Archive for the 'Patrick Cleburne' Category

Who killed California while “We grow richer” at Vdare

October 6, 2010

Patrick Cleburne hits the nail on the head at Vdare or rather uncovers the nail of greed that underlies immigration boosters from Commentary Magazine to Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Rupert Murdoch.

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2010/10/06/who-killed-california-the-neocons-3and-america/

Jennifer Rubin at Commentary lets out the motives of those who pay her, immigration replacement is what happens “While we grow richer.”

Rubin:

We evolve, we absorb, and we grow richer with each wave of immigrants.

The Census has updated its graph of men and women’s median wages for another year, see page 19:

http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p60-238.pdf

Men’s median wages are lower than in 1973 adjusted for inflation. Women’s median wages are what men’s were in 1963 “While we grow richer”.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/california–there-it-went-15537

http://ricochet.com/conversations/Immigration-In-the-Golden-State-Three-Questions-for-Jennifer-Rubin

Advertisements

Rev Ted Pike and Peter Brimelow still chance to stop hate crimes bill

October 18, 2009

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/10/18/hate-crime-bill-dirty-deal-still-not-done/

18 October 2009
“Hate Crime” Bill: Dirty Deal Still Not Done
[Peter Brimelow] @ 4:25 pm

http://www.truthtellers.org/hatecrimes.html

Rev Ted Pike and Peter Brimelow tell us there is still a chance to stop hate crimes bill.  This is saving free speech and our way of life.  The hate crimes bill is part of generalized genocide.  (Following has theory and then many links to related articles in series on generalized genocide and that it causes narrow genocide which is illegal and thus generalized genocide is too.)

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2009/10/17/generalized-genocide/

Jim Webb, why did you fight in Vietnam?  To take our freedom here at home?  Is cowardice before hate crimes bills the New Webb?   Senator Mark Warner, are you just a pale shadow of John Warner?  Do both of you have no respect for Thomas Jefferson?  Or George Washington?  Or James Madison the Father of the Bill of Rights?  Madison’s wife saved the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (at least in legend if not in fact).   Too bad you two can’t even try (neither in fact nor in legend).  Apparently, you can’t even think about it.

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2009/07/16/senators-mark-warner-and-jim-webb-vote-against-s-909-hate-crimes/

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2009/07/17/senators-mark-warner-and-jim-webb-vote-against-whites-on-hate-crimes/

Also read Patrick Cleburne at Vdare earlier on stopping hate crimes.  This set of columns by Cleburne is the way to learn the history of the fight on the bill.   These columns have many links to articles and to blogs of those fighting the bill including Rev Ted Pike.

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/06/04/hate-crime-laws-a-zero-sum-game/

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/06/11/holocaust-museum-shooting-quick-lets-suppress-free-speech/

Should one shooting end the first amendment and our freedom in general?  Not to mention the right to life free from immigration’s substitution effect that results in genetic extinction.  When a random event ends our freedom it shows they intended it in advance.  Remember the Patriot Act?  That should be a phrase like Remember Pearl Harbor or Remember the Maine.

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/06/16/top-obama-gay-hate-crime-bill-to-pass-this-weekmaybe/

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/06/18/immigration-scepticism-to-be-a-hate-crime/

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/06/19/is-the-hate-bill-faltering/

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/06/19/some-hate-killings-more-equal-than-others/

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/06/21/hate-bill-problemwhite-men-can-count/

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/06/26/a-g-holder-no-hate-crime-protection-for-white-christians-or-servicemen/

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/06/27/hate-crime-bill-its-the-privilege-stupid/

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/07/01/featured-holders-chilling-blunders-on-hate-crime-bill/

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/07/02/hate-crime-bill-some-did-not-flinch/

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/07/07/coming-from-california-a-crack-down-on-free-speech/

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/07/10/hate-crimes-bill-update/

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/07/13/this-week-ground-zero-for-hate-crimes-bill/

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/07/15/hate-crime-privilege-grab-dangerously-close/

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/07/16/hate-crimes-bill-the-christians-strike-back/

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/07/16/hate-bill-cloture-vote-early-friday-sunset-on-liberty/

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/07/17/hate-crimes-bill-a-reckoning/

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/07/17/hate-crimes-bill-gays-adl-more-powerful-than-christians/

Cleburne on 2 British bloggers prosecuted for hate speech:

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/07/12/for-who-the-bell-tolls/

Was part of the motivation for hate crimes here, the victory by BNP in the mother country?

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/06/07/bnp-breaks-though-in-european-parliament-elections/

Obama gave Hillary and McCain the finger and called Sarah Palin a pig.  Obama was elected on a platform of hate of whites which he showed openly.  Obama earned the name, President Hate.

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2009/01/21/obama-gives-whites-finger-metaphorically/

You can drag it to second 48 and see him put his hand over his forehead when he implies Sarah Palin is a pig.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utHZ7zYytLk

Obama giving McCain the finger

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnEhmbKazdw

Obama giving Hillary the finger

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoOFp-RDpvM

Obama smiles broadly when white comes up during the hate “prayer” against whites at Obama’s  Sinaugural.  He doesn’t grimace as if he didn’t know it was coming. He just lessens his smile near the end.  Moreover, he smiles broadly when its over.  You can see it below.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/20/inaugural-benediction-pray-that-white-will-embrace-what-is-right/

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/20/about-that-race-based-benediction/

It was Obama’s plan.  This was deliberate.  Obama gave The White People the finger at his inauguration.  That inaugurated him as President Hate.  President Hate of the White Race.

Vdare blog answers Kennedy eulogies

August 30, 2009

The outstanding writers at the Vdare blog that Peter Brimelow has put together spent Saturday answering the false and harmful eulogies of Teddy Kennedy pouring out from TV.  This continues their excellent work from the week.  The first step to being a good writer is being a clear thinker.  Vdare is on the right side of logic so that is the first step.

Its writers have done an outstanding job pointing out the truth about Kennedy over the years and in this last week.  If anyone is thinking about where to contribute money, its to this team that Peter Brimelow has put together.   This is the hottest team of writers writing anywhere.

While the elite world wept for Kennedy (and Free Republic pulled a thread last week for being too anti-Kennedy) Vdare pointed out the following:

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/08/28/ted-kennedy%E2%80%99s-legacy-symbolism-vs-stark-realities/

[Kevin Lamb] @ 12:07 pm

Historian Douglas Brinkley summarized Kennedy’s legacy as if his political contributions ranked with the Founding Fathers.

The parade of odious court historians who bray out a twisted version of history was on display yesterday and the day before.   Vdare was on the scene to point some of them out. However, this is a work for many to follow their lead and join in.  If you have any memories of this or notice transcripts of it in the days to come be sure to post them on your blog if you have one, here in the comments, or some place.  This is valuable work.

The plagiarist Doris Kearns Goodwin whose career is praising the greatest harm of our most harmful presidents was in full queen bee mode.  She was an assistant to LBJ in the White House.  Not content with her contribution to harming the nation then she went on to try to finish it off with her praise of the poison.   LBJ, FDR and Lincoln and his cabinet she has praised.  This is the trio that destroyed Founding Stock America.

http://www.doriskearnsgoodwin.com/team-of-rivals.php

Obama modeled himself on Lincoln in choosing such cabinet or near cabinet luminaries as Larry Summers, Eric Holder, and Timothy Geithner.  This trio is charged by Obama with finishing off Founding Stock America.   Bailing out Wall Street is an example.  They have done nothing to deal with the risk of large financial institutions as even Stanley Fischer pointed out at a recent meeting of the in crowd.  Obama has said he read Despicable Doris’s tome while choosing his team of the Devil’s Disciples.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/cabinet/

==

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/08/29/kennedycare/

Steve Sailer points out that Kennedycare will remind people to think KopechneCare.  Kopechne was the first person to get Kennedycare, which consisted of a Kennedy Death Panel of one.  She died not from drowing but from slow suffocation.  You can still see ytedk.com website in the archive.  (Make copies if you want one.)

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.ytedk.com

Kennedy left her to die while he went back to his hotel, had a hot shower and a drink and then called friends saing the Protestant bigots will make a big deal of this.

Sailer elaborates on this and points out Kennedy was found with a dead girl in his car and his career lived on just fine.  There are different rules for the genociders and those who are genocided.

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/08/29/tenure/

==

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/08/29/obama-kennedy-voice-of-poor-and-powerless-vdarecom-of-which-nationality/

[Patrick Cleburne] @ 3:30 pm

With deadly wit, Patrick Cleburne takes apart the nonsense that Kennedy was for the poor.

Obama lauds Kennedy as voice of poor and powerless
Sat Aug 29, 2009 12:44pm

The VDARE.com response of course is “poor and powerless of which nationality”? Kennedy’s sponsorship of, and unrepentant attempts to expand the 1965 Immigration Act disaster has been an unmitigated catastrophe for the American Working class – particularly Blacks – in terms of income and quality of life. It has to some extent benefited Plutocrats like Kennedy and the upper class generally.

This is an extremely important point and builds on discussion previously this week here and at Vdare back and forth on income inequality graphs being U shaped in the 20th century.

Those posts started with two on Novak and then the Kennedy articles have built on those.

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2009/08/18/nation-of-immigrants-robert-novak-called-us-xenophobic-demagogues/e

(Krugman graph on income inequality discussed here:)

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/08/20/robert-novak-old-atlantic-lighthouse-votes-no/

Link to Krugman graph:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/even-more-gilded/

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/ted-kennedy-legacy-median-wages-same-1973/

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/08/26/ted-kennedy-destroyed-the-greatest-country-that-ever-was-old-atlantic-lighthouse/

Also see Cleburne’s post here pointing out Kennedy’s harm to the working class:

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/08/26/senator-edward-kennedy-a-disaster-for-his-country/

==

To supplement that discussion, the following references are taken from an earlier post on Joe Guzzardi pointing out how the press has hollowed out itself by its support of immigration.

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2009/08/22/press-watches-people-not-the-powerful/

Berkeley prof Saez’s paper with more graphs of the share of top 1 percent, top 10 percent over the period from before 1924 immigration restriction to today:

http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2007.pdf

“Top Incomes in the Long Run of History” with Tony Atkinson and Thomas Piketty, April 2009, forthcoming in A.B. Atkinson and T. Piketty eds., Oxford University Press, 2010 (Tables and Figures in Excel format)

See Fig 13.8 of Excel sheet.  The U shaped countries from 1900 to 2004.  These are the UK, US, CA, AUS, NZ, IN, ARG, SE, NO.   We can see why immigration is popular with the elites in Europe.

Look at Table 13A.19.  The top .1 percent in Norway is in column F.  The top .1 percent went from being around 1 percent of national income in the 1970’s to being as much as 8.41 percent in 2005 as well as other high numbers.  These fluctuate with the stock market.  The very top have gotten a huge share of national income by immigration keeping wages down. These are the people who own the newspapers and TV stations.  They own Hollywood studios

==

Patrick Cleburne gives Kennedy his epitaph

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/08/26/senator-edward-kennedy-a-disaster-for-his-country/

In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.”

These words should be his epitaph.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1213928&blobtype=pdf

We investigated various cases of the island model with stochastic migration. If the population is infinite, the immigrants have a fixed gene frequency and the alleles are neutral, the gene frequency on the island converges to that of the immigrants.

Because of affirmative action, the alleles are not neutral, but non-white ones are favored.  That just makes it happen faster.  In fact, each gene here individually has a world line that goes extinct under immigration as proven here:

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2007/06/04/immigration-vanishing-survival-theorem/

Peter Brimelow has assembled a brilliant team of Vdare Veterans to stand against the Feckless Fabulists who are legion in the main stream media.  Their names and faces familiar to us.  Academics who once knew the truth and have grown so accustomed to lies they can hardly notice. They are accustomed to their lies not being pointed out which leads them to tell even bigger whoppers.

Krugman posting the income inequality graph that is U shaped is an example.  The daily liars we are exposed to take a toll on us we don’t realize.  Putnam should do a study of that.  It took courage for Peter Brimelow as an editor to turn his group loose on Kennedy’s funeral day.

Most of the rest of the right was silent.  But it was the proper thing to do.  The MSM had their teams of corporate liars spewing out false statements.  Its always the right thing to do to meet lies with truth and to do so instantly.

No family feelings entitle the MSM to get away with lies, which is exactly what the MSM expected.  Its what the speakers expected.  They were put out on national TV for the nation to come to a halt and listen to them.  They plugged health care and uncivil rights and immigration.  Kennedy himself said it in his remarks prepared for his funeral.  Brimelow had the courage to see through the establishment ploy and not hold back like certain other sites like National (morbid) Review.

==1126 AM

Patrick Cleburne extends the great Vdare coverage of Kennedy Week with this article on the Brazilianization of Martha’s Vineyard.  Americans can’t get jobs where Democrats rule.

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/08/30/democratic-elite-prefers-marthas-vineyardbrazilian/

North East…Brazil?

Cleburne’s trademark incisive wit on display.

(Lou Dobbs take notice.)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/23/obama-marthas-vineyard-chelsea-clinton

The Guardian asks why MV is Obama’s ideal retreat?  Because Americans can’t get jobs.  Cleburne links to FT in depth article on the history of immigration there.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/e737b6c6-87a1-11de-9280-00144feabdc0.html

Cleburne links to two Vdare classics worth reading:

http://vdare.com/guzzardi/cheap_labor.htm

http://vdare.com/pb/people.htm

Cleburne also documented that Obama got the hedge fund money

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2008/10/26/hedge-funds-support-obama-why/

Cleburne links to this informative article on the top hedge funds.

http://nymag.com/news/features/2007/hedgefunds/30342/

They wanted their bailout and illegals too.  They want the government to pay for their health care as well as legalize their employers crimes on a rolling ongoing basis.  There are many other jobs they don’t want Founding Stock Americans to do, like Attorney General or Supreme Court justice. Obama has complied.

Kennedy Leftist Awakening: Irreversible Change by Immigration

May 21, 2007

The 1920’s and 1960’s were worldwide leftist awakenings that wanted irreversible change. Teddy Kennedy is a leader in the Leftist Awakening of the 1960’s. The 1920’s leftist awakening used ethnic, religious, class, and troublemaker cleansings in many countries to eliminate the physical embodiment of the culture they wished to destroy. The 1960’s Left uses immigration to irreversibly destroy the physical embodiment of the culture it proclaims it wants to destroy. In China and Cuba, and some other countries, the 1960’s Leftist awakening used the same ethnic, religious, class, and troublemaker cleansings as the 1920’s leftist awakenings did.

In the 17th century, the Puritan revolution was followed by the restoration which undid the extreme parts of the Puritan revolution. The French Revolution aimed for irreversible change. Their method was the terror, i.e. kill the physical embodiment of the culture of the ancien regime.

A revolution to replace a king kills the king. A revolution to change a society has to kill the group or groups that embody the culture of the old society. Leftist Awakenings call themselves culture wars.

Leftist Awakenings use some form of cleansings to eliminate the physical embodiment of the previous culture so that it can’t be restored. The Leftist Awakenings of the French Revolution, Nazi, Stalin, Mao, and 1960’s revolutions in the West and world wide all tried to eliminate the physical embodiment of the previous culture.

Each of these Leftist Awakenings targeted the people or groups they thought were a threat to restore the previous culture in a Glorious Restoration. These can be the nobility, professors, priests, Jews, kulaks, capitalists, merchants, or Archie Bunker.

The French Revolution had the “The Terror”. The Russian Revolution had the “Red Terror”, the Nazi Revolution had “The Holocaust” and killed not just 6 million Jews, who embodied the old culture, but also millions of others. The Mao Revolution had the “Cultural Revolution”. These were all Leftist Awakenings.

The 1960’s Awakening is also a self-proclaimed Culture War. It targets the Archie Bunkers. It uses ethnic cleansing by immigration. It demonizes Bunker for speaking out. It demonizes Lou Dobbs as the Nightly Nativist.

Immigration causes ethnic cleansing. If US population is 300 million and stable, then if people live 75 years 4 million die per year. If 2 million enter, then in a steady state, births equal 4 million deaths – 2 million entrants = 2 million.

Births over deaths is 2 million/ 4 million. That is a genetic survival ratio per generation of 1/2. It is 25 years from birth to parent. In 2 cycles, the genes left are 1/2 * 1/2 = 1/4. In 3 cycles its 1/8. So in 75 years only 1/8 of the starting genes are left. That is ethnic cleansing. That is irreversible change. That is eliminating the physical embodiment of the old culture.

If population goes to 450 million, and entrants are 1 million, then 6 million die per year, so births are 5 million. We then have a per generation survival ratio of genes of 5/6. This then goes like 25/36, 125/216, 625/1296, 3125/7776, …

In this Leftist Awakening, they use immigration to reduce the birth rate below replacement of the physical embodiment of the West. Its working.

“Numbers Drop for the Married With Children
Institution Becoming The Choice of the Educated, Affluent

By Blaine Harden
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 4, 2007; Page A03

PORTLAND, Ore. — Punctuating a fundamental change in American family life, married couples with children now occupy fewer than one in every four households — a share that has been slashed in half since 1960 and is the lowest ever recorded by the census.”

The first ever census is 1790. This is irreversible change by eliminating the physical embodiment of the old culture.

Men’s median wages are the same as in 1973. See p60-231.pdf. Immigrants take away job security and that causes young adults to not marry, have children, stay married, and have more children.

In All in the Family, the Left shows Archie Bunker with one child and one grandchild. This is how the Left ethnically cleanses their victim, Archie Bunker. Bunker is a nativist. Bunker is a bigot. Bunker must be cleansed. He is cleansed by keeping him to 1 child and 1 grandchild. His son-in-law has to live at home and has only one child. The Left uses immigration to keep down men’s wages. That keeps the number of babies below replacement. That ethnically cleanses out the physical embodiment of the old culture, Archie Bunker. Immigration is the Terror of the 1960’s Awakening.

Call your Senator today. They vote on cloture tonight, tell your Senator vote no on cloture. That means they can’t move to the next step.

==

This post was also a comment at Front Page Magazine

http://www.frontpagemag.com/GoPostal/index.asp?ID=28306

Title: Osher right: Noam Chomsky Leftist Awakening Old Atlantic 5/21/2007 9:08:16 AM

Lead in there to comment on:

Causing Versus Defusing Rebellion Osher Doctorow Ph.D. 5/21/2007 3:55:22 AM

Great comments by Osher on Chomsky.
Noam Chomsky was and is a leader in what might be called a Leftist Awakening.

==Patrick Cleburne on Steven M. Warshawsky
Good thinking from “American Thinker”

[Patrick Cleburne] @ 9:11 am [Email author] [Email This Article] [Print This Article]

From a quality point of view, I do not think Steven M. Warshawsky’s posting yesterday on the American Thinker web site can really be bettered:

Out-of-control immigration represents the greatest existential challenge of our time. By “existential challenge,” I mean a public policy problem that goes to the heart of what it means to be “American” and which threatens to fundamentally, and perhaps permanently, alter American society for the worse.

(The Kennedy-Bush Immigration Travesty May 20 2007)

==The French Revolution and income inequality appears in an article today linked to by Vdare today.
Immigration And Class Warfare

[James Fulford] @ 3:11 pm [Email author] [Email This Article] [Print This Article]

Martin Hutchinson, who did an article for us once, has a Bears Lair column on immigration and it’s effect on the relatively classless society that has evolved in the US.

[The end of the classless society, PrudentBear.com, May 21, 2007]

==Lawrence Auster has been using the idea of the Eloi and our inability to call our Senators to stop immigration and vote for candidates against immigration like Tancredo

Eloi site:amnation.com

search Eloi Morlocks immigration

==Lawrence Auster on their desire for irreversible change

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/007837.html

For its supporters, this bill is the decisive act in that endeavor, breaking the old America in such a way that it will lose all power of resistance. That’s why they engage in any lie, any fraud, any violation of the normal deliberative process, in order to push the bill through. They are playing for keeps.

Auster has been a leader in pointing this out.

For Senator Lindsey Graham, its saying, “God, let’s see if you can fix what I break.”

==

Kennedy profits from his cleansing of us. The top 1 percent get 20 percent of national income now, 10 percent during immigration restriction, and got 20 percent before immigration restriction.

http://www.cbpp.org/7-10-06inc.htm

Ed Rubenstein at Vdare has commented on this U shaped pattern:

“u shaped” site:vdare.com

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/060926_nd.htm

Men’s median wages are flat since 1973.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf

productivity and stock prices go up together, with the productivity of workers going largely into stock prices instead of median wages.

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/08/the_underreport.html

==

Open Secrets

Rank Name Minimum Net Worth Maximum Net Worth

1 Herb Kohl (D-Wis) $219,098,029 to $234,549,004 Voted Yes S. 2611

2 John Kerry (D-Mass) $165,741,511 to $235,262,100 Voted Yes S. 2611

3 Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa) $78,150,023 to $101,579,003 Not Voting S. 2611

4 Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) $43,343,464 to $98,660,021 Voted Yes S. 2611

5 Lincoln D. Chafee (R-RI) $41,153,105 to $64,096,019 Voted Yes S. 2611

6 Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) $38,198,170 to $90,733,019 Voted Yes S. 2611

7 John McCain (R-Ariz) $25,071,142 to $38,043,014 Voted Yes S. 2611

8 Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass) $19,189,049 to $93,043,004 Voted Yes S. 2611

Kennedy and McCain know immigration math. Median wages flat since 1973, productivity up, profits up, stock prices up.

McCain:

http://www.steinreport.com/archives/010372.html#comments

McCain: [Expletive] you! I know more about this than anyone else in the room”

lets wordsmith this:

McCain: [Expletive] you! Morloch Senators like myself, Teddy Kennedy, and Lindsey Graham know more about this than any Eloi in the room”

== Paul Nachman at Vdare says call your Senator today.

http://www.vdare.com/nachman/070520_sellout.htm

Postscript:

OK, you want to know what I do, besides writing occasional pieces, gratis, [VDARE.COM note: we’ve tried to pay him!] for VDARE.COM?

Last year I donated more than $11,000 (tax deductible) to the various organizations fighting for us and more than $5,000 (non-deductible) to political candidates who were focusing on immigration sanity. I’m on track for similar levels in 2007. No, I’m not rich, and I content myself with driving a trashed-out 1984 Mazda truck.

This year I’ve made half a dozen 200-mile round trips to Helena to testify on Montana bills aimed at combating illegal immigration.

Since the start of 2006, I’ve submitted about 85 letters to newspapers (with about 25 published), ghostwritten several published op-eds and letters, and had two op-eds published under my own name.

I also send every NumbersUSA fax (n.b. after customizing them) and make most of the requested phone calls—the latter being a distinctly non-favorite activity.

==

I called Jim Webb’s Senate office

http://webb.senate.gov/

and said to vote against the amnesty guest worker bill and uphold his promise to vote against guest workers. Call now Phone: (202) 224-4024 Fax: 202-228-6363. You can call the district offices if the main number is busy.

Senator John Warner’s number was busy two times.

http://www.senate.gov/~warner/

http://www.senate.gov/~warner/contact/offices.htm

I called Warner’s main number again and it was busy around noon. Then I called a district office and got through. My message for the Senator was I was against amnesty and to vote no on cloture. Call now. Whenever you read this, call.

I also tried calling the White House and the RNC. The White House just rang. The RNC I left a voice mail against amnesty.

RNC 202.863.8500

https://www.gop.com/Secure/Splash.aspx

White House Comment Line: (202) 456-1414

I tried to leave a message but it just rang and rang.

==Call Your state party GOP

http://www.gop.com/States/StateDetails.aspx?state=VA

Tell them you want no amnesty, no guest worker and no legal immigration until women, Hispanic and black median wages catch up with all men’s median wages. If they’ll listen also say you want all men, black, white, Asian and Hispanic men’s labor participation rates to get back to the 80 percent in 1965 before we have any more immigration. The misery index for a society is not the unemployment rate its 100 minus the male labor participation rate. Our society has a misery index that is running a huge fever.

==

Senator Jim Webb and Senator John Warner both voted aye on cloture.  Cloture meant to stop debate on the motion to allow the bill to come to the floor. This advanced the bill.

Jim Webb promised to vote against guest worker. This bill has 400,000 guest workers with an adjustable cap. Both have supported this guest worker and amnesty bill that is harming Virginia. These are not the views of their constituents.

Warner is the 21st wealthiest Senator as of 2005. Immigration keeps men’s median wages to the 1973 level and all others below that, women, black men, Hispanic men, etc. These Senators voted for their personal stock portfolios against the median wages of their constituents. Webb’s pledge to vote against guest workers was not upheld by his vote on Monday May 21, 2007.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.01348:

==

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/05/21/senate-votes-for-cloture-on-amnesty-bill-69-23/

==

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?tab=main&bill=s110-1348

==
“This Is the Year”Don’t expect Pelosi to kill semi-amnesty.

P.P.S.: Will backers of “comprehensive” immigration reform continue to tout approving poll numbers from polls that specifically cited the now-defunct “back taxes” requirement before asking voters for their opinion about semi-amnesty? The CNN poll of May 4, 2007, for example, got a large favorable response when it asked if people favored

“Creating a program that would allow illegal immigrants already living in the United States for a number of years to stay in this country and apply for U.S. citizenship if they had a job and paid back taxes.” [E.A.]

I wonder what the response would be to a query about favoring

“Creating a program that would allow illegal immigrants already living in the United States for a number of years to stay in this country and apply for U.S. citizenship even if they don’t pay back taxes.”

http://www.pollingreport.com/immigration.htm

==What Republican candidates for President should say:

No amnesty and pause all legal immigration including student visas until

  1. Median wages of blacks, Hispanics, and women catch up with those of all men.
  2. Labor force participation rates of black, Hispanic, Asian, and white men return to the 80 percent level before Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act.

Labor force participation rates including for men and women by ethnic group, black, Hispanic, Asian and white at BLS:

www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/2006/B40.xls

(You can download an excel viewer)

http://www.bls.gov/emp/emplab05.htm

All 4 groups of men are projected to decline in labor force participation rates from 2004 to 2014 by the BLS because of immigration and illegals staying, one way or another.

Men’s and women’s median wages graph page 18:

http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf

Note that men’s median wages are flat since 1973.

Bloomberg is considering running, presumably to guarantee that men’s median wages stay at the 1973 level by continued immigration and that stock prices continue their rise from the impact of legal immigration since the 1965 Immigration Act.

==

The way to acknowledge Nachman’s Contribution is to call your Senators today.

Bush offers to take 60,000 Bhutan refugees

May 19, 2007

Patrick Cleburne at Vdare writes about an offer by George W. Bush and Condoleeza Rice to bring 60,000 refugees from Bhutan to the U.S.

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2007/05/19/2645/

U.S. offer to Bhutan refugees fuels tension
Reuters India Thu May 17, 2007

Over 3,000 Americans have died in Iraq.  George W. Bush and Condoleeza Rice have no loyalty to those who died.   They didn’t die for Bush and Rice to break America’s middle class and America and then tell God, “Let’s see if you can fix what we’ve broken.”

http://antiwar.com/casualties/ 

Also a reminder:

Virginia Beach Teens Killed at Intersection

[Brenda Walker] @ 3:59 pm [Email author] [Email This Article] [Print This Article]


Ramos had a prior DUI conviction in Chesapeake this year, so if Rep. Sue Myrick’s Scott Gardner Act had been law, he would have been immediately deported for being a drunk-driving illegal alien. The legislation, originally written in 2005, has been resubmitted in this Congress as HR1355.

Below (at link), Tessa Tranchant, 16, left, and Allison Kunhardt, 17, were killed late Friday.

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2007/04/03/virginia-beach-teens-killed-at-intersection/

At Firesociety

Re: President George Bush Renewing Efforts on Immigration

April 9, 2007

“President Renewing Efforts on Immigration Plan for Overhaul Faces Battle in Divided Congress”

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, April 9, 2007; Page A01

See comments by Patrick Cleburne at

Problem for Amnesty: Troops unwilling.

Follow up WaPo Article

Bush Pushes Immigration Plan, Guest Worker Program

By Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, April 9, 2007; 3:36 PM
Comments at Follow Up article
==Comments original WaPo article posted at WaPo below

What follows is a mess. Its notes while posting comments at WaPo on the Bush immigration speech. In some cases, the links that were used to source quotes are included. But these are not formatted as live links at this point.
==

Men’s median wages peaked in 1973. See p60-231.pdf a publication of the census at census.gov. Search on p60-231.pdf is enough. Income inequality is U shaped in the 20th century. Search on “u shaped” income inequality Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez. Saez is a Berkeley prof. He has data to download from his website. They have an NBER paper. They find that the top 1 percent got 20 percent of national income before immigration restriction in the 1920’s, they got 10 percent after and then after the 1965 Immigration Act, legal immigration, it has gone back up to 20 percent. Search NEW DATA SHOW EXTRAORDINARY JUMP IN INCOME CONCENTRATION IN 2004
By Aviva Aron-Dine and Isaac Shapiro to see a graph of the percentage share of national income of the top 1 percent. The Bush family is in the top 1 percent. So are Kennedy and McCain. So is Sheikh Pelosi.

==

quote Mr. Luntz is 80 percent right. The richest 20 percent of American households—and only the richest 20 percent—have enjoyed higher real incomes during the Bush expansion. Everyone else has lost ground; the lowest 20 percent has actually lost a full 1.8 percent. (For details, click here: Table 1.) end quote September 26, 2006
National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein
It’s Official: Immigration Causing Income Inequality
at Vdare.com

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/060926_nd.htm

==Edwin S. Rubenstein quotation:

Until recently, economists rarely mentioned the I-word when explaining the income distribution. The consensus among most academics was that the primary cause of increased inequality was “skill-biased technical change” (SBTC)—i.e., increased economic rewards to educated, technically savvy workers.

In a word, SBTC compensation was based on merit. How quaint!

Northwestern University economists Ian Dew-Becker and Robert J. Gordon broke from the group naiveté in a paper published last year:

“If SBTC had been a major source of the rise in inequality, then we should have observed an increase in relative wages of those most directly skilled in the development and use of computers. Yet in the 1989-97 period….total real compensation of CEOs increased by 100 percent, while those in occupations related to math and computer science increased only 4.8 percent and engineers decreased by 1.4 percent.” [Where did the Productivity Growth Go? Inflation Dynamics and the Distribution of Income, (PDF) Ian Dew-Becker and Robert J. Gordon, Northwestern University]

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/060926_nd.htm

==quotation Edwin S. Rubenstein:

quote In debunking SBTC the authors make a broader historical point regarding immigration:

“To be convincing, a theory must fit the facts, and the basic facts to be explained about income equality are not one but two, that is, not only why inequality rose after the mid-1970s but why it declined from 1929 to the mid-1970s. Three events fit neatly into this U-shaped pattern, all of which influence the effective labor supply curve and the bargaining power of labor: (1) the rise and fall of unionization, (2) the decline and recovery of immigration, and (3) the decline and recovery in the importance of international trade and the share of imports…”

“Partly as a result of restrictive legislation in the 1920s, and also the Great Depression and World War II, the share of immigration per year in the total population declined from 1.3 percent in 1914 to 0.02 percent in 1933, remained very low until a gradual recovery began in the late 1960s, reaching 0.48 percent (legal and illegal) in 2002. Competition for unskilled labor not only arrives in the form of immigration but also in the form of imports, and the decline of the import share from the 1920s to the 1950s and its subsequent recovery is a basic fact of the national accounts.” end quote. September 26, 2006
National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein
It’s Official: Immigration Causing Income Inequality Vdare.com

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/060926_nd.htm

==quotation Edwin S. Rubenstein:

quote But the foreign-born share of the labor force—15 percent in 2005—is also unprecedented. Since 2001 illegals have accounted for most of immigrant labor force growth.

Cheap immigrant labor induces only a nugatory increase in total native income. Its biggest impact, according to Harvard economist George Borjas, is to redistribute income from native workers to employers.

Recent data seem to confirm this. The construction industry is booming, home builders are racking up record profits, yet average construction wages have fallen between 15 percent and 35 percent across the country—the result of cheap immigrant labor.

Similarly, the service industries—restaurants, hotels, motels, cleaning companies, etc. – are major employers of immigrant labor. These industries are booming, creating wealth for executives and shareholders. But average real wages of service industry workers have declined since 2001. end quote April 06, 2006
National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein
The Smoking Bottom Line: Immigration Boosting Profits, Cutting Wages Vdare.com

==

http://www.vdare.com/walker/dui.htm

quote Traditionally, drinking to excess is valued in Mexican and Latin culture, where it is seen an expression of machismo. Moreover, MADD reports that Hispanics believe it takes 6-8 drinks to affect driving, while Americans think it takes 2-4 drinks.

In 2001, according to MADD, 44.1 percent of California’s drunk driving arrests in 2001 were of Hispanics, although Hispanics made up only 31.3 percent of the state’s population.

The general incidence of drunk driving has worsened in California—parallel with the skyrocketing Latino population. Accidents involving drunk drivers increased overall nearly 5 percent in the state in 2000, with an uptick in Los Angeles County of 7.6 percent in that year. Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for Hispanics ages 1-44. end quote Brenda Walker Vdare.com

==

quote THE MIDDLE CLASS IS NOT BEING WIPED OUT, THIS ASSERTION IS NONSENSE, the unemployment rate is 5 percent and wages are rising. We are not going to deport 12 million people, without creating a police state that people woud never support.

By RealChoices | Apr 9, 2007 6:56:50 AM | end quote. Men’s median wages are lower than in 1973. See p60-231.pdf graph page 18 at census.gov. Just search on p60-231 in google.

==

L.A. Blackout
Acting on orders from the Mexican Mafia, Latino gang members in Southern California are terrorizing and killing blacks.
by Brentin Mock Southern Poverty Love Center.

quote “The way I hear these knuckleheads tell it, they don’t want their neighborhoods infested with blacks, as if it’s an infestation,” says respected Los Angeles gang expert Tony Rafael, who interviewed several Latino street gang leaders for an upcoming book on the Mexican Mafia, the dominant Latino gang in Southern California. “It’s pure racial animosity that manifests itself in a policy of a major criminal organization.”

“There’s absolutely no motive absent the color of their skin,” adds former Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Michael Camacho. Before he became a judge, in 2003, Camacho successfully prosecuted a Latino gang member for the random shootings of three black men in Pomona, Calif. end quote

==
June 05, 2006
Time To Rethink Immigration (II): Freeing America From The Immigration Gulag

By Peter Brimelow
quote Moratorium on legal immigration. Not no gross immigration but no net immigration—which would permit an inflow of 200,000 a year or so, enough to take care of hardship cases, needed skills etc. Abandon the principle of “family reunification,” which in practice has meant uncontrollable chain migration. Immigrants should be admitted on own merits.

bullet Abolish “refugee” category. In practice, this is simply an expedited, subsidized immigration program for politically-favored groups. Anyway, humanitarian aid is best given in situ—for example, the “Somali Bantu” could have been resettled in Mozambique, not Maine. America is not the world’s Kleenex. end quote June 05, 2006
Time To Rethink Immigration (II): Freeing America From The Immigration Gulag

By Peter Brimelow Vdare.com

==

Immigration, legal, amnesty, refugee, means the end of social security, medicare, medicaid, functional schools, ERs, and health insurance at work. Men’s median wages were higher in 1973, see p60-231.pdf at census.gov, graph page 18. The reason they cut health benefits is the same reason, to cut our wages. Government can’t afford what we don’t make. We can’t have national health insurance for the 3rd world. We are losing our health coverage by legal immigration. We must have zero immigration to save our way of life.

==

Bush is disloyal to the American people.

..

Bush: America is an idea not people. The American
people can be discarded in the dustbin of history.

==

Bush what matters is the idea of freedom, not the people
who want to be free, they can be discarded as refuse.

Iraq was for freedom as an idea, Abu Ghraib was for the actual people. Bushism is Stalinism. Believe in Bush and you will be free in Stalin.

==

Bush’s Iraq promise was for freedom as an idea. Bush’s Abu Ghraib was for the actual people.

==

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=722

Brentin Mock continued
quote A comprehensive study of hate crimes in Los Angeles County released by the University of Hawaii in 2000 concluded that while the vast majority of hate crimes nationwide are not committed by members of organized groups, Los Angeles County is a different story. Researchers found that in areas with high concentrations, or “clusters,” of hate crimes, the perpetrators were typically members of Latino street gangs who were purposely targeting blacks.

Furthermore, the study found, “There is strong evidence of race-bias hate crimes among gangs in which the major motive is not the defense of territorial boundaries against other gangs, but hatred toward a group defined by racial identification, regardless of any gang-related territorial threat.”
Six years later, the racist terror campaign continues. end quote

SPLC L.A. Blackout
Acting on orders from the Mexican Mafia, Latino gang members in Southern California are terrorizing and killing blacks.
by Brentin Mock

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=722

==

Don’t protect politicians who commit crimes. They are disloyal to us on immigration. Let Bush go to jail for torture. Let Kennedy go to jail for Chappaquiddick. These politicians have a long list of suspect transactions. If you have even a little information send it to groups that forward information on crime or Judicial Watch or blog it anonymously. You don’t have to be a hero and go into the FBI. Turn your information over to organizations that go after politicians. You don’t have to tell your boss. There are tipster organizations you can contact.

==

quote The question is asked, who will pick the fruits and vegetables, who will do the construction jobs, who will do the jobs in the service industry? Which in turn begs the question, who owns the farms, who is having the house built, who owns the hotel and the restraunt? And the answer is the rich, the upper 10 who exploit these illegals,who are just trying to have a better way of life. If these people were made to pay better wages then maybe a lot more people could have a better way of life

By johnleebowes | Apr 9, 2007 10:41:40 AM | end quote. Put employers of illegals in prison and they can pick the fruit on a chain gang. What about politicians who vote the way they get contributions. They will want to have a jury decide if they did right, won’t they? To clear their name?

==

Jack Abramoff can probably fill the farms with chain gang pols from his contribution rolodex. And he isn’t the only one. The K street gang documented by the Post can fill our farms with their labor.

==

quote Jose Alonso Compean and Ignacio Ramos, were sentenced to 12 years and 11 years, respectively, in October by U.S. District Court Judge Kathleen Cardone end quote WND. Members of Congress and Senators and lobbyists will want juries to determine if the contributions they gave for earmarks were bribery, won’t they? They will want to clear their name before their constituents? If border guards go to jail for dangerous work, shouldn’t Senators who take money from special interests face the people on a jury?

“u shaped” income inequality Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez
http://www.vdare.com/walker/dui.htm

May 04, 2004
Diversity Is Strength! It’s Also…Drunk Driving

By Brenda Walker

==

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2007040801260&start=181

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-harbor4mar04,0,5714315.story?coll=la-home-headlines

How a community imploded
L.A. long ignored Harbor Gateway. Now a Latino gang calls the shots.
By Sam Quinones, Times Staff Writer
March 4, 2007

==

Thomas Piketty

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2007/03/15/mccain-fighting-to-recapture-maverick-spirit-of-2000-bid/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/03/AR2007030300841.html

==

April 08, 2007

NOTE: PLEASE say if you DON’T want your name and/or email address published when sending VDARE email.

04/07/07 – A Jewish Immigration Dissident Advises David Orland Not To Hold His Breath
Today’s Letter: A Reader Experiences Censorship

Re: LAPD: “We Don’t Get Into” Immigration Status Of Christmas Story Director’s Killer By Nicholas Stix

From: An “Irate Reader”

http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_040807.htm
==

“u shaped” site:vdare.com

http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/

http://www.nber.org/papers/W8467

http://www.cbpp.org/7-10-06inc.htm

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/060926_nd.htm

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/060406_nd.htm

http://www.vdare.com/pb/060605_gulag.htm

http://www.vdare.com/bulletins/031907_bulletin.htm

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2007/03/04/mexican-gangs-ethnic-cleansing-of-black-amercans-in-los-angeles/

Duane Chapman bounty hunter mexico

http://www.realitytvworld.com/news/dog-bounty-hunter-star-duane-chapman-arrested-for-capture-1009823.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Chapman

==

m.jagger | Apr 9, 2007 11:38:04 AM is right. Also, as others pointed out, illegals here and those who would come here can make their own countries better rather than keeping us from having children by taking away job security for young adults. Think of all the children not born to Americans since Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act because men’s median wages stopped going up in 1973. quote ==

“Numbers Drop for the Married With Children
Institution Becoming The Choice of the Educated, Affluent”

By Blaine Harden
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 4, 2007; Page A03

PORTLAND, Ore. — Punctuating a fundamental change in American family life, married couples with children now occupy fewer than one in every four households — a share that has been slashed in half since 1960 and is the lowest ever recorded by the census.

As marriage with children becomes an exception rather than the norm, social scientists say it is also becoming the self-selected province of the college-educated and the affluent.

“The culture is shifting, and marriage has almost become a luxury item, one that only the well educated and well paid are interested in,” said Isabel V. Sawhill, an expert on marriage and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Many demographers peg the rise of a class-based marriage gap to the erosion since 1970 of the broad-based economic prosperity that followed World War II. end quote

The 1965 Immigration Act caused this. Men’s median wages are down from 1973. Search p60-229.pdf and go to page 14 on census.gov. 51 percent of women live alone. This is because men don’t make enough.Female fertility is then below replacement.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2007040801260&start=201

==

quote *Mens median wages peaked in 1973. See p60-231.pdf a publication of the census at census.gov. Search on p60-231.pdf is enough.* What OldAtlantic never mentions is wages of women have rising considerably and more than made up for the drop in the wages of men. These trends have very little to illegal immigration. end quote quote Until recently, economists rarely mentioned the I-word when explaining the income distribution. The consensus among most academics was that the primary cause of increased inequality was “skill-biased technical change” (SBTC)—i.e., increased economic rewards to educated, technically savvy workers.

In a word, SBTC compensation was based on merit. How quaint!

Northwestern University economists Ian Dew-Becker and Robert J. Gordon broke from the group naiveté in a paper published last year:

“If SBTC had been a major source of the rise in inequality, then we should have observed an increase in relative wages of those most directly skilled in the development and use of computers. Yet in the 1989-97 period….total real compensation of CEOs increased by 100 percent, while those in occupations related to math and computer science increased only 4.8 percent and engineers decreased by 1.4 percent.” [Where did the Productivity Growth Go? Inflation Dynamics and the Distribution of Income, (PDF) Ian Dew-Becker and Robert J. Gordon, Northwestern University] end quote September 26, 2006
National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein
It’s Official: Immigration Causing Income Inequality

==

Second post has a different quotation from Vdare on U shaped timing show that share of top 1 percent, the Bush Pelosi McCain Kennedy group, went from 20 percent before 1920’s restriction to 10 percent during restriction back to 20 percent with legal immigration. This shows its legal and illegal immigration that is the cause of men’s median wages being below 1973. Sorry if 2nd post above looks like the same post over again, but the reply is different. Also thanks to Pacthed | Apr 9, 2007 12:14:00 PM | for his research and insights in replying to this, that the rise in women’s wages is simply creating men and women living apart with no kids or a single parent with kids. In fact, the Post has reported on that several times. 51 percent of women live without a spouse. Married with kids is the privilege of the affluent according to Post reporting. quote “Numbers Drop for the Married With Children
Institution Becoming The Choice of the Educated, Affluent”

By Blaine Harden
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 4, 2007; Page A03

PORTLAND, Ore. — Punctuating a fundamental change in American family life, married couples with children now occupy fewer than one in every four households — a share that has been slashed in half since 1960 and is the lowest ever recorded by the census.

As marriage with children becomes an exception rather than the norm, social scientists say it is also becoming the self-selected province of the college-educated and the affluent.

“The culture is shifting, and marriage has almost become a luxury item, one that only the well educated and well paid are interested in,” said Isabel V. Sawhill, an expert on marriage and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Many demographers peg the rise of a class-based marriage gap to the erosion since 1970 of the broad-based economic prosperity that followed World War II. end quote

The 1965 Immigration Act caused this. Men’s median wages are down from 1973. Search p60-229.pdf and go to page 14 on census.gov. 51 percent of women live alone. This is because men don’t make enough.Female fertility is then below replacement.

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2007/03/04/mexican-gangs-ethnic-cleansing-of-black-amercans-in-los-angeles/

Hispanic ethnic cleansing blacks site:Vdare.com

ethnic cleansing blacks site:Vdare.com

u shaped site:vdare.com

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/070318_diversity.htm

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=722

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2007/01/25/

http://wordpress.com/tag/income-inequality-graph/

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2007/03/15/mccain-fighting-to-recapture-maverick-spirit-of-2000-bid/

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/060926_nd.htm

==

quote Economists Ian Dew-Becker and Robert Gordon have compared wage and salary growth within the richest ten percent of American earners with that of the median wage earner. [Ian Dew-Becker, Robert J. Gordon, Where Did the Productivity Growth Go? Inflation Dynamics and the Distribution of Income, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2:2005. PDF]

Here are their results, adjusted for inflation, for the years 1966 to 2001:
bullet Median wage and salary: +11 percent
bullet 90th percentile: +58 percent
bullet 99th percentile: +121 percent
bullet 99.9th percentile: +236 percent end quote
January 29, 2007
National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein
Yes, Tyler, Income Inequality Is Real. And Immigration Is A Cause. Vdare.com

==

quote July 28, 2003
National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein
Hispanic Family Values?
Illegitimacy rates: unmarried Hispanic women aged 15-44 are about one-third again as likely to have a child as unmarried black women in that age bracket – 93.4 per 1,000 vs. 71.5 – and more than three times as an unmarried white women (27.9 per 1,000). [Source: Centers For Disease Control, pdf file]

bullet Abortion: Hispanic women are two and a half times more likely to have abortions than white women (33 per 1,000 annually vs. 13) and nearly-two thirds as likely as black women (49). [Source: Guttmacher Institute]

bullet Teenage pregnancy: Hispanics are high (about 94 per 1,000 vs. 32 for whites) and relatively worsening – they’ve now surpassed blacks (83 per 1,000). [Source: Centers For Disease Control, pdf file]

bullet Dependency: Nearly one-third (30.6%) of Hispanics receive means-tested benefits, compared to less than a tenth (9.2%) of non-Hispanic whites and just over a third (35.0%) of blacks. [Source: U.S. Census, pdf file]

bullet Criminality: just over one in every hundred adult male Hispanics (1.2%) was imprisoned in 2001 – almost a third of the non-Hispanic black rate (3.5%) and well over twice the non-Hispanic white rate (0.5%). [Source: Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 2001, pdf file]

bullet Risky behavior: The Hispanic death rate from HIV disease is 2.5-times that of whites (7 per 100,000 vs. 2.8), and about one-third of the black rate (24). [National Center For Health Statistics, pdf file]

end quote
==

quote Memo From Mexico, By Allan Wall
Deadbeat Dads Don’t Stop At The Rio Grande

“Family Values Don’t Stop At The Rio Grande.”

That’s a slogan George W. Bush uses to justify illegal immigration.
Memo From Mexico, By Allan Wall
Deadbeat Dads Don’t Stop At The Rio Grande

“Family Values Don’t Stop At The Rio Grande.”
The problem of emigrants abandoning their families is so bad that some of these poor Mexican women have actually written to VDARE.COM for help! One of them told us (my translation) that

“…my husband is an illegal alien, and has been for approximately a year and a half. I haven’t seen him for 3 years and I would like him sent back to Mexico, where he was born… I am a desperate woman with 4 children and I can’t provide for them, we live in poverty…Help me…”

This desperate lady wants the U.S. to deport her husband, and she actually included the guy’s address in California.

That’s a slogan George W. Bush uses to justify illegal immigration.
One of the towns in Susuapan is Tremecino:

“In Tremecino 25% of the mothers are left alone with their children, expecting a husband who may return this year, in 2 years or more, if at all.”

By the way, in Tremecino, the average age of marriage or cohabitation is 14!

One of the inhabitants of Tremecino is Rosa:

“…She had 4 children when her husband emigrated to Tucson. She was expecting him to send her money but it never arrived, because the man became an alcoholic and found another woman.”

==

quote It’s not widely understood, but the 1986 federal amnesty for illegal immigrants set off a baby boom among unskilled Hispanics in California that began in 1988 and lasted into the late 1990s, with consequences for gang activity that have just recently become palpable.

Demographers Laura E. Hill and Hans P. Johnson of the Public Policy Institute of California wrote in 2002:

“Between 1987 and 1991, total fertility rates for foreign-born Hispanics [in California] increased from 3.2 to 4.4 [expected babies per woman over her lifetime]. … Why did total fertility rates increase so dramatically for Hispanic immigrants? First, the composition of the Hispanic immigrant population in California changed as a result of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986. In California alone, 1.6 million unauthorized immigrants applied for amnesty (legal immigrant status) under this act. The vast majority were young men, and many were agricultural workers who settled permanently in the United States. Previous research indicates that many of those granted amnesty were joined later by spouses and relatives in the United States… As a result, many young adult Hispanic women came to California during the late 1980s. (“Understanding the Future of Californians’ Fertility: The Role of Immigrants”).

This ex-illegal immigrant baby boom created an indigestible population pig-in-a-python that overwhelmed California’s public schools in the 1990s, with many having to shift to disruptive year round schedules. The LA Unified School District alone has budgeted $19 billion for construction to accommodate the immigration-driven growth in student numbers. end quote March 18, 2007
Diversity Is Strength! It’s Also…Gang Warfare

By Steve Sailer Vdare.com

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/070318_diversity.htm

==

Search construction industry wages site:vdare.com

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/060406_nd.htm

quote The last few years should have been good ones for labor. Since February 2004 more than 4 million jobs have been created. Output per worker increased by 3.5 percent in 2004 and 2.7 percent last year. Yet the balance of power continued shifting from labor to capital. Not only did profits spike as a share of GDP, but real median income actually declined in 2003 and 2004 (the latest available year.) end quote quote Recent data seem to confirm this. The construction industry is booming, home builders are racking up record profits, yet average construction wages have fallen between 15 percent and 35 percent across the country—the result of cheap immigrant labor. end quote April 06, 2006
National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein
The Smoking Bottom Line: Immigration Boosting Profits, Cutting Wages Vdare.com

==

quote Americans also know that there are resulting consequences for such massive uncontrolled illegal immigration. One result will be a population explosion! Do the math– it’s breathtaking! If all 20 to 23 million illegal aliens here today are given guest worker amnesty along with “family reunification,” it will add roughly 60 million people to the current legal population of 293 million.(12) In 2050, just forty-four years from now, demographers say there will be half a billion people residing in America!(13) Just imagine what kind of impact that will have on our natural resources and quality of life! end quote Daneen G. Peterson, Ph.D.
March 16, 2006 Anarchy Reigns ~ Enforce the Laws ~ Stop The Invasion

==

quote Today, California’s amnesty baby boom generation is between ages 10 and 19, entering their prime gang violence years. … California is now exporting its illegal immigration problem—gang wars, overcrowded schools, declining standards of living, and the like—to the other 49 states. end quote March 18, 2007
Diversity Is Strength! It’s Also…Gang Warfare

By Steve Sailer

==

quote L.A. Blackout
Acting on orders from the Mexican Mafia, Latino gang members in Southern California are terrorizing and killing blacks.

According to gang experts and law enforcement agents, a longstanding race war between the Mexican Mafia and the Black Guerilla family, a rival African-American prison gang, has generated such intense racial hatred among Mexican Mafia leaders, or shot callers, that they have issued a “green light” on all blacks. A sort of gang-life fatwah, this amounts to a standing authorization for Latino gang members to prove their mettle by terrorizing or even murdering any blacks sighted in a neighborhood claimed by a gang loyal to the Mexican Mafia.

“This attitude is pretty pervasive throughout all the [Latino] gangs,” says Tim Brown, a Los Angeles County probation supervisor. “As long as [street] gangs are heavily influenced by the prison gangs, particularly the Mexican Mafia, racism is just part and parcel of why they come into being and why they continue to exist.” But with the Mexican Mafia’s shadow looming over Los Angeles, it may be a long time before the rapidly growing number of streets claimed by Latino gangs are safe for blacks, if ever.
“It’s not just Highland Park. It’s almost anywhere in L.A. that you could find yourself in a difficult position [as a black person],” says Lewis, the LAPD probation officer. “All blacks are on green light no matter where.”
by Brentin Mock end quote SPLC

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2007040801260&start=281

==

7 of the top 8 wealthiest Senators voted for S. 2611, amnesty, affirmative action, non-deportable crime, and a pathway for the top 1 percent of households to continue to enjoy 20 percent of each year’s income, compared to 10 percent before Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act. The only 1 of the top 8 who didn’t vote for S. 2611 didn’t vote, Jay Rockefeller. McCain is 7th and Kennedy 8th in wealth.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.asp?type=W&cycle=2005&filter=S

Rank Name Minimum Net Worth Maximum Net Worth

1 Herb Kohl (D-Wis) $219,098,029 to $234,549,004 Voted Yes S. 2611

2 John Kerry (D-Mass) $165,741,511 to $235,262,100

Voted Yes S. 2611

3 Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa) $78,150,023 to $101,579,003 Not Voting S. 2611

4 Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) $43,343,464 to $98,660,021 Voted Yes S. 2611

5 Lincoln D. Chafee (R-RI) $41,153,105 to $64,096,019 Voted Yes S. 2611

6 Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) $38,198,170 to $90,733,019 Voted Yes S. 2611

7 John McCain (R-Ariz) $25,071,142 to $38,043,014

Voted Yes S. 2611

8 Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass) $19,189,049 to $93,043,004 Voted Yes S. 2611

S 2611 Roll Call Senators understand: immigration goes up, wages go down. Wages go down Senators’ stocks go up. Men’s median wages are lower than
in 1973, Senators’ stocks go up. Top 1 percent get 20 percent of national income today and 10 percent in 1965, Senators’ stocks go up. Bush family and Pelosi family are also in the top 1 percent.

==

quote Poll: Most Americans Don’t Want Continuing
Large U.S. Population Growth

As Nation Hits 300 Million Milestone, Voters Prefer
Reduced Immigration Over Adding Another 100 Million

Commentary by Roy Beck * endquote NumbersUSA Posted on another thread by
blowe1 | Apr 9, 2007 2:43:58 PM

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/04/sweet_blog_special_bush_return.html

8th amnesty?

==

quote What OldAtlantic never mentions is wages of women have rising considerably and more than made up for the drop in the wages of men. These trends have very little to illegal immigration. by RealChoices from Pacthed | Apr 9, 2007 4:39:28 PM above. In addition to Pacthed’s arguments above and earlier in response to this point by RealChoices it should be pointed out that women’s wages are still below men’s. But men’s are below what they were in 1973. So women’s wages now are still less than men’s wages in 1973. That is the argument of Bush, McCain and Kennedy for immigration, that its kept wages for women below what men’s wages were in 1973. How many women have thought that was society’s goal? I haven’t heard many women saying they wanted women’s wages to stay below men’s wages in 1973 for their entire working life from 1973 to now. Search p60-231.pdf in google and go to page 18 for the graph. It has men’s and women’s wages. Is the future for women that Kennedy promises them is that their wages will stay below the wages of men in 1973?

==

quote What OldAtlantic never mentions is wages of women have rising considerably and more than made up for the drop in the wages of men. These trends have very little to illegal immigration. by RealChoices from Pacthed | Apr 9, 2007 4:39:28 PM above. In addition to Pacthed’s arguments above and earlier in response to this point by RealChoices it should be pointed out that women’s wages are still below men’s. But men’s are below what they were in 1973. So women’s wages now are still less than men’s wages in 1973. That is the argument of Bush, McCain and Kennedy for immigration, that its kept wages for women below what men’s wages were in 1973. How many women have thought that was society’s goal? I haven’t heard many women saying they wanted women’s wages to stay below men’s wages in 1973 for their entire working life from 1973 to now. Search p60-231.pdf in google and go to page 18 for the graph. It has men’s and women’s wages. Is the future for women that Kennedy promises them is that their wages will stay below the wages of men in 1973? The ratio of women’s wages to men’s went from 60 percent in 1959 to about 77 percent in 2005. This is what women were hoping for? That 77 percent is 77 percent of men’s wages in 2005, but men’s wages in 2005 were lower than men’s wages in 1973. So women are getting less than 77 percent of what men’s wages were in 1973. Is that what women have been working for? Is that the future they want? A women who started working in 1965, the year of Kennedy’s immigration act and who worked to this year would have worked 42 years, all of them at less than 77 percent of what men made in 1973. Was that the goal? Do they thank Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act and its legal immigration for that lifetime of underpay?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2007040801260&start=321

=

Another way to think of this. Suppose men made 100 in 1973 and women made 60 percent, or 60. Women go to 77 percent or 77, an improvement of 17. But if men’s wages had gone to 150 say and women’s percent stayed at 60, they would make 90 instead of 77. Moreover, if they had gone to 90 percent they would make 135 instead of 77, almost twice as much. Immigration did 2 things to women. It kept men’s wages down, and thus since women get a percentage less than 100 of men’s that means it kept theirs down. Second, the percentage of women’s pay to men’s pay was kept down by immigration. So women lost out twice from immigration, a lower percentage of men’s pay than they would have got, and their base in effect, men’s pay, didn’t move up. Even at 100 percent, women would only make what men did in 1973, since men only make that much.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2007040801260&start=341

==

Women are often treated harshly by employers. Look at Mary Jo Kopechne who was left by Kennedy to die in an air pocket while he went back to his hotel and had a drink while she suffocated. See ytedk.com. Women are treated too harshly by employers for them to have a ceiling of men’s pay which doesn’t move since 1973. Women work too hard and are treated too harshly for their percentage of men’s pay to be kept at 77 percent by immigration instead of being close to 100 percent where it would have been after 40 years of women’s lib without the legal and illegal immigration influx. Women got the short end from Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration act 2 ways, men’s pay was frozen at the 1973 level and women’s percentage didn’t go to 100 percent, which it would have done without a market influx of low cost labor. Because health insurance benefits are cut back, women lose out a third time from immigration which has not just cut pay but also benefits including health insurance. Even if you get health insurance its not as good as it used to be.

==
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2007040801260&start=341

Women also lose in that 51 percent live without a spouse and on pay that is 77 percent of what a man made in 1973. That’s a pretty hard life. If they are a single mom on 77 percent of what a man made in 1973 that is harsher still.

Immigration is leaving many women unmarried, perhaps childless, or perhaps single moms. With men earning what they did in 1973, they aren’t able to pay much child support, and many just skip out because they earn so little.

Mary Jo Kopechne was a secretary when she was left to die in an air pocket by Kennedy at Chappaquiddick. The scenario experienced by women , pay at under 77 percent of men’s and men’s pay frozen at the 1973 level, and a 51 percent chance to live without a spouse would have been her life had Kennedy let her live, albeit under his 1965 Immigration Act. This is what Kennedy calls upside.

==Mary Jo Kopechne Scenario

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Jo_Kopechne

Mary Jo Kopechne (July 26, 1940July 18, 1969) was an American teacher, secretary and administrator, notable for her death in a car accident on Chappaquiddick Island in a car driven by Senator Ted Kennedy.”

Ytedk archive site

also

July 20, 2004, 9:44 a.m.
Remembering Mary Jo
35 years later: Ted Kennedy’s under-investigated scandal.
Myrna Blyth National Review Online
If she had worked to 2007, she would have retired at age 67. That would have been as a teacher, secretary and administrator. She would have made typically less than 77 percent of what a man made her entire career. Because men’s wages topped out in 1973, she would have made no more than 77 percent of what a man made in 1973. That is what would have happened to her under Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act, if she hadn’t suffered under Kennedy’s 1969 Chappaquiddick Act.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2007040900105&start=41

Immigration kept men’s median wages to the 1973 level, and women’s wages to under 77 percent of men. That was legal immigration from Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act. With zero immigration, women’s wages would have reached parity with men long ago. In addition, men’s median wages would be higher than in 1973.

Search p60-231.pdf and go to census.gov to see a graph on page 18 that shows men’s median wages are less than in 1973 and that women’s ratio to men’s wages went from 60 percent in 1960 to 77 percent in 2005. They were kept from going higher by immigration which has targeted women’s jobs, e.g. cleaning and nursing.

==

amonster | Apr 9, 2007 8:26:05 PM great find.

quote

Labor Day is almost upon us, and like some of my fellow graybeards, I can, if I concentrate, actually remember what it was that this holiday once celebrated. Something about America being the land of broadly shared prosperity. Something about America being the first nation in human history that had a middle-class majority, where parents had every reason to think their children would fare even better than they had.
The young may be understandably incredulous, but the Great Compression, as economists call it, was the single most important social fact in our country in the decades after World War II. From 1947 through 1973, American productivity rose by a whopping 104 percent, and median family income rose by the very same 104 percent. More Americans bought homes and new cars and sent their kids to college than ever before. In ways more difficult to quantify, the mass prosperity fostered a generosity of spirit: The civil rights revolution and the Marshall Plan both emanated from an America in which most people were imbued with a sense of economic security.

That America is as dead as the dodo. Ours is the age of the Great Upward Redistribution.
end quote.

from Devaluing Labor By Harold Meyerson
Wednesday, August 30, 2006; Page A19
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/29/AR2006082901042.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

Since 1973, men’s median wages are unchanged, see p60-231.pdf page 18 graph. Women’s wages were 60 percent of men’s in 1960 and are 77 percent in 2005.So women’s wages are less than 77 percent of what men’s wages were in 1973. This shows that before immigration, from 1947 to 1973, productivity and median wages went up 1 for 1. Since then, its all been to the shareholders, many of them rich senators like McCain and Kennedy.

==
Further comment on Meyerson quote that amonster | Apr 9, 2007 8:26:05 PM found above. quote

More Americans bought homes and new cars and sent their kids to college than ever before. In ways more difficult to quantify, the mass prosperity fostered a generosity of spirit: The civil rights revolution and the Marshall Plan both emanated from an America in which most people were imbued with a sense of economic security. end quote

Those words are so true. America was once so much more of a family than it is today. Today it is a Bush Hobbesian land. America was so much better 25 years ago. It was so much safer to walk at night. There was so much less fear.

Children could play on their own and roam and get into trouble. They were safe. Probably, no one on earth will ever know a land that great and good for centuries and possibly millenia to come.

You can see what America was in the movies from decades ago. That was once real and it was America. It was so safe and so more unified.

read more | digg story

Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act smited Graham family’s stability

February 19, 2007

Two posts at Vdare by Patrick Cleburne and Randall Burns lead into this article’s discussion of how Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act harmed the family of Senator Lindsey Graham while he and his sister were growing up. Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act created income inequality and economic insecurity to further undermine Senator Lindsey Graham and his sister’s start in life when both their parents died.

If you look at p60-191.pdf at Census.gov they have a graph showing income inequality went down from the start of statistics in the 1940’s to bottom out at the time of the 1965 Immigration Act and started up after 1968 and has gone up ever since. Men’s median wages flattened in 1973 and in 2005 were below 1973. See p60-229.pdf graph page 14. Most Senators timed the income inequality graph perfectly, coming of age as young adults when income inequality was low from the 1940’s to 1960’s and then building or increasing fortunes as income inequality increased from 1968 to the present.

In an earlier article, Graham was compared to several other senators who sponsored or cosponsored the S. 2611 amnesty bill who unlike Graham benefited from low income inequality when they started out as young adults and high income inequality in their peak earning years. Several Senators who conspored S. 2611 built or deepened fortunes from the misfortunes of others on the income inequality graph.

From an earlier Old Atlantic article:

The lives of Arlen Specter and the 6 cosponsors of S. 2611 are reviewed at the end of the article in terms of how they fit on the income inequality graph. Arlen Specter, John McCain and Ted Kennedy were born in the 1930’s and became young adults in the 1950’s while income inequality was falling. They could build careers and have families while still young. Two Senators, Chuck Hagel and Mel Martinez were born in 1946. They became 21 in 1967. They had families and full careers as they timed the income inequality graph perfectly, low income inequality when they were young and rising while they got on top. Both became rich on this curve.

Lindsey Graham and Sam Brownback were born in the mid 1950’s. Graham had to start out as the curve was getting worse. He had to choose a career or family and chose career. He has never had children. Brownback solved this problem by marrying an heiress and has 5 children and a career. Brownback is running for president.

Patrick Cleburne comments on the prior Old Atlantic article at Vdare.com:
The Senate: In an Income Time Warp?”

Patrick Cleburne

A large number of Americans appear to have realized that income inequality has increased and that massive immigration is substantially responsible. And they are increasingly willing to say so.

A frequently-expressed view of Peter Brimelow’s is that the current generation of political “leaders” was formed intellectually before immigration was discernable as a social problem. Quite possibly they will literally have to die off before public policy will change – people rarely have new ideas.

Personally, though, I still think the more persuasive explanation is that these Senators are selfish, corrupt, and unAmerican.

Mr. Cleburne has some kind words for a previous Old Atlantic column and this blogger, which I thank him for. I am only too well aware of the editing work needed for this blog and I thank my readers for putting up with it.

What To Do With The Senate?” Randall Burns at Vdare.com

Randall Burns deepens our understanding of the comparison of the lives of the Senators by providing information on the life of Lindsey Graham. Burns points out that Graham helped to take care of a sister when both of their parents died.

His sister was taken in by relatives and Graham arranged to do his law school education near to where she was living and also with the military’s assent adopted her so she could take advantage of military health care.

As Burns points out, this was not selfish on the part of Graham. But in the context of the discussion here and in Mr. Cleburne’s column, Graham was distinguished from the selfish Senators as illustrating the impact of economic insecurity as he reached young adulthood. The other Senators’ lives illustrated selfishness and attributing to themselves the advantage of the timing of their birth on the income inequality graph.

The loss of both parents can only be a shock to the sense of economic security of any person. Since Graham had a minor sister at the time, that can only deepen that sense of economic insecurity. In the comparison of the lives above, Graham illustrated how economic insecurity was higher in the late 1970’s and 1980’s as income inequality was going up from its low in 1968 as the effects of Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act cut in.

By pointing this episode out, Burns deepens our understanding of this. Graham was subject to two shocks, one was the loss of his parents while he had a minor sister and the other was the rising tide of income inequality from Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act. This meant it would be harder for her to have a job during school or for her relatives to support her who had taken her in.

In fact, Graham tells us she got 600 dollars per month from Social Security and that she needed that money. This shows how social security had taken the place for the Graham family of a job market with job shortages and high wages, which is the historic basis of income security for all but the rich.

Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act had taken from the Graham family the economic opportunity it needed both before and after the loss of Graham’s parents. The Kennedy 1965 Immigration Act had left the Graham family unprepared except by social security and the kindess of relatives for one of life’s blows, the loss of the two parents. We can infer that Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act kept Graham’s parents from having sufficient life insurance, and that they couldn’t afford sufficient life insurance because Kennedy took away the wages of both of Graham’s parents with his 1965 Immigration Act.

Kennedy McCain rode income inequality wave

February 13, 2007

Most Senators today were born or became young adults in the 1940’s or 1950’s while income inequality was going down. If you look at Change in Income Inequality for Families: 1947-1998 Fig 1 or p60-191.pdf at Census.gov they have a graph showing income inequality went down from the start of statistics in the 1940’s to bottom out at the time of the 1965 Immigration Act and started up after 1968 and has gone up ever since.

Census Income home page:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income.html

Census Income Inequality Home Page:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/incineq/p60204.html

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/incomestats.html#incomeineq

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income05.html 

Men’s median wages flattened in 1973 and in 2005 were below 1973. See p60-231.pdf page 18 or see p60-229.pdf graph page 14. Specter who sponsored S. 2611 was part of the group that could get married early, have kids, and still have a career. Now he is against the young people of today being able to do this.

The census gov charts show why young adults don’t get married and have kids, they are struggling against the H-1B immigration, amnesty, family reunification that Specter supports.

But Specter and most of the cosponsors rode the chart of income inequality from the time it was going down to the bottom of income inequality when they were starting out to the top where he is now on the top. He takes credit for the chart being his genius. That’s why they had it good and young people today don’t in their minds.

The lives of Specter and the 6 cosponsors are reviewed at the end of the article in terms of how they fit on the income inequality graph. Specter, McCain and Kennedy were born in the 1930’s and became young adults in the 1950’s while income inequality was falling. They could build careers and have families while still young. Two Senators, Hagel and Martinez were born in 1946. They became 21 in 1967. They had families and full careers as they timed the income inequality graph perfectly, low income inequality when they were young and rising while they got on top. Both became rich on this curve.

Lindsey Graham and Sam Brownback were born in the mid 1950’s. Graham had to start out as the curve was getting worse. He had to choose a career or family and chose career. He has never had children. Brownback solved this problem by marrying an heiress and has 5 children and a career. Brownback is running for president.

The Senators who voted for S. 2611 with amnesty and more legal immigration rode the same inequality curve. When they started out, inequality was at a bottom and they could get good paying summer jobs, go to college, and have kids right after college. They think their life is normal or their hard work. Many were in the Senate in the 1970’s when income inequality started to go up, and most were in by 1980. So they have been on top while income inequality went up, but in their minds, they worked their way up, because when they were starting out they were doing so at the time of low income equality, the bottom of the income inequality bowl graph.

So they feel morally superior and entitled to vote for immigration, because their success is their hard work. Lobbyists give them money in and out of office and they don’t realize at a gut level its for causing this bowl shape of the income inequality graph by immigration. They know it intellectually, but don’t accept it emotionally because they remember when they started out, there was low inequality and they could work themselves up and have families at the same time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._2611

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/senate/2/votes/157/

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN02611:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN02611:@@@P

S.2611
Title: A bill to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Specter, Arlen [PA] (introduced 4/7/2006) Cosponsors (6)
Related Bills: H.R.4437, S.2454, S.2612
Latest Major Action: 5/25/2006 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Passed Senate with amendments by Yea-Nay Vote. 62 – 36. Record Vote Number: 157.


COSPONSORS(6), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)Sen Brownback, Sam [KS] – 4/7/2006
Sen Graham, Lindsey [SC] – 4/7/2006
Sen Hagel, Chuck [NE] – 4/7/2006
Sen Kennedy, Edward M. [MA] – 4/7/2006
Sen Martinez, Mel [FL] – 4/7/2006
Sen McCain, John [AZ] – 4/7/2006
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlen_Specter 1930http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Brownback 1956http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsey_Graham 1955

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Hagel Born 1946

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_M_Kennedy 1932

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Martinez Born 1946

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain Born 1936

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlen_Specter Born 1930

http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-191.pdf

You may want to open the above pdf in another window and look at the income inequality graph. It is a bowl shape that goes down from the late 1940’s to bottom out from 1965 to 1968 and then heads back up. It splits into two indices and these reach the 1940’s level of income inequlity sometime between 1980 and 1985. Income inequality then rose to its current levels the most extreme. The bottom of the bowl is the 1965 Immigration Act. Despite the effect of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, income inequality was at its low from 1965 to 1968 for all time that they have statistics.All the bill sponsors and cosponsors benefited from the time period at the bottom of this bowl.

Specter is the bill sponsor. He was born February 12, 1930 and 21 years later, in 1951, income inequality was headed down. That was when he was starting out as a young adult. Income inequality was falling rapidly in the early 1950’s. He could go to law school, get married, and have a family while he was a young adult and attribute all of that to his smarts and hard work.

Edward M. Kennedy was born February 22, 1932 and he was 21 in 1953. Although rich, he could feel that he was part of a generation where income inequality was falling rapidly. He became a young adult and even became a Senator in 1962 while income inequality was falling faster than at any time in history. He was the one who stopped that and reversed it by the 1965 Immigration Act.John McCain was born August 29, 1936 and was 21 in 1957. This was while income inequality was falling rapidly. He started out as a young adult during that time of rising boats for all. He was able to get married during this time. He was in a prison camp from 1967–1973 while income inequality bottomed out. When he returned he would divorce his wife, marry a millionairess and launch his political career. He was helping Charles Keating in the early 1980’s during the S and L scandal and was a member of the Keating 5.”

Melquíades Rafael “Mel” Martínez (born October 23, 1946) is a Cuban-born American politician,”. He started out as a lawyer in 1973 and built his practice for 25 years. He was 21 in 1967. The all time bottom in income inequality was 1968. He too could go to law school like Specter, get married, have a young family and build a legal career all as a young adult.”

Charles TimothyChuckHagel (born October 4, 1946) is the senior United States Senator from Nebraska. A member of the Republican Party, he was first elected in 1996 and was reelected in 2002.” Hagel enjoyed the same opportunity that Mel Martinez had, to become 21 in 1967 one year before income inequality bottomed out in 1968. Hagel thus could build his life while income inequality was low and enjoy rising income inequality later when he was an investment banker and businessma in the 1980’s. He could build a fortune in the 1980’s as income inequality was going up from over 20 years of the action of the 1965 Immigration Act. Hagel wants to keep his business network of rich guys in the same sweet spot of when they were born together and doing well so they can hire each other’s kids and avoid the fate that young people who are not children of business moguls like Hagel have to face.

“Lindsey Olin Graham (born July 9, 1955) ” “Graham graduated from the University of South Carolina at Columbia with a B.A. in Psychology in 1977 and from its school of law with a J.D. in 1981, and eventually entered private practice as a lawyer. He is a brother of the Pi Kappa Phi Fraternity. Graham has never married.” Graham unlike the others, could not build a career and have a family as a young adult. Graham is already illustrating the impact of the 1965 Immigration Act, its why he had to choose building a career or a family as a young adult. Graham chose to build a career, so he never had a family as a result.

“Samuel Dale “Sam” Brownback (born September 12, 1956) is the senior United States senator from the U.S. state of Kansas. On January 20, 2007 he announced his intentions to seek the Republican Party‘s nomination for President in the 2008 Presidential election.[1][2]“Brownback is married to the former Mary Stauffer, heiress[citation needed] to a Topeka, Kansas newspaper fortune. The couple are the parents of five children (three daughters and two sons; two of the children are adopted).”

So Brownback avoided Graham’s choice have a career or a family but not both, by marrying an heiress. So he could have both. But not those he governs. Brownback’s S. 2611 puts most Americans in the same boat as Lindsey Graham, if you want to build a career during this time of economic uncertainty, you have to defer marriage and children, maybe forever. For those making this choice, even becoming a US Senator may not be enough to reverse income inequality preventing them getting married and having kids when biology tells them to, as young adults.

==Reference Material

Table IE-6.  Measures of Household Income Inequality: 1967 to 2001*

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Variance        Mean

                        of the logarithmic                Atkinson

                        log of   deviation         -----------------------

 Year            Gini   income   of income   Theil  e=0.25  e=0.50  e=0.75

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------

 2001           0.466    1.007       0.515   0.413   0.098   0.189   0.282

 2000 30/       0.462    0.983       0.490   0.404   0.096   0.185   0.275
1970           0.394    0.805       0.370   0.271   0.068   0.138   0.214

 1969           0.391    0.774       0.357   0.268   0.067   0.135   0.209

 1968           0.388    0.779       0.356   0.273   0.067   0.135   0.208

 1967 12/       0.399    0.813       0.380   0.287   0.071   0.143   0.220

=–

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/ie1.html

==

 Table IE-1.  Selected Measures of Household Income Dispersion:

      1967 to 2001      (Households as of March of the following year.  Income in current

      and 2001 CPI-U-RS adjusted dollars 28/)

      -------------------------------------------------------------------

      Measures of Income Dispersion    2001   2000 30/ 2000 29/   1999
Household Income Ratios of

         Selected Percentiles         95th/20th                        8.38     8.10     8.11     8.26

         95th/50th                        3.57     3.46     3.46     3.48

         80th/50th                        1.98     1.95     1.95     1.94

         80th/20th                        4.65     4.56     4.56     4.62

         20th/50th                        0.43     0.43     0.43     0.42
Gini coefficient of

         income inequality               0.466    0.462    0.460    0.457
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Measures of Income Dispersion    1970     1969     1968   1967 12/

      -------------------------------------------------------------------

       Household Income at

         Selected Percentiles       In Current Dollars:

         20th percentile upper limit   3,687    3,574    3,323    3,000

         50th (median)                 8,734    8,389    7,743    7,143

         80th percentile upper limit  14,661   13,900   12,688   11,841

         95th percentile lower limit  23,178   21,800   19,850   19,000

In 2001 Dollars:

         20th percentile upper limit  14,556   14,789   14,350   13,474

         50th (median)                34,481   34,714   33,436   32,081

         80th percentile upper limit  57,881   57,519   54,790   53,181

         95th percentile lower limit  91,505   90,209   85,717   85,334

Household Income Ratios of

         Selected Percentiles

95th/20th                        6.29     6.10     5.97     6.33

         95th/50th                        2.65     2.60     2.56     2.66

         80th/50th                        1.68     1.66     1.64     1.66

         80th/20th                        3.98     3.89     3.82     3.95

         20th/50th                        0.42     0.43     0.43     0.42

Mean Household Income

         of Quintiles

In Current Dollars

         Lowest quintile               2,029    1,957    1,832    1,626

         Second quintile               5,395    5,216    4,842    4,433

         Third quintile                8,688    8,335    7,679    7,078

         Fourth quintile              12,247   11,674   10,713    9,903

         Highest quintile             21,684   20,520   18,762   17,946

In 2001 Dollars:

         Lowest quintile               8,010    8,098    7,911    7,303

         Second quintile              21,299   21,584   20,909   19,910

         Third quintile               34,300   34,491   33,160   31,789

         Fourth quintile              48,350   48,307   46,261   44,477

         Highest quintile             85,607   84,913   81,019   80,601

Shares of Household Income

         of Quintiles

Lowest quintile                   4.1      4.1      4.2      4.0

         Second quintile                  10.8     10.9     11.1     10.8

         Third quintile                   17.4     17.5     17.5     17.3

         Fourth quintile                  24.5     24.5     24.4     24.2

         Highest quintile                 43.3     43.0     42.8     43.8

Gini coefficient of

         income inequality               0.394    0.391    0.388    0.399

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/incineq/p60tb1.html

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/p60191.html

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/ineqtoc.html

“income inequality” site:census.gov

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-2611
January 29, 2007
National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein

“Yes, Tyler, Income Inequality Is Real. And Immigration Is A Cause.” More on Rubenstein‘s ESR Research, which does statistical research.

Time to Rethink Immigration?
by Peter Brimelow
from National Review, June 22, 1992

Mr. Brimelow is Editor at VDARE.com.

Above is the famous Brimelow piece at National Review, when William F. Buckley was still for us on immigration restriction. William Kristol is now editor of National Review. Kristol, born in 1952, rode the income inequality wave and has pulled up the ladder on the generations that came after him.

The above was rewritten from a comment at Front Page Magazine on

The GOP’s Moment of Truth
By William Kristol
The Weekly Standard | February 13, 2007

William Kristol was born in 1952. He rode the same income inequality wave.

==Comment that was rewritten into above:

Kristol was born in 1952 while income inequality was going down. If you look at p60-191.pdf at Census.gov they have a graph showing income inequality went down from the start of statistics in the 1940’s to bottom out at the time of the 1965 Immigration Act and started up after 1968 and has gone up ever since.

Men’s median wages flattened in 1973 and in 2005 were below 1973. See p60-229.pdf graph page 14. Kristol was part of the group that could get married early, have kids, and still have a career. Now he is against the young people of today being able to do this.

The census gov charts show why young adults don’t get married and have kids, they are struggling against the H-1B immigration, amnesty, family reunification that Kristol supports.

But Kristol rode the chart of income inequality from the bottom of income inequality when he was starting out to the top where he is now on the top. So he is against us. He takes credit for the chart being his genius. That’s why he had it good and young people today don’t in his mind.

You can simply type in the names of the pdf files into google and those will give the link to the pdf files at the census site, you don’t have to hunt through it.

The Senators for S. 2611 with amnesty and more legal immigration rode the same inequality curve. When they started out, inequality was at a bottom and they could get good paying summer jobs, go to college, and have kids right after college. They think their life is normal or their hard work. Many were in the Senate in the 1970’s when income inequality started to go up, and most were in by 1980. So they have been on top while income inequality went up, but in their minds, they worked their way up, because when they were starting out they were doing so at the time of low income equality, the bottom of the income inequality bowl graph.

So they feel morally superior and entitled to vote for immigration, because their success is their hard work. Lobbyists give them money in and out of office and they don’t realize at a gut level its for causing this bowl shape of the income inequality graph by immigration. They know it intellectually, but don’t accept it emotionally because they remember when they started out, there was low inequality and they could work themselves up and have families at the same time.

==Comments at Vdare on this post

The Senate: In an Income Time Warp?”

Patrick Cleburne

A large number of Americans appear to have realized that income inequality has increased and that massive immigration is substantially responsible. And they are increasingly willing to say so.

A frequently-expressed view of Peter Brimelow’s is that the current generation of political “leaders” was formed intellectually before immigration was discernable as a social problem. Quite possibly they will literally have to die off before public policy will change – people rarely have new ideas.

Personally, though, I still think the more persuasive explanation is that these Senators are selfish, corrupt, and unAmerican.

Mr. Cleburne has some kind words for this column and this blogger, which I thank him for. I am only too well aware of the editing work needed for this blog and I thank my readers for putting up with it.
— Also

What To Do With The Senate?” Randall Burns at Vdare.com

These are discussed further in this article.

%d bloggers like this: