Lucky Georgia
The analysis said half of the immigrants from Mexico and Central America are in the country illegally and one-third of those from South America are illegal immigrants. It also documented the surge of new arrivals and described its impact.
"The last seven years have been the highest period of immigration in American history," it concluded. "Immigrants and their young children [under 18] now account for one-fifth of the school-age population, one-fourth of those in poverty and nearly one-third of those without health insurance."
FINDINGS:
The Center for Immigration Studies' analysis found that in Georgia:
• 7 percent of the state's total school-age population — were illegal immigrants or the offspring of illegal immigrants.
• 32.9 percent of immigrant households use at least one welfare program compared to 19.1 percent of native-born households.
• Immigrants and their U.S.-born children under the age of 18 make up 13.3 percent of the state's total population.
• The number of immigrants in the state has more than tripled in a little more than a decade — growing from 268,000 in 1995 to 378,000 in 2000 to 953,000 in 2007. Since 2000, the state's immigration population has increased 58.2 percent.
• 39.7 percent of the state's immigrants and their kids lived in or near poverty, compared to 28.9 percent of the native population and its children.
UPDATED:
Investors Business Daily has more information from the same study.
Of America's 39 million immigrants, representing 12.6% of our total population, at least 12 million are illegal. Most, but not all, come from Mexico and Central America.
What exactly do the numbers mean? Well, for one thing, they mean we're importing a lot of poverty — and it's skewing the debate over key public policy issues.
How often, for example, have we been hit over the head with the scary statistic that "48 million Americans don't have health insurance." But the statement is only partly true.
According to CIS, 34% of all immigrant households — or 13.3 million — don't have health insurance. And of those, 8.3 million are here illegally.
They make up 18% of the nation's uninsured, if you count their American-born children.
The crisis of the uninsured, in other words, is in significant part an imported one — one that is costing untold billions.
CIS also reckons that immigrants and their U.S.-born children account for 71% of the increase in the uninsured since 1989 — a fact that usually goes unremarked upon in the debate over health-care reform.
Nationwide, 40% of all households headed by illegal aliens use one or more major welfare programs. The share in cash programs is actually quite small — less than 1%. But 33% of all illegal households get food aid, and another 27% are on Medicaid.Again, this means billions spent each year — and that doesn't include the growing costs associated with jailing and policing illegals who have turned to crime or gangs.
But uncontrolled illegal immigration is a big problem, especially for states such as California, Texas, Arizona and Florida.
Together, they have 54% of all the illegals and bear the brunt of the problem. States together spend $20 billion a year on illegals' welfare costs alone.
That spending has become a kind of subsidy, luring ever more illegals to the U.S. Those that come have fewer skills and less education than the rest of the population. Anyone who thinks waving a magic wand over the illegal population and making them legal will solve the problem is dreaming.
"Legalized illegals will still be overwhelmingly uneducated," the CIS report points out, "and this fact has enormous implications for their income, welfare use, health-insurance coverage and the effect on American taxpayers."
In short, they've becoming a semi-permanent, welfare-dependent underclass.
Unfortunately, when anyone brings this up, charges of "xenophobe" and "racist" get thrown around. But that only keeps us from an honest discussion — and accounting — of both the benefits and costs of our burgeoning illegal population.
Labels: Immigration
3 Comments:
Dammit, Ex, when are you going to learn to be critical of your sources? First, follow the money. CIS's website claims that they are a non-for-profit and they make a big deal of their "make a donation" button to look all grassroots 'n shit, but if you look a little closer (not that they help you do this on their site, which disavows all knowledge of their funding sources), you can learn that they are bankrolled handsomely by the right. Their research is bought and paid for by right-wing foundations such as U.S. Inc, Sarah Scaife Foundation, John M. Olin Foundation, Jaqueline Hume Foundation, Carthage Foundation, and Scaife Family Foundation -- certainly these outfits wouldn't keep paying for stuff that doesn't advance the policy agendas that they wish to see furthered, would they? Their operating budget is about a million a year. Either a lot of grannies are raiding their pennybanks or someone is running an anti-immigration lobbyist joint misidentified for tax and campaign purposes as a 501(c)(3).
Second, look at and read the range of their publications. Do they take a value-neutral stance? No, not really. They have an agenda (which is immigration "reform" insofar as it will amount to immigrant removal and zeroing out further immigration) and they produce research to push that kind of policy.
Third, look at the circumstances of the creation of this "thinktank". It was founded in 1985 to further the legislative agenda of the Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR). John Tanton, who is a wingnutty FAIR leader, was its major funder through USA, INC. CIS's director, Mark Krikorian, was the director of FAIR. Members of the board also serve on the board of the Immigration Reform Law Center, which is the legislative arm of the anti-immigration movement. It's been described by Republican Senator Chris Cannon as an outfit that provides "intellectual cover" to racism.
The quotes you pulled do not match with the data you cite. 1/5 of school-age children would be 20%; Georgia only reports 7%. What this suggests to me is that you've got mostly adults coming to look for work, probably construction work due to Atlanta's big growth surge. I'd like to see some gender breakdowns on that -- I bet they are mainly young men.
Nearly 40% live in OR NEAR (whatever that means) poverty -- but it's not clear whether that includes both illegal and legal or only illegal. 32 percent use welfare -- again, no difference made between legal and illegal, which is odd because I'm fairly sure that illegal aliens can't get welfare, which means that they are attacking people who are here legitimately and who may even be naturalized citizens. To me, that says something about the racism inherent in their agenda -- not just about legal status then but about race and entitlement.
By Anonymous, at 8:43 AM
Hey, I always try to cite my sources, lady.
Following the link, the blasted headline even says "but some dispute that".
The article also says that the center advocates for reduced immigration. This paragraph is a helpful synopsis:
Camarota has been active in the national immigration debate. Independent demographers disputed some of the survey's conclusions, but not Camarota's methods of data analysis.
The 20% vs 7% is not a contradiction.
• 7 percent of the state's total school-age population — were illegal immigrants or the offspring of illegal immigrants.
• "The last seven years have been the highest period of immigration in American history," it concluded. "Immigrants and their young children [under 18] now account for one-fifth of the school-age population, one-fourth of those in poverty and nearly one-third of those without health insurance."
By the way illegal immigrants can get WIC if they have children here, who are of course legal citizens.
There are definitely two points made in the article: 1) The proportion of ILLEGAL immigrants, and 2) The impact of overall immigration on the state.
Cry me a river if he doesn't make enough of a distinction, but I seem to recall a real blurring of that line on the "no-borders" side of the debate as well.
Sorry if his data doesn't give you the conclusion you were looking for, but if his numbers, supposedly based on US Census Data, are accurate, so be it.
By Exador, at 9:56 AM
True, the data might be sound. Don't know. That doesn't mean it is not selectively deployed. I note that the report doesn't mention that Hispanic/Latino immigrants are also represented in the US Armed Forces in substantially greater numbers than native-born whites as a proportion of their population (especially when one factors in the relative rates of graduation from high school). They are more likely to remain in the military past their initial hitch than any other group and they are continuing to join up at stronger rates than any other ethnic group in America -- all which would leave you with a different and more positive view of immigrants. CIS is not going to tell you any of that, though, as it is their intention to plant in your pointy little head that all immigrants (legal or otherwise) are parasites upon the nation.
And yes, when analytically credible groups want to do research about such things, they make distinctions between native-born citizens, foreign-born citizens, foreign-born legal residents, and foreign born illegal residents. For example, the Pew Trust has some great data that I suggest you examine. You might find exactly the same stuff, but with a lot more nuance -- making it a little more useful. I am betting (since the Pew Trust neither takes policy positions nor does it accept money from those who do) that you won't find it all neatly digested in an anti-immigrant spew.
http://pewhispanic.org/
CIS reports, just to be clear, have an anti-immigrant bias -- not ILLEGAL immigrants, but any immigrants, including the ones who came here legally and are now either in the naturalization process or are citizens. To me, that suggests their real agenda is not about legal status, but about race.
By Anonymous, at 12:29 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home