the concept of rule of law that the elite show by their stance on illegal immigration. Between this and the War on Drugs it’s a wonder anyone has any respect for the law in this country anymore.
I also think that we’re imprudent to cede our immigration policy to another country as we have done with respect to Mexico especially when that policy is as socially damaging as the current one is to Mexico. But that’s a problem we really need to negotiate with the Mexican government.
Why do we have to negotiate with the Mexican government about controling our own borders?
For that matter, how much of Mexico does the Mexican government actually control? Between the lawlessness along the US-Mexican border because of the drug gangs and the insurrection in the south of the country, is the Mexican government really an entity worth negotiating with at this time?
I think it’ll happen a little faster than that, Icepick. The remittance system is already breaking down which was sort of an obvious inevitability. Look at it this way: dad goes north, sends checks home, eventually starts another family up here, stops sending checks home, leaving poverty-stricken “widow” and a bunch of kids. Net effect: they’re worse off than before.
Think of negotiating a deal with Mexico as outsourcing. It’s cheaper and more politically expedient for Mexicans to take care of their own population than it is for us to keep them out.
I don’t think that we have an immigration problem in the United States.
I assume your neighborhood hasn’t been overrun by Haitian boat people, then. It looks a bit different when the violent gangs that used to be over there (and that you only knew of by the evening news) move into your neighborhood and start shooting the place up. (And yes, that has actually happened to the neighborhood where I grew up.)
Think of negotiating a deal with Mexico as outsourcing. It’s cheaper and more politically expedient for Mexicans to take care of their own population than it is for us to keep them out.
But the Mexican goverenment CAN’T take care of their own, that’s why they’re so happy for them to come here. The remittance checks are just the cherry on top.
No, it hasn’t. Is that a problem of numbers or who the immigrants are? If it’s who the immigrants are, it will take more than quotas or fences to deal with it. For one thing we’ll need to get rid of family reunification as part of our system.
I’ve got plenty of immigrants in my neighborhood. Next door to me our neighbors are Polish immigrants. One door from them is an Irish immigrant. Across the street from him are Philippino immigrants. Next door to them are Mexican immigrants. We’ve also got Chinese, Japanese, South Asian and West Asian immigrants in the neighborhood. I haven’t seen a problem.
Sure they can. They just don’t want to. Who can blame them?
Mexico isn’t a poor country any more. It’s a middle class country and it’s time that the Mexican government started showing a little more responsibility. We need to encourage them. Tighter enforcement of current employment laws here would be a good start. I also think we should be seeking reciprocity with Mexico in a a large number of areas.
To me illegal immigration is a security issue and I haven’t heard an answer as good as a biometric card. The fence has some advantages, but the chief one is that it doesn’t inconvenience citizens. Its chief advantage is that it only addresses one type of illegal immigration from one location. And I agree with Dave that there are data points to suggest that Mexico may not be a major issue in the future (declining birthrates, the country’s uneven economic development is being absorbed, more border crossers are coming from Central America)
Assimilation is a secondary issue for our education system to handle, regardless of whether the kid is legal or illegal or the victim of parenting.
The issue of border security is a perfectly good issue that is getting short shrift because the issue of Mexican immigration is getting too much attention. Our border problem with Canada is the more serious one for a host of reasons. I suspect we’ll see both of our borders patrolled regularly by drones of the sort that we’re using in Iraq right now.
Pew estimates that 45% of illegal immigrants enter the country by overstaying their visas. Maybe Homeland Security will get that under control, but the visa system, border patrols and coast guard patrols all strike me as all-or-nothing protections, which are mighty costly.
My guess is that’s from everywhere but Mexico.
I’ve got plenty of immigrants in my neighborhood. Next door to me our neighbors are Polish immigrants. One door from them is an Irish immigrant. Across the street from him are Philippino immigrants. Next door to them are Mexican immigrants. We’ve also got Chinese, Japanese, South Asian and West Asian immigrants in the neighborhood. I haven’t seen a problem.
So your answer is, “No. We do not have violent Haitian drug gangs in our neighborhood.” It also sounds like you’re talking primarily, if not entirely, about legal immigrants. I’m not.
Here’s an example of someone (several someones, actually) who entered the country and over-stayed his visa. The Jean-Claude in the story lived around the corner from my mother. There’s nothing like having known perpetrators of crimes against humanity living in the neighborhood.
It boils down to this: Dave, you don’t seerefuses to leave the neighborhood where she’s spent the last 4 the illegal immigration issue as too big a deal because it doesn’t directly effect you or yours. It DOES directly effect me now, because my mother 7 years of her life. To me the effects of the drugs & violence & other crimes (beyond the illegality of their immigration status) seem like a big deal. I’m willing to bet that a large percentage of Americans have experiences that aren’t too dissimilar from mine. There’s a reason illegal immigration has become such a big issue in this country.
Dang. My last paragraph got mangled. It should have read:
It boils down to this: Dave, you don’t see the illegal immigration issue as too big a deal because it doesn’t directly effect you or yours. It DOES directly effect me now, because my mother refuses to leave the neighborhood where she’s spent the last 47 years of her life. To me the effects of the drugs & violence & other crimes (beyond the illegality of their immigration status) seem like a big deal. I’m willing to bet that a large percentage of Americans have experiences that aren’t too dissimilar from mine. There’s a reason illegal immigration has become such a big issue in this country.
I don’t think I see it quite that way, Icepick. I don’t see a problem with immigration because, as I said, the bulk of our immigration is from Mexico and it won’t continue forever.
I think that what you’re concerned about is crime and the solution for it is greater police presence, arresting and punishing criminals.
I don’t believe there’s any way to end illegal immigration short of ending immigration period. Then it’s easy. Not politically easy, logistically easy.
But I’m honestly open to suggestion. How do we prevent illegal immigration that will prevent what you are specifically drawing attention to?
But I’m honestly open to suggestion. How do we prevent illegal immigration that will prevent what you are specifically drawing attention to?
It can’t be that hard. First, when ever an illegal immigrant is arrested, deport them, unless they must serve a prison sentence here first. Don’t release them back into the population.
Second, it’s not like the illegals are keeping themselves sequestered away in some sevret locations. One could easily catch between 5,000 and 10,000 illegal immigrant Haitians in Pine Hills (my old neighborhood in Orlando) simply by waiting outside the large churchs and community associations on Sunday with ICE officers. I imagine there are something like 50 to 100 thousand illegal Mexicans living in the Kissimee area, and not only do they not make a secret of there presence, they have established themselves as a large community presence that has chased out anyone that isn’t Mexican.
The problem isn’t that there’s no way to enforce immigration laws, the problem is that the elites of the country refuse to enforce them.
I’ve quoted you extensively and linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2007/12/re-politics-of-immigration.html
I was curious if you ever considered changing the
structure of your website? Its very well written; I love what youve got
to say. But maybe you could a little more in the way of content so people
could connect with it better. Youve got an awful lot of text for only
having 1 or two images. Maybe you could space it
out better?