Illegal immigration hurts the black community

tmonster

Superstar
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
17,900
Reputation
3,205
Daps
31,787
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/2...h-of-the-job-stealing-immigrant.html?referer=

When I was growing up in the 1980s, I watched my grandfather — my dad’s
stepdad — struggle with his own prejudice. He was a blue-collar World War II veteran who loved his family above all things and was constantly afraid for them. He carried a gun and, like many men of his generation, saw threats in people he didn’t understand: African-Americans, independent women, gays. By the time he died, 10 years ago, he had softened. He stopped using racist and homophobic slurs; he even hugged my gay cousin. But there was one view he wasn’t going to change. He had no time for Hispanics, he told us, and he wasn’t backing down. After all, this wasn’t a matter of bigotry. It was plain economics. These immigrants were stealing jobs from “Americans.”

Room for Debate: Do Immigrants Take Jobs From American-Born Workers?JAN. 6, 2015
I’ve been thinking about my grandfather lately, because there are signs that 2015 could bring about the beginning of a truce — or at least a reconfiguration — in the politics of immigration. Several of the potential Republican presidential candidates, most notably Jeb Bush, have expressed pro-immigration views. Even self-identified Tea Party Republicans respond three to two in favor of a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Every other group — Republicans in general, independents and especially Democrats — is largely pro-immigrant. According to Pew, roughly as many people (18 percent of Americans) believed in 2010 that President Obama was a Muslim as believe today that undocumented immigrants should be expelled from the United States. Of course, that 18 percent can make a lot of noise. But for everyone else, immigration seems to be going the way of same-sex marriage, marijuana and the mohawk — it’s something that a handful of people freak out about but that the rest of us have long since come to accept.


President Obama on Tuesday. Some advocates said this week that they saw a paradox in the president’s policy. Obama’s Immigration Plan Could Shield Five MillionNOV. 19, 2014
A building site last month in Dallas. Construction is concentrated in Texas and three more states.Job Growth for Hispanics Is Outpacing Other GroupsMARCH 8, 2015
On Money: In Greenbacks We TrustFEB. 27, 2015
Scratch the surface, though, and you’ll pretty quickly find that many Americans are closer to my grandfather’s way of seeing things than they might find comfortable acknowledging. I am referring not to the racial animus but to the faulty economic logic. We generally support immigration when the immigrants are different from us. People in the middle and upper-middle classes don’t mind poorly educated, low-skilled immigrants entering the country. Nor do we mind highly educated professionals coming in — unless, that is, we are in the same profession ourselves. More broadly, those of us advocating an immigration overhaul are basically calling for official recognition of the status quo, through offering legal status to some of the roughly 11.2 million undocumented workers who aren’t going away. Few of us are calling for the thing that basic economic analysis shows would benefit nearly all of us: radically open borders.

And yet the economic benefits of immigration may be the most settled fact in economics. A recent University of Chicago poll of leading economists could not find a single one who rejected the proposition. (There is one notable economist who wasn’t polled: George Borjas of Harvard, who believes that his fellow economists underestimate the cost of immigration for low-skilled natives. Borjas’s work is often misused by anti-immigration activists, in much the same way a complicated climate-science result is often invoked as “proof” that global warming is a myth.) Rationally speaking, we should take in far more immigrants than we currently do.


So why don’t we open up? The chief logical mistake we make is something called the Lump of Labor Fallacy: the erroneous notion that there is only so much work to be done and that no one can get a job without taking one from someone else. It’s an understandable assumption. After all, with other types of market transactions, when the supply goes up, the price falls. If there were suddenly a whole lot more oranges, we’d expect the price of oranges to fall or the number of oranges that went uneaten to surge.

But immigrants aren’t oranges. It might seem intuitive that when there is an increase in the supply of workers, the ones who were here already will make less money or lose their jobs. Immigrants don’t just increase the supply of labor, though; they simultaneously increase demand for it, using the wages they earn to rent apartments, eat food, get haircuts, buy cellphones. That means there are more jobs building apartments, selling food, giving haircuts and dispatching the trucks that move those phones. Immigrants increase the size of the overall population, which means they increase the size of the economy. Logically, if immigrants were “stealing” jobs, so would every young person leaving school and entering the job market; countries should become poorer as they get larger. In reality, of course, the opposite happens.

Most anti-immigration arguments I hear are variations on the Lump of Labor Fallacy. That immigrant has a job. If he didn’t have that job, somebody else, somebody born here, would have it. This argument is wrong, or at least wildly oversimplified. But it feels so correct, so logical. And it’s not just people like my grandfather making that argument. Our government policy is rooted in it.


The single greatest bit of evidence disproving the Lump of Labor idea comes from research about the Mariel boatlift, a mass migration in 1980 that brought more than 125,000 Cubans to the United States. According to David Card, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, roughly 45,000 of them were of working age and moved to Miami; in four months, the city’s labor supply increased by 7 percent. Card found that for people already working in Miami, this sudden influx had no measurable impact on wages or employment. His paper was the most important of a series of revolutionary studies that transformed how economists think about immigration. Before, standard economic models held that immigrants cause long-term benefits, but at the cost of short-term pain in the form of lower wages and greater unemployment for natives. But most economists now believe that Card’s findings were correct: Immigrants bring long-term benefits at no measurable short-term cost. (Borjas, that lone dissenting voice, agrees about the long-term benefits, but he argues that other economists fail to see painful short-term costs, especially for the poor.)

Economists have shifted to studying how nations so quickly adjust to new arrivals. The leading scholar on this today is Giovanni Peri of the University of California, Davis, who has shown that immigrants tend to complement — rather than compete against — the existing work force. Take a construction site: Typically, Peri has found, immigrants with limited education perform many support tasks (moving heavy things, pouring cement, sweeping, painting), while citizens with more education focus on skilled work like carpentry, plumbing and electrical installation, as well as customer relations. The skilled native is able to focus on the most valuable tasks, while the immigrants help bring the price down for the overall project (it costs a lot to pay a highly trained carpenter to sweep up a work site). Peri argues, with strong evidence, that there are more native-born skilled craftspeople working today, not fewer, because of all those undocumented construction workers. A similar dynamic is at play on Wall Street. Many technical-support tasks are dominated by recent immigrants, while sales, marketing, advising and trading, which require cultural and linguistic fluency, are typically the domain of the native-born. (Whether Wall Street’s technical wizards have, on balance, helped or hurt the economy is a question for another day.)


This paradox of immigration is bound up with the paradox of economic growth itself. Growth has acquired a bad reputation of late among some, especially on the left, who associate the term with environmental destruction and rising inequality. But growth through immigration is growth with remarkably little downside. Whenever an immigrant enters the United States, the world becomes a bit richer. For all our faults, the United States is still far better developed economically than most nations, certainly the ones that most of our immigrants have left. Our legal system and our financial and physical infrastructure are also far superior to most (as surprising as that might sometimes seem to us). So when people leave developing economies and set foot on American soil, they typically become more productive, in economic terms. They earn more money, achieve a higher standard of living and add more economic value to the world than they would have if they stayed home. If largely open borders were to replace our expensive and restrictive lottery system, it’s likely that many of these immigrants would travel back and forth between the United States and their native countries, counteracting the potential brain drain by sharing knowledge and investment capital. Environmentally, immigration tends to be less damaging than other forms of growth, because it doesn’t add to the number of people on earth and often shifts people to more environmentally friendly jurisdictions.


To me, immigration is the greatest example of our faulty thinking, a shortsightedness that hurts others while simultaneously hurting ourselveselfs
LOL, he'll just evade this article with some crazy shyt










































Illegal immigrants are not immigrants.
what? bro are you ok? re-read what you just typed. shyt doesn't make sense.
:deadmanny:
 

tmonster

Superstar
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
17,900
Reputation
3,205
Daps
31,787
The article was about legal immigrants.

The article was NOT about illegal immigrants.
really?
js86rxn.png
..............................
Coyzl8c.png























































Ive already addressed that article at length.
at length huh?
F7QmcnG.png
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
Bushed
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
305,928
Reputation
-34,259
Daps
616,276
Reppin
The Deep State
really?
js86rxn.png
..............................
Coyzl8c.png






at length huh?
F7QmcnG.png

Read the article.

This thread and my talking points are specifically about ILLEGAL immigration.

And I even support reform of legal immigration procedures as I have problems with that as well on various levels.

But we're talking ILLEGAL immigration.
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
Bushed
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
305,928
Reputation
-34,259
Daps
616,276
Reppin
The Deep State
Its clear you haven't.

The word "illegal" "undocumented" etc is nowhere in there...its intellectually dishonest by lumping all immigration arguments under a single banner.

You've got to troll harder. Theres literally nothing you have to stand on and theres no facts to back you up.

I've posted data, figures, and facts here.

That NYT article states nothing about ILLEGAL immigration, especially its effects on communities on the lower end of socioeconomic status spectrum
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
Bushed
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
305,928
Reputation
-34,259
Daps
616,276
Reppin
The Deep State
@Broke Wave @hashmander @GinaThatAintNoDamnPuppy! @YeLovesBoston @marcuz @Smashius Clay @TheRealfG @ignorethis @Thomas @Raul @Wheresmypassport @the cac mamba @#SOG_soldier @sicc2def @O.G.B
@Monster @scrilla @BocaRear @Solomon Caine @jwonder @DEAD7 @Moshe. @Yup @The Amerikkkan Idol @Cadillac @Roddy Right @uggymoe



The Liberal Case Against Illegal Immigration

47230410.cached.jpg


Michal Czerwonka


Doug McIntyre

COUNTER PUNCH
11.25.145:45 AM ET
The Liberal Case Against Illegal Immigration

Yes, we need to do something to help the undocumented immigrants already here—but not in a way that drives down workers’ wages.
As a kid growing up in New York I didn’t know anything about Mexicans. I knew Cubans and Puerto Ricans, but Mexicans? We might as well be talking about Martians. I couldn’t tell a burrito from a sombrero.

That changed when I moved to Los Angeles. Suddenly, Carvel was out and Chili Verde was in.

Los Angeles was wonderfully exotic; a polyglot mix of Aztec, Incan, Mayan and New World scents and sounds. Mariachis provided the soundtrack as the City went mad with Fernando-mania. Blonde kids named Kyle and Zack cheered on Los Doyers while wearing jerseys with “Valenzuela” on the back.

I vaguely remembered reading something about friction in the 40s, “The Zoot Suit riots,” and of course bigger trouble a hundred years before that, which is how we ended up with California in the first place. But to my untrained eye all seemed right between the USA and our neighbors to the south.

But all wasn’t right. Since the passage of Ted Kennedy’s Immigration Reform Act of 1965, America has wrestled with a massive influx of illegal immigrants principally, but not exclusively, from Mexico and Central America. The South West felt it first. Now it’s everyone’s problem.

Last week President Obama made good on his long-anticipated threat to “act if Congress won’t.”


Fresh off a Midterm Election disaster, President Obama got off the mat and threw a haymaker at his political enemies and the American public who overwhelmingly rejected his policies and brand of leadership.

By issuing an Executive Order expanding the concept of “prosecutorial discretion” to allow millions of illegal immigrants to stay and work in this country, the President has thrown down the gauntlet to opponents of amnesty.

“Pass a bill,” said the President. And that’s just what the Republicans should do.



The first order of business for the new Congress in January should be a border security bill that hits the ball back over the net and forces the President and his pro-amnesty party to put up or shut up; Either they believe in a secure border or they don’t.

The only way we’ll ever know is with a border security bill unencumbered by residual issues like H1B visas, the Dream Act, family reunification or amnesty.

By insisting on “comprehensive immigration reform”, a euphemism for amnesty, both Democrats and the corporatist wing of the GOP have offered bills that create the illusion of border security while simply replicating the same un-kept promises of the infamous Reagan Amnesty of 1986.

The Simpson-Mazzoli Act promised a “one time only” amnesty for 3 million people. Along with amnesty, our borders were to be secured once and for all. The undocumented got their documents and we got at least 11 million more illegal immigrants. The number could be much higher.

Former Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson-- the Simpson half of Simpson-Mazzoli-- blames the Right along with the Left.

“Grover Norquist killed the National ID Card provision and the Democrats killed the border fence”, said Simpson in a phone interview this week.

The Chamber-of-Commerce Wing of the GOP is still willing to punt away America’s sovereignty to ensure the steady supply of cheap labor their corporate string-pullers demand.

Meanwhile, Democratic leaders blubber about racism while cynically scheming for a permanent demographic majority. They apparently don’t care how much damage they’re doing to the poor and working class of this country by insisting on the very policies that hurt the poor the most.


According to the non-partisan Public Policy Institute, California has the highest poverty rate in the nation. California also has the largest illegal population.

Coincidence?

In 2006 then-Senator Barack Obama understood how damaging illegal immigration is for the working people of this country.

“The number of immigrants added to the labor force every year is of a magnitude not seen in this country for over a century,” Obama wrote in The Audacity of Hope. “If this huge influx of mostly low-skill workers provides some benefits to the economy as a whole… it also threatens to depress further the wages of blue-collar Americans and put strains on an already overburdened safety net.”

Barack Obama was not the first Liberal to make this observation. Legendary Texas Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Jordan understood how millions of cheap laborers pouring across our southern border lowered the wages of all working men and women, especially African-Americans. Sxities icon Eugene McCarthy spent his final years warning about the negative impact of unfettered immigration. Perhaps the greatest irony remains that civil rights titan Caesar Chavez was a lifelong opponent of illegal immigration.

On August 4th, 1977, President Jimmy Carter issued a Presidential paper on immigration saying, among other things:

“In the last several years, millions of undocumented aliens have illegally immigrated to the United States. They have breached our nation’s immigration laws, displaced many American citizens from jobs, and placed an increased financial burden on many states and local governments.”

Carter went on to propose a series of reforms, focusing first on enforcement of our laws and establishing penalties for employers who knowingly hire illegal labor.

The Democratic-held Congress did nothing.

In 1979, then Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl Gates issued “Special Order 40”, an internal police directive, prohibiting LAPD officers from initiating a stop based on the suspicion a suspect may be in the country illegally. Special Order 40 is the granddaddy of sanctuary city policies that have been replicated in nearly every major city in America, encouraging millions to move north of the border.

The result has been catastrophic for the poor and working poor.

I learned the ugly side of illegal immigration from Black construction workers who, for whatever local anomaly, once dominated the drywall trade in Los Angeles. They complained their $18 dollar an hour jobs had fallen to $13 an hour before vanishing entirely as the industry was taken over by a largely illegal workforce.


Even with my B.A. in English I can understand the economics involved: lots of cheap labor cheapens labor. It’s supply and demand 101.

While local Democratic politicians exploited this new underclass to increase social service budgets and solidify power within their personal fiefdoms -- city councils, school boards and county boards of supervisors -- Corporate America lobbied for lax border security because they couldn’t outsource everything; hotel chambermaids have to be where the beds are. Same for driveway pavers and meat and poultry plant workers. It’s called “insourceing.”

What voters of both parties want is something so commonsensical you’d think even politicians would be able to grasp it -- first secure the border to stop the next 11 million from pouring in. Then deal with the host of significant residual issues starting with the Dream Act kids.

Unfortunately that’s not what President Obama has chosen to do.

With his Executive Order he’s hoping to bait the Republicans into a fight they can’t win: another government shutdown or maybe even a futile bid for impeachment, two roads the country clearly doesn’t want to travel.

But the country also rejects the road the President wants us to go down. On the eve of last week’s speech only 38-percent approved of his executive order plan.

Still, polls fluctuate. He’s undertaken a splashy Presidential tour to whip up support. And he has a news media eagerly cheerleading him on by saturating the airwaves with sympathetic stories showing the hardships faced by illegal immigrants without a peep about the human and financial toll that comes in their wake. So those poll numbers will likely improve.

What won’t improve is the plight of the poor who have to compete with even poorer people to maintain a toehold on the first rung of the ladder of success.
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
Bushed
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
305,928
Reputation
-34,259
Daps
616,276
Reppin
The Deep State
@Broke Wave @hashmander @GinaThatAintNoDamnPuppy! @YeLovesBoston @marcuz @Smashius Clay @TheRealfG @ignorethis @Thomas @Raul @Wheresmypassport @the cac mamba @#SOG_soldier @sicc2def @O.G.B
@Monster @scrilla @BocaRear @Solomon Caine @jwonder @DEAD7 @Moshe. @Yup @The Amerikkkan Idol @Cadillac @Roddy Right @uggymoe



Obama amnesty greater threat to blacks than police brutality, racial profiling, experts say


Migrants have been using several methods to cross the U.S.-Mexico border, such as hopping aboard trains bound for the north. Critics of President Obama’s amnesty say immigration enforcement has become lax and that too many beds at processing facilities for ... more >

By Kellan Howell - The Washington Times - Sunday, April 26, 2015

Economic and civil rights experts say increased immigration spurred by President Obama’s executive orders poses a bigger threat to the black community than police brutality or racial profiling, which have sparked protests in black communities across the country.

“It’s a bigger threat to black livelihood,” Peter Kirsanow, a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, said, adding that illegal immigration “dwarfs” the more inflammatory issues of police brutality, saying, “When you look at the hundreds of thousands of blacks thrown out of work over the years as a result of the competitive pressure the downstream effects are profound.”


The number of unemployed black workers in the U.S. is soaring, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Over 12.2 million black people of working age were not in the labor force in March, meaning they had neither been employed nor actively sought a job for at least four weeks.

SEE ALSO: Police kill more whites than blacks, but minority deaths generate more outrage

The labor force participation rate for black men ages 20 and older is more than 5 percentage points lower than it is for white men, and for those in the labor force, the black unemployment rate is more than double the white unemployment rate, at 10.1 percent versus 4.7 percent.

Loosened immigration policy will only compound the problem.

As more illegal immigrants enter the U.S., encouraged by the president’s sweeping executive actions, they flood low-skilled labor markets once dominated by blacks, which ultimately decreases wages and increases job competition for low-skilled black workers, said Mr. Kirsanow.

“The long-term, large-scale flow of immigration into the United States has worked to erode both the wages and employment prospects of African-American workers,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interests, in a statement to The Times.

“Yet the Senate’s ‘Gang of Eight’ plan would have doubled future immigration from its existing record levels. As a nation, our first duty is always to our own citizens, especially those who have sacrificed so much for this country. Any responsible immigration plan must promote higher wages, rising employment and improved working conditions for people already living here,” he said.

Increasing unemployment rates in the black community can lead to numerous other negative social consequences, Mr. Kirsanow said.

Mr. Kirsanow said. “These are the things that the Congressional Black Caucus and the president have refused to address and are things that are tremendously harmful to the prospects of black Americans economically, socially and culturally.”

A spokeswoman for the Congressional Black Caucus did not reply to a request by The Times for comment.

While Mr. Kirsanow opposed the president’s immigration policies, his colleagues on the Civil Rights Commission came out in support of President Obama’s executive orders issued in November, jumping on the political bandwagon at the time.

However, a 2008 briefing report to the Civil Rights Commission on the effects of immigration on wages and employment opportunities for black workers clearly stated that more illegal immigration hurts low-skilled black workers.

“About six in 10 adult black males have a high school diploma or less, and black men are disproportionately employed in the low-skilled labor market, where they are more likely to be in labor competition with immigrants,” the report reads. “Illegal immigration to the United States in recent decades has tended to depress both wages and employment rates for low-skilled American citizens, a disproportionate number of whom are black men.”

Commission Chair Martin Castro, who was not a member of the commission when the 2008 study was conducted, has said that the report was missing key data that contradicted the overall findings and plans to call for a review of the study.

Some economists say that increased immigration doesn’t hurt low-skilled American workers because the two groups don’t typically do the same jobs.

Low-skilled Americans, nearly all of whom speak English, tend to work in jobs that require communication skills, while low-skilled immigrants, who mostly don’t, tend to do jobs that require manual labor, Alex Nowrasteh, immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute, explained.

He cited research from economists Gianmarco Ottaviano and Giovanni Peri, who found in their studies in 2008 and 2010 that more immigration tends to raise overall wages for U.S.-born workers.

But while economists agree that immigration improves living standards and wages on average, studies are divided on whether immigration reduces wages for certain groups of workers. Some studies suggest that immigration has reduced wages for low-skilled workers without a high school diploma and college graduates.

A 2007 study by economists George Borjas and Lawrence Katz found that increases in immigrant workers from 1990 to 2006 reduced the wages of low-skilled workers by 4.7 percent and college graduates by 1.7 percent.

In 2009 Mr. Borjas, a Harvard professor, specifically studied the effects of immigration on the economic status of black men and found that a 10 percent immigrant-induced increase in the supply of a particular skill group reduced black wages by 2.5 percent, lowered the employment rate of black men by 5.9 percentage points and increased the incarceration rate of blacks by 1.3 percentage points.

“It is evident that there is a negative correlation between changes in employment propensities and the immigrant share, and that the correlation is stronger for black men,” Mr. Borjas wrote.

But Mr. Nowrasteh explained that more people coming in to the country is good for the U.S. economy, and said that the bigger threat to wages for low-skilled workers is technological change.

“Studies on skilled-bias technological change find a lot of the new machines, computers [and] ways to automate manufacturing increase the wages of high-skilled people a lot more and potentially decrease the wages of lower-skilled people,” Mr. Nowrasteh said, adding that the same economic effects have been observed in countries that don’t accept many immigrants.

Multiple polls show that Americans across the board, regardless of race or political alignment, want less immigration.

In a nationwide survey conducted between August and October of 2014, The Polling Company, Inc. asked over 1,000 adults: “If U.S. businesses have trouble finding workers, what should happen?”

In total, 75 percent said businesses should raise wages and improve working conditions to attract American workers, while only 8 percent said more immigrants workers should be allowed in to the country to fill those jobs.

Eighty-six percent of blacks surveyed said businesses should increase wages rather than hire more immigrants, and 71 percent of Hispanics said the same thing.

Seventy-four percent of Republican responders and 79 percent of Democratic responders also said businesses should increase wages to attract American employees.

In a January 2015 Gallup poll, 39 percent of Americans said they were dissatisfied with current immigration levels and wanted less immigration rather than more.

Factors other than illegal immigration do contribute to black unemployment, and halting illegal immigration is not a panacea for the issues with decreased wages for low-skilled black workers, Mr. Kirsanowexplained. But the effect on low-skilled minority workers must be considered by lawmakers in forming comprehensive immigration reform policies, he said, adding that it must start with following the laws already in place.

“We are not serious about securing the border; we are not serious about enforcement; we are not serious about e-verify. All of these things would be extremely helpful to low-skilled workers and, particularly, black Americans,” Mr. Kirsanow said.


Copyright © 2015 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
 

Street Knowledge

Superstar
Supporter
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
23,818
Reputation
1,713
Daps
56,666
Reppin
NYC
Throughout U.S. History, Immigration Surges Have Harmed Black Workers

"He adds: "Much of the power of immigration streams comes from 'ethnic networking,' in which immigrants after obtaining a job use word of mouth to bring relatives and other acquaintances from their country into the same workplace. Immigrants today act like the immigrants early this century, who took whole occupations and turned them into their own preserve, quickly shutting native-born Americans — especially blacks — out of a workplace14 … Within five years [in the 1990s], the workforce of seafood plants in North Carolina, Virginia and Maryland had changed from being predominantly African-American to mainly teenage girls and young women from Mexico15 … Businesses cease to advertise jobs. Natives don't hear about openings as they are announced through word of mouth of the foreign workers in their local community and also across the country and even in other countries."

:wow:
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
Bushed
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
305,928
Reputation
-34,259
Daps
616,276
Reppin
The Deep State
Throughout U.S. History, Immigration Surges Have Harmed Black Workers

"He adds: "Much of the power of immigration streams comes from 'ethnic networking,' in which immigrants after obtaining a job use word of mouth to bring relatives and other acquaintances from their country into the same workplace. Immigrants today act like the immigrants early this century, who took whole occupations and turned them into their own preserve, quickly shutting native-born Americans — especially blacks — out of a workplace14 … Within five years [in the 1990s], the workforce of seafood plants in North Carolina, Virginia and Maryland had changed from being predominantly African-American to mainly teenage girls and young women from Mexico15 … Businesses cease to advertise jobs. Natives don't hear about openings as they are announced through word of mouth of the foreign workers in their local community and also across the country and even in other countries."

:wow:
:wow:
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
Bushed
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
305,928
Reputation
-34,259
Daps
616,276
Reppin
The Deep State
http://judiciary.house.gov/_cache/f...201/testimony-of-frank-l-morris-phd-feb-9.pdf

Frank L Morris, PhD testimony before the US House of Representatives:

Morris_Frank_wm.png


Frank Morris | The HistoryMakers

Testimony of Frank L. Morris PhD
Progressives for Immigration Reform
Retired Graduate Dean, Professor and Senior Foreign Service Officer

United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security February 11, 2015, Rayburn House Office Building 2141, 1 PM






Read this shyt, man to man.

This isn't something i'm making up. If you're a black male, its time to start standing up against illegal immigration. Its NOT helping the black community.




@Broke Wave @hashmander @GinaThatAintNoDamnPuppy! @YeLovesBoston @marcuz @Smashius Clay @TheRealfG @ignorethis @Thomas @Raul @Wheresmypassport @the cac mamba @#SOG_soldier @sicc2def @O.G.B
@Monster @scrilla @BocaRear @Solomon Caine @jwonder @DEAD7 @Moshe. @Yup @The Amerikkkan Idol @Cadillac @Roddy Right @uggymoe
 
Top