Immigration Fueling Poverty in the U.S. Finds New Report
Forty-five years after Lyndon Johnson declared a "War on Poverty," the United States maintains a policy of mass immigration that perpetuates and increases poverty in the United States, finds a new study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).
According to Immigration, Poverty and Low-Wage Earners: The Harmful Effects of Unskilled Immigrants on American Workers, the United States is importing millions of poorly skilled immigrants who remain mired in poverty, while further eroding wages and economic opportunities for similarly skilled native workers.
Both legal immigration policies and the failure to enforce laws against illegal immigration contribute to the increase in poverty among immigrants and similarly skilled native workers. America's immigration system is "not responsive to the socioeconomic conditions of the country," notes the report.
Family chain migration accounts for the vast majority of legal immigration. These new arrivals are admitted irrespective of education or job skills to join other recent immigrants, many of whom live in or near the poverty line. The situation is only exacerbated by a massive influx of illegal immigrants, most of whom are poorly skilled and work in the underground economy.
Among the key findings of Immigration, Poverty and Low-Wage Earners:
* Fewer than 6 percent of legal immigrants to the United States in 2009 were admitted because they possessed skills deemed essential to the U.S. economy.
* Nearly 31 percent of foreign-born adults lack a high school diploma. Among illegal aliens, 75 percent have a high school diploma or less.
* The median annual income for all immigrant workers in the U.S. is just $30,000. For illegal aliens it is $22,500.
* Low-skill immigrants are more likely to live in poverty, lack health insurance, and utilize welfare programs than their native-born counterparts. Immigrants and their children make-up 32 percent of those without health insurance in the United States.
* Low-skill immigrant workers compete directly against similarly skilled native workers, undercutting their wages and employment opportunities.
"What we see is an immigration policy that is completely divorced from the economic realities of the United States in the 21st century," stated Dan Stein, president of FAIR. "Our immigration policies are driven entirely by the demands of the immigrants themselves and narrow business interests that profit from the presence of immigrant workers who must be heavily subsidized by American taxpayers.
If union leaders truly cared about the plight of American workers, they would honor the long history of the labor movement in the U.S. and oppose immigration policies that undermine wages and conditions in the workplace and put Americans out of work."
"The United States maintains an immigration policy that admits millions of people who are unlikely to succeed in this country. At the same time, our immigration policy is having a devastating impact on job opportunities and wages of millions of low-skill native workers," Stein continued.
"We are deliberately inflicting grievous harm on our nation and many of our citizens through immigration policies while our leaders refuse to enact sensible reforms, or even enforce many existing laws."
Immigration, Poverty and Low-Wage Earners: The Harmful Effects of Unskilled Immigrants on American Workers can be found on FAIR's website here
SOURCE
Recent posts at CIS below
See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.
1. Reining in Zadvydas v. Davis (Memorandum)
2. The Hispanic Vote in 2010 (Memorandum)
3. Immigration and ‘Secure Communities’ (Op-ed)
4. Mixing a Sub-Par Deal with a Ticket to the USA (Blog)
5. Obama's Emerging Un-Border Policy: 'Acceptable Levels of Illegal Immigration' (Blog)
6. Open-Border Groups in Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting (Blog)
7. Arizona Catches a Break from the Supreme Court (Blog)
8. Creating Facts on the Ground (Blog)
9. The Magnitude of the E-Verify Win (Blog)
10. Arizona 1, Open-Borders Lobby 0 (Blog)
11. Musings on Migration Statistics (Blog)
12. Lamar Smith Acts to 'Keep Our Communities Safe' (Blog)
13. Dear Mr. President: How About a Border Strategy? (Blog)
Background
Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.
Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.
The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:
1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.
2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.
3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.
4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.
5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.
6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.
I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.
No comments:
Post a Comment