Correct on the jist of every point.
Correct on the numbers of most.
WhatEverr.
Sequel | Homepage | 05.05.06 - 2:00 pm | #

First, thank you for posting those corrections. That shows integrity. I am a bit disappointed that you posted that first message without linking to any source.

Second, I would be interested in statistics for legal immigrants in LA and California in general. I'm thinking about a lot of tech industries where you have large numbers of foreign workers (legally) here. So as far as that 90% figure for population growth (if you consider immigrants and children of immigrants), I wonder what percentage of that is due to legal immigrants. I also have a problem with the idea that California would have no net growth without immigration, as it seems I hear about a hell of a lot more people moving to California than away from it.

Third, "It’s safe to say we spent close to $2 billion in 2005 on AFDC and Food stamps for illegal aliens." That money is spent on the US-born children of illegal immigrants, who by definition of the Constitution, are US citizens.

Finally, as to Sequel's comments, I wonder how forgiving you would be about numerical errors supporting a different point of view. This may be a bad example, but I remember a posting on this site detailing a bunch of numerical errors about global warming. If it's okay to nitpick those numbers, it should be okay to nitpick these numbers.
Elizabeth | 05.05.06 - 5:03 pm | #

I admited that the numbers were wrong so people are free to post that I screwed up, I won't call it nit picking.

The domestic born children of illegals is an issue I think the US should address. I posted earlier that we are effectively encouraging prenant women to cross the border so that their child can be born in the US. It's a recipe for abuse and disaster.

Without immigrants California would have zero population growth. I have worked there and for every person that moves to CA, there is a person leaving CA. The Bay Area, LA and San Diego are terribly expensive.
Tracy | Homepage | 05.06.06 - 10:10 am | #

[We can safely say that there are a very large number of illegals in gangs.]

Yes, and we can even more safely say that there are a very large number of Hispanics in gangs, whether they are here illegally or not. The fact of their (average, in a demographic sense) higher tendency to criminality, as well as their well documented trouble graduating from high school, means it is not a good idea at all to import more of them, whether they come legally or not. And this is true whether people call you names for saying it or not.

[...there is a person leaving CA.]

You can find accurate statistics about this, e.g. via the US Census: between 1990 and 2000, approximately 10% of Whites left California. I'm sure the same trend has continued.

As you no doubt know, the vast majority of California's urban-quality-of-life-destroying population growth is driven by immigration. And since Whites still pay the majority of taxes here, they are, literally, financing their own demographic displacement (since as we all know, but in most cases are not supposed to mention, unless it's to glorify "diversity", these days almost all immigrants are non-white).

Which is just idiotic.

Not to mention a form of national suicide.

[Correct on the jist of every point.]

Yes, an important observation (and one the LAT would never acknowledge). The sort of comparative demographic argument I hint at, which considers group averages, i.e. the gist, must be allowed to become a part of the discussion about immigration. Otherwise the future of the US could be grim, as there is a reason the countries most immigrants are coming from, especially the Hispanics, are poor and unstable.

Keep it up.
eh | 05.09.06 - 6:56 am | #