Im­mig­rants make up 13 per­cent of the pop­u­la­tion and 17 per­cent of the work­force

Ron Aldof Thu, 01/07/2016 - 19:47
+1
+3
-1
Forums: 

Shift­ing demo­graph­ics na­tion­wide are chan­ging the face of Amer­ic­an em­ploy­ment. Im­mig­rants make up 13 per­cent of the pop­u­la­tion and 17 per­cent of the work­force, but their em­ploy­ment pat­terns con­trast with those of their U.S.-born coun­ter­parts across in­dus­tries and states. Un­der­stand­ing these dif­fer­ences na­tion­ally and with­in each state is vi­tal for poli­cy­makers as they con­sider strategies to boost their eco­nom­ies and de­vel­op their work­forces. To help give them the clear pic­ture they need, The Pew Char­it­able Trusts pro­duced first-of-their-kind data on the like­li­hood of im­mig­rant work­ers be­ing em­ployed in 13 ma­jor in­dus­tries, com­pared with U.S.-born work­ers, in all 50 states and the Dis­trict of Columbia.

Pew’s on­line in­ter­act­ive tool builds on these data to com­pare the work­force dis­tri­bu­tion of im­mig­rants re­l­at­ive to U.S.-born work­ers across all states and with na­tion­al fig­ures.  Fol­low­ing are some key takeaways that can help guide ex­plor­a­tion of the in­ter­act­ive and in­form strategies for poli­cy­makers to make use of the data:

At the na­tion­al level, im­mig­rant work­ers are dis­trib­uted dif­fer­ently across in­dus­tries than their U.S.-born coun­ter­parts. Im­mig­rants are more likely than U.S.-born work­ers to hold jobs in six of the 13 ma­jor in­dus­tries ex­amined, in­clud­ing man­u­fac­tur­ing and ad­min­is­trat­ive ser­vices.

 

 

 

National Journal: http://www.nationaljournal.com/next-america/population-2043/immigrants-w...

What is the category of this post? (choose up to 2): 
Ron Aldof's picture
About the author
#IStandWithRandAndLiberty! Let's get back to Liberty and Freedom. Trump is working with the Establishment.
crabacado's picture
+1
0
-1

The immigration problem will be solved by border control and border control only. It's impossible and inhumane to deport 13-30 million illegals. I also think the massive dollar flow south of the border isn't helping things either. I don't have a solution for that other than ending the Fed

A man who chops his own wood is warmed by it twice

Ron Aldof's picture
+1
+1
-1

Would like to add, to cure the unbalanced trade between the US and Mexico. NAFTA would have to be dumped.

#IStandWithRandAndLiberty!
Let's get back to Liberty and Freedom.
Trump is working with the Establishment.

Shonn33's picture
+1
0
-1

for stating our positions on immigration for reasons i cant understand....I just wanted some to see that there is a hidden agenda causing this immigration problem...But my biggest point was to solve it, will take the cooperation from the American people on a massive scale...This is my 2nd biggest issue after ending all the wars we started...just a little surprised freedom means accepting others breaking the law while still getting free stuff from the tax payers..

 

"Justice is indivisible, an injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere". MLK

mwstroberg's picture
+1
+1
-1

I am not proposing ANYONE, native born citizen or immigrant, getting any free stuff from taxpayers. I support elimination of the entire Welfare State, lock, stock and barrel.

Why aren't you in favor of deporting all native born American citizens over the age of 65, who consume 30 to 40 times the dollar value of government services that "illegal" immigrants do? (just to let you know, I have nothing against retirees, as I am almost there myself).

Your logic is flawed. If you oppose the Welfare State, why aren't you focusing on eliminating it, instead of eliminating the people who use it? We are all subsidized by the government, and we are all taxpayers as well. So we are all suckers, and we are all suckees. There is simply no way to determine our relative contributions either into or out of the system once the funds have been stolen. It is the SYSTEM which is immoral, NOT its victims.

.

stm's picture
+1
0
-1

Americans are born into the system. Illegals jump the border to take advantage of the system.

Oh, and illegals come in all shapes and colors and nationalities. You seem to be stuck on 'Latinos'.

 

Laugh. It makes you feel good.

mwstroberg's picture
+1
+2
-1

My agenda is a perfectly open book: Liberty, the free market, private property, and peace.

.

stm's picture
+1
0
-1

who did not even have the courage to reply to our posts with rebuttals. But then again, I have no interest in what they have to say as open border proponents leave me cold. The idea that all and sundry, especially those who have no intention of throwing off their medieval practices and those who believe the state should be all-powerful, should be allowed into this country without being vetted - my goodness, we go on and on about vetting potential candidates - especially in the current political environment where the push to remove all liberties is so strong, those who will (and have) form groups and coalitions that democratic party members are all too willing to bow to who then write legislation protecting foreign ideas that kill American ones... leaves me speechless. My mind actually struggles to understand why open border junkies want to destroy America. Don't they see how far we already are from our founding principles? Multiculturalism has no place in America and yet that is what they want. Actually, they don't want any country at all. They have some kind of utopian fantasy where everyone lives together with different customs and languages that somehow never infringe upon their neighbors. They are a very sad lot and thankfully in the minority.

I wear my down vote on this topic with pride... hope you do, too.

 

Laugh. It makes you feel good.

mwstroberg's picture
+1
0
-1

This seems rather an ironic statement coming from someone who believes the State should be all-powerful when dealing with immigrants.

You really wish to give the federal government the power to decide who can enter this country based on their political ideology? Are you really naive enough to believe they would be biased in favor of true lovers of liberty? When has the State ever used such powers to promote liberty? Should we not, according to this principle, either deport or prevent from voting, most native born American citizens?

.

Anne's picture
+1
+3
-1

As long as we have a welfare system that allows for the free medical care, free housing, free food, free schooling of immigrants, migrants, refugees, asylum seekers, and illegals, we can not have open borders. 

If you take away birthright citizenship and take away automatic welfare for illegals, you can have open borders.  People will turn around and go home rather than live where they can not find work or have a means to clothe, feed or school their children.

It's not how high you build the wall to keep them out, it's the freebies and handouts that entice them to come

 

"Do not neglect your music, it will be a companion which will sweeten many hours of life to you."  Thomas Jefferson

mwstroberg's picture
+1
0
-1

your sincerity and spirit of good will, as you are essentially supporting Ron Paul's position. The reason I disagree with you is that you are using the existence of one form of tyranny, i.e. the Welfare State, to justify the imposition of another form of tyranny, i.e. the system of legal restrictions on peaceful immigration. Instead, I feel that the focus should be on eliminating the original form of tyranny, ie the Welfare State. The fact is, the use of government services by "illegal" immigrants amounts to a pittance compared to the use of government services by native born American citizens over the age of 65, and any mention of  a "burden" should focus on the ENTIRE Welfare State, not just its use by the immigrant scapegoat of the month.

In my arguments with people on this issue, I make a distinction between those, such as yourself and Ron Paul, who bear no ill will or animosity toward immigrants, and those, such as shonn33 and stm, whose statements would indicate that they dislike, and perhaps even fear, Muslims and Latinos, implying that simply being a member of a particular group makes you violent, immoral, or somehow less than human.

I have a very low regard for xenophobes, particularly those that wrap their prejudices in liberty rhetoric, while anyone with a discerning, logical mind can see that liberty means "no restrictions," not "restrictions."

I recommend you check out the articles and books dealing with this issue, published by the Future of Freedom Foundation, whose website can be found at http://www.fff.org.

UPDATE: Anne, here is a link to an excellent video on this issue from the website listed above. The person being interviewed, Jacob Hornberger, is a personal hero of mine. He really seems to have a sense of good will toward all people:

http://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/opening-minds-open-borders-vi...

.

Anne's picture
+1
+2
-1

Ideally, we would live in a completely free society saturated with people of high morals, but we don't.  I am a firm believer that you cannot have a working free society with a population that has no moral compass.  What kept people in cities and towns across early America  free of mayhem, riots, thievery, and abject violence during and after the confusion, disruption, and devastation of the Revolutionary War wasn't a constitution (because it didn't exist),  a local armed of men, (because they were off fighting) nor elected officials and a local government (because most were British loyalists who fled). 

There was no type of government for 2 years or longer and what kept these people peaceful and working together was first their firm moral foundation and also their strong sense of society and a need for each other.  The bloody horrific French Revolution was more the norm when it came to governmental take overs and change.  American Revolution was unique not only in it's outcome, but in its aftermath.

My point is this.  Complete freedom worked because we had a near perfect and idealistic society as a foundation.  Fast forward to today and any honest assessment of our current society would say that it has withered considerably.  Are the majority of people good people?  Yes of course.  However, riots, thievery, rapes, and murder would rule our cities if the illusion of government protection suddenly disintegrated. This is true of the general population as well as the illegal immigrants.

Does this mean that I'm for various forms of tyranny to keep people in line?  No.  Absolutely not. But I am pragmatic in that I realize that to get us to a position of real, honest liberty as a nation that we are going to have to get there through baby steps.  Incremental socialism is what took us from the mentality of 1776 and warped us into the mentality of 2016.  We have so many tyrannical laws and regulations that abolishing them will first take the mass awakening of the people.  Ensuring that this happens is (as I see it) our primary job.  We cannot change anything without the will of the people.

Immigration would not be an issue if it weren't for the other socialistic welfare laws and income taxes we are subject to.  

I have absolutely no problem with immigrants in theory,  If you or some other private organization wants to house them, give them work, school their kids, pay for their health care that your business.  If California wants to throw open, welcoming arms to the tired, hungry, and poor, that's up to them and their voters.   However, when an influx of indigent people puts a strain on a community's resources and public funds it becomes a right of the people within that community to protect their property and the stabilization of their town.

If an influx of people is so large that it matches or exceeds the current population of a town (as happened in a German town recently) those people could potentially use mob rule to change a government, overtake property, overturn elections, change politics, and influence societal values.  It puts that town and its people in jeopardy.

Protection of your home is understood.  Protection of your town isn't always so clear cut.  This has to be decided as a community.  A group of farmers banding together to help protect each other would be no different.

The fact is, immigrants coming here in mass are a destabilizing force.  If there were no monetary incentive for them to come there would be no massive influx.  The few that did come through an open border would come prepared to survive and make their way in the world as pioneers of old did.  And they would inherently learn and understand their own freedom and the freedom of others, regardless of where they came from. But with the current "welfare for all" policy that we have, it is encouraging a distressing amount of hungry and homeless to leach off the system.

This is a current reality and must be dealt with solutions that will actually work.  I submit that a Great Wall of America isn't practical nor will it actually work.  The only real solution is to cut off the funds to non-citizens.  Of course we should aim to end all welfare, but society at this point will not accept that.  Cities and states are over budget trying to fund benefits for its citizens as it is, and adding illegals on top of it is bankrupting them.  Stopping at minimum non-citizen welfare is the only thing that will stop the hemorrhage.

The tricky thing is... how do you get such a bill passed in the mentality of 2016?  I don't actually have the answer, but what I do know is that you cannot have free welfare and open borders coexisting at the same time.  Europe is finding this out the hard way and so shall we.

It is not xenophobic to want to be secure in your economy, your community and your home.  It is self preservation.  It is a concern that many of the immigrant population coming here have no idea what it means to be free and accept without question the tyranny of government.  This political mentality can affect not only elections and laws, but how quickly we lose our foundation.

In my opinion, destabilizing immigration is being encouraged by those who want to move us into full on socialism and eventual world government.  I think it is no mistake that Europe and the US are both experiencing this upheaval simultaneously.  It may sound conspiratorial, but the idea of creating chaos only to introduce a new solution of order is an ancient deception and one that we are not immune to.

 

 

"Do not neglect your music, it will be a companion which will sweeten many hours of life to you."  Thomas Jefferson

stm's picture
+1
0
-1

I remember watching an interview with Roddy McDowell after the first Planet of the Apes movie. They asked about the make-up and stuff, and he said that it took hours to apply and you had to live in it all day, blah blah. He then said that they noticed a funny thing happen. People had created friendships, but once in make-up, they noticed that the chimps congregated with the chimps, the gorillas with gorillas and orangutans with orangutans - that in make-up, those who were friendly without, weren't friendly to those same people if they weren't of their 'kind'.

I think about that from time to time and it came to the fore when I read what you wrote about 'deciding as a community'.

I'm from NY and always loved going into Chinatown, Little Italy, Little India, etc. So much variety, so may different foods and customs to explore. But there was still that one thing that all had in common - we were all New Yorkers. We understood our kind. I never knew talking over someone was rude until I went to another state and someone pointed it out to me. NYers hardly ever let anyone finish their sentence! LOL It's not rude; it's just what we do. We understood each other in the context of NY.

Losing that cohesion, that sense of place... and for what? To keep the populace at odds with each other? Why do they want that? Nefarious reasons, undoubtedly.

I have no answers, either, but agree with no wall, no welfare for non-citizens and no massive influx and would like to see the end of the H-1B visa program which is being used to replace American workers, have our  borders secured and stop preventing States from securing them and thoroughly vet potential immigrants.

Laugh. It makes you feel good.

ATruepatriot's picture
+1
0
-1

I grew up as equals in a community of "Mexican Nationals" as they were described back then. The ratio was about 50/50 Mexican to White population. All these families had migrated here legally in the 30's qnd 40's and had worked hard to earn their citizenship with pride. They were proud to be here and proud to be hard working taxpaying U.S. Citizens. I really enjoyed the multi-culturalism of these families as I was growing up, their great traditional parties and fiestas had no equal. They treated everyone as equals and with respect. Everyone was welcome to be part of the family and treated as family. To this day I am still a respected member of these families.

But the scales have tipped. there was a time when immigrants were indeed beneficial to our economic system because their hard work,pride and honesty was productive and beneficial. Now there are just too many and it truly is unsustainable and unproductive, No amount of idealism is going to make a set of 5 gallon udders produce 7 gallons of Milk or make 7 gallons fit in a 5 gallon pail. Reality plays a part in this too. Even these longtime Family Friends see this happening and have admitted that it will never work.

Not if we want to maintain the level of lifestyle we insist we deserve in this country. There is absolutely no way to keep both. They cannot occupy the same space, something will have to be displaced and sacrificed pretty soon or we will all be living in the Fields.

 

"Jack of all Trades...Master of None" But forever learning more!

stm's picture
+1
+1
-1

Xenophobe? You know nothing about me and I do not like to put personal information on the web. You are so wrong.

I have nothing against Muslims or Mexicans... um... Latinos. I can't believe you made such a statement about me. It would be like me saying that you approve of 'honor killings' because you never responded to my examples of them. I guess you approve of FGM, too, right? You don't speak out against the practice so you must be in favor of it. Should I link your approval all around this website so people can see you think 'honor killing' justifiable?

Of course not! I don't believe you approve of those things. Yet, because I do discuss them, I automatically hate Muslims according to your warped little mind.

Do not spread made-up gossip about me. Do not assume to know me. You are intentionally trying to cause me harm by ruining my reputation amongst the posters here with your negative and erroneous commentary about me and links to my posts. Why are you stirring up trouble? Why are you trying to ruin my reputation? You can't even follow your own 'rule' - do no harm - so how am I to take anything you say seriously?

You have crossed the line and it's all in support of your own agenda. Pathetic and sad. But you won't scare me away and I will not allow you to disparage my name. Stop your nonsense. Make your case, but leave me and everyone else out of it. If your case can't stand without putting others down, then your case is legless.

Laugh. It makes you feel good.

VR's picture
+1
0
-1

 

+1

 

 

 

 

All our knowledge begins with the senses, proceeds then to the understanding, and ends with reason. There is nothing higher than reason.
Immanuel Kant

VR's picture
+1
0
-1

your solution

 

 

 

All our knowledge begins with the senses, proceeds then to the understanding, and ends with reason. There is nothing higher than reason.
Immanuel Kant

mwstroberg's picture
+1
+6
-1

So what you are saying is that immigrants are not as moral as native born US citizens? What leads you to believe this? Did it ever occur to you that your neighborhood is going down hill, not because of immigrants, but because of the economic devastation brought on by US Federal government policy?

Immigrants are NOT the enemy. It is not "us vs them." In a very real sense it is ALL OF US, native born citizen and immigrant alike, vs the State.

.

stm's picture
+1
-2
-1

Or for money? Do they bring with them customs we should accept or that we should find abhorrent?

...in late October 2009... [A]s Noor walked across a suburban parking lot to a Mexican restaurant with a friend — a 43-year-old woman named Amal Khalaf — Faleh Almaleki gunned the engine of his Jeep Grand Cherokee and bore down on his 20-year-old daughter and her companion. The women took off running but were no match for the SUV, already traveling close to 30 miles per hour. Suddenly Amal turned, held up her hands in a futile attempt to stop the Jeep, and froze. Moments later, the vehicle struck the women, tossing them into the air.... Swerving onto the median, he ran over his daughter as she lay bleeding, fracturing her face and spine. Then, he reversed and sped away....

Local police characterized the incident as an attempted "honor killing" — the murder of a woman for behaving in a way that "shames" her family... In Texas, teen sisters Amina and Sarah Said were shot dead in 2008, allegedly by their father, because they had boyfriends. That same year in Georgia, 25-year-old Sandeela Kanwal was allegedly strangled by her father for wanting to leave an arranged marriage. Last year in New York, Aasiya Hassan, 37, was murdered in perhaps the most gruesome way imaginable: She was beheaded, allegedly by her husband, for reportedly seeking a divorce. And this past spring, 19-year-old Tawana Thompson's husband gunned her down in Illinois, reportedly following arguments about her American-style clothing.

 
Or are those stories too old for you? How but something more recent?
 
Honor Violence Measurement Methods,” a study released earlier this year by research corporation Westat, and commissioned by the U.S. Department of Justice, identified four types of honor violence: forced marriage, honor-based domestic violence, honor killing and female genital mutilation. The report, which estimated that 23-27 honor killings per year occur in the U.S., noted that 91 percent of victims in North America are murdered for being “too Westernized,” and in incidents involving daughters 18 years or younger, a father is almost always involved.
 
 
Now for all those border jumpers... I don't care if you disagree with the law, but there are laws concerning how you enter a country and, regardless of their reasons, if their first act is criminal - entering a country illegally - then they obviously have questionable morals. Those people had planned to act criminally, many paid coyotes to help them, many get fake IDs... premeditated crime. How can anyone consider somebody a moral person when he/she commits a premeditated criminal act?
 
Also, how many immigrants come to this country versed in any of the principles of Liberty? Many Americans don't even know our founding principles espoused in the Declaration of Independence and have never even read or heard the liberty-supporting arguments of the anti-Federalists.... people give Madison credit for the Bill of Rights when he was entirely against their insertion! How can us few Americans restore Liberty when so many Americans believe in the almighty 'state' and millions more come here bring their statist viewpoints?
 
As on the PL site, I'm not going to continue any back and forth with you... I've said my piece, you of course can say yours. But mixing cultures doesn't work - multiculturalism is a UN 'Our Common Future' construct (I'll leave you to look it up should you choose) - integration is not encouraged and America is losing whatever bit of culture it once had. I don't blame all that on illegals, btw, because the govt is using immigrants who prefer Big Gov to whittle away our founding principles and nudge Americans into accepting socialism... or whatever you want to call it.

 

Laugh. It makes you feel good.

Shonn33's picture
+1
-2
-1

For defending my post and understanding that illegal immigrants don't further the cause of liberty, and paying for all kinds of welfare handed to them, but understanding how govt. welcomes these illegals like on city buses having signs posted in english & spanish, multi-language consumer products, and here in this city the mexican radio stations out number rock stations, and finally I clean beer bottles & other mexican related sh^t twice a week around my house...I said full deportation will take a massive committement from the American people...I stand by than statement...Stm...you understand my problem with illegals!

 

"Justice is indivisible, an injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere". MLK

mwstroberg's picture
+1
+2
-1

in english & spanish..."

It is my opinion that there should be no government involvement with bus lines, or any other service. These things must be handled by a purely free market.

Government should be strictly neutral with respect to cultural values. To have government be the arbiter of what is or is not a proper culture, is essentially establishing religious values, and therefore is foreign to the ways of a free society. Government should neither encourage nor discourage immigration. What problem can a libertarian have with market processes resulting in a majority of radio stations being Spanish-language? You don't have to tune to those stations. Having government mandate either English only, or bilingual only, business practices is tyranny. Let entrepreneurs satisfy the demands of their clientele without government interference, including their demands for the use of certain languages.

For Heaven's sake, "Can't we all just get along?"

.

Pages