The Immigration Graph

Hi,
I do feel the need to explain my position on immigration, since I realize
that it is counter to that of the typical libertarian.

First, I read no significance into the colors on the graph that Jay
made/provided. It shows the large contribution to the US population
made by immigration since 1970; I don't think most Americans are
aware of the extent that the changes made in the immigration law in 1965
have impacted the US population, and this graph does show it --well,
GRAPHICALLY!

I think we all know that future projections are based on assumptions, and
these could change. The graph is accurate for the time 1970-present; of
course the future is just a "guess".

Why be concerned by the high immigration rate since 1965 and not since
1900 or 1492? Well the nature of immigration changed. Before the 1965
law, immigrants were well educated, and a LOWER percent of
immigrants were on welfare than was the native born population. Since
1965, the reverse is the case. Some say this is because the nature of US
society has changed, and maybe it has. But before the change, you could
argue that immigrants contributed more than they cost. Now, it is more
likely the reverse, at least in the "short run" of a generation or two.

But my objection to the current high immigration levels is not primarily
economic (they depress wages for the working poor, while they benefit
the rich by providing low cost nannies, etc).  And it is not even primarily
ecological (before, the US was underpopulated, now overpopulation and
pollution are more likely problems). I think both these objections are, on
balance, true. 

But my MAIN concern is "cultural". Before, the goal of immigrants was
to assimilate, learn English, and become Americans. Many still do want
this. But increasingly, the idea is to maintain a variety of other cultures
and languages here: "multiculturalism" is replacing "assimilation" and
brings the danger of Yugoslaviaizing" the US.

For more on my views on this, Look at National Review current issue
(June 16, 97) and my web page, end of the Politics section.

                     ,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___( O O )___ooo_______________
                       (_)
jim blair (jeblair@facstaff.wisc.edu) For a good time call
     http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834

jim blair:

>Again, if you don't know much about the demographics of immigration
>today, and how it compares with immigration before 1965, I will try to
>find some online references. But one important difference: before 1965
>immigrants were LESS likely to be on welfare than native born, but today
>they are MORE likely.
>

Absolutely false.---- zepp@snowcrest.net (Zepp)


Hi,

I'll show you mine if you will show me yours. 

Reference, that is.

Mine is from George Borjas, Professor of Public Policy at the
John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. From
his article "Immigration and Welfare" in the June 16, 97 issue of
National Review we have: 

"By 1990, the Census showed that immigrants were MORE likely to
receive cash benefits than native households. In fact, if one
adds non-cash programs (such as Medicaid, Food Stamps, and
housing assistance), it turns out that 21 percent of immigrant
households receive some type of aid, as compared to 14 percent of
native households and 10 percent of white  non-hispanic native
households. In short, the "welfare gap" between immigrants and
natives has reversed direction and grown substantially in a very
short time."

(This follows an explanation that historically immigrants have
used welfare LESS than the native born) 

Then "Why did immigrant use of welfare rise so rapidly? It's
elementary: today's immigrants are relatively less skilled than
those who came two or three decades ago. Since enactment  of the
1965 Amendments, the United States has been granting entry visas
to persons who have relatives in the United States with no regard
to their skills or economic potential".

Sounds like he agrees with me  :-)

Now why is he wrong, and what is the basis of your claim that he
is wrong?  

UNEMPLOYMENT: And also, the unemployment rate now is higher for
foreign born than for native born. See the letter by Vernon M.
Briggs of Cornell University in the October 27, 1997 issue of
National Review about an error in the Census Bureau data that he
corrected. For 1996, the unemployment rate for native-born was 5.7%
and for foreign born it was  7.7%

Due to a calculational error, this was reported as 3.8% for native 
born  and 4.9% for foreign born in its Current Population Report,
P20-494, issued on April 8, 1997. But they had used the wrong
denominator in their calculation.