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.
It appears you aren't aware that back then, schools were publicly funded as well. All those illiterate, poor and unemployed immigrant's children back then were getting their educations at the expense of the taxpayer too.
As for the adult immigrants nowadays (which are most of them), their home countries have already spent $$ educating them. So essentially we are getting them "free". That is, we get their labor having paid nothing for their education. That makes up for whatever $$ we might spend on any social services some of them might need.
I might agree with this point if we were not $30T in debt, and our Dollar is nearing collapse.
In 2014, I rented a single wide in a mobile home park for a year before I bought my house.
I had a neighbor that I got to know. He was from El Salvador, on the temporary program ( I can't remember
what it was called). His English was not so good, but he tried. He was an amazing person. He mowed my lawn,
and he repaired the cheap lawnmower I gave him. He was as neat and clean as a pin. He washed and waxed
his car, he worked 40 hours a week for a lawn service and he cleaned the mobile home **** and span when he
was home. He was always quiet and polite. When the time came for me to move out, it was in the middle of
the blistering hot summer. He came over and he started helping me pack! He didn't ask me for a dime, he
just helped me and I was so grateful.
I invited his common law wife and he to visit when I moved. He installed all my new ceiling fans that I bought for the house.
He was an amazing electrician and he changed out all my light fixtures. He just impressed me with his work
ethic. This was now the late summer of 2015. He used to ask me why Trump hated Hispanics so much. I
felt so sorry when he said that, I could tell that he was dying to make a favorable impression on someone he
wanted to respect as president. He and his wife moved a few months later, out of state. His wife was a white
U.S. citizen, she told me that she went back to El Salvador to meet his family.
He told me that sometimes the guys at the lawn service would pass out and die from heat stroke in the summer.
He would have made an amazing citizen if he had the opportunity to do so. He was an incredible, capable person.
You make some great points here and it helps illustrate that we do need these people. There is no doubt about that, but we must be selective. We have the greatest place on Earth to live, the best of everything top to bottom. We have to be selective as to whom we allow in. We need productive people that demonstrate the ability to prosper and are willing to do what it takes to enter this country legally, not just anyone. Further, we cannot grant these people the ultimate right of our citizenry, the right to vote. In due time, they can vote of course, but these people are not us. We cannot give them voting rights until they prove they deserve that right.
From about 1850 to about 1920 we let in millions of uneducated, illiterate and unemployed people into the USA. And we turned out just fine.
This doesn't answer the question. This sentence here: "What are the chances of such people gaining employment in an economy that increasingly demands higher levels of technical education and degrees for employment?" is particularly relevant. And I'd say that things became much more "fine" after 1920, wouldn't you? So: do you have an answer for this question?
I wonder how those rates stack up against places like Kentucky, West Virginia, Mississippi and a fist full of other Red states? My guess is they are uncomfortably close and no slam dunk any of them would beat any or all of those Latin American locations.
How would they stack up to the inner-city dwellers of every large, Blue city in America?
Back then lots of people said we didn't have enough jobs for Americans.
Oh, this is rich. Saying that things have changed since 1920 is a "stupid argument." Actually, saying that things haven't changed since 1920 is the stupid argument. Obviously.
We still have plenty of land. Contrary to popular belief but the US is still pretty sparsely populated. Of the 100 most populated countries in the world, the US is the 79th most densely populated (source).
We do not have plenty of available land.
We have a lot of land that is unusable. Lots of mountains and also desert areas that do not have access to water. Or Alaska. In the west the government owns lots of land but democrats have fought against selling any of it and opening it up to development. And people who immigrate here move to the cities because there is where opportunities exist.
And regarding the OP. We will soon have a problem where automation will replace much of the jobs done by immigrants coming here. The more we allow in, the bigger the problem we will have. I am fine with opening immigration up to people who can pay a fee of say $100K or a million dollars to a streamlined citizenship. Or people with an education and skill that we need here. And closing the door to people who are simply going to poor and dependent for generations. Immigration has to be organized to fit the needs of this country with people who will benefit America. Not just for people who used a loophole like visa overstay or an open section of the southern border.
yes, that is a major reason why the us produced the best economy in history. It was all those immigrants 100-150 years ago that powered a lot of us factories. For example, ford in the early 1900's employed large numbers of immigrants:
in the late 1800's, the us textile industry overtook the british textile industry in large part because of large numbers of immigrants, particularly in places like the lower east side and garment district in nyc, which employed huge numbers of jewish immigrants.
Many more examples like that.
And most of these factories don't exist anymore. You're carrying on about 1914?Move into the present day, you're seriously stuck in the past.
Also, as others have pointed out, you're confusing cause and effect. Low-skilled immigrants moved to the United States because these industries already existed here. They didn't come here and create them. That's why they moved to the United States instead of, say, Ethiopia.
I wonder how those rates stack up against places like Kentucky, West Virginia, Mississippi and a fist full of other Red states? My guess is they are uncomfortably close and no slam dunk any of them would beat any or all of those Latin American locations.
Hell, just look at the proficiency rates of US 12th graders, as a group:
12th Grade NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) Scores, Percent at Proficient or Above:
Reading: 37%
Math: 24%
For Massachusetts, the state ranked Number One in K-12 education:
Reading: 43%
Math: 34%
Best state for K-12 education in the country, and not even half their high school graduates are proficient. Not even half.
And people wonder why more and more Americans are having a hard time making ends meet to support themselves and their families. It's blatantly obvious US public schools are severely under-educating most students.
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.
