A lot of this stuff is common sense. Immigration is responsible for half the population growth from 1990-2020, I hear about the housing crisis repeatedly on NPR, I experience all the traffic I'm writing about, there were a lot of articles in the NYT on immigration and the ER crisis in the 1990s, but after that, they avoided coverage of a…
A lot of this stuff is common sense. Immigration is responsible for half the population growth from 1990-2020, I hear about the housing crisis repeatedly on NPR, I experience all the traffic I'm writing about, there were a lot of articles in the NYT on immigration and the ER crisis in the 1990s, but after that, they avoided coverage of anything that put immigration in a negative light. (I emailed five different ombuds in the '10s, two of whom eventually responded, both saying that they were interested in covering my criticisms, only for me to find out from each within about six weeks of receiving notifiction of that interest that they were no longer ombuds at the NYT).
There were frequent articles in the NYt in the '90s on the plight of ERs due to immigration. Some time around 2010, I also had a long discussion with an ER doc from LA about how bad it was there.
"The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) is an anti-immigration think tank and a SPLC designated hate group. It favors far lower immigration numbers, and produces analyses to further those views....Reports published by CIS have been disputed by scholars on immigration, fact-checkers and news outlets, and immigration-research organizations....The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) published reports in 2002[44] and 2009[45] on John Tanton, who founded CIS. Tanton is a retired Michigan ophthalmologist who opposed immigration on racial grounds, desired a white ethnic majority in the United States and advocated for eugenics.[46][12][47] The SPLC's 2009 report charged that "FAIR, CIS and NumbersUSA are all part of a network of restrictionist organizations conceived and created by John Tanton" who they said had "deeply racist" views, and said that the group had "frequently manipulated data" in order to promote anti-immigration goals.[45] " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Immigration_Studies
The Center for Immigration Studies is not a hate group. The SPLC designates as hate groups some that are genuinely so but many that simply have political stances that SPLC dislikes. This is bulllshit that's designed to get the media and others to shun groups such as CIS. But CIS is the best source on immigration. Unfortunately, some, such as NPR, largely shun CIS.
Go on CIS' website and see if you can find any actual evidence of hate. SPLC focused on Tanton because they couldn't find any hate, and they had to find SOMETHING, however tenuous.
Would the National Academy of Sciences, the nation's premier scientific organization, have chosen CIS as an outside reviewer for their 2016 study on immigration if CIS were a genuine hate group?
And, by the way, CIS is not "anti-immigration." It is in favor of reducing immigration, but I challenge you to find anything on their website suggesting advocacy of ending immigration.
But some of their recent employees think poorly of their former employer.
Here's one of several recent articles on SPLC, this from the NYer:
From one of CIS' leading writers, Jerry Kammer's recent book (google him) Losing Control: How a Left-Right Coalition Blocked Immigration Reform and Provoked the Backlash That Elected Trump:
“One of the most glaring journalistic failures to scrutinize the [Southern Poverty Law Center] unfolded in early 2017, when Heidi Beirich announced that Hatewatch had designated the Center for Immigration Studies as a “hate group,” wrote Kammer. “The breakdown was most evident in the work of two accomplished reporters, Joel Rose of NPR and Nicholas Kulish of the New York Times. Both reported the reputational assault on CIS as if it were the well-considered judgment of a responsible arbiter. Neither subjected it even to a rudimentary credibility check…”
Kammer continued, recalling how the late Washington Post writer Murray Marder “broke away from the pack of reporters who spread the hysterical red-baiting accusations of Sen. Joseph McCarthy with “The press can’t simply report flatfooted a smearing accusation against someone’s loyalty… The press should ask the accuser, ‘what do you mean? What justification do you have?’ That’s real work, and it’s called journalism…”
“… There was no such skepticism in the work of Joel Rose, despite NPR’s commitment, spelled out in the NPR Ethics Handbook, to “rigorously challenge…the claims that we encounter” and to “take special care with news that might cause grief or damage reputations.”
It's too bad Wikipedia is so sloppy with information that doesn't conform to the liberal viewpoint.
I agree strongly with you that management of companies that hire illegal immigrants should face severe penalties, like a couple of years in prison.
By the way, I'm a left wing Democrat from a family that has been left wing Democrat for a few generations. My great uncle was Philip Hornbein, a union lawyer who was de facto head of the Colorado Democratic Party for most of the first half of the last century, and who gave the speech at the '32 convention advocating an end to prohibition. His sister, my maternal grandmother, was probably the first female Coloradan to earn a PhD (1915), which she did on labor relations.
Out of college in the depression, my father worked for two years at a textile firm that he tried hard to unionize. Unfortunately, there was too much turnover.
My reasons for my position on immigration are both left wing Democratic reasons--the welfare of American workers, and the environment.
Yes (re Tanton), and President Obama remains in thrall to his long-ago preacher, Jeremiah Wright.
Did you read any of the dirt on the SPLC that I posted? Of course not!
Did you read where paraphrased from Back of the Hiring Line: A 200-Year History of Immigration Surges, Employer Bias, and Depression of Black Wealth? And how Blacks predominated in meat packing in 1980, earning good middle class wages, after decades of organizing themselves, and how, by 1990, immigrants predominated, earning barely above minimum wage, working under atrocious conditions?
Have you ever heard of Barbara Jordan, the Black Democrat from Texas who made her name on the House Watergate Committee? She ran a commission on immigration reform under Pres Clinton, and recommended cutting immigration numbers roughly in half, and strict enforcement of immigration laws. A big part of her rationale--the high rate of unemployment among Blacks.
I've heard Mark Krikorian (head of CIS) say he'd like to be able to support DACA. One problem is no-one has offered to end chain migration, or to greatly reduce immigration in return. I would happily support DACA if we could get something in return.
The Georgetown stuff is utter bullshit.
And environment is an important rationale for reducing immigration. the average immigrant's greenhouse emissions rise threefold after arrival in the US. Americans have the highest per capital greenhouse emissions in the world, along with a few small outlier countries like UAE and Belgium. And as I said before, but you seemed to ignore, in several decades millions of Americans are going to become climate refugees. I don't know if you have children or are thinking of having them, but you out to read this so you'll understand what they'd be up against:
A lot of this stuff is common sense. Immigration is responsible for half the population growth from 1990-2020, I hear about the housing crisis repeatedly on NPR, I experience all the traffic I'm writing about, there were a lot of articles in the NYT on immigration and the ER crisis in the 1990s, but after that, they avoided coverage of anything that put immigration in a negative light. (I emailed five different ombuds in the '10s, two of whom eventually responded, both saying that they were interested in covering my criticisms, only for me to find out from each within about six weeks of receiving notifiction of that interest that they were no longer ombuds at the NYT).
There were frequent articles in the NYt in the '90s on the plight of ERs due to immigration. Some time around 2010, I also had a long discussion with an ER doc from LA about how bad it was there.
But here are some useful citations:
https://cis.org/Richwine/States-Must-Pay-Health-and-Education-Benefits-Illegal-Immigrant-Families
https://cis.org/Report/63-NonCitizen-Households-Access-Welfare-Programs
https://cis.org/Panel-Transcript-Immigrations-Impact-Health-Care-Reform
"The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) is an anti-immigration think tank and a SPLC designated hate group. It favors far lower immigration numbers, and produces analyses to further those views....Reports published by CIS have been disputed by scholars on immigration, fact-checkers and news outlets, and immigration-research organizations....The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) published reports in 2002[44] and 2009[45] on John Tanton, who founded CIS. Tanton is a retired Michigan ophthalmologist who opposed immigration on racial grounds, desired a white ethnic majority in the United States and advocated for eugenics.[46][12][47] The SPLC's 2009 report charged that "FAIR, CIS and NumbersUSA are all part of a network of restrictionist organizations conceived and created by John Tanton" who they said had "deeply racist" views, and said that the group had "frequently manipulated data" in order to promote anti-immigration goals.[45] " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Immigration_Studies
The Center for Immigration Studies is not a hate group. The SPLC designates as hate groups some that are genuinely so but many that simply have political stances that SPLC dislikes. This is bulllshit that's designed to get the media and others to shun groups such as CIS. But CIS is the best source on immigration. Unfortunately, some, such as NPR, largely shun CIS.
Go on CIS' website and see if you can find any actual evidence of hate. SPLC focused on Tanton because they couldn't find any hate, and they had to find SOMETHING, however tenuous.
Would the National Academy of Sciences, the nation's premier scientific organization, have chosen CIS as an outside reviewer for their 2016 study on immigration if CIS were a genuine hate group?
And, by the way, CIS is not "anti-immigration." It is in favor of reducing immigration, but I challenge you to find anything on their website suggesting advocacy of ending immigration.
But some of their recent employees think poorly of their former employer.
Here's one of several recent articles on SPLC, this from the NYer:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-reckoning-of-morris-dees-and-the-southern-poverty-law-center
And here's a much older article, from the left wing Nation, highly critical ofSPLC
https://www.thenation.com/article/king-hate-business/
From one of CIS' leading writers, Jerry Kammer's recent book (google him) Losing Control: How a Left-Right Coalition Blocked Immigration Reform and Provoked the Backlash That Elected Trump:
“One of the most glaring journalistic failures to scrutinize the [Southern Poverty Law Center] unfolded in early 2017, when Heidi Beirich announced that Hatewatch had designated the Center for Immigration Studies as a “hate group,” wrote Kammer. “The breakdown was most evident in the work of two accomplished reporters, Joel Rose of NPR and Nicholas Kulish of the New York Times. Both reported the reputational assault on CIS as if it were the well-considered judgment of a responsible arbiter. Neither subjected it even to a rudimentary credibility check…”
Kammer continued, recalling how the late Washington Post writer Murray Marder “broke away from the pack of reporters who spread the hysterical red-baiting accusations of Sen. Joseph McCarthy with “The press can’t simply report flatfooted a smearing accusation against someone’s loyalty… The press should ask the accuser, ‘what do you mean? What justification do you have?’ That’s real work, and it’s called journalism…”
“… There was no such skepticism in the work of Joel Rose, despite NPR’s commitment, spelled out in the NPR Ethics Handbook, to “rigorously challenge…the claims that we encounter” and to “take special care with news that might cause grief or damage reputations.”
It's too bad Wikipedia is so sloppy with information that doesn't conform to the liberal viewpoint.
I agree strongly with you that management of companies that hire illegal immigrants should face severe penalties, like a couple of years in prison.
By the way, I'm a left wing Democrat from a family that has been left wing Democrat for a few generations. My great uncle was Philip Hornbein, a union lawyer who was de facto head of the Colorado Democratic Party for most of the first half of the last century, and who gave the speech at the '32 convention advocating an end to prohibition. His sister, my maternal grandmother, was probably the first female Coloradan to earn a PhD (1915), which she did on labor relations.
Out of college in the depression, my father worked for two years at a textile firm that he tried hard to unionize. Unfortunately, there was too much turnover.
My reasons for my position on immigration are both left wing Democratic reasons--the welfare of American workers, and the environment.
https://bridge.georgetown.edu/research/factsheet-center-for-immigration-studies-cis/
Yes (re Tanton), and President Obama remains in thrall to his long-ago preacher, Jeremiah Wright.
Did you read any of the dirt on the SPLC that I posted? Of course not!
Did you read where paraphrased from Back of the Hiring Line: A 200-Year History of Immigration Surges, Employer Bias, and Depression of Black Wealth? And how Blacks predominated in meat packing in 1980, earning good middle class wages, after decades of organizing themselves, and how, by 1990, immigrants predominated, earning barely above minimum wage, working under atrocious conditions?
Have you ever heard of Barbara Jordan, the Black Democrat from Texas who made her name on the House Watergate Committee? She ran a commission on immigration reform under Pres Clinton, and recommended cutting immigration numbers roughly in half, and strict enforcement of immigration laws. A big part of her rationale--the high rate of unemployment among Blacks.
I've heard Mark Krikorian (head of CIS) say he'd like to be able to support DACA. One problem is no-one has offered to end chain migration, or to greatly reduce immigration in return. I would happily support DACA if we could get something in return.
The Georgetown stuff is utter bullshit.
And environment is an important rationale for reducing immigration. the average immigrant's greenhouse emissions rise threefold after arrival in the US. Americans have the highest per capital greenhouse emissions in the world, along with a few small outlier countries like UAE and Belgium. And as I said before, but you seemed to ignore, in several decades millions of Americans are going to become climate refugees. I don't know if you have children or are thinking of having them, but you out to read this so you'll understand what they'd be up against:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/15/magazine/climate-crisis-migration-america.html
Brava Michelle! Georgetown report does not mince words! Also, Hoyas are not known as a bastion of liberal bias!
The Georgetown thing is garbage. Read wht I just posted in response to that link. I've been following immigration closely for the last 25 years.