ForumGarden

so the only reason i'm even thinking about immigration is because i have to write a paper about it. I've been reading a lot of stuff from the book they gave me and of course newspaper articles and blogs and forums and so on. I don't really have an opinion on this subject because i tend to shy away from things that are controversial like this. I also usually tend to avoid this subject with my family because it has caused so many arguments and my mimi cussing about those Mexicans and yada yada yada... i don't share her feelings about immigration but what i'm curious about is... what's the big deal? Economically how are we being affected and and do you personally think america needs to change it's system... which so far i've gotten that we deport people when we are in war... allow people to fill jobs that americans aren't willing to do themselves... which in that case what's wrong with that???

There's been a change of attitude in the US over the years. Within living memory it was an open border between Mexico and the US, no civilians were challenged if they crossed from one to the other (though it was off limits to law enforcement or the military without prior arrangement). Americans came and went from Mexico with no papers and no border inspection, Mexicans did the same in and out of the US. I think it was in the 1950s that crossing inspection was started but even then nobody needed permission to cross.

That, at least, accounts for why so many people now designated Mexican nationals and not US citizens have lived for so long in the US. They've gone from not needing to register in order to be legally resident to not being allowed to register and become legally resident. What changed was the law.

People arriving since have been driven by a desire to make their fortune, to live more safely, to escape the local police if they're wanted (the way US criminals used to dive across the border for safety the other way), there's all sorts of reasons driving the desire to cross northward. The green card system reduces the quota to far less than the numbers wanting to cross. The border patrol is so ineffective that hundreds of thousands get into the US and blend into town and city life. The US economy benefits by their working in the US. That's disputed, of course, but it gives a reasonable explanation for why any steps toward stopping the movement or removing the non-citizens are so completely ineffective. They're token gestures because few people in industry wants the position changing and few politicians want to do anything but talk aggressively about it.

One person in twenty in the USA has no legal right to stay in the country if they're found guilty of any crime in any court. It's a huge pressure on the poorest underclass to avoid crime. I'm sure that if it were possible to extend this chuck-them-out threat to the remaining poor in the US it would be done. The pressure on the rich or the middle class to avoid crime is a loss of income, it's a powerful incentive. There's no equivalent pressure on the poor if they reach a point where being in or out of jail makes no difference to them. Threatening deportation is an effective curb on criminality. It's why there's this strange twist in the law that seems at first inexplicable - that just being in the US without permission isn't a crime in itself, so as long as you avoid breaking the law you can effectively stay indefinitely. Few people in power want the crime-free poor thrown out.

Omni_Skittles;1098255 wrote: so the only reason i'm even thinking about immigration is because i have to write a paper about it. I've been reading a lot of stuff from the book they gave me and of course newspaper articles and blogs and forums and so on. I don't really have an opinion on this subject because i tend to shy away from things that are controversial like this. I also usually tend to avoid this subject with my family because it has caused so many arguments and my mimi cussing about those Mexicans and yada yada yada... i don't share her feelings about immigration but what i'm curious about is... what's the big deal? Economically how are we being affected and and do you personally think america needs to change it's system... which so far i've gotten that we deport people when we are in war... allow people to fill jobs that americans aren't willing to do themselves... which in that case what's wrong with that???


The question should be more about the thoughts on legal immigration vs illegal immigration. If someone goes through the right processes and enters a country legally then there should be no issue, I think people get concerned when there is excess border crossing as the impression is that things are not under control.

mikeinie;1099055 wrote: The question should be more about the thoughts on legal immigration vs illegal immigration. If someone goes through the right processes and enters a country legally then there should be no issue, I think people get concerned when there is excess border crossing as the impression is that things are not under control.I wasn't really thinking illegal immigration vs legal. what i'm finding shocking is that there will be less natural born Americans then immigrants... i get that this country was born on immigrants... but in my opinion the thoughts and ideals of this country will change with the incoming immigrants... i feel like my thoughts are flawed though on this issue so who knows haha

Omni_Skittles;1099569 wrote: I wasn't really thinking illegal immigration vs legal. what i'm finding shocking is that there will be less natural born Americans then immigrants... i get that this country was born on immigrants... but in my opinion the thoughts and ideals of this country will change with the incoming immigrants... i feel like my thoughts are flawed though on this issue so who knows haha
Skittles, where do you get "there will be less natural born Americans than immigrants" from? One in ten people in the USA today was born outside the country. 28 million first generation immigrants are alive in the USA at the moment. To go from 10% to over 50% would be an astonishing jump. The proportion's slowly come down from around 15% a hundred years ago to 10% now.

If you'd like a comparison, the proportions of foreign-born residents in each country in Western Europe are on the map below. Great Britain's within a percent of the US proportion.

lol i just read it from my textbook... i assumed it was right... hmm LIES all of it lies!!!

Omni_Skittles;1101007 wrote: lol i just read it from my textbook... i assumed it was right... hmm LIES all of it lies!!!


Maybe if you quote exactly what it says, if it's just a sentence or two? I'd be interested to hear the words.

are you saying i misinterpreted the book??? lol

Omni_Skittles;1101022 wrote: are you saying i misinterpreted the book??? lol


It's a textbook, it's intended to confuse you, textbooks are the works of tricksters. They get you to think for yourself by telling you six impossible things before breakfast.

I'm looking for it... but since i finished this book in 9 days i read a lot of stuff so i can't remember exactly where it is so it might take me a few minutes

Omni_Skittles;1101025 wrote: I'm looking for it... but since i finished this book in 9 days i read a lot of stuff so i can't remember exactly where it is so it might take me a few minutes


Did you know your avatar's slipped over sideways?

spot;1101028 wrote: Did you know your avatar's slipped over sideways?that's how i took the picture!!!

Since the 1960's, birthrates have steadily declined in the United States. In the early 1960's, a woman statisically averaged about 3.5 children. by 2001, that number dropped to 2.1 children, barely meeting the 2.1 needed to replace the population. In other words, if the current trend continues, the American native-born population will actually decrease over time.



that's where i got the information... and somehow i pieced it together the way i did... maybe cause i was writing a paper about immigration... and before all that it talks about immigration...

Omni_Skittles;1101022 wrote: are you saying i misinterpreted the book??? lol


He's telling you that the book you're reading might be biased considering it probably was written by Christian evangelicals!

Omni_Skittles;1101035 wrote: Since the 1960's, birthrates have steadily declined in the United States. In the early 1960's, a woman statisically averaged about 3.5 children. by 2001, that number dropped to 2.1 children, barely meeting the 2.1 needed to replace the population. In other words, if the current trend continues, the American native-born population will actually decrease over time.



that's where i got the information... and somehow i pieced it together the way i did... maybe cause i was writing a paper about immigration... and before all that it talks about immigration...The reason the proportion of the American native-born population depends on inward immigration and not birth rate is that the children born of native-born Americans and the children born to inward immigrants after they arrive are both American native-born. If inward immigration stops you can see that after a lifetime all you end up with inside America is native-born Americans. That's regardless of the birth rate. If there's a sudden surge in the number of inward immigrants for a few years then the proportion of the American population which is native-born will drop and stay dropped until they've all eventually died, and then it will go back to where it was.

If you count inward immigration as a fraction of the American population per year, instead of as a fixed number per year, then the effect of the birth rate disappears. If the birth rate is so low that the population actually falls then the number of inward immigrants would fall too. If the birth rate is high then the number of inward immigrants would increase year after year. I think you get this apparent effect of "if the current trend continues, the American native-born population will actually decrease over time" in the textbook because the author is comparing a rate - the birth rate - with a fixed number - the inward immigrant count. The author ought to be comparing like with like, either rate with rate or count with count.

Omni_Skittles;1101035 wrote: Since the 1960's, birthrates have steadily declined in the United States. In the early 1960's, a woman statisically averaged about 3.5 children. by 2001, that number dropped to 2.1 children, barely meeting the 2.1 needed to replace the population. In other words, if the current trend continues, the American native-born population will actually decrease over time.



that's where i got the information... and somehow i pieced it together the way i did... maybe cause i was writing a paper about immigration... and before all that it talks about immigration...


You'd read a fact!

What you hadn't read, or more primarily what wasn't mentioned, was the effect!

The effect being that such is true but they hadn't given you a time frame! From which spot has alluded to earlier that such would have to happen extensively above the "50%" mark giving credence to the fact's credibility!

Or quite simply " In other words, if the current trend continues , the American native-born population will actually decrease over time." would have to see the number figure of 3.5 minus 2.1, from which is 1.4 having to be associated with the suggestion that in the time frame between say 1961 to 2001, from which is 40, is the typical truth behind Americas population increase throughout all time comparative to the illegal immigration rate, respectively!

Considering that population levels in any country, let alone America, are unpredictable the information has to then be deemed incredible!

Or more exclusively the words "over time" gives you the impression that such will be a dramatic, sudden change and is far from the truth!

Monkey's could take over the Earth "over time"!

I wouldn't worry too much!

:yh_wink

:yh_kiss

:yh_giggles

:wah:

:yh_giggles :yh_blush!!!!!!!!!!! :wah:



:yh_kiss

K.Snyder;1101071 wrote: He's telling you that the book you're reading might be biased considering it probably was written by Christian evangelicals!It actually wasn't... this was an online class for riosalodo. which is a community college in arizona haha

Omni_Skittles;1101206 wrote: It actually wasn't... this was an online class for riosalodo. which is a community college in arizona haha


The excerpt you'd given sounded a bit biased, but I'll take your word for it!!!!!!!!...:yh_tong2

:yh_kiss

spot;1099623 wrote: Skittles, where do you get "there will be less natural born Americans than immigrants" from? One in ten people in the USA today was born outside the country. 28 million first generation immigrants are alive in the USA at the moment. To go from 10% to over 50% would be an astonishing jump. The proportion's slowly come down from around 15% a hundred years ago to 10% now.

If you'd like a comparison, the proportions of foreign-born residents in each country in Western Europe are on the map below. Great Britain's within a percent of the US proportion.






People do play with politics, even in Britain.

The Office for National Statistics came out this week with much the same figure as I posted in here two months ago. The UK Immigration Minister Phil Woolas has accused them of "playing politics" with population figures. It's fine if I do it apparently but not if a UK government department does it.

Stupid twerp.He said he was "appalled" at the release of figures showing one in nine British residents was born abroad.

In a letter Mr Woolas describes the decision to release the data as "at best naive or, at worst, sinister".

BBC NEWS | Politics | Minister 'appalled' by stats body

It's not naive, it's not sinister, it's a delighted comment at least on my part. As far as The Office for National Statistics goes, it's their job. If there's a public discussion and they can contribute some facts then of course they're meant to inform the argument. They should do it more often.