December 3, 2007

In this update:

New Study Finds Record Number of Immigrants Living in the U.S.

On Wednesday, a study released by the Center for Immigration Studies
found that the current immigrant population of the United States
totaled 37.9 million in 2007--the largest number of immigrants in the
nation's history. At this level, foreign-born individuals currently
comprise one-eighth (12.5 percent) of the nation's
population, the largest proportion it has been since 1920. The report
also shows that over half of immigrants to the United States came from
Latin America, over one-sixth from Asia, and about one-eighth from
Europe. Of these, nearly one in three arrived in the United States
illegally. (Center for Immigration Studies, Immigrants in the United
States, 2007).

The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) found that the vast majority
of immigrants--61 percent--continue to live in one of five states:
California, New York, Florida, Texas and New Jersey. Over the past
seven years, however, the rate of settlement in California, New York,
Florida and Texas has dropped off as a larger share of
immigrants has settled throughout the United States. As a result,
states like Georgia and North Carolina, which before 2000 had not seen
much growth in immigration, have seen their immigrant population
increase by a staggering 300 percent. While the rate of increase
throughout the country is not so dramatic, 32 states and the District
of Columbia showed significant increases in the number of immigrants
as a proportion of the population.

In addition, the CIS report shows that immigrants are active in the
labor market. Eighty-three percent of immigrant households have at
least one worker among them, compared to 73 percent of native-born
households. In addition, just over 11 percent of immigrants are
entrepreneurs; compared to 12 percent of the native-born population.
These self-employed immigrants do almost as well as their native-born
counterparts, with a difference in annual income of about $500.
Unfortunately, CIS also found that immigrants to the United States are
more likely to live in poverty or receive at least one major means-
tested government subsidy than those born in the country. The poverty
rate for immigrant families currently stands at 17 percent, double the
rate for native-born families. Another 26 percent of the immigrant
population is near poverty. Thirty-four percent lack health insurance
of any kind; compared to only 13 percent of the native-born
population. And, about one in three immigrants require at least one
form of cash assistance, food assistance or Medicaid benefits. While
immigrants to the United States eventually do catch up to the
native-born in income and social mobility, it has become an
increasingly slow road. Reaching economic parity takes an immigrant
between 28 and 32 years. Sadly, this is twice as long as recently
thought.

The core of the problem, the study indicates, is the educational
background of the immigrant population coming to the United States.
Undereducated immigrants are disproportionately poor and therefore
likely to receive welfare and other means-tested benefits. Among adult
immigrants, 31 percent do not have high school diplomas, compared to 8
percent of persons born in the United States. Another discouraging
trend is the relative drop in college-educated immigrants. Previously
immigrants to the United States were more likely to have a college
degree than native-born Americans. This number is now roughly equal.

These findings appear to be confirmed by a Pew Hispanic Center study
released Thursday. That study found a strong link between education
and English proficiency among first-generation immigrants to the
United States. While 62 percent of college graduates from Latin
American countries speak English very well, that number drops to 11
percent among those who did not complete high school. It is estimated
that even after 26 years in the country, only 19 percent of Latinos
without high school degrees will learn to speak English comfortably.
To the extent that the inability to speak English limits economic and
social mobility, the increase in immigrants without a high school
education suggests the current immigrant population will continue to
struggle. (Pew Hispanic Center, English Usage among Hispanics in the
United States, November 29, 2007).

San Francisco Enacts Plan to Give Identification Card to Illegal
Aliens

On Wednesday, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom signed into law an
ordinance that would require San Francisco to issue identification
cards to the city's nearly 40,000 illegal aliens as well as other
residents who do not possess California driver's licenses. The
ordinance, which was modeled after a similar plan to provide municipal
identification cards to illegal aliens in New Haven, Connecticut, had
been approved the previous week by city lawmakers. The San Francisco
ordinance will go into effect at the end of August 2008. Upon signing
the legislation, the mayor stated, "San Francisco does more than most
other cities in the United States for its residents, but you need to
prove you are a resident and there's no easier way to do it than
having one card. I don't think it's that big of a deal and I think
it's inevitable in other cities." (Associated Press, November 29,
2007).

The municipal identification cards, which will cost $15 for adults and
$5 for children, will be issued to applicants presenting as little as
a local utility bill in his or her name. (Los Angeles Daily News,
November 29, 2007). The cards will identify the carrier by name, birth
date and photograph, but will not indicate the legal status of the
holder or the holder's gender. (CBS News, November 21, 2007). While
the ID cards will not allow illegal aliens to drive or work in the
city, they will expressly permit their holders to obtain city health
services, use public libraries and receive discounts at local museums.
In addition, a number of banks, including Wells Fargo, Bank of
America, Washington Mutual, and US Bank, have all indicated a
willingness to accept the cards as proof of identification for banking
purposes. Local businesses receiving funds from the city will be
required to accept the cards as valid identification and proof of
local residence. (San Francisco Chronicle, November 28, 2007).

Immigration reform advocates argue that the San Francisco
identification card program legitimizes illegal immigration. FAIR
spokesman Ira Mehlman told the Los Angeles Times that the provision of
identity cards can have dangerous consequences because it impedes the
enforcement of federal immigration law. "Nobody says the city of San
Francisco has to enforce the laws, but their minimal obligation should
be not to impede the enforcement of federal immigration law," said
Mehlman. (Los Angeles Times, November 19, 2007).

Even some San Francisco residents take issue with the program.
Cinnamon Stillwell, a San Francisco area writer, argues the provision
of municipal identification cards is hardly altruistic. Writing for
the San Francisco Chronicle, she described the illegal alien
population as "[a] permanent underclass of laborers [that] would not
exist were it not for the unaddressed social and economic problems in
their countries of origin, the perpetuation of cheap labor by
transnational corporations and small businesses alike, and the
inability and in some cases unwillingness of the U.S. government to
control the nation's borders or enforce its laws." (San Francisco
Chronicle, November 28, 2007). Ms. Stillwell said issuing these cards
legitimizes and perpetuates the already exploitative situation in
which they currently live.

Senator Grassley Pressures Government to Ensure American Workforce

Over the last two weeks, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has sent out a
series of letters to pressure federal agencies and legacy public
corporations to ensure that their workforce is American. In a stinging
letter to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, the Senator
complained that as of July, only 400 federal entities were using E-
Verify, 95 percent of which were Congressional offices. In addition,
he wrote, only 11 of hundreds of federal agencies in the executive
branch use the E-Verify program; in the Department of Homeland
Security, only 5 of the 22 agencies use the program to detect
unauthorized workers. Calling this failure to use E-Verify
"astonishing," Senator Grassley demanded that the agency issue
regulations requiring all agencies to use the program and requested a
progress report on the use of the E-Verify program. "I want to see
this Administration follow through on the reforms they promised to the
Congress and the American people." (Sen. Grassley letter to Sec.
Chertoff, November 19, 2007). To emphasize his point, Senator Grassley
also sent a letter to the Chief Counsel for Employment in the Senate.
Noting that the Senate should lead by example, he charged that use by
Congressional offices was insufficient and that all Senate offices and
contractors should be required to use E-Verify. (Sen. Grassley letter
to Chief Counsel Manning, November 19, 2007).

Senator Grassley also sent letters last week to Fannie Mae, a national
clearinghouse for student loans, and the National Institutes of Health
(NIH) inquiring about their use of the H-1B program to import skilled
foreign guest workers. In these letters, the Senator voiced his
concern that federal dollars were being used to hire foreign guest
workers when those dollars could be spent at home. Grassley noted that
Fannie Mae had employed 141 H-1B workers in 2006 and that NIH employed
322 H-1B workers, making it one of the top 100 H-1B employers in the
nation. To help ease his concerns, Senator Grassley asked these
organizations to supply the job descriptions for the H-1B workers they
hire and to supply information regarding efforts they have made to
hire American workers before importing foreign guest workers.

According to the Senator, "Congress has a responsibility to make sure
that Americans are not overlooked in the process [of hiring H-1B
workers]. I'm asking questions today to find out how many taxpayer
dollars are being used to recruit foreign workers and how invested our
government backed entities are in the visa program."

E-Verify Improves Performance and Limits Employer Discrimination,
Report Shows

This week, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
and Westat, Inc., a research group hired by the federal government,
released a report showing that the E-Verify program has made
significant gains in performance since the late 1990s. Both employer
use and employer satisfaction with use of the E-Verify program have
increased, while the costs to employers of using E-Verify have
decreased significantly. Importantly, Westat also found that use of
the E-Verify program reduced employer discrimination because employers
showed an increased willingness to hire those who were or appeared
foreign-born when assured that the E-Verify system would sort out
anyone who was unauthorized to work. (Findings of the Web Basic Pilot
Executive Summary, released November 27, 2007).

Despite the strong findings that the E-Verify program is working, one
area in which the program showed some weakness was in processing
information for naturalized citizens. The reason is that when these
aliens were naturalized, USCIS ceased to maintain work authorization
data for them. At the same time, however, the Social Security
Administration failed to update its records with regard to the new
citizens, leaving them without a record to support their claims of
work eligibility. Importantly, the report indicates that these
oversights were usually resolved and can be improved with better
information-sharing between the Social Security Administration and
USCIS.

Overall, as the Westat and other reports show, E-Verify has been a
successful method of screening out illegal workers and shows progress
for even greater improvement. The Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) reports that for 98% of the workers who are actually authorized
to work in the U.S., the system returns an instant "green light." (See
DHS Leadership Journal, November 29, 2007.)  In a 2006 report, the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that cases
referred for secondary verification are typically resolved within 24
hours, but a small number of cases take longer, sometimes up to 2
weeks, generally due to delays in entry of data. (GAO-06-895T).
Unfortunately despite this success rate, only a small proportion of
employers -- approximately 24,000 -- currently use the E-Verify
program.

http://www.fairus.org/site/R?i=5QjW4LM7R_rcw5YCkxyfaA..

To receive more information from FAIR, click here.
http://www.fairus.org/site/R?i=y7N5xD8q_Ahka3k4V9PXWw..

Not to mention that he is simply full of sh.t, a liar, a troll and
projecting his own societal inadequacies because he has deduced what no one
but his mind created or said.

Boringly typical, and why reasonable, intelligent, mature people who are
able to grasp common sense and fact loathe liberals.

People like me obey the law and support the status quo.  People like me have
countless billions of dollars and our lives invested in the establishment.
Apparently you don't know me, or anybody like me.

So because illegal immigrants are guilty of law-breaking (i.e. being
in the country illegally) then all immigrants are going to be
lawbreakers. Interesting rationale.

JF

Same challenge that I just made to Dennis: Support what you're saying by
showing where Ben proposed open borders for all.  If you can't, STFU.

On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 18:48:30 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
<nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote:

He realizes, like everyone else here, that it's pointless to try to
show you anything. Your mind is a tightly closed book on certain
things, like a few of the other metoos. And that's too bad, because
aside from that I'm sure you're pretty good fellas.

As I've said time and again, I bet you and most of the other rabid
conservatives could sit down with me and most of the other raving
liberals and share a beer or six and have some laughs and no
disagreements. I've done it before with at least a few of you. This
nonsense that we perpetrate here is just late night boredom and pent
up frustrations from long days at the office. Popeye and I had dinner
with nary a harsh word. Hell. He even hugged me. Mike & I had lunch
without him once having to draw his gun. I don't think he was that
impressed with my choice of restaurants. Their idea of mustard was
Grey Poupon with odd little herbs blended in and the hamburger was
kinda effete for his tastes. But that's price I pay for living in a
cultural mecca. Scads of Americans lap this crap up during the summer
months. Ask Dan B. He comes here often enuf to witness what goes on.
He's a closet culture vulture. He tries to cover by playing golf when
he's here but it's obvious he comes for the theatre. Lee & I had
dinner, with our wives and a bunch of others, and got along great. We
all got along even better when we were on dive boats. This stuff we do
here is just silly posturing, but it's fun and a great way to take out
our frustrations from crappy work days.

JF