SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: KLP who wrote (39784)12/23/2009 8:09:47 PM
From: sandintoes  Respond to of 71588
 
Yes that's what it is and Oral has had it too!!! Ask him, it's a killer..worst I've felt in years..



To: KLP who wrote (39784)12/26/2009 10:13:18 AM
From: Peter Dierks  Respond to of 71588
 
Recession Alters Migration Patterns in U.S.
DECEMBER 24, 2009.

By MARK WHITEHOUSE
The recession has had a profound effect on migration patterns in the U.S., reversing the flow of people to former housing-boom states such as Florida and Nevada, the latest data from the Census Bureau show.

In the year ending July 1, 2009, Florida -- once the top draw for Americans in search of work and warmer climes -- lost more than 31,000 residents to other states, the Census Bureau reported Wednesday. Nevada lost nearly 4,000. The numbers are small compared with the states' populations, but they reflect a significant change in direction: In the year ending July 2006, Florida and Nevada attracted net inflows 141,448 and 41,640 people, respectively.

"The recession coupled with the mortgage meltdown stopped the dominant migration story of the last decade in its tracks," said William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. "The real question is when the Sunbelt states are going to be able to come back. These new numbers suggest no end in sight."

The census data provide the starkest illustration yet of a shift that began after the peak of the housing boom in 2006. Each year, the movement of people from states in the Northeast and Midwest such as New York, New Jersey and Michigan to job-producing states in the Sunbelt and West has lost momentum as house prices have fallen and jobs have disappeared.

The exception amid the Sunbelt states is Texas, which has managed to avoid much of the housing malaise and unemployment that have plagued other states. In the year ending July 2009, Texas gained 143,423 more residents from other states than it lost, making it the nation's biggest draw for the fourth year in a row.

With no income tax and relatively inexpensive housing, Texas has attracted both entrepreneurs and large corporations. The bank Comerica Inc. moved its headquarters from Detroit to Dallas in late 2007, and BlackBerry-maker Research in Motion opened its U.S. headquarters in Texas soon thereafter. Surging energy prices in early 2008 helped the state's oil industry, and the state's large medical centers have provided stable employment.

Between July 2005 and July 2009, Texas added 648,600 nonfarm jobs, according to seasonally adjusted data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. As of November, the Lone Star state's unemployment rate stood at 8%, well below the national average of 10%.

The obstacles to moving have also helped stanch the hemorrhaging of population from California. It saw a net outflow of 98,798 to other states in the year ending July 2009, compared with 313,081 in the year ending July 2006.

As Americans' willingness or ability to move from one state to another wanes, other factors such as birth rates are having a bigger impact on states' relative populations -- a shift that has political implications. Minnesota's robust birth rate, for example, could prevent it from losing a representative when Congress reallocates seats next year, demographer Kenneth Johnson of the University of New Hampshire's Carsey Institute wrote in a report Wednesday. And Utah, which saw its population grow by more than 57,000 in the year ending July, thanks in large part to births, is likely to gain a congressional seat.

People's immobility could become an obstacle to the restructuring needed to sustain an economic recovery, as tighter credit and depressed prices make buying and selling homes a more daunting prospect. The flexibility of the labor market, underpinned by a relatively mobile population, has long been a crucial factor in the U.S. economy's resilience.

"A lot of people are stuck," said Steve Cochrane, an economist at Moody's Economy.com. "If someone loses a job and can't move to seek a job somewhere else, that can keep the unemployment rate high and also make it hard for employers to find the labor they want when they need it."

The housing bust is also preventing retirees in colder climes from moving south. That is taking a toll on the business of Mike De Croteau, a broker at De Croteau Realty in the Boston suburb of Melrose, Mass. Three years ago, Mr. De Croteau said, he and investors put more than $500,000 into building three homes in North Port and Port Charlotte, Fla., figuring they could find retirees in the Melrose area to buy them. Two of the homes are still empty, and Mr. De Croteau said that together they are now worth about $150,000.

"Before we made the investment, a lot of the baby boomers were expected to go down to the warmer areas," he said. "That just hasn't happened."

The recession also appears to have tarnished the U.S.'s image as a beacon of opportunity. In the year ended July 2009, the country attracted about 855,000 more new immigrants from abroad than it sent to other countries. That is 14% less than the nine-year annual average.

"Fewer people are coming into the U.S. because they know jobs are down," said Mr. Frey, of Brookings. "Migrants from abroad are also sensitive to the economic ups and downs in the U.S."

—Leslie Eaton contributed to this article.
Write to Mark Whitehouse at mark.whitehouse@wsj.com

online.wsj.com



To: KLP who wrote (39784)8/7/2010 11:51:12 AM
From: Peter Dierks1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
Illogical Immigration
By Victor Davis Hanson
August 5, 2010

Some 11 million to 15 million illegal aliens are now residing in America, most after crossing into America unlawfully. Once a federal law is arbitrarily not enforced, all sorts of bizarre paradoxes arise from that original contradiction. As proof, examine the following illogical policies and contradictions involving illegal immigration.

Take, for example, profiling -- the controversial questioning of those who appear likely to be illegal aliens. Apparently, American border guards have developed criteria for profiling those deemed likely to be unlawful aliens. Otherwise, how would they have arrested and deported hundreds of thousands in 2009?


Yet apparently, at some arbitrary point distant from the border, those who cross illegally are not supposed to be asked about their immigration status. OK, but exactly why did procedures so radically change at, say, five, 10, 20, or is it 100 miles from the border? A border patrolman often profiles, but a nearby highway patrolman cannot?

The federal government is suing Arizona for the state's efforts to enforce the federal immigration law. The lawsuit alleges that Arizona is too zealous both in enforcing immigration law and encroaching on federal jurisdiction.

But wait -- for years, several American cities have declared themselves sanctuary cities. City officials have even bragged that they would not allow their municipalities to enforce federal immigration statutes. So why does Washington sue a state that seeks to enhance federal immigration laws and yet ignore cities that blatantly try to erode them?

Something is going very wrong in Mexico to prompt more than half a million of its citizens to cross the border illegally each year. Impoverished Mexican nationals variously cite poor economic conditions back home, government corruption, a lack of social services, and racism. In other words, it is not just the desirability of America but also the perceived undesirability of Mexico that explains one of largest mass exoduses in modern history.

But why, then, would Mexican President Felipe Calderon, whose country's conditions are forcing out its own citizens, criticize the United States, which is receiving so many of them? And why, for that matter, would many of those illegal immigrants identify, if only symbolically, with the country that made them leave, whether by waving its flag or criticizing the attitudes of the Americans who took them in?

And how does Mexico treat the hundreds of thousands of aliens who seek to illegally cross its own southern border with Central America each year? Does Mexico believe in sovereign borders to its south but not to its north?

Is Mexico more or less humane to illegal aliens than the country it so often faults? Why, exactly, does Mexico believe that nearly a million of its own nationals annually have claims on American residency, when Chinese, Indian, European and African would-be immigrants are deemed not to? Is the reason proximity? Past history?

Proponents of open borders have organized May Day rallies, staged boycotts of Arizona, sued in federal and state courts, and sought to portray those who want to enforce existing federal immigration law as racially insensitive. But about 70 percent of Americans support securing our borders, and support the Arizona law in particular. Are a clear majority of Americans racist, brainwashed or deluded in believing that their laws should be enforced? And if so, why would immigrants wish to join them?

It is considered liberal to support open borders and reactionary to want to close them. But illegal immigration drives down the hourly wages of the working American poor. Tens of thousands of impoverished people abroad, from Africa to Asia, wait patiently to enter America legally, while hundreds of thousands from Latin America do not. How liberal can all that be?

America extends housing, food and education subsidies to illegal aliens in need. But Mexico receives more than $20 billion in American remittances a year -- its second-highest source of foreign exchange, and almost of it from its own nationals living in the United States. Are Americans then subsidizing the Mexican government by extending social services to aliens, freeing up cash for them to send back home?

These baffling questions are rarely posed, never addressed and often considered politically incorrect. But they will only be asked more frequently in the months ahead.

You see, once a law is not considered quite a law, all sorts of even stranger paradoxes follow.

Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and author, most recently, of "A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War." You can reach him by e-mailing author@victorhanson.com.

realclearpolitics.com