What should be done about illegal immigration?

Foxfyre wrote:

And why did you choose that particular phrase from my quote? You have a problem with it?

Actually, it's just copied/pasted. But you are right that I negate political correctness to be racist - that as well might well be different in that part of the world, you are aquainted with.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I agree that it might be different in that part of world, you live.
So I can't prove that.

Okay. Several on this thread have no problem whatsoever calling me all manner of uncomplimentary names, accuse me of all manner of ignorance, stupidity, meanness, hatefulness, and most recently in this thread, racist. Why? Because I see things differently than they do; therefore I must be discredited, punished, squashed.

Would they attack me in this manner if they knew I was black? Hispanic? Native American?

If they would not, then they are suggesting that black people and/or Hispanics and/or Native Americans are somehow too fragile, too vulnerable, or already too much a victim to criticize. They are saying that we have to treat minorities more gently than other people and they are less capable of taking care of themselves and less able to defend themselves so we have to do it for them. And we have to accommodate them because without our help, they are incapable of improving their own lot in life as we have already done.

I say to assign such inferior status to people of another race or ethnic group is racist. And to say that people of another race or ethnicity cannot be criticized is also racist.

I take equal opportunity considerations very seriously.

0 Replies

Foxfyre,

You used the term "Anchor Baby". I have some questions about that term that perhaps you can answer.

1) If a mother who is here illegally has a baby for the same reason that millions of "legal" mothers have babies, is it still an "anchor baby"? The implication of the term is that the mother is having the baby she wouldn't have had otherwise simply to get legal benefits.

2) Do you think that all immigrants who have babies do so to get a legal advantage? Could you accept the fact that at least some women (regardles of their legal status) have babies because they want to love and raise a family?

3) If someone in your church was born to undocumented parents, would you refer to her as an "anchor baby"?

As a parent, I would have wanted to make babies and start a family no matter what my legal status was. If I were an illegal immigrant, I almost certainly would have had the same kids. In this case I would feel like the term "anchor baby" was quite a nasty charge.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Foxfyre,

You used the term "Anchor Baby". I have some questions about that term that perhaps you can answer.

1) If a mother who is here illegally has a baby for the same reason that millions of "legal" mothers have babies, is it still an "anchor baby"? The implication of the term is that the mother is having the baby she wouldn't have had otherwise simply to get legal benefits.

2) Do you think that all immigrants who have babies do so to get a legal advantage? Could you accept the fact that at least some women (regardles of their legal status) have babies because they want to love and raise a family?

3) If someone in your church was born to undocumented parents, would you refer to her as an "anchor baby"?

As a parent, I would have wanted to make babies and start a family no matter what my legal status was. If I were an illegal immigrant, I almost certainly would have had the same kids. In this case I would feel like the term "anchor baby" was quite a nasty charge.

Here again eBrown, is a leg of that elephant in the room. An 'anchor baby' is a person born in the USA who has one or more parents who are in the country illegally. It is called an 'anchor baby' because then bleeding heart liberals use it as the excuse to keep the whole family here. It 'anchors' the family to the country. The baby is a citizen. You can't break up a family. It is inhumane. So everybody gets to stay.

Now if you want to think that those women just about to pop aren't doing everything possible to make it to a San Diego or Del Rio or El Paso emergency room to have their baby for exactly that reason, you are living in some imaginary dream world that I can't even conceive.

And for those illegals who have been here longer, and who become pregant here, it is YOU who are assigning anchor baby status to their kids. It is YOU who keeps hollering about how inhumane it is to break up families.

It's the elephant in the room. Intellectually honest people will talk about it. People like you will keep accusing us of being racist if we do.

I believe it is a part of the problem that has to be addressed before we will solve the problem of illegal immigration in the United States.

0 Replies

Foxfyre,

I don't understand why it upsets you that I think breaking up families is inhumane. I am not ashamed of this position. However, I don't think your willingness to break families in order to strictly enforce the law is racist. I think it is cruel and immoral (these of course are value judgements) but I would never say that this position you hold is "racist".

Let's get this racist thing out of the way. Perhaps you can understand it this way.

There are two position in this debate we are having that have nothing to do with race.

One side can say that "illegal" immigrant broke the law to get here and should be sent back. This argument could hold that by allowing people who got here illegally to stay we undermine the rule of law and give up our ability to control the border.

If you were making this argument-- I would not even bring race into the discussion.

My side is different, but again my argument has nothing to do with race. I hold that compassion is more important than a strict enforcement of the law. I will argue that we can have both, border enforcement with humane treatment. The senate compromise is a fine compromise, levying fines and allowing people to earn citizenship in spite of the fact that they did break a law to get here.

I would love to have this argument with you guys. Compassion versus strict enforcement of the law.

But we can only have this argument if you agree to leave race out of this. This means no ethnic stereotypes of Latinos (or any other ethnic group). This means no railing against American citizens who are exercising our political power. This means you accept that all American citizens (here I am very puporsely not talking about immigrants) have an equal voice on the immigration issue (or any other issue) regardles of their ethnic background.

Let's make a deal and put this ugliness behind us.

If you don't bring race into this discussion, and if you distance yourself from CJ (or anyone else on your side) who does... I will do likewise. If you stick to an argument about following the law-- I will disagree with you strongly, but at least I can debate you with respect.

BTW, The son of friends of mine is an anchor baby. He just turned 18. I have the pleasure of being able to take him to register Tuesday as part of the voter registration effort I am participating in.

I am very proud of him.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Foxfyre,

I don't understand why it upsets you that I think breaking up families is inhumane. I am not ashamed of this position. However, I don't think your willingness to break families in order to strictly enforce the law is racist. I think it is cruel and immoral (these of course are value judgements) but I would never say that this position you hold is "racist".

Let's get this racist thing out of the way. Perhaps you can understand it this way.

There are two position in this debate we are having that have nothing to do with race.

One side can say that "illegal" immigrant broke the law to get here and should be sent back. This argument could hold that by allowing people who got here illegally to stay we undermine the rule of law and give up our ability to control the border.

If you were making this argument-- I would not even bring race into the discussion.

My side is different, but again my argument has nothing to do with race. I hold that compassion is more important than a strict enforcement of the law. I will argue that we can have both, border enforcement with humane treatment. The senate compromise is a fine compromise, levying fines and allowing people to earn citizenship in spite of the fact that they did break a law to get here.

I would love to have this argument with you guys. Compassion versus strict enforcement of the law.

But we can only have this argument if you agree to leave race out of this. This means no ethnic stereotypes of Latinos (or any other ethnic group). This means no railing against American citizens who are exercising our political power. This means you accept that all American citizens (here I am very puporsely not talking about immigrants) have an equal voice on the immigration issue (or any other issue) regardles of their ethnic background.

Let's make a deal and put this ugliness behind us.

If you don't bring race into this discussion, and if you distance yourself from CJ (or anyone else on your side) who does... I will do likewise. If you stick to an argument about following the law-- I will disagree with you strongly, but at least I can debate you with respect.

BTW, The son of friends of mine is an anchor baby. He just turned 18. I have the pleasure of being able to take him to register Tuesday as part of the voter registration effort I am participating in.

I am very proud of him.

I won't agree with you or anybody else accusing somebody of racism when I don't believe that somebody is racist. I don't consider political incorrectness to be racist when it does not imply inferior status to another race. Pointing out a truth (talking about that elephant) is very often grossly politically incorrect. I will agree that CJ's statement was more graphic than I prefer and I did comment on his exaggeration which I believe was purely for effect. I won't agree that he is racist, and I won't presume to punish him just because I wouldn't express my observations or opinions the way he does.

I am not the least bit upset by humane considerations or caring about people or a heartfelt desire for people to have a better life. I have made s suggestion several times for policy that would accomplish a humane solution for those here illegally, and you have consistently rejected that in favor of some certainty of amnesty.

So I ask you. Why are you so upset by those of us who believe a nation of laws that does not enforce its laws and control its borders is in severe peril of losing all or much of what it considers most important? Why do you see it so evil that some believe those who want to be here on a permanent basis should be willling to obey the laws, learn the language, salute our flag, say our Pledge, adopt our values, and blend their own ethnicity seamlessly into the American culture?

I am all for putting ugliness behind us as I think only civil debate is productive toward finding solutions for any issues on which there are differences of opinion. And I do not consider it civil to divert the discussion to accuse another member of racism just because he or she does not express himself as you do.

0 Replies

Okay, here's another leg of the elephant. Would anyone like to comment on the thesis of it? Or will it just trigger more accusations of racism because somebody dared bring it up?

Up to 61 million immigrants might flow into U.S. under proposed reform
by Robert Rector
July 1, 2006

Think the immigration debate is mainly about giving amnesty to the 10 million illegals already here? Think again. Amnesty is a drop in the bucket. The real issue is the staggering increase in legal immigration hidden in the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, recently passed in the Senate.

By a ratio of about 4-1, U.S. voters would prefer less immigration, not more. But the Senate bill would do just the opposite. The original bill would have allowed as many as 100 million people to legally immigrate to the United States over the next 20 years. We're talking about a seismic shift of unprecedented proportions.

Facing criticism, the Senate has amended the bill - which now would allow "only" 61 million new immigrants. That still more than doubles the current legal immigration rate, from 1 million a year now to 2.5 million.

Current law would let 19 million legal immigrants enter the United States over the next 20 years; the Senate immigration bill would add an extra 42 million.

Why such extraordinary growth? Consider how the new law would work.

Under the Senate bill, immigrants could enter or attain lawful status within the country through nine channels. In each channel, immigrants would gain permanent residence and the right to become citizens:

Current law visas: About 950,000 persons now get permanent-residence visas every year under current law. Over 20 years, the inflow of immigrants through this channel would be 19 million.

Amnesty: The bill would grant amnesty to roughly 10 million illegal immigrants now living in the U.S.

Spouses/children of illegal immigrants given amnesty: Illegals who got amnesty could bring their spouses and children into the country as legal permanent residents with the opportunity for full citizenship. The resulting number of spouses and children who would enter the United States? At least 5 million.

"Family chain" migration: Today's law limits the number of kinship visas for secondary family members, such as adult brothers and sisters. The Senate bill would raise the cap on such secondary family immigration from around 230,000 to 480,000 per year, bringing in 5 million new immigrants over 20 years.

Temporary guest workers for life: The amended Senate bill would let 200,000 people enter through the guest-worker program each year. Over 20 years, that works out to a total inflow of 4 million. The "guest workers" aren't temporary at all, but could stay in the U.S. permanently and become citizens.

Spouses/children of guest workers: Guest workers could bring their spouses and children to the United States as permanent residents, adding another 4.8 million entrants over 20 years.

Worker visas for skilled specialty occupations: The Senate bill would initially double the number of specialty workers who could enter the U.S., and would then allow the number to increase by 20 percent in each subsequent year. These workers would be permitted to request permanent residence, and, in most cases, would be able to stay in the U.S. for life. More than 5.5 million legal immigrant workers could enter under these provisions over the next two decades.

Spouses/children of specialty workers: Specialty workers could bring their spouses and children to the United States as permanent residents, adding another 3 million entrants over 20 years.

Refugee women: Under the bill, an unlimited number of women who fear they may undergo "harm" as a result of their sex may enter the U.S. as refugees and become citizens. The numbers who would enter under this open-ended provision is uncertain, but 1 million over 20 years is a reasonable estimate.

Parents of naturalized citizens: The Senate bill would greatly increase the number of naturalized citizens, each would have an unlimited right to bring their parents into the country as legal permanent residents. The resulting number of parents who would enter as permanent legal residents? Around 3.5 million over 20 years.

If the Senate bill became law, foreign-born immigrants would rise to around 18 percent of the total U.S. population, an immigration level far higher than at any previous time in U.S. history.

Many in this looming tidal wave of immigration would be low-skilled individuals who will impose great social and economic costs on the nation. For example, more than half of the 10 million illegals who will get amnesty are high-school dropouts; on average, each immigrant dropout will cost the U.S. taxpayers $85,000 over the course of his life.

In sum, the Senate bill would bring profound change, transforming the United States socially, economically and politically. Within two decades, the character of our country would differ dramatically from what exists today.

Americans need to ask: Is that what we want?

Robert Rector is a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation (heritage.org).
SOURCE

0 Replies

This is a strange article for you to post Foxfyre as it primarily is questioning legal immigration under the Senate bill. Except for the first paragraph, it has nothing to do with "illegal" immigration.

However, the first paragraph gives people like me, whose primary concern is compassion for people who already have lives here, some hope.

If conservatives really consider what they call "amnesty" (I am not going to argue over this term if we agree it means what we call "earned legalization" after paying a fine et. al) "a drop in the bucket" compared to what really concerns them, then this means that Americans on both sides of the issue may have room to negotiate.

Maybe we could work out a plan that contains both compassion and border security.

Maybe the House could quit its political grandstanding and go into conference commitee with such a plan. After all working out legislation in conference commitee is their job.

0 Replies

By the way (and forgive me if this is off topic)...

Guest workers who don't have a path to citizenship is a disaster for the American worker.

I have the ability to ensure the wage I am paid is fair. If my employer doesn't pay me according to my ability and the market value of my skills, I can very simply go elsewhere. This puts an upward pressure on wages since employees have options.

Right now, my employer is paying market rates and is looking for new skilled (I work in software) employees. The fact that my employer is having trouble finding the workers in my field-- in spite of a salary rate that is competitive-- is not a good thing for me. It means more work for me in a company that will be less productive.

I would be happy to work with skill immigrants-- on one condition...

What is bad for me is if I am working with immigrants that have no rights. This means that they have to work for the company in spite of how they are treated. If there are employees who can't demand a raise working with me, this greatly impairs my ability to command the salary I deserve.

There are many workers who don't mind competing with, or working with-- skilled immigrant workers --provided these workers aren't so vulnerable that they can be taken advantage of

There are no workers who want to compete with skilled immigrants who can be forced to work at lower wages or worse conditions.

This is without doubt the worse thing for any American worker.

0 Replies

Also in fairness, to answer your well posed and fair questions

Quote:

So I ask you. Why are you so upset by those of us who believe a nation of laws that does not enforce its laws and control its borders is in severe peril of losing all or much of what it considers most important?

I don't know what you mean by the phrase "severe peril of losing all or much of what it considers most important". I am an American citizen and I don't see how allowing people who have been here and who are living good lives to stay and to become citizens constitutes "severe peril".

Compassion and understanding are among the values that I consider most important. The Americans who benefitted from illegal immigration built businesses, got help raising their children and got cheap lettuce. In fact small farmers are saying their entire industry depends on illegal immigrants and their type of business will disappear from the US under the House bill.

No one is suggesting that American business be raized for their lawbreaking. No one is suggesting that families who hired a Nanny lose their children.

The harsh penalties focussed on immigrants (and not on the parts of American society and economy who welcome them and depend on them) seems unfair.

If you need to punish immigrants who cross a border illegally, or overstay their visa-- OK. We fine the employers (without destroying their business) why isn't a fine for the other party in this "crime" treated the same? Why the need to uproot lives and break families?

I am not upset by people who want to enforce the law.

I am upset by the harshness and cruelty of the way that they are insisting the law be enforced.

Quote:

Why do you see it so evil that some believe those who want to be here on a permanent basis should be willling to obey the laws, learn the language, salute our flag, say our Pledge, adopt our values, and blend their own ethnicity seamlessly into the American culture?

I don't see it as evil. I am arguing that people who have been here a long time and want to stay be put on a path to become citizens. From the last paragraph, it seems like you should agree with this.

The fact is that immigrants who want to build lives here are willing to obey the laws, learn the language, salute our flag, say our Pledge, adopt our values, and blend their own ethnicity seamlessly into the American culture.

(And before you go there again... having broken one law doesn't mean an unwillingness to obey the laws. How many Americans haven't broken a law? Immigrants are willing to pay a penalty to comply with a reasonable law.)

Look at the results of the 1986 IRCA laws. In all the areas you just mention this was a huge success. The people overwhelmingly learned English and integrated with their community. The second generation are as American as any descendant of immigrants.

I am arguing for a path to citizenship. I agree that English classes and history classes are part of this.

I go even further.... I am working hard to help register new citizens to vote and to be politically involved. And, hopefully this will be seen in November.

What more do you want?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I won't agree with you or anybody else accusing somebody of racism when I don't believe that somebody is racist. I don't consider political incorrectness to be racist when it does not imply inferior status to another race. Pointing out a truth (talking about that elephant) is very often grossly politically incorrect. I will agree that CJ's statement was more graphic than I prefer and I did comment on his exaggeration which I believe was purely for effect. I won't agree that he is racist, and I won't presume to punish him just because I wouldn't express my observations or opinions the way he does.

What truth? CJ's racist remark was already shown to have no foundation in truth. Fears of whites loosing the majority remain overtly racist, in it's purest form. Belittling 14 year old girls of a particular race, under the pretext of defending the sanctity of law, is absurd. The underlying motivation for the comment is as clear as it is inappropriate... to anyone not concerned about the master-race loosing it's majority.

The only reason you're being tainted by the implication, Foxy, is your refusal to separate yourself from the two racist remarks quoted by E-Brown earlier. This is not some politically incorrect elephant, or any other feeble defense you can mount for it.
Watch:
"Most, if not all, black men in America are criminals by the time they're 14." <-- Is that a racist statement? One could probably find statistics that would support a higher percentage of 14 year old black men with criminal records, but would that reduce the latent racism irrevocably present in the statement? No.
Watch again:
"Most, if not all, Indians can't hold they're liquor." Would some statistically quantifiable evidence that supported Native American's having a lower tolerance for alcohol even reduce the latent racism irrevocably present in the statement? No.
Once more:
"most if not all" 14 year old Latino girls are pregnant"

Do any of these racist statements have any bearing in a discussion about the sanctity of law? Since they obviously do not, providing such garbage during such a discussion opens one up for the charge of racism. Accurately so. Your refusal to address this simple truth, and distance yourself from CJ's latent racism, is the only reason you're being tainted by it. E-Brown offered you many opportunities to distance yourself, and instead you chose to defend CJ's remarks. Definitely not your norm, Foxy.

Aside: I always enjoy debating with you as well, E-Brown but I think I prefer it when we're on opposing sides. Rational disagreement is what I like most about A2K.

0 Replies

Geesh, I even tell you exactly where to go and see what I'm talking about, and yet all you can do is play the same sad race card.

OB, I believe you have a stake in the game.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I won't agree with you or anybody else accusing somebody of racism when I don't believe that somebody is racist. I don't consider political incorrectness to be racist when it does not imply inferior status to another race. Pointing out a truth (talking about that elephant) is very often grossly politically incorrect. I will agree that CJ's statement was more graphic than I prefer and I did comment on his exaggeration which I believe was purely for effect. I won't agree that he is racist, and I won't presume to punish him just because I wouldn't express my observations or opinions the way he does.

What truth? CJ's racist remark was already shown to have no foundation in truth. Fears of whites loosing the majority remain overtly racist, in it's purest form. Belittling 14 year old girls of a particular race, under the pretext of defending the sanctity of law, is absurd. The underlying motivation for the comment is as clear as it is inappropriate... to anyone not concerned about the master-race loosing it's majority.

Nonsense. Nobody asked CJ to put his comments into context but just jumped on him for making an observation about one particular location. You didn't like the way he said it and you drew your own assumptions about what his intentions were.

Neither CJ nor anybody else on the pro-enforcement/pro-control the borders side of this debate has said one derogatory thing about Hispanics as a people nor has come from a 'fear of losing majority status' point of view. That assumption was inserted into the debate by eBrown, you, and maybe a couple of others. Who are you to say what anybody's intent was or what anybody else's fear is unless they state it?

I personally have no fear whatsoever of Hispanics or any other race/ethnic group, etc. becoming the dominant race. I DO have a fear of Hispanics or Moslems or any other race/culture/ethnic group/or Europeans who have no interest in retaining, preserving, and defending the America I love and who intend to take it down for whatever reason. When "La Raza" boldly declares that they are 'taking back THEIR country', I pay attention. You should too.

Do I think the large majority of Hispanics here legally think that way? No I do not, and all that I have talked to resent the "illegal invasion" as much as I do. They and I think people who want to be here should want to be Americans with all that implies and should blend their ethnicity seamlessly into the American culture as the immigrants before them have done.

If you think that's racist, that's your prerogative. But I'm not accepting your view of it. No way. No how.

The only reason you're being tainted by the implication, Foxy, is your refusal to separate yourself from the two racist remarks quoted by E-Brown earlier. This is not some politically incorrect elephant, or any other feeble defense you can mount for it.
Watch:
"Most, if not all, black men in America are criminals by the time they're 14." <-- Is that a racist statement? One could probably find statistics that would support a higher percentage of 14 year old black men with criminal records, but would that reduce the latent racism irrevocably present in the statement? No.
Watch again:
"Most, if not all, Indians can't hold they're liquor." Would some statistically quantifiable evidence that supported Native American's having a lower tolerance for alcohol even reduce the latent racism irrevocably present in the statement? No.
Once more:
"most if not all" 14 year old Latino girls are pregnant"

Do any of these racist statements have any bearing in a discussion about the sanctity of law? Since they obviously do not, providing such garbage during such a discussion opens one up for the charge of racism. Accurately so. Your refusal to address this simple truth, and distance yourself from CJ's latent racism, is the only reason you're being tainted by it. E-Brown offered you many opportunities to distance yourself, and instead you chose to defend CJ's remarks. Definitely not your norm, Foxy.

Aside: I always enjoy debating with you as well, E-Brown but I think I prefer it when we're on opposing sides. Rational disagreement is what I like most about A2K.

Lets ignore your red herrings for a bit and focus on the actual statements on the board. To say that all or most Hispanic girls 14 and older get pregant is a gross exaggeration and it most likely would arise out of a prejudice against Hispanics. But via the research data I posted previously, Hispanic teens do have a higher pregnancy rate than either blacks or whites and that is a fact. And that, coupled with the millions of illegals coming into the country do make Hispanics the fastest growing ethnic group in the country. I take strong exception to you and eBrown suggesting that it is somehow racist to acknowledge that fact. To acknowledge it does not suggest that the situation exists BECAUSE they are Hispanic.

Neither is it racist to acknowledge that young blacks are proportionatley likely to run afoul of the law than are young whites because the statistics bear that out. The statistics do not show, nor does anybody suggest, that the situation exists BECAUSE they are black.

Neither is it racist to acknowledge that Native Americans are more prone to alcoholism than is the population at large. The statistics and research bear out that Native Americansare more likely to have the genetic makeup that is more susceptible to alcoholism, so in this case you can say that the situation DOES exist at least partly BECAUSE they are Native Americans, but not BECAUSE Native Americans are weak or inferior to other people.

Within the general framework of a discussion on the rapid growth of Hispanic populations in American, CJ made an observation that Hispanic teens are getting pregnant at a noticeable rate where he is. He didn't say that the situation exists because they are Hispanic. You and eBrown inserted that assumption. You were wrong to do so, at least without giving CJ a chance to say what he meant.

I don't buy the political correctness crap that you can't talk about the elephant in the room when it's there. And I don't judge people by the way they express themselves. I judge them by what they actually say rather than what I assume they mean. That should not be construed that I don't make assumptions of course, but I like to think I do give people an opportunity to explain themselves before throwing ad hominems at them or attacking them personally.

0 Replies

Quote:

To say that all or most Hispanic girls 14 and older get pregant is a gross exaggeration and it most likely would arise out of a prejudice against Hispanics. But via the research data I posted previously, Hispanic teens do have a higher pregnancy rate than either blacks or whites and that is a fact.

Foxfyre, you are wrong according to the research data you posted previously. Check it out.

In every year the pregnancy rate for Latina teens is higher than that of whites but lower than that of Blacks. Look in your own data....

For example in the year 2000 (the last year in the data you posted the pregnacy rates for each of the groups you are comparing where

Whites: 71 women per 1000
Blacks: 153 women per 1000
Hispanics: 137 women per 1000

This is from table 1 on page 7 of the data you posted and are referring to.

The interesting statistic is the birth rates

Whites: 43 women per 1000 (60% of pregnancies come to term)
Blacks: 77 women per 1000 (50% of pregnancies come to term)
Latinas: 87 women per 1000 (64% of pregancies come to term)

The issue is not that more Latina girls are getting pregnant than any other ethnic group. The issue is that Latina girls who get pregnant are less likely to seek an abortion. This is consistant with their religious and cultural values (whether these are American values is an interesting question)

Of course it is well documented that pregnancy rates are strongly correlated with education levels. If you are worried about lowering them providing access to good education for these communities is the obvious solution.

0 Replies

You've beaten me with your post re the data, ebrown.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Quote:

To say that all or most Hispanic girls 14 and older get pregant is a gross exaggeration and it most likely would arise out of a prejudice against Hispanics. But via the research data I posted previously, Hispanic teens do have a higher pregnancy rate than either blacks or whites and that is a fact.

Foxfyre, you are wrong according to the research data you posted previously. Check it out.

In every year the pregnancy rate for Latina teens is higher than that of whites but lower than that of Blacks. Look in your own data....

For example in the year 2000 (the last year in the data you posted the pregnacy rates for each of the groups you are comparing where

Whites: 71 women per 1000
Blacks: 153 women per 1000
Hispanics: 137 women per 1000

This is from table 1 on page 7 of the data you posted and are referring to.

The interesting statistic is the birth rates

Whites: 43 women per 1000 (60% of pregnancies come to term)
Blacks: 77 women per 1000 (50% of pregnancies come to term)
Latinas: 87 women per 1000 (64% of pregancies come to term)

The issue is not that more Latina girls are getting pregnant than any other ethnic group. The issue is that Latina girls who get pregnant are less likely to seek an abortion. This is consistant with their religious and cultural values (whether these are American values is an interesting question)

Of course it is well documented that pregnancy rates are strongly correlated with education levels. If you are worried about lowering them providing access to good education for these communities is the obvious solution.

I stand corrected and apologize for the error. I did read the data wrong and failed to note that the teen pregnancy rates for Hispanics fell below that of teenage blacks between 1992 and 2000. It is of course the birth rate, rather than the pregnancy rate, that increases the population, however.

0 Replies

It seems that legal residents "get nervous" and more and more try to become US-citizens than ever before (18,000 became Americans this week in naturalisation ceremonies across the country):

From today's Chicago Tribune, frontpage

Related onlie report: Becoming American takes on new urgency - Uncertainty over immigration has legal residents packing citizenship classes

0 Replies

That's the way it is supposed to be done, Walter, and one of the more rewarding pieces of my rather eclectic life experience was in helping teach citizenship classes and working with people who wanted to be Americans. There is no feeling quite like standing with a class of 30 or 40 folks coming from Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Turkey, Mexico, Brazil, Nigeria, et al and hearing them proudly say the Pledge of Allegience and take their oath of citizenship in 30 or 40 different heavy accents but definitely in English. I never was able to get through one of those ceremonies without tears of great pride and emotion.

Somewhere I still have a photo of one of my students, a Japanese WWII veteran (on their side), battle hardened, weathered face, tough, resolved, a man's man, standing there making his oath, and the tears streaking down his face.

I am all for increasing the quotas and making the process of acceptance of applications easier. I am as opposed to unrealistically large quotas as much as too small quotas, too, because I think it benefits nobody if the new Americans cannot be seamlessly assimilated into the American wayof life. Along with enforcement of our laws and defense of our borders, I think this is where the debate and the policy should be focused. And it is in this area that I think the Senate bill is an abominable piece of legislation and I support the House 100% for not buying into it.

The House version also had serious flaws. But if they keep working at it, both houses might even get it mostly right. But no legislation is far preferable to another bad bill.

0 Replies

Quote:

I support the House 100% for not buying into it.

"Not buying it?".... they are going much farther than not buying. They are playing cynical political games that are designed from keeping this from being worked out.

Legislators are supposed to legislate. Staging television events where loud angry conservatives can yell in front of America is not part of the job of Congressmen. Loud media events is not what the country needs. This has been debated publically for more than enough time.

The House Republicans won't allow a single vote on a compromise. This is incredibly cynical.

I would love for this to be resolved fairly through our political process.

The polls show that the majority of Americans will support a compassionate solution that includes a path to citizenship. The only problem is that this is called "inacceptable" by a very loud majority of social conservatives.

Fine... this is their right and they can be as loud as they want. But playing games to keep the legislation that all of us agree is needed from even coming to a vote beyond ridiculous.

It is cowardly.

Can we agree on this-- this is an important issue and Americans on both sides say they want this to be resolved now (and my side is serious).

Foxy, can you tell your Representative to stop playing games, bring this to conference and solve this like a Legislator?

0 Replies

The reason the "house" continues to play games is quite simple; they will be reelected into office even though their performance rating is below 30 percent.

Blame the American People for this dilemma.

0 Replies

What should be done about illegal immigration?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know