What kind of influence does illegal immigration have on the middle class?

In recent years, a large number of Hispanics have flooded into the United States, which is changing the demographic structure and political and cultural pattern of the United States. According to the latest statistics, it turns out that blacks are the largest minority in the United States, accounting for 12% of the population, while Hispanics come from behind. In the past ten years, the population has increased by 58% to 35.3 million, and now it accounts for 13% of the American population, surpassing blacks to become the largest minority (4.2% for the third generation). It has been reported that pregnant women in Mexico illegally crossed the border with their stomachs in the month when they were about to give birth and became "American mothers". Not only the expenses such as childbirth are borne by the local government of the United States, but also various benefits are obtained. A friend who is a researcher at the Clairmont Institute in Los Angeles said that those who receive welfare benefits can get more than $65,438 +0.400 from the government every month as long as they have three children, so they can stop working. And this money is the tax money of the middle class. In the past ten years, California has been dominated by the left-wing Democratic Party. Not only are California's Senate and House of Representatives controlled by the Democratic Party, but also the main positions of California's governor, secretary of state and attorney general have been obtained by the left. One of the important reasons is that most of these Hispanic immigrants, together with local blacks, voted for the Democratic Party. They not only support levying more taxes on the middle class and the rich, but also demand more government relief and welfare, and more hard-earned money should be "robbed" into their hands. Take Los Angeles as an example. According to a long report of The New York Times on March 30th, 20001,"the census shows that whites have become a minority". By the end of 2000, Hispanics accounted for 45% of the population of Los Angeles (only 5% in1950), whites accounted for 3 1%, and Asians accounted for 12%. Not only has the number of whites dropped to less than one third, but even if whites and Asians add up (43%), they are not as good as Hispanics and blacks (54%). Why will the increase of Hispanic population change the political and cultural pattern of California and even the whole United States in the future? Because Hispanics are more inclined to propose lazy big government and high welfare policies, they have become the main source of votes for the left-wing Democratic Party. On August 3rd this year, a national poll conducted jointly by The New York Times and CBS TV showed that when asked "Do you prefer small government or big government that provides more services", 52% of non-Hispanic Americans prefer "small government" (35% advocate big government), but only 16% of Hispanics favor small government and big government. The same survey shows that 48% of non-Hispanics in the United States support the Democratic Party, while 60% of Hispanics support the Democratic Party. Most Hispanics support the Democratic Party, which is keen on welfare socialism, because they want to gain more benefits and enjoy and seize the wealth of hardworking people. After winning the Latino vote, the left expanded welfare and raised taxes on the middle class and the rich. This vicious circle dragged Jinzhou to disaster step by step. Moreover, it is not impossible to nibble at the United States a little and become a "second France" with deteriorating economy and laziness. Another cancer in California is the black problem, which is also one of the problems in the whole United States. Black people are more inclined to welfare. Many black people seem to owe others as long as they are born in America. Because of their skin color, others have to raise them. Moreover, in the United States, where the left dominates the mainstream media and "political correctness" prevails, blacks have almost become grandfathers, and no one can criticize them. Left-wing writers (press and Hollywood) and left-leaning Democrats support blacks behind their backs, and they gave almost all the votes to the Democratic Party (965,438+0% of blacks voted for the Democratic Party). The Democratic Party, on the other hand, uses the Affirmative Action Act to implement the abnormal system of "inferior wins and superior loses". Not only whites, but also Asians have become victims of this "black special care system". Although blacks are given special care, there are still obvious phenomena of "two lows and three highs": low enrollment rate (not paying attention to children's education) and low savings rate; The crime rate is high, the unemployment rate is high, and there are many people receiving welfare. Why is this happening? Even Booker T. Washington, a black scholar and director of the Taskey Institute, pointed out that this is because blacks, Asians and whites have different cultures. According to the statistics released by the College Entrance Examination Committee of New York State University (CEEB) in 1999, the children of poor families of Asian and white (with annual income less than $20,000) have higher test scores (SAT) than those of children of black middle-class families (with annual income more than $60,000). Why are black children generally inferior to Asian and white children in academic performance? Dinesh D'Souza, an Indian-American writer, said in The New York Times's best-selling book "What's the big deal" that the main reason is that there are too many black single mothers, and this family structure leads to the lack of family education for black children, which usually comes from their parents. The figure quoted in the book is that among Asians, less than 5% are born out of wedlock, while among blacks, it is as high as 70%! The figure quoted by Fox TV's "Facts about O'Reilly" program on August 29th is that 75% of black women aged 5-25 in the United States/KLOC-today have children out of wedlock! However, this fact is unwilling to be mentioned by the black intellectual elite. When it is mentioned by others, it is blamed on the existence of slavery in the United States, black discrimination and poverty. Anyway, everything is someone else's fault. However, according to the above figures in Souza's book, in the slave age before 1900, the extramarital fertility rate of blacks was 20%; 1900 to 1965, increasing to 25%; From 1965 to today, through the "big society" of left-wing Democratic President Johnson, affirmative action (racial quota system), various benefits and so on. The extramarital fertility rate of black people has soared to the point where almost any black child has to ask, and all of them are born out of wedlock. In the past 40 years, the economic and political status of blacks has improved significantly. According to the figures in the 2003 Black Statistical Yearbook of the US Census Bureau, from 1960 to 200 1, the income of black families increased from an average of $20,000 to $30,000. The poverty rate dropped from 40% to 21%; The number of professionals reaches 12% (just the same as the proportion of blacks in the American population). The above facts prove that the problem of black children born out of wedlock is not explained by poverty, discrimination and other reasons at all. But many black leaders not only refused to face up to this problem, but also used it to incite racial opposition. Jesse Jackson, a black priest who was arrested the day before yesterday for supporting the strike of Yale University workers and blocking traffic, is running for the Democratic presidential candidate, which is a typical example. I have heard it many times on TV. He pushed the black problem onto the white people and onto the American system, but he never faced up to the black problem itself. He even gave speeches everywhere, inciting blacks to hate whites and racial opposition. Lou Cannon, an American historian who has written five biographies about President Reagan, published an article "Poor Winner" in The New York Times on August 24th, saying that California's budget is as big as the sum of five countries, but now in the eyes of Wall Street, its value has fallen below that of Mississippi. Now, whether Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is inclined to * * * and the party, eventually becomes the governor, or the current deputy governor who is a Democratic candidate and won by Hispanics, California is an almost unmanageable mess, and any "successor governor" will eventually be burned "as unpopular as Governor Davis now". The question now is not whether California can restore the "Golden State", but whether the crisis in California will spread everywhere and become the beginning of American disaster. ...