Roughly 10% of Mexico's population of about 107 million is now living in the United States, estimates show. About 15% of Mexico's labor force is working in the United States. One in every seven Mexican workers migrates to the United States.
Return to Main

Thursday, January 25, 2018

Anti-Norway bigotry

As Oslo, Norway changes. . .

"In short, a place where people had once lived without fear and treated one another with respect and friendliness had become charged with tension, dread, and bigotry—not anti-Muslim bigotry, mind you, but anti-Norwegian bigotry."

Reminds me of the anti-American bigotry we experience from some of our immigrants, and definitely from our own left-wingers, born and raised here.

"August [2017] marked the beginning of a new school year. On September 28, VG, a Norwegian newspaper, reported that since the start of the term, so many violent episodes had taken place at the high school in Stovner—one involving an ax and a crowbar—that the principal, Terje Wold, said that he could no longer guarantee the safety of teachers and students. In response, the nation’s acting minister of education, Henrik Asheim, called an emergency meeting; police officers were soon posted at the school on a daily basis. VG noted that Stovner was hardly alone: violence in other schools in Groruddalen had also intensified in recent years, leading to the development of what in Norwegian is called an ukultur, literally, an “un-culture”—marked by a lack of culture—violent, anarchic, and savage.

And so it goes. Muslims keep pouring into Groruddalen, and ethnic Norwegians keep leaving. . ."

Labels: , ,

Thursday, December 15, 2016

Cultural adjustments strain the family

“When Africans first arrive here in the US, they are indeed struck by the fact that Americans seem to find it very easy to tell one another, ‘I love you,’” Ndukwe explains. “Growing up in Africa, people don’t go around saying, ‘I love you.’ In the African culture, love is not something you just talk about; it’s not something that you just say; it’s really meaningless (to talk about it). The most important thing is how you demonstrate that love: How you take care of yourself, how you take care of your children, how you take care of your family, how you take care of your parents.”

Labels: , , ,

Monday, June 27, 2016

Anti-western hypocrisy

"Why did a million Africans and Middle Easterners freely seek out Europe last year, and why do hundreds of thousands of Mexicans and Central Americans crowd the southwestern American border? Japan is as affluent as Europe, and so is Singapore. Perhaps oil-rich Kuwait or Saudi Arabia might be preferable destinations? Why does immigration flow largely to the West? Its affluence is no longer a monopoly. But rather than affluence alone, is it respect for the individual, tolerance of dissent, and freedom of expression and religion that draw a Libyan or Pakistani toward London or Paris rather than Beijing or Mumbai? Immigration is the most concrete of all polls, in which millions vote not over their cell phones but with their feet." Victor Davis Hanson

Read more at:

Sunday, May 22, 2016

Success of black immigrants in the USA

I've been reading some glowing reports about foreign born black immigrants--education level, income, extending to 2nd generation. But that's not what Pew Research reports, although foreign born blacks do much better than native born, especially in marriage rate and education they don't necessarily do better than other immigrant groups. The difference may be Pew figures  include blacks from all over the world including South American and Caribbean and the other reports may be just Africa. The fact remains, many American blacks, like our President, do not have slavery in their history. And many American blacks are descended from families that did own slaves.
"First- and second-generation immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean, though only 13% of the nation’s blacks as a whole, represent 41% of all those of African descent at 28 selective universities and 23 % of the black population at all public universities." Their children excel at higher rates than any other American immigrant groups. This is reported in a number of publications, including Pew Research and the Census. But all the others sources mention that the marriage rate is much higher for immigrant blacks. Washington Post (this source) doesn't.

Labels: , , ,

Monday, February 29, 2016

Innovation in the U.S. is driven by immigrants

Who is driving innovation in the U.S.? The demographics of U.S. innovation are different from not only the demographics of the United States as a whole, but also the demographics of college-educated Americans and even those with a Ph.D. in science or engineering. . . Immigrants born in Europe or Asia are over five times more likely to have created an innovation in America than the average native-born U.S. citizen, and they are better educated in STEM. . . Women represent only... 12 % of U.S. innovators. . . The average male born in the United States is nine times more likely to contribute to an innovation than the average female. . . U.S.-born minorities (including Asians, African Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, and other ethnicities) make up just 8% of U.S.-born innovators. However, these groups total 32% of the total U.S.-born population. Blacks make up just half a percent of U.S. innovators. The median innovator is 47 years of age and typically has years of work experience and deep knowledge in STEM fields.


"First-generation immigrants make up 13 percent of the U.S. population and 16.5 percent
of the U.S. workforce, but 35.5 percent of innovators.71 Highly educated immigrants play a
significant role in bolstering the U.S. innovation ecosystem. These findings help
demonstrate that the U.S. economy, which faces a serious skills gap in STEM fields, has an
outsized demand for foreign talent.72." p. 29

Labels: ,

Our immigration laws haven't failed--they've been ignored

People, including legislators and the media, who whine about our "failed immigration policy" should read that law, IRCA Simpson-Massoli, 1986. It didn't exactly fail--no one obeyed the law, it wasn't inforced, and not enough money was provided. So why would a new law, whether Republican or Democrat sponsored, not have the same result? More illegals means more votes for Democrats, and there's the motivation. They have to have people who "owe" them to make all this work.

Labels: , , ,

Friday, November 20, 2015

What country is Obama living in?

What a stupid thing (back hand at GOP governors) he said yesterday—that we shouldn’t have a preference for Syrian Christians or Moslems.  Christians are being massacred by Muslim jihadists on both sides.  Where are the surrounding Muslim nations that can take in the Muslim refugees?  Why ship them across the ocean to our country so our naïve, whiny college students can radicalize them?

  In five years, the U.S. has taken in 53 Christians from that war torn area, and thousands of Muslims.  But it is the Christians facing genocide. Meanwhile Jordan and Turkey are buying cheap oil from ISIS, and Obama glad hands them.

This man has no heart; only political goals masquerading as values and ethics, and I might add, pretending to care.  And according to the Constitution, he has one job—to keep the country safe. If he didn’t like the job description, why did he run?

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, September 02, 2015

More Than Half of Immigrants on Public Assistance

In 2012, 51 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal or illegal) reported that they used at least one welfare program during the year, compared to 30 percent of native households. Welfare in this study includes Medicaid and cash, food, and housing programs.

Welfare Use by Immigrant and Native Households

•Welfare use is high for both new arrivals and well-established immigrants. Of households headed by immigrants who have been in the country for more than two decades, 48 percent access welfare.

•No single program explains immigrants' higher overall welfare use. For example, not counting subsidized school lunch, welfare use is still 46 percent for immigrants and 28 percent for natives. Not counting Medicaid, welfare use is 44 percent for immigrants and 26 percent for natives.

•Immigrant households have much higher use of food programs (40 percent vs. 22 percent for natives) and Medicaid (42 percent vs. 23 percent). Immigrant use of cash programs is somewhat higher than natives (12 percent vs. 10 percent) and use of housing programs is similar to natives.

•Welfare use varies among immigrant groups. Households headed by immigrants from Central America and Mexico (73 percent), the Caribbean (51 percent), and Africa (48 percent) have the highest overall welfare use. Those from East Asia (32 percent), Europe (26 percent), and South Asia (17 percent) have the lowest.

•Many immigrants struggle to support their children, and a large share of welfare is received on behalf of U.S.-born children. However, even immigrant households without children have significantly higher welfare use than native households without children — 30 percent vs. 20 percent.

•The welfare system is designed to help low-income workers, especially those with children, and this describes many immigrant households. In 2012, 51 percent of immigrant households with one or more workers accessed one or more welfare programs, as did 28 percent of working native households.

•The large share of immigrants with low levels of education and resulting low incomes partly explains their high use rates. In 2012, 76 percent of households headed by an immigrant who had not graduated high school used one or more welfare programs, as did 63 percent of households headed by an immigrant with only a high school education.

•The high rates of immigrant welfare use are not entirely explained by their lower education levels. Households headed by college-educated immigrants have significantly higher welfare use than households headed by college-educated natives — 26 percent vs. 13 percent.

•In the four top immigrant-receiving states, use of welfare by immigrant households is significantly higher than that of native households: California (55 percent vs. 30 percent), New York (59 percent vs. 33 percent), Texas (57 percent vs. 34 percent), and Florida (42 percent vs. 28 percent).

•Illegal immigrants are included in the SIPP. In a forthcoming report, we will estimate welfare use for immigrants by legal status. However, it is clear that the overwhelming majority of immigrant households using welfare are headed by legal immigrants.

•Most new legal immigrants are barred from welfare programs when they first arrive, and illegal immigrants are barred as well. But the ban applies to only some programs; most legal immigrants have been in the country long enough to qualify for at least some programs and the bar often does not apply to children; states often provide welfare to new immigrants on their own; naturalizing makes immigrants eligible for all programs; and, most important, immigrants (including illegal immigrants) can receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children who are awarded U.S. citizenship at birth.

•The heavy use of welfare by less-educated immigrants has three important policy implications: 1) prior research indicates that illegal immigrants are overwhelmingly less-educated, so allowing them to stay in the country creates significant welfare costs; 2) by admitting large numbers of less-educated immigrants to join their relatives, the legal immigration system brings in many immigrants who are likely to access the welfare system; and 3) proposals to allow in more less-educated immigrants to fill low-wage jobs would create significant welfare costs.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?