Tuesday, September 29, 2015
Do We Really Have An "Immigrant Problem" In The U.S. ?
The Republicans would like for you to believe that we have a serious problem of immigrants in this nation of immigrants -- and that there are so many immigrants (especially undocumented immigrants) that they are destroying this country. I have never believed that was true. Immigrants are the backbone of this country -- and even the undocumented immigrants give to this country far more than they take. They boost our economy by taking jobs no one else wants, and by spending billions of dollars in this country -- and believe it or not, they pay billions in taxes (income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, fees, etc.).
O. Ricardo Pimentel has written an article about this for the San Antonio Express-News, and it is well worth your time. He says:
The sound and fury coming out of the GOP presidential race on immigration is puzzling. The facts on the ground simply don’t merit the hysteria.
Mexican anthropologist Jorge Durand laid this out in a talk Sept. 15 at the University of Texas at San Antonio’s downtown campus. He detailed the “collapse” of migration from Mexico — you know, the country Donald Trump nonetheless continues to accuse of sending us bunches of criminals and rapists.
Sorry, just not happening.
Durand — co-founder of the statistic-gathering, trend-spotting Mexican Migration Project — spoke as part of the UTSA College of Public Policy’s distinguished lecture series. He noted that migration from Mexico reached a “saturation” point in 2007 — 10 percent of Mexicans living in the United States. But that flow has abated so much that one traditional region for migration, Los Altos de Jalisco, sends virtually no one anymore.
Yes, the 2008 economic collapse in the U.S. and tighter border security have played a role, but playing bigger ones are declining birthrates and the ability to earn a nominally living wage in Mexico, particularly when families pool resources.
Even with increased educational levels and wages in Mexico, paying $5,000 or so to a coyote to shepherd you across is cost prohibitive. And relatives on the U.S. side of the border aren’t financing such treks anymore.
Undocumented immigration overall, but particularly from Mexico, has been at a historic low. Central Americans are still coming but not in last year’s numbers. And though the administration has been curtailing removals of undocumented immigrants this year — 229,000 — it has reportedly outpaced previous administrations in the other years of its tenure, more than 414,000 in 2014 alone.
Wait, didn’t you just see an article that said the number of foreign-born in the U.S. population jumped 1.04 million last year? Right, but if you read down, you saw that this is according to government data that doesn’t account for whether the immigrants are here legally or not. And it notes that other research says the numbers for the undocumented variety are flat. Oh, and most of this growth has been fueled by Asian immigration, which doesn’t seem to be the focus of those demagoguing on the issue.
Moreover, a study released last week by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine shows that the newest generations of immigrants are assimilating as quickly and as much as previous generations. They are also learning English “as rapidly or faster.”
So, that leaves crime by undocumented immigrants. A few legitimately generate headlines and warrant outrage because they involve repeat felons who should have been deported. Here’s what doesn’t get a headline, however: Undocumented immigrants are no more likely — and many experts say far less likely — to commit violent crimes than the native born.
Obviously, there is under way an attempt to scare you to the primary polls and the undocumented folks already here can be part of the scare tactic. Not only did they get here — illegally!!!! — but they, gasp, stayed.
The problem: These immigrants essentially work for you. If mass deportations were to occur, good luck finding people to do all those jobs Americans won’t do. Good luck also paying higher prices for everything from fruit and vegetables to new houses and restaurant meals.
Perhaps the real fear is what many an emailer has told me is my motivation in supporting immigration reform — the creation of more Democrats.
That’s rich.
Immigration reform will occur at some point because it has to — labor needs and economics generally will demand it. And there will be no mass deportations because they are logistically impractical and morally repugnant to even contemplate.
This reform will likely inflict long waits until immigrants can move from provisional legal status to being eligible for citizenship — and these folks will gladly do the time and then act. Their citizen children will simply wait until they are 18 to decide whether to become politically active, in any case.
Here’s what’s rich. Republicans, today’s party of finger-pointing demagoguery, are the ones creating tomorrow’s Democrats among Latinos, immigrants or not. It’s a population growing mighty fast compared to most non-Hispanic groups. Talk about fulfilling your own prophesy, sleeping in a bed of your own making.
Monday, September 28, 2015
New Poll Infers Trump Rise May Be Ending
These charts are made from a new NBC News / Wall Street Journal Poll -- done between September 20th and 24th of a random national sample of 230 Republican voters and 256 Democratic voters. The margin of error for Republicans is 6.5 points and for Democrats is 6.1 points.
The margin of error is fairly large for this poll, but if it is to be believed, a couple of interesting things may be happening. The first would be that Donald Trump may have leveled off -- and could even be slightly dropping. He only scores 21% support in the poll, lower than in any other recent poll, and is only a single point in front of Ben Carson (which considering the margin of error would mean they are actually tied). Rubio and Fiorina tied for third place, with both finishing with 11% support.
On the Democratic side, could Bernie Sanders finally be gaining support again? All recent polls have shown him stuck in the mid-twenties, but this poll shows him at 35% (only 7 points behind Hillary Clinton). Of course that is with Biden in the race (which he isn't). Taking Biden out of the mix increases Hillary's support to a majority again (53%), and increases her lead to 15 points.
Is this poll correct? Is Trump losing support and Sanders gaining support? I'm not sold on either yet. The poll could be an outlier (because of the small sample). We'll just have to wait and see what some other new polls show.
Most People Still Think Hillary Will Be Democratic Nominee
There has been a lot of talk from the media about how Hillary Clinton is faltering, and a lot of talk from his supporters about how Bernie Sanders is surging -- but most Democrats (and most of the general public) thinks Hillary Clinton is the likely Democratic nominee. That's the opinion of 75% of Democrats and 60% of the general public (purple shaded area on chart).
These numbers are from a new Rasmussen Poll -- done on September 14th and 15th of a random national sample of 1,000 likely voters, with a margin of error of 3 points.
Black (?) Republicans
I "borrowed" this photo from the great blog -- Juanita Jean's (The World's Most Dangerous Beauty Salon, Inc.). It purports to be the booth of the Black Republican Committee. Notice anything strange about it?
Why Democrats Are Better For The Economy Than GOP
I've shown you this chart before, but it certainly bears repeating. It shows how the economy has done in the last 50 years, under both Democratic presidents (22 years) and Republican presidents (28 years). The results aren't even very close. The economy has done much better under Democrats than Republicans.
Why is this? My friend and fellow blogger, Frank Moraes, gives us his opinion at the blog Frankly Curious -- and it's well worth reading. He says:
It is well know (among liberals at least), that the economy has done much better under Democratic administrations than under Republicans -- going back to World War II. And the difference is big: it's almost double in terms of GDP growth. But I've always been skeptical about the claim. While it is certainly true, it isn't based upon a lot of data -- just 12 presidencies. And besides, I tended to think that the president doesn't have that big an effect on the economy. But then I read Mark Thoma in The Fiscal Times, The Political Party of the President Matters for the Economy.
Thoma is a liberal, but he's no bomb thrower. He's a very careful economist. If it had been just anyone writing such an article, I probably would have passed it by. But instead, I read it, and he makes a very compelling case. He goes through the many ways that presidents do, in fact, effect the economy. It wasn't all new to me, but it I wasn't thinking too clearly even about the stuff that I knew. One thing that did surprise me is that because people don't stay on the Federal Reserve board for very long, both George W Bush and Obama were able to fill it with all their own people. That matters. As Thomas put it, if we had had a Republican in the White House "does anyone doubt that policy would have been much different? Would interest rates still be at the lower bound? Would the Fed’s balance sheet be as large?"
The more obvious way the president matters is in fiscal policy. Democrats approach recessions in ways that actually help: tax cuts for the poor and middle classes; extended unemployment insurance; infrastructure spending. Republicans approach recessions the way they do everything: tax cuts for the rich. Even though "there’s little evidence that cutting taxes on the wealthy spurs economic growth, particularly in a severe recession when the tax reductions mostly end up as idle savings." Basically, a recession is just an excuse for Republicans to do what they want to do anyway.
What's more, individuals and businesses are more confident about the economic outlook when the Democrats are in charge. So they spend and invest more. That, I must say, is a bit of a shock to me. If the people know that the economy will do better under the Democrats, why do they ever vote for the Republicans? I understand that turnout is an issue. But if even businesses know it, why hasn't there been a huge amount of pressure on the Republican Party to change its economic policies?
When put this way, it all seems so clear. The Republicans really are all about the shock doctrine: they don't care about doing what is best for the economy; they have a set of things they want to do -- which they always want to do -- and that is what they do. It would be like going to a dentist who only knows how to pull teeth. Before long, you would have no teeth.
If you want to do a little low key activism, you might discuss this issue with people who aren't much into politics. You don't have to mention policies. You just have to talk about how they feel about the economy under Democrats and Republicans. Because the last time the economy did reasonably well under a Republican was under Reagan -- 30 years ago. And all the Republican Party has offered since are the same policies, only more so. And it hasn't worked. And it isn't intended to. It is intended to just take more money away from you and me and give it to the rich.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)