Look for Smart Machines to Change Work Substantially within Five Years

Recent reports give a near-term picture of how experts believe the automation revolution will roll out. Continuing education to adapt to technology will become more necessary as some careers will “cease to exist.”

There is a minor industry of reassurance — writers who spread the message that the automation revolution is over-hyped and will not create widespread unemployment. A news search for automation + jobs will routinely bring up 20 percent or more of don’t-worry items. One example is a New York Times October 7 opinion piece No, That Robot Will Not Steal Your Job that chirps, “There are jobs, jobs everywhere.”

Yes, the economy is booming now, which has been aided enormously by having a business-friendly president in the White House. The problem lies a few years down the road where the machines and software have become cheaper, and it makes sense for owners to replace workers.

“The displacement is already beginning to happen,” according to Jeff Hesse, principal of PwC, which published “Workforce of the Future” in September. He continued, ”It varies a bit by industry, but over the next five years we’re going to see the need for workers to change their skills at an accelerating pace.”

Okay, it’s a prediction, and not all predictions play out as written. But you would think that the potential of significant job loss from automation in the semi-near future would get a little attention in Washington, and it hasn’t.

There are strategies to cope with the revolutionary changes coming to the workplace, such as an increased emphasis on technical training to prepare workers for future jobs.

Certainly it makes sense for America to chill seriously on immigration if a PwC projection noted below is correct that “38 percent of U.S. jobs are at risk of being affected by automation by the early 2030s.” It is crazy to continue importing foreign workers when the need for them is Zero in the near future.

The Reports Are In: AI and Robots Will Significantly Threaten Jobs in 5 Years, Futurism.com, October 8, 2017

IN BRIEF
A report suggests people only have five years before automation and AI threaten jobs and force them to learn new skills for the workforce. The firm PwC surveyed 10,000 people from around the world, revealing people are concerned about automation, but they’re also willing to learn.

THE ROBOTS ARE COMING TO THREATEN JOBS

A study from Redwood Software and Sapio Research released October 4th revealed that IT leaders believe automation could impact 60% of businesses by 2022 and threaten jobs in the process. Now, a new, separate report from PwC, the second biggest professional services firm worldwide, suggests a similar timeline; one in which people may need to practice and learn new skills — or be left behind as automation takes over.

The report, titled Workforce of the Future, surveyed 10,000 people across China, India, Germany, the UK, and the U.S. to “better understand the future of work.” Of those, nearly 37% think artificial intelligence and robotics will put their jobs at risk; in 2014, 33% had a similar concern. . .

As of March 2017, PwC reports about 38% of U.S. jobs are at risk of being affected by automation by the early 2030s, with Germany closely behind at 35%; the UK at 30%; and Japan at 21%.

REQUIRED SKILLS AND ALTERNATIVE INCOMES

Last year, Microsoft co-founder and philanthropist Bill Gates said there were three skills people would need to survive in a job market that continues to embrace technology: science, engineering and economics. They don’t need to be experts, but they need to understand what people in each field are capable of. In the case of robotics, those with knowledge about managing automatic software programs will be highly sought after. Hesse also suggests people research which skills their fields will be in need of.

You can’t talk about the rise of robotics and automation without asking about those unable to adjust or unwilling to learn a new skill. 56% of the people PwC surveyed think governments should take any steps necessary to protect jobs, presumably so people without technical prowess can continue to work and earn an income.

(Continues)

New York City Increases Security for Marathon Following Truck Jihad

Big sporting events like marathons are catnip to Islamo murderers, and the deaths on Halloween from the Uzbek truck jihadist has reminded the city that it remains a top target for allah’s killers.

CBS reported on the increased security measures for Sunday’s New York City Marathon, a top running event for elite athletes that features a memorable route through all five boroughs. The city will add more blocking vehicles, more snipers and additional police officers to guard the runners from New York’s famous diversity — although it must be noted that the Uzbek killer lived across the river in New Jersey.

Still, the city’s muslim population counts over a million persons, so many that schools close for Islam holidays. Perhaps they can add Jihad-o-ween for October 31.

All this security from diversity doesn’t come cheap, although dollar figures are not available to the public. Apparently ruling elites don’t want little citizens to learn the cost of admitting huge numbers of potential enemies: in fact, the US has admitted more than two million immigrants from majority Islamic nations since 9/11. The number of Middle Easterners in 1970 was a manageable 200,000, but muslim immigration was later loosed upon the country. Not every allah-follower is a stone-cold murderer, but some are, due to the Koranic instructions to “kill them wherever you find them”

But back to the cost of protecting citizens from diversity, remember that the more muslims, the more expensive public safety becomes. The 2012 London Olympics cost $2 billion for security, a stunning amount even though the events lasted two weeks and were spread around various venues. In 2016, former Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis remarked that security costs for his city’s famous marathon quadrupled since the murderous jihad attack in 2013, but he didn’t give a dollar amount.

Below, Muslim immigrants Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev exploded bombs in the 2013 Boston Marathon that killed three and injured dozens.

Before muslim immigration, Americans didn’t face time-consuming screening for airline flights and didn’t have to pay the bill for anti-terrorist security for a footrace. It’s not like the United States needs any immigrants given the automated future; we certainly should stop admitting an enemy tribe that is murdering our fellow citizens.

America’s Excessive Child Poverty Rate Is Fueled by Mass Immigration

The fact that the United States has been admitting millions of poor unskilled foreigners as immigrants for decades makes it no surprise that the amount of child poverty is highly elevated. There’s a lot of adult poverty too, but the fact of kids growing up with insufficient resources is supposedly more shameful in our wealthy country.

As it happens, Washington’s obstinate auto-pilot immigration has imported millions of poor people who will never live without taxpayer-funded assistance for food, housing and education. The policy leaves our own poor people with the short end of the stick as schools in low-income areas are ever more crowded and dysfunctional, and American workers must compete with foreigners for jobs.

Below, a group of Obama’s border surge kids line up to get some free-to-them stuff supported by American taxes.

As economist George Borjas remarked the other day, mass immigration is the world’s “largest anti-poverty program” — although the influx is not kind to America’s poor and working class. “The largest loss is probably the wage drop suffered by the workers who now face more competition in the labor market,” Borjas said.

Op-Ed: Why does the U.S. have such an outlier child poverty rate? Our immigration system has a lot to do with it, By Kay S. Hymowitz, Los Angeles Times, October 29, 2017

Articles about America’s high levels of child poverty are a media evergreen. Here’s a typical entry, courtesy of the New York Times’s Eduardo Porter: “The percentage of children who are poor is more than three times as high in the United States as it is in Norway or the Netherlands. America has a larger proportion of poor children than Russia.” That’s right: Russia.

Outrageous as they seem, the assertions are true — at least in the sense that they line up with official statistics. Comparisons of the sort that Porter makes, though, should be accompanied by an asterisk pointing to a very American reality. Before Europe’s recent migration crisis, the United States was the only developed country to routinely import millions of very poor, low-skilled families, from some of the most destitute places on Earth — especially from undeveloped areas of Latin America — into its communities, schools and hospitals. Let’s just say that Russia doesn’t care to do this — and, until recently, Norway and the Netherlands didn’t, either.

Pundits prefer silence on the relationship between America’s immigration system and poverty, and it’s easy to see why. The subject pushes us into the sort of wrenching trade-offs that politicians and advocates prefer to avoid. Here’s the problem in a nutshell: You can allow mass low-skilled immigration, which many consider humane. But if you do, it becomes a lot harder to pursue the equally humane goal of reducing child poverty in this country.

::

In 1964, the federal government settled on a standard definition of poverty: an annual income less than three times the amount required to feed a family (size dependent) over that period of time. Back then, close to 23% of American kids were poor. Today, about 18% of kids are below the poverty line, amounting to 13,250,000 children.

At first, immigration did not affect child-poverty figures. The 1924 Immigration Act sharply reduced the number of immigrants from poorer Eastern European and southern countries, and it altogether banned Asians. The relatively small number of immigrants settling in the United States tended to be from affluent nations. According to the Migration Policy Institute, in 1970, immigrant children were less likely to be poor than were the children of native-born Americans.

By 1980, the situation had reversed: immigrant kids were now poorer than native-born ones. Why? The 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act overturned the 1924 restrictions and made “family preference” a cornerstone of immigration policy. In consequence of that move, as well as large-scale illegal immigration, a growing number of new Americans hailed from less-developed countries. As of 1990, immigrant kids had poverty rates 50% higher than their native counterparts. At the turn of the millennium, more than one-fifth of immigrant children were classified as poor.

Perhaps the most uncomfortable truth about these statistics is that a large majority of America’s poor immigrant children — and, at this point, a large fraction of all its poor children — are Latino.

(Continues)

Scott Adams’ Book ‘Win Bigly’ Analyzes Candidate Trump’s Appeal

Author and Dilbert creator Scott Adams has a new book being published about the persuasive tactics of candidate Donald Trump, titled “Win Bigly: Persuasion in a World Where Facts Don’t Matter.” He appeared on Fox News to discuss the book on Tuesday:

Adams has a psychologist-marketer point of view, and he recognizes candidate Trump’s brilliance in not talking in terms of wonky policies, but visually and concretely when possible. As a builder, Trump is particularly adept at pitching “the wall” to block illegal immigration.

As Adams described, “A lot of people don’t know that his pastor was Norman Vincent Peale, who wrote The Power of Positive Thinking. It’s all about thinking your way into a better future, kind of the mind leading reality, and you see that in what the president does. He’s always making us think past the sale: we’re not thinking should we build a wall, we’re looking at eight prototypes. We’re thinking, well which one do we pick. He’s continually making us think about the future and imagine it visually.”

Furthermore, the candidate knew how to connect with his audience, observing, “A hypnotist would call it pacing and leading. First you match your audience in whatever ways: it could be physically, it could be the way they speak, and he speaks in a simple, relatable way that you can quote, you can remember it, you could repeat the phrase.”

Candidate Trump also matched his patriotic audience by connecting with them on the immigration issue, understanding its importance immediately. Americans who believed immigration should legal, controlled and reduced were impressed. While many Washington swampers treat immigration enforcement as a borderline racist issue, Trump understood the centrality of law and sovereignty.

Martin Ford: Adjusting to the Robot Future

Martin Ford, the author of Rise of the Robots: Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future appeared on Ted Talks to explain important aspects of the techno-future. He starts out by emphasizing that a workplace transformation is definitely coming, and automation will displace “roughly half the jobs in the economy.”

That level of permanent unemployment sounds like a good argument for ending immigration as an obsolete policy.

In the latter segment of the talk, Ford makes the case for a universal basic income to make the robot revolution more equitable.

MARTIN FORD: I’m going to begin with a scary question: Are we headed toward a future without jobs? The remarkable progress that we’re seeing in technologies like self-driving cars has led to an explosion of interest in this question, but because it’s something that’s been asked so many times in the past, maybe what we should really be asking is whether this time is really different. The fear that automation might displace workers and potentially lead to lots of unemployment goes back at a minimum 200 years to the Luddite revolts in England. And since then, this concern has come up again and again.

00:47
I’m going to guess that most of you have probably never heard of the Triple Revolution report, but this was a very prominent report. It was put together by a brilliant group of people — it actually included two Nobel laureates — and this report was presented to the President of the United States, and it argued that the US was on the brink of economic and social upheaval because industrial automation was going to put millions of people out of work. Now, that report was delivered to President Lyndon Johnson in March of 1964. So that’s now over 50 years, and, of course, that hasn’t really happened. And that’s been the story again and again.

01:26
This alarm has been raised repeatedly, but it’s always been a false alarm. And because it’s been a false alarm, it’s led to a very conventional way of thinking about this. And that says essentially that yes, technology may devastate entire industries. It may wipe out whole occupations and types of work. But at the same time, of course, progress is going to lead to entirely new things. So there will be new industries that will arise in the future, and those industries, of course, will have to hire people. There’ll be new kinds of work that will appear,and those might be things that today we can’t really even imagine. And that has been the story so far, and it’s been a positive story.

02:03
It turns out that the new jobs that have been created have generally been a lot better than the old ones. They have, for example, been more engaging.They’ve been in safer, more comfortable work environments, and, of course, they’ve paid more. So it has been a positive story. That’s the way things have played out so far. But there is one particular class of worker for whom the story has been quite different. For these workers, technology has completely decimated their work, and it really hasn’t created any new opportunities at all.And these workers, of course, are horses.

02:38
(Laughter)

02:40
So I can ask a very provocative question: Is it possible that at some point in the future, a significant fraction of the human workforce is going to be made redundant in the way that horses were? Now, you might have a very visceral, reflexive reaction to that. You might say, “That’s absurd. How can you possibly compare human beings to horses?” Horses, of course, are very limited, and when cars and trucks and tractors came along, horses really had nowhere else to turn. People, on the other hand, are intelligent; we can learn, we can adapt.And in theory, that ought to mean that we can always find something new to do, and that we can always remain relevant to the future economy. Continue reading this article

Automation Advances Further into Inventory Jobs

Robots are good at counting and recording, so they are increasingly being used in stores and warehouses to keep track of the stock on hand.

As part of Wal-mart’s competition with Amazon, the store chain is utilizing Amazon’s technology strategy by moving forward with automation to up its e-commerce game.

Naturally, the efficiency and cost-savings are emphasized, rather than the inevitable job loss.

Wal-Mart’s new robots scan shelves to restock items faster, Reuters, October 26, 2017

CHICAGO (Reuters) – Wal-Mart Stores Inc is rolling out shelf-scanning robots in more than 50 U.S. stores to replenish inventory faster and save employees time when products run out.

. . . “If you are running up and down the aisle and you want to decide if we are out of Cheerios or not, a human doesn’t do that job very well, and they don’t like it,” Jeremy King, chief technology officer for Walmart U.S. and e-commerce, told Reuters.

The company said the robots would not replace workers or affect employee headcount in stores.

The robots are 50 percent more productive than their human counterparts and can scan shelves significantly more accurately and three times faster, King said. Store employees only have time to scan shelves about twice a week.

The idea of installing robots to automate retail is not new. Rival Amazon.com Inc uses small Kiva robots in its warehouses to handle picking and packing, saving almost 20 percent in operating expenses. . .

Even more futuristic are the drone robots that fly around warehouses to do inventory, as the BBC recently reported:

The flying drones that can scan packages night and day, October 27, 2017

Flying drones and robots now patrol distribution warehouses – they’ve become workhorses of the e-commerce era online that retailers can’t do without. It is driving down costs but it is also putting people out of work: what price progress? . . .

What price progress indeed? A viable economy requires shoppers as well as products, but nobody in government seems concerned about the shrinkage of the demand side of the equation. Wouldn’t preparing for the automated future make more sense than pretending it isn’t coming?

Certainly America shouldn’t import more immigrant workers, since they won’t be needed. The remaining jobs should go to Americans, period, because:

Automation makes immigration obsolete.

Need convincing? Experts paint a grim picture:

Oxford researchers forecast in 2013 that nearly half of American jobs were vulnerable to machine or software replacement within 20 years. Rice University computer scientist Moshe Vardi believes that in 30 years humans will become largely obsolete, and world joblessness will reach 50 percent. The Gartner tech advising company believes that one-third of jobs will be done by machines by 2025. The consultancy firm PwC published a report earlier this year that forecast robots could take 38 percent of US jobs by 2030.

NYTimes Highlights Legal Immigrants Going for Citizenship — Because Trump!

Democrats must be licking their chops at the prospect of a passel of future voters who think their legal immigrant status is now no longer safe. Where would the legal folks get such an idea? Perhaps the liberal media is confusing many with its reporting of deportations where it frequently calls the outgoers “immigrants” rather than “illegal aliens.”

It suits the left to muddy the definition of immigration to increase anxiety among its foreign base: it is advantageous for the Democrats when more of the legals become citizen voters, because the party is not convincing many homegrown Americans to vote D.

We see that failure in the Democrats’ loss of 1,042 state and federal positions, including congressional and state legislative seats, governorships and the presidency as of December 2016.

Interestingly, many immigrants come to America for the employment opportunities it offers, but then they vote for the socialist anti-business party. Dumb.

Most immigrants come from big government countries and therefore are culturally inclined to vote for the same approach in the US as illustrated in the Pew poll shown below.

It is definitely a plus for Democrats that so many legal immigrants are unclear on the laws that pertain to them.

Citizenship Applications in the U.S. Surge as Immigration Talk Toughens, New York Times, October, 27, 2017

LOS ANGELES — For nearly a decade, Yonis Bernal felt perfectly secure carrying a green card that allowed him to live and work legally in the United States. Becoming a citizen was not a priority.

He changed his mind after Donald J. Trump clinched the presidency.

“All this tough talk about immigrants got me thinking I still could be deported,” said Mr. Bernal, 49, a truck driver who left El Salvador in 1990 and has two teenage children. “You never know.”

Last week, he was among 3,542 immigrants who raised their right hands to take the oath at a naturalization ceremony inside the Los Angeles Convention Center, joining a growing wave of new citizens across the country.

As Mr. Trump campaigned on promises of a border wall and strict crackdowns on immigration, 2016 became the busiest year in a decade for naturalization applications. But this year, the number of applications is on track to surpass that of last year’s, while a perennial backlog continues to pile up. It is the first time in 20 years that applications have not slipped after a presidential election, according to analysis by the National Partnership for New Americans, an immigrant rights coalition of 37 groups.

And with an unrelenting stream of hard-line rhetoric and enforcement in the news, as well as a swell of citizenship drives and advocacy, there are no signs the trend is abating.

In a year when the government has bolstered enforcement, backed curbing legal immigration and rescinded a program that protects undocumented youth from deportation, even a green card is not enough in the eyes of hundreds of thousands of immigrants applying for naturalization to protect themselves from removal and gain the right to vote.

“The draw of U.S. citizenship becomes more powerful when you have the political and policy environment that you have right now,” said Rosalind Gold, senior policy director at the Naleo Educational Fund, a national bipartisan Latino group.

(Continues)

Robert Spencer Updates Us on the Islam-friendly Pope

Is Pope Francis the biggest useful idiot that Islam has in its pocket these days? It would seem so. Robert Spencer has reported on the pope’s upbeat get-together in September with Muhammad bin Abdul Karim Al-Issa, the secretary general of the Muslim World League (MWL), a group linked to financing jihad. The two exchanged meaningless religious pleasantries about world peace and universal love — what else does the leader of millions of catholics say to a terror funder?

Below, during a papal visit to Istanbul in 2014, the Grand Mufti shared the koran with the pope as they prayed together. Francis has said that true Islam is not violent despite extensive evidence to the contrary.

Francis’ years of liberal pandering toward Islam has made him a figure of ridicule, at least to Spencer, who used the latest papal misadventure in multi-faith diplomacy as an opportunity for comedic mockery.

Spencer’s calling Francis the “defender of Islam” may not be entirely complementary.

The Pope of Islam, By Robert Spencer, Front Page, September 22, 2017

Pope Francis welcomes to the Vatican the head of a Muslim group tied to the financing of jihad terror.

As if he weren’t already committed enough to foolish false charity and willful ignorance regarding the jihad threat, Pope Francis on Wednesday met in the Vatican with Dr. Muhammad bin Abdul Karim Al-Issa, the secretary general of the Muslim World League (MWL), a group that has been linked to the financing of jihad terror.

During the meeting, al-Issa thanked the Pope for his “fair positions” on what he called the “false claims that link extremism and violence to Islam.” In other words, he thanked the Pope for dissembling about the motivating ideology of jihad terror, which his group has been accused of financing, and for defaming other religions in an effort to whitewash Islam.

I don’t object to the Pope’s meeting this man. After all, Jesus was a friend of tax collectors and sinners. But the meeting appears to have been a pointless feelgood session, probably featuring some sly dawah from al-Issa. According to Breitbart News, “the two men reportedly exchanged views on a number of ‘issues of common interest’ including peace and global harmony, and discussed cooperation on issues of peaceful coexistence and the spread of love.”

The spread of love. Yes, that’s what the Muslim World League is all about.

Nor is this the first time a Muslim leader has thanked the Pope for being so very useful. Last July, Ahmed al-Tayeb, the Grand Imam of Cairo’s al-Azhar, thanked him for his “defense of Islam against the accusation of violence and terrorism.”

Has any other Pope of Rome in the history of Christianity ever been heralded as a “defender of Islam”?

Of course not. But the Catholic Church has come a long way since the days of Pope Callixtus III, who vowed in 1455 to “exalt the true Faith, and to extirpate the diabolical sect of the reprobate and faithless Mahomet in the East.”

If time travel could be arranged and Pope Francis could run into Callixtus III, Callixtus could “expect a punch,” for Francis is not just a defender of Islam, but a defender of the Sharia death penalty for blasphemy: after Islamic jihadists murdered the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists who had drawn Muhammad, Francis obliquely justified the murders by saying that “it is true that you must not react violently, but although we are good friends if [an aide] says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch, it’s normal. You can’t make a toy out of the religions of others. These people provoke and then (something can happen). In freedom of expression there are limits.”

So for the Pope, murdering people for violating Sharia blasphemy laws is “normal,” and it isn’t terrorism for “Christian terrorism does not exist, Jewish terrorism does not exist, and Muslim terrorism does not exist. They do not exist,” he said in a speech last February. “There are fundamentalist and violent individuals in all peoples and religions—and with intolerant generalizations they become stronger because they feed on hate and xenophobia.”

Cheating, Racism and Anti-American Values: The New Road to Citizenship

A couple days ago, Tucker Carlson used the instance of how a non-English-speaking immigrant nevertheless was allowed to become an American citizen (Tucker Discusses the Worsening Failure of Language Assimilation in America with Steve Camarota). Tucker opened the segment by observing, “An immigrant woman in California was recently able to obtain American citizenship despite having, by her own description, no ability to read or write English.”

Breitbart.com took notice of the assimilation failure also:

Southern California Woman Obtains US Citizenship Despite No Ability to Read, Write, Speak English, October 23, 2017

Jovita Mendez, an immigrant from Mexico, proudly announced in Spanish to NBC San Diego her achievement of obtaining U.S. citizenship.

“I didn’t think that I would be able to accomplish this, but I did it,” Mendez told NBC in Spanish. “I did it because my kids are here. They told me I needed to do this for myself, to have a future here.”

“I don’t know how to read, I don’t know how to write,” Mendez admitted. [. . .]

As the NBC San Diego article reveals, rather than bothering to learn English during her 20 years of residence in the US, Mendez cheated by memorizing the questions and answers to the test (‘I Did It’: San Diego Mother Who Can’t Read or Write Earns US Citizenship):

Encouraged by her children, Mendez decided to take the test. She took classes led by local Maribel Solache.

“She’s a special case. She doesn’t know how to read or write,” Solache told NBC 7. “When she came to me, she was filled with insecurities and fear. She didn’t know how to tell me that she couldn’t read or write.”

Solache said Mendez also didn’t know she could qualify for special accommodations for the oral test given her age and time spent living in the U.S. Per USCIS rules, if you’re over the age of 50 and have lived in the U.S. for 20 years or more, you can take the civics test in your native language. This also applies to those age 55 and older, who have lived in the U.S. for 15 or more years.

Solache told Mendez that the language barrier and not being able to read or write didn’t mean she couldn’t become a citizen. She just needed to be sure of herself. [. . .]

Mendez said Solache would read the civics questions to her several hours each week, and she would repeat each word three to four times until she memorized everything.

Maribel Solache is an interesting sort of teacher, perhaps typical of the hispanics who seek to increase their influence in the US by increasing their numbers on the voting rolls by any means necessary. Judging from a 2014 photo, she is a racist who hates America.

The circumstance of the photo was a San Diego council meeting to decide whether a vacant nursing home would be turned into a shelter for unaccompanied illegal alien children (Immigrant shelter rejected by Escondido, San Diego Union Tribune, October 15, 2014).

So clearly Solache has a big dose of hispanic privilege, to say the least, yet she is tutoring newbies about how to become Americans. No wonder assimilation is failing so badly.

Tucker Discusses the Worsening Failure of Language Assimilation in America with Steve Camarota

In the video below, Tucker Carlson began by observing, “An immigrant woman in California was recently able to obtain American citizenship despite having by her own description no ability to read or write English. That shouldn’t be a surprise though. According to the Census Bureau nearly 45 percent of California households speak a language other than English at home.”

Tucker may have read the Census report to that effect or an article about it like the one in Breitbart.com:

Census: Almost Half of Californians’ Households Speak Language Other than English, By Neil Munro, October 24, 2017

Almost half of the people in California and one-third of Texans speak a language other than English at home, according to a new Census Bureau report.

In 2016, 44.6 percent of people aged five and above “speak a language other than English at home” in California, says the new report, which was highlighted October 24 by CNSNews.com.

If children aged 0 to 4 are included in the calculation, the percentage will rise above 44.6 percent because two-thirds of births in 2013 were Latino, Asian or mixed.

Nationwide, 21.6 percent of people aged 5 and older speak a language other than English at home, and 8.6 percent report they do not speak English very well. . . .

Steve Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies joined Tucker to discuss the state of the English language in America. What’s really scandalous is the fact that immigrants really aren’t required to speak English to become citizens — it’s another instance where the government has lied to us for years about immigration.

A big hint about language diversity is the availability multi-lingual ballots at polling stations throughout America. The one shown below is in Los Angeles County.

Here is the discussion with Tucker Carlson and Steve Camarota:

Spare audio:

TUCKER CARLSON: Steven Camarota is Director of Research for the Center for Immigration Studies: he joins us now. So I have a couple questions, Steven. First, I thought in order to become a citizen, you had to have some mastery of English.

STEVEN CAMAROTA: No. Basically the way it works is if you’ve been here for 20 years and you’re over 50, they can give you a waiver. In addition the actual English language question is only like one sentence, and you can take. . .

CARLSON: The intent of the law though, I mean when lawmakers passed this, it was they wanted people speaking English before they became citizens, correct?

CAMAROTA: Yeah, that was the idea, but it’s it’s not really enforced. There’s tremendous discretion on the part of the examiner. So basically it looks like maybe a third, a quarter of all people who have naturalized citizens are functionally illiterate in English, and that’s partly because of this waiver system, but partly because even if you pass the test it doesn’t mean very much. It’s basically one, two sentences and you have to be able to read it, that kind of thing.

CARLSON: So we’re not really trying to assimilate anybody, and we’re kind of lying about that. So what happens if you have the biggest state in the United States — California — and nearly half of the families there don’t speak English at home? Language is culture; they’re not part of the larger American culture — or am I overstating it?

CAMAROTA: Yeah, well you might be because it doesn’t mean that they don’t know any English; it doesn’t mean that they’re completely isolated, but you raise a profound point. Look, one of the ways assimilation works is immigrants and their kids basically are submerged in an ocean of natives and their kids who speak English, but in a place like California and actually throughout all over the United States, we have a situation where the level of immigration has been so high for so long we now about 66 million people who don’t speak English at home, about half of them say that they don’t speak English well, even though the rest say they do, we don’t know how well they actually speak, but research suggests most of them don’t speak English very well even when they say they do.

So when the numbers are so big, it kind of overwhelms, if you will, the assimilation process, and it creates all kinds of political pressure to do things like this — create waivers and so forth.

CARLSON: So the people who are born here wind up assimilating to the culture of the immigrants brought here.

CAMAROTA: Yeah, about half those people who don’t speak English at home are US born; they’re not foreign born.

CARLSON: It’s ominous, I think because it’s hard to have united country with multiple languages.

CAMAROTA: English is one of the glues that holds this together, and it’s not clear that the country can withstand this level of immigration.

CARLSON: Steven Camarota, thank you for joining us.

Immigrant Kids Struggle in School and Face Poverty

The immigration narrative is supposed to run something like this: the initial immigrant may struggle to get settled, but the kids will be valedictorians and successful in adult life. Even some illegal alien kiddies show up in caps and gowns to show their future potential as the immigration myth dictates.

Below, amnesty-seeking Dreamers paraded around Hollywood in 2010 in scholarly attire to give the impression of future success.

But the narrative turns out to be false, according to a new study from the Annie E. Casey Foundation. The second generation experiences more poverty and school failure — so much for the idea of immigrant progress!

If immigrant kids are not able to succeed in American schools, perhaps the reason is that there are too many of them. School stress caused by immigrant overcrowding has been reported in many areas, resulting in deficient education for all.

Children of immigrants experience more poverty, academic failure, report finds, Washington Post, October 24, 2017

Children of immigrants, who make up 28 percent of all children in Maryland and nearly a quarter of those in Virginia and the District, are more likely to live in chronic poverty and less likely to perform at grade level in school, according to a report being released Tuesday by the Annie E. Casey Foundation.

The report highlights disparities in opportunities for children of immigrants. It also highlights the harder-to-measure impacts of persistent stress on children affected by government policies that result in the profiling, deportation and detention of immigrants.

“When you hear conversations about immigration and immigration policies, it’s rare that you hear about the impacts on kids being discussed,” said Laura Speer, associate director for policy reform and advocacy for the Casey Foundation. “These kids are going to be our future leaders, our future workforce. We need them to be successful if we are going to be successful as a country.”

Nationally, there are 18 million children who live with parents who emigrated from another country. Of those, 88 percent are U.S. citizens. About 5 million children have a parent who is undocumented.

While children of immigrants make up less than a quarter of the nation’s population of children, they account for 30 percent of those from low-income families, the report says.

They are also more likely to struggle in school. Only 8 percent of fourth-graders in immigrant families scored at or above proficient in reading in 2015 compared to 38 percent of children from non-immigrant families. And just 5 percent of eighth-grade children from immigrant families scored at or above proficient in math in 2015 compared to 34 percent of children from nonimmigrant families. The report used English-language learner status as a proxy for determining which students have immigrant parents.

(Continues)

Tucker Notes Automation’s Effect on Need for Immigrant Workers

On Tuesday, Tucker Carlson had a rapid-fire interview with billionaire Mark Cuban who thinks he might challenge President Trump in the 2020 Republican primary. Cuban bragged on how he can use his technological expertise to solve government problems, but he shrunk into nonsense at an automation question with an obvious answer:

MARK CUBAN: We need to find ways to reduce the cost of those entitlements while maintaining the same level of care. I’m a tech guy, and the reality is I would focus on creating technology solutions. I have investments that I see myself where it can have an impact. I think there’s a way that we can reduce the size of government, the size of bureaucracy that deals with healthcare but it’s going to take somebody who understands technology that can introduce technology to find those solutions, and I think it can happen relatively quickly.

TUCKER CARLSON: You definitely understand technology and you’ve been one of the people, to your great credit, who’s been sounding the alarm about automation’s effect on employment: you said robots are basically going to kill a lot of jobs; I think you’re right. Given that, is allowing about a million low-wage low-skilled workers into the country every year legally is that a good idea? Is that the right level of immigration?

CUBAN: You know what, you can argue both sides of that, Tucker, I’m not, I don’t have all the data to make the final decision, but on one hand you can say that it takes jobs away from people who need them the most. On the other hand, because of the demographic trends you can say we need people to fill certain jobs, you know if you look at agriculture, there’s jobs that are going unfilled, so you know there’s arguments for both sides. I’m not ready to come to a conclusion.

Wait, this guy is presenting himself as the successful tech expert and he thinks that America still needs Mexicans to pick crops? Hardly, at least not in the near future. Advances in agricultural robots make immigrant farm labor obsolete.

The future of agriculture is automated.

And if Cuban really is familiar with automation-caused job loss, he must certainly be aware of expert projections about the topic which are rather grim. Oxford researchers forecast in 2013 that nearly half of American jobs were vulnerable to machine or software replacement within 20 years. Rice University computer scientist Moshe Vardi believes that in 30 years humans will become largely obsolete, and world joblessness will reach 50 percent. The Gartner tech advising company believes that one-third of jobs will be done by machines by 2025. The consultancy firm PwC published a report earlier this year that forecast robots could take 38 percent of US jobs by 2030.

At least Tucker Carlson is connecting the dots between automation and the alleged need for immigrant workers in the automated future.

Page 2 of 26812345...102030...Last »