No subject

Fri Feb 24 11:55:10 PST 2006

4.8 percent for janitors, 4.3 percent for landscapers and not at all
for waitresses.
Advocates of guest workers don't acknowledge that
poor, unskilled immigrants -- whether legal or illegal -- create huge
social costs. Every year the Census Bureau issues a report on "Income,
Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States." Here's
what the 2004 report shows:
&middot; Since 1990 the number of Hispanics
with incomes below the government's poverty line has risen 52 percent;
that's almost all (92 percent) of the increase in poor people.
&middot;
Among children, disparities are greater. Over the same period, Hispanic
children in poverty are up 43 percent; meanwhile, the numbers of black
and non-Hispanic white children in poverty declined 16.9 percent and
18.5 percent, respectively.
&middot; Hispanics account for most (61
percent) of the increase of Americans without health insurance since
1990. The overall increase was 11.1 million; Hispanics, 6.7 million.
By
most studies, poor immigrants pay less in taxes than they use in
government services. As these social costs have risen, so has the
backlash. Already, there's a coalition of Mayors and County Executives
for Immigration Reform. It includes 63 cities, counties and towns,
headed by Republicans and Democrats, ranging from Cook County, Illinois
(population: 5.3 million) to Gilliam County, Oregon (population:
1,817). Coalition members want the federal government to reimburse
their extra costs.
We have a conspiracy against assimilation. One
side would offend and ostracize much of the Hispanic community. The
other would encourage mounting social and economic costs. Either way we
get a more polarized society.
On immigration, I am an optimist.
We are basically a decent, open and tolerant nation. Americans respect
hard work and achievement. That's why assimilation has ultimately
triumphed. But I am not a foolish optimist. Assimilation requires time
and the right conditions. It cannot succeed if we constantly flood the
country with new, poor immigrants or embark on a vendetta against those
already here.
I have argued that our policies should recognize
these realities. Curb illegal immigration with true border barriers.
Provide legal status (call it amnesty or whatever) -- first work
permits, then citizenship -- for most illegal immigrants already here.
Remove the job lure by imposing harsh fines against employers who hire new
illegal immigrants. Reject big guest-worker programs.
It's
sometimes said that today's Hispanics will resemble yesterday's
Italians. Although they won't advance as rapidly as some other groups
of more skilled immigrants, they'll still move into the mainstream.
Many have -- and will. But the overall analogy is a stretch, according
to a recent study, "Italians Then, Mexicans Now," by sociologist Joel
Perlmann of Bard College. Since 1970 wages of Mexican immigrants
compared with those of native whites have declined. By contrast, wages
of Italians and Poles who arrived early in the last century rose over
time. For the children of immigrants, gaps are also wide.
Second-generation Italians and Poles typically earned 90 percent or
more compared to native whites. For second-generation Mexican
Americans, the similar figure is 75 percent.
One big difference
between then and now: Immigration slowly halted during and after World
War I. The Italians and Poles came mainly between 1890 and 1915. Older
immigrants didn't always have to compete with newcomers who beat down
their wages. There was time for outsiders and insiders to adapt to each
other. We should heed history's lesson.
<a
 href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/19/AR2006041902483.html?nav=hcmodule">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/19/AR2006041902483.html?nav=hcmodule</a> 
</body>
</html>

--------------010700030503010605020603--