1965, 1965 immigration act, Affirmative Action, African Americans, Asia, blacks, Bribery, caste system, China, diversity, economy, immigration, India, Indian subcontinent, Johnson, Kennedy, labor market, living wages, minority, nepotism, race card, racism, Senator Jeff Sessions, Trump, unemployment, wages, women's rights
(Sen. Jeff Sessions text appears below this introduction)
It’s not racism to want to work in your own country. In fact, the immigration policy in place since 1965 has undermined the intent of Affirmative Action which was never “diversity” but rather to right the wrongs done to African Americans, women, and other American minorities who had suffered historic discrimination within the US. Most new immigrants are able to unfairly claim minority status. The US no longer gives priority immigration to spouses of American citizens either, resulting in the choice between divorce and expatriation for Americans married to foreign nationals. So much for family values.
The BS that immigration concerns-not wanting to lose one’s job to foreigners is racism against persons of color is probably coming from India migrants who appear very adept at trying to play the race card even though in American society, unlike some other countries, they have been generally considered “white”. Outside of a few places like New Orleans, America was always a biracial culture – black or white and if you didn’t fit they stuffed you in a category anyway. Do a search of “India Affirmative Action” and you will quickly learn how racist they are in India and about their caste system.
Telling Americans that they are stupid or racist because they are fed up with giving their jobs to immigrants from different countries (or even regions) has gotten old. What are Americans to live off of? Polluted air and water? Even if Americans are willing or able to leave their region or country, who will take care of the elderly?
The real concern should be discrimation against African Americans and women, which faulty immigration policy supports, not a fabricated discrimation which falsely lumps recent economic migrants from Overseas with minorities who have long lived in the Americas. American racists have generally reserved their hate for African Americans and women, while more willingly tolerating brown people and east Asians, suggesting that the 1965 immigration law was a nefarious, hidden, plot to deprive African Americans and women of their rights.
One should not underestimate the possibility of bribery and nepotism as being reasons that immigrants have gotten most of the newly created jobs since many come from countries with well-known traditions of bribery and nepotism.
From US Senator Jeff Sessions:
“IMMIGRATION AND THE ECONOMY
Contrary to popular misconception, the largest source of unskilled immigration to the United States is legal immigration. Each year, the U.S. admits 1 million largely lesser-skilled permanent immigrants to the United States with green cards. Individuals who receive green cards receive lifetime work authorization, virtually all federal benefits, access to most federal welfare, and the ability to apply for citizenship and vote.
From 2000 through 2014—when 14 million new permanent legal immigrants were admitted to the U.S. in addition to the illegal immigration flow—all net employment gains went to immigrant workers. This trend occurred even as the population of U.S.-born workers climbed by 16.4 million. 18 The total number of working-age U.S.-born Americans without jobs now stands at 58 million.
In addition to this large annual flow of permanent low-wage immigration, the U.S. also admits each year 700,000 guest workers, 500,000 foreign students, and 70,000 asylees and refugees. Since 2000, the U.S. has issued nearly 30 million visas to either permanent immigrants or temporary foreign workers.
Perhaps unsurprisingly given the slack labor market, median weekly earnings today are lower than in 2000. 19 But this is part of a much larger trend. The U.S. Department of Commerce informs us that “today’s typical 18- to 34-year-old earns about $2,000 less per year (adjusted for inflation) than their counterpart in 1980.” What has happened in the labor market since 1980?
The Census Bureau explains: “From 1930 to 1950, the foreign-born population of the United States declined from 14.2 million to 10.3 million… [But] since 1970, the foreign-born population of the United States… increased rapidly due to large-scale immigration,” and has now quadrupled to more than 41 million.
From 1980 through 2013, the immigrant population tripled from 14 million to more than 41 million, according to government data. Harvard Professor Dr. George Borjas finds that high immigration flows from 1980–2000 reduced the wages of lower-skilled American workers by 7.4 percent. He further estimates that current immigration rates produce an annual net loss of $402 billion for American workers who compete with foreign labor.
Legal immigration during the 1980s averaged around 600,000 a year. But since 1990 through today the annual rate almost doubled. The sustained large-scale flow of legal immigration—again, overwhelmingly lower-wage and lower-skilled—has placed substantial downward pressure on wages.
Simply put, we have more jobseekers than jobs.
Footnote 18 Center for Immigration Studies, “All Employment Growth Since 2000 Went to Immigrants,” June 2014, Available at http://bit.ly/1Ktfu6U. (Figures in the report at taken directly from Census Bureau data.) 19 For additional information about pervasive weaknesses in the economy, see “The Obama Economy: A Chart Book,” by Senate Budget Committee Republicans. Available at http://1.usa.gov/10mRdwA.
The White House itself has said that there are three unemployed persons for each one job opening. The Economic Policy Institute estimates that in one industry, construction, there are as many as seven unemployed persons for each available job opening.
It is astonishing, therefore, that prominent members Congress wish to see record immigration levels increased yet further.
This report just published in the New York Times illustrates just how many Americans have been left behind:
“Working, in America, is in decline. The share of prime-age men — those 25 to 54 years old — who are not working has more than tripled since the late 1960s, to 16 percent. More recently, since the turn of the century, the share of women without paying jobs has been rising, too. The United States, which had one of the highest employment rates among developed nations as recently as 2000, has fallen toward the bottom of the list…
At the same time, it has become harder for men to find higher-paying jobs. Foreign competition and technological advances have eliminated many of the jobs in which high school graduates…once could earn $40 an hour, or more.” 20
Since end of the 1960s—the time frame identified by the article—the share of the U.S. population that is foreign-born has increased from less than 5 percent to more than 13 percent. As a total number, the size of the foreign-born population has quadrupled over the last four decades.
The Congressional Research Service estimates that the foreign-born population could reach as high as 58 million within a decade based on recent trends. Only an adjustment in policy will change this trajectory—just as policy was changed early in the 20th century to allow labor markets to tighten.
There had been a great wave of immigration in the four decades leading up to the Coolidge Administration. This substantial increase in the labor pool had created a loose labor market that tilted the balance of power to large employers over everyday workers. Coolidge believed it was rational and sensible to swing the pendulum back towards the average wage-earning American. He explained in a speech to naturalized citizens: “We want to keep wages and living conditions good for everyone who is now here or who may come here. As a Nation, our first duty must be to those who are already our inhabitants, whether native or immigrants. To them we owe an especial and a weighty obligation.”
The labor market tightened substantially as a result of policy changes, boosting wages for both the native-born and the millions of immigrants who had arrived previously—helping the great American middle class to emerge.
Footnote 20 New York Times, “The Vanishing Male Worker: How America Fell Behind,” Dec. 11, 2014, available at http://nyti.ms/1x0JsEV.
In fact, among those most affected by the size of these large immigrant flows are the immigrants themselves. By continuing to admit these large numbers over such a sustained period of time, many immigrants themselves are unable to find jobs. For instance, less than half the immigrants who entered California since 2010 are participating in the labor force. In Los Angeles—where 4 in 10 residents is an immigrant—one-third of immigrants recently arrived lives in poverty.
We have an obligation to those we lawfully admit not to admit such a large number that their own wages and job prospects are diminished. A sound immigration policy must serve the needs of those already living here.
Immigrants and native-born workers are also competing with the large flow of lower-wage guest workers who are brought in for the explicit purpose of taking a job. Of those roughly 700,000 guest workers admitted annually, only about 10 percent are for agricultural work—the other 90 percent take jobs in almost every industry in America, from good-paying construction jobs to coveted positions at technology firms in Silicon Valley.
Yet, despite median family income dropping more than $3,000 since he entered office, the Obama-backed Senate immigration bill would have tripled the issuance of permanent residency cards and doubled foreign guest worker admissions over the next 10 years. Nearly 1 in 4 Americans in their prime working years are not working, but the President and his congressional allies want to expand immigration to a degree never before witnessed.
The Center for Immigration Studies explains that this legislation, in a mere six years from today, would have increased the percentage of the U.S. population born abroad to a level never before reached in American history. And by 2033, nearly 1 in 6 U.S. residents under this plan would have been foreign-born.
Unsurprisingly, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected that the result of this legislation would be lower wages, higher unemployment, and reduced per capita GNP.
So whether comprehensive, piecemeal, step-by-step, incremental, or whatever other process one conceives, the question that must be asked is this: will the legislation make life easier or harder for American workers? Will it help or hurt cash-strapped schools? Will it reduce or increase poverty?
There are plenty of Democrats willing to fight to help global corporations get more guest workers. There are plenty of progressives eager to fight for amnesty. There are plenty of far-left advocates eager to fight for unchecked immigration. The cause that doesn’t have an organized champion—but desperately needs it—is the cause of the American worker whose wages have stalled and whose dreams have been put on hold. Why can’t Americans get representation in their own Congress?
Republicans have a historic obligation—and opportunity—to right that wrong, to return this government to its people, and to tell the special interests: Get lost.” http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/67ae7163-6616-4023-a5c4-534c53e6fc26/immigration-primer-for-the-114th-congress.pdf “IMMIGRATION HANDBOOK FOR THE NEW REPUBLICAN MAJORITY JANUARY 2015
A Memo For Republican Members From Sen. Jeff Sessions”
The 1965 Immigration Law Undermined the Intent of Affirmative Action by allowing Black Americans and others who had suffered historic injustices (including women) to be replaced by newly arrived immigrants in affirmative action quotas.
“Minorities: All persons classified as Black, Hispanic, American Indian or Alaskan Native, and Asian or Pacific Islander.” http://www.genesisnphc.org/3%20Definitions%20of%20Minority%20Groups.pdf Thus 1965 immigration law appears designed to undermine affirmative action for Black Americans (and women). Prior to 1965, Latin Americans were favored over Asians for immigration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965
The employment growth number is for those ages 16 to 65: http://cis.org/all-employment-growth-since-2000-went-to-immigrants According to this some of the jobs went to non-immigrants of retirement age (over 65 years old): http://www.factcheck.org/2015/01/all-u-s-jobs-did-not-go-to-immigrants/