More Immigrant Bashing in the News. Bring your Bats!

[doombug]

Your numbers and graphs refer to either illegal immigration or those who have received amnesty (which makes them initially illegal I assume).

Those tables show both legal and illegal immigration. Remove the illegal-immigrant component, and you're still left with an astoundingly, shockingly, hugely, smashingly, gargantuanly, stupendously, enormously, massively, fantastically vast margin of preference para los Latinos de Sur y America Central.

Consider fiscal year 2003 alone:

"Over half of all new legal immigrants arrived from just 10 countries, and 63 percent live in six states. The 10 countries of origin were Mexico (116,000), India (50,000), the Philippines (45,000), China (41,000), El Salvador (28,000), the Dominican Republic (26,000), Vietnam (22,000), Colombia (15,000), Guatemala (14,000), and Russia (14,000)."
http://www.migrationinformation.org/USfocus/display.cfm?id=263#2

Over the years:


http://www.vdare.com/mann/numbero_uno_data.htm

Further skewing the data against your view that Mexicans/Central Americans are shown disfavor by our immigration policies, the VDare article neglects to mention one very important fact: Mexicans tend to naturalize (become a citizen) at a far lower rate than most other immigrants:


http://www.urban.org/publications/310847.html

My guess is you doubt the numbers because, like many liberals in America (sorry, no offense ), you are hung up on our government as the boogeyman. (Or is this some vestige of your own homeland?) Me thinks you have no faith. America, the entity, is exceedingly welcoming and forgiving. The illegal alien knows this. This is why, year after year, and just as the locust, he returns north--with the occasional glimpse of his brethren smashed against a windscreen proving no deterrent. (Can a windscreen be sued? Sure as shootin'!) 

Each day I speak with illegal aliens (conveniently, in their mother tongue.) In my line of work, I provide them a very essential need, and I'm restricted from refusing to do otherwise (no, this doesn't make me bitter). The undocumented Mexican immigrant, in most cases, is timid, cordial, exceedingly deferential, and, of course, genuinely hard working. Who in their right mind would argue with such people being here? (Of course, we could all do without the dirtbags who stole my shit while I lived along the border.)

The only issue I have with them is their legality and the principle of fairness that they reject. It is not fair to a continent full of Africans who would--literally--sacrifice their children to come here. The impoverished of Bangladesh, the oppressed of Myanmar, the stateless Palestinian--each receives an imperceptible fraction of the favoritism shown the Mexican and Central American through our immigration policies. It's no longer a lottery when one group, by shear weight of numbers, is indirectly controlling the outcome. 

"Truly diversifying immigration would entail one of two things: huge reductions in immigration from Mexico, or huge increases in immigration from everywhere else. The lottery simply cannot do what it purports to."
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/back804.html

For further enlightenment, consider this article from VDare.com:

This Just In! Mexico Is Immigration Numero Uno…Again

Mexico has been “numero uno” in U.S. citizenship naturalizations every year for the past ten years. It beat out perennial runner-ups India and the Philippines hands down every time – often combined.

In 2003, approximately 12.1 percent of newly-minted citizens in the United States were Mexican nationals—that is, more than one in ten.

And over the past ten years, one in five naturalized American citizens hailed from Mexico. An incredible 1.3 million Mexicans became American citizens in this period.

[...]

New lawful permanent resident aliens [LPRs]—115,864 new green card holders came from Mexico. In comparison, all of Europe combined brought only 102,843 LPRs to the U.S.[/li][/list]
 
[...]

Mexico’s prolonged domination of our recent immigrant inflow is quite contrary to U.S. experience—historically, national origin groups rotated quickly and did not combine to form a single foreign-language bloc. Plus, needless to say, this Mexicanization is completely contrary to Edward Kennedy’s assurances, while piloting the 1965 Immigration bill, through the U.S. Senate, that

“Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area…”

But what else is new?

When it comes to American immigration statistics, the picture is not multicultural at all.

The reality: Mexico is the undisputed immigration numero uno. The DHS’ numbers speak for themselves—in Spanish.

http://www.vdare.com/mann/numbero_uno.htm

Do you really think that those guys who run across the border have any remote chance to get immigrant visas in Mexico or Honduras?  Or in Colombia for that matter?

Stay tuned. It's called amnesty. As it's happened once before on a mass scale, so shall it happen again.

[william3rd]

Hopefully it will not happen again. We have millions waiting overseas in the preference categories for lawful immigration. If I remember correctly, IRCA was to allow for amnesty AND enforcement. But it was easier just to allow for an amnesty

[el_ruso]

1. Your description of Mexican immigrants is largely in-line with my own experience.

2. A large number of legal citizens arrive here to reunite with relatives.  There are a lot of Latin Americans who are citizens, often through amnesties.  If one does not have citizens as relatives in US, a chance of them moving legally to US is very very low.

3. Mexicans (and Cubans) are lucky to an extent - they are in close proximity to US.  Is it fair to the oppressed of Myanmar?  No.  Is it fair to the Africans?  No.  But this does not stop Africans from moving in droves to Europe, especially France.  If Mexico was in Africa, they would most likely be moving to Europe as well.  And if Senegal was in Central America, the Senegalese would come to US instead of France.  This is a function of geography more than injustice.  Well, Myanmar people are not lucky at all    I am sure some make it to Thailand and then to Hong Kong.  that's my guess.  I do want to see Bagan and Mandalay some day though.

4. I would support an amnesty, as long as people have demonstrated that they will be upstanding citizens (which is a majority).  It is very likely if democrats (or republicans) will feel that it could improve their electoral fortunes.

5. I am NOT for perpetuation of the current 'system'.  Borders should be controlled.  But the poor Mexicans and Central Americans should be given a real opportunity to come to US via legal means, whereas they will be screened properly.

[pan de bono]

El Ruso, maybe your comrades in Russia would welcome all these illegal mexicans. Why don't you see if you can make some sort of arrangements to have the illegals sent to Russia.