In The New Republic, William Frey takes a look at how demographic changes are affecting the makeup of our suburbs. This is the context within which our debate over immigration reform is taking place.
The first decade of the twenty-first century has set the table for a very different city-suburban racial dynamic, one that stands in stark contrast to what existed in the past. Hispanics, Asians, blacks and other groups are becoming primary engines of growth in the nation’s suburbs in an era when the aging white population will be barely holding its own. As demographic forces continue to diversify those communities, leaders and policy makers at all levels will be challenged to understand and keep pace with rising demand for the services needed by new populations, particularly those of different economic circumstances and cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Increasing suburban diversity may cause suburbs to become more “purple” than their traditional red in local and national elections, making them unreliable bases for either Republicans or Democrats, who have depended on demographically homogeneous voting blocs.
There will be other hurdles to overcome. While Hispanics, Asians and blacks are now main players in suburbanization, they do not yet have a substantial presence in the outer suburbs and show some clustering in same-race communities, in many cases as a result of quasi-legal exclusionary practices.
But for the first time, more of the minority population in the nation’s largest metropolitan areas lives in the suburbs than in the city. That is surely an important marker on the road toward a more inclusive American mainstream.
We’ve already seen this change in the Philadelphia area. The suburban counties were dominated by the Republican Party for so long that it isn’t hard to find people around here who are still registered as Republicans for the sole reason that this was traditionally a prerequisite to getting any kind of responsiveness from local government. But, Barack Obama easily carried these counties in both of his presidential election campaigns.
Yet, these counties are still purple, as they vote for Republicans in low-turnout midterm elections.
The racial makeup is changing rapidly, however, which is easy for me to see whether I am looking at the other kids in my son’s pre-school class, or the kids getting off the local school buses or I am visiting the food court at the local mall. Indian and Asian-Americans are the most visible newcomers to my community, but it isn’t hard to find a large and growing Latino influx, either. All you have to do is visit one of our local parks during the weekend to find picnickers and pick-up soccer matches.
This is the new normal, and the kids growing up here are used to being in racially and religiously diverse classrooms. They don’t see anything untoward about this, but it is definitely causing a lot of angst among some people.
While white population losses in cities are not new, what is new and likely to be a long-term trend is the slowdown in white population gains in the suburbs. From 2000 to 2010, whites contributed only 9 percent to total suburban population growth, with nearly one-third of large metropolitan areas experiencing absolute declines in their white suburban populations. As the white population ages and the childbearing population increasingly consists of minorities, the traditional attraction to the suburbs will be felt more by the latter groups. In addition, a “new white flight” has directed whites away from the cities and the suburbs of many large metropolitan areas in both coastal areas and interior metropolitan areas, especially in the Heartland.
We’re obviously in a transitional period, and we’re seeing a passionate backlash. The Obama coalition is based on this new reality and it keeps looking over its shoulder at these folks who just don’t want to get with the program and wondering what the hell all the fuss is about.
Well, there’s going to be a big fuss. We just have to ride it out.
This again makes the standard, and thoroughly ignorant, confusion between being anti-immigrant and anti-illegal immigrant. The two are not the same, and it is kind of amazing that you are not aware of the difference, Booman. I thought you were politically savvy, but possibly I was wrong.
There are plenty of people like myself who do not support the current slavish and unthinking kissing-up to the illegal promotion crowd. I support immigration. In Sioux Falls, we have a lot of immigrants. Many are refugees, many are simply immigrants here for a better life.
There is a huge difference between such persons and illegals. Ask a person who has been naturalized, and who has gone through the difficult process of naturalization:
That statement is from a person going through the long, torturous process of naturalization. I support naturalization. I do not support illegals. There is a big difference, and it is truly ignorant to conflate the two.
Above quote from
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-obama-immigration-20141120-story.html
The “current slavish and unthinking kissing-up to the illegal promotion crowd”? Dare I ask what you’re talking about? This is not something that I have witnessed.
At any rate, it’s true that anti-immigrant and anti-illegal immigrant are not identical, but it’s absurd to pretend there isn’t a huge overlap. One basic question I have is this: If people who are “anti-illegal” are only concerned with the law, why do they tell so many lies about illegal immigrants?
If you want to suppress illegals, then a policy of penalizing employers stiffly for recruiting them might be in order.
Also, a strict across-the-board minimum wage and strong enforcement of it.
And a repeal of NAFTA.
Having people already here hang in a legal limbo opens them to some of the worse exploitation.
And the moralism about the word “illegal” doesn’t begin to deal with the serious policy issues and the incentives that the current system has for the exploiters of the “illegals”.
“Illegal promotion crowd” sounds like you don’t have many media options in Sioux Falls.
There are people who would like to get into the naturalization pipeline but cannot because of the ethnic quotas.
This is often suggested. A universal requirement of eVerify would be a reasonable approach.
There is a strong need to put regular order into immigration. Those who are pushing for legalization do not agree to repeal of the 14th Amendment about birth citizenship, although it is being abused every day – there are huge numbers of birth tourists from China, etc, here abusing our system. There is no agreement to systems to catch visa overstays.
Look, we all get that you want to deport 11 million people and make sure none of them come back. This is going to be a pretty stupendous undertaking, so what’s your plan?
Forty Percent of Non-Citizens Living in the US on Expired Visitor, Student Visas
The difference between that 40% and the undocumented 60% is that they had enough wealth to get a visa. They are also more likely to be white, non-Latino, and competitors for better paying jobs than the immigrants from our southern border. Oh, and it’s much easier for them to find ways to convert their “illegal” status to a legal one.
And one that you will rarely hear people who rail against illegal immigrants make. This visa overstay issues is a factor in driving down wages in many white collar sector job, IT/tech especially.
Much like illegal immigration from south of the border is a factor in driving down wages in the construction trades.
There were some of Obama’s plans I agreed with
There were also parts of the plan I did not agree with
And it is a point that I make frequently. Visa overstays are a huge problem.
And they were totally ignored in S744. No provision to enforce visa rules. No provisions to find such cases.
Why are visa overstays ignored by the D party?
they need to get over it. these immigrants just want to carve their own path like others before them.
Bingo!
I also would love it if folks would stop using terms like “illegals”. To paraphrase a line from Walter Sobchak from “The Big Lebowski”: the preferred nomenclature is “undocumented immigrants,” please.
If you really want to annoy the nativists, you can call them los indocumentados.
Surely you recognize the propaganda value of both terms.
So, the position is that the criminals choose the term of art to describe themselves? Not to me.
I’ll stick with “illegal”. I don’t admit to the legitimacy of those who are cramming other terms down my throat.
See, now this here is one of the reasons for all those tiresome accusations of xenophobia.
I don’t much admit to the legitimacy of those who are trying to cram the term “illegals” down mine. So it goes.
OK, so we both stick with our terms.
That’s what happens when an impasse is reached, I suppose. No minds will be changed. So it goes.