You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #145: thanks for the links [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
thinkingwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-05 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #116
145. thanks for the links
they made for interesting reading. I visited each of them and read through all of the material provided on each. Here are some of my thoughts on your evidence:

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/newamericans/quiz.ht ...
This is a quiz about immigrants. From the tone of the questions and answers, it appears to be about legal immigrants, which makes the information largely irrelevant when used in a discussion about illegal immigrants.

Nevertheless...here are a few quotes I found interesting:

"Of the 175 million migrants in the world, the U.S. admitted 1,063,732 documented immigrants in 2002. Undocumented immigration adds approximately 350,000 people per year by INS estimates."

Whether or not 350,000 people constitute a flood is obviously up to interpretation.

"Of the approximately 1.4 million immigrants who entered the U.S. in 2002, only about 25 percent came illegally. Although these figures do not account for some homeless immigrants and undocumented migrant workers who return to their native countries when their seasonal work is over, the proportion of illegal immigrants to legal immigrants is still quite small."

This clearly states that 25% of the 1.4 million immigrants who entered this country in 2002 came here illegally. Doing some "light math", 25% of 1.4 mill comes to roughly 250,000 (if my computer calculator is accurate). This number is different than the 350,000 given just a couple of answers earlier, and yet the end result is the same...whether that number constitutes a flood is up to interpretation.

I like the last sentence of the answer above, because it says so much about opinion vs. fact. It admits that the 25% of 1.4 million does NOT include "homeless immigrants and undocumented migrant workers" who cross back over the borders, and yet claims that the proportion of illegal to legal "is still quite small." If the actual number is unknown, but the known number is 25%, it cannot possibly be "quite small." It's, at the very least, 1/4 of all immigrants.

"... in 2000, immigrants made up a little more than 11 percent of the population."

Darn it, I missed this question. I answered 6% instead. Bummer. I also underestimated the percentage of their income that they send back to their home country. But despite those answers revealing a bias on my part TOWARD illegal immigrants instead of AGAINST them, I did pretty well on the quiz.


http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0404-27.htm
This is the link to the anti-minutemen article on Common Dreams. Now, I love this site, but it is not a news source.

Nevertheless, I found these quotes interesting:

"According to the US Census administered in 2000, there are approximately 8,705,419 non-legal foreign-born persons living in the US. Of that number, 4,787,980 were from countries other than Mexico. In fact, almost 40% of all US immigrants were not even Hispanic"

Ok, they say 8,705,419 non-legals in 2000, with 4,787,980 from "countries other than Mexico. Doing a little "light math," that means that the Common Dreams article says that there were 3,917,439 illegal immigrants from Mexico living in the U.S. in 2000. Hmmm, that's a bigger number than the one cited by PBS, but, of course, there was a disclaimer--"Note: this number includes 'people who are here legally but are not yet included in the official estimates of legal migrants and refugees. It also includes people in 'quasi-legal' status who are awaiting action on their legal migration requests.' That makes the number rather meaningless, then.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55202-20 ...
Oh goodie, the Washington Post. They never get anything wrong or spread propaganda of any sort. Sigh. Still, here are some interesting quotes from your source that contradict your opinion...no "light math" required.

"Mexicans Make Up Largest Group; D.C. Area Numbers Up 70 Percent Since 2000"

That was the sub-head, which is often inflammatory or sensationalistic, so I kept reading...

"Despite tighter border enforcement and a post-Sept. 11, 2001, economic slump, the number of illegal immigrants in the United States has continued to grow steadily..."

Okay, and then this...

"Based on Census Bureau and other government data, the Pew Hispanic Center, a private research group in Washington, estimated the number of undocumented immigrants at 10.3 million as of last March, an increase of 23 percent from the 8.4 million estimate in 2000. More than 50 percent of that growth was attributable to Mexican nationals living illegally in the United States, the report said."

An estimated 10.3 million "udocumented immigrants' now? With "more than 50 percent of that growth was attributable to Mexican nationals living illegally in the United States" as the follow up sentence? Did you really provide this link as evidence that there was NO FLOOD of immigrants? Seriously?

But there was more...

"Mexicans remain the largest group of illegal migrants, at 5.9 million or about 57 percent of the March 2004 estimate, the report said."

and this gem...

"Angela Kelley, deputy director of the National Immigration Forum, which favors a plan to legalize illegal immigrants, said the continued growth of that population simply shows that current immigration policy 'is broken.'"

Wowie. I read this last article twice, giving you the benefit of the doubt that it somehow bolstered your opinion, but alas I could not see how. Please feel free to point out where I was blind. It is getting late and I've had a little to drink.

This has been fun reading. And light math is always a pleasure, but you have offered no evidence to support your opinion. None.

The best you could do is argue that 250,000 (the smallest number offered by any of your sources) is not a flood. Many would disagree with you, but you are certainly entitled to that opinion.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC