Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    mdillon1172's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Heart of America
    Posts
    458

    Hispanics & US Poverty Levels

    Tsunami Of Hispanic Immigration Washes Away Progress On Poverty
    By ROBERT SAMUELSON | Posted Wednesday, September 05, 2007 4:30 PM PT

    The government last week released its annual statistical report on poverty and household income. As usual, we — meaning the public, the press and politicians — missed a big part of the story. It is this:

    The stubborn persistence of poverty, at least as measured by the government, is increasingly a problem associated with immigration. As more poor Hispanics enter the country, poverty goes up. This is not complicated, but it is widely ignored.

    The standard story is that poverty is stuck; superficially, the statistics support that. The poverty rate measures the share of Americans below the official poverty line, which in 2006 was $20,614 for a four-person household.
    Last year, the poverty rate was 12.3%, down slightly from 12.6% in 2005 but higher than the 11.3% in 2000, the recent low. It was also higher than the 11.8% average for the 1970s. So the conventional wisdom seems amply corroborated.

    It isn't. Look again at the numbers. In 2006, there were 36.5 million people in poverty. That's the figure that translates into the 12.3% poverty rate. In 1990, the population was smaller, and there were 33.6 million people in poverty, a rate of 13.5%. The increase from 1990 to 2006 was 2.9 million people (36.5 million minus 33.6 million). Hispanics accounted for all of the gain.

    Consider: From 1990 to 2006, the number of poor Hispanics increased 3.2 million, from 6 million to 9.2 million. Meanwhile, the number of non-Hispanic whites in poverty fell from 16.6 million (poverty rate: 8.8%) in 1990 to 16 million (8.2%) in 2006. Among blacks, there was a decline from 9.8 million in 1990 (poverty rate: 31.9%) to 9 million (24.3%) in 2006. White and black poverty has risen somewhat since 2000, but is down over longer periods.

    Only an act of willful denial can separate immigration and poverty.

    The increase among Hispanics must be concentrated among immigrants, legal and illegal, as well as their American-born children. Yet this story goes largely untold.

    Government officials didn't say much about immigration when briefing on the poverty and income reports. The American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank, and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal advocacy group for the poor, both held briefings. Immigration was a common no-show.

    Why is it important to get this story straight?

    One reason is truthfulness. It's usually held that we've made little, if any, progress against poverty. That's simply untrue. Among non-Hispanic whites, the poverty rate may now be approaching some irreducible minimum: people whose personal habits, poor skills, family relations or bad luck condemn them to a marginal existence.

    Among blacks, the poverty rate remains abysmally high, but it has dropped sharply since the 1980s.

    Moreover, taking into account federal benefits (food stamps, the earned income tax credit) that aren't counted as cash income would further reduce reported poverty.

    We shouldn't think that our massive efforts to mitigate poverty have had no effect. Immigration hides our grudging progress.

    A second reason is that immigration affects government policy. By default, our present policy is to import poor people. This imposes strains on local schools, public services and health care. From 2000 to 2006, 41% of the increase in people without health insurance occurred among Hispanics.

    Paradoxically, many Hispanics are advancing quite rapidly. But assimilation — which should be our goal — will be frustrated if we keep adding to the pool of poor. Newcomers will compete with earlier arrivals.

    In my view, though some economists disagree, competition from low-skilled Hispanics also hurts low-skilled blacks.

    We need an immigration policy that makes sense. My oft-stated belief is that legal immigration should favor the high-skilled over the low-skilled. They will assimilate quickest and most aid the economy.

    As for present illegal immigrants, we should give most of them legal status, both as a matter of practicality and fairness. Many have been here for years and have American children. At the same time, we should clamp down on new illegal immigration through tougher border controls and employer sanctions.

    Whatever one's views, any sensible debate requires accurate information. And there's the rub. Among many analysts, journalists and politicians, it's politically or psychologically discomforting to discuss these issues candidly.

    Robert Greenstein, head of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, says his group focuses on short-term trends, where immigration's role isn't so apparent. Conveniently, that avoids antagonizing some of the center's supporters.

    Journalists also are leery of making the connection. Fifty-four reporters signed up for the center's briefing last week. With one exception (me), none asked about immigration's effect on poverty or incomes. But the evidence is hiding in plain sight, and the facts won't vanish just because we ignore them.

    © 2007 Washington Post Writers Group
    No soy de los que se dicen 'la raza'... Am not one of those racists of "The Race"

  2. #2
    Senior Member Dixie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Texas - Occupied State - The Front Line
    Posts
    35,072
    You don't need these reports to see the truth. Go to any welfare office and take a sample of the people sitting there. It is time and time again, predomantly Hispanics.

    Dixie
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  3. #3
    Senior Member Captainron's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,279
    "Why is it important to get this story straight?

    One reason is truthfulness. It's usually held that we've made little, if any, progress against poverty. That's simply untrue. Among non-Hispanic whites, the poverty rate may now be approaching some irreducible minimum: people whose personal habits, poor skills, family relations or bad luck condemn them to a marginal existence."


    Excuse me, but I am tired of this type of nonsense crap, too. If somebody has "personal habits" or "poor skills" that lead to poverty, so be it. Tough. Maybe they had a lot of enjoyment on the downhill slide. It seems these days just abiout anybody can plead poverty, even if their own shiftlessness has got them there, and reap a host of public and private benefits. I saw a clear example of this where Habitat for Humanity, an evangelical Christian agency, was building a house for a couple that had lived out of wedlock for twenty five years. You can not convince me that at least one of them should have realized at some point in their relationship that purchasing a home was a way out of poverty. Lawsuits brought by people who have let themselves get addicted to tobacco are another example.

    The people who need to be protected are honest, hardworkers who are left out of the PC lawsuits but assailed and harassed by the increasing number of violent, selfish people in our society. We've just got too many whiners looking for the next windfall.
    "Men of low degree are vanity, Men of high degree are a lie. " David
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •