2005 September 28 Wednesday
Since 1980 Hispanics Almost Three Quarters Of Poverty Increase

Robert Samuelson takes on myths about poverty and notes that trends in poverty would be much more favorable without Hispanic immigration.

Ron Haskins of the Brookings Institution reports that the share of never-married mothers working rose from 46 percent to 66 percent from 1994 to 2002. The number of families receiving traditional welfare dropped from 5 million in 1994 to 2 million in 2003.

Given these trends, the overall poverty rate should be drifting down. It isn't. The main reason, as I've written before, is immigration. We have uncontrolled entry of poor, unskilled workers across our southern border. Although many succeed, many don't, and many poor Latino immigrants have children, who are also poor. In 2004, 25 percent of the poverty population was Hispanic, up from 12 percent in 1980. Over this period, Hispanics represented almost three-quarters of the increase in the poverty population.

Aside: I'd like to know how many previously on the traditional welfare rolls have gotten themselves reclassified as disabled so that they get Social Security disability benefits instead. I've read the number is sizable but haven't seen it quantified. Anyone know a source of data on this? In the Netherlands the shift of people into the ranks of the disabled makes their welfare rolls look smaller too. Same game, different country.

Why let in lots of people who are going to expand the size of the dysfunctional lower class? Not all Hispanics wind up that way. But skills requirements on Hispanic immigrants could drastically cut down the number who do.

The big Hispanic influx has kept up black and white poverty rates as well by driving down wages and benefits for jobs which require less skills and less intellectual ability. George W. Bush has made it easy for illegals to come into Louisiana and take jobs reconstruction the devastated areas. But as we've been reminded of late, there's no shortage of poor natives in southern Louisiana available to do the work if immigration laws were enforced.

If the Democratic Party was not as morally and intellectually corrupt as the Republican Party then Democratic Party leaders would be fighting to keep the illegals out of Louisiana in order to give construction jobs and other jobs to the poor natives of Louisiana. Liberals in politics talk a good game on race and compassion. But that's all moral posturing. They do not mean it. They just want to make it clear that they are morally superior to conservatives.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2005 September 28 05:37 PM  Immigration Economics


Comments
John S Bolton said at September 28, 2005 10:28 PM:

That's right; if one wants to have less poverty in one's country, the last option one would approve is to import vastly more of it. It gives the lie to the 'compassionate' propaganda, that our politicos are all but unanimous in their enthusiasm to multiply the numbers of the poor, by waving in million after million of illiterates. It looks more as if they delighted in human degradation being greatly more prominent here. To want to make leprosy endemic in NYC, when it had been gone for decades, looks like delight in the trashing of our minimum standards. To want to have houses with 10, 20, 30 , 40 and more non English speaking menials piled in, would seem to show hatred against our achievement in having earlier put those conditions behind us. SE FL is about to be declared a malarious district; does this show compassion for our people and their minimum standards , well being and freedom from the correlates of poverty?

John S Bolton said at September 28, 2005 11:20 PM:

Searching for "median household net worth and financial wealth by race" gives information that Hispanic household financial wealth is less than 1% of that of the majority. There is similar information to be found searching: household net worth per person hispanic. People with no savings depend on the net taxpayer when things go wrong. Malice against the provident could explain the desire to hugely increase a group of this kind.

Jorge D.C. said at September 29, 2005 3:59 PM:

Robert Samuelson takes on myths about poverty and notes that trends in poverty would be much more favorable without Hispanic immigration.

Immigration has always been incredibly expensive for the natives. There are of course innumerable great immigrants that have helped improve our society. But even Borja or Samuelson etc don't get to real hidden costs IMO.

The Great Wave from early 1900s produced horribly corrupt anti-democratic ethno vote-rigging machines in most major cities that exist to this day in places like Chicago.

The Italian immigrants have given us many notables and tons of unheralded hardworking solid citizens. At first glance it seems like an obvious net plus. But what is the cost of 100 years of La Cosa Nostra to American society in tangible dollars and intangible corrosion of the nation's moral and legal fabric?

There was no significant Marxist or Socialist movement in the USA before the arrival of the Eastern European Jews. What is the total cost of lurching an entire nation's politics far leftward? The mind boggles. Think about not only tax dollars down the rat hole, but lives lost to soft-on-crime governments, curtailments of constitutional freedoms like gun ownership etc.

My point is the true costs of immigration have been huge. And now in the modern era we can add the simple fact that the infrastructure of the country has begun to strain under the sheer numbers in certain regions. How exactly can that cost be quantified?

So poverty is fueled by mass low skill immigration. That's common sensical enough. But what about the actual cost of turning an entire nation from white to brown? Are not higher interest rates just a tip of the iceberg? I have a feeling California's AAA bond rating will never come back. And as far as I know there are no brown countries leading the world in GDP or per capita income. Who is adding up those costs?

Jorge D.C. said at September 29, 2005 4:00 PM:

Robert Samuelson takes on myths about poverty and notes that trends in poverty would be much more favorable without Hispanic immigration.

Immigration has always been incredibly expensive for the natives. There are of course innumerable great immigrants that have helped improve our society. But even Borja or Samuelson etc don't get to real hidden costs IMO.

The Great Wave from early 1900s produced horribly corrupt anti-democratic ethno vote-rigging machines in most major cities that exist to this day in places like Chicago.

The Italian immigrants have given us many notables and tons of unheralded hardworking solid citizens. At first glance it seems like an obvious net plus. But what is the cost of 100 years of La Cosa Nostra to American society in tangible dollars and intangible corrosion of the nation's moral and legal fabric?

There was no significant Marxist or Socialist movement in the USA before the arrival of the Eastern European Jews. What is the total cost of lurching an entire nation's politics far leftward? The mind boggles. Think about not only tax dollars down the rat hole, but lives lost to soft-on-crime governments, curtailments of constitutional freedoms like gun ownership etc.

My point is the true costs of immigration have been huge. And now in the modern era we can add the simple fact that the infrastructure of the country has begun to strain under the sheer numbers in certain regions. How exactly can that cost be quantified?

So poverty is fueled by mass low skill immigration. That's common sensical enough. But what about the actual cost of turning an entire nation from white to brown? Are not higher interest rates just a tip of the iceberg? I have a feeling California's AAA bond rating will never come back. And as far as I know there are no brown countries leading the world in GDP or per capita income. Who is adding up those costs?

Big Bill said at September 29, 2005 9:06 PM:

Regarding Italian crime, we now have a TV show to honor Italian murderers and hoodlums called The Sopranos. It is about the Italian garbage cartel that cost New Yorkers over $500,000,000 per year as recently as 1995.

And what does it do to a New Yorker's self respect and morality? For years they could casually mention that mobsters extort garbage, linen and delivery services throughout the city.

How do you quantify the rot to your morals and soul that inevitably occur when you readily assent to and ignore such grotesque levels of criminality on a daily basis?

How do New Yorkers explain to their kids that they are whores deep down inside?

rob said at September 30, 2005 11:31 AM:

Maybe we could find a way to bring ~30% of black women off the dating market-the big sex disparity keeps blacks polyamorous, which is a big part of the problem.

Don said at October 9, 2005 4:37 PM:

The blacks need something like the Catholic church was for the Irish. Something to provide values and discipline where needed the most. Something that extolls the virtues of hard work and sacrifice for your family while holding women to be something special.

I fear we are creating our own group of 'Gypsies' that perpetually criminal ethnicity that never, ever works for a living (as a group).

Arafel said at October 9, 2005 6:02 PM:

I always see this problem discussed in terms of the growth of the underclass, rather than in terms of the shrinkage of the, well, "overclass." But part of the problem of the relative growth of the underclass seems to be low American white, Jewish, and Asian fertility. I suspect that fertility among blacks and hispanics is inversely related to intelligence. Having nothing against blacks and hispanics per se, I would be well-satisfied if we could just contrive that the majority of births be to the most intelligent blacks and hispanics.

In support of higher fertility, cutting the total size of federal, state, and local taxes and, particularly, getting rid of progressive tax rates is becoming more and more urgent. I'll even say frankly that I think support of frail men and post-menopausal women through public coercion has reached an extreme that's anti-life. On the side of expenses, it seems we must consider liberalizing our exquisite standards for providing for children: Given the stakes involved in low fertility, it seems five children dressed by Sam Wall beat two or three dressed by Ralph Lauren. Under the circumstances, the best gifts one can give to children are intelligent brothers, sisters, cousins, and classmates.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright