Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

US Immigration Act 50 years later
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Plain Meaning



Joined: 18 Oct 2014

PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2015 8:35 pm    Post subject: US Immigration Act 50 years later Reply with quote

The Immigration Act That Inadvertently Changed America: Fifty years after its passage, it’s clear that the law’s ultimate effects are at odds with its original intent.

Quote:
For supporters, the intent of the legislation was to bring immigration policy into line with other anti-discrimination measures, not to fundamentally change the face of the nation. “We have removed all elements of second-class citizenship from our laws by the [1964] Civil Rights Act,” declared Vice President Hubert Humphrey. “We must in 1965 remove all elements in our immigration law which suggest there are second-class people.”

At the signing ceremony on Liberty Island, President Lyndon Johnson said the new law “corrects a cruel and enduring wrong in the conduct of the American nation,” but he downplayed its expected effect. “The bill that we sign today is not a revolutionary bill,” he insisted.

Opponents of the reform proposal had argued that the United States was fundamentally a European country and should stay that way. “The people of Ethiopia have the same right to come to the United States under this bill as the people from England, the people of France, the people of Germany, [and] the people of Holland,” complained Senator Sam Ervin, a Democrat from North Carolina. “With all due respect to Ethiopia,” Ervin said, “I don’t know of any contributions that Ethiopia has made to the making of America.” The critics highlighted population pressures in the developing world and predicted the United States would find itself inundated by desperate migrants from poverty-stricken countries.

Only a few supporters of the 1965 legislation said the country could and should be willing to accommodate more immigrants of color. “The American nation today stands as eloquent proof that there is no inherent contradiction between unity and diversity,” declared Representative Peter Rodino of New Jersey, a Democrat of Italian origin. The more typical response to the nativist arguments was simply to deny that the proposed immigration reform would bring any significant shift in the pattern of immigration. Secretary of State Dean Rusk, testifying in Congress, said he saw no indication of “a world situation where everybody is just straining to move to the United States.”

Such assurances did not sway conservative critics of the reform, but a last-minute change in the legislative language did alleviate their fears of a massive African and Asian influx. The original version of the 1965 Act, cosponsored by Senator Philip Hart of Michigan and Representative Emmanuel Celler of New York, both liberal Democrats, favored those immigrants whose skills were “especially advantageous” to the United States. Conservatives, led by Representative Michael Feighan, an Ohio Democrat, managed to change those priorities, giving visa preferences instead to foreigners who were seeking to join their families in the United States. Feighan, who chaired the House Immigration subcommittee, argued that a family-unification preference in immigration law would establish, in the words of a glowing profile in the American Legion magazine, “a naturally operating national-origins system,” because it would favor immigration from the northern and western European countries that at the time dominated the U.S. population.

Feighan and others were wrong. The heightened emphasis on family unification, rather than replicating the existing ethnic structure of the American population, led to the phenomenon of chain migration. The naturalization of a single immigrant from an Asian or African or Hispanic background opened the door to his or her brothers and sisters and their spouses, who in turn could sponsor their own brothers and sisters. Within a few decades, family unification had become the driving force in U.S. immigration, and it favored exactly those nationalities the critics of the 1965 Act had hoped to keep out, because those were the people most determined to move.


In case you do not like theAtlantic, here is a CIS paper from 1995 on the Immigration Act of 1965. It also has a clear description of the reforms in the Immigration Act of 1965.

Quote:
The Hart-Celler Act of 1965:


- Established the basic structure of today's immigration law.

-Abolished the national origins quota system (originally established in 1921 and most recently modified in 1952), while attempting to keep immigration to a manageable level. Family reunification became the cornerstone of U.S. immigration policy.

-Allocated 170,000 visas to countries in the Eastern Hemisphere and 120,000 to countries in the Western Hemisphere. This increased the annual ceiling on immigrants from 150,000 to 290,000. Each Eastern-Hemisphere country was allowed an allotment of 20,000 visas, while in the Western Hemisphere there was no per-country limit. This was the first time any numerical limitation had been placed on immigration from the Western Hemisphere. Non-quota immigrants and immediate relatives (i.e., spouses, minor children, and parents of U.S. citizens over the age of 21) were not to be counted as part of either the hemispheric or country ceiling.

-For the first time, gave higher preference to the relatives of American citizens and permanent resident aliens than to applicants with special job skills. The preference system for visa admissions detailed in the law (modified in 1990) was as follows:

-Unmarried adult sons and daughters of U.S. citizens.

-Spouses and children and unmarried sons and daughters of permanent resident aliens.

-Members of the professions and scientists and artists of exceptional ability.

-Married children of U.S. citizens.

-Brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens over age twenty-one.

-Skilled and unskilled workers in occupations for which there is insufficient labor supply.

-Refugees given conditional entry or adjustment — chiefly people from Communist countries and the Middle East.

-Applicants not entitled to preceding preferences — i.e., everyone else.


The CIS paper also has a good list of quotations of supporters assuring those who were skeptical or opposed the measure that it would not change the character of the country. In support of the sincerity of this expressed belief, I submit a quotation from Strom Thurmond.

Quote:
Even Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-SC), who voted against the bill out of concern for overpopulation, didn't think the new preference system would mean much of a change:

Quote:
"The preferences which would be established by this proposal are based, I believe, on sound reasoning and meritorious considerations, not entirely dissimilar in effect from those which underlie the national origins quotas of existing law." (Congressional Record, Sept. 17, 1965, p. 24237.)


A few of the congressmen who opposed the bill did see that the new system, even with tight labor controls, meant a drastic change.


The Act has defied these predictions, to be sure. America's ethnic make-up is undergoing a serious, and radical, change.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Swartz



Joined: 19 Dec 2014

PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2015 5:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

... Needs to be repealed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Swartz



Joined: 19 Dec 2014

PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2015 3:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As an addendum, I am one of those who doesn’t like the Atlantic, so when I clicked on the link, it wasn’t to read the article, it was to read the comments. What we are seeing more and more is that the left is losing control of the narrative as greater amounts of people begin to wake up; as a result, leftist sites have been either regulating comment sections tightly or shutting them down altogether. The demographic situation in the US is so bad now that even SJWs and SWPLs can’t justify the cause and moral signal to each other without realizing that they are actively and obviously promoting policies that seek to displace and marginalize them. Part of the top rated comment from the article:

Quote:
The architect of the 1965 Immigration Act was Celler, a New York Socialist Jew who hated the reduction in anti American immigrants and wanted to increase immigration for political and ideological reasons and spent 40 years trying to end the common sense immigration quotas. The wave of immigration between the 1880s and 1920s was only to provide cheap labor for the elites. Once they became scared of the anarchist immigrants they shut off the flow and the immigrants had no option but to assimilate.
Nowadays the elites are open border globalist and do not really care what happens to Americans and want them replaced with immigrants who have no connection to the people and nation and will be easier to lie to and dupe.
they profit from immigration and pass on all the social, economic and environmental costs to the communities. Immigration has become a racket, a transfer of money from labor to capital. Everything the proponents said of the 1965 Immigration Act has turned out to be a lie and the critics were right, just as in the 1986 amnesty.
We are not a nation of immigrants, we are a nation of citizens betrayed on immigration for decades by the media and both parties who have been bought by the open border globalists and oligarchy.


Sounds like something I would say. It doesn’t take a genius to sniff out the main group(s) behind the promotion of mass immigration into Western countries, and the 1965 Immigration Act and its resulting effects were no accident. The situation is not one where, suddenly, 50 years later, we say “whoops, how did this happen?” then look around scratching our heads. Or at least it shouldn’t be.

It will get worse if measures aren’t put in place soon to reverse these policies and limit the power of those who push for the Brazilification of the West. I am a one issue voter in this regard. By comparison, most other issues are relatively minor and may not even matter in the long run. Whites are waking up and will continue to wake up if policies that contribute to their demise carry on apace; whether or not they can mobilize, institute systematic reforms, and make the needed changes within themselves, remains to be seen.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
trueblue



Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines

PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2015 6:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Swartz wrote:
As an addendum, I am one of those who doesn’t like the Atlantic, so when I clicked on the link, it wasn’t to read the article, it was to read the comments. What we are seeing more and more is that the left is losing control of the narrative as greater amounts of people begin to wake up; as a result, leftist sites have been either regulating comment sections tightly or shutting them down altogether. The demographic situation in the US is so bad now that even SJWs and SWPLs can’t justify the cause and moral signal to each other without realizing that they are actively and obviously promoting policies that seek to displace and marginalize them. Part of the top rated comment from the article:

Quote:
The architect of the 1965 Immigration Act was Celler, a New York Socialist Jew who hated the reduction in anti American immigrants and wanted to increase immigration for political and ideological reasons and spent 40 years trying to end the common sense immigration quotas. The wave of immigration between the 1880s and 1920s was only to provide cheap labor for the elites. Once they became scared of the anarchist immigrants they shut off the flow and the immigrants had no option but to assimilate.
Nowadays the elites are open border globalist and do not really care what happens to Americans and want them replaced with immigrants who have no connection to the people and nation and will be easier to lie to and dupe.
they profit from immigration and pass on all the social, economic and environmental costs to the communities. Immigration has become a racket, a transfer of money from labor to capital. Everything the proponents said of the 1965 Immigration Act has turned out to be a lie and the critics were right, just as in the 1986 amnesty.
We are not a nation of immigrants, we are a nation of citizens betrayed on immigration for decades by the media and both parties who have been bought by the open border globalists and oligarchy.


Sounds like something I would say. It doesn’t take a genius to sniff out the main group(s) behind the promotion of mass immigration into Western countries, and the 1965 Immigration Act and its resulting effects were no accident. The situation is not one where, suddenly, 50 years later, we say “whoops, how did this happen?” then look around scratching our heads. Or at least it shouldn’t be.

It will get worse if measures aren’t put in place soon to reverse these policies and limit the power of those who push for the Brazilification of the West. I am a one issue voter in this regard. By comparison, most other issues are relatively minor and may not even matter in the long run. Whites are waking up and will continue to wake up if policies that contribute to their demise carry on apace; whether or not they can mobilize, institute systematic reforms, and make the needed changes within themselves, remains to be seen.



I cannot say that the Left is loosing and people are waking up. I wish I could, but, considering the Right very well may be a controlled opposition as you said, and, to which I can agree, it would seem it is all an act.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Swartz



Joined: 19 Dec 2014

PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2015 7:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You might be surprised. The mainstream right is controlled opposition that moves left at a slower pace, but there are burgeoning alternative right wing movements throughout the West that are picking up steam at a rapid pace. Trust in the leftist MSM is low, new media has drastically cut into their market share, and their narrative is far less effective than it used to be. That’s why Trump’s lead has actually grown despite 24/7 attacks from the commie media and shills from both sides and beyond. Lot of Americans are sick of the lies and the never ending flood of brown people. And many of the kids are internet savvy and radical as they come these days, just take a look at 8 chans’ /pol/. That place will let you in on a whole other world.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
trueblue



Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines

PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2015 8:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Swartz wrote:
You might be surprised. The mainstream right is controlled opposition that moves left at a slower pace, but there are burgeoning alternative right wing movements throughout the West that are picking up steam at a rapid pace. Trust in the leftist MSM is low, new media has drastically cut into their market share, and their narrative is far less effective than it used to be. That’s why Trump’s lead has actually grown despite 24/7 attacks from the commie media and shills from both sides and beyond. Lot of Americans are sick of the lies and the never ending flood of brown people. And many of the kids are internet savvy and radical as they come these days, just take a look at 8 chans’ /pol/. That place will let you in on a whole other world.


I may be surprised, I agree.

I will say this, though. Trump...is dangerous to the United States. Here is why and I will be brief.

1. He wants to accomplish things in a manner that may surpass his authority as president (but that would not be new, just more extensive, aided by a corrupt Congress and Senate).

2. He is preying on the moderate and extreme emotions from the citizenry. We have seen how recent times have shown that example.

3. He goes back-in-the-day with the Clinton's. While it would be interesting to watch The Don go off on HC during a debate, for entertainment value, I find it odd that both he and HC are running against each other...I would not rule out a back alley agreement between the two.

4. He is a model of corporate America. Fascism, after all, is the merger of State and corporate power (basic defenition).

5. Like a very significant amount of others that are running for president, congress, senate, governor...it all seems like a ruse. Things have not been getting better, despite BOTH sides have dominated the House of Represenatives during Obama's term, and Bush's.

I think of how Trump would hold up in a debate against JFK, Ronald Regan, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, T. Roosevelt, Ike (currently reading a good book on him), Ross Perot, A. Lincoln, Abigail Adams, FDR, General Washington, Benjamin Rush, Powell...and many others...and I just see Trump as a blubbering bafoon.

6. Would Trump put the U. S. Back on the gold standard? Nope.

7. Would The Don actually uphold the Oath of Office to its pure and full meaning?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Swartz



Joined: 19 Dec 2014

PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2015 9:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Perhaps. But, as I said, I really only care about one issue here: immigration. And I’ll take a 40% chance Trump does what he says he will do with regard to kicking the illegals out, over the 0% chance that any of the other candidates will do anything more than allow the flood to continue.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
trueblue



Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines

PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2015 9:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Swartz wrote:
Perhaps. But, as I said, I really only care about one issue here: immigration. And I’ll take a 40% chance Trump does what he says he will do with regard to kicking the illegals out, over the 0% chance that any of the other candidates will do anything more than allow the flood to continue.


I just hope he is able to do it in a legal way, with checks and balances. I say that because, despite the fact that I am very empathetic to your stance on immigration, but I would hope that more freedom is not lost in the process.

Also, I still would like to see the United States as still a compassionate and fair country, but at the same time, does not waiver on what is best for American citizens, respecting ordinal/states' rights and upholding the virtues of a Constitutional Republic.

But when social engineering works in favor of those who should not have power, the breakdown of traditional social, moral and intellectual norms fade from the citizenry...especially in regards to history and knowing what happens when governments and the power they attained go bad.

There is a buzzword for that..."diversity".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Brooks



Joined: 08 Apr 2003

PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2015 1:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well look at www.numbersusa.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sirius black



Joined: 04 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Sat Oct 31, 2015 1:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

America needs the immigration. Maybe 'needed' is the proper word but the rise in immigration both legal and illegal from south of the border was needed.
The federal government played a jedi mind trick on the nation. I have always asked this question and no on has been able to give me an answer as to why Bush didn't close the southern border. He had all three branches of government from 2000-2006. He had a war on terrorism and 911 but NOTHING done to stem the southern border where it could be argued (wrongly but convincingly) that terrorists can easily slip in amongst the millions on the border. But no wall, no extra people, nothing. Why?

Because we needed them. America as every other economic power in history save an exception or two is built on slave and/or cheap labor. America was built on it, the Persian, Roman, British, Spanish and the USSR and modern China were all built on it.

America is no different. 150 years ago it was slave labor in the south and cheap European labor in the north. Since 1970s blacks have been in the mainstream demanding the same wages as everyone else. European immigrants formed unions and that labor is now getting middle class wages.

Where to get cheap labor? South of the border. And the country would be in a recession without them.

Also, the birthrate of America has gone negative. You need new workers to pay into the Social Security system. Black birthrate has stayed stagnant at 13 percent - 14 percent, white birthrate is dropping. Latinos are the reason we even see a rise in the population. They have gone from about 8 percent 50 years ago to almost 20 percent now. Asian birthrate is positive as well. They are needed and hence nothing done.

But the irony is they get demonized to collect votes.

Ingenious.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Swartz



Joined: 19 Dec 2014

PostPosted: Sat Oct 31, 2015 4:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

sirius black wrote:
I have always asked this question and no on has been able to give me an answer as to why Bush didn't close the southern border. He had all three branches of government from 2000-2006. He had a war on terrorism and 911 but NOTHING done to stem the southern border where it could be argued (wrongly but convincingly) that terrorists can easily slip in amongst the millions on the border. But no wall, no extra people, nothing. Why?


The Bush family has longstanding ties with Mexico, it’s not that complicated. His 2004 campaign donors were also pretty much all banks, who are always looking for new debtors.

Quote:
George W.`s plan to break down the border between the U.S. and Mexico is not at all out of character for the Bush dynasty. The decades-old connections between the Bush family and Mexico`s ruling class and its Texas offshoots have not elicited much attention in the United States. Yet they are highly relevant to understanding both the new President`s attitude toward Mexico and exactly what he means when he talks about his outreach to the Hispanic community.


http://www.vdare.com/articles/the-bush-betrayal-maybe-hes-not-thinking-but-feeling-family-feeling-mexican-style

Plenty more on your question in the article. The author has written about that issue extensively. Also, Dubya’s brother Yeb!’s wife is Mexican and his top donor is nation-destroying open borders proponent Goldman Sachs. Yeb’s campaign is finished because he tried to be the honorary Mexican Republican candidate, and is generally weak and unlikable.

sirius black wrote:
America as every other economic power in history save an exception or two is built on slave and/or cheap labor. America was built on it, the Persian, Roman, British, Spanish and the USSR and modern China were all built on it.


This isn't true. But it is true that decadence and immigration have caused empires to collapse.

sirius black wrote:
Because we need them


I can’t tell if you are being facetious. Who needs them? Very few people benefit from cheap labor. The negative effect on wages, national cohesion, inter-ethnic strife, social programs, etc., far outweigh the benefits. From a recent study concerning welfare use among both legal and illegal immigrants:

Quote:
Among the findings:
• An estimated 49 percent of households headed by legal immigrants used one or more welfare programs in 2012, compared to 30 percent of households headed by natives.
• Households headed by legal immigrants have higher use rates than native households overall and for cash programs (14 percent vs. 10 percent), food programs (36 percent vs. 22 percent), and Medicaid (39 percent vs. 23 percent). Use of housing programs is similar.
• Legal immigrant households account for three-quarters of all immigrant households accessing one or more welfare programs.
• Less-educated legal immigrants make extensive use of every type of welfare program, including cash, food, Medicaid, and housing.
• The overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants have modest levels of education; therefore, the high use of welfare associated with less-educated legal immigrants indicates that legalization would likely increase welfare costs, particularly for cash and housing programs.
• Restrictions on new legal immigrants’ access to welfare have not prevented them from accessing programs at high rates because restrictions often apply to only a modest share of immigrants at any one time, some programs are not restricted, there are numerous exceptions and exemptions, and some provisions are entirely unenforced. Equally important, immigrants, including those illegally in the country, can receive welfare on behalf of their U.S.-born children.


http://cis.org/Welfare-Use-Legal-Illegal-Immigrant-Households

Immigrants take more out than they put in. Thirty years ago they were saying that people should have fewer kids due to overpopulation, now they are trying to complain about it. The TFR of whites in the US is at replacement level. There is nothing wrong with replacement level fertility or even negative fertility. The burden of proof is with those who say that constant growth is always necessary and that stabilizing fertility rates are a bad thing.

Again, no country *needs* immigration. Oligarchs and corporations want more clients and cheaper labor, and the state benefits from expanding its dependent welfare constituency, so they will tell you immigration is a good thing, but that doesn’t make it true.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Plain Meaning



Joined: 18 Oct 2014

PostPosted: Wed Nov 04, 2015 8:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Swartz wrote:
As an addendum, I am one of those who doesn’t like the Atlantic, so when I clicked on the link, it wasn’t to read the article, it was to read the comments. What we are seeing more and more is that the left is losing control of the narrative . . .


I notice that you ignored how the architects of the Immigration Act of 1965 were bipartisan. You also completely ignored how it was the right-wing Congressmen who patched the Immigration Act with the family-based entrances; which is the immigration policy most responsible for the unintended consequences of letting in so many immigrants from the less developed world.

Instead you launched into your tired "Leftist narratives" theme. I mean, at least try to be original and not parrot Titus's old talking points.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Swartz



Joined: 19 Dec 2014

PostPosted: Wed Nov 04, 2015 9:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Plain Meaning wrote:
Swartz wrote:
As an addendum, I am one of those who doesn’t like the Atlantic, so when I clicked on the link, it wasn’t to read the article, it was to read the comments. What we are seeing more and more is that the left is losing control of the narrative . . .


I notice that you ignored how the architects of the Immigration Act of 1965 were bipartisan. You also completely ignored how it was the right-wing Congressmen who patched the Immigration Act with the family-based entrances; which is the immigration policy most responsible for the unintended consequences of letting in so many immigrants from the less developed world.

Instead you launched into your tired "Leftist narratives" theme. I mean, at least try to be original and not parrot Titus's old talking points.


I ignored a number of things, like how that crappy Atlantic article didn’t mention Ted Kennedy’s role in the matter. Is your only constructive input related to what you believe I should have said, or how I should have equated the left and right of fifty years ago to the left and right of today?

If your posts are going to center around attacking my perspective, at least put in some effort and bring a little substance to the table.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kepler



Joined: 24 Sep 2007

PostPosted: Thu Nov 05, 2015 5:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

sirius black wrote:

Because we needed them. America as every other economic power in history save an exception or two is built on slave and/or cheap labor. America was built on it, the Persian, Roman, British, Spanish and the USSR and modern China were all built on it.

Slave or cheap labor benefits a few but has an overall negative effect.

Quote:
Gunderson does not understand that there is a difference between slave labor being "efficient" for the slave owner and its effect on society as a whole. Of course slavery was profitable to slave owners. This government-supported system helped them confiscate the fruits of the slaves' labor. But since slave labor is inherently less efficient than free labor, and since so many resources had to be devoted to enforcing the system — most of which were the result of government interventions such as the Fugitive Slave Act, mandatory slave patrol laws, and laws that prohibited manumission — the system imposed huge burdens ("dead weight loss," in the language of economics) on the rest of society. Free laborers and non-slave owners in the South (at least 80 percent of the adult population) were the primary victims of these government-imposed costs, and would have been a natural political constituency for their eventual abolition. As Hummel concluded, "In real terms, the entire southern economy, including both whites and blacks, was less prosperous" overall because of slavery.

http://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo29.html

Cheap, illegal immigrant labor has had the effect of increasing the gap rich and the poor. Employers can save money but natives who have to compete with immigrants for jobs see their wages drop.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Plain Meaning



Joined: 18 Oct 2014

PostPosted: Thu Nov 05, 2015 6:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

According to Swartz and Kepler, immigrants primarily go on welfare or compete for labor.

Often immigrants to America start their own businesses.

Immigrants are more likely to be entrepreneurs

Quote:
Issued under the auspices of the U.S. Small Business Administration, the peer-reviewed study pulled data from three large, nationally representative government data sets, and found that immigrants are almost 30 percent more likely to launch a business than non-immigrants. According to the study, roughly 16.7 percent of all new business owners in this country are immigrants, yet immigrants make up only 12.2 percent of the workforce in the U.S. It also found that immigrant-owned businesses contributed roughly $67 billion to the country's business income, out of a total of $577 billion in 2000.


The Most Entrepreneurial Group in America Wasn't Born in America

Quote:
[W]ithout the growth of immigrant-owned businesses like Cha's, the recession would have been much worse. From 1996 to 2011, the business startup rate of immigrants increased by more than 50 percent, while the native-born startup rate declined by 10 percent, to a 30-year low. Immigrants today are more than twice as likely to start a business as native-born citizens.

Despite accounting for only about 13 percent of the population, immigrants now start more than a quarter of new businesses in this country. Fast-growing ones, too--more than 20 percent of the 2014 Inc. 500 CEOs are immigrants. Immigrant-owned businesses pay an estimated $126 billion in wages per year, employing 1 in 10 Americans who work for private companies. In 2010, immigrant-owned businesses generated more than $775 billion in sales. If immigrant America were a stock, you'd be an idiot not to buy it.


Six Immigrant Entrepreneurs

Quote:
Chris Folayan, a programmer, moved from Nigeria to the San Francisco Bay area to attend college. Every time that Folayan visited friends and family in Nigeria, people asked for products from the States or the United Kingdom. He started MallForAfrica in San Francisco to help African residents buy products from the U.S. and U.K.

In launching his company, Folayan had to confront stereotypes (that the African continent is magnet for cyber-crime and fraud) and misconceptions (that all Africans are poor and starving). MallForAfrica has beome a multimillion-dollar enterprise, with a network of 70 sites offering more than 7 billion items for sale.


http://www.latinpost.com/articles/56571/20150530/immigrant-entrepreneurs-especially-latinos-are-fueling-the-us-startup-economy.htm

Quote:
the Latino share of new businesses created in 2014 has increased from 20.4 percent in 2013 to 22.1 percent in 2014 -- which is also more than double the rate compared to 1996. As of 2013, Latinos made up about 17.1 percent of the U.S. population, up from just over 10 percent in 1996.

. . .

As Alberto Dávila, chairman of economics and finance at the University of Texas-Pan American in Edinburg, Texas, told The Wall Street Journal, "If you dig into the numbers, it's really Mexican self-employment that is carrying this growth."

Such so-called "mom-and-pop" businesses, while fueled by entrepreneurial spirit, don't generally reach close to the same levels of success of other startups, like those famous high-tech, VC-funded "startups" that carry multibillion dollar valuations. Instead, Latino immigrant businesses are more likely to be family-based, and less likely to be funded by outside sources -- an increasingly essential step for expanding a startup beyond its initial phases.

Still, even small businesses make an impact on the local scale, and immigrant entrepreneurs are hugely driving that part of the economy.

For example, according to figures from the Fiscal Policy Institute and the Council of the Americas cited by WSJ, over the last three years in the majority of the 50 largest metropolitan areas in the U.S., the net growth of new local businesses -- like restaurants, salons, and local retailers -- accounted for by immigrant entrepreneurs? 100 percent.


Immigrants launch over one in four new businesses

Quote:
The new report shows that immigrants continue to be almost twice as likely as the native-born to become entrepreneurs. Immigrant entrepreneurs also launched 28.5 percent of new businesses in 2014, helping to fuel an uptick in new business creation nationally. That statistic is up from 25.9 percent in 2013 and 13.3 percent in 1996.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 1 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International