Thread: Why immigration uproar went nationwide

Why immigration uproar went nationwide

cnn.com
By Audrey Singer and Jill H. Wilson,
Special to CNN
updated 7:57 PM EST, Mon October 24, 2011


Jeanette Vizguerra and her children leave a May 23 meeting at the Mexican consulate about her deportation in Denver, Colorado.

Washington (CNN) -- Alabama now has the toughest immigration law in the nation. The law went into effect on September 29, prompting hundreds of families to pull their children from school and workers to disappear from Alabama farms. A federal appeals court has blocked some provisions, including the one requiring state officials to check the legal status of students in public schools. No doubt, the issue is far from being settled.

Alabama is just one state where an uproar over immigration has been heard. The rapid growth in Alabama's immigrant population, a large proportion estimated to be mostly present illegally, was the impetus behind the law. But the reality of immigration is more complex than the perception.

You wouldn't know it from the rhetoric the last few years, but immigration nationally over the past decade was slower than in the 1990s.

Between 1990 and 2000, the United States gained 11.3 million immigrants, the largest increase this country has ever experienced, a growth rate of 57%. The 2000s, by contrast, witnessed an 8.8 million increase in immigrants, a 28% growth rate. An estimated 40 million foreign-born individuals now call the United States home, according to Census Bureau data released in September, which we analyze in a new report.

So why the ruckus now?

The context for immigration has changed considerably since 2000. Economic times were good at the beginning of the decade, so immigrants, legal and illegal, were drawn by plentiful jobs in an expanding economy. Back then, they were viewed as assets to our labor force and society. Today, amid economic distress, unemployment and shrinking public coffers, immigrants are more likely to be viewed as a drain on resources and as competitors for jobs.

During the economic expansion of the late 1990s, immigrants found new opportunities in some unexpected places. This trend continued in this decade as immigrants dispersed to new metro areas and suburbs within metro areas. The five metropolitan areas with the largest foreign-born populations -- New York, Los Angeles, Miami, Chicago and Houston -- housed a smaller share of the nation's immigrants, just 38% in 2010, compared to 43% in 2000. Meanwhile, immigrants have increasingly settled in the suburbs, so by 2010 a majority of the nation's immigrants are suburban residents.

Nine metropolitan areas—from Scranton, Pennsylvania to Indianapolis, Indiana to Nashville, Tennessee—experienced at least a doubling of their foreign-born populations between 2000 and 2010. This rapid change did not come without resistance. In the eight states represented by these metro areas, restrictive immigration legislation was introduced, if not passed. Florida, Tennessee, and Alabama all participate in the 287(g) program, an agreement between state and local law enforcement with Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE) delegating authority for immigration enforcement within their jurisdictions.

The friction in places unaccustomed to or unprepared for new inflows of foreigners, particularly those who are assumed to be present illegally, manifests itself in different ways. In Arizona, Alabama, Georgia, Indiana and South Carolina, where metro areas experienced some of the fastest or largest growth in their foreign-born populations over the decade, state legislatures passed laws in 2011 to crack down on unauthorized residents.

Not every region is reacting in this way. Metro areas that want to stem their population loss and boost economic growth -- such as Detroit and Cleveland -- are devising ways to woo immigrants. These areas experienced the slowest growth of their immigrant populations among all metropolitan areas -- Detroit at 9% and Cleveland at 6% -- well below the 26% growth across the 100 largest metro areas.

Dayton, Ohio, where the tiny immigrant population grew by 57% over the past 10 years, is the most recent place to buck the "stay out" trend. The city council agreed to a new plan, crafted by 130 community members from all segments of Dayton's communities, outlining a framework for new policies to make the city more open and supportive of immigrants.

Dayton's Mayor Gary Leitzel emphasized, "This is not a city of Dayton government program. For this effort to be successful, it will take the support and active participation of businesses, schools, institutions and organizations throughout the Dayton area. The Welcome Dayton plan represents an attitude we all must adopt to take advantage of the brainpower, energy and resources available through the various immigrant groups coming to Dayton." Even as Alabama state legislators were passing their restrictive legislation, city council members in Birmingham voted unanimously on a resolution condemning the law when it was passed in June, calling for a commission to figure out better ways to address the issues.

There is widespread agreement that the national immigration system is broken, but no consensus on how to fix it. Given an acrimonious Congress, the emotional nature of the immigration issue -- especially in tough economic times -- and the looming presidential campaign season, federal reform is an unlikely prospect in the near future.

In the meantime, a patchwork of state and local approaches will continue to address the benefits and challenges of immigration that confront people where they live, where they govern, and where budgets are made. In other words, don't expect the uproar to die down anytime soon.
-------------------------
Editor's note: Audrey Singer is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, where Jill Wilson is a senior research analyst.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/24/opinion/s ... olitics%29

good for
aLabama
now come all other state get on the ball & fight has any one ever come to NYC at 42 street any street in the city No
well just walk around & see who the hell live In our city /
all other country that who . I sick of all the hand out
so all other state wake the hell up & fight get all of the illegal Immigrants not only the mexico all the other country well get
the hell out
they don't like any thing the American do well no one told you come
to our Country stay the hell home
we love love Our flag
we love the prayer's in the school & church
& the way we say it
Im going back year's of all & you come over & same you don't
want this lol
tbis guy can not wear * pin it american flag that BS

So good Luck to Alabama
stand your ground we are by your side we will fight
I know for One I will

The context for immigration has changed considerably since 2000. Economic times were good at the beginning of the decade, so immigrants, legal and illegal, were drawn by plentiful jobs in an expanding economy. Back then, they were viewed as assets to our labor force and society. Today, amid economic distress, unemployment and shrinking public coffers, immigrants are more likely to be viewed as a drain on resources and as competitors for jobs.

Not entirely true, IMO. I, and I'm sure millions of Americans, was not aware that illegal aliens (and immigrants) were taking freebies subsidized by our tax $$$. When I did become aware, I was enraged.

The whole point of immigration to this country is to contribute to this society, not rip off as many freebies as you can. Illegal aliens contribute nothing positive to our society, therefore they should not be allowed to stay and must be deported.

We only had as many children as we could afford to raise on our wages, Explain WHY I should empathize with an illegal alien who continues to pop out anchor after anchor without a care in the world and expecting us to pay for their irresponsibility and greed??

As immigrants we contributed to society and paid our own way. No handouts, no welfare, no freebies..ever. Those are immigrants we welcome. So excuse me while I continue to fight against illegal immigration and demand enforcement!

Notice how Audrey Singer and Jill H. Wilson failed to mention one negative impact illegal immigration has on Americans?

To read this article, one would think that opposition to illegal immigration is only due to irrational adjustment problems and a bad economy.

Ill see if i can find an email address to send these two authors the riot list of problems with illegal immigration so they might consider just including one or two in their next 'article'

Problems with illegal immigration
http://www.endillegalimmigration.com/Pr ... ndex.shtml

W

Hey RatB, was this note over there when you copied this article?

Editor's note: Audrey Singer is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, where Jill Wilson is a senior research analyst.

Yes it was, I meant to add it at the bottom but forgot.

When my parents came here..... LEGALLY..... thru Ellis Island.....they HAD to be sponsered and NEVER took handouts......they were responsible for themselves

Grandmasmad
yes they came in the right way
Good luck

Our country has changed since our parents and grandparents came to this country. Our relatives came here knowing they would have to make their own way and support their own families. They knew they would have to learn English. They required a sponsor to protect them from becoming indigent.

Today our country has become a welfare state, giving taxpayers dollars seemingly to anyone who asks for a handout. Illegals swamp the border with no assurance they won't become dependent on taxpayers for support. Without an ounce of self-pride, they flood our welfare offices (for the babies of course) and take every job, every handout they can get. Many even complain that the food pantries they visit don't carry "their brands." Businesses are more than willing to speak their language in order to make money.

It's time to put someone in the White House and people in Congress who will put Americans first.

grandmasmad wrote:

When my parents came here..... LEGALLY..... thru Ellis Island.....they HAD to be sponsered and NEVER took handouts......they were responsible for themselves

They either made do with what they were able to produce and provide for themselves or they perished.

The current crop of illegal aliens that claim to be "immigrants", a term that they bastardize since it does not apply to them, expect to be supported and exist here through fraud and crime. It is ironic that they demand respect from the decendants of people that had the fortitude and self reliance to survive and thrive and the legal immigrants that chose to make the sacrifice for their posterity by following the law.

I wonder how many kids they would be popping out if the welfare was cut off and someone else was not supporting them.