Posted on 01/17/2009 2:34:39 AM PST by neverdem
Evidence keeps accumulating that the tide of immigration is ebbing. Tough enforcement laws passed by states like Arizona and Oklahoma and localities like Prince William County, Va., have reportedly spurred Latino immigrants to move elsewhere. Tougher enforcement of federal immigration laws may be having the same effect.
Classrooms in Orange County, Calif., are suddenly half-empty. Latino day laborers seem to be less thick on the ground at their morning gathering places. Remittances to Mexico and other Latin countries are down, and men are returning to some villages from the United States.
Latinos appear to account for a disproportionate share of mortgage foreclosures. The Census Bureau estimates that net immigration in 2007-08 was 14 percent lower than the average for 2000-07, and those estimates don't cover the period after June 30, when the recession really started hitting.
Demographic forecasters tend to assume that the long-term future will look a lot like the short-term past. That's why the Census Bureau estimates that there will be more than 100 million people classifying themselves as Hispanics in 2050, compared to 45 million today. But history tells us that trend lines don't go on forever. Sometimes they turn around and go downward.
We have had major Latino immigration now throughout the 25 years since the economic recovery of the early 1980s. But I think there is a possibility -- not a certainty, probably not a likelihood, but a serious possibility -- that we may be at an inflection point, at the beginning of a period in which Latino immigration will be substantially lower than it has been the past quarter-century.
We have seen such inflection points in migration before. When Leonard Bernstein wrote "West Side Story" in the 1950s, it seemed that the flow of Puerto Ricans to New York City would continue indefinitely. But in fact net migration from Puerto Rico dropped to just about zero in 1961, when average incomes on the island were about one-third the level of the mainland United States. The huge flow of blacks from the South to the North, which started in 1940 due to the labor demands of war industry and the invention of the mechanical cotton-picker, seemed likely in 1960 to continue on and on. But it stopped suddenly in 1965, the year the Voting Rights Act passed, and today there is a small net migration of blacks from North to South.
Economics plays some role in this. The apparent downturn in immigration in the past 18 months is surely not unrelated to the recession that began, the National Bureau of Economic Research now tells us, in December 2007. The gaming industry in Las Vegas -- then and for most of the preceding 20 years the nation's fastest-growing metro area -- started declining in 2007, and net immigration to Nevada was down 16 percent in 2007-08 from the 2000-07 levels. And reports are coming in of Latinos leaving town as construction of giant hotels on the Strip is shut down by foreclosure.
But immigration is not just about economics. People move, I have come to think, in pursuit of dreams -- or to escape nightmares. One of those dreams -- home ownership in America -- now seems much less attainable than it did just six months ago, with thousands of foreclosures and with subprime loans to low-income buyers presumably a thing of the past. Meanwhile, birth rates in Mexico and much of Latin America took a sharp turn downward around 1990, which means that those entering the workforce there in years hence will have less competition for jobs -- fewer nightmares.
George W. Bush has said that one of his regrets is that he was not successful in getting Congress to pass a comprehensive immigration law, with legalization, guest-worker and enforcement provisions. If Barack Obama and congressional Democrats seek such legislation, they should keep in mind the possibility that the situation they are addressing may be changing. So should those who oppose such a law.
Since Congress considered and failed to pass a comprehensive law in 2006 and 2007, we have learned that tougher enforcement of existing law is possible and can reduce illegal immigration. Now we face a sharply different economic situation, which is presumably less conducive to immigration. This may make the need for a comprehensive law less pressing and at the same time make it politically more palatable.
Our history is one of great surges of migration, immigrant and internal, which begin without much in the way of warning and which end unexpectedly. It's possible -- not certain, maybe not likely, but possible -- that we're witnessing the beginning of one of those endpoints now.
“most FR posters are tired of the Faux Conservatives, like Barone.”
This is the heart of the problem, isn’t it? Anyone who does not subscribe to the orthodoxy of the folks who post here is giving Obama a blow job.
The reason we have a socialist president is that the people you call true conservatives abandoned Bush early on. Absent any political capital, he was unable to advance the very agenda that you criticize him for not advancing.
Catch 22. You “pure” conservatives doomed Bush from the start. Obama is largely your fault.
Of course, of course as everyone's memory should be refreshed when they call any major company or government office and the phone is answered with "For Chinese, press 1........."
It isn’t pure conservatism they are after. It is perfection. There are some people on here who would
deride Jesus Christ as a hippy. Michael Barone has more intelligence and insight in his two typing fingers than most of his critics here have in their entire bodies. Ronald Reagan is there idol and hero (and mine) yet they forget he wasn’t perfect either. It is always easier to criticize and name call than to offer pro active suggestions and there are far too many here taking the easy way.
Bush never even attempted to defend himself.
Bush's "new tone" began when Gore tried to sue his way into the White House; even in the aftermath of *that*, and with the extreme vandalism and literal filth left in the White House in a fit of spite by the childish Clintonites, Bush didn't call them on it.
Then you had 9-11, and Bush didn't clear house and have Gorelick sent to Leavenworth for treason. (Hmmm, or the Clintons either, but that's another story).
Shortly after 9-11, you had the "Axis of Evil" from which Bush backed down, to be replaced by the "Religion of Peace" fellation.
Then you had the Harriet Meiers fiasco (nobody, not even on the left, could figure out why she was chosen).
You had the attempt to forcibly open the borders to Mexico; Ramos and Campean;
the Kennedy education bill;
the vast expansion of Medicaid;
the Republican rout of 2006 while Bush said and did nothing;
a higher rate of govt. spending than under Clinton (*how* many vetoes did Bush do of spending?);
not pressing for domestic oil despite $4.00 / gallon gasoline;
"Mission Accomplished" in Iraq when we still faced a guerrilla insurgency with attendant high casualties;
failure to assign the blame for the sub-prime debacle on Congresss (Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac; Dodd; Barney Frank);
Mankiw's economic policies including the continued evisceration of the Middle Class through illegal immigration, wholesale exportation of manufacturing, and a flood of H1-B's to soak up the high-tech jobs which were "supposed to" replace the factory jobs;
the lowering of interest rates to generational lows after 9-11, helping lead to the housing bubble;
not using his Presidential influence during the GOP primaries to steer them in a conservative direction (say, Fred Thompson over Juan McCain?);
allowing the left to control the narrative on the War on Terror ( e.g. Guantanamo = torture, warrantless wiretaps; not imprisoning members of the NYT or the government employees behind the leaks for revealing the SWIFT program; not going after the Valerie Plame leaker, when it was already *known* to be Richard Armitage);
pushing the Law of the Sea treaty;
waiting until the last days of the Administration to use Executive Orders on pro-life issues;
not directing his Administration to clamp down on James Hansen for politicizing NASA;
letting the left define him, starting with Yellowcake "Bush lied, people died";
screwing up the response to Katrina;
and many, many more.
Put down your doobie and step away from the terminal.
Yes he is a sharp knife. Very interesting theory.
I'll be happy to be counted using the same words as her.
What really gets me are people using "I want to 'commentate' on that" or 'Restauranteur' for Restaurateur or the hundreds of other bastardizations of words of which they don't know the meaning.
My point about the whole thing really was that people who somehow don't feel the dire need to be open, caring and receptive towards illegals and want them removed are not 'nutcases' as Ms/or Mr. Feelgood implied.
Don't know what others are reading, but Barone's piece seemed to me like a straightforward analysis of the numbers and trendlines -- which is what Barone does.
Barone's is the kind of reporting that we all say we'd like to see from the MSM -- "just the facts".
It's not necessary to froth at the mouth to prove one is anti-amnesty. And it's counter-productive to pee all over a credible report that illegal immigration is down...and may have reversed permanently!
Ah, thank you okie01. A voice of reason!
May I suggest you take your own advice?
I have seen many hate filled, disingenuous posts and out-right lies here of late, but this screed takes the prize.
Bush never even attempted to defend himself.
That is not the job of the President. He would have looked like a whiney child, and the ENEMEDIA would have hit him over the head with it, had he began his day with a presser defending himself.
Where were you? Did you defend him?
Where were all the so-called republican and/or conservative leaders, pundits and commentators? Did they defend him?
Bush's "new tone" began when Gore tried to sue his way into the White House; even in the aftermath of *that*, and with the extreme vandalism and literal filth left in the White House in a fit of spite by the childish Clintonites, Bush didn't call them on it.
Oh yes, that is what he should have done after one of the ugliest elections in history when he was being called a fraud, Hitler, “selected/not elected” and every other evil thing the damn commies could think of while holding up the certification of the election and taking unprecedented action to deny him his choice of cabinet members.
Then you had 9-11, and Bush didn't clear house and have Gorelick sent to Leavenworth for treason. (Hmmm, or the Clintons either, but that's another story).
Oh yeah, that would have been the way to unite the country after the worst attack on our country in history and drive the highest presidential approval rating (92%) in American history straight into the ground.
Shortly after 9-11, you had the "Axis of Evil" from which Bush backed down, to be replaced by the "Religion of Peace" fellation.
Again, did you defend his use of the “Axis of Evil” when the commies were going spastic and saying he hates islam and Arabs?
I saw a bumper sticker in DC last Saturday that said; Islam is Peace Love and SECURITY (or something extremely close to that)
Makes me wonder if there was not a threat to our nation in retaliation for the Axis of Evil remark.
Then you had the Harriet Meiers fiasco (nobody, not even on the left, could figure out why she was chosen).
I’m so damn sick of hearing this poor woman’s name dragged through the mud over and over again. Y’all rarely say a good word about the exceptional choices he DID get on SCOTUS!
NEVER AGAIN can the “right” say: “Give them an up or down vote!” or “The President has the constitutional RIGHT to nominate whoever he chooses for the courts.”
Would she have been a good choice? We will never know if she would have even been confirmed.
Reagan gave us Kennedy, O’Connor and Scalia…1 outta 3 aint bad I guess.
You had the attempt to forcibly open the borders to Mexico; Ramos and Campean;
Please explain and source your “forcibly open the borders” comment as I have no idea what you are talking about.
the Kennedy education bill;
I watched President Bush’s farewell address on my local Fox station. Immediately following they had Wendell Gollor outside the WH pontificating. Before I turned it off he said something to the effect that President Bush had promised to change the tone in Washington, but after reaching out to kennedy on the education bill he quit and was a failure in regard to changing the tone.
YES - it’s Bush’s Fault the tone did not change in DC and this has been permitted to stand, while the so-called republicans and conservatives attack him.
the vast expansion of Medicaid;
The Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit was in the works for at least 5 years before President Bush came into office. There was going to be a prescription benefit, period! Either the republicans controlled it or the demonRATS controlled it.
If we could actually get legitimate numbers from the program I believe we would find less has been spent on medicare benefits than before the plan. It is far less expensive to pay $100/mo for heart medication than $300,000 + for open heart surgery.
Should medicare, socialist security et al be nuked? You betcha! Will it ever happen? Hell no...and it's not Bush's fault!
the Republican rout of 2006 while Bush said and did nothing;
What the hell was he supposed to do or say? He campaigned for some, while others chose to “distance” themselves from the “unpopular” president. How dare you blame that on President Bush!
a higher rate of govt. spending than under Clinton (*how* many vetoes did Bush do of spending?);
The K’Toon had a hostile republican House. You expected the republican President to veto the republican spending bills?
Also, President Bush had to sign onto a lot of crap to get what he needed for the war.
not pressing for domestic oil despite $4.00 / gallon gasoline;
Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you really that ignorant.
President Bush has been “pressing for domestic oil” exploration since his 1999 campaign days. Look it up. He had a phenomenal energy plan that never got off the ground with the help of the rinos in CONgre$$.
"Mission Accomplished" in Iraq when we still faced a guerrilla insurgency with attendant high casualties;
Pardon me, but your utter and complete ignorance is showing with this absurd statement.
There was NO guerrilla insurgency on May 1, 2003 and we had a total of 108 hostile casualties to date.
The “Mission Accomplished” was for the ship, not the war in Iraq.
I thought everyone knew this by now.
failure to assign the blame for the sub-prime debacle on Congresss (Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac; Dodd; Barney Frank);
The President does not play the blame game, but he clearly pointed out where the fault should be placed HERE!
the lowering of interest rates to generational lows after 9-11, helping lead to the housing bubble;
Lowering interest rates is never a bad idea. This had little to do with our economic woes.
not using his Presidential influence during the GOP primaries to steer them in a conservative direction (say, Fred Thompson over Juan McCain?);
ROTFLOL!!! FT vs. JM is not a conservative choice. If you actually examined his brief sInate record, you would know this.
FT entered to rid the field of all conservative candidates, paving the way for JM.
When his mission was accomplished, he withdrew.
allowing the left to control the narrative on the War on Terror ( e.g. Guantanamo = torture, warrantless wiretaps; not imprisoning members of the NYT or the government employees behind the leaks for revealing the SWIFT program; not going after the Valerie Plame leaker, when it was already *known* to be Richard Armitage);
HE did not allow the commies to control the narrative on these issues, WE did.
What did you do to change or correct said narrative?
pushing the Law of the Sea treaty;
He did not push it. He mentioned it a couple of times.
Note:it was never debated in CONgre$$ or ratified.
waiting until the last days of the Administration to use Executive Orders on pro-life issues;
B.S.
In January, 2001, President George W. Bush used his executive authority to restore the pro-life "Mexico City Policy"
President Bush Signs Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, 11-5-03.
My guess is that is not good enough for you, as it was not an executive order.
letting the left define him, starting with Yellowcake "Bush lied, people died";
Again…same as other answers above.
screwing up the response to Katrina;
President Bush DID NOT “screw up” the response to Katrina.
That idiot governor Blank-0 and so-called chocolate mayor Nagin screwed up the response. Again, you are perpetuating the lies instead of setting the record straight.
A little silly, even dishonest. Immigration goes down because the economy nosedives. If the economy heats up again, immigration will increase. It's only an "endpoint" if there's legislation and enforcement to keep immigration under control. Barone ought to know that.
You would be well-advised to become a little more informed about Barone.
“This may make the need for a comprehensive law less pressing and at the same time make it politically more palatable.”
Barone has long been shill for amnesty. And he still is.
You’re a fool.
Some of us live among them. It’s obvious you don’t.
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.