For months, Nicolas LeRoy had been dreaming of this day in 1661. The 22-year-old and his l8-year-old wife and two kids anxiously waited on a windy dock in La Rochelle, a coastal city in southwest France. They had journeyed 244 miles south to this port city from their home in Dieppe, France.
Nicolas had signed a promissory note for 50 livres to pay for the passage of his family on a sailing vessel to the New World in Canada. The loan was the equivalent of 50 pounds of silver. It was a large sum for the young Frenchman, who earned his living as a knife maker.
Indeed, it was a leap of faith for Nicolas to even leave France. His family traced its roots to the 13th century and included wealthy landowners, influential judicial officers, an archbishop and titled members of royalty. Many inhabited the area around St. Malo on the west coast.
Nicolas was born with none of these ancestral entitlements. He was searching for a better life, one free from the religious tumult between Catholics and Protestants that had roiled France for decades. Ironically, Nicolas, a Catholic, was disembarking from La Rochelle, a hotbed of Protestantism.
There also was the lure of free land promised by French King Louis XIV to any countrymen who would join a small settlement in Quebec, Canada. At the time of Nicolas' departure in the summer of 1661, a clutch of 300 French pioneers had colonized the area for their native land.
Gasping the hand of his wife Jeanne, Nicolas and his family boarded the wooden sailing vessel Jarden de Hollande. Anchored nearby was the Aingle d'Or, another French ship planning to sail in tandem from La Rochelle to Canada. There were 300 passengers crammed on board the two vessels.
The Atlantic Ocean crossing was not without its perils. An outbreak of scurvy, common in that era, took its toll on passengers and crew. Sixty of them died at sea of the insidious disease caused by chronic Vitamin C deficiency, the result of the absence of fresh fruit and vegetables on the ships.
The two sailing ships limped into the port at Quebec on August 22, 1661 after months at sea. Nicolas and his family lived with his wife's father-in-law, who had preceded them to the New World. In 1663, Nicolas received a grant for a two-acre farm near Montmorency Falls, where he built a cabin.
From this humble start, Nicolas prospered by increasing his land holdings to 20 acres. Although their wealth grew, the family was not immune from tragedy. In the summer of 1669, the couple's five-year old daughter Marie was assaulted by a nearby landowner. The assailant was hanged after a trial.
A year later a fire at the family home, claimed the lives of two-year old daughter Anne and her eight-year-old brother Jean. Devastated but undeterred, the family soldiered on acquiring more land and moving to another home to escape the tearful memories of the lost of two children.
The LeRoy clan expanded as their children married and started families of their own. Noel LeRoy, the first member of the family to be born in the New World, fathered 13 offspring in two marriages. His oldest male, Jean Noel, became the first family member to immigrate to America in 1745.
No records exist about what prompted Jean Noel to leave Canada. It can only be speculated that like many French people who endured brutal winters in Quebec, that he was seeking warmer weather. Louisiana had become a popular destination for its climate and budding French-speaking population
Although little is known of his journey, apparently Jean was 47 when he arrived near the Louisiana town of Opelousas. He trekked to the area before the influx of Acadians began descending from Canada during the period between 1764 and 1784. These newcomers became known as Cajuns.
By the time of his death at age 92, Jean had dropped the "Le" from his surname which had been Anglicized to Roy. Joseph Marie Roy, Jean's son and the grand-grandson of Nicolas Roy, was among the first colonists in Avoyelles Parish in the east-central part of Louisiana.
In the decades that followed, the Roy family put down roots across Louisiana and their adopted country. Roys served in the Revolutionary War, Civil War and World War II. Their ancestors today carry on the family tradition of service to their country and community.
However, today's Roys owe a debt of gratitude to Nicolas and Jeanne LeRoy, who had the fortitude to embark on an dangerous journey paid with borrowed funds to explore the New World. Their story, like that of so many immigrants, inspires future generations to follow their dreams.
Showing posts with label Immigration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Immigration. Show all posts
Monday, March 18, 2019
Monday, September 10, 2018
Immigration: The Changing Face of America
Americans are deluged daily with tearful stories and alarming statistics about illegal immigration. It creates a perception that most immigrants come to the country by sneaking across the border. This narrative obfuscates the reality that the overwhelming majority of immigrants arrive here legally.
Activists and the politicians claim oppressive waiting requirements, high costs and excessive paperwork 'force' newcomers to skip the legal process. That's baloney. The majority of foreign-born immigrants (75%) in this country played by the rules and survived these pseudo barriers.
The truth is America's process for accepting immigrants is less stringent than many countries. Foreign-born individuals who wish to live in the United States have a straight forward path to lawfully enter the country. While it requires diligence, it is not overly burdensome.
Without diving into the weeds, the procedure begins with an application for a visa or green card, the first step toward becoming a lawful permanent resident. Visas are available for immigrants with family members or relatives residing in the U.S. Businesses also sponsor visas for immigrants.
After living in the country for five years as a legal resident, foreign-born nationals can apply for citizenship. Each circumstance is different, but it can take anywhere from six months up to two years to complete the naturalization process and earn citizenship. The cost is about $725.
If that process is so cumbersome, how do critics explain the fact that the U.S. welcomes approximately 680,000 new citizens during naturalization ceremonies every single year? And applications for citizenship are increasing. There were 239,628 requests in the most recent quarter.
Despite spurious complaints about the process, America remains the top destination for immigrants worldwide since at least 1960. One-fifth of the world's immigrants today live in this country. That evidence suggests America's immigration rules are not a deterrent to foreigners.
According to Current Population Survey (CPS) , more than 43.7 million immigrants resided in the United States in 2016, accounting for 13.5 percent of the total population estimated at 323.1 million. The foreign-born population increased by 449,000 from 2015 to 2016.
To illustrate the dramatic growth, in 1970 immigrants represented 4.7 percent of the population. By 2000, the proportion of immigrants reached 11.1 percent of America's residents. That means the number of immigrants living in the U.S. has zoomed upward 78 percent in the last 46 years.
Mexican nationals are the largest slice of the immigrant population pie chart with 26 percent. There are an estimated 11.6 million Mexican immigrants living in the country. However, the percentage of Mexicans is lower than the peak of 30 percent in 2000 as more nationals arrive from other countries.
For example, India was the leading country of origin in 2016 with 175,100 individuals entering America. China and Hong Kong followed with 160,200 immigrants. Mexico was third on the list with 54,700. Cuba ranked fourth with 46,600. About 1.5 million foreign nationals arrived in 2016.
While Mexicans outnumber other immigrant populations, a glacial shift is occurring below the surface. Indians now comprise nearly six percent of immigrants with Chinese (including Hong Kong) representing five percent. Filipinos are at four percent with Cubans and Vietnamese close behind.
Many immigrant adults today are better educated than their American counterparts. For instance, 51 percent of Asians have at least a college bachelor's degree, compared to 31 percent for the total U.S. adult population. By comparison, only six percent of Mexican immigrants have a college degree.
A Pew Research Center analysis found that immigrants accounted for nearly one-fourth (23%) of babies born in the United States, yet represent only 13.5 percent of the population. This baby boom is driving overall population growth. Without immigrants, the U.S. birth rate would be declining.
If current trends hold, immigrants and their descendants are projected to account for 88 percent of the population growth through 2065. Those figures underscore the importance of legal immigrants to the vibrancy of the American economy, boosting the labor pool and increasing economic activity.
Many of the new arrivals are doing better financially too, especially those from Asia and India. A Pew Research analysis found that Chinese, Vietnamese, Filipino and Indian immigrants have fewer family members living below the poverty line than those from Mexico and Central America.
Immigrants have been a positive force throughout American history. That remains true today. The media should extol the inspiring stories of successful legal immigrants instead of spotlighting only illegals. America's face is changing. And that is good news that should be celebrated.
Activists and the politicians claim oppressive waiting requirements, high costs and excessive paperwork 'force' newcomers to skip the legal process. That's baloney. The majority of foreign-born immigrants (75%) in this country played by the rules and survived these pseudo barriers.
The truth is America's process for accepting immigrants is less stringent than many countries. Foreign-born individuals who wish to live in the United States have a straight forward path to lawfully enter the country. While it requires diligence, it is not overly burdensome.
Without diving into the weeds, the procedure begins with an application for a visa or green card, the first step toward becoming a lawful permanent resident. Visas are available for immigrants with family members or relatives residing in the U.S. Businesses also sponsor visas for immigrants.
After living in the country for five years as a legal resident, foreign-born nationals can apply for citizenship. Each circumstance is different, but it can take anywhere from six months up to two years to complete the naturalization process and earn citizenship. The cost is about $725.
If that process is so cumbersome, how do critics explain the fact that the U.S. welcomes approximately 680,000 new citizens during naturalization ceremonies every single year? And applications for citizenship are increasing. There were 239,628 requests in the most recent quarter.
Despite spurious complaints about the process, America remains the top destination for immigrants worldwide since at least 1960. One-fifth of the world's immigrants today live in this country. That evidence suggests America's immigration rules are not a deterrent to foreigners.
According to Current Population Survey (CPS) , more than 43.7 million immigrants resided in the United States in 2016, accounting for 13.5 percent of the total population estimated at 323.1 million. The foreign-born population increased by 449,000 from 2015 to 2016.
To illustrate the dramatic growth, in 1970 immigrants represented 4.7 percent of the population. By 2000, the proportion of immigrants reached 11.1 percent of America's residents. That means the number of immigrants living in the U.S. has zoomed upward 78 percent in the last 46 years.
Mexican nationals are the largest slice of the immigrant population pie chart with 26 percent. There are an estimated 11.6 million Mexican immigrants living in the country. However, the percentage of Mexicans is lower than the peak of 30 percent in 2000 as more nationals arrive from other countries.
For example, India was the leading country of origin in 2016 with 175,100 individuals entering America. China and Hong Kong followed with 160,200 immigrants. Mexico was third on the list with 54,700. Cuba ranked fourth with 46,600. About 1.5 million foreign nationals arrived in 2016.
While Mexicans outnumber other immigrant populations, a glacial shift is occurring below the surface. Indians now comprise nearly six percent of immigrants with Chinese (including Hong Kong) representing five percent. Filipinos are at four percent with Cubans and Vietnamese close behind.
Many immigrant adults today are better educated than their American counterparts. For instance, 51 percent of Asians have at least a college bachelor's degree, compared to 31 percent for the total U.S. adult population. By comparison, only six percent of Mexican immigrants have a college degree.
A Pew Research Center analysis found that immigrants accounted for nearly one-fourth (23%) of babies born in the United States, yet represent only 13.5 percent of the population. This baby boom is driving overall population growth. Without immigrants, the U.S. birth rate would be declining.
If current trends hold, immigrants and their descendants are projected to account for 88 percent of the population growth through 2065. Those figures underscore the importance of legal immigrants to the vibrancy of the American economy, boosting the labor pool and increasing economic activity.
Many of the new arrivals are doing better financially too, especially those from Asia and India. A Pew Research analysis found that Chinese, Vietnamese, Filipino and Indian immigrants have fewer family members living below the poverty line than those from Mexico and Central America.
Immigrants have been a positive force throughout American history. That remains true today. The media should extol the inspiring stories of successful legal immigrants instead of spotlighting only illegals. America's face is changing. And that is good news that should be celebrated.
Monday, January 22, 2018
Media's S***hole Hysteria Over Remark
The Washington media has officially become unhinged. Deranged. Irrational. Unbalanced. But mostly dishonest. There aren't enough adjectives in the dictionary to describe the utter insane behavior of news outlets over President Trump's alleged use of a common term meaning excrement.
For more than a week, the news coverage has been nonstop after Illinois Democrat Dick Durbin claimed the president used the word s***hole to describe several countries, including Haiti. Democrats and their acolytes in the media went apes****. Bonkers. World War III headlines.
CNN, the least trusted news network, encouraged every person on its cable show to label Mr. Trump a racist for daring to refer to an African country as a s***hole land. The network repeated the offensive term so many times the joke was it should change its name to SHNN.
The source, Mr. Trump, denied using the specific terminology even as he admitted uttering some "rough language" during the private meeting on immigration with representatives of both parties in the Oval Office. The confab was supposed to produce a bi-partisan immigration agreement.
Instead, Durbin sabotaged it. He violated an unwritten rule of conduct and blabbed what went on in the closed door session. The media in its unmitigated effort to embarrass the president never bothered to check with others in the meeting. At least two Republicans never heard the word.
Senators Tom Cotton and David Perdue both publicly stated the president did not use s***hole in the discussion. Cotton, who was sitting as close to the president as Durbin, accused the Democrat of spreading false information. Despite the push back, the media stuck to Durbin's version.
No one at CNN checked Durbin's history. He has lied before about private White House meetings. In fact, Durbin told a whopper. In 2013, Durbin claimed that one GOP House member turned to Mr. Obama and said: "I cannot even stand to look at you." Racist screamed the hyperventilating media.
Only problem was Durbin made up the story. Asked about the matter at a White House briefing, press secretary Jay Carney told reporters that he had "spoke with somebody" at the meeting and discovered "it did not happen." Durbin never admitted he lied. He simply refused to comment.
For a moment, let's assume for the sake of argument that Mr. Trump did indeed refer to an African country as a s***hole. That places him in good company. The erudite Mr. Obama called the African country of Libya a "s***show" two years ago in an interview with The Atlantic magazine.
Do you recall any media outlets admonishing Mr. Obama as a racist? Crickets. If you think foul language demeans the office of president, do your homework. Mr. Obama in an interview in Rolling Stone called his opponent Mitt Romney a "bulls****er." Remember the media outrage? Me neither.
Mr. Obama, the paragon of presidential demeanor, also referred to rapper Kanye West as a "jacka**" in the audio version of his autobiography "Dreams From My Father." His vice president Joe Biden was caught on microphones using the f-word in reference to the signing of Obamacare legislation.
Those faux journalists at CNN apparently have forgotten that President Lyndon Johnson was celebrated for his profanity-laced White House. But in those years, the media protected the privacy of presidents. Potty language has been the grist of politics as far back as Harry Truman and beyond.
The media needs to stop pretending the use of the term "s***hole" in a private meeting bothers average Americans. It doesn't even raise an eyebrow in Realville. This episode exposes the media's naked hatred of President Trump for all the world to see. It isn't a pretty sight and it isn't journalism.
It's not surprising media approval is at an all-time low. A recent Pew Research study found only 18 percent of adults say they "trust the information a lot" that is distributed by national news outlets. Yet reporters and editors bristle at the sobriquet "fake news." The media deserves the nickname.
That's why most people shrugged at the words attributed to the president. Americans already know the real s****holes in Washington are the media organizations covering the president. This latest outlandish news coverage certainly did nothing to change the public perception.
For more than a week, the news coverage has been nonstop after Illinois Democrat Dick Durbin claimed the president used the word s***hole to describe several countries, including Haiti. Democrats and their acolytes in the media went apes****. Bonkers. World War III headlines.
CNN, the least trusted news network, encouraged every person on its cable show to label Mr. Trump a racist for daring to refer to an African country as a s***hole land. The network repeated the offensive term so many times the joke was it should change its name to SHNN.
The source, Mr. Trump, denied using the specific terminology even as he admitted uttering some "rough language" during the private meeting on immigration with representatives of both parties in the Oval Office. The confab was supposed to produce a bi-partisan immigration agreement.
Instead, Durbin sabotaged it. He violated an unwritten rule of conduct and blabbed what went on in the closed door session. The media in its unmitigated effort to embarrass the president never bothered to check with others in the meeting. At least two Republicans never heard the word.
Senators Tom Cotton and David Perdue both publicly stated the president did not use s***hole in the discussion. Cotton, who was sitting as close to the president as Durbin, accused the Democrat of spreading false information. Despite the push back, the media stuck to Durbin's version.
No one at CNN checked Durbin's history. He has lied before about private White House meetings. In fact, Durbin told a whopper. In 2013, Durbin claimed that one GOP House member turned to Mr. Obama and said: "I cannot even stand to look at you." Racist screamed the hyperventilating media.
Only problem was Durbin made up the story. Asked about the matter at a White House briefing, press secretary Jay Carney told reporters that he had "spoke with somebody" at the meeting and discovered "it did not happen." Durbin never admitted he lied. He simply refused to comment.
For a moment, let's assume for the sake of argument that Mr. Trump did indeed refer to an African country as a s***hole. That places him in good company. The erudite Mr. Obama called the African country of Libya a "s***show" two years ago in an interview with The Atlantic magazine.
Do you recall any media outlets admonishing Mr. Obama as a racist? Crickets. If you think foul language demeans the office of president, do your homework. Mr. Obama in an interview in Rolling Stone called his opponent Mitt Romney a "bulls****er." Remember the media outrage? Me neither.
Mr. Obama, the paragon of presidential demeanor, also referred to rapper Kanye West as a "jacka**" in the audio version of his autobiography "Dreams From My Father." His vice president Joe Biden was caught on microphones using the f-word in reference to the signing of Obamacare legislation.
Those faux journalists at CNN apparently have forgotten that President Lyndon Johnson was celebrated for his profanity-laced White House. But in those years, the media protected the privacy of presidents. Potty language has been the grist of politics as far back as Harry Truman and beyond.
The media needs to stop pretending the use of the term "s***hole" in a private meeting bothers average Americans. It doesn't even raise an eyebrow in Realville. This episode exposes the media's naked hatred of President Trump for all the world to see. It isn't a pretty sight and it isn't journalism.
It's not surprising media approval is at an all-time low. A recent Pew Research study found only 18 percent of adults say they "trust the information a lot" that is distributed by national news outlets. Yet reporters and editors bristle at the sobriquet "fake news." The media deserves the nickname.
That's why most people shrugged at the words attributed to the president. Americans already know the real s****holes in Washington are the media organizations covering the president. This latest outlandish news coverage certainly did nothing to change the public perception.
Monday, December 1, 2014
Immigration Lies: The President In His Own Words
A scorned president has cauterized the simmering debate over immigration reform with an inflammatory speech followed by a ham-fisted executive fiat. His words and his unilateral action have doomed any chances of forging a national consensus on this tumultuous issue.
In the wake of the impetuous president's decision, polls revealed a divided country over Obama's amnesty order. By a 50-40 split, voters disapproved of the president's scheme, according to research released last week by Democratic polling firm Rasmussen Reports.
This immigration schism can only be bridged by compromise. But this president has chosen contention over concession. He is driven by revenge for the humiliation he suffered in the mid-terms. His executive action was an opportunity to poke his finger in the eyes of incensed Republicans.
As the days have passed since his televised address, even ardent supporters of immigration reform are realizing the president's course offers only a temporary fix. If his motivation was to goad Congress into enacting permanent legislation, he has seriously miscalculated the political ramifications.
But this president has always shunned the high road. He prefers the rough politics of Chicago ward bosses where no opponent goes unpunished. A re-reading of the transcript of his speech reveals a man willing to engage in disinformation and incendiary language to justify his action.
His address was aimed at branding Americans who believe in the rule of law as uncaring and heartless people. In the president's own words, read his attempts at verbal manipulation:
"But today, our immigration system is broken and everyone knows it." This distortion has been repeated so many times, no one questions its veracity. While some changes may be needed in the immigration process, the current system accommodated the largest influx of legal immigrants in the nation's history. From 2005 to 2013, a total of 9,787,594 immigrants have obtained permanent residency status in the U.S.. according to the Department of Homeland Security. This total represents the largest number of immigrants to gain residency in any nine-year period in American history. America does not have a legal immigration problem, it has an illegal alien issue.
"Mass deportation would be both impossible and contrary to our character." Not a single politician in either party has advocated deportation of the more than 11 million illegal aliens living in the U.S. Yet the president continues to use his fabrication to scare immigrants into thinking they will be shipped home in shackles if the Republicans have their way. Only Obama can save them from this fate.
"If you plan to enter the U.S. illegally, your chances of getting caught and sent back just went up." Figures from Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) show that deportations declined 19 percent from 2011 to 2012 and dropped another 22 percent last year. Despite these numbers, the Obama Administration has devised a clever method to calculate deportations that inflates the actual statistics. Even the egregious number-rigging cannot hide the fact the administration freed 36,007 illegal aliens convicted of 88,000 crimes last year, ICE figures confirm. This administration's has the worst record in history in dealing with illegal immigrants, including those with criminal records.
"Are we a nation that accepts the cruelty of ripping children from their parents arms?" Please Mr. President, name one example. No children are being snatched from their parents and exported back home. In fact, at the end of last year there were 1.8 million illegal immigrants awaiting deportation, ICE figures show. Illegal aliens play a waiting game that often ends with them ducking hearings while remaining in the U.S.
"I know some of the critics call it amnesty. Well, its not." His order defers deportation of illegals, while allowing them to obtain permanent residency. It is amnesty because despite entering the country illegally, the government is willing to spare aliens deportation and will not prosecute them for violating the laws of the country. That is amnesty under any name.
"The actions I'm taking are not only lawful, they're the kinds of actions taken by every single Republican President and every single Democratic president for the past half-century." To make their point, the president and the obsequious media have drawn comparisons to President Reagan's executive action on immigration. However, it is a duplicitous analogy. In 1986, Congress approved the Immigration Reform and Control Act that provided a path to legalization for millions of illegal aliens. After the measure was passed and signed into law by President Reagan, he issued an executive order stalling deportation of non-citizens in more than 100,000 families not covered under the legislation. Unlike Obama, Reagan acted after the legislative branch had approved a law. Obama chose to sidestep Congress and take unilateral action.
Neither comparisons to past presidents nor provocative rhetoric offer rationalization for President Obama's perversive abuse of executive power. He has acted wantonly without fear of retribution from the courts, the media, the Congress or the American people.
Unilateral action has become his modus operandi and it is undermining the constitutional powers of the legislative branch. Unless the next Congress halts this erosion, the coming two years will see runaway growth of executive power under a president who thumbs his nose at the Constitution.
In the wake of the impetuous president's decision, polls revealed a divided country over Obama's amnesty order. By a 50-40 split, voters disapproved of the president's scheme, according to research released last week by Democratic polling firm Rasmussen Reports.
This immigration schism can only be bridged by compromise. But this president has chosen contention over concession. He is driven by revenge for the humiliation he suffered in the mid-terms. His executive action was an opportunity to poke his finger in the eyes of incensed Republicans.
As the days have passed since his televised address, even ardent supporters of immigration reform are realizing the president's course offers only a temporary fix. If his motivation was to goad Congress into enacting permanent legislation, he has seriously miscalculated the political ramifications.
But this president has always shunned the high road. He prefers the rough politics of Chicago ward bosses where no opponent goes unpunished. A re-reading of the transcript of his speech reveals a man willing to engage in disinformation and incendiary language to justify his action.
His address was aimed at branding Americans who believe in the rule of law as uncaring and heartless people. In the president's own words, read his attempts at verbal manipulation:
"But today, our immigration system is broken and everyone knows it." This distortion has been repeated so many times, no one questions its veracity. While some changes may be needed in the immigration process, the current system accommodated the largest influx of legal immigrants in the nation's history. From 2005 to 2013, a total of 9,787,594 immigrants have obtained permanent residency status in the U.S.. according to the Department of Homeland Security. This total represents the largest number of immigrants to gain residency in any nine-year period in American history. America does not have a legal immigration problem, it has an illegal alien issue.
"Mass deportation would be both impossible and contrary to our character." Not a single politician in either party has advocated deportation of the more than 11 million illegal aliens living in the U.S. Yet the president continues to use his fabrication to scare immigrants into thinking they will be shipped home in shackles if the Republicans have their way. Only Obama can save them from this fate.
"If you plan to enter the U.S. illegally, your chances of getting caught and sent back just went up." Figures from Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) show that deportations declined 19 percent from 2011 to 2012 and dropped another 22 percent last year. Despite these numbers, the Obama Administration has devised a clever method to calculate deportations that inflates the actual statistics. Even the egregious number-rigging cannot hide the fact the administration freed 36,007 illegal aliens convicted of 88,000 crimes last year, ICE figures confirm. This administration's has the worst record in history in dealing with illegal immigrants, including those with criminal records.
"Are we a nation that accepts the cruelty of ripping children from their parents arms?" Please Mr. President, name one example. No children are being snatched from their parents and exported back home. In fact, at the end of last year there were 1.8 million illegal immigrants awaiting deportation, ICE figures show. Illegal aliens play a waiting game that often ends with them ducking hearings while remaining in the U.S.
"I know some of the critics call it amnesty. Well, its not." His order defers deportation of illegals, while allowing them to obtain permanent residency. It is amnesty because despite entering the country illegally, the government is willing to spare aliens deportation and will not prosecute them for violating the laws of the country. That is amnesty under any name.
"The actions I'm taking are not only lawful, they're the kinds of actions taken by every single Republican President and every single Democratic president for the past half-century." To make their point, the president and the obsequious media have drawn comparisons to President Reagan's executive action on immigration. However, it is a duplicitous analogy. In 1986, Congress approved the Immigration Reform and Control Act that provided a path to legalization for millions of illegal aliens. After the measure was passed and signed into law by President Reagan, he issued an executive order stalling deportation of non-citizens in more than 100,000 families not covered under the legislation. Unlike Obama, Reagan acted after the legislative branch had approved a law. Obama chose to sidestep Congress and take unilateral action.
Neither comparisons to past presidents nor provocative rhetoric offer rationalization for President Obama's perversive abuse of executive power. He has acted wantonly without fear of retribution from the courts, the media, the Congress or the American people.
Unilateral action has become his modus operandi and it is undermining the constitutional powers of the legislative branch. Unless the next Congress halts this erosion, the coming two years will see runaway growth of executive power under a president who thumbs his nose at the Constitution.
Monday, February 11, 2013
Why Mexico Remains Mum On Immigration
While the debate over immigration simmers in Washington, Mexico has been strangely silent. The government, often a vocal critic of U.S. policy in the past, has chosen to sit on the sidelines for a good reason. Mexico's interests are best served if our nation's southern border remains a sieve.
The reason is that Mexico's economy would crater without the billions of dollars legal and illegal immigrants ship from the U.S. back to their home country.
The flow of money, once a lazy river, has turned into a flood of cash. In 2000, Mexican immigrants pumped $6.6 billion into the hands of relatives in their home country, according to the Bank of Mexico. In 11 years, the money train chugging south has nearly quadrupled.
Estimates are Mexicans dispatched $23 billion from this country to relatives in their native homeland in 2011. That figure represents an eight percent increase over the previous year. However, it is down from the peak in 2007 when immigrants funneled $26 billion south of the border.
Each American greenback yields about six pesos under traditional exchange rates. That increases the purchasing power of Mexican recipients. Without those dollars, Mexico's poverty rates would spike, the country's social development ministry has admitted.
Today immigrant dollars represent the second largest source of income for Mexico. Only Mexico's oil industry generates more income for the country.
That explains why the Mexican government has no interest in working with U.S. officials to stem the tide of its citizens slipping over the border. In fact, the government published a 32-page guide on migrating to the U.S., which included a chapter on how to live "unobtrusively" to avoid detection.
This laisser faire attitude has led to millions of Mexicans living and working illegally in our country. A Pew Research Center study, released last year, found that almost 60 percent of the 11.2 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. are from Mexico. Illegal immigration is mostly a Mexican problem.
The wave of Mexicans entering the U.S. either legally or illegally represents the largest influx of immigrants from one country in American history, reports Pew. About 30 percent of the 39.6 million immigrants living today in the U.S. were born in Mexico, estimates the researchers at Pew.
It is easy to understand why so many Mexicans are bidding their country adios. According to the United Nations, about half of Mexicans live below the poverty line. Thirteen million Mexicans are categorized as existing in "extreme poverty."
Instead of addressing ways to increase economic opportunity for its people, Mexico is content to stand idly by as millions of its citizens illegally enter the United States. With billions of dollars at stake, it is no surprise that the Mexican government vehemently opposes the building of the border fence.
That is why any immigration reform must start with tighter border security.
In 1986, President Ronald Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, a law designed to bolster border security in exchange for granting citizenship for undocumented workers in the U.S. Nearly three million illegal immigrants were granted amnesty under the legislation.
Forty five years after promises of tighter border control, there are 11.2 million illegal immigrants living in the U.S., a nearly four-fold increase. The American people were duped. Washington politicians were never serious about stopping the influx of illegal immigrants from Mexico.
This time Americans must insist on border security before amnesty. Safeguarding our nation is more important than protecting Mexico's economy.
The reason is that Mexico's economy would crater without the billions of dollars legal and illegal immigrants ship from the U.S. back to their home country.
The flow of money, once a lazy river, has turned into a flood of cash. In 2000, Mexican immigrants pumped $6.6 billion into the hands of relatives in their home country, according to the Bank of Mexico. In 11 years, the money train chugging south has nearly quadrupled.
Estimates are Mexicans dispatched $23 billion from this country to relatives in their native homeland in 2011. That figure represents an eight percent increase over the previous year. However, it is down from the peak in 2007 when immigrants funneled $26 billion south of the border.
Each American greenback yields about six pesos under traditional exchange rates. That increases the purchasing power of Mexican recipients. Without those dollars, Mexico's poverty rates would spike, the country's social development ministry has admitted.
Today immigrant dollars represent the second largest source of income for Mexico. Only Mexico's oil industry generates more income for the country.
That explains why the Mexican government has no interest in working with U.S. officials to stem the tide of its citizens slipping over the border. In fact, the government published a 32-page guide on migrating to the U.S., which included a chapter on how to live "unobtrusively" to avoid detection.
This laisser faire attitude has led to millions of Mexicans living and working illegally in our country. A Pew Research Center study, released last year, found that almost 60 percent of the 11.2 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. are from Mexico. Illegal immigration is mostly a Mexican problem.
The wave of Mexicans entering the U.S. either legally or illegally represents the largest influx of immigrants from one country in American history, reports Pew. About 30 percent of the 39.6 million immigrants living today in the U.S. were born in Mexico, estimates the researchers at Pew.
It is easy to understand why so many Mexicans are bidding their country adios. According to the United Nations, about half of Mexicans live below the poverty line. Thirteen million Mexicans are categorized as existing in "extreme poverty."
Instead of addressing ways to increase economic opportunity for its people, Mexico is content to stand idly by as millions of its citizens illegally enter the United States. With billions of dollars at stake, it is no surprise that the Mexican government vehemently opposes the building of the border fence.
That is why any immigration reform must start with tighter border security.
In 1986, President Ronald Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, a law designed to bolster border security in exchange for granting citizenship for undocumented workers in the U.S. Nearly three million illegal immigrants were granted amnesty under the legislation.
Forty five years after promises of tighter border control, there are 11.2 million illegal immigrants living in the U.S., a nearly four-fold increase. The American people were duped. Washington politicians were never serious about stopping the influx of illegal immigrants from Mexico.
This time Americans must insist on border security before amnesty. Safeguarding our nation is more important than protecting Mexico's economy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)