AZ immigration bill becomes hot potato in gubernatorial race

posted at 10:55 am on May 24, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

How much of a signature issue has illegal immigration become in a cycle that supposedly focused on nothing but the economy? The new law in Arizona has entered into the politics of the governor’s race … in California. GOP hopeful Steve Poizner has a new ad in the final days before the June primary in the Golden State hammering opponent Meg Whitman for her public stance against Arizona’s SB 1070. Poizner wonders whether California needs a governor who has the same opinion about the Arizona measure as Mexico’s president, Felipe Calderon:

That’s a bit harsh, although technically accurate. The longer video from which Poizner takes his Whitman quote does show the former eBay CEO explicitly opposing the bill, but insisting that she supports enforcement and an “economic fence”:

But doesn’t “securing the border” include enforcing the law? Unless Whitman plans on rolling tanks up and down the joint border with Mexico, which would arguably be an even bigger intrusion on federal responsibilities, “enforcement” has to include checking the status of people detained by the police for other purposes when they are suspected of not being in the country legally. Which, by the way, is how California’s penal code reads now.  As Kerry Picket noted a week ago, Section 834b of the Penal Code puts California law enforcement in exactly the same position as their Arizona brethren:

(a) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws. (b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following: (1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding documentation to indicate his or her legal status. (2) Notify the person of his or her apparent status as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws and inform him or her that, apart from any criminal justice proceedings, he or she must either obtain legal status or leave the United States. (3) Notify the Attorney General of California and the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service of the apparent illegal status and provide any additional information that may be requested by any other public entity. (c) Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city, county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent or limit the cooperation required by subdivision (a) is expressly prohibited.

Does Whitman propose a repeal of 834b, or an executive order not to enforce it?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Does Whitman propose a repeal of 834b, or an executive order not to enforce it?

The gauntlet is thrown.

Ms. Whitman…? you have 2 minutes to respond.

ted c on May 24, 2010 at 10:58 AM

Typical political crap-speak, don’t commit to anything and serve up nothing but empty platitudes when asked about an issue. This middle of the road attitude has to end, stand for something.

Bishop on May 24, 2010 at 11:00 AM

A majority of Americans support Arizona, and their efforts to put a kibosh on illegals entering the country. It’s come down to the fact that American lives depend on it.

It’s ashame, that we’re seeing even the republicans, standing against the will of a majority of Americans. Wasn’t the health care bill a lesson for everyone? Apparently not.

capejasmine on May 24, 2010 at 11:00 AM

I thought the faux empathetic wrist bands against the AZ law were the “hot potatoes”. What gives?

ya2daup on May 24, 2010 at 11:01 AM

The “gringo masks” did’nt solve this issue?

VegasRick on May 24, 2010 at 11:04 AM

Was Whitman born in Austria? I don’t know, that question just occurred to me for some reason….

RBMN on May 24, 2010 at 11:04 AM

Sorry Meg! I’m not “Buying It Now”!!!!!! And my “Best Offer” is, quit while you have some credibility left!

Dread Pirate Roberts VI on May 24, 2010 at 11:06 AM

How is it possible that Kaleefornia allows the Lakers to travel into the hostile territory of Phoenix?

Stop the NBA Playoffs now.

Oh. What? You’re not THAT serious about it.

fogw on May 24, 2010 at 11:07 AM

I am very confident that the immigration issue works towards our favor in ’10 & ’12. However, I am not so thrilled about its use in intra-party battles. While Poizner has surged bin the primary (Meg has lost an unheard of 50pt lead, calling into question her campaigning abilities) a may indeed be the better conservative, we are talking about California here, Poizner’s shot in the general is decidedly less than Whitman’s. But everywhere else in the country we should be capitalizing on this opportunity relentlessly.

Archimedes on May 24, 2010 at 11:07 AM

Typical political crap-speak, don’t commit to anything and serve up nothing but empty platitudes when asked about an issue. This middle of the road attitude has to end, stand for something.

Bishop on May 24, 2010 at 11:00 AM

As Chris Christie said, an escape hatch.

Archimedes on May 24, 2010 at 11:08 AM

No one reacts to the actual law.

The Mexican Cartels are behind this misinformation campaign.

If you oppose 1070 you are on the side of the Drug Lords controlling American immigration.

petunia on May 24, 2010 at 11:08 AM

Whitman keeps hearkening back to using E-verify to assure that employers are not knowingly hiring illegals, but didn’t AZ already have a firm law in place prior to its newest enforcement legislation?

Whitman seems to worry too much about legal challenges to the AZ law than the issue merits. A few rebutted challenges in favor of AZ could put to paid that whole argument.

Legal challenges are a way of life with grievance mongers. Do we run away from statutes because there is a possible legal challenge?

onlineanalyst on May 24, 2010 at 11:12 AM

Yes, Whitman is another Arnold. A RINO–actually, just a liberal.

And FYI to Meg, running the state is NOT like running E-bay. Did you have intractable unions and a liberal-dominated legislature at E-bay? We are not stupid.

I would rather see Poizner. At least he’s not slick enough to hide who he really is. And more slick we do not need.

And who knows about Brown? He is so crazy he might end up doing something good. Wait…no, I didn’t say that.

PattyJ on May 24, 2010 at 11:15 AM

If you oppose 1070 you are on the side of the Drug Lords controlling American immigration.

petunia on May 24, 2010 at 11:08 AM

Exactly. I never thought I would see the day in this country where politicians willingly and openly vow not to uphold the rule of law.

cntrlfrk on May 24, 2010 at 11:16 AM

A majority of Americans support Arizona, and their efforts to put a kibosh on illegals entering the country. It’s come down to the fact that American lives depend on it.

It’s ashame, that we’re seeing even the republicans, standing against the will of a majority of Americans. Wasn’t the health care bill a lesson for everyone? Apparently not.

capejasmine on May 24, 2010 at 11:00 AM

The thing is, it isn’t just American lives that are lost by the current failure at the borders.

The main target of the Drug Cartels are the Mexican Nationals who they help get into the country. When they don’t two the line they get killed. And their friends and associates are targets of violence and rape. Arizonans are caught in the cross fire between Mexicans.

It is just like the Mafia in the 1930s, Drugs are the source of revenue that is fueling the crime.

Shutting the border is the only way to stop this. We have to keep the criminals out.

Then maybe we can get the good guys to come work with actual work visas and background checks.

There is no legitimate reason to oppose that.

But as long as the Cartels control one of our political parties and some of the other… we get this stupid crap.

Sure we are going to cut back on drug addicts… because we just haven’t been trying before./s

Hide the ball, pretend it is all about demand, don’t watch the suppliers… keep things the same so the Drug Lords can keep their businesses going.

By making it appear like this is about racism the Drug Lords have figured out a PR plan to keep doing what they do until our government is as corrupt as Mexico.

petunia on May 24, 2010 at 11:21 AM

The donks are running attack ads against Whitman and not Poizner. The communists will always show who they are truly afraid of. Would Whitman be better than Jerry Brown? HELL YES!

jukin on May 24, 2010 at 11:21 AM

“enforcement” has to include checking the status of people detained by the police for other purposes when they are suspected of not being in the country legally. Which, by the way, is how California’s penal code reads now.

And it’s not just California that also authorizes police to question people about their immigration status. Mexico does as well. When Mexico’s president was interviewed last week by Wolf Blitzer, Blitzer asked Calderon if foreigners in Mexico have to show their papers when asked by Mexican police, and Calderon responded (paraphrasing): yes, of course, law enforcement have to be permitted to do their job. And in Mexico, the police (and even the Mexican military) can stop a foreigner and ask to see their papers for any reason; the Mexican police don’t have to wait until the person has been stopped because there’s probable cause to suspect they’ve broken some other (non-immigration) law or ordinance (as in AZ).

But none of that stopped our idiot politicians in D.C. from leaping to their feet and cheering when Calderon hypocritically characterized the Arizona law as racist and unfair.

AZCoyote on May 24, 2010 at 11:21 AM

By her statement, Whitman has BLOWN all those millions she’s already spent. Look for a back-pedal shortly.

Oh, and Ed, the MFM mime now (that they’ve chosen to acknowledge it exists) is that 834(b) was ‘declared unconstitutional’ per the ACLU. At least that what I read in the paper yesterday.

GarandFan on May 24, 2010 at 11:22 AM

we dont even need to build a bigass fence

stop the economic incentives

stop anchor babies

blatantblue on May 24, 2010 at 11:22 AM

It’s telling that these politicians are more concerned with POSSIBLE civil rights violations, than ACTUAL civil rights violations.

In CA, the gaming tribes have systematically violated the basic civil and human rights of a large percentage of their own people, yet the politicians look the other way because of campaign contributions, that Ed has reported on here before.

We need BORDER security and enforcement FIRST. We don’t need amnesty. IF we need more legal immigrants, we NEED to improve the efficiency of processing the needed paperwork.

Instead of paying a COYOTE $5,000 to come across, let them pay US and well get them in a VIP line.

originalpechanga on May 24, 2010 at 11:23 AM

Andrew McCarthy has an excellent column on the divisiveness of the ObaMao philosophy and its enablers, especially in light of the AZ law and the Calderon visit.
http://article.nationalreview.com/434722/the-house-divided/andrew-c-mccarthy

onlineanalyst on May 24, 2010 at 11:24 AM

Whitman keeps hearkening back to using E-verify to assure that employers are not knowingly hiring illegals, but didn’t AZ already have a firm law in place prior to its newest enforcement legislation?

Whitman seems to worry too much about legal challenges to the AZ law than the issue merits. A few rebutted challenges in favor of AZ could put to paid that whole argument.

Legal challenges are a way of life with grievance mongers. Do we run away from statutes because there is a possible legal challenge?

onlineanalyst on May 24, 2010 at 11:12 AM

Once some of the legal dust settles I look for other states to implement the legally tested AZ legislation.

DFCtomm on May 24, 2010 at 11:27 AM

For God’s sake, people, Steve Poizner supported Al Gore in 2000. Nooooo thanks.

rightheaded on May 24, 2010 at 11:28 AM

ugh

cmsinaz on May 24, 2010 at 11:31 AM

California (my home state) is so screwed.

There is not one brain out there.

jake-the-goose on May 24, 2010 at 11:32 AM

good! nice to see the GOP EMBRACE what is a winning issue!

ginaswo on May 24, 2010 at 11:37 AM

Border security alone is just that. Border security. It doesn’t address the other source of illegal aliens, visa over stays, nor does it address amnesty.

This has me concerned. Even Palin side steps the issue of those already here. I can see strong border measures being implemented by the so called conservatives, only to use that as an excuse to reward the 15 million law breakers already here, in some form or another.

Now is the time to go “in your face” mode with this issue. Immigration law enforcement advocates finally have the momentum on this issue.

We should be pushing for the strongest measures of implementation of the “attrition through enforcement” strategy and even open up dialog on birth right citizenship. Let’s go for the win instead of incremental ism that will only garner shallow victories for the movement, while giving the law breakers exactly what they seek.

voiceofreason on May 24, 2010 at 11:41 AM

Exactly. I never thought I would see the day in this country where politicians willingly and openly vow not to uphold the rule of law.

cntrlfrk on May 24, 2010 at 11:16 AM

Agreed. And to make is suck even MORE, the law they’re not upholding is a useful law, which would help reduce crime, lower unemployment, raise low-end wages, and treat Hispanics like adults capable of choosing right from wrong.

Next thing you know, they’ll be turning a blind eye to the travels of radical Muslims into and out of the United States.

hawksruleva on May 24, 2010 at 11:46 AM

We need BORDER security and enforcement FIRST. We don’t need amnesty. IF we need more legal immigrants, we NEED to improve the efficiency of processing the needed paperwork.

Instead of paying a COYOTE $5,000 to come across, let them pay US and well get them in a VIP line.

originalpechanga on May 24, 2010 at 11:23 AM

That is right.

All talk of any kind of Amnesty needs to go away.

If there is ever amensty given for people who are currently here it should be way way in the future like twenty years out.

Because there are too many criminals mixed in this bunch and it is going to take too long to figure out who they are.

But some kind of legal status… work visas… or family visas something like that after they go back and come in through the front door…

Proof that you were here during the last 10 years or so should be a strike against citizenship not a point in favor.

This is the era of criminal Mexicans… is it a shame that many fairly innocents are caught in that description, sure but the truth is the truth.

Our borders are now controlled by criminals. And anyone remotely associated with them is suspect.

La Raza should be throughly investigated. They have made an agenda that too closely matches the purposes of the Drug Lords.

How come they don’t care about the kidnappings, rapes, coyotes, all of that? They don’t make a peep about any of the crime against Mexican Nationals who are here illegally.

They only care about not enforcing our laws and granting amnesty.

They work so hard to say anyone who wants to fight these crimes are racist. Why? Why don’t they help law enforcement find the criminal element? Why?

Why do La Raza’s goals so closely mirror the Drug Lord’s goals?

And why are our politicians for the status quo that allows the Drug Lords to continue? Who benefits from doing what Democrats want? Not us.

petunia on May 24, 2010 at 11:49 AM

What the heck is an “economic fence?” We don’t need an economic fence, we need a people fence.

Sanctuary cities are implicitly illegal already (in CA), so how does her plan eliminate them?

Two of the more glaring pap in her spiel.

Honorable mention goes to immigrant kindergarteners having many of the same problems in school our children do.

Dusty on May 24, 2010 at 11:51 AM

They should make E-Verify an instant check (if its not currently) like the background checks required before you can buy a handgun. Governments could then require the police to run it whenever they do a check for outstanding warrants. No more worries about supposed racial profiling.

agmartin on May 24, 2010 at 11:56 AM

They should make E-Verify an instant check (if its not currently) like the background checks required before you can buy a handgun. Governments could then require the police to run it whenever they do a check for outstanding warrants. No more worries about supposed racial profiling.

agmartin on May 24, 2010 at 11:56 AM

That makes entirely too much sense!

I’m good if they want to check my citizenship. I don’t have a problem with that.

Why aren’t they doing that already?

petunia on May 24, 2010 at 12:07 PM

Californicate is an even bigger mess than Arizona, from an illegal immigration viewpoint. It’s a tightrope to walk from the primary to the Mecha/LaRaza general election, but to come out as “opposed” to SB 1070 is sort of crazy, isn’t it?

Jaibones on May 24, 2010 at 12:20 PM

an “economic fence”

hey, whatever happened to that “virtual fence?”

fake fences are only for fake problems, or for people who think illegal immigration is only a fake problem.

Whitman FAIL.

funky chicken on May 24, 2010 at 12:33 PM

GOP hopeful Steve Poizner has a new ad in the final days before the June primary in the Golden State hammering opponent Meg Whitman for her public stance against Arizona’s SB 1070.

It is amazing how the public stance and support of one Sarah Palin has emboldened conservatives to support the AZ SB 1070 in spite of all the negative squawking induced by Democrats, liberals, illegal immigrants and victim politics practitioners.
.
L E A D E R S H I P

ExpressoBold on May 24, 2010 at 12:35 PM

For God’s sake, people, Steve Poizner supported Al Gore in 2000. Nooooo thanks.

rightheaded on May 24, 2010 at 11:28 AM

I didn’t bother to vote in 2000. It was an election between two undistinguished, silver spoon, second generation politicians. If I’d voted, it would have been for Ralph Nader as a protest vote, because at least he’s a self made man.

In 2000, Al Gore seemed more experienced than GW Bush. I think the media did a good job of hiding the fact that the man is clinically insane…or losing in 2000 sent him into a psychotic breakdown. It’s kinda funny in a way that Hollyweirdos were so excited to jump on the global warming bandwagon. It has helped to show lots of folks what morons and BSers these celebrities are, IMHO.

funky chicken on May 24, 2010 at 12:44 PM

Those who oppose enforcement of immigration laws do nothing to make the journey safer for illegals trying to enter our country. They do nothing to help prevent illegals from ending up dead or being held hostage in drop houses. They do nothing to prevent the illegals from being raped or tortured in drop houses while being held for ransom.

I have yet to see any group of supporters going down to the border to guard illegals entry into the US, to prevent the coyotes from taking advantage of them or from the drug cartel killing them.

Obama and opponents of SB 1070 take advantage of every photo op to call Arizonans racist and misguided. Afterward, they return to their comfortable homes and never give another thought to the illegals – until the next photo op arises.

If these people are sincerely concerned about the plight of the illegal immigrants they would take action and do something. Anything. Obama, would at the very least, call for another commission to study the issue. Instead, we have photo ops and refried beans smeared on the state capitol.

KPHO TV in Phoenix had an excellent documentary on last
night about illegal immigration. Here’s one story they reported about two men tortured in a drop house.
http://www.kpho.com/news/23439509/detail.html. For more articles and videos: http://www.kpho.com/ice/index.html

GrannySunni on May 24, 2010 at 12:45 PM

Enforce the laws of the land??? Racists!!!!!

/libs

search4truth on May 24, 2010 at 12:55 PM

stop anchor babies

blatantblue on May 24, 2010 at 11:22 AM

There are two ways to do this, stop immigration completely or amend the US Constitution. Which do you prefer?

The Race Card on May 24, 2010 at 1:09 PM

The Race Card on May 24, 2010 at 1:09 PM

Or if the parents were in their home countries where they are supposed to be, then their babies wouldn’t become US citizens because they would be born elsewhere.

Ted Torgerson on May 24, 2010 at 1:34 PM

For God’s sake, people, Steve Poizner supported Al Gore in 2000. Nooooo thanks.

rightheaded on May 24, 2010 at 11:28 AM

He was interviewed by Laura Ingraham last week, and she asked him about this charge that Whitman has leveled against him. He says it’s false; he voted for Bush but his wife did support and vote for Al Gore.

By the way, Whitman funded and praised Boxer during her 2004 campaign, so to my mind, that’s far worse than what Whitman and Cheney are accusing Poizner of.

As a Californian, I couldn’t stand any of my choices for Governor, but McClintock endorsing Poizner helped me in making Steve my choice.

yogi41 on May 24, 2010 at 1:49 PM

There are two ways to do this, stop immigration completely or amend the US Constitution. Which do you prefer?

The Race Card on May 24, 2010 at 1:09 PM

Not quite the only choices. The courts have chosen to assume jurisdiction over foreign nationals in this country illegally. Refuse that assumption and no other legislation is necessary.

Fighton03 on May 24, 2010 at 1:59 PM

AZ immigration bill becomes hot potato in gubernatorial race

Things may also start to heat up a little in MA too. Check this out. Megyn Kelly was just talking about it.

Oldnuke on May 24, 2010 at 2:02 PM

Ted Torgerson on May 24, 2010 at 1:34 PM

You’re simply restating the first option, only with more xenophobia. So, I take it that you would stop immigration altogether? What year should we have started this? Should we disallow some countries and allow others? How many? What about the needs of employers?

If you believe we should cease all immigration, you have no concept of commerce.

Please pardon my delayed reply. I did not anticipate a response as stupid as yours.

The Race Card on May 24, 2010 at 2:08 PM

Fighton03 on May 24, 2010 at 1:59 PM

Sharp, I concede your accurate analysis.

Rand Paul, I many conservatives and Libertarians/libertarians would love to explore life under the strictest adherence to principles. But some things — defunding Dept of Education, lower drinking ages. California CCW, etc — just won’t happen.

The Race Card on May 24, 2010 at 2:12 PM

That’s a bit harsh…

As opposed to her 24/7 hammering of Poizner with lies upon lies, all while she was still maintaining a 50 point lead over him.

Voters started to wonder why Whitman was so obsessed with a guy who supposedly had no chance of winning the governorship.

The Ugly American on May 24, 2010 at 2:56 PM

Elimination of the anchor baby abuse is actually simple: you don’t automatically become a US by birth unless:
1. At least one of your parents is a US Citizen, when you are born. Or

2. Your mother is a legal resident of the US when you are born, and she was actually in the US at the time.

If this takes a Constitutional Amendment, so be it.

LarryD on May 24, 2010 at 3:27 PM

“In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man’s becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile…We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language…and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”

Theodore Roosevelt

Yakko77 on May 24, 2010 at 3:37 PM

I moved here 10 years ago, first with a student visa, then with a work visa, and finally a green card (which you MUST carry with you all the time according to INS/ Homeland Security). Each instance was progressively more complicated and difficult to obtain, not to mention more expensive. Still, I wouldn’t have done it any other way. However, seeing how the left and many RINO’s call for amnesty was (and still is, looking forward to naturalization in the future) frustrating as me, doing everything legally, would be held by not crossing a T on an application, but an illegal would get a free green card for having avoided the law for ten years.

Listening to La Raza advocates complain about how illegals “live in fear” because the police can come at any time (Hello?!!! THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAW!!!), or illegals in demonstrations talking about how they’ll vote somebody out if they don’t vote for amnesty (??? ETF?!!! I am here legally and I CAN’T VOTE!!!) is always frustrating. Or listening to so many people say “this is unacceptable, considering this country was founded by immigrants”. OF COURSE IT WAS… BUT ALL OF THEM REGISTERED AT THE DOOR!!!

I am glad, happy, and proud of what Arizona did. There is nothing illegal, immoral, or even racial about it. The fact that so many people on both sides of the political spectrum don’t have the balls to stand behind it is astonishing. I just hope that Arizona hangs on and keep up what they just did. It will be a good reminder that this country is always opened to everyone as long as you comply with the rules and regulations of it.

Other cultures come here for safe heaven and they think they can change their environment here to what they had in their home countries. You NEVER go to a neighbors home and try to make them listen to the music you like, buy what you like, or behave how you would in your own. We need to go back to that: immigrants must learn to live like Americans. If you don’t like it then stay home. Listening to so many latinos bitch and moan about how the US and praise the “great work” of dictators like Castro and Chavez BUT do it while living under the freedom of this country is something encouraged by the fact that we get the worst of the worst by having opened borders.

We, the legal immigrants in this country, stand by Arizona 100%.

ptcamn on May 24, 2010 at 3:47 PM

You know everyone Jeb Bush in his interview with Fred Barnes from the Weekly Standard is right:

“For the country to prosper, Bush thinks a dramatic increase in immigration is needed. He’s sympathetic to Arizona’s tough response to a surge in illegal immigrants and also supports “comprehensive reform,” code for stiffer border security and a path to citizenship for illegals living here. But, he says, “This whole debate in Washington is missing one key ingredient, the real world ingredient. How are we going to grow to create jobs, real jobs, private sector jobs that aren’t created out of fiat money?”

Bush’s answer is to reject President Obama’s economic plan and adopt “sustained economic growth as a policy. Part of that would be to create a new immigration system that allowed us to have a guest worker program .  .  . and would open our country to capitalists, entrepreneurs, technologists, researchers. They would come. The only way you can grow is to have a meaningful immigration strategy that says growth is good.”

But that—and especially amnesty for illegals—can’t occur until the border with Mexico is secure. “More fence, sure,” Bush says. “It’s just no one trusts Washington until you show the good faith of protecting the border.”

Jeb Bush is an ass. I answer his idiocy with this from the Center for Immgration Studies:

This Backgrounder provides a detailed picture of the number and socio-economic status of the nation’s immigrant or foreign-born population, both legal and illegal. The data was collected by the Census Bureau in March 2007.

Among the report’s findings:

*

The nation’s immigrant population (legal and illegal) reached a record of 37.9 million in 2007.
*

Immigrants account for one in eight U.S. residents, the highest level in 80 years. In 1970 it was one in 21; in 1980 it was one in 16; and in 1990 it was one in 13
*

Overall, nearly one in three immigrants is an illegal alien. Half of Mexican and Central American immigrants and one-third of South American immigrants are illegal.
*

Since 2000, 10.3 million immigrants have arrived — the highest seven-year period of immigration in U.S. history. More than half of post-2000 arrivals (5.6 million) are estimated to be illegal aliens.
*

The largest increases in immigrants were in California, Florida, Texas, New Jersey, Illinois, Arizona, Virginia, Maryland, Washington, Georgia, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania.
*

Of adult immigrants, 31 percent have not completed high school, compared to 8 percent of natives. Since 2000, immigration increased the number of workers without a high school diploma by 14 percent, and all other workers by 3 percent.
*

The share of immigrants and natives who are college graduates is about the same. Immigrants were once much more likely than natives to be college graduates.
*

The proportion of immigrant-headed households using at least one major welfare program is 33 percent, compared to 19 percent for native households.
*

The poverty rate for immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18) is 17 percent, nearly 50 percent higher than the rate for natives and their children.
*

34 percent of immigrants lack health insurance, compared to 13 percent of natives. Immigrants and their U.S.-born children account for 71 percent of the increase in the uninsured since 1989.
*

Immigrants make significant progress over time. But even those who have been here for 20 years are more likely to be in poverty, lack insurance, or use welfare than are natives.
*

The primary reason for the high rates of immigrant poverty, lack of health insurance, and welfare use is their low education levels, not their legal status or an unwillingness to work.
*

Of immigrant households, 82 percent have at least one worker compared to 73 percent of native households.
*

There is a worker present in 78 percent of immigrant households using at least one welfare program.
*

Immigration accounts for virtually all of the national increase in public school enrollment over the last two decades. In 2007, there were 10.8 million school-age children from immigrant families in the United States.
*

Immigrants and natives have similar rates of entrepreneurship — 13 percent of natives and 11 percent of immigrants are self-employed.
*

Recent immigration has had no significant impact on the nation’s age structure. Without the 10.3 million post-2000 immigrants, the average age in America would be virtually unchanged at 36.5 years.

Sorry Jeb, I recommend cutting legal/illegal immigration, slashing all kinds of taxes and then you’ll create a gigantic middle class. If you want more people, let’s over turn Roe v. Wade. Let the increase happen naturally. Hopefully Mexico’s people will overturn the government quit buying into the racism and nationalism against the USA, if we’re not the safety valve for their failed economic policies it will happen. Jeb stands against that.

Humphrey007 on May 24, 2010 at 8:15 PM

P

PercyB on May 25, 2010 at 12:46 AM