Multimedia News

World AIDS Day: Observing a global epidemic
20 photos
Children from the Andile School choir sing du...
This weekend in sports
20 photos
Venezuela's boxer Jorge Linares, left, exchan...
Holiday gift ideas: Toys, games and more
20 photos
A child holds a newly released mobile phone c...
Black Friday frenzy
20 photos
Early bird shoppers run into a Target store i...
Mumbai massacre
20 photos
A police officer watches the Taj Hotel, Mumba...

Commentary - Ambrose: It is time we stopped trash-talking on immigration

Dec 5, 2007 3:00 AM (363 days ago) by Jay Ambrose, The Examiner
This story ranks Not ranked
Related Topics: SAN FRANCISCO
SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - As a new study underlines, we need to reform our immigration laws and crackdown on those who are breaking them, but first we need to get past the trash talk.

It’s endless, a torrent of cries that anyone who thinks America ought to heed the plain interests of its citizenry is a racist, nativist, thuggish throwback to those who opposed the coming in the 19th century and later of the Irish, Germans and Italians.

But the talk is aiming at a target that long ago disappeared. It is ad hominem claptrap that assumes foul motives of average Americans noticing more than a little amiss.

What they grasp, and what the study’s statistics confirm, is that legal and illegal immigrants are arriving in such numbers, and so often in impoverished circumstances, that they are pounding communities that already have difficulties enough.

This story continues below
Advertisement

The numbers from the Center for Immigration Studies are astonishing. The immigrant population this year is almost 38 million, the highest level in eight decades. More than 10 million have arrived just since 2000, and half of them have been illegal. Almost one-third of the adult immigrants here now lack a high school diploma, one-third are on welfare and about 17 percent of the families are below the poverty line.

Look at still another study — this one by Robert Rector at The Heritage Foundation — and you begin to get a whiff of the trouble the above statistics breed. While the low-skill immigrants pay taxes of something more than $10,000 a year on average, they get government benefits far in excess of that amount, something like $30,000. He puts the cost to the nation at $89 billion a year.

The argument that we need these immigrants to do the necessary grunge work native Americans won’t do is hugely exaggerated, although it certainly is true that many of the more educated immigrant families do well and that those who start out having it rough often make notable progress over time.

There are answers, one of which is to reduce legal immigration numbers and increasingly to favor those who are best educated and have needed skills for admission. Another is to end the flow of illegal immigrants and to begin to usher the illegal immigrants here now to their lands of origin, chiefly through strict enforcement of highly punitive laws against those who hire them.

Do this right, and it won’t mean chaotic disruption or cruelty. The removal of illegal immigrants can be a gradual process carried out in recognition that the United States does a disservice to the world’s poor when it relieves their native countries of their responsibility for sound economic development. The lawbreakers themselves are accountable for their plight, and sending them back home is hardly draconian.

But face reality this way, and the screeches are inevitable, as if only those mean in spirit could conceivably advocate such policies. If these abominable name-calling tactics carry the day, here’s what to expect: another 15 million legal and illegal immigrants over the next 10 years.

Examiner columnist Jay Ambrose is a former editor of two daily newspapers. He may be reached at SpeaktoJay@aol.com.

Add a Comment


Name: (required)
Comments:
characters left
Comments are regulated by the Terms of Use.

Comments from Examiner Readers

9:49 AM MST on Wed., Jan. 9, 2008 re: "Candidates who say they seek ‘change’ are just talking cheap"

BennyFactor said:
Actually, up until last week only Obama, Edwards and Huckabee were talking "change". Then when the three of them got the strongest support in Iowa, every status quo candidate suddenly morphed into the "agent of change". Now with Hillary and Bill's dewy-eyed descent into human-ness (rather than cold calculation)is working for them, will the campaign's begin printing campaign hankies? There's no crying in politics!

96 agree | 86 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

8:12 AM MST on Fri., Dec. 7, 2007 re: "Ambrose: It is time we stopped trash-talking on immigration"

Erik Kengaard said:
Thoughtful, well balanced, non-threatening and socially integrative opinion. Bravo. Another non-threatening and socially integrative opinion by Michael Kinsley appears today in Time-CNN. Perhaps there is hope that reason will prevail. For many, immigration, legal and illegal, is about numbers and quality. What is the right number, and should we seek talent, or not. Australia has paid attention to numbers and talent for some time. Now the UK is beginning to see a need to do likewise. Show us the numbers, the dollars, the pluses and minuses in objective terms. Spare us the feel good or feel bad hysteria, and conclusory statements unsupported by facts.

103 agree | 111 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
4:16 AM MST on Fri., Dec. 7, 2007 re: "Ambrose: It is time we stopped trash-talking on immigration"

thenerd2008 said:
Fear mongering and misinformation at its best, an obvious attempt from a struggling mediocre editor to gain some attention of the misinformed manipulated masses.

104 agree | 112 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
7:05 AM MST on Wed., Dec. 5, 2007 re: "Ambrose: It is time we stopped trash-talking on immigration"

TP said:
You speak of stopping the immigration trash and mean spirited talk and yet you continue to pour gasoline on the fire by citing a dubious Heritage Analysis. Your comment about "ushering the illegals...to their lands of origin through strict enforcement." It's clear you're for hiring the thousands of buses to take them to the border. You're beginning to sound like the mantra heard in the south over 100 years ago, that the civil war wasn't about slavery, it was about northern aggression. Sadly this issue is causing the same divide in our country and you cynical assessment (or screeching) is not contributing to the solution.

113 agree | 102 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
10:18 AM MST on Wed., Nov. 28, 2007 re: "Ambrose: Obama unrealistically nods to Nevada on nuclear waste"

Examiner Reader said:
Clearly, without any doubt, the posturing by Obama and the other candidates on Yucca Mountain is a direct function of the early date of the Nevada caucuses. If they were in June, there would be no interest in the issue and no need to even pass through Nevada. The handlers for the candidates have noted that 60% of Nevadans have responded NO when asked "Do you want a nuclear dump in your backyard." Surprised? No. Over 85% of Nevada is owned or controlled by the federal government and the state has a long history of responding to national priorities when asked. When the politics have blown over and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has thoroughly evaluated the safety of Yucca Mountain, I expect that Nevada will step up and provide a long term solution to the nuclear waste issue. When the state hosts the nation's nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, let's hope the next round of presidential candidates has the courage to say "thank you."

120 agree | 112 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
1:46 PM MST on Thu., Nov. 22, 2007 re: "Ambrose: Obama unrealistically nods to Nevada on nuclear waste"

Examiner Reader said:
How about we stop creating nuclear waste, huh? How about that?

108 agree | 117 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
12:00 PM MST on Thu., Nov. 22, 2007 re: "Ambrose: Obama unrealistically nods to Nevada on nuclear waste"

Nick said:
Yucca Mountain sits less then 20 miles away from a valley in the Nevada Test Range were scores of above-ground nuclear tests occured. It is the most realistic place in the U.S. to score nuclear waste. Senator Obama cares more about the votes of Nevada then he does about the safetly of hundreds of millions of Americans.

109 agree | 127 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
8:49 AM MST on Wed., Nov. 21, 2007 re: "Ambrose: Obama unrealistically nods to Nevada on nuclear waste"

Examiner Reader said:
I know it's just a commentary, but your views are too extreme to be able to usefully learn anything from you.

130 agree | 137 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Advertisement