Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Macmeal, I may as well worry about my neighbor with a shortwave radio sending super-sekrit messages to the Reds. Most il/legal aliens (like most of my neighbors) are not [presumably] suicidal terrorists or child molesters or drug abusers. Even if they were, there are (and have long been) appropriate laws and investigative procedures to handle this (so OT) as best as we can hope in a "free society". Is your "beef" with living in a free society? Do tell.
Lemme try again. Bambam0084 said that "half of Mexican and Central American immigrants are illegal [emphasis added]", attributing this nonsense to the US Census Bureau. That's not beyond the realm of possibility, but immigrant-spotting (or "Mexican"-spotting) is an imprecise science. There are many "Mexicans" that are not immigrants.
I am (self-identified as) "Irish" and "Californian" and of US nationality dependent on context, but I did not emigrate from Ireland to the US and I was neither born nor currently reside in California. Based on surname and prior ZIP Code, I have been imputed to be Hispanic/Latino/apparently "illegal". Based on "look", I have been "Irish" or Western (Anglo). It's been at least a decade since I called myself "American".
So am I "legal"? I've gone 40 years hardly being asked or being in the postion of asking--half of that time in California. Boise or Eugene is overrun with Californians, y'know. My ocular muscles ache with the eye-rolling.
Not quite sure where this is going. You say you're "Irish", but American born? OK, got it. You apparently live in Butte, MT? (BTW Butte is a NOTORIOUSLY "Irish" city, fairly unique in the American West, due to its long history of immigrant miners and colorful ethnic political history)..OK.
So then let me ask you this...has there been a sudden influx of Irish into Butte in recent years? If so, how are they fitting in? Are any area hospitals closing their emergency rooms, and is there any connection with this and their being 'swamped' by indigent patients, some of whom are Irish? Are local police officers, civil servants, and teachers being pressured to learn Gaelic, in order to accomodate the Irish? Are recent Irish immigrants seeking to 'ally' themselves with long-time Irish Americans? Do Irish activist groups in Butte attempt to draw parallels between their members and Montana Indians (who were pushed off their lands) or Alabama blacks (who were slaves), in order to show a 'common experience of being oppressed and victimized by American society'? Does the Catholic Archdiocese in Butte run frequent articles about the recent Irish influx, never mentioning the legality (or illegality) of any particular case?...I don't know..I'm just asking. Are groups of young Irish "hooligans" forming gangs, cruising the streets of Butte, and pulling "shenanigans"? If so, is this a problem with the local 'rednecks'?
If Irish immigration is beginning to impact the Butte/ Anaconda/ Silver Bow region, and is becoming noticeable, it's possible there might be some grumbling about it...not by you, neccessarily, but perhaps by some of your neighbors. If it becomes known that a large percentage of these "new" Irish in your region do not, in fact, have legal permission to be there at all (are, in fact, illegal)...then it might cause some people (not you..but SOME people) to wonder "how can I tell which of the Irish are SUPPOSED to be here, and which of them are NOT ?"..and my answer would be that "you CAN'T tell. In a free society which allows massive numbers of Irish to enter illegally, you can NOT tell the legal ones from the illegal ones".
You also mention that "Oregon is overrun by Californians". On this point, you're preaching to the choir...boy,don't I KNOW it! I myself am a part of the vast "California diasapora". I was born in Oregon to a large family that left San Francisco in the 1920's. They entered Oregon legally, having traveled there by coastal ship (you could do that, in those days). That was long ago, and there was little resentment in Oregon toward Californians. Today, apparently, there's quite a bit...more a product of changing times than any 'Californiphobia' on the part of Oregonians, I suspect. By the way, ALL my Dad's siblings eventually ended up BACK in California, except for him.
"There are some Mexicans in California who were born in the US"? Yes, I believe I've heard that, too. I have two cousins married to such people...meanwhile, virtually my wife's entire family consists of 'Mexicans', who were not only BORN in the US, but whose ancestors were here before the US (or the Spanish) arrived. Here, they're called 'Mexicans'. Up your way, in Butte, they'd be called 'Indians'. Both groups have been around a LONG LONG time. Thanks for reminding me.
Back to the original topic, "how do you spot an illegal"? As I said before, in a free society, you can't.
You tell me. Are half of all persons in the US that were born in Mexico (according to the dubious claim) illegal aliens or are half of "Mexicans" illegal aliens (as the OP put it)?
How do you determine birthplace or Mexican origin? Magic 8-Ball? Tea leaves? Turkey guts? You tell me.
As MacMeal put it you can't tell just by looking. I never said you could. If there are 12 million illegal aliens in this country (but I believe that number is much higher) of which 40% are visa overstayers and 60% never had documents to be here in the first place that means that 7.2 million fall into the 60% group. Out of that 7.2 million 80% are Mexican nationals. That means that there are around 5.8 million Mexicans here illegally not including any in the visa overstayers catagory. Since we don't know how many legal Mexicans that are here because the census doesn't include that in their stats (only how many Hispanics are here) it is hard to claim anything other than the above.
As MacMeal put it you can't tell just by looking. I never said you could. If there are 12 million illegal aliens in this country (but I believe that number is much higher) of which 40% are visa overstayers and 60% never had documents to be here in the first place that means that 7.2 million fall into the 60% group. Out of that 7.2 million 80% are Mexican nationals. That means that there are around 5.8 million Mexicans here illegally not including any in the visa overstayers catagory. Since we don't know how many legal Mexicans that are here because the census doesn't include that in their stats (only how many Hispanics are here) it is hard to claim anything other than the above.
57% of illegal immigrants are Mexican. That means about 6-7million illegal Mexican immigrants. Roughly 60% of all Hispanics in the US are Mexican. There are something like 45 million Hispanics (thus approx 27 million Mexicans). So obviously, MOST Mexicans here are not illegal.
57% of illegal immigrants are Mexican. That means about 6-7million illegal Mexican immigrants. Roughly 60% of all Hispanics in the US are Mexican. There are something like 45 million Hispanics (thus approx 27 million Mexicans). So obviously, MOST Mexicans here are not illegal.
BTW, the census takes data on country of origin.
Indeed it does...but it seems that in 2000, the census listed mexico as the source of almost 69% of illegals in the US....
During the 2000s, we saw a faster rate of increase of immigration from Asian nations than from Latin America...it is thus, very likely that illegal immigration from these nations have increased as legal migration has increased. Just a hypothesis. I'll try to do some more research.
During the 2000s, we saw a faster rate of increase of immigration from Asian nations than from Latin America...it is thus, very likely that illegal immigration from these nations have increased as legal migration has increased. Just a hypothesis. I'll try to do some more research.
Thanks, T1G......., but You did reprimand macmeal for his/her post regarding "californios" and requested that macmeal post "facts"......and yet You offered no link to support Your claim of his innaccuracy....As it turned out he appears to have been pretty close to being correct in his estimate of 16,000 "californinios" ( as the estimated population of California prior to the Gold Rush in 1850 was around 13,000 total)
Then You state that the number of illegals from mexico is 57% ( again with no supportive link) and even reference the census......which states that (in 2000) that almost 70% of illegals come from mexico......
And now Your latest post is based upon a hypothesis.....
Why is Your hypothesis any more valid than the estimate (or guess) provided by macmeal?
Something about "glass houses" comes to mind here....
Regards
BL
BTW, I'll fess up if I am incorrect....
BL
Last edited by borderlord; 01-19-2010 at 09:32 PM..
[quote=borderlord;12522730]Thanks, T1G......., but You did reprimand macmeal for his/her post regarding "californios" and requested that macmeal post "facts"......and yet You offered no link to support Your claim of his innaccuracy....As it turned out he appears to have been pretty close to being correct in his estimate of 16,000 "californinios" ( as the estimated population of California prior to the Gold Rush in 1850 was around 13,000 total)
Except that in History of California at the University of California Riverside the population of Californios was stated at roughly 100,000 immediately after annexation of CA. You can google this. No supportive links were given from Mac...also doing a quick Google search didn't support his 16,000. It would be correct if he stated that year to be in the early 1840s, but I assumed at around the time of statehood (1840-1850..which the data at Duke University and at UCR) are correct. If he stated earlier, he would be correct. The temporal aspect must be taken into consideration.
Let's not also forget that (ironically) the Californio population actually peaked in 1850, after independence. Then immediately plummetted as water rights and other various methods of land redistribution occurred.
Then You state that the number of illegals from mexico is 57% ( again with no supportive link) and even reference the census......which states that (in 2000) that almost 70% of illegals come from mexico......
I gave supportive links of this in the past. This was from the Pew Hispanic Research 2005. Look it up.
And now Your latest post is based upon a hypothesis.....
Umm...no because the fastest growing immigrant group are Asians. This is fact. So there is actually validity in this hypothesis. Trying to explain the discrepancies in number. Why is a bad thing?
Why is Your hypothesis any more valid than the estimate (or guess) provided by macmeal?
First off, my hypothesis wasn't biased and was claimed as such. His was used to promot how the "3rd world" mentality works and how the majority of Mexicans want reconquista.
Something about "glass houses" comes to mind here....
Not really at all actually. It seems more that you lack fact check skills. Instead of wanting increased clarification, you want to go on the offensive. Which really doesn't make much sense.
You can also fact check yourself. Again, I state that much of the information I get was in lectures. I can put down prof. names and universities if you really want. Many things don't have a link.
Thanks, T1G......., but You did reprimand macmeal for his/her post regarding "californios" and requested that macmeal post "facts"......and yet You offered no link to support Your claim of his innaccuracy....As it turned out he appears to have been pretty close to being correct in his estimate of 16,000 "californinios" ( as the estimated population of California prior to the Gold Rush in 1850 was around 13,000 total)
Quote:
Originally Posted by borderlord
Except that in History of California at the University of California Riverside the population of Californios was stated at roughly 100,000 immediately after annexation of CA. You can google this. No supportive links were given from Mac...also doing a quick Google search didn't support his 16,000. It would be correct if he stated that year to be in the early 1840s, but I assumed at around the time of statehood (1840-1850..which the data at Duke University and at UCR) are correct. If he stated earlier, he would be correct. The temporal aspect must be taken into consideration.
Let's not also forget that (ironically) the Californio population actually peaked in 1850, after independence. Then immediately plummetted as water rights and other various methods of land redistribution occurred.
Then You state that the number of illegals from mexico is 57% ( again with no supportive link) and even reference the census......which states that (in 2000) that almost 70% of illegals come from mexico......
I gave supportive links of this in the past. This was from the Pew Hispanic Research 2005. Look it up.
And now Your latest post is based upon a hypothesis.....
Umm...no because the fastest growing immigrant group are Asians. This is fact. So there is actually validity in this hypothesis. Trying to explain the discrepancies in number. Why is a bad thing?
Why is Your hypothesis any more valid than the estimate (or guess) provided by macmeal?
First off, my hypothesis wasn't biased and was claimed as such. His was used to promot how the "3rd world" mentality works and how the majority of Mexicans want reconquista.
Something about "glass houses" comes to mind here....
Not really at all actually. It seems more that you lack fact check skills. Instead of wanting increased clarification, you want to go on the offensive. Which really doesn't make much sense.
You can also fact check yourself. Again, I state that much of the information I get was in lectures. I can put down prof. names and universities if you really want. Many things don't have a link.
Understood.....but my position remains the same....
You offer opinions......nothing more.
Nope. I present facts. If you want more clarification, you can ask or do the research yourself. So I guess you really didn't understand?
Yeppers, I understand.
You will post your "facts" ex post facto......if asked. Or tell someone to do their own research ....
Sorry, boss......You have been proven incorrect twice recently....
"Californios" population as well as the major source of illegal aliens
not a hypothesis
good night,,,,,
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
