Nancy Pelosi: 'Race Has Something To Do With' Delay On Immigration Reform

[JohnR! 5,495]

Thinking about this more, what Nancy Pelosi is doing is brilliant. She's getting more registered Democrats, and at the same time she can deflect any criticism by calling her detractors racist.

What I find really interesting is that the unemployment rate for black folks is twice the national average. I wonder if those folks will still be cheering for Nancy when all these newly minted USCs start taking their jobs? They probably will since the alternative is a bunch of old white male bible thumpers with a few crazy white females mixed in. (See Michelle Bachman)

As it has been for over 50 years or so, ergo you state the obvious.

Breaking news: Water is wet!

Edited April 11, 2014 by Gegel

[Karee 4,190]

As it has been for over 50 years or so, ergo you state the obvious.

Breaking news: Water is wet!

Since you seem to like graphics so much:

[Janelle2002 3,865]

Start with doing away with the Birthright citizenship then, it will stop the 0.1%

It is not just 0.1%

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees U.S. citizenship to those born on its territory, provided the person is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.

This practice is believed to be popular among women in South Korea, Hong Kong, and Taiwan.^[1] According to Edward Chang, a scholar of Asian American Studies at the University of California, Riverside, the practice is popular among the elite and wealthy circles of South Korea, and can cost thousands of dollars for a company to arrange the travel.^[2] Under a 2009 South Korean law, a child born abroad as a result of birth tourism must choose by age 22 to retain either Korean citizenship or foreign citizenship.^[3]

In California, three Chinese-owned "baby care centers" offer expectant mothers a place to give birth to an American citizen for a fee of $14,750, which includes shopping and sightseeing trips. "We don't encourage moms to break the law — just to take advantage of it," explains Robert Zhou, the agency's owner. Zhou says that he and his wife have helped up to 600 women give birth in the United States within the last five years. In fact, they started the business after traveling to the United States to have a child of their own. Zhou explains that the number of agencies like his has soared in the past five years.^[4] Zhou believes that a cheaper education is often a motivating factor, and his pitch to prospective clients includes the notion that public education in the United States is "free." One of his clients, Christina Chuo, explains that her parents "paid a huge amount of money for their education" in the United States because they were foreign students; having an American citizen child permits her child to acquire the same education at a lower tuition. She also noted that she and her husband were not interested in permanently immigrating to the United States, "except, perhaps, when they retire."^[5] Other options exist where mainlanders can deliver babies in Saipan, U.S. commonwealth, where the cost is 70,000 yuan and does not require any U.S. citizenship.^[6] Congress representatives such as Phil Gingrey have tried to put an end to birth tourism, who said these people are "gaming the system".^[7]More than 70% of the newborns in Saipan have birth tourism PRC parents who take advantage of the 45 day visa free visitation rules of the island and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to ensure that their children can have American citizenship.^[8]

Birth tourism from Turkey is also reportedly popular. According to Selin Burcuoglu, a Turkish woman who traveled to the United States to give birth last year, the process was easy: "We found a company on the Internet and decided to go to Austin for our child's birth. It was incredibly professional. They organized everything for me. I had no problem adjusting and I had an excellent birth. I don’t want her to deal with visa issues — American citizenship has so many advantages."^[9] Birth tourism can be a lucrative business for immigrants who facilitate the travel and birthing process for their former countrymen. Turkish doctors, hotel owners, and immigrant families in the United States have reportedly arranged the U.S. birth of 12,000 Turkish children since 2003. The Turkish-owned Marmara Hotel group offers a "birth tourism package" that includes accommodations at their Manhattan branch. "We hosted 15 families last year," said Nur Ercan Mağden, head manager of The Marmara Manhattan, adding that the cost was $45,000 each.^[10]

The Tucson Medical Center (TMC) in Arizona offers a "birth package" to expectant mothers, and actively recruits in Mexico. Expectant mothers can schedule a Caesarean or simply arrive a few weeks before their due date. The cost reportedly ranges from $2,300 to $4,600, and includes a hospital stay, exams, and a massage. Additional children trigger a surcharge of $500.^[11] Similarly, "birth packages" marketed towards Mexican tourists and tourists abroad are also available in El Paso, TX. This recent generation of international obstetric services offer tourists low rates and a decreased amount of time required in the United States for their delivery.^[12]

The Nigerian media is also focused on birth tourism in the United States and recently published an article titled, "American Agitations Threaten a Nigerian Practice." The practice referred to is that of Nigerians traveling to the United States to have a child — a practice that, according to the newspaper, is "spreading so fast that it is close to becoming an obsession."^[13]

Being U.S. citizens, these children do not have to meet the stricter international student rules to enter U.S. universities and colleges. In addition, when they turn 21, they become eligible to petition for a grant of permanent residency for their parents through family reunification. Some prospective mothers misrepresent their intentions of coming to the United States, a violation of U.S. immigration law. However, it is not illegal for a woman to come to the U.S. to give birth.^[14]

The Center for Health Care Statistics estimates that there were 7,462 births to foreign residents in the United States in 2008, the most recent year for which statistics are available. That is a small fraction of the roughly 4.3 million total births that year.^[15]The Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank which favors limits on immigration, estimates that there are approximately 40,000 annual births to parents in the United States as birth tourists.^[16] However, total births to temporary immigrants in the United States (e.g. tourists, students, guestworkers) could be as high as 200,000.^[17]

[JohnR! 5,495]

here is a graph you might like as well:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/08/21/through-good-times-and-bad-black-unemployment-is-consistently-double-that-of-whites/

Black unemployment rate is consistently twice that of whites

By Drew DeSilver47 comments

Much has changed for African-Americans since the 1963 March on Washington (which, recall, was a march for “Jobs and Freedom”), but one thing hasn’t: The unemployment rate among blacks is about double that among whites, as it has been for most of the past six decades.

In 1954, the earliest year for which the Bureau of Labor Statistics has consistent unemployment data by race, the white rate averaged 5% and the black rate averaged 9.9%. Last month, the jobless rate among whites was 6.6%; among blacks, 12.6%. Over that time, the unemployment rate for blacks has averaged about 2.2 times that for whites.

The widest gaps, when black unemployment was as much as 2.77 times that of white unemployment, came in the late 1980s, as the manufacturing sectors that employed disproportionate shares of African-Americans shriveled. The smallest gaps, ironically, came in the summer of 2009 during the Great Recession; white unemployment rose so high, so fast, that the black jobless rate was “only” 1.67 times higher.

The black-white unemployment gap appears to have emerged in the 1940s, according to a 1999 analysis of Census data. Although labor economists, sociologists and other researchers have offered many explanations for the persistent 2-to-1 gap — from the differing industrial distribution of black and white workers to a “skills gap” between them — there’s no consensus on causes. One 2011 working paper, after reviewing existing research on wage and unemployment differentials among blacks and whites, concluded that “none of the existing models of race discrimination in the labor market explains the major empirical regularities.”

One common explanation, as William A. Darity Jr. of Duke University told Salon in 2011, is that blacks are “the last to be hired in a good economy, and when there’s a downturn, they’re the first to be released.” A 2010 article testing that “last hired, first fired” hypothesis against panel data from the Current Population Survey (from which the unemployment rate is derived) found considerable support for the “first fired” part but not for the “last hired” part: Blacks are in fact disproportionately likely to lose their jobs as the business cycle weakens, but the hiring side is more complex: “[E]arly in the business cycle, those blacks with a stronger attachment to the labor force (i.e., the unemployed) are the first hired. Blacks who are nonparticipants tend to be hired late in the business cycle when labor demand is particularly strong.”

Since you seem to like graphics so much:

[Janelle2002 3,865]

Thinking about this more, what Nancy Pelosi is doing is brilliant. She's getting more registered Democrats, and at the same time she can deflect any criticism by calling her detractors racist.

What I find really interesting is that the unemployment rate for black folks is twice the national average. I wonder if those folks will still be cheering for Nancy when all these newly minted USCs start taking their jobs? They probably will since the alternative is a bunch of old white male bible thumpers with a few crazy white females mixed in. (See Michelle Bachman)

I love how my post was turned into a discussion about black people.

We are not discussing American Blacks and I will not allow you to hijack my topic into a discussion about blacks!!!

[JohnR! 5,495]

I love how my post was turned into a discussion about black people.

We are not discussing American Blacks and I will not allow you to hijack my topic into a discussion about blacks!!!

I apologize. I am guilty as charged, but I had to point out the sophistry made in by another poster.

[Karee 4,190]

here is a graph you might like as well:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/08/21/through-good-times-and-bad-black-unemployment-is-consistently-double-that-of-whites/

Black unemployment rate is consistently twice that of whites

By Drew DeSilver47 comments

Much has changed for African-Americans since the 1963 March on Washington (which, recall, was a march for “Jobs and Freedom”), but one thing hasn’t: The unemployment rate among blacks is about double that among whites, as it has been for most of the past six decades.

In 1954, the earliest year for which the Bureau of Labor Statistics has consistent unemployment data by race, the white rate averaged 5% and the black rate averaged 9.9%. Last month, the jobless rate among whites was 6.6%; among blacks, 12.6%. Over that time, the unemployment rate for blacks has averaged about 2.2 times that for whites.

The widest gaps, when black unemployment was as much as 2.77 times that of white unemployment, came in the late 1980s, as the manufacturing sectors that employed disproportionate shares of African-Americans shriveled. The smallest gaps, ironically, came in the summer of 2009 during the Great Recession; white unemployment rose so high, so fast, that the black jobless rate was “only” 1.67 times higher.

The black-white unemployment gap appears to have emerged in the 1940s, according to a 1999 analysis of Census data. Although labor economists, sociologists and other researchers have offered many explanations for the persistent 2-to-1 gap — from the differing industrial distribution of black and white workers to a “skills gap” between them — there’s no consensus on causes. One 2011 working paper, after reviewing existing research on wage and unemployment differentials among blacks and whites, concluded that “none of the existing models of race discrimination in the labor market explains the major empirical regularities.”

One common explanation, as William A. Darity Jr. of Duke University told Salon in 2011, is that blacks are “the last to be hired in a good economy, and when there’s a downturn, they’re the first to be released.” A 2010 article testing that “last hired, first fired” hypothesis against panel data from the Current Population Survey (from which the unemployment rate is derived) found considerable support for the “first fired” part but not for the “last hired” part: Blacks are in fact disproportionately likely to lose their jobs as the business cycle weakens, but the hiring side is more complex: “[E]arly in the business cycle, those blacks with a stronger attachment to the labor force (i.e., the unemployed) are the first hired. Blacks who are nonparticipants tend to be hired late in the business cycle when labor demand is particularly strong.”

Thanks for making my point. Simple math will tell you that adding more low income people will also add more low income people competing for the same number of low paying jobs.

Now to say that low income black's employment opportunities would not be affected by a sudden influx new low income workers is kinda like saying the low income black folks didn't want the jobs in the first place. I would never say that. That would be racist.

[JohnR! 5,495]

Thanks for making my point. Simple math will tell you that adding more low income people will also add more low income people competing for the same number of low paying jobs.

It was easy to point out the flaw in your statement, so no need to thank me.

How about you get back on topic?

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

It's starting to look like Su&Marvin and Janelle possibly meant themselves.

We know where you stand so it's no point arguing.

Edited April 11, 2014 by Su and Marvin

[Karee 4,190]

It was easy to point out the flaw in your statement, so no need to thank me.

How about you get back on topic?

You lead the way. I'm right behind you.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Thinking about this more, what Nancy Pelosi is doing is brilliant. She's getting more registered Democrats, and at the same time she can deflect any criticism by calling her detractors racist.

What I find really interesting is that the unemployment rate f black forolks is twice the national average. I wonder if those folks will still be cheering for Nancy when all these newly minted USCs start taking their jobs? They probably will since the alternative is a bunch of old white male bible thumpers with a few crazy white females mixed in. (See Michelle Bachman)

Sorry Karee, Gegel was making a point and I didn't read up.

Edited April 11, 2014 by Su and Marvin

[Janelle2002 3,865]

I apologize. I am guilty as charged, but I had to point out the sophistry made in by another poster.

I understand.

What does this have to do with black folks? It's crazy, when Janelle or I even bring up black people, we're obsessed with race. When any of you do it, it's never even harped on.

Thank the heck out of YOU!!!!

Let one of us bring this up in a topic that had nothing to do with blacks and all would break lose.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

I understand.

Thank the heck out of YOU!!!!

Let one of us bring this up in a topic that had nothing to do with blacks and all would break lose.

To be fair, Gegel brought it up for comparison issues. I had to apologize to Karee about it. But, it's still a valid issue.

[Leatherneck 693]

For people who were bought here as a kid, I applaud them for stepping forward, applying for the proper visa to stay here in the U.S. and being allowed a path to citizenship.

I do not support illegal aliens. Their parents are not on my good list.

She is just stating the obvious. We know the Republicans does not like anything darker than a piece of paper. Look at what Bush did to that boat of Haitian refugees that time.

And for your information, the Chinese do illegal things when it comes to migrating to the U.S. as well. You don't hear any complaints about them.

http://world.time.com/2013/11/27/chinese-women-are-flocking-to-the-u-s-to-have-babies/

http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/epaper/2013-05/17/content_16506471.htm

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2013/05/17/in-california-a-business-that-helps-chinese-tourists-have-american-babies/

Do you:

• live in Southern California?
• know any blacks that live in Southern California?
• really know or understand the serious impact illegal aliens have rained down upon others that are "darker than a piece of paper" Do you?

If interested in increasing your knowledge of how illegal aliens from south of the border have impacted large numbers of the other group "darker than a piece of paper" you can start with this link.

http://www.examiner.com/article/mexican-gangs-trying-to-run-black-families-out-of-southern-california

Edited April 11, 2014 by Leatherneck

[Janelle2002 3,865]

To be fair, Gegel brought it up for comparison issues. I had to apologize to Karee about it. But, it's still a valid issue.

I forgive Gegel.