Let’s Cook The Books!
By Greg L | 1 October 2008 | Prince William County | 15 Comments
Has Prince William County’s Rule of Law Resolution encouraged illegal aliens to leave? And have some of those illegal aliens relocated to jurisdictions that are more welcoming to the unlawful presence of illegal aliens in their jurisdictions? According to the Census Bureau, as reported in the Loudoun Times, the answer to both of those questions is affirmative.
In 2007, the immigrant population dropped about 1 percent in Loudoun County and 6 percent in Prince William County, according to the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 2007, which was released Sept. 23.
However, in Fairfax County, where leaders have been less willing to place restrictions on illegal immigration, the foreign-born population went up 7 percent last year. In addition, Fairfax saw its number of residents who are not U.S. citizens – which includes legal immigrants — increase 8 percent, while Prince William’s noncitizen population dropped 4 percent and Loudoun’s remained relatively unchanged.
Notice no mention here of what the truly interesting question is, about how many of these folks happen to be illegal aliens, as everything else here is largely trivia. That trivia is important to some people, however.
The problems with data collection designed specifically not to answer questions that have important policy impacts are only exacerbated when the media attempts to divine meaning from them. It’s instructive to go and dig up the actual data upon which the media is opinion and run some numbers yourself before taking their evaluation seriously. In this case, the reported reality is a little different than the story.
What has been reported is dramatically different than the data in the Census report. Prince William County’s population of foreign-born dropped 14.53% between 2006 and 2007, not the six percent as reported. The census reported a drop of foreign-born from 12,616 to 9,172 during this period, which is one heck of a lot more than six percent. How could statisticians screw this up so badly in the summary information they provided to the press?
If we compare this just to the enrollment in the county school systems ESOL program of 12,775 at the end of last year, it’s pretty evident that the Census really has no idea how many foreign-born residents there are in the county, nor any clue as to whether that population is growing or not. Just the number of foreign-born children in our school system exceeds their total estimate of foreign-born population. The statistics here are complete drivel.
It’s worth noting that the Census data here completely fails the sniff test in other ways as well. The statistics claim that in Prince William County there is a lower incidence of persons who “Speak English less than ‘very well’” among foreign-born persons than persons who were born and currently reside in Virginia. They also indicate that the foreign born have a higher median income than Prince William County residents who were born in Virginia, and that in 2007 the foreign-born are twice as likely to have a graduate or bachelor’s degree than non-foreign born residents. Do I detect some manufactured reality here? Possibly. While there are certainly plenty of immigrants who would model this, had any appreciable proportion of the illegal aliens here in 2006 and 2007 been included in this data there’s little doubt the picture would be remarkably different.
So here we have an instance where presumably summary information provided by the Census Burea to the media is entirely at odds with the actual data contained within their report. Then the data in the report is laughably inaccurate. That data is still promoted to the media as a basis for informing the public about demographic changes in the county, and is then used by demographers to argue public policy positions. My suspicion here is that someone is trying to cook the books in order to facilitate a political outcome, and that desired outcome is most likely not an outcome that many readers here would welcome.
The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.
You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.
15 Comments
Views: 923
Loading ...
I want to know how many ESOL students there are this year compared to last year. I believe someone stated a month or two ago that the count date was September 30th. That should show us something more concrete.
Here’s another interesting tidbit from the data in the census surveys:
The foreign-born population is tracked not only in total number, but in the ratio of male to female. As the foreign-born population is reported to have decreased by over 14%, the proportion of males within this population changed from 47% to 53%. When you work the numbers, this represents a decrease of 1,022 foreign-born males and a decrease of 2,421 females.
Among the illegal alien population in the U.S., males heavily over-represent the population to the extent that in some places in Mexico, males account for only 40% of the population. So how were there more foreign-born women than men here in 2006? Where could they have come from? And now that the statistics seem to conform to reality a bit better, does that suggest that in their home countries, the returning illegal alien population is driving this demographic imbalance even higher?
I can’t believe the Census published this garbage. Anyone worth their salt would have pulled this back and fixed the problems rather than put out such ridiculous numbers.
In addition to producing the ESOL enrolloment numbers, the schools should also be required to report the number of students they are enrolling who are in the country without authorization, in other words, the number of illegal aliens. The Liberals will state over and over that asking for this information upon enrollment is contrary to a SCOTUS (or “SCOTIA” as one uninformed blogger refers to it), opinion. There is no law, no regulation, and no court case that prevents a school system from asking for documentation that would tend to show a student is in the country legally (birth certificate, valid visa, etc.), and keeping track of the numbers that cannot produce such documentation. Only the Liberal disinformation network claims there is.
Such information is needed to “bill” the federal government for its failure to enforce its immigration laws, and the SCOTUS requirement that local jurisdictions enroll violators of those laws in their schools.
I agree with Advocator. I don’t want to pay to educate illegal aliens. This issue should be put to a referendum vote. Public education is a benefit that should be available only to legal residents of the U.S. Illegal aliens love the public schools because they are free. Mexico charges tuition for their public schools. Once again, if Berkley wants to spend their tax money thusly, so be it.
How can we get this done?
P.S. Mexican parents who are going back to Mexico have to get Mexican citizenship and documents so that their children can attend school there. It’s the law.
Johnson, do you have a source for your statement that “Mexico charges tuition for its public schools” because it appears to be untrue according to a host of sites that provide data on international education. For example:
Primary education is free and compulsory for children in Mexican states from age 6 to age 14. Compulsory education used to end at the 6th grade, but was extended to 9th grade in 1992.
Can you explain/support your statement?
Nope.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/02/AR2008100201882.html
Yay!
Thanks Johnson. I didn’t think you had the slightest idea what you were talking about.
Correct me if I am wrong, Johnson, but when I read your line regarding Mexico charging tuition for it’s public schools, I assumed you meant charging foreign nationals tuition for it’s public schools. As U.S. citizen who spent the bulk of my primary and secondary school years overseas, I know that my father, who always had a valid work visa to present to (and provided by) his host country, had to pay school tuition for his kids -even if we attended a public school.
While factchecker plays “gotcha” over the mute tuition issue …Mexico has both public and private schools - and a variety of PS fees charged to parents for text books and compulsory uniforms when children reach upper grade levels.
Mexican nationals need documents to enroll their childrenin Mexican schools:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,409221,00.html
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Mexican-Law-1642/2008/2/apostille-birth-certificate-still-2.htm
And I love this line: “…more needs to be done in the United States to prepare returning migrants…” Thats great. One more service we will be forced to fund.
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/shared/news/stories/2008/09/MEXICO_RETURNKIDS05_AUS.html
Perhaps factchecker can answer this: If an American “undocumented migrant” has a school aged child in Mexico, can that child be enrolled in a Mexican public school without proper documentation? Are their laws on the books that make said child eligible for a tax funded education in Mexico? Do you think the Mexican citizenry should shoulder the burden of educating illegal aliens in their nation?
As to the question “How can we get his done?”:
http://www.vdare.com/sutherland/the_solution.htm
Bridget, if Johnson meant foreign-born students, he should have specified that. Upper grades are different and I already stated the starting and ending ages for free compulsory education in Mexico’s states.
Johnson made a blanket statement about tuition being required in Mexico’s public schools, not private schools, and not with any qualifications on what grade levels. It has nothing to do with “gotcha” Ms. Palin. Things stated that are in error should be corrected.
I don’t know the answer to your question regarding the children of illegal immigrants in Mexico. I would assume not. However we are not in Mexico and I am not sure why you want to imitate them in public policy. In the United States, the Supreme Court has ruled on this matter and unless that ruling is reversed it is unlikely that school districts across the US will do what you would prefer and ban all children of illegal immigrants from attending for free.
Bridget if you are right, and you may be, that Johnson only meant immigrant children in Mexico and not Mexican children, do you know of any sources that state that Mexican schools charge for non-Mexican students?
It appears different countries have different practices on this.
Don’t know of any sources that state that Mexican schools charge tuition for non-Mexican students .
However, I do know several Mexican citizens as well as Americans who have lived legally in Mexico with their school aged children … they may be of some help on the subject … but it could take me several days to find out. Better yet, you could do your own fact checking - by calling the Mexican Embassy. Not sure why you care one way or the other … as you said, we are not in Mexico. They can do as they like with their schools policies.
The issue is illegal aliens from Mexico - as well as other foreign nations - who we the U.S. taxpayers are forced to support.
I did not state that I would prefer school districts flout the law by banning the children of illegal aliens …currently public schools aren’t allowed to refuse illegals becouse of Plyler vs Doe and would be in a world of hurt if they tried to:
http://www.vdare.com/sutherland/taxpayer_expense.htm
All very bizarre when you consider that U.S. immigration laws are so often left unenforced … and that Plyler basically calls for schools to aid and abet illegal aliens. I would prefer placing donkey before cart action …Overturn Plyler first.
All very interesting when you consider the amount of dust that is kicked up each and every time a locality attempts to end spending tax dollars on illegal aliens. The same folks who pushed Plyler all the way to the Supreme Court are frantic to put out municipal brush fires… The last thing they want is for Plyler to be challenged. For them, Plyler was never simply about allowing little Julio the right to enroll in school.
Plyler is not settled law, and can never stand as settled law, as it has no sound basis in the 14th Amendment - it’s purported foundation. It is due for another visit.
http://federalistblog.us/2008/03/supreme_fraud_plyler_v_doe.html
Bridge said: “Better yet, you could do your own fact checking - by calling the Mexican Embassy.”
Good for you, Bridget! This is her MO - she tries to get everyone else to do her work for her!
Thanks much, alleycat … and please excuse the late reply!