posted
I don't think you can make generalizations about the acceptance of immigrants here. My own ancestors were greeted with signs in shops that read "No Irish Need Apply."
The eugenics movement was successful in passing extremely restrictive quotas - and much of what they accomplished remains on the books.
Some areas are more accepting of immigrants than others. Some groups of immigrants are more readily accepted than others.
Sometime over the last year, Icarus posted an article in a national magazine sounding a call of alarm over the influx of Latino immigrants into this country. In Illinois, one of the Republican primary candidates for Senator ran largely on an anti-immigration message. He came in second or third.
We're a mixed bag, I think - like a lot of other countries.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey Storm, I don't want you to think I've forgotten about you. The problem with me taking part in specifics in this thread is that I'm woefully underqualified to discuss American Immigration Policy. I've never lived there and I've never considered living there. But that would probably just be a ping pong match between Mr. Boy and I (and by "match" I mean he'd be bouncing balls off the wall and every now and again I'd scamper to grab one that his missed, frequently being more in the way than I would be helping )
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm even cool with the knee-jerk reflex of being questioning per se, with adopting the critical eye toward all countries. And so just as I might question a Brit if he were to assert economic superiority, so would I an American.
But if I read you right, you are okay with that, too.
You are correct that I'm okay with questioning. I'm not offended by people who question a nation's actions. The only way to get real knowledge is to question everything. Simply accepting everything a nation does would be far more harmful than questioning. What I object to is people who assume the worst as a default. People who, instead of asking if what America is doing is right or wrong and trying to figure out what harm and what good will come of this action, simply state baldly that it must be wrong because everyone knows what a big bad imperialistic bully America is. The former is healthy, while the latter is pure anti-Americanism.
quote:I would like to disengage the evaluation of "anti-Americanism" from the mere action of questioning a statement of fact made by and American. Surely we can expect accuracy from one another, and that is a measure of respect, not loathing.
We can and should expect accuracy from one another, but keep in mind, I never accused anyone here of anti-Americanism. I made an offhand statement to the effect that there is a lot of anti-Americanism in the world. Then someone came and questioned why I should care about that, which I then tried to answer, and asked me to define my terms, which I then did. I never objected to the act of questioning my statements, and I never said or, I feel, implied that anyone here is guilty of the sin described by the word I was asked to define.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well I, for one, am offended by the fact that both of the google ads at the bottom of this page (at the time of this posting) are for Hockey-related Web sites.
That's just wrong.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I'd known that my post was going to be at the top of the page after all that deleting I might have put in something a little more thought-provoking.... or you know, maybe not.
posted
Before I forget, this is the link to the statistics on immigrants earnings in Canada: Statistics Canada
Click on the Table: Earnings of recent immigrants relative to earnings of the Canadian-born, by sex, Canada, 1980, 1990 and 2000.
A day or so ago I left a link on this thread to the corresponding data from the US Bureau of Statistics.
In my experience working with this sort of information across nations, it is usually advisable to go to the data source in each country (usually their national census office site). Relying on secondary summaries of the information can be tricky because of differences in how and when the data are collected in each nation.
For the data sources I provided at your request here, please note that the US data are reported based on 2003 information, whereas the available data from Canada are based on 2001 information. Both then look backgrounds over time for patterns of change.
Also note that the US data reports raw numbers, whereas the Canada data have already been converted to show the average for immigrant employment earnings (individuals aged 15+) as a percentage of the average employment earnings (individuals aged 15+) for the nation overall. You may want to make a similar conversion in order to interpret the US data.
The Canada table also shows how this percentage changes by years since arriving in the country. In other words, that lets you see how many years it takes for the average immigrant income to become at least equal to national average overall.
In Canada this appears to be about one decade, although it reaches the 75% mark in about 3 years for men and 4 years for women. I haven't looked at the US data close enough yet to say what pattern is there. The American data may not allow as fine a breakdown.
I'm not sure what you would find other for countries, such as Australia, but a visit to their respective national census sites should pay off with some digging around. Also, most major universities have population studies libraries with these sources in hard copy.
I hope this helps in your ongoing discussions.
[ August 19, 2004, 11:17 PM: Message edited by: mister boy ]
Posts: 85 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
