Mass Immigration Said 'Swamping' U.S. Cities

NewsMax ^ | 12 Jan, 2004

[Happy2BMe]

Mass Immigration Said 'Swamping' U.S. Cities

Jon E. Dougherty
Tuesday, Jan. 13, 2004

Mass immigration, most of it coming from south of the border, is "swamping" the United States, with six large U.S. cities now consisting mostly of foreign-born inhabitants, a new report warns.

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a Washington, D.C.-based group advocating tighter immigration restrictions, says 1.1 million immigrants will enter the U.S. this year alone. In its new report, FAIR says the immigrant population nearly doubled from 19.8 million in 1990 to 31.1 million a decade later.

"America's immigration policies have launched us into a risky experiment never tried by a modern day country," said Dan Stein, FAIR's executive director, in reference to the new numbers. "This demographic change is unlike anything this country has ever experienced, and is unprecedented in modern times."

FAIR says six large U.S. cities over 100,000 – Hialeah and Miami, Fla., along with Glendale, Santa Ana, Daly City and El Monte, Calif. – had foreign-born populations of more than 50 percent. The immigrant population constituted 41-50 percent of the total in four others: Los Angeles, East Los Angeles, and Garden Grove, Calif., along with Elizabeth, New Jersey.

Mexico accounted for about 9.2 million immigrants, or 30 percent of the total foreign-born population in the U.S., according to the Census Bureau's 2000 report, making it the leading country of birth. Next were China and the Philippines, with 1.5 million and 1.4 million respectively. They are followed by India, Vietnam, Cuba, South Korea, Canada, El Salvador and Germany.

In 2000, more than half the foreign born population lived in three states: California, New York and Texas, the Census Bureau found. The FAIR report said immigration was the greatest in the South, which saw its foreign born population grow by 90 percent, followed by 65 percent in the Midwest.

FAIR says the foreign-born population in the U.S. will swell to 45 million by 2010 if current immigration levels continue, "making this decade's wave of immigration the largest in U.S. history," the report said, adding California's foreign-born population alone is expected to swell to 12 million by decade's end.

Currently, the U.S. population is estimated at 291 million people, according to Census Bureau figures.

Though not all immigration is unhealthy for the country, FAIR says many regions of the U.S. are already struggling economically to provide basic services for people. Adding more numbers will simply make it more difficult – and expensive – to offer them, and that could lead to other troubles, the group claimed.

"What remains to be seen is if this country has the capacity to accommodate, and assimilate, an unending wave of mass immigration ¯ because failure to do so will result in a balkanized, fragmented, strife-torn and dysfunctional America," Stein said.

New Immigrant Initiatives

A number of surveys have shown a majority of Americans at odds with lawmakers who support high levels of immigration. Still, there are new immigrant-friendly initiatives being introduced and considered by Congress and the Bush administration.

For the first time since before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, the administration has hinted it is considering a new work-related legalization program for millions of aliens currently residing in the U.S.

A week ago in Miami, Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge told an audience the U.S. will have to "come to grips" with such an initiative, if for nothing else because of the sheer number of illegal aliens who here now or planning to come in the future.

"The bottom line is, as a country we have to come to grips with the presence of 8 to 12 million illegals, afford them some kind of legal status some way, but also as a country decide what our immigration policy is and then enforce it," Ridge said.

Legislatively, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 16-3 in October to approve the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act of 2003, which would provide college opportunities for U.S.-born children of illegal aliens residing in the country – a vote hailed by immigrant and Latino support groups.

"The future of thousands of Hispanic children depends on the passage of this bill," said a statement by the National Council of La Raza, the nation's largest Hispanic civil rights group.

In clarifying Ridge's statement to reporters a few days later, President Bush said he has opposed, and continues to oppose, any "blanket amnesty" for illegal aliens. But, he echoed the Homeland Security chief's support for a work-related legalization plan.

"We need to have an immigration policy that helps match any willing employer with any willing employee," Bush told reporters Dec. 15. "It makes sense that that policy go forward. And we're in the process of working that through now so I can make a recommendation to the Congress."

Bush will travel to the Summit of the Americas in Monterrey, Mexico, next month, where he will likely discuss the issue with other regional leaders.

Some lawmakers, however, call such work-related plans little more than an amnesty program, and are opposed them on those grounds. Instead, they are pushing for stricter overall enforcement of existing immigration laws as well as a different approach to creating the so-called "guest worker" programs.

Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., head of the House Immigration Reform Caucus, says border legislation he introduced earlier this year aims to plug "gaping holes in both America’s porous borders and its dysfunctional guest worker programs."

Reform groups like FAIR maintain the first issue Washington should address is continued record-high immigration.

"Mass immigration has nothing whatsoever to do with the economic and social well-being of the United States or the American people," Stein said. "Immigration is entirely about the interests of the immigrants themselves, special interest ethnic groups, and business interests that want unlimited numbers of low-wage workers."

[Texas_Dawg]

the real Dawgs are in Georgia at UGA

Thanks. What Dawgs did you think I was referring to?

[Texas_Dawg]

Most FReepers want limited immigration.

If we rounded up all 10 million illegal aliens in America tomorrow and sent them home, would you support letting 10 million other immigrants coming in to fill their jobs? What number would you support coming in at that point (after the 10 million have been removed)?

[Henrietta]

You assume that if we sent all the lettuce pickers home, the jobs would stay here. This is a false assumption. The lettuce picking jobs would move to Mexico (assuming the workers are from Mexico) because, as all you pro-immigration folks keep repeating, illegal immigrants "do the work that American citizens won't do"), and if there are no workers, the jobs can't stay here. Then we will have put our farmlands to higher and better use and will have gotten illegals back to their own country, where they can't continue to exploit our social service systems.

[rbessenger]

I'm jumping in late to this conversation but it should be said that if US cities are feeling the sting of unbridled immigration- imagine what is happening in small towns. Tiny, po-dunk backwater towns are faced with the necessity of police, fire, emt and medical professionals who have to speak spanish.

I traveled through Hardeeville, SC in the past few weeks and the only grocery store in town is all spanish and the church on main street has one english speaking service a week compared to three spanish speaking services. If the big cities are having to make changes imagine what happens when English is no longer the official language in Mayberry RFD.

[Texas_Dawg]

You assume that if we sent all the lettuce pickers home, the jobs would stay here. This is a false assumption. The lettuce picking jobs would move to Mexico (assuming the workers are from Mexico) because, as all you pro-immigration folks keep repeating, illegal immigrants "do the work that American citizens won't do"), and if there are no workers, the jobs can't stay here. Then we will have put our farmlands to higher and better use and will have gotten illegals back to their own country, where they can't continue to exploit our social service systems.

How do you move a farm to Mexico? Those farms would still be picked, it would just cost a lot more. Everyone would pay a lot more for their food. You think a few billion dollars wasted on illegals on welfare is bad? (This is not an argument against illegal immigration but one against welfare, fwiw. I'm opposed to that entirely, not just for illegals.) Just try your proposal and see how many billions would be wasted raising labor rates that high. And that's to say nothing for restaurants, construction and other industries that would be damaged by this, raising prices that much higher for all of us. Instead of just wasting billions of dollars and sending a severe blow to our economy, why don't we just let the people stay and do their jobs as documented workers? If not, and you insist on spending billions to round them all up and send them home, can we then bring in 10 million more legal immigrants wanting to work to replace all the employees you just fired?

[Henrietta]

There are plenty of workers here. I am willing to pay a higher price for my lettuce to not have my country overrun by people who flout our laws.

[Texas_Dawg]

I am willing to pay a higher price for my lettuce to not have my country overrun by people who flout our laws.

That's nice. And you have your right to vote that way. I am opposed to illegal immigration as well, but I don't feel the federal government should have a policy that bars people willing to work and contribute to America's economic growth, in favor of people who refuse to do a simple job unless paid a much greater sum of money. Yes, there are "plenty" of workers here to survive at a much less prosperous level. I have a feeling you would be really mad if unemployment was sky-rocketing and the Dow was tanking as would happen under your "ship them all home" plan.

[Henrietta]

" I am opposed to illegal immigration as well, but I don't feel the federal government should have a policy that bars people willing to work and contribute to America's economic growth, in favor of people who refuse to do a simple job unless paid a much greater sum of money. "

Actually, it doesn't sound like you are opposed to illegal immigration at all. And you feel that the government should favor illegal immigrants over its own citizens. You think it's okay for people to come here illegally, but only if they will work for peanuts. I say it's not okay for them to be here at all.

[Texas_Dawg]

Actually, it doesn't sound like you are opposed to illegal immigration at all.

I am opposed to illegal immigration. I am also opposed to jay-walking and breaking any laws.

And you feel that the government should favor illegal immigrants over its own citizens.

No, I don't. I think the laws on immigration should either be enforced, but preferably, changed. GWB is choosing to change them and I agree with that.

but only if they will work for peanuts.

I support a policy that brings in the immigration necessary to fill jobs at a level that will keep the economy growing, with people wanting to live and respect our society (as the overwhelming amount of Mexican immigrants (who make up the large majority of our illegal immigration) do).

I say it's not okay for them to be here at all.

If the law goes through (it probably won't) and they are given legal status, will you respect and treat them as any other legal resident?

[Happy2BMe]

BTTT